natural remedies worked
Question:
I just took a tour over to http://skepdic.com. This guy is living proof of that which he sets out to prove in others : a quack. Here is his "scientific" definition of naturopathy : "Naturopathy is a system of therapy and treatment which relies exclusively on natural remedies, such as sunlight, supplemented with diet and massage. However, some naturopaths have been known to prescribe such unnatural treatments as colon hydrotherapy for such diseases as asthma and arthritis." And some man-in-the-moon marigolds bloom in the spring and others don’t. Right. Can you believe this ? Make up your own mind about things that do or don’t work for you. Steve
Response:
>I just took a tour over to http://skepdic.com. This guy is living >proof of that which he sets out to prove in others : a quack.
So you’d consider critical thinking to be an unproven or disproven method of healing, then? It’s no wonder you’re so confused, Gary. >Here is his "scientific" definition of naturopathy :
You might have gotten more out of your "tour" had you read "scientific" as the word that’s really on the Web site: "skeptical." Carroll doesn’t even try to present "scientific" definitions of non-sciences. He presents *skeptical* information about those non-sciences. >"Naturopathy is a system of therapy and treatment which relies >exclusively on natural remedies, such as sunlight, supplemented with >diet and massage. However, some naturopaths have been known to >prescribe such unnatural treatments as colon hydrotherapy for such >diseases as asthma and arthritis." >And some man-in-the-moon marigolds bloom in the spring and others >don’t. Right. Can you believe this ?
Yes, I can believe that you don’t understand what Carroll has written in even this tiny entry in his dictionary. The first sentence is an acceptable definition of what naturopathy is. The second is a criticism of *some* naturopaths who use a treatment method which is obviously UNnatural. Your marigold analogy is not analogous to what’s written on that page. >Make up your own mind about things that do or don’t work for you.
Absolutely! The problem with naturopaths and other quacks is that they’ll tell you that what’s good for them must be good for you, too. – Dave W. http://members.aol.com/psorsite/
Response:
DaveW, Thanks for the response and I would say your thoughts are IMHO correct. I wish to thank all who present info which may or may not be useful to the rest of us. I also value your thought that one should only claim "it worked for me" and then allow others to determine on their own if it does for them. Terry – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Avagard, > What makes Dave’s info any better then someone claiming they have >tried something and it cured them? > For one thing, let’s compare apples to apples. The page Ava linked to > was about how there’s probably not a conspiracy of some sort to keep > psoriasis cures off the market. This is vastly different from someone > popping up here claiming that they’ve been cured, without the benefit > (obviously) of seeing their remission last forever. >The page you showed did not provide >any medical or clinical credentials which show an advanced educational >process or work related field that gives his site an edge. > What ‘edge’ is required? You’ve posited nothing more here than a > corollary to the "argument from authority" logical fallacy. Since > I *don’t* have a degree of any sort, who cares what I say – right? > Wrong. Whether or not I have a degree or credentials doesn’t matter > one bit if I am, indeed, *correct*. If I went out and got a PhD in > economics, would that make my basic argument (on the page Ava linked) > any better? Not necessarily. The ancient thinkers who are the basis > for scientific thinking in this day-and-age did *not* have the benefit > of "degrees" or "credentials". By your logic, we should ignore what > they said so long ago. Yet, if you look at the published works of > modern scientists, they continue to rely on and cite those ancients. > Flipping things around, there are plenty of examples of people who > have credentials, degrees, etc., getting things completely wrong. > Look at the "mental health" thread for many personal examples. Look > to any number of M.D.s who are thought of as "kooks" by the vast > majority of people with better degrees than them. > The point is, my information usually comes with citations to > appropriate sources for more information, from degreed individuals. > When someone pops up on this newsgroup claiming to have a "cure," > they usualy don’t have any support at all. Which is better? > A second point is that it shouldn’t require a biochemical background > to at least make sense of all the medical stuff we’re fed by the press > and our peers. "Critical Thinking" is often, unfortunately, not taught > in schools. You can’t get a degree in critical thinking as far as I > know. But it’s so damned important in day-to-day life that it really > *should* have degrees of its own. > I too would not ask my mechanic or others about medical treatments >but if they offered information that worked for them and it did not harm >them I would think about trying it. If not trying it researching the >data to see if there is some possibility. > So would I. > This site like others love to jump those who express and opinion or >who had a good experience for sharing. > Nonsense. Some people, myself included, "jump on" UNREASONABLE claims > for a "cure" where no evidence exists. Do I "love" doing so? Hell, no, > I wish I never felt obligated to do so (see above on critical thinking). > You are ignoring many cases where someone said "this weird thing worked > for me," and nobody "jumped on" them. What they didn’t say, which has > been Ava’s (and my) point all along, is that whatever it is they did > which worked will work for anyone else. Saying simply, "here’s what I > did, and these are the results" is both reasonable and fairly rational. > People get "jumped on" for thinking that what they did, and their own, > personal, results, always apply to everyone else. That is nothing but > arrogance or delusion. >The remedy or whatever you wish >to call it does not have to work for all but it may help others if >shared. > Sure. But there are responsible and irrational ways of sharing. >I thought that was one of the reasons for these groups to share >experiences and help each other; am I wrong? > Of course you’re not wrong. It’s just that saying "this worked for me > and it must work for you, too," is not really "support" for anyone > but the person posting. Most of those who write such things are not > "sharing," they’re "demanding to be heard." If one disagrees with them, > it’s liable to turn ugly, just as it did this time. They’re not really > interested in learning if what they did is part of the Truth about > Psoriasis, they already think it *is* the Truth. And damn you if you > think differently. > Is that "support"? > – Dave W. > http://members.aol.com/psorsite/
Response:
I’m new here but Amy, I failed to see sarcasm in Ava’s original post. What I read was someone going out of their way to avoid stepping on toes before stating a position. The original post touting cure looked like a spam for Natural remedies, oh well. Hey I hope the remission lasts forever if it was p. But come on no facts, details whatsoever? Jmo 2 cents… paul white – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > 1. There are many truths. > 2. Science and the scientific method are much broader and more complex than > that which you read on Medline. > 3. Sometimes people express disillusionment with the medical profession. > These emotions are often based in personal experience rather than the "facts" > listed on the Internet sources so frequently cited here. Some of these people > may not have the educational background, the time, and/or the desire to hunt > for relevent sources to support their perceptions and experience. This does not > mean they are "begging" for sarcasm in reply. > Amy
Response:
>THANKS for this interesting link!
I’ve been linking to articles at The Skeptic’s Dictionary site for about two years now. Most often when discussions of Pagano and/or Cacye crop up. And if you like that site, see also: http://www.quackwatch.com/ http://www.randi.org/ http://www.skepticnews.com/ http://www.straightdope.com/ And go get some Carl Sagan, Michael Shermer, and/or Martin Gardener books from the library. Subscribe to The Skeptical Enquirer. Join your local skeptic society. >I love this guy, but who IS he? He refers to himself sending a proposal >out to an agent, but is he also a prof somewhere?
Yes, he’s a professor of philosophy at a California University (I believe it’s UC Davis). I *remeber* more details, but have been unable to find much. The best I came up with was an interview done in Australia, reprinted by Carroll himself: http://skepdic.com/sydneyinterview.html I was unable to find anything like a biography of the man. > I think the site is a very nice kind of Cliff notes on the skeptic movement >PRE-1960, but it ignores the f-word (feminism) and the ways the influx of >women and other minority groups transformed the skeptic’s view of science.
I’m not sure that any such influx *has* changed the skeptic’s view of science. Care to explain more? >Evelyn Fox Keller is one early reference.
While I’m dead-set against sexism (and as part of that, "feminism", with its implication that women are somehow better than men), I can’t see where Keller’s made significant contributions to skepticism or a skeptical view of science. Tooling around on the Web has shown me nothing but what a good scientist she is, and made good contributions to her chosen field. But not all scientists are skeptics, and not all skeptics are scientists. >There are empirical examples of how the >investigator’s choices of topic, methodology, method of analysis, and data >interpretation were all shaped by their identity in time and place, the >biological construction of the brain and perception, lots of other stuff.
Those biases are what good science tries to eliminate. Are you saying that we should embrace them? >Science, as Todd says is a process, and it continues to build upon itself. >This isn’t even controversial anymore in the academic history of science >halls.
Right. But getting back to the topic of this thread, and your previous reply, the fact that science progresses makes things like Pagano’s diet and other such pseudoscience even less scientific. They don’t progress. >There are other things missing from the site. I don’t want to parse out >errors and omissions, because I like the site, I generally agree with the >ideas.
This wouldn’t be an appropriate place for that, anyway. Send an email to Carroll himself. >My original theme was just that people should just be nice to each other, >even when the other is "wrong".
Then why did I find your posts so nasty? >Killified? Of COURSE not, I look forward to reading your posts! I’m on my >own with 2 (adorable) children, swimming as hard as I can to stay afloat in >stormy seas. I rarely have time for long replies like this. Rather than spend >my limited time in a long discussion on one thread, I like to poke my nose in >all over. I recently was asked to join a medical trial. I was not at all pleased >with the process, and I’ve been meaning to write that up as a new thread, but >haven’t had the time for that either. I wasn’t ignoring you, I was letting >you have the last word! 
Having the last word is not something I require. An apology or other form of "’fessing-up" for blatant falsehoods is, however, something I desire. I’ve come to not expect any such thing, though. It occurs to me that perhaps if you had spent more time on those previous posts, making your ‘theme’ more clear, then maybe we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I can see where a lack of time could lead to some of the statements you’ve made (something which has happened to me in the past). – Dave W. http://members.aol.com/psorsite/
Response:
>2. Science and the scientific method are much broader and more complex than >that which you read on Medline. >
Related Posts