Degrees in homeopathy slated as unscientific

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Please do, if you can.

It's a vile slander, and I'm sure we'd all like to set the record straight.[/b]

---

Sorry, have we had a thread about this guy already? I wasn't intending to derail the thread - I agree that homeopathy is a crock - but I do remember reading something about the Quackwatch doc being a quack and I thought it was interesting in relation to this thread.

Carry on.

How I missed the nuanced arguments of yesteryear, on the old thread Michelle linked Cueball makes(probably more clearly and succinctly)similar points to what I have made, I think they deserve repeating

quote:

---

Surferosad,
I hardly ever visit these kinds of threads. Wow! Are you a jerk. Let me explain why. You are a jerk because you completely missed the point that Skdadl made, when you were hazing those less skeptical than you about homeopathy. It was a really unpleasant, and rude close minded amd presumptuous arrogance, wherein you were so self-confident that you were absolutely right that homeopathy is bunk, that you assumed that anyone contesting your "scientific medical" view, must support what you oppose.

Let me explain: This is not an inquisition where you are the prime authority on what is good science and bad science. It is unlikely that this could be so, since you are such an obviously bad scientist. This I evidence with the fact that you completely missed Skdadl's point, and we all know that good rationalist scientist must be keen observers, and capable of comprehenending complex ideas, You failed on both counts.

Now, for the record I think homeopathy is bunk. Also, I agree that mainstream medicine has its uses. I am making this clear so that you don't get confused again.

The point that Skdadl was making was much broader in scope than you were evidentaly able to capture. Her case was that there is an argument to be made that average life expectancy has been extended, not so much because of the intervention of authorized medical practioners, but by enhanced quality of peoples lives, based on increased wealth, more and better food in the diet, and through the creation of a social safety net that makes care and rest available to even the most marginalized sectors of society.

In other words, modern medical science has made something of an industry out of taking the credit for the postive results that occurred relative to other social factors, not because someone discovered that if you irradiate cancer cells they die.

Your "visit a graveyard and see" anecdotal proof, which you used in rebutal to her point would make Archie Bunker appear an to be Einstein if he were to saying "if god had meant men to fly, he would have given them wings." Strike three on the "high" science register for you I am afraid: anecedotal commonsense mythologies like this are never good science, especially when defending a rationalist idea.

I suggest you go to some graveyards in some poorer countries and see what you find there. There you will find mortality rates quite similar to those of 19th century Europe, and this despite quite widespread vacination programs and much increased access to "modern medical" techniques.

The point, you see, is that disease kills the impovershed much more readily than the well fed.

Now you can go back to establishing your reputation, by repeatedly stating, over and over again that you don't have time to discuss these issues with "crackpots."

It might help if you bothered reading peoples posts for content rather than bludgeoning all an sundry by repetition of your discussion point. If you did that you might discover there is more to discourse than affirmation of your opposition to what you think is other peoples affirmation of their opposition to your view, which is probably more a reaction to your breathtakingly stultifying closemindedness, and the shocking arrogance that you have exhibited here.

---