Those claiming to be anti "woo" and pro science

[darkangel218]

Are showing pretty unscientific and anti science/progress tendencies!!!

I'm looking forward to have a few weeks out of not posting, as so much ignorance is mind boggling!!!!

[JaneyVee]

1. In Science We Trust!

[gcomeau]

28. ...because that trust has been earned.

[sabrina 1]

37. How so?

[gcomeau]

42. You ask...

...by typing a message into a computing device that transmits it instantly anywhere in the world over a communication network that puts nearly the sum total of human knowledge at your fingertips?

Provided be science.

One among a billion or so examples.

[sabrina 1]

48. Well then it should be a breeze to provide just one or two examples, shouldn't it? All that

knowledge at your disposal and yet, nothing provided so far?

[X_Digger]

51. Are you typing from inside an iron lung? Or blind from Measles? No? Thanks, science! n/t

[sabrina 1]

79. ?? I'm puzzled. Did I say somewhere that science has not contributed in any way to

to the betterment of the human condition? No, I did not. So, what is your point? As we all know, science has also contributed to some devastating failures. And sometimes when science has no solutions to offer, when science delares that there is no hope, people will and have sought other means of survival. And for some, it has worked. To try to deny anyone the right to fight for survival after science has declared there is no hope for survival, is incomprehensibe to me. Why do you care if, after science issues a death sentence, some people refuse to accept that sentence and seek other means of survival??

[X_Digger]

88. Pile all of human scientific innovation into one great big bucket..

.. from astronomy, biology, cardiology, chemistry, ecology.. to materials science, medicine, mettalurgy.. to zoology..

Now, take out the times that science has failed, but woo has come to the rescue.

Which pile would you say is bigger?

That is the answer to your 'how so?' question above, if I wasn't clear.

[freshwest]

114. Even the atomic bomb, which some consider to be unwise, was a success. Reality isn't always what

people prefer it to be. IIRC, it's said whatever you don't believe in, that still exists, is reality.

[Orrex]

52. The breeze is the sound of the answer whooshing over your head.

[sabrina 1]

62. Still nothing. I'm waitning for something of substance and have a feeling I will receive

nothing but ad homs. I wonder why?

[Orrex]

65. Perhaps you should ask the acupuncturist who invented your computer

You can email her over the internet, invented by a homeopath.

Maybe you can even use your smartphone, invented by a Reiki master.

[sabrina 1]

92. I thought Al Gore invented all that stuff??

And just what does computer tech have to do with the topic under discussion? For the record, I have never met an acupuncurist and have only seen an MD three times in my entire life. What was your point again?

[Orrex]

101. What, in your estimation, is the subject under discussion?

[MattBaggins]

128. How many times will you miss that plane whooshing over your head

[gcomeau]

60. Can you read?

Nothing provided so far? You mean beyond basically hitting you over the head with the entire information age?

But one or two more? Well gosh that's ever so hard but maybe if I try my best...

Let's see there's all of modern medicine, in which we can cover everything from letting the blind see to letting the deaf hear to wiping out diseases that used to ravage the population... how many examples do you think that category counts for?

And let's just throw in flight for fun...

Are you serious? Were you actually thinking asking for ways in which science has demonstrated it's reliability was going to be some kind of stumper????

Tha's like challenging someone to find water in the middle of the Pacific.

[sabrina 1]

95. Excuse me? Flight? Just what is the relevance of all that to the subject under discussion?

You seem to be veering off in a direction that I'm having difficulty following. I don't recall saying that science had never contributed to the advancement of human progress.

Are you sure I am the person you intended that comment for?

[gcomeau]

107. Yep, you.

You asked how science has earned trust.

The mind numbingly obvious answer is that it Consistently Produces Results.

Real, tangible, confirmable results. As opposed to certain things certain groups of people are trying to champion as an alternative.

[sabrina 1]

121. Yes, it produces 'results' such as those my girlfirend suffered when she realized she could never

have a baby. They awarded her a small compensation for that, approx a quarter of a million dollars, but to get it she had to promise never to appear on Oprah or any other media outlet to speak about what 'science' had done to her and her family.

[gcomeau]

122. Yeah... "science" did it...

Look I'm sorry for the trauma that must have caused, but "science" didn't do anything to your girlfriend. Extrapolating from context I'm going to go with a pharmaceutical company doing something to her.

[sabrina 1]

123. Of course it did. They experimented on pregnant women, and I suppose you could say they

scientifically discovered that nature was a better arbiter of whether or not a woman was likely to have a miscarriage than their now, infamous scientific drug. Collatoral damage I suppose.

Science has produced some wonderful, life saving results, and so has Woo.

But for those who have an almost religious belief in science as infallible, let me know, I have example after example to prove otherwise and none of us want to be 'guinea pigs' as my girlfriends mother was, unwittingly. She believed in science and felt so guilty about her trust in science later on, she refused to cooperate with her daughter's quest for the facts of how she came to be infertile and a high risk for cervicle cancer, for almost a year.

[freshwest]

115. Better to burn out than it is to rust!

[Niceguy1]

2. who is better

then threads on rape ,porn or rape porn itself. or any of the other gender flame wars

[ForgoTheConsequence]

3. Don't worry, I lit some sage.

The board should be free of all this bad juju soon.

[2naSalit]

45. that's

a great idea! I think I'll do that too, maybe some cedar and copal too.

[Shoulders of Giants]

4. What is this woo stuff?

As you can see by my post count, I'm new here.

[darkangel218]

5. The unexplained/alternative/the unknown/not mainstream

Take a pick.

*sighs*

Light and peace to all. Have a good night.

[Thirties Child]

10. And light and peace to you.

[Iggo]

11. Woo = Pseudo-science.

[sabrina 1]

38. Woo to some equals 'science' that has had fatal and disastrous results for many people. To each

their own.

Woo for me, eg, is doctors who dispense pills that have deadly side effects, as happened to my MIL. To others it's refusing to take such 'medicines' because they do not wish to suffer the consequences of the side effects.

How about everyone stop trying to control the behavior of everyone else?

[2naSalit]

47. +10,000!!!

Nicely stated, thank you!

[Jim Lane]

126. Where did that remark about "control" come from?

I haven't seen anyone in this thread trying to control your behavior. The comment was made that science had earned people's trust. You asked "how so?" and you were given numerous examples. Then, as far as I can see, what happened was that you over-reacted to the negativity about "woo".

In #79 you wrote in part:

And sometimes when science has no solutions to offer, when science delares that there is no hope, people will and have sought other means of survival. And for some, it has worked. To try to deny anyone the right to fight for survival after science has declared there is no hope for survival, is incomprehensibe to me. Why do you care if, after science issues a death sentence, some people refuse to accept that sentence and seek other means of survival??

First, as I said above, I don't see anyone hear trying to deny anyone the right to hold whatever outlandish beliefs they like, and even to act on those beliefs. (There are exceptions when, for example, parents deny children lifesaving treatment.) It's a free country and you have the legal right to blow all your money on homeopathic remedies administered while you lie under a pyramid surrounded by healing crystals. AFAIK there's no serious movement in the U.S. to ban any of those things. Purveyors of such quack remedies aren't allowed to lie about their products, but then, neither are purveyors of anything else.

A related point is that the homeopaths and all the other quacks are free to argue that their methods are sound. What ticks them off isn't any fancied oppression, but rather a corresponding freedom: People who have even a minimal understanding of these things are free to refute their sophistries.

So this idea that someone is trying to "control the behavior of everyone else" is a straw man.

Second, there are a few instances in which someone with a serious illness recovers unexpectedly. In some such cases, the patient has tried a quack method, and then attributes the recovery to the quackery. In those cases the quack treatment made no difference. The big issue is the cases in which following some woo idea leads a person to forgo a treatment that's been validated by the scientific method. People have died because of reliance on pseudoscience.

Finally, let me clarify the "trust" that's involved. It doesn't mean that every scientist is a noble human being. Any barrel has its bad apples, and putting on a lab coat doesn't transform one's character. From what you've said about your girlfriend's mother, there were scientists who violated the ethical norms applicable to experimenting on human subjects. They acted wrongly. But what's meant here by "trust" is that the scientific method has shown itself to be a trustworthy (i.e., reliably accurate) method for ascertaining facts about the world. We use the term "woo" to describe medical quackery and other pseudosciences, like astrology, that don't meet that standard.

[sabrina 1]

129. Of course you are trying to control the choices of others. It's right there in your comment over and

over again. In your case it's slightly more subtle than some of the other comments in this thread, one of which outright stated that what other people do IS her/his concern due to the fact that their choices somehow make hers/his more difficult. That individual clearly wants to control the choices of anyone who doesn't agree with her/him.

Yours, as I said is a more subtle attempt to control others. You refer to other people's choices in a very derogatory manner. You have made wild assumptions eg, about MINE, considering I have never really engaged in these discussions before nor discussed what I think about the subject. I make my own decisions, good or bad and do not generally even discuss them with others. So far, I am one of the healthiest people I know, never needed prescription drugs in my life other than an anti-biotic after a bite from a lime deseased tick, other times I have relied on common sense rather than rushing to a doctor or the ER each time I have a sniffle, so obviously those choices have worked for me. But it's MY business, no one else's.

What brought me into the discussion was not to discuss choices, that's not my business, but because I have noticed as others have, over the course of several years, the bullying from one side of this discussion, both overt and subtle.

Here, let me demonstrate what I mean by subtle attempts to control the behavior of others:

First, as I said above, I don't see anyone hear trying to deny anyone the right to hold whatever outlandish beliefs they like, and even to act on those beliefs. (There are exceptions when, for example, parents deny children lifesaving treatment.) It's a free country and

you have the legal right to blow all your money on homeopathic remedies administered while you lie under a pyramid surrounded by healing crystals

. AFAIK there's no serious movement in the U.S. to ban any of those things. Purveyors of such quack remedies aren't allowed to lie about their products, but then, neither are purveyors of anything else.

Perhaps if you had stuck to the topic at hand I might have been willing to engage in a discussion of the actual facts surrounding the WOO both in the Medical Profession, and yes, it most certainly does exist there, and outside of it. But your inability to simply state that people have the right, even if you do not agree with them, to their own choices without using derogatory and WILD assumptions, presumably about me, (what is a healing crystal btw, sounds interesting) made it clear that you are lacking in self awareness at the very least and at most, are attempting to put down those who have different views from you. Which translates to 'trying to control other people's choices'.

And THAT is why I am here. I could not care less what choices people make, especially people I do not know, but I do despise bullying. Too bad medical science hasn't found a cure for that. I do know how to cure it btw and have but that's another story.

[Jim Lane]

130. Thanks for proving my point.

Last edited Tue Jan 7, 2014, 04:52 AM - Edit history (1)

In #126 I wrote:

A related point is that the homeopaths and all the other quacks are free to argue that their methods are sound. What ticks them off isn't any fancied oppression, but rather a corresponding freedom: People who have even a minimal understanding of these things are free to refute their sophistries.

You've perfectly exemplified what I'm talking about. I merely expressed my opinion, but you denounce it as an attempt to control someone's behavior.

You're completely missing the difference between influence and control. For example, I've often done phone banking, leafleting, or door-to-door canvassing for political candidates. I expressed my opinions and hoped that some voters would be persuaded. That was not an attempt to control those voters' behavior, though.

That's equivalent to what goes on at DU. It's a forum. People express their opinions. They disagree with others, sometimes vehemently. That's not an attempt at control. As Adlai Stevenson said, "Freedom rings when opinions clash."

In my political work, I might denounce Republican "obstructionism" or the like. Other DUers, expressing their opinions, would use more forceful language -- I've seen people here say that it's "treason" to try to sabotage the United States government. I wouldn't use that term, but those who do are still engaged only in persuading and influencing, not controlling. Expressing an opinion doesn't become control merely because the speaker uses strong words like "treason" (or, in the medical context, "quackery&quot .

When you participate in a forum like this, you can expect people to express opinions with which you disagree. If posts like that register with you as attempts to control you, then I respectfully suggest that you consider using the Ignore function. Just to forewarn you, I for one plan to continue using words like "quackery" when I think they're appropriate.

[greyl]

131. "the difference between influence and control"

[SidDithers]

138. Excellent post!...

Sid

[Vashta Nerada]

6. Those who make outrageous claims that "acupuncture works" or "vitamin B12 cures cancer"

have to show proof of their assertions without using anecdotal evidence.

Everyone who studies in the sciences knows this.

[tammywammy]

16. You should alert the admins to the software bug with your ignore.

Since you said you put that poster on ignore about an hour ago and it's clearly not working.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4284467

[darkangel218]

8. Go gloat some some more on my break from DU.

Or attack our profession.

How long do you think your flamebait will work?

[Vashta Nerada]

9. Russell's Teapot.

It's used for the purposes of religion, specifically the existence of god, but I think it's apropos here as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

[Texasgal]

12. Funny thing is..NO ONE SAID THAT.

jesus!

[Vashta Nerada]

13. *cough*

I went through five weeks of twice weekly acupuncture sessions and you know what?

It worked!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4283524

[Texasgal]

14. You must not know how to read.

I said it worked FOR me.

Remedial reading works better here on DU.

[Vashta Nerada]

15. Nowhere does it say "and you know what? It worked for me!"

It says "and you know what? It worked!".

I know how to freaking read.

[Texasgal]

19. apparently not

when I said it worked it OBVIOUSLY worked for me.

Jaysus you guys are incredible.

[sabrina 1]

40. Well, here's the problem you are having. Neutral readers assume that when someone reports on

something THEY experienced, not EVERYONE experienced, when the conclude with 'and guess what, it worked' most rational readers assume it worked FOR THEM.

Where did the commeter state it worked for EVERYONE. I could not find that.

[flvegan]

17. So acupuncture doesn't work, ever, at all? Your statement, in absolution yes?

What do you have to back that up?

I'm curious, I'm kind of new to this and have never undergone acupuncture and don't seek to promote it. Considering your final statement, you must be some kind of scientist or doctor, so I'm also curious as to your education and standing to assert these statements, where/when you've been published and in what publications specifically.

I just checked into the "woo wars" as they've been so beautifully named, and just happened to stop here.

And before you ask, I don't think B12 cures cancer.

[Vashta Nerada]

18. I'm not the one claiming acupuncture works.

Those who claim it does have to provide proof that it does. The burden of proof isn't on me.

[flvegan]

21. Correct. But, you're the one claiming it doesn't.

Matter of fact, once again, you made a statement that was absolute. So...you can't do that, or you don't care to? It's one or the other. And from your post, I had to infer that you were some sort of scientist, so I'd think you'd be the one to do that. You are, aren't you?

[Vashta Nerada]

22. Nowhere in my post did I claim acupuncture doesn't work.

[flvegan]

23. You want to re-read what you posted and reconsider? Here, I'll copy it for you:

Those who make outrageous claims that "acupuncture works" or "vitamin B12 cures cancer" <---- This is yours, yes?

"acupuncture works" is an outrageous claim...is what you said.

[Vashta Nerada]

24. "outrageous claim" is so much different than saying "it doesn't work."

I'm sure you can understand the difference.

[flvegan]

30. I can, which is why I can tell you that it's not.

"acupuncture works" is "an outrageous claim" is much akin to stating that it doesn't work. Saying it works is outrageous, to paraphrase. Care to try again?

[Vashta Nerada]

32. Actually, it is.

If I would have intended to say it doesn't work, I would have said it doesn't work.

Saying acupuncture works, without providing evidence, is an outrageous claim.

[flvegan]

33. So then you don't really know either way?

You don't really know if it works, or doesn't, you just think that making the claim that it does or might work is outrageous?

[Vashta Nerada]

35. Making a claim, with no evidence to back it up, or with only anecdotal evidence, is outrageous.

[flvegan]

36. Didn't answer my question.

[X_Digger]

26. Geez, that's twice in one thread that folks are (intentionally?) misreading what you're saying.

Whatever this woo thing is, it apparently affects reading comprehension.

[flvegan]

34. Care to help him/her out?

My reading comprehension seems pretty good now.

[X_Digger]

39. Apparently not.

As Marcello Trucci put it, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

[flvegan]

41. So then, no, you don't.

Good enough. You're dismissed. Nice, uh, quote or something.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

67. in science, the default position is something doesn't work.

you have to prove it does, not change that default position.

[flvegan]

74. Why is that?

Seems to me, that proving something "doesn't" work would be more beneficial to the enduser. You know, options, avenues to explore.

But then, I'm no scientist and working from a positive seems better...at least to me. Oh, wait, I think I get it. It's a liability issue. Am I right? Don't want to make a statement one might get a summons for, eh?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

86. we create experiments to make sure something works.

and unless you can prove that it does, beyond a measurement/random error, the default is that it does not.

i am not saying that scientist dont think new things will work, but they have to prove it does, by rejecting the null hypothesis (the default that it does not work). they do this to ensure accuracy beyond a random error.

for instance anecdotally i can tell you that chewing cloves suppresses my cough. for that however to be a scientific reality, you would have to prove that this was not a random error and that it systematically works.

it's not a liability issue, as it not just practiced in medical science but all other sciences. it's an issue of accuracy, scientific process and reducing random errors.

[Vashta Nerada]

94. Experiments need a null hypothesis.

Hypothesis have to be falsifiable.

For example, someone in my program defended a thesis last year about our particular archaeological site. She had the null hypothesis &quot Our site) is a natural site". Then she looked for archaeological evidence, specifically culturally identifiable markings on animal bones (cut marks, chop marks, sawing, hammering, etc) to disprove the null hypothesis. She then used statistics to see if her results were statistically significant. Her evidence went against the null hypothesis, so she rejected it. When the null hypothesis is rejected, an alternative hypothesis is then provided. In her case, the alternative hypothesis was &quot our site) is a cultural site". Her evidence supported that hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis was accepted.

I can get into the cluster analysis and the significance testing, if you really want me to.

[sabrina 1]

43. Those who claim anything works FOR THEM, have to prove it. Eg, my MIL was on several prescription

drugs prescribed by various doctors. All FDA approved. But the side effects of these drugs nearly killed her. We got her OFF most of them, which apparently she never needed, just in time, after which she no longer had symptoms which led her to beieve she was developing arthritus eg.

Yes she nearly went into a coma which we found later, was due to some of the prescription drugs she was on to control blood pressure. They DID that to the point where she passed out with a BP level of 70 even before she had taken her prescribed medication for that day. Fortunately I and others were there when she passed out and stopped her from taking any more of those prescribed drugs until we saw a doctor. That doctor took her off most of them. Woo? Absolutely with near deadly results.

You go right ahead and fee free to do what you think is right for you. I otoh, having witnessed Medical Science first hand when not properly dispensed nearly kill, before intervention on the part of the family, at least two members of my immediate family.

[Vashta Nerada]

49. Um, they do prove it.

What do you think drug trials are for? The government then has to approve the drug. It's a rigorous process, actually, explained by the FDA: http://www.fda.gov/drugs/developmentapprovalprocess/howdrugsaredevelopedandapproved/

Your anecdote sounds like a case of the wrong diagnoses, which you confirmed with the phrase "apparently she never needed".

[sabrina 1]

124. So it's okay to prescribe FDA approved scientifically tested medications arbitrarily which HAVE

resulted in the deaths and disabement of untold numbers of human beings, based on 'scientific reviews'? Really? My example is just one personal experience, but if you want more, considering that this was MY first exprerience with the arbitrary dispense of 'FDA approve, Scientifically approved drugs' after which I did some extensive research and was SHOCKED at the number of victims, some fatalk, of this 'science'. Of course the money involved is massive so depending on whether you care more about your loved ones or the obviously most important financial interests of major drug corporations, your perspective may reflect that.

I prefer to see some concern for actual human lives whether they are my loved ones or someone else's. I spent a lot of time obverving Big Pharma Reps, they are all looked the same btw, mostly women, wearing business suits, high heels and carrying brief cases, very attractive, do their 'jobs' at the various medical facilities I had to accompany my older relatives to. It was like watching drug dealers in action.

[Vashta Nerada]

125. Where do you get your data?

From the CDC's Causes of Deaths in 2010 (most recent report):

In 2010, a total of 40,393 persons died of drug-induced causes in the United States (Tables 10, 12, and 13). This category includes deaths from poisoning and medical conditions caused by use of legal or illegal drugs, as well as deaths from poisoning due to medically prescribed and other drugs.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf , page 11.

I'll follow the CDC's report instead of the data you pulled out of...nowhere.

Your second paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with anything here.

[sabrina 1]

59. You mean the same way those who claimed that DES worked to prevent miscarriages

needed to prove it? The burden of proof? Medical science in that case caused generations of tragedy. Too bad no one asked those scientists to prove that their drug did what they claimed it would do. Science = Woo in far too many tragic cases.

It's all woo, UNLESS it works FOR YOU.

Oh, btw, since Medical Science failed in the case of DES to prove 'it works', quite the contrary actually, they faced generations of lawsuits as the babies who survived the drug grew up and sued Eli Lilly eg and the rest of Big Pharm who destroyed their lives with WOO and WON. But here's the kicker. Congress, realizing there were several generations affected by the Medical Woo known as DES, worried about their funders from Big Pharm, passed a law protecting Big Pharm. Imagine if alternative med advocates were able to BUY CONGRESS to protect THEM?

Question everything that comes from profit making institutions that appear to have the US Congress in their pockets.

[Vashta Nerada]

64. I have no idea what you're going on about.

So here's a picture of a rabbit with a pancake on its head:

[sabrina 1]

89. I didn't think you would. Thanks for the confirmation. Woo, it all depnds on what you know.

Science/Woo. Try doing a little research and you might understand why thinking people are skeptical of ANY claims to have absolute knowledge of anything.

Thanks btw, for, perhaps inadvertently, proving my point. I am very grateful for that. The old rabbit with the pancake made my point better than anything I could have said. So, again, thank you!

[LeftyMom]

93. No, it doesn't work.

It's kind of hard to study because obviously people know if you're poking a hole in them or not. So some clever folks came up with a couple of ways to test: One was to develop a sham needle that had a cover over it, so there'd be a poking sensation and people couldn't see if it broke the skin or not. Another way was to use actual needles and compare results between correctly administered acupuncture using acupuncture points and incorrect placement. Either way, the results show that it doesn't work.

The underlying theory of meridians also makes no sense, in general whenever the underlying mechanism involves some kind of energy field you should be pretty skeptical because there's really no reason to believe that human bodies work that way.

A lot of complimentary therapy stuff "works" in the sense that having somebody show an interest in your health in a relaxing setting reduces stress, and that's sufficient therapy for a lot of minor complaints.

[Tumbulu]

20. What-

Last edited Mon Jan 6, 2014, 12:58 AM - Edit history (1)

These discussions make democrats look mean, ingnorant and creepy all in one hateful package!

[Texasgal]

25. No kidding!!!

UGH!!!

Crazy!

[Thinkingabout]

31. How do these get here? I read a post the other day where there are several from other countries, I

Was,wondering if they are using a translation program and getting bad translations.

[pinboy3niner]

27. Forget it, Jake...

It's darkangeltown.

?v=1

[Vashta Nerada]

29. Nice personal attack.

Coming from the host of the Alternative Healing group, no less.



I am as anti-gun as one can get.

Since you seem to know so much about me, I'm sure you would've read many of my anti-gun posts.

And nowhere did I even mention I was pro-rape porn. I did, however, show my support for BDSM, which is vastly different from pro-rape porn.

And last I checked, I don't remember reading that one of the positions Democrats support is pseudoscience. In fact, Democrats are pro-science and want to expand funding for it. What's outrageous is there are so many here who actually believe in pseudoscience.

[Tumbulu]

46. Oh what a relief! No assault weapons for

Toddlers!!!! Yeah! One thing we can agree on.

I am a scientist. I use homeopathic remedies for lots of minor first aid matters, wasp stings, bruises, etc.

It is ridiculous to be fighting over such silly matters when we have real issues to work together to protect or advance. Increase in the minimum wage- by a LONG SHOT TOO! Better worker safety matters, environmental regulations, the list goes on and on.

Leave me alone with my little arnica and Apis melifera tablets. They help me, they are cheap, WHO REALLY CARES HOW THEY WORK OR EVEN IF THEY WORK. I use them, I think they help me. So leave me alone!!!!!!

[Vashta Nerada]

54. I'm also a scientist.

I'm writing a Master's thesis on the topic of climate change and bioarchaeology. I like to see proof of something working before I accept it as something that works. If I have a choice between taking alternative medicine and doctor prescribed medicine, I'll side with the doctors each and every time.

I can manage to debate people without resulting to personal attacks. I wish you would self-delete your post.

[Tumbulu]

71. I have been reading your posts for quite

sometime and have found your posts to be unusually combative and typically quite nasty and I stand by my statement that all this insane griping about science vs dr woo is counterproductive and NOT what we should be discussing on DU.

You have every right to your opinion and now thanks to the hard work of Democrats like all of us, we all can go to doctors. But I have my right to use methods that work for me, that are legal, and inexpensive.

Congratulations on your Masters thesis work. I would love to hear more about it. Climate change is a far more important topic that all this silly banter about "dr woo"!

[Vashta Nerada]

76. Well

I'm interpreting the environment of a particular archaeological site using terrestrial gastropods. I will be interpreting the environment based on species habitat preference and conducting oxygen isotope analysis on the shells at specific stratigraphic intervals to see how the climate changed in the area in the last 12,000 years.

[Tumbulu]

98. Thank you- that is fascinating

both historically, and could this knowledge help with dating of artifacts (or are these organisms usually lost on the specimens?)?

Thank you.

[AZCat]

55. It's not always so easy, unfortunately.

Most of us would probably be fine leaving you to your personally-chosen remedies, but there are occasions when poor choices regarding health care are dangerous for other people besides the individual making the choice. A recent example: at a school district in my vicinity a number of parents/guardians opted to exempt their children from whooping cough vaccinations. The result was an outbreak of whooping cough in the schools a couple of months ago that affected vaccinated and non-vaccinated children alike.

[Tumbulu]

68. So, what does that have to do with this

ridiculous endless crusade on DU?

Presenting yourselves as proscience when you are anything but scientific with the minds absolutely closed shut and dogmatically against anything that cannot be understood with the minimalist tools of today's logic and means of measurement?

Really, the loudmouth group of septics is not only pathetic but mean spirited and NOT what democrats should be.

[AZCat]

70. That's an interesting response.

Not what I was expecting, that's for sure. I'd hoped you might actually address the content of my post.

[Vashta Nerada]

72. That particular poster wondered if I was an actual Democrat because I questioned woo.

Interesting that poster said that. According to the Democratic Party Platform on Science and Technology:

Democrats believe that scientific research should play an important role in advancing science and technology in the classroom and in the lab. In order to compete globally, our next generation must be equipped with the tools and skills that lead to the technological innovations and scientific breakthroughs of the future. Democrats have taken significant steps to expand educational opportunities and make college more affordable for all Americans while improving the quality of our schools and our teachers.

http://www.democrats.org/issues/science_and_technology

Funny. I don't see anything about accepting alternative medicines in there as part of the party platform.

[Tumbulu]

78. A closed shut mind is anything except scientific

And anyone practicing any scientific discipline knows this.

Endless silly discussions on DU from the squad of septics is absolutely counterproductive. Instead if posting these silly attacks on me, why don't you tell us something interesting. I would love to know more about your research. Is your research on aquatic organisms? Let's educate each other rather than attaching each other.

[Vashta Nerada]

80. See post #76.

[AZCat]

82. What is a "septic"?

Your use of the word doesn't match the definition I'm familiar with. It's appeared in a couple of your posts (including your response to mine) and I'd like to know what it means.

[MineralMan]

120. I'm pretty sure it derives from the word "skeptic."

By leaving out the "k" you get a word that implies infection and decay. It's word manipulation. That's not really a useful tool, but it's widely used when no real argument is available.

[AZCat]

81. Sometimes I think we can all fall prey...

to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. We'd all like to think that our party closely represents our personal values, but it simply isn't possible in a country where we have two dominant parties for 300-some million people. For better or worse, the Democratic Party includes a lot of differing opinions amongst its members. We forget that even though we might not all agree on the pro-science/pro-alternative medicine issue (among others), we generally all agree on more important values.

[Tumbulu]

85. What power do I, an anonymous poster

have on parents of kids in your school district? My school district let no kid in without the current DTaP and parents had to get them too. Mine was so painful I had to stay in bed for 2 days after it! But I digress. I have no power over these matters. This is a message board. We come here to figure out ways to promote the principles of Democrats. We need not be ripping each other to shreds over these matters for which we have no control.

[AZCat]

90. I'm not sure where the two of us have been "ripping each other to shreds".

It seems to be a cordial exchange, in my opinion.

I do believe we have control over these issues, that's why I posted in response to you. While I'm not interested in your personal heath choices, I am interested in public health choices. I'm glad to hear you agreed to get the vaccination. Not all the parents in the local school district did, kids got sick, and that's why alternative medicine or anti-establishment medicine is a topic worthy of discussion (in my opinion, anyway).

[Tumbulu]

96. Yes, we have not been doing that

but there is a group on DU who do do that, and the whole thing is exhausting. People go crazy about these things, no middle ground, no discussion allowed.

I was in the Peace Corps, I used to travel around the world for my work, I have had to get hundreds of vaccines. But I still don't like getting them. I do not get flu shots. I get ones like tetanus and this new whooping cough one and will get others like the pneumonia one when my doctor recommends it.

There is this binary ridiculous idea bantered about on DU that things are either science based or woo. This is beyond ridiculous.

My vet does acupuncture on animals that would benefit from it. Most vets out west prescribe various homeopathic remedies. But they also prescribe and treat with antibiotics and regular medicines. In the real world, many people combine things in ways that make sense and work for them. This idea that it is either or is counterproductive. Why would you assume that since I found a few homeopathic remedies helpful that I would be against getting vaccines? This weird idea gets thrown about on DU and it is not at all the case.

This is destructive to our working together for positive change. I am against that sort of discussion.

[tkmorris]

69. "I am a scientist. I use homeopathic remedies..."

No. No you are not.

[SidDithers]

73. Yeah, that struck me too...

Sid

[Tumbulu]

100. What is your degree in Sid?

[SidDithers]

102. Physics and Math...

I understand exponential dilution.

What kind of scientist are you?

Sid

[Tumbulu]

106. Entomology, nematology

Ag related. Have also run fermentations and labs for bioinsecticide evaluation
and R&D. Currently I breed organic plants and animals.

[X_Digger]

75. I actually know a nuclear physicist who swears by acupuncture for her pain. I shit you not.

She's first up to laugh at homeopathy woo, or religious twaddle, but her sacred cow shall never be gored. Nosiree-bob.

I don't get it either.

[Tumbulu]

91. May I see your credentials

Before you dare tell me what I am and what I do?

[tkmorris]

119. I'll rephrase since you are getting all riled

When you practice homeopathy you are ignoring scientific principles. It IS possible to practice science properly in one part of your life and not in another, though it always puzzles me when anyone does.

[Tumbulu]

127. Practice homeopathy? You thinks his is my job?

Using homeopathic remedies for bee stings, bumps and bruises? Oh and teething tablets and chamomole? Really, this is ridiculous that fine DU members have gotten themselves in a fine pickle over goodness knows what.

Again I repeat, we have real things to work on, attacking a decent DU member like me should not be on the agenda. Really, I find nothing positive about this. I repeat now that because an explanation seems nonsensical, only a fool would ignore a cause and effect reaction. Indeed this capacity to observe is the basis of our scientific method. In particular when the mechanism for such an activity is not understood. It behooves us to try to understand, to try to expand our basis of knowledge to accommodate activities that are indeed not at all easy to understand. This DU reaction of saying something CANNOT happen because the proposed MOA is non sensical is belief based rather than based in science. You believe the MOA is bunk, therefore there can be no response, it must of course be fabricated.

[idwiyo]

84. You are a scientist who believes that water has 'memory'?

[Tumbulu]

99. I am a scientist who does not limit

my observations to what I can understand. I am a scientist and a good one at that.

If you require your observations to be limited by your understanding of mechanisms of action, you will never learn or discover anything new.

[idwiyo]

105. Right. Water has 'memory' of piss, shit and all deadly bacteria that came in contact with water.

[Tumbulu]

108. You see, your post is silly

and not one of this group of rude posters that you hail from are being constructive or intelligent. Repeating the same silly statements again and again insultingly endears you to no one. It reveals a lack of what real scientists cultivate, healthy curiosity.

[idwiyo]

109. Healthy curiosity manifesting itself in possibility that water has memory?

If it does, than it remembers piss, shit, etc. and must be harmful.
If it doesn't remember the above we now have to assume water either has a 'selective' memory, or 'forgetfulness', or some substances have unique ability to make HO2 remember them. And some don't. Yep, must be it!

[Tumbulu]

110. Oh goodness, forget it!

You are stuck and need to press the reset button ASAP!

[idwiyo]

111. You are a scientist! You have healthy curiosity! Shouldn't it allow for a possibility that water

is actually harmful to you? Because it might remember every deadly substance that came in contact with it...

[Bluenorthwest]

137. I use a couple of homeopathic topicals, recommended by an MD

to replace an existing medication I was not tolerating well. Works just as the MD said it would.
You are not an MD.

[SidDithers]

139. Homeopathy is the mother of all quackeries...

You could smear grape jelly on yourself, and it would be no different than whatever homeopathic topical you're using.

Whatever active ingredient you think you're getting in that homeopathic topical, you aren't really getting.

Sid

[idwiyo]

140. I respect you enough to suggest that you check if what you are using is actual

homoeopathic remedy or some kind of herbal remedy.

Homoeopathic remedy - something diluted so many times that there is no original substance left remaining in the final product. None whatsoever. Not even a single atom of it. The idea is that water will "remember" that something was diluted in it. Sorry, that's seriously crazy shit to believe in.

Herbal remedy - extract of some herb/plant. Some do have real medicinal properties.

Orange juice is good source of vitamin C.

Willow bark is a source of Salicin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willow

Salicin is metabolized into salicylic acid in the human body, and is a precursor of aspirin.[16] In 1763, its medicinal properties were observed by the Reverend Edward Stone in England. He notified the Royal Society, which published his findings. The active extract of the bark, called salicin, was isolated to its crystalline form in 1828 by Henri Leroux, a French pharmacist, and Raffaele Piria, an Italian chemist, who then succeeded in separating out the compound in its pure state. In 1897, Felix Hoffmann created a synthetically altered version of salicin (in his case derived from the Spiraea plant), which caused less digestive upset than pure salicylic acid. The new drug, formally acetylsalicylic acid, was named Aspirin by Hoffmann's employer Bayer AG. This gave rise to the hugely important class of drugs known as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

[sabrina 1]

44. Amazing, isn't it?

[Tumbulu]

58. Really very sad

Are people so lonely that all they can think of doing is posting such nasty attacks on people about personal choices? Why should anyone care that I use arnica for bumps and Apis melifera for wasp stings? Why go on and on about acupuncture of all things, my goodness this is so lame!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

56. explaining the null hypothesis to non-scientists is an uphill task

i usually dont bother. believe what you will, when the choice comes to chemo or homeopathy, most have the good sense to take chemo. I think on a fundamental level, most literate people believe in science, when it is their lives at stake.

[Vashta Nerada]

61. Tell me about it.

I was going to explain the null hypothesis, significance testing, and knowing when to accept/reject the hypothesis, but I'm sure most here wouldn't get it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

63. i wouldn't bother. honestly, the only woo thing that upsets me is vaccinations

otherwise, if people want to take homeopathy for arthritis, let them. How does it really affect me?

[Vashta Nerada]

66. Touché.

[MyNameGoesHere]

77. I do have a question about scientist.

When you receive your degree, does the smug sense of superiority come with it or do you need extra schooling to obtain it? I would like to skip the degree and just get my "I'm better than you" credentials. Any thoughts or a thesis on that?

[Vashta Nerada]

87. I'm putting in a lot of hard work into this thesis.

I think I deserve to be a self-satisfied about it once I get my Master's.

[MyNameGoesHere]

133. Ok I will give you a pat on the back

and a hearty woo hoo. Does that stroke you enough?

[BuddhaGirl]

134. ROFL!

[OriginalGeek]

132. You want to feel superior to everyone but don't want education or credentials?

Isn't that a Republican?








(lol)

[pnwmom]

117. Oh really. That must be why this board-certified anesthesiologist

at Harvard uses acupuncture. She's just too dumb to understand the null hypothesis, and that acupuncture is no better than homeopathy.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/acupuncture-is-worth-a-try-for-chronic-pain-201304016042

Over the years there has been substantial debate about whether acupuncture really works for chronic pain. Research from an international team of experts adds to the evidence that it does provide real relief from common forms of pain. The team pooled the results of 29 studies involving nearly 18,000 participants. Some had acupuncture, some had “sham” acupuncture, and some didn’t have acupuncture at all. Overall, acupuncture relieved pain by about 50%. The results were published in Archives of Internal Medicine.

The study isn’t the last word on the issue, but it is one of the best quality studies to date and has made an impression.

“I think the benefit of acupuncture is clear, and the complications and potential adverse effects of acupuncture are low compared with medication,” says Dr. Lucy Chen, a board-certified anesthesiologist, specialist in pain medicine, and practicing acupuncturist at Harvard-affiliated Massachusetts General Hospital.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

118. i am not sure where you get to this from what i said. nt

[pnwmom]

116. Like the board certified anesthesiologist at Harvard Medical School who uses acupuncture?

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/acupuncture-is-worth-a-try-for-chronic-pain-201304016042

Over the years there has been substantial debate about whether acupuncture really works for chronic pain. Research from an international team of experts adds to the evidence that it does provide real relief from common forms of pain. The team pooled the results of 29 studies involving nearly 18,000 participants. Some had acupuncture, some had “sham” acupuncture, and some didn’t have acupuncture at all. Overall, acupuncture relieved pain by about 50%. The results were published in Archives of Internal Medicine.

The study isn’t the last word on the issue, but it is one of the best quality studies to date and has made an impression.

“I think the benefit of acupuncture is clear, and the complications and potential adverse effects of acupuncture are low compared with medication,” says Dr. Lucy Chen, a board-certified anesthesiologist, specialist in pain medicine, and practicing acupuncturist at Harvard-affiliated Massachusetts General Hospital.

[Logical]

50. You don't understand "proof" nt

[Orrex]

53. Funny that you're preaching about ignorance

When you clearly don't understand what science is or how it works, yet you're more than happy to issue proclamations about it.


Enjoy your respite.

[Marr]

136. Have you noticed...

...that the biggest proponents of woo make posts that read like a top ten list of logical fallacies? It's really striking, and I can't believe it's a coincidence.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

57. LOL.

[Deep13]

83. wrong. nt

[Heidi]

97. "F*ckin' magnets. How do they work?"

Excerpt:
Fucking magnets, how do they work?
And I don't wanna talk to a scientist
Y'all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed

[progressoid]

103. I'm not saying it's aliens but

[Heidi]

104. !

[freshwest]

113. Now *that's* entertainment. n/t

[intaglio]

112. All that is being asked is evidence other than anecdote

But you wouldn't understand that.

[snooper2]

135. Guess you got your wish, see ya in a couple months!

LOL