In misc.health.alternative The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_Kingoff@yahoo.com> wrote:
: On Jul 24, 5:43?am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
:> In misc.health.alternative Carole <hub...@iimetro.com.au> wrote:
:> : And when I say people should think for themselves and question authority,
:> : there are some who say they do. . .
:> : People fawn and grovel in front of experts and trust everything they say.
:> Has it ever occurred to you that a person might be able to think for himself
:> and come to the conclusion that the experts are correct? Has it ever
:> occurred to you that if you know nothing about a subject, the odds that
:> thinking for yourself is going to lead you to any conclusion that is even
:> close to be correct are very, very, very small?
: The very same points have been made to you regarding acupuncture.
I have come to the conclusions that the experts -- i.e. those who know how
to design an experiment properly and to report its results accurately -- are
correct, and that there is no evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture
beyond a placebo effect.
: If only you were capable of thinking rationally on the topic of
: acupuncture...
The one who is incapable of rational thought, alas, is you. The proof is
quite evident to anyone who is as not as blinded with rage against those
who disagree with him as you are. One might start with your insistence
on responding to posts that I write that have nothing to do with acupuncture
and inserting another one of your patented rants.
I have given you a long list of articles, and expressed a willingness to
discuss with you what you think the problems with the articles are that their
evidence against the efficacy of acupuncture can be dismissed. Not only have
you failed to accept that offer -- you have refused in principle even to
*read* the articles in question, not even the one that you claim (incorrectly)
supports your position, and not even the one written by a professor of
complementary medicine. I have offered to discuss with you the statistical
problems with reports of clinical trials of acupuncture, and why Peter Moran's
statements that negative results should probably be given more weight than
positive ones are to be taken seriously. Not only have you refused to enter
such a discussion, you have refused to acknowledge my offer. I have asked you
for your comments on an article that I found that presented a conjecture
about the origin of the belief in meridians, and asked you to comment. You
certainly refused to comment, and I am sure refused to read the article
as well.
Now I suppose it is possible (likely, even) that just as you have an
idiosyncratic definition of "lie," you have an idiosyncratic definition
of "rationality" that does not match that with which most of the rest
of us (except for your CJ/Jan Drew cheering squad) are familiar. But it
seems to me that trying to understand why so many well-performed studies
fail to find effects beyond placebo is a *rational* approach; that trying
to understand the statistical problems inherent in clinical trials is a
*rational* approach; that trying to make sense of the observation that the
positive results most highly touted are those for cases in which there is
no objective means of determining whether or not the treatment worked.
Your mileage may vary (and apparently does), but I find your impassioned
defense of rationality hard to reconcile with your apparent admission that
the principles upon which acupuncture is based are fictitious (or metaphorical
if you prefer a less pejorative term).
-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
