Mark Probert, David Wright, where have you been?

In article <[email hidden]>,

(soft-eng) said:

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

God, it is just *so* easy for the uninvolved, like you, to dismiss
ADHD as simply due to lazy parents. It would be amusing to stick you
in their situation and watch you fail to remedy the situation in spite
of your enormous moral superiority.

If you had read earlier messages, you would have noticed
I have my own share of burdens. But yes, I do feel it is
superior to actually think about the issues rather than just
take authority-viewpoint as the final truth.

That's nice, but it is only "superior" if your mind is truly open enough
to accept when "conventional" science is actually correct about
something (or at least more correct than the "alternative" science being
considered). Otherwise, such thought is merely an example of how (as
William James put it), "A great many people think they are thinking when
they are merely rearranging their prejudices," and therefore of no more
value than that of the "authority-repetitioner," as you call him.

Is your mind open enough to admit when evidence shows a particular
"alternative" remedy to be ineffective?

Quoted message said:

In fact, I think
that's true for all endeavors of life. Authority-repetitioners
do not significantly advance knowledge.

That's a very simplistic (and not entirely correct) generalization. Many
great advances in scientific knowledge have come from building on the
theories that prevailed at the time the scientists who made these
advances worked. Einstein's theories explained the deficiencies in
Newton's Laws (acknowledged by scientists of the era) that occur when
velocities approach the speed of light. Watson and Crick showed how DNA
encodes genetic information, building on previous observations that DNA
did somehow encode genetic information. The history of physics and
chemistry are full of examples of scientists who started with the
understood orthodoxy of the day and built upon it to advance human
knowledge signficantly.

Quoted message said:

Questioners do.
That's always been the case. Always will be.

Again, one must remember to take the generality that only questioners
significantly advance knowledge with a grain of salt, as it is a
generality with some very significant caveats. It is also a conceit that
pseudoscientists and quacks frequently wrap themselves in, the conceit
that they are the poor persecuted lone voice of truth because they are
correct and conventional science is wrong. That conceit is only rarely
justified. Unfortuately, it is a conceit that many not familiar with the
methods and history of science frequently fall for. (Apparently it is a
conceit you seem quite susceptible to, given your clear contempt for the
grind of real science.)

Sadly, only a VERY few of the "questioners" to whom you refer actually
ever significantly advance human knowledge. The vast majority of them do
not. Indeed some of them actually hinder human knowledge by questioning
scientific orthodoxy that just happens to be correct (or at least
demonstrably far more correct than the ideas they are using to challenge
said orthodoxy). For every Galileo, Copernicus, or Semmelweis, who
questions the scientific orthodoxy or dogma of the day and thereby
advances human knowledge significantly, there are thousands of
"questioners" who are never heard of again and disappear into the
obscurity of history. The reason they are never heard of again is
because they were wrong and their "questioning" led them to dead ends or
incorrect conclusions. It's human nature to remember the "questioners"
who happen to be correct and to forget those many more questioners who
were wrong.

Science is more or less an incremental process punctuated by occasional
rapid advancement when a new idea supplants an old one based on new
evidence. (Examples of rapid advancement: Einstein's Theory of
Relativity, the discovery of the double helical structure of DNA,
Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, the discovery of
oncogenes.) Indeed, this is probably true of most human endeavors. It
is easy to heap scorn upon the "authority-repetitioners," as you call
them, but without them scientific advancement would not happen (or would
happen much more slowly), as the basis upon which these geniuses make
their leaps into the unknown is usually largely built by them and later
confirmed by them. More importantly, not infrequently, work by these
"authority repetitioners" DOES significantly advance human knowledge.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

Orac said:

Sadly, only a VERY few of the "questioners" to whom you refer actually
ever significantly advance human knowledge. The vast majority of them do
not. Indeed some of them actually hinder human knowledge by questioning
scientific orthodoxy that just happens to be correct (or at least
demonstrably far more correct than the ideas they are using to challenge
said orthodoxy).

Actually, a clarification I thought of as I hit the "Post" button:
Scientific ideas are always being questioned and tested. This is a good
thing and is how science advances. Old theories are questioned on the
basis of new evidence and eventually supplanted by new theories when
evidence and experimentation warrant it. These new theories are then
subject to the same question. Such "questioning" only hinders human
knowledge when it is deceptive or has a complete disregard for the
existing evidence (as, sadly, much pseudoscience is) and leads many to
reject better explanations for natural occurrences.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(soft-eng) said:

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

God, it is just *so* easy for the uninvolved, like you, to dismiss
ADHD as simply due to lazy parents. It would be amusing to stick you
in their situation and watch you fail to remedy the situation in spite
of your enormous moral superiority.

If you had read earlier messages, you would have noticed
I have my own share of burdens. But yes, I do feel it is
superior to actually think about the issues rather than just
take authority-viewpoint as the final truth.

That's nice, but it is only "superior" if your mind is truly open enough
to accept when "conventional" science is actually correct about
something (or at least more correct than the "alternative" science being
considered). Otherwise, such thought is merely an example of how (as
William James put it), "A great many people think they are thinking when
they are merely rearranging their prejudices," and therefore of no more
value than that of the "authority-repetitioner," as you call him.

Is your mind open enough to admit when evidence shows a particular
"alternative" remedy to be ineffective?

Quoted message said:

In fact, I think
that's true for all endeavors of life. Authority-repetitioners
do not significantly advance knowledge.

That's a very simplistic (and not entirely correct) generalization. Many
great advances in scientific knowledge have come from building on the
theories that prevailed at the time the scientists who made these
advances worked. Einstein's theories explained the deficiencies in
Newton's Laws (acknowledged by scientists of the era) that occur when
velocities approach the speed of light. Watson and Crick showed how DNA
encodes genetic information, building on previous observations that DNA
did somehow encode genetic information. The history of physics and
chemistry are full of examples of scientists who started with the
understood orthodoxy of the day and built upon it to advance human
knowledge signficantly.

Quoted message said:

Questioners do.
That's always been the case. Always will be.

Again, one must remember to take the generality that only questioners
significantly advance knowledge with a grain of salt, as it is a
generality with some very significant caveats. It is also a conceit that
pseudoscientists and quacks frequently wrap themselves in, the conceit
that they are the poor persecuted lone voice of truth because they are
correct and conventional science is wrong. That conceit is only rarely
justified. Unfortuately, it is a conceit that many not familiar with the
methods and history of science frequently fall for. (Apparently it is a
conceit you seem quite susceptible to, given your clear contempt for the
grind of real science.)

Sadly, only a VERY few of the "questioners" to whom you refer actually
ever significantly advance human knowledge. The vast majority of them do
not. Indeed some of them actually hinder human knowledge by questioning
scientific orthodoxy that just happens to be correct (or at least
demonstrably far more correct than the ideas they are using to challenge
said orthodoxy). For every Galileo, Copernicus, or Semmelweis, who
questions the scientific orthodoxy or dogma of the day and thereby
advances human knowledge significantly, there are thousands of
"questioners" who are never heard of again and disappear into the
obscurity of history. The reason they are never heard of again is
because they were wrong and their "questioning" led them to dead ends or
incorrect conclusions. It's human nature to remember the "questioners"
who happen to be correct and to forget those many more questioners who
were wrong.

Science is more or less an incremental process punctuated by occasional
rapid advancement when a new idea supplants an old one based on new
evidence. (Examples of rapid advancement: Einstein's Theory of
Relativity, the discovery of the double helical structure of DNA,
Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, the discovery of
oncogenes.) Indeed, this is probably true of most human endeavors. It
is easy to heap scorn upon the "authority-repetitioners," as you call
them, but without them scientific advancement would not happen (or would
happen much more slowly), as the basis upon which these geniuses make
their leaps into the unknown is usually largely built by them and later
confirmed by them. More importantly, not infrequently, work by these
"authority repetitioners" DOES significantly advance human knowledge.

--
Orac

Nicely said.

May I add the discovery of prions to your list of examples? Dr. Stanley
Prusiner prevailed with his theory of "protein only" prions against stubborn
resistance from the scientific establishment. Yet his hypothesis built on
prior understanding of the structure and nature of neuronal proteins
(authority repetition). In science, the truth prevails, and in 1997 Dr.
Prusiner received the Nobel prize in medicine.

Conventional knowledge of the nature of the world is often shown to be
incomplete and occasionally shown to be wrong. But the brave people who
challenge and change that knowledge are, without exception, starting from a
position of thorough education in and understanding of what is known in
their field. The smug notion that because science is often proved wrong one
need not study science to "think" of better ideas is arrogant and wrong. It
is easy to spout pontifically that "ADHD is not a disease" and then argue
silly semantics, when one has no knowledge of the research that has been
done on the nature of ADHD and associated pharmacology, and the base of
understanding that has resulted.

In other words, "softeng" has a stooloma.

--Rich

"soft-eng" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Having seen AD/HD kids, I do not personally agree that
it is a real disease in any way, shape or form. Mercury-impact
is, and some mercury-impacted kids may have been diagnosed
as AD/HD. Otherwise, AD/HD is simply a _psychological_ label.

So are depression and schizophrenia and paranoia. Do you feel that
these are just "normal variation" and should be ignored?

Like I said, psychology is not an exact science. It's at
the level of medical sciences of a few centuries ago.
Did they have some remedies that worked? Yes, definitely.
Were all their remedies and theories valid? Not at all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But this is a personal observation, those who have bought
into the ease of Ritalin of course will have other observations.

The "ease of Ritalin" is just another myth. It's not a miracle cure.

Now you are being disingenuous.

[censored]. NO ONE I know of claims that methylpheindate is a cure, miracle or
otherwise. It is a tool which helps the patient deal with the problems
caused by the disorder.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A complicating factor is the tremendous "natural" parentage issue
in the US. My personal feeling is that natural parents will go
the extra mile before putting the kids in danger. Others
will be quick on the easy solution.

God, it is just *so* easy for the uninvolved, like you, to dismiss
ADHD as simply due to lazy parents. It would be amusing to stick you
in their situation and watch you fail to remedy the situation in spite
of your enormous moral superiority.

If you had read earlier messages, you would have noticed
I have my own share of burdens. But yes, I do feel it is
superior to actually think about the issues rather than just
take authority-viewpoint as the final truth.

Answer this:

What makes you think (a term I use loosely with your ilk) that we parents
who have chosen to medicate have done that?

The parents I have dealt with over the past 15+ years were anything but
that.

In fact, I think

Quoted message said:

that's true for all endeavors of life. Authority-repetitioners
do not significantly advance knowledge. Questioners do.
That's always been the case. Always will be.

That is nice, and you have absolutely no basis to think (note the loose use)
that parents who have chosen to medicate are not questioners.

However, if you wish to continue in your delusional world, so be it. One day
you may get a clue, and be cured.

In article <[email hidden]>,

soft-eng said:

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Having seen AD/HD kids, I do not personally agree that
it is a real disease in any way, shape or form. Mercury-impact
is, and some mercury-impacted kids may have been diagnosed
as AD/HD. Otherwise, AD/HD is simply a _psychological_ label.

So are depression and schizophrenia and paranoia. Do you feel that
these are just "normal variation" and should be ignored?

Like I said, psychology is not an exact science. It's at
the level of medical sciences of a few centuries ago.
Did they have some remedies that worked? Yes, definitely.
Were all their remedies and theories valid? Not at all.

Does the foregoing verbiage prove anything at all? No.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But this is a personal observation, those who have bought
into the ease of Ritalin of course will have other observations.

The "ease of Ritalin" is just another myth. It's not a miracle cure.

Now you are being disingenuous.

Not hardly. Just pointing out where you're doing a little sleazy
implication.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A complicating factor is the tremendous "natural" parentage issue
in the US. My personal feeling is that natural parents will go
the extra mile before putting the kids in danger. Others
will be quick on the easy solution.

God, it is just *so* easy for the uninvolved, like you, to dismiss
ADHD as simply due to lazy parents. It would be amusing to stick you
in their situation and watch you fail to remedy the situation in spite
of your enormous moral superiority.

If you had read earlier messages, you would have noticed
I have my own share of burdens. But yes, I do feel it is
superior to actually think about the issues rather than just
take authority-viewpoint as the final truth.

Try to avoid dislocating your shoulder as you pat yourself on the back
over your vast intelligence.

Quoted message said:

In fact, I think
that's true for all endeavors of life. Authority-repetitioners
do not significantly advance knowledge. Questioners do.
That's always been the case. Always will be.

However, the mere fact that you set yourself up as a wonderful,
authority-questioning figure does not make you correct, or even
interesting.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

In article <[email hidden]>,

Rich Shewmaker said:

May I add the discovery of prions to your list of examples? Dr. Stanley
Prusiner prevailed with his theory of "protein only" prions against stubborn
resistance from the scientific establishment. Yet his hypothesis built on
prior understanding of the structure and nature of neuronal proteins
(authority repetition). In science, the truth prevails, and in 1997 Dr.
Prusiner received the Nobel prize in medicine.

Indeed. That is an example I was less familiar with.

Quoted message said:

Conventional knowledge of the nature of the world is often shown to be
incomplete and occasionally shown to be wrong. But the brave people who
challenge and change that knowledge are, without exception, starting from a
position of thorough education in and understanding of what is known in
their field.

Exactly. This is in marked contrast to pseudoscientists and many "alt
med" practioners, who seem to think that anything discovered by science
before that contradicts their ideas can be thrown out and doesn't need
to be studied. The truly great scientists who challenged the current
scientific dogma of their day (the ones pseudoscientists and alties like
to compare themselves to) did so based on a very solid understanding of
the science of their day. They used this strong understanding as a basis
to build on. Their understanding of the science of their day allowed
them to identify its deficiencies in explaining natural phenomena and
thereby design experiments, make observations, and/or design equations
to correct these deficiencies. They acknowledged their debt to those who
came before. As Isaac Newton put it: "If I have seen further, it is by
standing on the shoulders of giants."

These pseudoscientists and, alas, all too many altie practitioners seem
to have the conceit that they are beyond needing to acknowledge what has
been learned before.

Quoted message said:

The smug notion that because science is often proved wrong one
need not study science to "think" of better ideas is arrogant and wrong.

If science weren't proven wrong on a regular basis, there would be no
scientific advancement. To someone who doesn't understand science, this
process is messy and often contentious (scientific rivalries are among
the most heated of academic rivalries), but it is how science advances.

Quoted message said:

It
is easy to spout pontifically that "ADHD is not a disease" and then argue
silly semantics, when one has no knowledge of the research that has been
done on the nature of ADHD and associated pharmacology, and the base of
understanding that has resulted.

Correct. It is even easier to spout about how some remedy or other
"strengthens the immune system," without being able to explain exactly
HOW it might do so because there is no understanding of the current
state of the science of immunology behind the assertion!

Quoted message said:

In other words, "softeng" has a stooloma.

Well, that much is obvious.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Try to avoid dislocating your shoulder as you pat yourself on the back
over your vast intelligence.

I do try to be humble.

Then, I read your posts.

What can I say?

In article <[email hidden]>,

soft-eng said:

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Try to avoid dislocating your shoulder as you pat yourself on the back
over your vast intelligence.

I do try to be humble.

You're doing a poor job.

Quoted message said:

Then, I read your posts.

What can I say?

Whatever you decide to do, a less self-congratulatory tone would be
welcome. Not to mention less arrogance.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

soft-eng said:

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Try to avoid dislocating your shoulder as you pat yourself on the back
over your vast intelligence.

I do try to be humble.

You're doing a poor job.

Quoted message said:

Then, I read your posts.

What can I say?

Whatever you decide to do, a less self-congratulatory tone would be
welcome. Not to mention less arrogance.

Um, It was a joke. I guess I didn't make
it come out too well...

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Is your mind open enough to admit when evidence shows a particular
"alternative" remedy to be ineffective?

What does labelling have to do with it? It either works, or
it does not work. It doesn't matter if you call it "alternative"
or "scientific" or whatever.

Many methods of modern medicine are in fact good methods to determine
if something does or does not work.

But I think you missed the part about a profit-motive existing
in modern medicine, which is independent of the medical-motive,
and may or MAY NOT be aligned with the medical-motive.

If it happens to NOT be aligned, the holders of that
motive must and do use various untruths to pretend to alignment.

What part of that perception do you find close-minded?

Quoted message said:

conceit you seem quite susceptible to, given your clear contempt for the
grind of real science.)

You misunderstand. Any contempt I have would be
for pretend scientISTs, not real science at all. The relative
importance of science and the resulting science-factory methods,
in my view, attract a lot of people who make their living by
science, while holding a non-questioning, authoritarian mindset.

If you discern that I feel these people are contemptible,
in fact beneath contempt, you are right. For they are
being dishonest to their chosen profession. They give
nothing to science, merely take from the work of others.

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

to be studied. The truly great scientists who challenged the current
scientific dogma of their day (the ones pseudoscientists and alties like
to compare themselves to) did so based on a very solid understanding of
the science of their day. They used this strong understanding as a basis
to build on. Their understanding of the science of their day allowed
them to identify its deficiencies in explaining natural phenomena and
thereby design experiments, make observations, and/or design equations
to correct these deficiencies. They acknowledged their debt to those who

Prior knowledge may or may not be relevant. For instance,
in explaining lightning discharges, it is not necessary
to know the theories about Zeus and his thunderbolts.

Quoted message said:

came before. As Isaac Newton put it: "If I have seen further, it is by
standing on the shoulders of giants."

There may be a lot of context to the quote. If you have some
familiarity with the life and times of Newton, the quote seems
strange, because normally, Isaac Newton was not known to be a
modest credit-denying individual!

Quoted message said:

Correct. It is even easier to spout about how some remedy or other
"strengthens the immune system," without being able to explain exactly
HOW it might do so because there is no understanding of the current
state of the science of immunology behind the assertion!

Are you saying people would float away if they didn't
understand HOW gravity worked?

If a remedy is well known to work, and has no side effects,
that's sufficient. Understanding can come later.

Also, modern medicine, while advanced, doesn't yet have
it down to the point where one could theoretically
predict the reactions of a certain ingestible. It's
still a very empirical science. Rather more art and engineering,
than science yet. Though that's changing. But given
the state, it's unreasonable hubris to have had repeatedly
dismissed things ranging from Pauling's "free radicals"
to chiropractic to accupuncture. Chiropractic theories
about how it works may not be correct -- but that doesn't
invalidate any actual effects. It may simply mean
that a better explanation may be waiting to be discovered.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In other words, "softeng" has a stooloma.

Well, that much is obvious.

That's uncalled for, and contemptible.

Do you feel I use contempt when it's unearned
and unjustified?

"soft-eng" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

soft-eng said:

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

> Try to avoid dislocating your shoulder as you pat yourself on the

back

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> over your vast intelligence.

I do try to be humble.

You're doing a poor job.

Quoted message said:

Then, I read your posts.

What can I say?

Whatever you decide to do, a less self-congratulatory tone would be
welcome. Not to mention less arrogance.

Um, It was a joke. I guess I didn't make
it come out too well...

Parents of AD/HD kids tend to not havce a sense of humor when some
uninformed cretin comes along and tells them it is their weaknesses.

"soft-eng" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to be studied. The truly great scientists who challenged the current
scientific dogma of their day (the ones pseudoscientists and alties like
to compare themselves to) did so based on a very solid understanding of
the science of their day. They used this strong understanding as a basis
to build on. Their understanding of the science of their day allowed
them to identify its deficiencies in explaining natural phenomena and
thereby design experiments, make observations, and/or design equations
to correct these deficiencies. They acknowledged their debt to those who

Prior knowledge may or may not be relevant. For instance,
in explaining lightning discharges, it is not necessary
to know the theories about Zeus and his thunderbolts.

No, but Zeus is mythology. It IS necessary to know about electrons and
charge.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

came before. As Isaac Newton put it: "If I have seen further, it is by
standing on the shoulders of giants."

There may be a lot of context to the quote. If you have some
familiarity with the life and times of Newton, the quote seems
strange, because normally, Isaac Newton was not known to be a
modest credit-denying individual!

Quoted message said:

Correct. It is even easier to spout about how some remedy or other
"strengthens the immune system," without being able to explain exactly
HOW it might do so because there is no understanding of the current
state of the science of immunology behind the assertion!

Are you saying people would float away if they didn't
understand HOW gravity worked?

No, and their immune systems work just fine even if they don't understand
how. But the supplement quacks who are selling products to "strengthen the
immune system" have no idea whether their products do any such thing. Are
you saying that pond-scum "blue-green algae" products and other supplements
actually DO "strengthen the immune system"?

Quoted message said:

If a remedy is well known to work, and has no side effects,
that's sufficient. Understanding can come later.

The whole point is that a remedy that is "well known to work" may not
actually "work" at all. Science is a method of preventing us from deceiving
ourselves.

Quoted message said:

Also, modern medicine, while advanced, doesn't yet have
it down to the point where one could theoretically
predict the reactions of a certain ingestible. It's
still a very empirical science. Rather more art and engineering,
than science yet. Though that's changing. But given
the state, it's unreasonable hubris to have had repeatedly
dismissed things ranging from Pauling's "free radicals"
to chiropractic to accupuncture.

Such things have hardly been "dismissed." They have been examined and
researched.

Chiropractic theories

Quoted message said:

about how it works may not be correct -- but that doesn't
invalidate any actual effects. It may simply mean
that a better explanation may be waiting to be discovered.

Step one is to determine what "effects" if any, occur. This can best be done
through the application of scientific method.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In other words, "softeng" has a stooloma.

Well, that much is obvious.

That's uncalled for, and contemptible.

Do you feel I use contempt when it's unearned
and unjustified?

Yes, I do. You do not hesitate to blame the suffering of ADHD on its victims
and their parents. How contemptuous (and contemptible) can you get.

--Rich

In article <[email hidden]>,

(soft-eng) said:

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

to be studied. The truly great scientists who challenged the current
scientific dogma of their day (the ones pseudoscientists and alties like
to compare themselves to) did so based on a very solid understanding of
the science of their day. They used this strong understanding as a basis
to build on. Their understanding of the science of their day allowed
them to identify its deficiencies in explaining natural phenomena and
thereby design experiments, make observations, and/or design equations
to correct these deficiencies. They acknowledged their debt to those who

Prior knowledge may or may not be relevant. For instance,
in explaining lightning discharges, it is not necessary
to know the theories about Zeus and his thunderbolts.

I said SCIENTIFIC understanding. That would not be science.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

came before. As Isaac Newton put it: "If I have seen further, it is by
standing on the shoulders of giants."

There may be a lot of context to the quote. If you have some
familiarity with the life and times of Newton, the quote seems
strange, because normally, Isaac Newton was not known to be a
modest credit-denying individual!

Even so, he said it, and it is a famous quote of his.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Correct. It is even easier to spout about how some remedy or other
"strengthens the immune system," without being able to explain exactly
HOW it might do so because there is no understanding of the current
state of the science of immunology behind the assertion!

Are you saying people would float away if they didn't
understand HOW gravity worked?

Strawman, to which I would answer: If you're going to postulate a
different explanation as to why we don't float away into space, you had
better understand the current science that explains why we don't float
away. The same is true of anyone claiming to have a remedy that
"strengthens the immune system" by a mechanism not encompassed by
current science.

Quoted message said:

If a remedy is well known to work, and has no side effects,
that's sufficient. Understanding can come later.

The problem is, without careful clinical study, one cannot truly know
whether a remedy "works." Just because it is claimed to "work" does not
mean it does in fact work. The history of medicine is littered with
examples of therapies that were "well known to work" in their time and
then later shown to be either useless or in some cases even harmful when
studied carefully.

Quoted message said:

Also, modern medicine, while advanced, doesn't yet have
it down to the point where one could theoretically
predict the reactions of a certain ingestible. It's
still a very empirical science.

It's getting less empirical every year.

Quoted message said:

Rather more art and engineering,
than science yet. Though that's changing.

More rapidly than you know.

Quoted message said:

But given
the state, it's unreasonable hubris to have had repeatedly
dismissed things ranging from Pauling's "free radicals"
to chiropractic to accupuncture.

No, it's not, particularly when the advocates of such things can't
produce decent evidence to back them up and the research that has been
done on them by others does not back them up.

Quoted message said:

Chiropractic theories
about how it works may not be correct -- but that doesn't
invalidate any actual effects.

No, the conflict is also over whether chiropracty actually works; i.e.,
whether there actually are, in fact, any "actual effects." Its advocates
have to show that first.

Quoted message said:

It may simply mean
that a better explanation may be waiting to be discovered.

That's putting the cart before the horse. One has to show an effect
before looking for a better "explanation."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In other words, "softeng" has a stooloma.

Well, that much is obvious.

That's uncalled for, and contemptible.

Do you feel I use contempt when it's unearned
and unjustified?

Well, you do to some extent heap contempt on ADHD parents, blaming them
for their child's condition.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

(soft-eng) said:

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Is your mind open enough to admit when evidence shows a particular
"alternative" remedy to be ineffective?

What does labelling have to do with it? It either works, or
it does not work. It doesn't matter if you call it "alternative"
or "scientific" or whatever.

Actually, I agree. I believe that "alternative" treatments should be
subject to the same rigorous clinical testing as new conventional
treatments before being adopted. The problem is, many alties don't seem
to agree. They seem to think that they should be held to a lower
standard of evidence for their therapies, a standard so low that no one
would tolerate it for conventional therapies.

Quoted message said:

Many methods of modern medicine are in fact good methods to determine
if something does or does not work.

Indeed they are, and alternative medicine should be subject to these
methods, just as conventional medicine is.

Quoted message said:

But I think you missed the part about a profit-motive existing
in modern medicine, which is independent of the medical-motive,
and may or MAY NOT be aligned with the medical-motive.

Are you saying the same is not true of "alternative medicine"? Alt-med
is filled with hucksters pushing various unproven remedies at inflated
prices.

Quoted message said:

If it happens to NOT be aligned, the holders of that
motive must and do use various untruths to pretend to alignment.

Again, are you claiming this is NOT true of alt-med?

Quoted message said:

What part of that perception do you find close-minded?

Your apparent perception that alt-med advocates are any more pure in
their motives than conventional medicine advocates, for starters.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

conceit you seem quite susceptible to, given your clear contempt for the
grind of real science.)

You misunderstand. Any contempt I have would be
for pretend scientISTs, not real science at all. The relative
importance of science and the resulting science-factory methods,
in my view, attract a lot of people who make their living by
science, while holding a non-questioning, authoritarian mindset.

How is this different from various alt-med practitioners who so believe
that their remedy is THE remedy and who believe anything various alt-med
gurus say about various "alternative" treatments? At least in
conventional medicine, we have to submit new treatments to testing, and
the results of that testing can be evaluated by our peers, some of whom
will invariably be hostile to it and therefore will at the very least
give it a thorough going-over and challenging before accepting it.

[Snip]
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

"Rich Shewmaker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

No, and their immune systems work just fine even if they don't understand
how. But the supplement quacks who are selling products to "strengthen the
immune system" have no idea whether their products do any such thing. Are
you saying that pond-scum "blue-green algae" products and other supplements
actually DO "strengthen the immune system"?

You are using negative wording to a-priori dismiss a claim.
THAT is the essence of quackery.

It is indeed quite possible that blue-green algae, or whatever,
may strengthen the immune system. If somebody has used it
and felt it has done that -- there is a medical lead. The next step is
testing. Not dismissing it by using the negative connotations
of the word "pond-scum". (Any idea where penicillin came from?)

Unfortunately in our current environment, there is a disconnect
between a lead and the required testing. If the product is not
patentable, there will be no testing, leaving it for
uninformed individuals to pursuade others that something
could not possibly be good because it is "pond-scum".

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Mark Probert, David Wright, where have you been?
From: [email hidden] (David Wright)
Date: 1/4/2004 9:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

In article <[email hidden]>,

soft-eng said:

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Try to avoid dislocating your shoulder as you pat yourself on the back
over your vast intelligence.

I do try to be humble.

You're doing a poor job.

Quoted message said:

Then, I read your posts.

What can I say?

Whatever you decide to do, a less self-congratulatory tone would be
welcome. Not to mention less arrogance.

-- David Wright

Example, David humble Wright.

Uh huh.

In article <[email hidden]>,

(soft-eng) said:

"Rich Shewmaker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

No, and their immune systems work just fine even if they don't understand
how. But the supplement quacks who are selling products to "strengthen the
immune system" have no idea whether their products do any such thing. Are
you saying that pond-scum "blue-green algae" products and other supplements
actually DO "strengthen the immune system"?

You are using negative wording to a-priori dismiss a claim.
THAT is the essence of quackery.

No, he is using an example. Your transparet attempt to turn it around
and accuse him of quackery is transparent and laughable.

Quoted message said:

It is indeed quite possible that blue-green algae, or whatever,
may strengthen the immune system.

That's not what he asked. He didn't ask if you thought it was "possible"
that blue-green algae or other products "strengthen the immune system."
Of course such a thing is "possible." (It's also "possible" that an
asteroid will hit me in the next several hours.) He asked you if you
think they DO "strengthen the immune system."

Quoted message said:

If somebody has used it
and felt it has done that -- there is a medical lead.

Not necessarily. It takes more than just "feeling" something worked.
Anecdotal evidence worthy of use to generate a hypothesis to test has to
have some objective measurement to show that there was an effect.
Somebody using something and "feeling" that it "strengthened the immune
system" is NOT enough. That somebody has to have observed objective
evidence that at least suggests that something did, in fact, "strengthen
the immune system." Any quack can "feel" that something he's used
"strengthened the immune system."

Quoted message said:

The next step is
testing.

Testing is only worthwhile if there is objective evidence suggesting
that something worked.

Quoted message said:

Not dismissing it by using the negative connotations
of the word "pond-scum". (Any idea where penicillin came from?)

And penicillin was discovered because of an OBJECTIVE observation by
Alexander Fleming that the bacteria on some of his plates that had
become contaminated with fungus did not grow near the fungus. This
observation strongly suggested the possibility that the contaminating
fungus was secreting a substance that either killed the bacteria or kept
it from growing. In other words, the path that led to the isolation of
penicillin from fungus started with OBJECTIVE evidence, NOT a "feeling"
that it "worked."

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately in our current environment, there is a disconnect
between a lead and the required testing. If the product is not
patentable, there will be no testing, leaving it for
uninformed individuals to pursuade others that something
could not possibly be good because it is "pond-scum".

[censored]. Many of my colleagues pursue research that is not likely to
lead to a patentable product, because they want to find better ways to
treat cancer. If it happens to be patentable, great--that's an added
bonus, but that is not the overriding motivation behind the research by
any means.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Actually, I agree. I believe that "alternative" treatments should be
subject to the same rigorous clinical testing as new conventional
treatments before being adopted. The problem is, many alties don't seem
to agree. They seem to think that they should be held to a lower
standard of evidence for their therapies, a standard so low that no one
would tolerate it for conventional therapies.

It's a new field with no established guidelines for testing.
The established pharmas will not touch it without patent
protection, and will even denigrate it because they
see no profits.

If you see my earlier posts, I have warned that the
field of alterntive medicines is a natural attractor
for charlatans and fakes.

But that doesn't mean you throw out the baby with
the bathwater, either.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Many methods of modern medicine are in fact good methods to determine
if something does or does not work.

Indeed they are, and alternative medicine should be subject to these
methods, just as conventional medicine is.

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But I think you missed the part about a profit-motive existing
in modern medicine, which is independent of the medical-motive,
and may or MAY NOT be aligned with the medical-motive.

Are you saying the same is not true of "alternative medicine"? Alt-med
is filled with hucksters pushing various unproven remedies at inflated
prices.

We agree. What I don't agree with, is the idea that "unproven
by pharmacological standards" is the same as "ineffective". It may
be, it may not be. It simply means "unproven". But conventional
medicine folks tend to use "unproven" as a synonym for "proven
to be ineffective". That, is biased thinking.

In the lack of testing, folks are led to use other indications
(testimonials that they might reasonably trust, that are
not from the sellers, for example) to make their own judgements.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If it happens to NOT be aligned, the holders of that
motive must and do use various untruths to pretend to alignment.

Again, are you claiming this is NOT true of alt-med?

No. It's just not a serious problem yet. The problem with
alt-med right now is, lack of serious testing, and lack
of standardized herbs (or algae, or whatever.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What part of that perception do you find close-minded?

Your apparent perception that alt-med advocates are any more pure in
their motives than conventional medicine advocates, for starters.

You pulled that "perception" out of thin air. You certainly
didn't find it in any post of mine.

Quoted message said:

How is this different from various alt-med practitioners who so believe
that their remedy is THE remedy and who believe anything various alt-med

Same tune...

Quoted message said:

gurus say about various "alternative" treatments? At least in
conventional medicine, we have to submit new treatments to testing, and
the results of that testing can be evaluated by our peers, some of whom
will invariably be hostile to it and therefore will at the very least
give it a thorough going-over and challenging before accepting it.

Skepticism is good. But there is a variety of hostility that
ceases to be healthy skepticism and starts to be pure turf-protection.

Rejecting alt-meds simply because of the "label" or because
of names like "pond scum", etc is not healthy skepticism.
It's turf-protection.

"Mark ProbertJanuary 5, 2004" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Parents of AD/HD kids tend to not havce a sense of humor when some
uninformed cretin comes along and tells them it is their weaknesses.

My understanding was the vast majority of Ritalin pushing was
done by teachers. While nobody can blame a parent when
the teacher and the doctor are both telling them something
is good and even necessary for the kid (and in fact the kid
may not go to school without it!) I think parents can certainly try
to hold the teachers to higher standards.

I actually don't believe in government interference with
anybody trying to party on Ritalin or Cocaine (they
are quite similar I understand) or whatever in a supposedly
free country (unless it involves a public issue e.g. driving
a car or duty as a cop etc) -- but by the same token I don't
believe in governments requiring it either.

And in the case of minors, I do believe the government
is obliged to *protect* them from such drugs. IMHO,
the adolescent growth period with heavy-duty hormones
taking over the system, is a very touchy period to mess
around with mind-altering drugs.