I cant believe it. I watched it and now hes convinced me (thank you, i also do standup).
Firstly, alternative ideas about health and treatments arent attacking or threatening science, as the programme tries and fails to show. Most believers in them and practitioners accept and agree with most science. On the other hand, alternative medicine is not only undermined by people within it who dont know what theyre on about, the new age nutters, and those are in it only for the money, but it is in fact attacked by mainstream doctors and scientists like Dawkins. You could argue that by the fact that so many people these days believe alternative ideas that this in itself is an attack or threat to science. But this would only be a fact if the alternative people denied most scientific ideas. But they dont, they just offer further ideas. So there isnt a war on reason. And the MMR scare is not down to alternative beliefs, even though the programme spent quite a bit of time on it, as if to imply that it was, even though it gave no indication of this. We were just expected to make the assumption ourselves.
Once again, he has picked on silly looking people, and it looked like he visited another kind of fair. Very crude, just like the first programme. At one point while lying in the dark with lights pointing at him, he asked a good question for which no answer was sought "How could the lights be energising my chakras?" And the faith healer claiming to be able to change the structure of a persons DNA. The fact that she claims this shows that she acknowledges DNA. So once again, science is not being attacked, but rather confirmed. There was way too much emphasis on how much money is generated, but no time spent justifying the relevance of this, because for that fact to matter, he must show that these ideas are wrong. Im sorry but you cant make such a programme without at least making proper attempts at doing so. At one point he said that these ideas deny evidence of the real world. Thats hardly true.
With homeopathy, quite a few patients confirmed that they felt better after a treatment. But thats just anecdotal evidence, Dawkins said. Thats true. And if he can step out of the box long enough to explore the validity or otherwise of anecdotal evidence, he would be in a better position to to comment on it. Because the fact is that there are some things which are not necessarily subject to controlled conditions. Controlled conditions are good for testing a hell of a lot of things. But not everything.
Im very glad that people like Dawkins arent gullible, and demand results under certain tried and tested and proven conditions. Ive got nothing against the scientific method, but its more autority than it actually has. Many areas of study require it, but there are some things going on in this weird universe that just wont be subject to it, and unfortuately we have to work a bit harder than that to get to the bottom of certain things. I think that people like him and people like, for example, the homeopathic doctor should put their heads together and bounced ideas off each other, rather than come to the table with closedmindedness. We're just humans, as i keep saying, and we just cannot presume that one method will work with everything.
Originally posted by leafar: but there are some things going on in this weird universe that just wont be subject to it,
Again with the woolly X-Files pseudo-intellectualism. I wonder how you could possibly know this, let alone have the guts to post such easily refuted fallacies.
I think that people like him and people like, for example, the homeopathic doctor should put their heads together and bounced ideas off each other, rather than come to the table with closedmindedness.
What, like what we're doing now? Right..... Can you not see that arguing from a position hunches, speculations and misinformation is as 'closed minded' as one could possibly be? No? Ah, well there's the rub........
The placebo effect on humans can be quite marked (at times), but it's just that. A placebo. Not bloody poison ivy or really, really diluted ancient urine or anything to do with chakras (though man did invent the wheel and worked out the world is round). Reincarnation, my People are gullible. No surprise there. As for the rest, much like the other programmes, it was all just a little too easy, but Dawkins must be given credit for being concerned enough to make this series of programmes, and his final words about rejecting reasoning 'at our peril' sumes up the whole deal with this drivel perfectly. Although much that was discussed last night was harmless enough, it must be remembered that a predilection for falling for this kind of nonsense means that minds are more prone to accepting far more dangerous, divisive 'ideas'.
I would say 'God give me strength!', but it doesn't seem quite the right turn of phrase
=Ego, you mean to tell me that science has advanced as far as it will go, and that there are no more things left to explore? I may not "know" that there are other things out there going on, but, me saying that there are is far less ignorant than you saying that there definately isnt. And seeing as we're just humans with limited understanding, id place my bets on there being more going on, especially considering how many times science has had to review its ideas.
Sydbee :
Hunches : Has it ever occured to you that as a human (youre not a computer so its no good trying to think like one) you have hunches and feelings about things for a reason? Im not saying for a moment that hunches or intuition are always right, of course not, but if one isnt prepared to explore the idea these may be advanced forms of perception which arent yet understood by most, then having a discussion about whether theres truth in them or not is pointless. Whats closedminded is when someone trusts their hunches all the time without much of a track record of accuracy.
As for turning away from science in order to blindly believe weird, alternative ideas, i agree that thats stupid. However, thats not really whats going on.
Has it ever occured to you that as a human (youre not a computer so its no good trying to think like one) you have hunches and feelings about things for a reason?
Um, yes, but the reason they are 'hunches' (and why I 'have' them) is because they're, well, hunches. I had a hunch that FC Barcelona were going to win a consecutive La Liga/European Cup double last season, but they didn't. Fortunately, I didn't bet my accumulated wealth on it, so am still solvent.
As my last sentence may indicate, I am growing somewhat weary of this sport (for now ), but keep the faith! (or not)
Tell you what, Leafer, if you're not too busy today have a thorough read of this and then tell me what I may or may not be.....
I have a hunch it will be the same spiel, but you never know
Originally posted by leafar: And the MMR scare is not down to alternative beliefs, even though the programme spent quite a bit of time on it, as if to imply that it was, even though it gave no indication of this.
Is the programme called "People with alternative beliefs are the enemies of reason"? No. That is because the programme is about enemies of reason, not people with alternative beliefs. The MMR scare is an example of a few greedy people exploiting parents' fears for their own financial ends. This is an example of an enemy of reason.
quote:
...And the faith healer claiming to be able to change the structure of a persons DNA. The fact that she claims this shows that she acknowledges DNA. So once again, science is not being attacked, but rather confirmed.
The woman is misusing science, by wrapping it in pseudo-science, to her own ends. This is an example of an enemy of reason.
The problem with last night's show is that Darkins lifted the lid on a huge can of worms but shied away from tackling it. It isn't just silly faith healers who abuse our knowledge of reality in this way. Entire industries (anti-aging creams, dietary suppliments and cold remedies to name the obvious ones) misuse science in the same way.
=Ego Again with the woolly X-Files pseudo-intellectualism. I wonder how you could possibly know this, let alone have the guts to post such easily refuted fallacies.
1, 2, 3...
Argumentum ad ignoraniam
Hi If you are talking about Homoeopathy I have already posted two links that show that this has been subjected to scientific scrutiny and has been replicated by at least six separate labs. I'm talking about the original work of Jacques Benveniste and others – or do you only read stuff that agrees with your personal concept of science? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Benveniste http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory
The word woolly that you use is meant to mean following blindly behind the crowd and seems to be exactly what you are doing, with a small majority with an opposing view – not really woolly.
Syd Bee “”People are gullible. No surprise there. As for the rest, much like the other programmes, it was all just a little too easy, but Dawkins must be given credit for being concerned enough to make this series of programmes, and his final words about rejecting reasoning 'at our peril' sums up the whole deal with this drivel perfectly.””
Has it ever occurred to you that Dawkins is afraid that people are starting to wake-up from the hypnosis that science has used to beguiled them? No, I guess not, as that would be heresy to the religion that is science.
Originally posted by Al64: ...If you are talking about Homoeopathy I have already posted two links that show that this has been subjected to scientific scrutiny ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory
You claim that homoeopathy has been subjected to scientific scrutiny and you then link to an article that points out how homoeopathy supporters are misusing failed scientific tests to further their claims. Is it any wonder that such complete stupidity gets labelled as an "enemy of reason"?
quote:
Has it ever occurred to you that Dawkins is afraid that people are starting to wake-up from the hypnosis that science has used to beguiled them?
Yes such thoughts do occur to us. They are then rejected as being more than a little silly.
Is no-one else amazed at Dawkins' absolute arrogance that there couldn't possibly be any other explanations for, or ways of viewing illness and healing, other than the scientific way? The most hilarious part of that prog. last night was the bit to camera at the end when he advised us all to keep an open mind- the irony?!
The problem with this prog (and it seems the majority of TV programs that claim to 'explore' complementary or alternative medicines) is that they conflate the more esoteric practices like crystal healing with more accepted and widely used therapies like acupuncture, using the 'airy-fairiness' of the former in order to poo-poo them all. It ultimately tells us little about anything when such paragdimatically different practices are lumped together as if they were related. What it does tell us is that scientists such as Dawkins are so pannicked by the fact that people are questioning received medical/scientific knowledge and authority, that they might lose their elevated position in society.
Has it ever occured to you that as a human (youre not a computer so its no good trying to think like one) you have hunches and feelings about things for a reason?
Um, yes, but the reason they are 'hunches' (and why I 'have' them) is because they're, well, hunches. I had a hunch that FC Barcelona were going to win a consecutive La Liga/European Cup double last season, but they didn't. Fortunately, I didn't bet my accumulated wealth on it, so am still solvent.
As my last sentence may indicate, I am growing somewhat weary of this sport (for now ), but keep the faith! (or not)
Tell you what, Leafer, if you're not too busy today have a thorough read of this and then tell me what I may or may not be.....
I have a hunch it will be the same spiel, but you never know
Originally posted by Scubadubadu: ...It ultimately tells us little about anything when such paragdimatically different practices are lumped together as if they were related.
They are all related. They all rely on the placebo effect.
Originally posted by Scubadubadu: Is no-one else amazed at Dawkins' absolute arrogance that there couldn't possibly be any other explanations for, or ways of viewing illness and healing, other than the scientific way?
Go on, do tell what other ways are there then? What do you imagine 'the scientific way' is that excludes other ways?
RD was sufficiently open minded to try many of the alternative therapies, accepted that many of them could produce positive results in the patients and offered possible explanations for why this could be the case even if the supposed mechanism of treatment was false. Sounds pretty open-minded to me.
To your mmr comment, i say fair enough, but it doesnt contribute to the argument that alternative medical beliefs or theories or whatever are enemies of reason. Its just a filler.
Originally posted by CDarwin: Sorry! don't quite know how the sytem works..pressed the folder in speech marks but couldn't see how to put in a message.
When you click the folder button the system creates a message with all of the prior message 'quoted'. Scroll to the end and type your reply.
To your mmr comment, i say fair enough, but it doesnt contribute to the argument that alternative medical beliefs or theories or whatever are enemies of reason. Its just a filler.
And this says rather more about your preconception of the programme than any failure of the programme. They are both (equally valid) examples of the dangers of irrationality. That is what the programme was about. Making up what the programme should have been about, then pointing out how it failed is called straw man fallacy. (Can't be bother to insert a link, you have had this pointed out before)
Originally posted by Ape Man: The MMR scare is an example of a few greedy people exploiting parents' fears for their own financial ends. This is an example of an enemy of reason.
What does exploiting people for money have to do with being an 'enemy of reason'?
Has it ever occurred to you that Dawkins is afraid that people are starting to wake-up from the hypnosis that science has used to beguiled them? No, I guess not, as that would be heresy to the religion that is science
'Waking up?'. One doesn't wish to be uncouth, so I'll refrain from saying you're only 1 letter away from the truth of the matter, IMO
Now, again, please state the (testible) evidence which these people are waking up to. I just can't find it......
Definition time:
re·li·gion (r-ljn) n. 1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
--------------------------------
sci·ence (sns) n. 1. a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. 2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science. 3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing. 4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Language is important. Science is not a religion. It isn't that difficult, is it?
So Ape Man, clearly you have 'scientifically' investigated ALL complementary and alternative medicines, to be able to say conclusively that they ALL rely on the placebo effect? Out of curiosity, do you include herbal medicine in that 'ALL', beacuse surely that would then include the pharmaceuticals derived from them?
Free thinker (again, the irony!): you really believe Dawkins was trying these with an open mind, and presenting them in an unbiased way?
The program unfortunately didn't offer much of a platform for balanced explanation, but forcused more on Dawkins' incredulous face. Plus it offered no time for the explanation of how, for example, Chinese Medicine or Ayurveda are understood to work by their practitioners (other than the kooky black hole lady, who as far as I know isn't representative of common thought on the matter, but one voice).
Perhaps the possibility of a world view other than the western biomedical one is just too much for some people to cope with, but I really find it difficult to understand why the idea of integration of ALL therapies that work for people seems like a sensible option to so few people.
Parklaneyid- what is any kind of medical treatment if not faith based? We currently have most faith in conventional western biomedicine, it dominates and has done for a few hundred years. But surely that's based on people having faith in scientific testing, and that the 'evidence' provided by these tests is the absolute truth. Whats to say that another model of belief wont take over from biomedicine in another century, and we'll all see that as the absolute truth and think biomedicine is 'woo woo'? (and correcting a spelling mishap really is petty, but I hope you feel better for it)
If scientists/biomedics weren't a teency bit concerned at the damage people voting with their feet and using CAM can do to their professional position, why are they always so desperate to get on TV/ in the papers to denounce them? You see few people on the CAM side doing the same, beacuse they're generally (not all, granted) more concerned with investigating ways of all models of healthcare working together in a way thats best for users.
Originally posted by Scubadubadu: So Ape Man, clearly you have 'scientifically' investigated ALL complementary and alternative medicines, to be able to say conclusively that they ALL rely on the placebo effect?
He doesn't need to - if they had been scientifically investigated and passed the tests, then they would no longer be "alternative" - they would just be medicines.
quote:
Out of curiosity, do you include herbal medicine in that 'ALL', beacuse surely that would then include the pharmaceuticals derived from them?
If they'd been tested as part of the rigorous tests pharmaceuticals have to go through, then they won't be included as they've been proven to work and are no longer relying on the placebo effect. Placebos don't get granted licences.
"Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race." - Charles Bradlaugh.
), but keep the faith! (or not) 
