no arguments no experiences no debate

In article <[email hidden]>,

Acratæ said:

Hi there,

I am surprised about some bigotry around. One would expect to find
in a misc.health.alternative group people who has practical experience in
the so called alternative madicine practices, and want to exchange
experiences -good or bad- about it.

And so you do. But oen would not "expect" to find just that if one
had read the charter. This is a discussion group about alt med, pro
or con. Contributors are not required to do nothing but sing hosannas
to any alternative modality.

I've tried a bunch of alt approaches and most of them did nothing for
me.

Quoted message said:

First impression : most of the standarized medicine blind followers ignore
the limits of their paradigm, by using words as logic, truth, physical and
chemical laws (as if they´d be all there 100% laid in front of us),
and hiding the lack of arguments behind authority quotes.

If you're going to argue that physical laws somehow do not apply to
alt med, you're going to have to supply some convincing evidence.
We'll wait.

Quoted message said:

If something has been observed and can be theoretically adapted
afterwards, also can come together and join the standards.

Yep. And that happens, too. Consider the use of antibiotic therapy
to treat ulcers. Then whatever the approach is stops being
"alterantive" and becomes "conventional." No big surprise there.

Quoted message said:

I presume part of standard sience asks alternative medicine proof that fits
scientific methods to be able to aborb it and reproduce it and create
patents and copyrights and make big money out of it as they´ve done
with each one and every standard scientific knowledge produced so
far.

Not necessarily. Medicine does not make big bucks off of aspirin or
exercise or diet or quitting smoking, or a bunch of other things like
that. Things that, if everyone did them, would have a far more
profound effect on the overall health of the population than every
high tech gadget ever envisioned.

Quoted message said:

The fact that people die by the millions every year by the lack of
access to scientificly produced medicines and devices doesn´t seem to
affect the good health of the paradigm and it´s business. Nasdaq
occassionally does.

That's a separate issue. Now, you're apparently arguing for socialism
or something, which is entirely different from trying to claim that
somehow alt med is beyond the paradigm.

-- 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)

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

Quoted message said:

Hi there,

I am surprised about some bigotry around. One would expect to find

in a misc.health.alternative group people who has practical experience in
the so called

alternative madicine practices, and want to exchange experiences -good or
bad- about it.

First impression : most of the standarized medicine blind followers ignore
the

limits of their paradigm, by using words as logic, truth, physical and
chemical laws (as if

they´d be all there 100% laid in front of us), and hiding the lack of
arguments behind

authority quotes.

An example? Alternative medicine consists of innumerable health care
claims, which range from a very few which are reasonably plausible and have
a little support to many that are fraudulent or ridiculous. Which
specific claims are you suggesting there is bigotry against?

Peter Moran

Acratæ said:

Hi there,

I am surprised about some bigotry around. One would expect to find
in a misc.health.alternative group people who has practical experience in
the so called

Reality...
What a concept.

WB
--

Take out the G'RBAGE to reply
[email hidden]

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

Quoted message said:

Hi there,

I am surprised about some bigotry around.

Oh? You've been reading Jan Drew's posts?

Mark, MD

(Mark) said:

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

Quoted message said:

Hi there,

I am surprised about some bigotry around.

Oh? You've been reading Jan Drew's posts?

Oh, come on Mark. Give Jan a break. She only called someone a Jewboy
once. And she immediately explained that the reason she called him a
Jewboy was because he was a Jew.

And she only once said that lying comes second nature to Jews.

And she only agreed with Debbee once that [censored] was right about
wanting to exterminate the Jews.

Of course for privacy reasons we are unable to see Jan's collection of
Nazi war memorabilia and Swastikas.

And she only once said that those who pray to Saints are influenced by
Satan.

But Jan is not a bigot. No Sireeee. Jan is a loving Christian church
lady who loves everyone. She just has an "interesting" way of showing
the love:-)))

Aloha,

Rich

Quoted message said:

Mark, MD

------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance.

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: no arguments no experiences no debate
From: [email hidden] (Mark)
Date: 12/12/2003 6:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

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

Quoted message said:

Hi there,

I am surprised about some bigotry around.

Oh? You've been reading Jan Drew's posts?

Mark, MD

my other hobby (time-waster in a big way is more like it) is lurking around the
Internet, annoying people who engage in the dissemination of bozo-science
medical advice. My favorites are the "NutraSweet causes brain cancer" folks and
those who would have us believe that milk causes diabetes. I could claim it's
my duty as a high-falutin' medical professional, but really it's just my
natural pugnacious tendency."

(Jan) said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: no arguments no experiences no debate
From: [email hidden] (Mark)
Date: 12/12/2003 6:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

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

Quoted message said:

Hi there,

I am surprised about some bigotry around.

Oh? You've been reading Jan Drew's posts?

Mark, MD

my other hobby (time-waster in a big way is more like it) is lurking around the
Internet, annoying people who engage in the dissemination of bozo-science
medical advice. My favorites are the "NutraSweet causes brain cancer" folks and
those who would have us believe that milk causes diabetes. I could claim it's
my duty as a high-falutin' medical professional, but really it's just my
natural pugnacious tendency."

And all this time we thought Jan was an altie. Now we know she is here
as part of the fight against "bozo science". How else are we supposed
to interpret these words, offered to us without an indication that
they are quoted from anywhere or if someone else originally said them.

Congratulations, Jan, and welcome aboard the good ship "Debunker".

--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: no arguments no experiences no debate
From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
Date: 12/12/2003 8:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

(Jan) said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: no arguments no experiences no debate
From: [email hidden] (Mark)
Date: 12/12/2003 6:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

"Acratæ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
> Hi there,
>
> I am surprised about some bigotry around.

Oh? You've been reading Jan Drew's posts?

Mark, MD

my other hobby (time-waster in a big way is more like it) is lurking around

the

Quoted message said:

Internet, annoying people who engage in the dissemination of bozo-science
medical advice. My favorites are the "NutraSweet causes brain cancer" folks

and

Quoted message said:

those who would have us believe that milk causes diabetes. I could claim

it's

Quoted message said:

my duty as a high-falutin' medical professional, but really it's just my
natural pugnacious tendency."

And all this time we thought Jan was

The subject, rather than Mark's natural pugnacious tendency.

And yours.

Jan

Quoted message said:

And so you do. But oen would not "expect" to find just that if one
had read the charter. This is a discussion group about alt med, pro
or con. Contributors are not required to do nothing but sing hosannas
to any alternative modality.

Well an argument or two when defenestrating or praisin such practice,
product, etc could come handy, imagine there may even happen conversions,
mea culpas, a debate ?

Quoted message said:

I've tried a bunch of alt approaches and most of them did nothing for
me.

I think that is a good point to start for, as you may agree that
conventional methods not always work either, so this is not privative of the
alternative nor of the conventional.

Basically it would be interesting to define, beyond the scientifical method
of research, is there is any boundarie dividing alternative from
standarized, for it may well be -as I believe it is- just a cultural
cathegory, far from being passive of big concepts of logic or truth or
common sense etc may imply.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

First impression : most of the standarized medicine blind followers

ignore

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the limits of their paradigm, by using words as logic, truth, physical

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

chemical laws (as if they´d be all there 100% laid in front of us),
and hiding the lack of arguments behind authority quotes.

If you're going to argue that physical laws somehow do not apply to
alt med, you're going to have to supply some convincing evidence.
We'll wait.

No, I just said that not all of the physical and chemical laws are known,
therefore still unknown laws can apply too. New laws being find by
contradictions to old laws every day, you could say you cannot discard 100%
anything, from gravity law to the seasonal variation of the kangaroos anus
diameter in southeast Australia, or whatever.

I would give as an example something for you to chew on (make it last so you
enjoy it more) : the succussion process in homeopathy remedies.

Quoted message said:

Yep. And that happens, too. Consider the use of antibiotic therapy
to treat ulcers. Then whatever the approach is stops being
"alterantive" and becomes "conventional." No big surprise there.

They like to have it both ways don´t they 🙂

There doesn´t seem to be much room for anything outside standard science,
placebo effect and natural course of a disease. Eventually everything in
medicine fits in one of those three cathegories then.

Quoted message said:

Not necessarily. Medicine does not make big bucks off of aspirin or
exercise or diet or quitting smoking, or a bunch of other things like
that. Things that, if everyone did them, would have a far more
profound effect on the overall health of the population than every
high tech gadget ever envisioned.

Provided you have with running water, food supply, housing, 6 hours a day
sleep time, etc may you follow this advise and improve your health by
yourself. What I meant is that standard medical science is mainly a private
business, and as such it has invariably commercial interests behind, and
those interest play a huge role in demonizing per se the non standarized
medicine. Sure there are quacks both sides of the counter, but I see here a
distinction between alties and not alties as if there would be serious and
non serious medical pros as a whole, instead of taking it case by case. It
seems the tendency of this newsgroup to be divided like that, or just an
impresion, would you agree, a generalization that doesn´t leave much for
debate of individual cases.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The fact that people die by the millions every year by the lack of
access to scientificly produced medicines and devices doesn´t seem to
affect the good health of the paradigm and it´s business. Nasdaq
occassionally does.

That's a separate issue. Now, you're apparently arguing for socialism
or something, which is entirely different from trying to claim that
somehow alt med is beyond the paradigm.

That is an issue among other reasons why alternative researchers and
patients grow worlwide. Also theres the concept of ignorance there has been
repeatedly quoted for people to fall for alternative remedies, but while the
alternative science often cannot be scientifically proved by standard
methods (otherwise becomes part of the standard, and meanwhile is quack or
placebo) the standard medicine often cannot be afforded. It is not so
sepparate an issue but closely interconnected for a vast majority of the
worlds population today.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: no arguments no experiences no debate
From: [email hidden] (Mark)
Date: 12/12/2003 6:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

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

Quoted message said:

Hi there,

I am surprised about some bigotry around.

Oh? You've been reading Jan Drew's posts?

Mark, MD

Could have been the pattern of Andrew Kingoff or Richard H Jacobson.

Or Jan Drew, who says things like "Jew Boy", "Praying to saints comes
from Satan" and other tolerant, sensitive things. But Jan, I guess,
is allowed to say these things because she has the courage of her
convictions and is therefore infallible. Jan's Truth is *the* truth,
and if anyone disagrees, they are ipso facto liars.

Mark, MD

In article <[email hidden]>,

Acratæ said:

Hi there,

I am surprised about some bigotry around.

I see you've encountered Jan.

Quoted message said:

One would expect to find
in a misc.health.alternative group people who has practical experience in
the so called
alternative madicine practices, and want to exchange experiences -good or
bad- about it.

You mean you're disappointed that you didn't find a nice, cuddly
environment, where alties can discuss their favorite remedies without
any challenge to their beliefs, don't you?

Quoted message said:

First impression : most of the standarized medicine blind followers ignore
the
limits of their paradigm, by using words as logic, truth, physical and
chemical laws (as if
they´d be all there 100% laid in front of us), and hiding the lack of
arguments behind authority quotes.

You're just upset that anyone challenges alties to provide any actual
EVIDENCE that their treatments do what they claim!

Quoted message said:

They say to be real science it has to pass the scrutiny of standarized
science methods, thus the production of knowledge is by it limited.
Therefore it would only be practiced what has been before proven possible
theoretically (always within standarized theoretical thinking).
the REAL physical laws. if something
has been observed and can be theoretically adapted afterwards, also can come
together and join the standards. As planets, stars and galaxies, they´re
observed by visual or by effects, and so assumed they´re there. Black holes
are suppossed to be there for science, they talk of black holes as they talk
about toothpaste, and every child in high school will eventually have to
learn about it. Instead, the most obvious and sometimes ancient
observations produced by non standarized science will get on their nerves.

[censored]. Scientific theory is always evolving, and indeed evolves the
most when it is challenged. And it does incorporate "non-standardized"
observations into itself when those observations can be reproduced. Thus
Copernicus and Galileo eventually supplanted the Earth-centric view of
the universe. Darwin supplanted Lamarckian views of evolution. Einstein
supplanted Newton, showing that Newton's Laws were merely a special
condition of his equations. Science is being constantly challenged. The
difference between these challenges that eventually alter what we
believe about scientific phenomena and altie gibberish, is that the
challengers whose views eventually win out have the goods. They have the
evidence. The experiments ultimately support them. Their ideas
accurately predict new phenomena.

Not so most alties, who can't show us convincing evidence (even
convincing "nonstandard" evidence!) that their nonstandard ideas should
be taken seriously.

Quoted message said:

I presume part of standard sience asks alternative medicine proof that fits
scientific methods to be able to aborb it and reproduce it and create
patents and
copyrights and make big money out of it as they´ve done with each one and
every standard
scientific knowledge produced so far. The fact that people die by the
millions every year by the lack of access to scientificly produced medicines
and devices doesn´t seem to affect the good health of the paradigm and it´s
business. Nasdaq occassionally does.

Ah, yes, I was wondering how long it would take for the altie conspiracy
theory mongering to pop up. Not long at all.

Quoted message said:

Besides the cause-effect involved in conventional science being funded by
private companies that will eventually own the knowledge produced,

Actually, although it is true that drug companies fund a lot of
translational and clincal science, most BASIC science in this country is
funded by the government or private foundations.

Quoted message said:

the
paradigm has managed to be for some fellows present here like a religious
ritual. Whenever theres no inside or scientific explanation for a curative
phenomenon, it is going to be 1) placebo effect (on animals and babies too,
why not)
label. And the mind ? I like mine narrow, thanks.

Actually, most of us would be amazed if alties could actually
convincingly DOCUMENT the occurrence of a real "curative" phenomenon
that is clearly attributable to one of their "remedies." If they really
had the goods they claim they had (treatments that almost always
"cure"😉, it would not be that difficult, nor would it require that many
patients. But they can't produce even that.

--
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]>,

(David Wright) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Acratæ <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

First impression : most of the standarized medicine blind followers ignore
the limits of their paradigm, by using words as logic, truth, physical and
chemical laws (as if they´d be all there 100% laid in front of us),
and hiding the lack of arguments behind authority quotes.

If you're going to argue that physical laws somehow do not apply to
alt med, you're going to have to supply some convincing evidence.
We'll wait.

Indeed. If an altie (like Hulda Clark) claims that all cancer is caused
by a fluke and that her remedy cures cancer by killing the fluke that
causes it, that's a fairly simple hypothesis to test and provide
evidence for. But, like most alties, she never does. She expects us to
take her word for it and her advocates, when challenged, opt instead to
play the victim and claim that "eevvvill" conventional medicine is
"persecuting" her .

[Snip]

--
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]>,

Acratæ said:

Quoted message said:

If you're going to argue that physical laws somehow do not apply to
alt med, you're going to have to supply some convincing evidence.
We'll wait.

No, I just said that not all of the physical and chemical laws are known,
therefore still unknown laws can apply too. New laws being find by
contradictions to old laws every day, you could say you cannot discard 100%
anything, from gravity law to the seasonal variation of the kangaroos anus
diameter in southeast Australia, or whatever.

Not all physical laws are known, but if you're going to attribute an
effect to a physical law that is not yet "known," you'd better have
damned good evidence to show that that effect occurs outside of physical
laws as understood thus far. You should also realize that "unknown"
physical laws that are discovered rarely supplant what is already known.
Rather, they complement it. Einstein's Relativity did not supplant
Newton's Laws of Motion, for instance. It simply turned out that
Newton's Laws of Motion were a special case of Relativity that occurs
when velocities are very much lower than the speed of light. They were
an approximation that work very well at the velocities we all deal with
in our daily lives, and relativistic effects only becomes important as
velocities approach a significant fraction of the speed of light.

In the same vein, it is HIGHLY unlikely that any alternative medicine
that worked would invalidate all the biology we know so far. It might
demonstrate a new principle, but it's unlikely to invalidate all of what
we've learned so far. Thus, when an altie claims a remedy works by a
different mechanism than what biology tells us thus far, the burden of
proof is on him to show that mechanism, NOT on conventional science to
prove him wrong.

--
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]>,

Acratæ said:

Quoted message said:

If you're going to argue that physical laws somehow do not apply to
alt med, you're going to have to supply some convincing evidence.
We'll wait.

No, I just said that not all of the physical and chemical laws are

known,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

therefore still unknown laws can apply too. New laws being find by
contradictions to old laws every day, you could say you cannot discard

100%

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

anything, from gravity law to the seasonal variation of the kangaroos

anus

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

diameter in southeast Australia, or whatever.

Not all physical laws are known, but if you're going to attribute an
effect to a physical law that is not yet "known," you'd better have
damned good evidence to show that that effect occurs outside of physical
laws as understood thus far. You should also realize that "unknown"
physical laws that are discovered rarely supplant what is already known.
Rather, they complement it. Einstein's Relativity did not supplant
Newton's Laws of Motion, for instance. It simply turned out that
Newton's Laws of Motion were a special case of Relativity that occurs
when velocities are very much lower than the speed of light. They were
an approximation that work very well at the velocities we all deal with
in our daily lives, and relativistic effects only becomes important as
velocities approach a significant fraction of the speed of light.

In the same vein, it is HIGHLY unlikely that any alternative medicine
that worked would invalidate all the biology we know so far. It might
demonstrate a new principle, but it's unlikely to invalidate all of what
we've learned so far. Thus, when an altie claims a remedy works by a
different mechanism than what biology tells us thus far, the burden of
proof is on him to show that mechanism, NOT on conventional science to
prove him wrong.

Exactly! One of my favorite examples of this is the whole alternative
medicine category of "energy work" like "touch therapy" or Reiki that
propose the existence of a form of energy that is unknown to physics and
cannot be detected or measured by scientific instruments. The quacks who
sell these methods make no effort to prove the existence of such energy.
They just collect from people who are naive enough to believe their claims.

Surely proof of the existence of such energy would earn a researcher a
Nobel prize, and a million bucks from jref as well. The fact is that there
is no such energy. But that doesn't prevent the quacks from conning millions
out of gullible people.

--Rich

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: no arguments no experiences no debate
From: [email hidden] (Mark)
Date: 12/13/2003 11:06 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: no arguments no experiences no debate
From: [email hidden] (Mark)
Date: 12/12/2003 6:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

"Acratæ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
> Hi there,
>
> I am surprised about some bigotry around.

Oh? You've been reading Jan Drew's posts?

Mark, MD

Could have been the pattern of Andrew Kingoff or Richard H Jacobson.

Or Jan Drew

Right.

Funny how you snipped those of the guilty parties.

Then showed us your usual pugnacious tendencies with a few lies throw in.

My truuth comes from the bible, not man made rules, and never once have I
called anyone a liar from any disagreement. That's a repeated lie.

Quoted message said:

Or Jan Drew, who says things like "Jew Boy",

That's a bit worn out, and over blown.

Quoted message said:

Praying to saints comes from Satan"

That's correct. No where at any time have people been instructed to pray to
saints. That's putting saints above God and Jesus and is breaking one of the
10 commandments.

Quoted message said:

But Jan, I guess,
is allowed to say these things because she has the courage of her
convictions and is therefore infallible.

That would be a lie as no one on earth is infalliblle.

Why do you wish to lie? While speaking of the truth??

Quoted message said:

Jan's Truth is *the* truth,
and if anyone disagrees, they are ipso facto liars.

Wrong. It isn't Jan's truth, it's God's.

It appears that pugnacious tendency is causing you to repeat lies.

Best to work on it.

Jan

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

Quoted message said:

. . .a few lies throw in.

That's a repeated lie.

That would be a lie. . .

Why do you wish to lie?

. . .causing you to repeat lies.

$ KaChing $10

In article <[email hidden]>,

Rich Shewmaker said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Acratæ" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, I just said that not all of the physical and chemical laws are

known,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

therefore still unknown laws can apply too. New laws being find by
contradictions to old laws every day, you could say you cannot discard

100%

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

anything, from gravity law to the seasonal variation of the kangaroos

anus

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

diameter in southeast Australia, or whatever.

Not all physical laws are known, but if you're going to attribute an
effect to a physical law that is not yet "known," you'd better have
damned good evidence to show that that effect occurs outside of physical
laws as understood thus far. You should also realize that "unknown"
physical laws that are discovered rarely supplant what is already known.
Rather, they complement it. Einstein's Relativity did not supplant
Newton's Laws of Motion, for instance. It simply turned out that
Newton's Laws of Motion were a special case of Relativity that occurs
when velocities are very much lower than the speed of light. They were
an approximation that works very well at the velocities we all deal with
in our daily lives, and relativistic effects only become important as
velocities approach a significant fraction of the speed of light.

In the same vein, it is HIGHLY unlikely that any alternative medicine
that worked would invalidate all the biology we know so far. It might
demonstrate a new principle, but it's unlikely to invalidate all of what
we've learned so far. Thus, when an altie claims a remedy works by a
different mechanism than what biology tells us thus far, the burden of
proof is on him to show that mechanism, NOT on conventional science to
prove him wrong.

Exactly! One of my favorite examples of this is the whole alternative
medicine category of "energy work" like "touch therapy" or Reiki that
propose the existence of a form of energy that is unknown to physics and
cannot be detected or measured by scientific instruments. The quacks who
sell these methods make no effort to prove the existence of such energy.
They just collect from people who are naive enough to believe their claims.

Surely proof of the existence of such energy would earn a researcher a
Nobel prize, and a million bucks from jref as well. The fact is that there
is no such energy. But that doesn't prevent the quacks from conning millions
out of gullible people.

Indeed. It is the lucrative business of separating the marks from their
money that the they are interested in. They have no interest in actually
doing experiments that might prove that such "energy" exists, because
they know that the experiments would fail to prove the existence of any
such thing. Thus, they rationalize it in a way that sounds convincing to
people without a background in science or the scientific method. Any
true scientist who believed such energy exists would not rest until he
or she could figure out a way to detect it and measure it. And, as you
say, any scientist who could convincingly show the existence of a
radically different form of "energy" heretofore not described would
immediately be a candidate for the Nobel Prize.

--
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:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Acratæ said:

> If you're going to argue that physical laws somehow do not apply to
> alt med, you're going to have to supply some convincing evidence.
> We'll wait.

No, I just said that not all of the physical and chemical laws are

known,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

therefore still unknown laws can apply too. New laws being find by
contradictions to old laws every day, you could say you cannot discard

100%

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

anything, from gravity law to the seasonal variation of the kangaroos

anus

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

diameter in southeast Australia, or whatever.

Not all physical laws are known, but if you're going to attribute an
effect to a physical law that is not yet "known," you'd better have
damned good evidence to show that that effect occurs outside of physical
laws as understood thus far. You should also realize that "unknown"
physical laws that are discovered rarely supplant what is already known.
Rather, they complement it. Einstein's Relativity did not supplant
Newton's Laws of Motion, for instance. It simply turned out that
Newton's Laws of Motion were a special case of Relativity that occurs
when velocities are very much lower than the speed of light. They were
an approximation that work very well at the velocities we all deal with
in our daily lives, and relativistic effects only becomes important as
velocities approach a significant fraction of the speed of light.

In the same vein, it is HIGHLY unlikely that any alternative medicine
that worked would invalidate all the biology we know so far. It might
demonstrate a new principle, but it's unlikely to invalidate all of what
we've learned so far. Thus, when an altie claims a remedy works by a
different mechanism than what biology tells us thus far, the burden of
proof is on him to show that mechanism, NOT on conventional science to
prove him wrong.

Exactly! One of my favorite examples of this is the whole alternative
medicine category of "energy work" like "touch therapy" or Reiki that
propose the existence of a form of energy that is unknown to physics and
cannot be detected or measured by scientific instruments. The quacks who
sell these methods make no effort to prove the existence of such energy.
They just collect from people who are naive enough to believe their

claims.

Quoted message said:

Surely proof of the existence of such energy would earn a researcher a
Nobel prize, and a million bucks from jref as well. The fact is that there
is no such energy. But that doesn't prevent the quacks from conning

millions

Quoted message said:

out of gullible people.

Of course. If the "discoverers" of "cold fusion" had really discovered that,
they would be richer than 10 Bill Gates. Where are they now? (I have no
idea. I looked for them, but they seem to have disappeared.)

"Marciosos5 Probertiosos5" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Acratæ" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> > If you're going to argue that physical laws somehow do not apply

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > alt med, you're going to have to supply some convincing evidence.
> > We'll wait.
>
> No, I just said that not all of the physical and chemical laws are

known,

Quoted message said:

> therefore still unknown laws can apply too. New laws being find by
> contradictions to old laws every day, you could say you cannot

discard

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

100%

Quoted message said:

> anything, from gravity law to the seasonal variation of the

kangaroos

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

anus

Quoted message said:

> diameter in southeast Australia, or whatever.

Not all physical laws are known, but if you're going to attribute an
effect to a physical law that is not yet "known," you'd better have
damned good evidence to show that that effect occurs outside of

physical

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

laws as understood thus far. You should also realize that "unknown"
physical laws that are discovered rarely supplant what is already

known.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Rather, they complement it. Einstein's Relativity did not supplant
Newton's Laws of Motion, for instance. It simply turned out that
Newton's Laws of Motion were a special case of Relativity that occurs
when velocities are very much lower than the speed of light. They were
an approximation that work very well at the velocities we all deal

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in our daily lives, and relativistic effects only becomes important as
velocities approach a significant fraction of the speed of light.

In the same vein, it is HIGHLY unlikely that any alternative medicine
that worked would invalidate all the biology we know so far. It might
demonstrate a new principle, but it's unlikely to invalidate all of

what

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

we've learned so far. Thus, when an altie claims a remedy works by a
different mechanism than what biology tells us thus far, the burden of
proof is on him to show that mechanism, NOT on conventional science to
prove him wrong.

Exactly! One of my favorite examples of this is the whole alternative
medicine category of "energy work" like "touch therapy" or Reiki that
propose the existence of a form of energy that is unknown to physics and
cannot be detected or measured by scientific instruments. The quacks who
sell these methods make no effort to prove the existence of such energy.
They just collect from people who are naive enough to believe their

claims.

Quoted message said:

Surely proof of the existence of such energy would earn a researcher a
Nobel prize, and a million bucks from jref as well. The fact is that

there

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is no such energy. But that doesn't prevent the quacks from conning

millions

Quoted message said:

out of gullible people.

Of course. If the "discoverers" of "cold fusion" had really discovered

that,

Quoted message said:

they would be richer than 10 Bill Gates. Where are they now? (I have no
idea. I looked for them, but they seem to have disappeared.)

Cold Fusion isn't something that can be sold to altie believers as a
therapy. Or perhaps it can. If you find those ex-researchers, perhaps you
can suggest a profitable new career for them.

;o) Rich