"Frederick Noronha" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>This sounds better argued, though I'm not willing to buy into the
>science/medicine-can-do-no-wrong logic. The argument by adjective [1]
>continues though ("false" statements, "warped" logic, "falsely"
>claims, besides "tarnish"). Gilbert, I appreciate your approach of
>being critical of the field you are part of. We all need it, and no
>point in being fundamentalist about our (secular) ideologies and
>beliefs.
>
The above blurb contains several types of non-arguments - argument by innuendo,
argument by personal tastes and prejudices (viz. telling us what Noronha does
not buy and what he appreciates), argument by scare quotes, argument by
misplaced and overused word strings (such as science/medicine-can-do-no-wrong
logic), and argument by smear and demonization (e.g. use of words such as
fundamentalist against a person with whom Noronha has a disagreement based on
nothing else but ideology).
Perhaps, Noronha likes adjectives only when they are used by him, and that too
inappropriately, packaged in the same old general knee-jerk reactions,
irrespective of the specifics of any given argument. In the last post he had
used the adjectives fundamentalist and intolerant to refer to the medical
establishment. In the present post he uses fundamentalist and secular. In it he
also refers to the word tarnish as an adjective used by me. In reality it is a
verb that he had introduced in his last post. In addition, he used the noun
corporatisation, a code word invented by people who subscribe to his ideology,
to demonize things and people they don't like.
So if Noronha has a legitimate argument in support of the notion implied by the
rhetorical question that forms the title of this thread, and that of the
Huffington Post article, then we have not seen it yet. All we have from him are
the same old ideologically motivated platitudes and word salads that we have
been seeing for years. For once I would like him to deal with the specifics of
the Ullman article. Tell us why modern medicine is not very scientific, as
opposed to alternative medicine. Tell us how the Ullman article convinces us of
this fact. Substantiate the following personal claims he has made:
"I personally sometimes find the approaches of alternative approaches to health
quite refreshing, and sometimes even helpful"
....Frederick Noronha
"In contrast, the "scientific" and medical establishment can be quite
fundamentalist if not intolerant towards any approach which challenges their
perspective."
....Frederick Noronha
"Gilbert, I appreciate your approach of being critical of the field you are
part of."
....Frederick Noronha
Tell us which approach mounts a genuine challenge to the perspective of the
medical establishment and how. Tell us why only Gilbert's approach and that of
alternative medicine is self-critical, whereas that of modern medicine and
science in general not.
Please show us what a legitimate substantive argument defending your position
looks like.
Cheers,
Santosh
