1. When you referenced Ian's first post, I noted that Slip's post immediately
there after, which was essentially saying the same thing. This is why it was
apropos. Now that I know you were not referencing that post, it no longer is.
2. The point of throwing out a selection of derogatives in regard to an idea is
simply to illustrate that they are acceptable when referring to an idea. None
of them refer to you, and you'll note I've not in any way disparaged you
personally in this exchange. You are a spirited debater, emotionally connected
to the topic, and convicted in your beliefs. Good for you. However, as stated
many times, we attack the idea, not the person, and I don't think there's
anything uncivil about that. If you find my choice of words in describing
concepts or ideas offensive, you'll probably want to skip right over Archytas'
posts. ;-)
3. The only time we ever ask members to moderate themselves is when the attack
moves from the idea to the person. Don't call pot and kettle without checking
specific instances of intervention.
For rebuttal on pseudoscience, see Dawkins, Hitchens, Hawking, and the
previously linked body of work I provided on Neurochemistry for Molly.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
--- Begin Message ---
You're right, it was his second post "Why try to dress this up with
quackery and juju? You simply can't get away
with it any more." Sorry, I couldn't go back to verify my memory of
where I saw it without losing what I had already written. The point is
he said it, and whether he said it in the first of second post seems
trivial to me, although I can see it carries some importance for you
unfortunately.
Regarding the list of phrases you have given me to select from, I
don't really like any of them. You are welcome to take a hard line on
anything you like, since your "opinion" of Molly's "experience" means
very little to me. That does not mean that a conversation cannot be
carried out with civility, as I am being told to do by those who
should follow their own directives.
Slip's statement had nothing to do with Molly's experience from what I
know, as I did not see where she had specifically stated that it was
prayer she had used in her pursuit of improved health. I am sure you
will correct me if I am wrong. I am also sure that I stated that I did
not think she was talking about prayer in another post, whether it was
directed at Slip or not.
Manure is very good for making things grow, but skepticism is likely
stopping you from finding a "nugget" in this issue from my viewpoint.
The statement you make " I don't disagree withe the source data they
are using; I simply disagree with the conclusions they are drawing,
and am in the majority of science minded folks in my conclusions.
Perhaps this will change over time as the discipline of epigenetics
matures." seems to indicate that you have an open mind, but your
previously stated opinions of Molly's claims seem to contradict this.
It would also be helpful if you could include data to support your
claim that the "majority of science minded folks" have come to the
same conclusion as you on this topic.
On Aug 5, 11:44 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Deripsni, Ian said no such thing, and had no such personal intention. You're
> misreading this entire thread, and as such, are reading into his intentions.
> Print it out and take it to the couch if need be. I've quoted Molly's
> statement, and Ian's response twice. Ian's response to Molly's statement was
> his first entry in this thread..."Would you care to qualify this outrageous
> statement?"...which is not even vaguely close in word or meaning to "You
> can't get away with this anymore". Slip Disc also followed up with a similar
> response..."So those that fail to heal through prayer failed because they
> didn't believe?" You seem to have passed over his responses entirely. YOU
> are the one who has the personal intentions here, so much so that you are
> filtering the words being said, and filtering out responses you don't seem
> to care to read (i.e. Slip's) which are similar in nature, but don't fit
> your perspective of what's going on. I've tried to clarify for you twice
> now, and you call it my misunderstanding.
>
> Additionally, we have no problem understanding the "ideas" regarding "The
> Power of Positive Thinking". We've had more "The Secret" and other
> such rubbish, poppycock, bullpatties, cowpies, hokum, snake oil, whatever
> phrase you like, along with quite a few actual uplifting and enlightening
> breakthroughs regarding mind body connection, physics, the unknown, etc,
> etc, etc. We've been round and round with this. We take a hard line on it
> because when it comes to these topics, we've found the fields to be rich in
> manure, wanting in gold. Don't get me wrong, we're still hoping for a
> nugget, but to date, we're still only holding fertilizer.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:10 AM, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Useless, outrageous, and ludicrous are not words typically seen in ME
> > from my experience. Like I said, must be the moon.
>
> > The comment in your first post in this thread, something like "you
> > can't get away with this anymore", seems to indicate resentment to her
> > words on a personal level, and therefore it is hard to equate them to
> > dialogue used in a "reasonable debate". I may be wrong, but my
> > impression is that Molly was being attacked and that is what I am
> > responding to.
>
> > The footnote in my previous post is not mine, but was part of the
> > report, which is why it was included in the quotation marks. Although
> > you are right that this statistic does not carry a lot of weight
> > because it is not compared to the total number of people who die per
> > year, I would hazard a guess that the number of deaths attributed to
> > medical hiccups exceeds the ones that are attributed to people dying
> > because prayer sessions didn't work. It would be interesting to know
> > this.
>
> > Even so, this is not the subject of Molly's post and, from my
> > perspective, some are having a hard time understanding the simple
> > message that she is attempting to deliver, that there is power in
> > positive thinking. I think her words that you "have to believe in it
> > to make it happen" or whatever, threw the nay sayers off the scent.
>
> > On Aug 5, 10:40 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Deripsni,
>
> > > Regarding your statistics -- they're useless.
>
> > > Displaying a series with no reference to population is pointless. Making
> > a
> > > correlation, in this case, with without a measure of frequency, is
> > > impossible. To then make an extrapolation from that series is pure
> > fallacy.
> > > What would be interesting is to compare the annual death-rate across a
> > > number of areas (infection, cardiac, respiratory, autoimmune) by decade
> > to
> > > see if the frequencies are getting better or wose. Maybe some
> > Wolfram|Alpha
> > > analysis can help you? :)
>
> > > Aside from all this, did you read what you copy/pasted?
>
> > > "... highlighting these medical malpractice LAWSUIT statistics"
>
> > > Emphasis added.
>
> > > If your footnote is correct, then the only thing we do know is that the
> > > number of lawsuits is increasing. That says more about American legal
> > > culture than the effectiveness of medical treatment, doesn't it?
>
> > > Ian
>
> > > 2009/8/5 deripsni <[email protected]>
>
> > > > Although I am not suggesting traditional medicine should not be used,
> > > > it is not always safe (Michael Jackson ring a bell?). The following is
> > > > an overveiw of deaths caused per year by malpractice in the USA alone.
> > > > In fact, doesn't this bring up the issue of whether one wants to put
> > > > their "faith" in the medical profession as it is suggested some are
> > > > doing with "quackery and juju"?
>
> > > > "The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) produced an
> > > > article highlighting these medical malpractice lawsuit statistics,
> > > > with regard to patient deaths:
>
> > > > >106,000 patients die each year from the negative effects of medication
>
> > > > >80,000 patients die each year due to complications from infections
> > > > incurred in hospitals
>
> > > > >20,000 deaths per year occur from other hospital errors
>
> > > > >12,000 people die every year as a result of unnecessary surgery
>
> > > > >7,000 medical malpractice deaths per year are attributed to medication
> > > > errors in hospitals
>
> > > > This totals up to 225,000 deaths each year, due to medical negligence
> > > > of some nature. And that number is ever growing."- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
--- End Message ---
