General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsScientific American: Bash Homeopathy and Bigfoot Less, Mammograms and War More
I’m a science journalist. I don’t celebrate science, I criticize it, because science needs critics more than cheerleaders. I point out gaps between scientific hype and reality. That keeps me busy, because, as you know, most peer-reviewed scientific claims are wrong.
So I’m a skeptic, but with a small S, not capital S. I don’t belong to skeptical societies. I don’t hang out with people who self-identify as capital-S Skeptics. Or Atheists. Or Rationalists.
“The Science Delusion” is common among Capital-S Skeptics. You don’t apply your skepticism equally. You are extremely critical of belief in God, ghosts, heaven, ESP, astrology, homeopathy and Bigfoot. You also attack disbelief in global warming, vaccines and genetically modified food.
These beliefs and disbeliefs deserve criticism, but they are what I call “soft targets.” That’s because, for the most part, you’re bashing people outside your tribe, who ignore you. You end up preaching to the converted.
Meanwhile, you neglect what I call hard targets. These are dubious and even harmful claims promoted by major scientists and institutions. In the rest of this talk, I’ll give you examples of hard targets from physics, medicine and biology. I’ll wrap up with a rant about war, the hardest target of all.
In the words of Charles Eisenstein, with whom I fully agree on this subject:
"You might find it a bit jarring that he brings war into the same conversation as unnecessary medical screenings. One might accuse him of trying to smuggle a political message into a speech about science. It seems inappropriate, but it is not. The cadre that call themselves skeptics, atheists, or rationalists act to enforce orthodoxy of all kinds; they are a kind of intellectual paramilitary goon squad that roots out subversion and enforces dominant paradigms. It is therefore unsurprising that, as Horgan describes, they celebrate the deep-roots theory of war. That theory basically says that group violence is a fundamental part of human nature; therefore it justifies the security state and a geopolitical stance in which we must ceaselessly protect ourselves from each other."
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
longship
(40,416 posts)Let's start with PZ Myers:
I should have warned John Horgan
What Horgan did was point out that there are a lot of things to be skeptical about, and skeptics have a peculiar fondness for picking the easiest targets, especially targets that are safely outside the mainstream. He points out that there is a lot of troubling nonsense spouted by establishment figures, for instance this recent babbling about the universe being a simulation, or that the politics of health care in the US are totally screwed up.
Another bug-a-boo is bad science reporting in the popular press, which is often gladly adopted by the skeptics. There are a lot of skeptics who think explaining behavior with genetic hardwiring is good science.
More at link
And Steve Novella chimes in: Joe Horgan is Skeptical of Skeptics
This past weekend at NECSS 2016 we invited science journalist John Horgan to give a talk on “Skepticism: Hard Versus Soft Targets.” We’re always game for some critical introspection. It keeps things interesting if nothing else.
Unfortunately the talk, which he has now published on Scientific American’s website (which means it’s fair game), was more than a bit disappointing – not because he was critical, but because he does not seem to get skepticism with a small or a big “S.” The result was a string of cherry picked strawmen.
He begins:
“I hate preaching to the converted. If you were Buddhists, I’d bash Buddhism. But you’re skeptics, so I have to bash skepticism.”
That makes you a contrarian, not a skeptic. How about telling it like it is? Most ideas and movements are a mix of good and bad, and it often takes some effort and nuance to tease this apart. Or, you can just “bash” an entire philosophy simplistically because you fancy yourself an independent thinker. There is also nothing wrong with “preaching” to the choir – it’s not about conversion, but education.
He continues:
I’m a science journalist. I don’t celebrate science, I criticize it, because science needs critics more than cheerleaders. I point out gaps between scientific hype and reality. That keeps me busy, because, as you know, most peer-reviewed scientific claims are wrong.
Keep in mind, he titled the written version of his talk, “Dear “Skeptics,” Bash Homeopathy and Bigfoot Less, Mammograms and War More.” He is explicitly addressing skeptics and telling us what to do. When you do something like this, with all its presumption, be sure to know what you are talking about.
More at link
As Horgan was speaking at Novella's conference, his commentary might be taken into consideration.
Interesting. Two different takes.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)I am rather a fan boy of both of them. But as both will say, criticism is allowed.
My best to you.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)
Deadshot
(384 posts)
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Hogan makes some very salient points and what I consider to be a generally fair criticism of the skeptical movement, but homeopathy and related quackery constitute a multibillion dollar industry that, under the best of circumstances, defrauds people. Under the worst circumstances, people die.
Hogan makes the mistake of thinking that when skeptics criticize the quacks promoting this crap that they're speaking for the benefit of those who already believe in it, and that's largely not the case. They're speaking to the undecided.
I think PZ's criticisms are more on target.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Last edited Wed May 18, 2016, 03:56 PM - Edit history (1)
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/05/18/john-horgan-is-skeptical-of-skeptics-or-homeopathy-and-bigfoot-versus-the-quest-for-world-peace/I do find some of the stuff Horgan said a bit puzzling. SBM certainly covers mammography issues big time. And I think Gorski's take on the world peace issue is quite on the spot.
longship
(40,416 posts)So mammography is in, how can one say it, the center of his expertise.
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)He posts under Orac and SoCalGal - shill for big pharma!!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And he is no troll. Take a long look in the mirror.
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Of course, you are showing us that all you have to offer is ad hominem silliness. As usual, you can't offer any actual rebuttal to what Gorski wrote, so what would you say you were doing there?
Response to HuckleB (Reply #81)
HuckleB This message was self-deleted by its author.
longship
(40,416 posts)Poor Horgan. The bruises must be sore.
Black and blue he is.
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)Yea - a doctor who posts as a Southern California girl has some big problems.
longship
(40,416 posts)He blogs as ORAC, on his personal Blog and under his real name on the Science Based Medicine Blog.
Response to GliderGuider (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
All of that.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Having been on the receiving end of such skepticism more than once (over such things as the atheist apostasy of my move from strong atheism to Advaita Vedanta, and my willingness to consider monistic idealism to be a useful worldview coexistent with materialism) I did occasionally feel that I was being gooned up on by squads of ideological hard-liners. Fortunately I stopped giving a fuck just in time.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Yeah, that's about where I've come down. I stopped trying to characterize it.
I think most of what we know is in our heads.
The points he makes, most of them, have annoyed me for some time now, like string theory, which is quite interesting in its way, but is clearly not empirical. But I don't think most of its practitioners think it is or care that much. Since you can't go there, you might as well speculate.
Dark matter & dark energy look an awful lot like fudge factors to me. But interesting.
But I'm OK with that, "science" has always been like that. We do get wrapped up in our ideas, it's not such a bad thing.
I think we are here to play, as some guy said, and a lot of censoriousness is mistaken, does more harm than good, and I do think people who claim to be scientists as public intellectuals have a duty to speak up and not sell out.
Orrex
(63,216 posts)It can be restated (and many times has been) as "skeptics aren't really skeptics because they aren't really skeptics of skepticism." Ho hum.
As reductionist word games go, it's no more pernicious than most postmodernist gobbledygook, but it's also chock full of the same old "jackboot" imagery that's been making the rounds for decades.
Based on prior conversations, I suspect that someone will now feel the urge to scold me for my fear or for my dogmatic thinking or the like. Again, ho hum.
I don't find monistic idealism to be any more satisfying or illuminating than any other spiritualist belief system, but it seems harmless enough that I'm not inclined to goon anyone over it.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)Wow, that is the pot calling the kettle black and complaining that the pots are just Not black enough.
Are skeptics skeptical enough of their own skepticism?
Now I'm skeptical about skeptics.
Oneironaut
(5,504 posts)Yes, I know "war is dangerous too!" Too bad this is a false dilemma fallacy (and two unrelated topics).
Is it ok if people are told that a homeopathic cancer treatment treats cancer, and is a 100% viable alternative to chemotherapy?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)The most shocking revelation of her report is that iatrogentic damage (defined as a state of ill health or adverse effect resulting from medical treatment) is the third leading cause of death in the U.S., after heart disease and cancer.
This means that doctors and hospitals are responsible for more deaths each year than cerebrovascular disease, chronic respiratory diseases, accidents, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease and pneumonia.
The combined effect of errors and adverse effects that occur because of iatrogenic damage includes:
- 12,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery
- 7,000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals
- 20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals
- 80,000 deaths/year from nosocomial infections in hospitals
- 106,000 deaths a year from nonerror, adverse effects of medications
Starfield and her colleagues performed an analysis which ... concluded that between 4% and 18% of consecutive patients experience adverse effects in outpatient settings.
Are there comparable figures for deaths due to patients choosing homeopathy or chiropractic?
Oneironaut
(5,504 posts)Healthcare is terrible in this country. Even "approved" medicine can be dangerous, with some having a mile-long list of potential side effects.
That doesn't mean, however, that water pills should be considered as a viable alternative to treating diseases like cancer. It just means that we need to find new ways to treat illnesses.
If an alternative form of medicine can't be shown to have effective results against a disease using the scientific method, then it's useless. It's not one or the other - something has to work to actually be useful as medicine.
Your last sentence doesn't address the issue, as alternative medicine (generally) doesn't hurt people. That's not even being argued. What's bring argued is whether or not it actually works. I'm not talking about rubbing aloe on a burn, for example. I'm talking about snake oil peddlers who have people convinced that chemotherapy is an evil plot by big pharma, and they should take water pills instead. That's a dangerous form of quackery.
Imo, good alternative treatments - Yoga, massage, meditation, chiropractic (in some instances, if the benefit can be proven)
Bad - Homeopathic pills, natural oils with no scientific proof of efficacy, prayer, chiropractic (claims of curing cancer and other unrelated diseases with no proof, Chinese medicine, superstition, etc.)
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)If you want to claim risk management, you have to be able to justify it on the basis of quantified risk.
If you don't have that fundamental in place, you're involved in an ideological exercise of some sort.
The same goes for anyone who is trying to suppress one social practice in favour of another.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)go ahead and take all the "home remedies" and "natural cures" you want. If you are feeling mildly down in the dumps, this is fine, for its likely to cause little if any harm.
But if you are seriously ill, go to a doctor, you chances for survival go up when you do. Of course, that's your choice. However, a few stipulations. First, its your funeral, particularly if its a rather serious illness, and allowing people to have the choice should NOT extend to their children or public health in general.
You want to kill yourself through medical neglect, that's fine, don't endanger others, so if you want to not have your kids treated the same way, you should be prosecuted for neglect, and your children should be(the survivors anyways) taken away from you. Same for vaccination, you refuse to have your children vaccinated for ideological reasons, then either move to an isolated island away from everyone else, or vaccinate your damn kids!
I will also say that the people who profit off of the fraud that is the alternative "medicine" industry should be prosecuted for such, so many people and companies barely claiming "not cures" to skirt around the law that is far too weak in this regard. False advertisement, false claims, and practically no regulation of this industry. Its a travesty.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Pediatrics
March 2016, VOLUME 137 / ISSUE 3
Childhood Vaccine Exemption Policy: The Case for a Less Restrictive Alternative
Douglas J. Opel, Matthew P. Kronman, Douglas S. Diekema, Edgar K. Marcuse, Jeffrey S. Duchin, Eric Kodish
Abbreviations: MV — measles vaccine, NME — nonmedical exemption, VPD — vaccine-preventable disease
Efforts to restrict parents’ ability to exempt children from receiving vaccinations required for school entry have recently reached a pinnacle. The American Medical Association voiced support for eliminating nonmedical exemptions (NMEs) from school vaccine requirements,1 and California enacted legislation doing so.2 Although laudable in their objective, policies eliminating NMEs from all vaccines are scientifically and ethically problematic. In the present article, we argue for an exemption policy that eliminates NMEs just for the measles vaccine (MV) and is pursued only after other less restrictive approaches have been implemented and deemed unsuccessful.
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-4230
PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26993127
Published By American Academy of Pediatrics
Print ISSN 0031-4005
Online ISSN 1098-4275
Copyright © 2016 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
Author Information: Douglas J. Opel, MD, MPHa,b, Matthew P. Kronman, MD, MSCEb, Douglas S. Diekema, MD, MPHa,b,c, Edgar K. Marcuse, MD, MPHb, Jeffrey S. Duchin, MDd,e,f, and Eric Kodish, MDg
aTreuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, and
bDepartments of Pediatrics and
dMedicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington;
cDepartments of Health Services and
eEpidemiology, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington;
fCommunicable Disease Epidemiology and Immunization Section, Public Health–Seattle and King County, Seattle, Washington; and
gDepartment of Bioethics, Center for Ethics, Humanities and Spiritual Care, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
Dr Opel conceptualized and designed the study and drafted the initial manuscript; and Drs Kronman, Diekema, Marcuse, Duchin, and Kodish reviewed and revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Orrex
(63,216 posts)Well, here's the risk management:
Alternative medicine: zero potential to help but significant non-zero potential to result in harm.
Actual medicine: Vast and empirically demonstrated and reproducible potential to help and significant non-zero potential to result in harm.
There is no equivalency. Alternative medicine is for people who are eager to get rid of their money with no demonstrable health benefit.
Alternative medicine as a social practice is fine. Alternative medicine that pretends to be actual, effective medicine in morally indefensible and should absolutely be suppressed.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Or are practitioners OK if they don't pretend to be effective?
What about changing the laws to restrict such specific claims or make them illegal? Like some jurisdictions are proposing to do for vitamins?
Orrex
(63,216 posts)Practitioners of alternative medicine who make claims without empirical support are predatory at least and very possibly fraudulent. Further, if one of their victims foregoes actual medical care due to the bullshit advice foisted on them by an alt-med huckster, then the huckster is culpable if the victim suffers harm as a result.
I defy you to present such a practitioner of alt-med, however
are sold with fraudulent or misleading claims (e.g., "vitamin C fights the common cold" or "vitamin D is an effective anti-cancer treatment" then the huckster should be held accountable.GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)IMO people have a right to do whatever they wish as long as it doesn't harm others. Practitioners have a responsibility not to harm and not to defraud, the same as for any other business person.
My position is that to outlaw a practice - even one that may not help - without objective evidence of harm, is ill-advised. That's why I look at it in terms of risk management rather than "how many people might forego allopathic treatment in favour of quackery." The numbers take it out of the realm of ideological warfare.
Re vitamin restrictions, the have been rumblings in Europe about this. I don't have time to do a thorough search, but here's an article (from an admittedly lousy source) that talks about it.
The regulations will outlaw the sale of 250 vitamins and minerals in Britain, many of which are already banned in other EU countries.
High-dose pills of other substances will also be prohibited, forcing manufacturers to supply them in lower concentrations.
They include vitamin B6, often taken by women to counter stress and pre-menstrual tension, and vitamin C, said to help tackle colds.
The move has sparked fury among those who rely on over-the-counter products to boost their vitamin intake and cope with conditions such as arthritis and PMT.
And opposition peers have vowed to fight the planned restrictions when the regulations are put before the House of Lords today.
Conservative health spokesman Earl Howe accused the Government of caving in to EU demands at the expense of British consumers.
He said: "The right of consumers to exercise choice in buying health foods is to be curtailed drastically, all in the cause of European harmonisation."
Orrex
(63,216 posts)I have absolutely no tolerance for licensed medical practitioners who engage in practices like those I've attributed to alt-med. For instance, prescribing medications for off-label uses when there's no evidence that such uses will be helpful.
It's arguably even worse when medical practitioners do so, because their advice carries the weight of licensed authority.
But I'm not referring to medical advice given in good faith that later turns out to be incorrect; doctors weren't generally prescribing Vioxx while aware of its dangerous side effects, for example. Rather, I mean medical advice given in the absence of (or in defiance of) empirical evidence.
Mammograms are a good (bad) example of this, in that it appears that they may be over-prescribed when not needed. C-Section births and (possibly) excessive episiotomies might also fall in that category. But it's not clear that physicians are recommending these procedures in willful defiance of medical understanding; they may simply be incorrect.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Statins are another one that an issue for me. I've told my primary care physician that I will not teke them under any circumstances, because my research has convinced me that the risk/bemefit ratio in my case is essentially infinite.
Orrex
(63,216 posts)My own doctor suggested statins if I wished to take them, but I declined. I've known a number of people who've suffered complications with little or no benefit, and I'm leery of their potential impact on my own health.
My doctor's quite good, though, and he deferred to my preference without a fuss.
Oneironaut
(5,504 posts)It's why we don't officially sanction magic, alchemy, prayer sessions, and faith healers to treat illnesses. Many social practices and beliefs are irrational and ridiculous. One such example is parents who don't allow their child to get cancer treatments because they believe Jesus will create a miracle and cure their child.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)The replication crisis (or replicability crisis) refers to a methodological crisis in science, in which scientists have found that the results of many scientific experiments are difficult or impossible to replicate on subsequent investigation, either by independent researchers or by the original researchers themselves.[1] Since the reproducibility of experiments is an essential part of the scientific method, this has potentially grave consequences for many fields of science in which significant theories are grounded on experimental work which has now been found to be resistant to replication.
The replication crisis has been particularly widely discussed in the field of psychology (and in particular, social psychology) and in medicine, where a number of efforts have been made to re-investigate classic results, and to attempt to determine both the validity of the results, and, if invalid, the reasons for the failure of replication.
Add to that the influence of detail men on prescribing practices, and we have very good reason to be skeptical of allopathic medicine. Take statins, for example.
Oneironaut
(5,504 posts)That's an all-or-nothing fallacy. The scientific method isn't a perfect method, but it is the best method (at the moment). The fact that there is corruption in the pharmaceutical business doesn't mean that alternative medicine is any more useful than it is now. It just means that we need to clean up corruption in the pharmaceutical industry and verify that results are accurate. This argument does nothing to prove that alternative medicine is useful, as that conclusion is a non-sequitur.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Oneironaut
(5,504 posts)Why would hard to reproduce studies mean that untested / unproven alternative medicine / therapy would be a better option? That's saying "This thing might not work, so let's use this thing that has never proven to work." It's not a good argument for alternative medicine - just that some types of medicine need more research.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)alt.med has no such crisis, by definition. I'm just saying that just using the words "scientific method" should not be expected to bring universal acceptance of all the products of that method.
Oneironaut
(5,504 posts)most of it is universally accepted as bunk. There is no gray area. Homeopathy doesn't need to be studied further, for example, because the science behind it (water has a memory) is complete nonsense.
If homeopathy worked on and off for an indeterminate reason, then replicability might be an issue. However, it just doesn't work. This is just like prayer, healing crystals, and magic. They can't be "replicated" at all, since they don't do anything.
The scientific method is theory and hypothesis-based. Alt. medicine should be held to the same standard. If it can never be replicated and can never be proven effective, then I can safely say it's bunk.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)That renders experimental replication moot - essentially it's irrelevant to the field.
Oneironaut
(5,504 posts)If something can't be replicated, that means that it doesn't have any standards. If it doesn't have any standards, there's no way to know if it's working or not. That renders alt. med useless as a field.
Just because someone believes something works doesn't mean that it does. If that were true, every crackpot field out there would have legitimacy.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)medicine, but is instead fraud.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)Let's look at the same ratio for quackery too.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)People who use a made up terms should not be a part of rational discourse.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I've always been utterly agnostic on alt.med, so I always thought "allopathic" was simply descriptive. Sorry to tingle your sensibilities. 
Orrex
(63,216 posts)Further, your open and explicit hostility to the scientific method further demonstrates that you are far from neutral or agnostic on the matter.
You may self-describe as agnostic, but you directly contradict that label at every turn.
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)Oneironaut
(5,504 posts)See the subthread above where I explain why. Basically, the medical system being flawed doesn't add any legitimacy to alternative med - it's a fallacy.
Iggo
(47,558 posts)Regular bashing makes them soft.
Which is good.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)advocate for less screening.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Others do, for their own reasons.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)And the simple fact is that there is a great deal of unnecessary screening out there, which in fact is not perfectly safe, leads to a lot of overtreatment of things that will never develop into cancer.
I prefer science or evidence as a basis for my health care.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)I will always support screening.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Overscreening has huge consequences (financial, failures of their relationships, a lifetime of stress, the very real health risks of unnecessary treatments) for women who would never have developed cancer.
Nobody's arguing that cancer is an acceptable outcome or women who have it aren't worth trying to save. Statistically the people making that argument have cancer victims up and down their family trees too, many of the strongest advocates for more rational screening and treatment are women who had or have cancer, such as those at Breast Cancer Action.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)mother did, and that is due to early detection. She and I will continue to get early screening even if it means a false positive. I would rather go through hell treatment and still be here for my children than to get a late diagnosis and have to leave them like my mother had to leave me. By the way ovarian cancer is still a very deadly disease because we cannot seem to catch it early enough. Early detection is the key to survival.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)The supposed gains from early detection are almost entirely from catching DCIS (aka "stage zero" abnormalities, of which the clear majority will never become cancer whether they are treated or not.
This is akin to "curing" the common cold by giving anyone with a cough potent antivirals and then declaring victory when most of those coughs don't develop into a cold.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)I have had the privilege of seeing my children grow into adulthood. A privilege my mother didn't have. I am here on this Earth and can hug my children and tell them I love them every day because I cured the common cold by taking an anti-viral. And I would do it again in a heart beat. By the way, I actually did have a false positive on a trans vaginal ultrasound and had an ovary removed that turned out not to be cancerous. That too I would do again in a heart beat as long as it means I can be around for my children.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)The result of the analysis of early screenings is that they are currently doing more harm than good. However, the problem with that is what you allude. Those harmed by having them are probably larger in number, but the consequences of that "harm" is probably smaller than the "harm" to the "few" of not having them.
The real lesson is that we are getting way too many "false positives". i.e. we are detecting things that are not deadly, or even harmful. The result is people being treated with methods that are far from "safe" and leave them damaged. The "cure" is more harmful than the disease. So we need to reduce the number of false positives, not reduce the number of screenings. We need to know way more accurately who the "truly afflicted" are and what they have.
In the mean time we are stuck with a lot of early screenings and people having to take their chances. In your case, it probably worked out for the best. Your bets paid off. In my family we're probably running 50/50, but in my case that still remains to be seen.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)better screening for ovarian cancer. It is still a very deadly disease.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)The semantic point is that we need more "accurate" screenings, because the ones we are doing right now are arguably doing more harm than good. The advice to get more frequent/early screenings needs to be evaluated in the same context as the advice to get various treatments in the response to those screenings. It is fine to get early/frequent screenings if one is ready to be skeptical of their results. Very few are prepared to do that. And medical history is filled with examples of people getting treatments that were doing more harm than good. Opioids, hysterectomies, valium, and anti-biotic abuse are but a few examples of where the "better safe than sorry" attitude has caused serious problems overall.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)demand it. They are taking their sweet time about coming up with something better because they are too busy making money off of it, but there are still times when people are in such excruciating pain that they need and use opiates. My husband had uncontrollable glaucoma that would cause him to vomit. He was on opiates under the care of a pain management specialist until they made the decision that there just was no saving the eye and had the eye removed. Then the pain management specialist helped him decrease his dosage until he was off of them entirely. I can't imagine the horror he would have gone through if opiates were not available to him during that period of time.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I can't help notice the huge profits being generated by cancer treatment centers and wondering how much of this is affecting the treatment options being presented to folks who get screenings with "positive" results. The harm being done from them may be as much connected to an ingrained desire to conduct cancer treatments, as it is in any knowledge that they will do any good or harm.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)drugs they know their patients can't afford when there are other options available that are just as effective at a lower price. I hope we see more of that and I hope we will see more people fighting for Medicare for All. I am at high risk for cancer and am just as afraid of the bills as I am of the cancer. I certainly don't want to leave a bunch of medical debt for my family if I ever do get and pass away from cancer.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I've got a "Cadillac" plan and I had one PET scan and my out of pocket was $2700. I lay there thinking of all the folks I knew for whom that would be an unachievable cost.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)My concern is that your other comments suggest a real misunderstanding of the risks, which is appalling in somebody who had major surgery entirely to address future risk.
Generally doctors and "awareness" charities (Komen, etc) have done a terrible job of educating women about the risks and how to deal with them. I also dislike that screenings that have real benefits (genetic tests for high risk populations) or that are at least risk free (breast ultrasound) are hard to get while screenings of limited utility and significant risk (mammograms) are synonymous with care for women.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Digital mammograms and breast ultrasound are better than traditional mammograms and should be used more.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Conventional wisdom needs to be challenged by skeptics.
There are a lot of topics organized skepticism avoids: economics (largely because some of the "Big Skeptics" are libertarian assholes and Ayn Rand acolytes), sexism (too many Gamer Gate assholes and MRAs and serial sexual harassers - including Michael Shermer, who is both an Ayn Rand acolyte AND sexual harasser), politics in general (which I cut them some slack on because it causes so many headaches to try to reason with conservatives), etc.
The Science-Based Medicine blog does a good job with medical issues, as well as the GMO hysteria and other bugaboos of progressives.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)50s-60s paradigm where you just had to do a little more highschool education, a little pop science and publicized debunkings, and "irrationalism" would fade away; they then panicked about "the new Dark Ages" when it didn't and doubled down on the tactic--"it's not working because we didn't do it HARD enough!"
the barbarians were at the gates and they were their own students: it's hard to understate the panic that academics were expressing starting 1968--the anti-Vietnam protests, the new wave of sexual liberation, the incipient New Age movement, Afrocentrism were all harbingers of a new era, a swift and brutal end to the postwar consensus and its shiny germfree nuclear-powered future: even scientists were growing beards and pointing out that some things couldn't be managed, that the world was getting poisoned, that the reactors were leaving waste everywhere and not actually profitable, that maybe those natives actually might know something about the local plants: thus the 70s were born
and all the while history's passing them by: SRI caught Randi's honeypots, ball lightning was accepted with a shrug after having been a career-killer for decades, homeopathy turned out to have been rooted in the 1800s' vaccination movement, and eugenicists have infiltrated the defenders of science-as-humanism: they're building up the fortress walls while the foundations crumble--as they always have
Brazil incorporated uMbanda into its HIV fight while Honduran doctors intensified the attacks on Santeros and linked them to the Commies spreading tales of VD--you can guess the result; Germany gets higher vaccination rates by taking a few minutes to address the parents' concerns while Americans panic as usual and demand ever-tougher measures: the mano dura; this "bar the door Sally" mentality is counterproductive, but won't be reversed because the worldview can't be admitted to be wrong, so double down as usual
and note that even he lumps GMO opposition together with AGW denial: heck, it's the Dick Taverne "science roxx!" GMO pushers that give the most credence to warming denial since the language of the "scientific skeptics" fits with his reactionariness
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Thanks!
villager
(26,001 posts)
hunter
(38,318 posts)... and humanity is very very small.
We don't know shit. Let's be kind to one another.
I live and breathe medicine, science, and technology, it's always been my calling, but I don't make it my religion.
Holy crusades against non-believers are annoying.
If anyone wants my advice: vaccinate your children. I got beat up pretty bad by both the mumps and chicken pox before there were vaccines. I also know people who were crippled by polio or had siblings and cousins killed by it.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)cpwm17
(3,829 posts)though many actual skeptics do not.
Issues of war and peace are the biggest failings among skeptics, and a major one at that.
God, ghosts, heaven, ESP, astrology, homeopathy and Bigfoot, global warming, vaccines and genetically modified food are all good issues, but outside of possibly global warming, nothing is more important than war. But many "skeptics are part of the problem. Many love war, when the right kinds of people are being harmed. We are not all created equal, in the minds of the phony skeptics.
I mostly agree with John Horgan, though there is very good scientific reason to believe the Multiverse is real, even though it is currently not testable. String theory is still probably BS.
rug
(82,333 posts)Krauss’s book doesn’t come close to fulfilling the promise of its title, but Dawkins loved it. He writes in the book’s afterword: "If On the Origin of Species was biology's deadliest blow to supernaturalism, we may come to see A Universe From Nothing as the equivalent from cosmology."
Just to be clear: Dawkins is comparing Lawrence Krauss to Charles Darwin. Why would Dawkins say something so foolish? Because he hates religion so much that it impairs his scientific judgment. He succumbs to what you might call “The Science Delusion.”
“The Science Delusion” is common among Capital-S Skeptics. You don’t apply your skepticism equally. You are extremely critical of belief in God, ghosts, heaven, ESP, astrology, homeopathy and Bigfoot. You also attack disbelief in global warming, vaccines and genetically modified food.
Not to mention, "the late, great warmonger Christopher Hitchens."
alarimer
(16,245 posts)But both Dawkins and Krauss, like Hitchens, have some major problems. Dawkins is, quite frankly, as asshole. Especially on Twitter. There is a very large problem in the skeptical movement of sexual harassment, at conventions, and just in general. There have been a number of very public cases of scientists saying or doing things that we would not tolerate in any workplace, for instance, yet Dawkins and Krauss have failed to condemn it and have even gone so far as to support the harassers. Like Michael Shermer, as I mentioned elsewhere.
I personally am done with the "great man" version of science and skepticism; too often it erases the contributions of women and encourages misogynistic behavior.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/markoppenheimer/will-misogyny-bring-down-the-atheist-movement?utm_term=.hx5BJ1YXM#.idqx0vE7K
rug
(82,333 posts)The arsenal is full of weapons with which to critique religion. Mental illness is not one of them.
I agree with you about Dawkins. Krauss is sightly more circumspect.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)and evolution and that the mainstream's just fooling themselves are 1. fundies and 2. "movement" atheists?
rug
(82,333 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)But here's a Methodist joke:
A Baptist man and a Methodist man are peeing off a high bridge. The Baptist remarks, “Gosh, this water is COLD!” The Methodist, after a pause, replies, “Yeah, and DEEP.”
Trump is clearly not a Methodist.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Last edited Wed May 18, 2016, 05:11 PM - Edit history (2)
It's not an issue between us because we don't have kids and are too old to ever have any, so the question is purely academic.
She is an ardent alt.med type with the typical panel of side effects (chemtrails, anti-GMO, aliens etc.) while I tend to be a pragmatic case-by-case kind of guy who doesn't get too worked up about ideological shit or peoples' weird beliefs any more. Besides, I love her more than I loved my own mother, so she gets a lot of slack on irrelevant issues like ionized water and organic vegetables. If having me behave as if I shared her beliefs makes her happy, I'm all on board.
Beliefs just aren't that important to me - I call myself a Pyrrhonian skeptic, which is way out where the buses don't run as far as these kinds of bun-fights are concerned.
I object to GMOs but that's mostly because of my complex-systems background. IMO we don't know enough about what we're messing with, we haven't done enough long-term feeding tests to be sure of the safety, and the Precautionary Principle applies. OTOH, if I want to eat a zucchini I'll eat a fucking zucchini, and not stress over it.
And just so nobody suspects me of being a single-issue anti-GMO fanatic, I also object in similar terms to almost everything human beings do, from Haber-process fertilizers to building cities, our disregard of ecological principles, large-scale energy technology, and frankly most advanced technology since the moldboard plough. The Law of Unintended Consequences and Sevareid's Law are my guiding principles.
I guess my point is that there are bigger things to worry about in life than whether peoples' beliefs are correct. That applies to the beliefs of others as well as my own. A healthy skepticism about everything is crucial.
CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)And this is a good OP. Good for you!
But as you say it does come down to "beliefs". To each his own...so to speak. As American as 'apple pie'. And I would suggest that that is why you have such a fertile environment for making a profit on public health. You will believe anything.
You've already been programmed (since birth) to believe in an outside authority and to never trust your sub-conscious, your intuition, or your common sense. There is a thriving market in identifying, treating and researching disease. And for what....???? Having one of the worst health industries on the planet. Not falling victim to their marketing......on second thought, just accepting that modernmedicineINC. is in it for the money would go along way in changing how you live, as a nation. If that's important to all you 'rugged individualists'.....
.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)That's a fascinating, revealing and deeply disturbing article. The "intellectual goon squad" in action.
Orrex
(63,216 posts)Throwing out buzz-phrases like the "intellectual goon squad" is simply an ad hominem.
You've descended into 100% conventional anti-science tropes so beloved by alt-med quacks and their proponents. You fail--either deliberately or by an error of understanding--to distinguish statements that you dislike from statements that are false. And I note that you (exactly like all other advocates for anti-scientific thinking) spread your propaganda using equipment only made possible by careful and intricate application of the scientific method that you decry. Water-memory didn't build the your computer, and chi doesn't power the internet.
Alt-med doesn't work, and any claim to the contrary is fraudulent. In the past I've been willing to grant that practitioners might sincerely believe that their bullshit really does offer health benefits, but at this point there's simply no excuse for their ignorance.
Disappointing.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)The goon squad is very active on this thread. Anyone who can't recognize (or won't acknowledge it) just might be part of it.
Luckily I'm not here for status, or to avoid disappointing anyone.
Orrex
(63,216 posts)One might indeed "bellow" when one's "ox was gored." However, one might also strongly object when someone posts bullshit and attempts to pass it off as thoughtful critique, as is the case here and in the OP's article. Dismissing such objections as "bellowing" is merely an attempt at deflection.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Behave as you wish.
It's a free world.
Orrex
(63,216 posts)You are indeed free to maintain your ignorance, and it seems clear that you are dead-set on doing so.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Your belief in the primacy of facts (at least in those areas where facts can be discerned) is SOP for most of western civilization, including me.
Orrex
(63,216 posts)I do not "believe" in the primacy of facts; my experience shows me that facts are vastly superior to belief in every measurable way, and I therefore prioritize facts over belief. If belief were shown to be superior, than intellectual honesty would incline me to embrace belief over facts.
It's a mistake to equate "belief" with "acceptance," because the two are fundamentally different. But that's a favorite tactic of postmodernist gobbledygook, so it tends to pop up in these discussions.
Also, "western civilization" is a misnomer in this context, because every civilization ("western" or otherwise) that makes use of any modern technology likewise accepts the superiority of fact.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)That means I strive to suspend all belief, unless I'm personally satisfied that a particular belief is either justified or necessary. That means I hold no blanket beliefs for science, or even about the nature of reality. That includes any a priori belief in (i.e. acceptance of) the superiority of fact. This stance makes conversations like these difficult for me, which is why I don't often engage in them. There's little common ground.
Funny that the ancient Greeks would have been postmodernists, eh?
Orrex
(63,216 posts)And for all his semi-mythical skepticism, I'm sure that Pyrrho ate when he was hungry, slept when he was sleepy, and pooped when he had to poop. Whether or not he felt that one could actually know anything, he was still willing to subordinate that philosophy to the in-your-face demands of living.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I'm agnostic about both alt and white-coat medicine. I'd be interested in finding out what I said that made you think otherwise.
Orrex
(63,216 posts)Last edited Thu May 19, 2016, 01:55 PM - Edit history (2)
Reply #2
Reply #8
Reply #14
etc.
In addition, your off-hand use of "allopathic," an overwhelmingly well-known pejorative, indicates a certain lack of effort regarding your understanding of science and actual medicine. This is entirely consistent with (and frequently observed with) alt-med and pseudoscientific thinking. This in turn indicates that you've embraced the tropes of pseudoscience without seriously considering their meaning.
This is further made clear every time you invoke "the Guardians of Orthodoxy" or the "bellowing" that follows the goring of one's ox. "White-coat medicine" is also a passive-aggressive jab at actual medicine, by the way.
You certainly have given no indication that you view alt-med and actual medicine with equal skepticism, so if you hold yourself to be agnostic, you either need to reconsider what that term means or else re-examine the consistency with which you explore that agnosticism.
Further, you absolutely aren't agnostic about actual medicine, because you're probably vaccinated, you probably wash your hands now and then, you've probably undergone at least one medical procedure, and you probably know at least one person whose life has been saved by actual medicine. In contrast, you don't know anyone whose life has been saved by alt-med, nor does anyone else. If you pretend that actual medicine and alt-med are equally valid, then you're being flatly dishonest with yourself and with anyone who happens to listen.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Skeptics are open with their full story and reasoning. You admitted to me in a PM that you don't prioritize being fully open.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)You realize that your stated objection to GMOs would go much greater for other seed development technologies, right? If so, where are your posts arguing against the other technologies?
GliderGuider:
I actually object in similar terms to almost everything human beings do, from Haber-process fertilizers to building cities, our disregard of ecological principles, large-scale energy technology, and frankly most advanced technology. The Law of Unintended Consequences and Sevareid's Law are my guiding principles. But I don't write about it much on DU, except a bit on E/E, because this isn't an appropriate venue.
HuckleB:
Perhaps you should clarify to people that you object to all seed development technologies, and not just GMOs.
GliderGuider:
If it seems necessary to me, I will. So far it doesn't.
HuckleB:
Then your comment is out of context to others. No one else knows that. They just see it as the usual anti-GMO statement.
GliderGuider:
That doesn't matter to me, because I'm not personally invested in the argument. I don't care about convincing people of my POV. If they want to think of me as another anti-GMO maniac, it makes no difference to me. I think my systems science explanation is enough in that context. If it proves not to be, I'll say something more.
HuckleB:
So I'll know not to bother you again.
After all was said and done, I decided that making a clarification was in order, so I put the following into post #64, which was still fresh at the time:
"And just so nobody suspects me of being a single-issue anti-GMO fanatic, I also object in similar terms to almost everything human beings do, from Haber-process fertilizers to building cities, our disregard of ecological principles, large-scale energy technology, and frankly most advanced technology since the moldboard plough. The Law of Unintended Consequences and Sevareid's Law are my guiding principles."
When all is said and done, the whole issue of GMOs, alt.med and my attitude towards them is a red herring that I have no real interest in discussing, here or anywhere else. The OP was about the opinion of Hodgson that mainstream science doesn't get appropriately skeptical attention, compared to non-mainstream issues. GMOs, vax and homeopathics were simply used as examples to give focus to an argument that was very general in scope.
My interest (as expressed through my choice of OP) is how belief systems drive social attitudes and behaviours towards orthodox and unorthodox fields. Which of course has morphed into a very interesting demonstration of those behaviours in action. For which I wish to thank all participants.
Next time, in order to avoid distractions I'll make more of an effort to keep the discussion focused on the topic of the OP.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Stop labeling yourself and others and dig in... The rest is a waste of everyone's time.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Last edited Thu May 19, 2016, 07:30 PM - Edit history (1)
No, I do not participate in my own mugging willingly.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You will go to any length to avoid actual discussion, while pretending to be above the fray. Cut the crap.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)... From your inanities?
The narcissism is rather blatant. You can work harder to hide that.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)This article is a couple of years old, but it bears reposting. Like anything else, an organization made up of human beings is going to have problems. Skeptics are no better or worse than anyone else in this regard. But I think it's a good idea to get their own house in order but recognizing that they have a problem.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/markoppenheimer/will-misogyny-bring-down-the-atheist-movement?utm_term=.hx5BJ1YXM#.idqx0vE7K
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Several people spoke up in 2012, as evidenced with this example, but not much has happened on that front since, as far as I can tell.
http://www.skepticalabyss.com/?p=17
OneGrassRoot
(22,920 posts)Orrex
(63,216 posts)But he's far from the only guilty party. It's an ugly truth that needs to be addressed head-on.
OneGrassRoot
(22,920 posts)glad to see someone else did.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)It has been an "interesting" experience.
drokhole
(1,230 posts)Posts like this keep me checking in on DU, because I wouldn't have caught this article otherwise.
Have been a fan of John Horgan since I stumbled across his book Rational Mysticism: Dispathces From the Border Between Science and Spirituality some time back. I continue to be impressed by his reporting, and willingness to hold the scientific establishment's feet to the fire (whereas a great deal of scientific reporting veers towards an unquestioning, doctored-up press release model). Especially have to give him a massive amount of credit for giving this speech in the belly of the beast. Brave man. And, more than that, it's that sort of fundamental challenging - bringing to light those unstated yet fairly substantional assumptions and false certainties - that science (and any organization/foundation/pursuit, for that matter) is in dire need of to root out its weaknesses and grow stronger/sturdier as a result. Horgan has the courage to explore those domains of error, call them out for what they are, and invite/challenge others to do the same. We need more, not less, of that.
And I like Eisenstein's assessment of the issue of academy giving intellectual cover (and, in effect, justification) for these sort of biases, belief systems, and willful blindspots. I remember listening to a public radio program with an illusionist who said his favorite crowds to perform in front of were academics, because it wasn't that they were necessarily any more or less susceptible to being fooled than other groups - they were just more skilled in (and had a broader/more extensive toolkit for) rationalizing what they believed.
Anyway, great lecture here on the myopia and shortcomings of the "gene for every mean" notion:
Here, a neurologist recounts how she was able to eliminate her debilating headaches only after going outside the model she was force fed in med school and reluctantly giving the Ayurvedic approach a shot (you know, that whack-a-doo, "alt" med method that treats illness through nutritional and lifestyle means):
How to Stay Healthy with Principles of Ayurvedic Medicine
And a recent essay on Aeon that speaks to the failings and trappings of another prevailing scientific model, and more broadly how these models/myths can be more limiting than liberating:
The empty brain
The map, as it were, is not the territory
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)And the rational commentary! 
