Author Topic: Episode #611  (Read 2416 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline phooey

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 265
Re: Episode #611
« Reply #60 on: April 13, 2017, 12:33:43 AM »
Right right, I get your lines.  I have read some skeptic handbooks that were smuggled out to me once by a guy dressed as Jubnuk at a Star Wars convention. 

It said it right there, in Chapter 4 on Deflecting:

Try:

"He is not an expert because..."  "He is not part of the consensus, so his words don't count..." "He must be religious"

If all this fails try: "Its in the literature."

I get it, I get it. 

Offline estockly

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5026
Re: Episode #611
« Reply #61 on: April 13, 2017, 09:38:26 AM »
Obviously you get nothing. Deflection includes failing to answer direct questions.


Your mileage may vary.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.


"Well, sometimes the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't." -- Chief Dan George, "Little Big Man"

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4360
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Episode #611
« Reply #62 on: April 13, 2017, 10:04:01 AM »
So Phooey's thesis seems to be that nobody can really know what the science says because if you're not an expert you cannot read the papers, and so none of us can possibly know who to listen to. At the same time he claims to be able to analyze the data better than, say, Dr. Novella. So he (Phooey) can pick whatever side of an argument he likes (for example, that vaccines are bad) and if he can find one pediatrician who agrees with him, then his view is as legitimate as ours. This is very much like the people who insist that science is "just a belief system" and that their belief system is equally valid. This would really be a fine joke if there were not so many children dying of measles and other vaccine-preventable diseases because their parents have listened to bat-shit-crazy fearmongers.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline AtheistApotheosis

  • Doesn't Panic
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: Episode #611
« Reply #63 on: April 14, 2017, 11:53:44 AM »
...
Now that Chiropractic Quackery can go legit, my ambition to become a science based sorcerer/homoeopath/warlock/witch doctor? what doctor? doctor who? oh that doctor, may not be so impossible/implausible/unlikely/not a chance/Buckley's/ridiculous after all. The Latinist said "I can see chiropractors eventually becoming science-based physical therapists" I assume that means not calling themselves chiropractors any more. If I give up golf and take up tennis should I continue to consider myself a golfer? in my case, probably. I can see someone being a physical therapist and a chiropractor with some overlap between the two. But there comes a point where you've removed all of the woo and become a chiropractor in name only, but really a physical therapist.
...

I gather that the notion would be to re-define the term "chiropractor" to mean a physical therapist who specializes in the spine and back. You'd still be a chiropractor, but you'd have tossed out the woo. Just as we still use the term "doctor" for people who no longer bleed you to restore balance to your humors.

Would I be a spiritualist if I tossed out the spirit? I'm not sure you could redefine the term astrologer to mean someone who does not predict the future via the positions of stars and planets without confusing a lot of people. My mechanic calls himself a car doctor. Doctor is a non-specific title that covers a wide range of disciplines. Chiropractor is a bit more specific. And you run the risk of legitimising the quacks. If what you are doing is not chiropractic, you are not a chiropractor not matter what it says on the door.

Offline AtheistApotheosis

  • Doesn't Panic
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: Episode #611
« Reply #64 on: April 15, 2017, 01:40:02 AM »
... Like for instance when a pediatrician says they have concerns about childhood vaccines, that is pseudo-science, but when Steven claims they are perfectly safe, oh well, he is a doctor, so he must know...Or even when Cara says so, because, ..well, she is a skeptic. 

No, it's about the evidence. It's all about the evidence. What distinguishes science from pseudoscience is not the conclusion or whether any given person agrees or disagrees. It's the evidence. Scientists are people who draw their conclusions from the evidence. Pseudoscientists are people who first decide on their conclusions, and then look for whatever they can twist to fit their conclusions.

Nobody here would say that Cara is right because she's a skeptic, or that Steve is right because he's a doctor. Cara and Steve are people who form their conclusions based on evidence. Anti-vaxxers are people who listen to fear-mongers and reject the evidence in favor of their irrational fears.

The only point I disagree with is "It's the evidence". Steve often says "it's the process of science" which is why he uses the term "science based medicine" as opposed to "evidence based medicine". Cara and Steve are people who form their conclusions based on prevailing scientific opinion and are subject to change. There wouldn't be much of a podcast if they weren't.