4 ms·

So when you said "hard evidence" you meant: Opinion pieces. And some anecdotal evidence of yourself, which could well fall within the parameters of modern medi

by 1stop 11y ago

So when you said "hard evidence" you meant: Opinion pieces. And some anecdotal evidence of yourself, which could well fall within the parameters of modern medicine as well, but you've built a narrative that your "belief" changed this? You don't want people to dismiss it, but you give vague descriptions of what happened, what you did, and what the result was, and why you think they were related. Seriously, if you wanted to be taken seriously, then engage the topic seriously.

tomhoward 11y ago
Ok please... I wasn't, and still am not, seeking to use HN discussion threads to persuade anyone with a strongly held position on medical science to change their position. I was simply backing up others' suggestions that psychology could play a significant role in serious illnesses like cancer, by pointing out that there are prominent figures with mainstream scientific backgrounds (Lipton was a stem cell researcher and medical lecturer at Wisconsin and Stanford; Tanzi is a senior professor of medicine at Harvard) who have written books explaining and documenting some of the science behind this idea and that I and many others find their work persuasive. I wasn't seeking to win any argument with an appeal to authority (though you did, along with a straw man dismissal). I was suggesting some sources of further insight that others may have chosen to pursue if interested. Then in response to your combative reply, I explained that I have personal experience with the topic. Again, not trying to win any arguments with this, just indicating that I have cause to take this issue very seriously and research it very deeply (I've read far more broadly than just Lipton and Tanzi fwiw). But still, in response to your demand for hard evidence I linked to one academic paper on the topic and I linked to more in another (far more polite) comment in the thread. After that discussion I went searching for further journal papers on the topic and found this: http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7015-11-129 http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7... Seriously, I have no dog in any fight other than that I was sick for a long time and now I'm making big strides towards to being very well. And I know there are many people - some I know personally - who are falling through the cracks of the medical system and it's very sad to witness. I don't care much for any wars over the validity of "mainstream" vs "alternative" medicine. I consider most non-mainstream medicine ineffective and most alternative practitioners (including chiros) to be quacks. But as a startup guy I'm comfortable with the idea that the most transformative ideas will often come from the fringes, and may well be sitting there already, just waiting to be explored. The fact that one of this year's Nobel Prize winners for medicine was for a discovery that came from traditional Chinese medicine should serve as an important reminder of that. On the topic at hand: it's uncontroversial that psychology plays a role in the development and healing of physiological illness. The only questions are on the mechanics of how it works, the specifics of how it manifests in particular illnesses, and what techniques may exist or may be developed that could be effective in clinical settings. In all sincerity, if you genuinely care about this topic and want to discuss it further, I'd be most willing to do so. I'd be happy to share more details about my own illness and recovery, and other sources of evidence that I've found useful. You can find my details in my profile. Like I said, I understand the skepticism as I was exactly that way inclined myself not so long ago. But I'm also familiar with the kind of person who is more interested in picking and winning petty battles than learning about a topic through a good-spirited discussion. So I'll finish by saying that while I accept my comments could have been more convincing with links to hard evidence (if convincing was what I'd set out to do), your rhetorical style is not of the kind that helps make HN a productive place to discuss interesting ideas, and thus seems contrary to the spirit of participation we try to cultivate here. That said, I'm still happy to hear from you if you sincerely want to explore the topic further.
- tomhoward 11y ago
  Reflecting further on this... Your comments feature the following fallacies: - appeal to authority - poisoning the well - begging the question - straw man - appeal to common belief - appeal to ridicule Needless to say, it's against the spirit of HN, which seeks to uphold the principle of charity as a means of working together to find the truth in the topic at hand. Nevertheless, as requested I've provided links to evidence to support the point of view I was presenting. I just wish it didn't have involve so much time defending myself against the hostility. On the upside, I've learned more about the topic, I've developed further thoughts about how to help bring about further research, and I've been reminded just how much of a minefield the topic is and how cautious one needs to be around it. So, some good has come of it. But seriously, if you value HN as a place of productive discussion, please bring a spirit of charity and enquiry.

by 1stop 11y ago

tomhoward 11y ago

Ok please... I wasn't, and still am not, seeking to use HN discussion threads to persuade anyone with a strongly held position on medical science to change their position. I was simply backing up others' suggestions that psychology could play a significant role in serious illnesses like cancer, by pointing out that there are prominent figures with mainstream scientific backgrounds (Lipton was a stem cell researcher and medical lecturer at Wisconsin and Stanford; Tanzi is a senior professor of medicine at Harvard) who have written books explaining and documenting some of the science behind this idea and that I and many others find their work persuasive. I wasn't seeking to win any argument with an appeal to authority (though you did, along with a straw man dismissal). I was suggesting some sources of further insight that others may have chosen to pursue if interested. Then in response to your combative reply, I explained that I have personal experience with the topic. Again, not trying to win any arguments with this, just indicating that I have cause to take this issue very seriously and research it very deeply (I've read far more broadly than just Lipton and Tanzi fwiw). But still, in response to your demand for hard evidence I linked to one academic paper on the topic and I linked to more in another (far more polite) comment in the thread. After that discussion I went searching for further journal papers on the topic and found this: http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7015-11-129 http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7... Seriously, I have no dog in any fight other than that I was sick for a long time and now I'm making big strides towards to being very well. And I know there are many people - some I know personally - who are falling through the cracks of the medical system and it's very sad to witness. I don't care much for any wars over the validity of "mainstream" vs "alternative" medicine. I consider most non-mainstream medicine ineffective and most alternative practitioners (including chiros) to be quacks. But as a startup guy I'm comfortable with the idea that the most transformative ideas will often come from the fringes, and may well be sitting there already, just waiting to be explored. The fact that one of this year's Nobel Prize winners for medicine was for a discovery that came from traditional Chinese medicine should serve as an important reminder of that. On the topic at hand: it's uncontroversial that psychology plays a role in the development and healing of physiological illness. The only questions are on the mechanics of how it works, the specifics of how it manifests in particular illnesses, and what techniques may exist or may be developed that could be effective in clinical settings. In all sincerity, if you genuinely care about this topic and want to discuss it further, I'd be most willing to do so. I'd be happy to share more details about my own illness and recovery, and other sources of evidence that I've found useful. You can find my details in my profile. Like I said, I understand the skepticism as I was exactly that way inclined myself not so long ago. But I'm also familiar with the kind of person who is more interested in picking and winning petty battles than learning about a topic through a good-spirited discussion. So I'll finish by saying that while I accept my comments could have been more convincing with links to hard evidence (if convincing was what I'd set out to do), your rhetorical style is not of the kind that helps make HN a productive place to discuss interesting ideas, and thus seems contrary to the spirit of participation we try to cultivate here. That said, I'm still happy to hear from you if you sincerely want to explore the topic further.

tomhoward 11y ago
Reflecting further on this... Your comments feature the following fallacies: - appeal to authority - poisoning the well - begging the question - straw man - appeal to common belief - appeal to ridicule Needless to say, it's against the spirit of HN, which seeks to uphold the principle of charity as a means of working together to find the truth in the topic at hand. Nevertheless, as requested I've provided links to evidence to support the point of view I was presenting. I just wish it didn't have involve so much time defending myself against the hostility. On the upside, I've learned more about the topic, I've developed further thoughts about how to help bring about further research, and I've been reminded just how much of a minefield the topic is and how cautious one needs to be around it. So, some good has come of it. But seriously, if you value HN as a place of productive discussion, please bring a spirit of charity and enquiry.