13 ms·

This is following the pattern of many medical advances I have seen in my lifetime: Step 1) Alternative medicine quacks say that they can do something 'impossib

by synnik 16y ago

This is following the pattern of many medical advances I have seen in my lifetime: Step 1) Alternative medicine quacks say that they can do something 'impossible', like regenerate teeth. Step 2) Doctors say that claim is flat out impossible. Step 3) Wait 5-10 years. Step 4) Doctors have a medicine that does the claim from step 1.

bena 16y ago
The problem being is that the people in Step 1 aren't the same in Step 4 and you are misrepresenting the people in Step 2. It's more like: Step 1) Alternative medicine quacks say that their special goop can regenerate teeth. Step 2) Actual researchers, scientists, and doctors investigate the goop and discover it's flour, water, and sugar, with some ginseng thrown in. And that such a combination would never be able to regenerate teeth. Step 3) Inspired by the idea of tooth regenerating goop, people with a knowledge of chemistry, dentistry, and biology work on making a goop that can when combined with the materials commonly found in human mouths will begin to calcify and harden. Step 4) Tooth goop gets announced to public. Step 5) Alternative medicine quacks act like they were the foundational research the led to this advance. Here's something I've heard once: "You know what they call alternative medicine that works? Medicine".
- synnik 16y ago
  I'm honestly surprised at the downvotes here. Even including people who went back to download older comments on totally different threads. Interesitng. In any case, I simply stated the pattern. Everyone else added a value judgment into it, apparently. And no, I did not misrepresent those in Step 2. There is a huge difference between saying, "That is impossible.", and saying, "Interesting idea. Your implementation is wrong, but we will see what we can do with the idea." Most of the time, I see the "impossible" reaction. Of course people in Step 1 and 4 are different. And of course real research is done on it. That is exactly the point. It is the pattern that is interesting, and the talk of who the players are is exactly why it is interesting
  - bena 16y ago
    It is a misrepresentation because doctors aren't saying "that's impossible" they're saying "what you claim your product does is false because for your implementation to work would require impossible reactions". You've misrepresented their position of debunking junk medicine by claiming their position is that the end result is impossible. And you imply (by omission basically) that the people in Steps 1 and 4 are from the same field (junk medicine) which is never the case. You want to attribute this general fuzzy-wuzzy idea concept to junk medicine to validate junk medicine as a whole. However, of course results claimed by junk medicine will be replicated by real medicine later. Junk medicine doesn't have to work. Junk medicine has had baldness cures and impotency cures since forever. Real medicine now actually does have stuff to correct baldness and impotency. That does not mean that junk medicine had anything to do with solving the problems. The best that could be said for junk medicine is that it articulates problems.
    - eru 16y ago
      And most quacks are quite good at listening to their clients. Perhaps because that's all they can do. Most physician are way too busy to spend much time with their patients.
- Psyonic 16y ago
  Good old Tim Minchin (That quote is from Storm, if you don't remember.)
Groxx 16y ago
Step 3.5) selectively reduce sample size by a factor of 1000(0? 00?).
jerf 16y ago
Unless you can show the "alternative medicine quacks" actually doing the "impossible", your point is irrelevant. Is there some wildly successful "alternative" medicine treatment that regrows teeth but has somehow eluded popularity for lo these many thousands of years?

by synnik 16y ago

bena 16y ago

The problem being is that the people in Step 1 aren't the same in Step 4 and you are misrepresenting the people in Step 2. It's more like: Step 1) Alternative medicine quacks say that their special goop can regenerate teeth. Step 2) Actual researchers, scientists, and doctors investigate the goop and discover it's flour, water, and sugar, with some ginseng thrown in. And that such a combination would never be able to regenerate teeth. Step 3) Inspired by the idea of tooth regenerating goop, people with a knowledge of chemistry, dentistry, and biology work on making a goop that can when combined with the materials commonly found in human mouths will begin to calcify and harden. Step 4) Tooth goop gets announced to public. Step 5) Alternative medicine quacks act like they were the foundational research the led to this advance. Here's something I've heard once: "You know what they call alternative medicine that works? Medicine".

synnik 16y ago
I'm honestly surprised at the downvotes here. Even including people who went back to download older comments on totally different threads. Interesitng. In any case, I simply stated the pattern. Everyone else added a value judgment into it, apparently. And no, I did not misrepresent those in Step 2. There is a huge difference between saying, "That is impossible.", and saying, "Interesting idea. Your implementation is wrong, but we will see what we can do with the idea." Most of the time, I see the "impossible" reaction. Of course people in Step 1 and 4 are different. And of course real research is done on it. That is exactly the point. It is the pattern that is interesting, and the talk of who the players are is exactly why it is interesting
- bena 16y ago
  It is a misrepresentation because doctors aren't saying "that's impossible" they're saying "what you claim your product does is false because for your implementation to work would require impossible reactions". You've misrepresented their position of debunking junk medicine by claiming their position is that the end result is impossible. And you imply (by omission basically) that the people in Steps 1 and 4 are from the same field (junk medicine) which is never the case. You want to attribute this general fuzzy-wuzzy idea concept to junk medicine to validate junk medicine as a whole. However, of course results claimed by junk medicine will be replicated by real medicine later. Junk medicine doesn't have to work. Junk medicine has had baldness cures and impotency cures since forever. Real medicine now actually does have stuff to correct baldness and impotency. That does not mean that junk medicine had anything to do with solving the problems. The best that could be said for junk medicine is that it articulates problems.
  - eru 16y ago
    And most quacks are quite good at listening to their clients. Perhaps because that's all they can do. Most physician are way too busy to spend much time with their patients.
Psyonic 16y ago
Good old Tim Minchin (That quote is from Storm, if you don't remember.)

Groxx 16y ago

Step 3.5) selectively reduce sample size by a factor of 1000(0? 00?).

jerf 16y ago

Unless you can show the "alternative medicine quacks" actually doing the "impossible", your point is irrelevant. Is there some wildly successful "alternative" medicine treatment that regrows teeth but has somehow eluded popularity for lo these many thousands of years?