3 ms·

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

by 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.

by synnik 16y ago

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.