3 ms·

You asked in another part of the thread why people are downvoting and not engaging. I explained why I downvoted, and why, if I hadn't engaged, that would have b

You asked in another part of the thread why people are downvoting and not engaging. I explained why I downvoted, and why, if I hadn't engaged, that would have been. If you don't want the answer, don't ask the question. Also, I find myself congenitally unable to let anti-scientific behavior go without comment when it comes before me. I don't know enough about CF to know why it works how it works. But I do know enough about science and have enough experience with people with "unique" theories of disease to know that almost always, the prevailing scientific wisdom is less wrong.

DoreenMichele 8y ago
I don't think I asked that. I think someone else commented on the downvotes. I'm just making the observation that you are being incredibly dismissive of me while not actually engaging any of my points. Probably, I shouldn't have replied to such a dismissive position to begin with. The problem being I mostly get dismissive replies that don't take me seriously, so such a policy would have me not talking on HN at all, basically. And I've got no place else to go. HN is the least worst option for trying to find someone to talk with about such subjects, which happen to be a thing my very life basically depends upon. So I'm a tad stuck. I don't know enough about CF to know why it works how it works. But I do know enough about science and have enough experience with people with "unique" theories of disease to know that almost always, the prevailing scientific wisdom is less wrong. This was added after I hit the reply button. The word for this paragraph is "prejudice." You aren't actually qualified to rebut anything I've said, you just assume I'm a nutter because there are a lot of nutters in the world. I refer you to Semmelweis: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
- asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
  > I don't think I asked that. I think someone else commented on the downvotes. My apologies. You thanked someone who had complained about the downvotes, and said, "I wish people would actually engage me . . ." You did not yourself ask why you were getting downvoted. > The word for this paragraph is "prejudice." No, at least in common parlance (and in the dictionary) prejudice requires that the opinion be based on neither reason or actual experience. But my point of view is based on reason. Something like P(wrong | (heterodox scientific claims based on personal anecdotes and internet forums)) = >0.999999, applied to your particular instance of the above. I'm sorry, but there isn't any more efficient approach to people with unsupported heterodox views. The alternative is to treat every remotely plausible theory as equally valid to the scientific consensus, which I surely will not do. And, like you, I refuse to remain silent. > I refer you to Semmelweis: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis If you, like Semmelweis, have a study that shows your methods work in some sort of experimental way, I'd be much more predisposed to accept your positions.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    Racial profiling is a form of prejudice and racism but fits your accepted logic that it's fine to, for example, infer this black guy is more likely to be a criminal because of the color of his skin because statistics support that. Anyway, I don't think this is productive. So I think I'll stop here.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
      > Racial profiling is a form of prejudice and racism but fits your accepted logic that it's fine to, for example, infer this black guy is more likely to be a criminal because of the color of his skin because statistics support that. We don't do that not because it's irrational [1], but because of the ethical viewpoint that everyone should get a fair shake, regardless of the statistical background of their racial group (or other protected class). Having heterodox scientific views based on anecdata is not a protected class. [1]: Although it is also irrational, or at least less rational than it appears on the surface. Here is not the place to get into why.
      - DoreenMichele 8y ago
        I'm not claiming to be a protected class. I'm merely frustrated at the preponderance of people on the internet who are unqualified to rebut what I'm saying because they don't have sufficient knowledge of the topic, yet are trigger happy about concluding that I'm both wrong and mentally unstable. My only desire is to be able to engage in meaningful discussion on the topic. Dismissing me as a nutcase when you aren't qualified to engage any of my points is malicious behavior that makes it harder for me to get other people to engage me. I'm not asking anyone to have faith and believe in me like I'm the next Joan of Arc. I just want to be able to talk about the science behind my health situation in spite of the tremendous social faux pas I have committed of getting healthier instead of politely dropping dead like the world expected me to.
        asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
        > preponderance of people on the internet who are unqualified to rebut what I'm saying Let's make a deal. You don't say things you're unqualified to say (by this I mean anything that implies that your anecdotal experience has significant weight for persons other than yourself where it is in conflict with actual scientific studies and understanding of an important medical subject), and I won't give unqualified rebuttals to them. > My only desire is to be able to engage in meaningful discussion on the topic. IMO, this is not the place for meaningful discussion about your heterodox scientific theories. I believe those types of theories are best discussed with experts on the subject, which we are not. I believe it is actively harmful for you to be putting them forward in a place where nonexperts might engage with them and themselves come away with incorrect views. That is why I am replying to your comments in this way. This is a point of disagreement and conflict between you and me. I'm sorry that this conflict makes you feel bad, but I'm not sorry for my views themselves. Of course, I'm not the boss here. You can (and do) write whatever you want. I'm just sharing my views on the appropriateness and correctness of what you've posted.
darkerside 8y ago
Yeah that was me. And I think you're totally blind to the way that scientific studies only provide additional proof to things that we think we know intuitively. Where do you think a hypothesis comes from? Observation. Also, the amount of science that gets turned over due to conflation for example. A disease looked like one thing but turned out to be many things that looked similar (cancer). Science is constantly evolving, it's never fixed and finished. Please don't use existing science as a weapon to beat others over the head. Also, applying your personal observations about people being right and wrong to someone you don't even know. Doctors and scientists aren't a priest class, they've just learned and had more experience than most, and typically only in their own specialties. They are often wrong, being human. And the best ones admit that there is a LOT they don't know. Also, assuming you know much, or anything, about a topic you probably don't. Don't you think GP has spent more time than your cursory Google search? That you'd act otherwise is illuminating. What exactly do you think qualifies you to disagree here? OP is providing anecdotes, but you're providing... nothing. Regardless of any of the above, please don't dismiss other people's experiences just because they fall outside some canonical realm (and I'm sorry if this sounds hypocritical after a somewhat rude post) because that's how science turns into religion.

DoreenMichele 8y ago

I don't think I asked that. I think someone else commented on the downvotes. I'm just making the observation that you are being incredibly dismissive of me while not actually engaging any of my points. Probably, I shouldn't have replied to such a dismissive position to begin with. The problem being I mostly get dismissive replies that don't take me seriously, so such a policy would have me not talking on HN at all, basically. And I've got no place else to go. HN is the least worst option for trying to find someone to talk with about such subjects, which happen to be a thing my very life basically depends upon. So I'm a tad stuck. I don't know enough about CF to know why it works how it works. But I do know enough about science and have enough experience with people with "unique" theories of disease to know that almost always, the prevailing scientific wisdom is less wrong. This was added after I hit the reply button. The word for this paragraph is "prejudice." You aren't actually qualified to rebut anything I've said, you just assume I'm a nutter because there are a lot of nutters in the world. I refer you to Semmelweis: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
> I don't think I asked that. I think someone else commented on the downvotes. My apologies. You thanked someone who had complained about the downvotes, and said, "I wish people would actually engage me . . ." You did not yourself ask why you were getting downvoted. > The word for this paragraph is "prejudice." No, at least in common parlance (and in the dictionary) prejudice requires that the opinion be based on neither reason or actual experience. But my point of view is based on reason. Something like P(wrong | (heterodox scientific claims based on personal anecdotes and internet forums)) = >0.999999, applied to your particular instance of the above. I'm sorry, but there isn't any more efficient approach to people with unsupported heterodox views. The alternative is to treat every remotely plausible theory as equally valid to the scientific consensus, which I surely will not do. And, like you, I refuse to remain silent. > I refer you to Semmelweis: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis If you, like Semmelweis, have a study that shows your methods work in some sort of experimental way, I'd be much more predisposed to accept your positions.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  Racial profiling is a form of prejudice and racism but fits your accepted logic that it's fine to, for example, infer this black guy is more likely to be a criminal because of the color of his skin because statistics support that. Anyway, I don't think this is productive. So I think I'll stop here.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
    > Racial profiling is a form of prejudice and racism but fits your accepted logic that it's fine to, for example, infer this black guy is more likely to be a criminal because of the color of his skin because statistics support that. We don't do that not because it's irrational [1], but because of the ethical viewpoint that everyone should get a fair shake, regardless of the statistical background of their racial group (or other protected class). Having heterodox scientific views based on anecdata is not a protected class. [1]: Although it is also irrational, or at least less rational than it appears on the surface. Here is not the place to get into why.
    - DoreenMichele 8y ago
      I'm not claiming to be a protected class. I'm merely frustrated at the preponderance of people on the internet who are unqualified to rebut what I'm saying because they don't have sufficient knowledge of the topic, yet are trigger happy about concluding that I'm both wrong and mentally unstable. My only desire is to be able to engage in meaningful discussion on the topic. Dismissing me as a nutcase when you aren't qualified to engage any of my points is malicious behavior that makes it harder for me to get other people to engage me. I'm not asking anyone to have faith and believe in me like I'm the next Joan of Arc. I just want to be able to talk about the science behind my health situation in spite of the tremendous social faux pas I have committed of getting healthier instead of politely dropping dead like the world expected me to.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
        > preponderance of people on the internet who are unqualified to rebut what I'm saying Let's make a deal. You don't say things you're unqualified to say (by this I mean anything that implies that your anecdotal experience has significant weight for persons other than yourself where it is in conflict with actual scientific studies and understanding of an important medical subject), and I won't give unqualified rebuttals to them. > My only desire is to be able to engage in meaningful discussion on the topic. IMO, this is not the place for meaningful discussion about your heterodox scientific theories. I believe those types of theories are best discussed with experts on the subject, which we are not. I believe it is actively harmful for you to be putting them forward in a place where nonexperts might engage with them and themselves come away with incorrect views. That is why I am replying to your comments in this way. This is a point of disagreement and conflict between you and me. I'm sorry that this conflict makes you feel bad, but I'm not sorry for my views themselves. Of course, I'm not the boss here. You can (and do) write whatever you want. I'm just sharing my views on the appropriateness and correctness of what you've posted.

darkerside 8y ago

Yeah that was me. And I think you're totally blind to the way that scientific studies only provide additional proof to things that we think we know intuitively. Where do you think a hypothesis comes from? Observation. Also, the amount of science that gets turned over due to conflation for example. A disease looked like one thing but turned out to be many things that looked similar (cancer). Science is constantly evolving, it's never fixed and finished. Please don't use existing science as a weapon to beat others over the head. Also, applying your personal observations about people being right and wrong to someone you don't even know. Doctors and scientists aren't a priest class, they've just learned and had more experience than most, and typically only in their own specialties. They are often wrong, being human. And the best ones admit that there is a LOT they don't know. Also, assuming you know much, or anything, about a topic you probably don't. Don't you think GP has spent more time than your cursory Google search? That you'd act otherwise is illuminating. What exactly do you think qualifies you to disagree here? OP is providing anecdotes, but you're providing... nothing. Regardless of any of the above, please don't dismiss other people's experiences just because they fall outside some canonical realm (and I'm sorry if this sounds hypocritical after a somewhat rude post) because that's how science turns into religion.