quixotecoyote
Howling to glory I go
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2006
- Messages
- 10,379
Rodney said:
Uh OH, I think
Non-Homeopathic Belladonna
- Thread starter Rodney
- Start date
-
- Tags
- belladonna edgar cayce
Uh OH, I think
Slimething
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 3,790
Yes, a very dumb, obvious trap. Nobody ever acused rodney of reading with comprehension. If he would reread what Linda has posted, it's plainly obvious he's building a straw man. She's already written the answer to that one.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
So *one* guy which was possibly misquoted to hell is enough for you to sqay that the WHOLE science community was saying heavier than air is impossible ? Did you not say SCIENCE book above ? Can't you see the difference ? Furthermore it is eay to misquote. "God does not play with dice" was so often msiquoted that it ain't funny.
ETA: in another quote on that site lord Kelvin says something along the line that radio has no future. Which is IMHO quite a demopnstration that ANYWAY mr Kelvin was not only out of his expertise but also a man of very limited imagination in my humble opinion, or simply due to its his age, quite resistant to change (he was 70+).
Last edited:
Well, if it turns out that an alternative treatment is better, then it becomes part of conventional, evidence-based treatment. I think what you are getting at is that there may be treatments that are currently classed as "alternative" on the basis of lack of evidence, that are actually effective (even more effective than current conventional treatments)? I would assume that that is probably true, especially since "alternative" includes herbal medicines. Since many of our medicines came from studying herbal medicines, it's reasonable to think that we will continue to find some of these effective for particular conditions.
"Alternative" is too much of a hodge-podge to really be able to make blanket statements about likelihood. It includes treatments with a lot of specific evidence against effectiveness, treatments (like herbals) with promise but where further research is needed to work out the details, and treatments that make no sense and contradict the laws of nature.
Linda
Am I correct that nobody ever "acused" you of being a spelling expert?
I'm not sure Kelvin wrote that in a textbook (although he was a prolific author), but I doubt if you will find anything supportive of the idea of heavier than air flying machines in 19th Century textbooks.
Why assume that we should use the best available information to guide our decisions? What's the alternative - ignoring the information and tossing a die?
<shrug>
Linda
Slimething
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 3,790
Am I correct that nobody ever "acused" you of being a spelling expert?
Wel, yu got one rite, ladie. I wood rudder bee a bud speler dan an idjit, dough!
It would be a pity to see this thread decline into ad hominem.
As I see it, Rodney has been captured by the Cayce movement and Linda is trying her best to deprogram him. This is proving difficult because Rodney lacks the requisite knowledge, which is why I think he was captured by the movement in the first place.
(Really it all comes down to "Evidence Based Medicine". Without evidence of efficacy, there is no basis for using any treatments regardless of whether they are called "conventional", "alternative", "complimentary", or "integrative".)
Anyway, back to the fray...
As I see it, Rodney has been captured by the Cayce movement and Linda is trying her best to deprogram him. This is proving difficult because Rodney lacks the requisite knowledge, which is why I think he was captured by the movement in the first place.
(Really it all comes down to "Evidence Based Medicine". Without evidence of efficacy, there is no basis for using any treatments regardless of whether they are called "conventional", "alternative", "complimentary", or "integrative".)
Anyway, back to the fray...
The way I see it, Linda has been captured by the "Evidence Based Medicine" movement and I'm doing my best to deprogram her.
I didn't realize that investigating Cayce is being "captured by the movement."
How do you produce evidence of efficacy with no investigation of the facts?
I'm not sure if I should get in to this.
Sometimes too many cooks spoil the broth.
Are you saying that basing treatment on evidence is the wrong way to go?
I'm pretty sure that, on the other thread referenced in this thread a while back, you stated that you had joined the movement that seeks to confirm Cayce's theories and treatments. Am I wrong about that? I don't really have the time to read it all again.
You can't. But the facts that are of interest are the results of properly constructed clinical trials using treatments which are hypothesised as being of value in a particular condition. But to save us from having to trial every treatment that magically appears out of someone's @$$ (as Linda would say), the hypothesised treatment must be based on knowledge of the underlying pathology/physiology/biology/biochemistry. Sometimes the latter rule is broken because of the need to provide evidence, or lack thereof, of hypothesised treatments which have no known basis in fact but which have widespread popular appeal (eg homoeopathy).
Sometimes too many cooks spoil the broth.
The way I see it, Linda has been captured by the "Evidence Based Medicine" movement and I'm doing my best to deprogram her.
Are you saying that basing treatment on evidence is the wrong way to go?
I'm pretty sure that, on the other thread referenced in this thread a while back, you stated that you had joined the movement that seeks to confirm Cayce's theories and treatments. Am I wrong about that? I don't really have the time to read it all again.
You can't. But the facts that are of interest are the results of properly constructed clinical trials using treatments which are hypothesised as being of value in a particular condition. But to save us from having to trial every treatment that magically appears out of someone's @$$ (as Linda would say), the hypothesised treatment must be based on knowledge of the underlying pathology/physiology/biology/biochemistry. Sometimes the latter rule is broken because of the need to provide evidence, or lack thereof, of hypothesised treatments which have no known basis in fact but which have widespread popular appeal (eg homoeopathy).
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Does he? Pretty much all of this territory has been covered in earlier threads, and he's repeatedly been provided with the information.
It is not about knowledge, it's about perspective. To think that it's about knowledge gives the false impression that it can be changed with information, and devalues Rodney's position.
The way I see it, Linda has been captured by the "Evidence Based Medicine" movement and I'm doing my best to deprogram her.
Fortunately, the leaders are not charismatic. Although...I am attracted to a wicked sense of humour...
Linda
No, but "evidence" is not the same as "Evidence Based Medicine." For example, I regard Cayce's cures of Aime Dietrich and Tommy House as evidence of Cayce's psychic powers, whereas Linda disagrees. Evidence Based Medicine, on the other hand, refers to a particular methodology. See -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine
What I said a while back is that I recently (December 2005) rejoined Cayce's organization, the Association for Research and Enlightenment, after having previously been a member and then letting my membership lapse. Anyone can join the Association by paying a $49 annual fee, and that permits on-line access to all archived Cayce readings. I have a major interest in investigating Cayce's theories and treatments.
The idea behind "evidence" is that it is sufficient to persuade a skeptic. Since the information you provided failed to persuade me, it shouldn't be called "evidence", unless you can show that my act of withholding my consent is unreasonable. For example - that it is unreasonable to think that Cayce may have been disingenuous when talking about the extent of his reading.
But they are still talking about the same thing. Evidence-Based Medicine is the idea that recommendations/decisions should be based on evidence. The methods are simply a set of guidelines for weighing that evidence relevant to medicine.
Linda
Slimething
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 3,790
According to whom? According to The American Heritage Dictionary, evidence is: "A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis."
This just emphasizes the subjective nature of evaluating evidence. I may be convinced by something that doesn't convince you and you may be convinced by something that doesn't convince me.
I think you will have a hard time finding anybody who disagrees with the idea that "recommendations/decisions should be based on evidence."
But the guidelines are necessarily subjective. If they weren't, there would be no disagreement.