Prince Charles on the rack tonight

John - I don't think anyone here believes scientists are any less apt to be self-seeking , bribable or downright corrupt than non-scientists. The system of peer review and mutual jealousy ia a good one precisely because it is founded in a realistic view of human nature. You are right it's far from perfect, but as Churchill said of democracy, it's the best we have.

While Charles may be a decent enough chap in many ways, it is precisely because his opinions are not subject to peer (sorry) review that he can do real damage- particularly to the NHS. If you have not read the Smallwood "Report", I encourage you to do so. I think you will find it unrepresentative of medical science by your standards or anyone else's.
 
Soapy Sam said:
John - I don't think anyone here believes scientists are any less apt to be self-seeking , bribable or downright corrupt than non-scientists. The system of peer review and mutual jealousy ia a good one precisely because it is founded in a realistic view of human nature. You are right it's far from perfect, but as Churchill said of democracy, it's the best we have.

While Charles may be a decent enough chap in many ways, it is precisely because his opinions are not subject to peer (sorry) review that he can do real damage- particularly to the NHS. If you have not read the Smallwood "Report", I encourage you to do so. I think you will find it unrepresentative of medical science by your standards or anyone else's.
Click to expand...
I don't think we really disagree about the value of Charles' scientific opinions but I find your comments about peer review unfair to him. In reality he is subject to far more oversite than virtually any scientist I could think of. He knows, must know, that he will get flack for some of the things he writes but he goes ahead anyway. He does so, despite the fact that, from where he is, he is unlikely to receive any personal benefit.

Laying aside the whole question of whether I agree with his opinions, surely you can find some dignity and worth in his actions? I can.

It is probably best that I do not reply to your comments about peer review in science. It is off topic and we might disagree with one another - just a bit - or even a lot.
 
Hope this isn't too far off topic. Prince Charles has for years championed the cause of CAM and how it should be integrated into the mainstream health services. We've had just such a debate in the Irish Times this week. If you'd like to engage in some international skeptical activity right now ... The Irish Times (Monday 12th) featured a ‘for and against’ debate on Complementary and Alternative Medicine this week. Dr Brian Hughes argued against integrating CAM into the mainstream healthcare system. Ruth Cloherty, Director of the Institute of Complementary and Integrated Medicine, made the case for the opposition.

The paper is running a poll over the next couple of days so people can voice their opinion on the argument. Go to ireland [dot] com [forward slash] head2head ... to cast your vote. (Can't put in a link cos the site reasonably requires you to have 15 posts first ... what can i say ... I'm an impatient skeptic who needs your help!!!).:D Maybe some more seasoned vets can fix that link for me!!
 
John Hewitt said:
I don't think we really disagree about the value of Charles' scientific opinions but I find your comments about peer review unfair to him. In reality he is subject to far more oversite than virtually any scientist I could think of. He knows, must know, that he will get flack for some of the things he writes but he goes ahead anyway. He does so, despite the fact that, from where he is, he is unlikely to receive any personal benefit.

Laying aside the whole question of whether I agree with his opinions, surely you can find some dignity and worth in his actions? I can.

It is probably best that I do not reply to your comments about peer review in science. It is off topic and we might disagree with one another - just a bit - or even a lot.
Click to expand...
What kind of oversight do you mean? Oversight means being subject to review, and that if what one says is wrong it can be corrected. When has HRH ever withdrawn anything he has said? Your suggestion is preposterous. He knows that he is still respected for what he was born into (even though the current Royal Family probably has no genetic justification for its position). He knows that he has a ready made platform for whatever he wants to say, and takes full advantage of it. There is nothing dignified or worthy in exploiting a totally unearned position, to undermine the public's understanding of what evidence is. Not only does he have no training in science, he displays no knowledge of what it is, has obviously not read any, and is most of the time against science and anything new. No doubt you like him because he attacks science :). I know a few people who have met HRH in recent years, and they all say the same thing. He is totally impervious to scientific arguments. He can't even begin to understand the principles. He is surrounded by people who reinforce his ideas and never challenge them. So that's oversight is it?

Surely you know about Maslow's heirarchy of needs? HRH is well beyond the material level, with £14m per annum rolling in. Once material needs are satisfied, people are motivated much more strongly by achieving success in whatever engages them. I wonder whether he has read too much Sir Walter Scott. I was like most people of my generation (and yours) brought up to respect the Royal Family without question, but more than any other member of it, Charles is turning me into a republican.
 
fuelair said:
To the best of my knowledge, aspirin was never considered quackery or withcraft - and the willow bark tea it was made from was pretty well known long before that. They had an advantage over homeopathietic crap - they worked and were seen to work over and over.
Click to expand...

Of course, not only was aspirin never considered quackery, it is not actually in willow. Willow bark contains salicylic acid, while aspirin is acetylsalicylic acid. The effects of willow were, as you say, well known, but not all that effective and can cause serious gastro-intestinal problems and even death. Aspirin was invented around 1899 (that's is when it was trademarked, it may have been discovered a little earlier) using scientific methods and was never considered in any way as anything other than science.
 
Wudang said:
Fair play to you
Click to expand...

Thanks Wudang. We've managed a 7% shift in our direction since yesterday .... so c'mon lads and lassies ... just two clicks to cast your vote ... see wudang's link above. Appreciated!:)
 
John Hewitt said:
He knows, must know, that he will get flack for some of the things he writes but he goes ahead anyway. He does so, despite the fact that, from where he is, he is unlikely to receive any personal benefit.

Laying aside the whole question of whether I agree with his opinions, surely you can find some dignity and worth in his actions? I can.
Click to expand...

Don't touch that hot burner - owww,
Don't play in traffic - uh-oh,
Don't promote wackazoolian nonsense - oops.

Nope, no dignity there.
 
Asolepius said:
What kind of oversight do you mean? Oversight means being subject to review, and that if what one says is wrong it can be corrected. When has HRH ever withdrawn anything he has said? Your suggestion is preposterous. He knows that he is still respected for what he was born into (even though the current Royal Family probably has no genetic justification for its position). He knows that he has a ready made platform for whatever he wants to say, and takes full advantage of it. There is nothing dignified or worthy in exploiting a totally unearned position, to undermine the public's understanding of what evidence is. Not only does he have no training in science, he displays no knowledge of what it is, has obviously not read any, and is most of the time against science and anything new. No doubt you like him because he attacks science :). I know a few people who have met HRH in recent years, and they all say the same thing. He is totally impervious to scientific arguments. He can't even begin to understand the principles. He is surrounded by people who reinforce his ideas and never challenge them. So that's oversight is it?

Surely you know about Maslow's heirarchy of needs? HRH is well beyond the material level, with £14m per annum rolling in. Once material needs are satisfied, people are motivated much more strongly by achieving success in whatever engages them. I wonder whether he has read too much Sir Walter Scott. I was like most people of my generation (and yours) brought up to respect the Royal Family without question, but more than any other member of it, Charles is turning me into a republican.
Click to expand...
I don't think Charles is intentionally causing any embarrassment to British scientific institutes but I guess there is some small truth in saying that I don't mind if that is the outcome. (Do not take that to imply that I do not take science seriously - that is far from the truth.) I also like him because I felt he was the underdog in the battles with his former wife, who I felt behaved rather badly.

I see Charles as a decent and not outstandingly bright, though above average, person who is simply pursuing his own agenda. Were he an academic, you would grant him the freedom to do that and I, myself, claim that right simply as an individual. His status gives him the assurance of being heard but it also means he is subject to much more press oversite than most people - as the recebt TV shows demonstrates.

I don't think Maslow comes into this. Charles, as King in waiting, has struggled to find a role for himself during the waiting period. He has searched for that role in support for various off-centre "good" causes, some of which do bring him into conflict with scientific institutes. You are, I suspect, right in suggesting that he would make better choices if he possessed more scientific insight but he is not the only stubborn kid on the block. Also, he compares well enough with other Royals. Britain and science will survive.
 
Myksyk said:
Thanks Wudang. We've managed a 7% shift in our direction since yesterday .... so c'mon lads and lassies ... just two clicks to cast your vote ... see wudang's link above. Appreciated!:)
Click to expand...

I'm voting for the guy that looks like Dr Who...
 
Asolepius said:
Charles is turning me into a republican.
Click to expand...
I knew he was good for something!

From what I've read of news reports, he's a brave and reasonably honest man. As a human being, I think he's fine.

But no human being should be born to power and authority.

"That's one less!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom