tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519234397783312626.post5615196984916396749..comments2023-10-09T11:42:57.305-04:00Comments on Healthcare, etc.: A teachable momentMarya Zilberberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16080475886113209344noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519234397783312626.post-21067506229971563342010-10-30T09:35:05.003-04:002010-10-30T09:35:05.003-04:00Duncan, thanks for your comment. I have been think...Duncan, thanks for your comment. I have been thinking about this very issue, and am grateful for your lucid characterization of the problem.Marya Zilberberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16080475886113209344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519234397783312626.post-6438407931155719132010-10-30T09:27:12.121-04:002010-10-30T09:27:12.121-04:00I think that Orac is a master of using logic and r...I think that Orac is a master of using logic and rhetoric for skewering the flies of "alternative medicine" while ignoring the rampaging elephants of "scientific medicine." My criteria is the number of people injured and the amount of economic resources wasted.<br /><br />He has considerable intelligence but appears to me as so focused on defending medicine against the perceived "wackos" that he tends to ignore the weaknesses and dangers of the far more influential forms of medicine. This is a shame as we would all benefit greatly from a re-focusing of his talents.Duncanhttp://www.medicalskeptic.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519234397783312626.post-83353941206123765142010-10-29T23:35:54.427-04:002010-10-29T23:35:54.427-04:00Dear Dr S, thanks for your comment and the anecdot...Dear Dr S, thanks for your comment and the anecdote. It is indeed a valuable exercise to put oneself in the other's shoes.Marya Zilberberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16080475886113209344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519234397783312626.post-17121957688202278672010-10-28T00:55:24.986-04:002010-10-28T00:55:24.986-04:00Dr Z,
Thanks for the footbridge and switch dilemma...Dr Z,<br />Thanks for the footbridge and switch dilemmas. I'm enjoying the discussions and perspectives of all involved. The intensity of many comments and the assumptions behind the intensity intrigues me. The rhythm of the process is of interest to me also. I admire your regrouping comments that reunite the potential for learning. <br />I'm pleased by the scientific part of the debate and reminded of the process used by renowned local inventors, Orville and Wilbur Wright. Their father, Bishop Wright would stop them in the midst of intense debate about a variety of subjects and make them switch sides. They continued to use this process as they worked their way through their many inventions, including the wind tunnel, the airport, the flight school, the airplane and others.A. Patrick Jonas, MDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15935504320560038973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519234397783312626.post-89428465913120713322010-10-27T14:56:47.569-04:002010-10-27T14:56:47.569-04:00Dear Orac,
Thanks for your comment. To me the iss...Dear Orac,<br /><br />Thanks for your comment. To me the issues are quite complicated. I understand your fatigue with what you call "rhetoric", but the whole point is to see the nuances and not to discard people based on a partial disagreement. Equating this debate to the creationism vs. evolution is not productive. There will always be wingnuts on both sides, but would you not instead of neatly filing arguments, prefer to be in a real conversation that eventually may lead to a better understanding?<br /><br />You and Dr. Novella are correct, by the way, I have nothing but knowledge to gain through these discussions. And if you think that I enjoy being called ignorant, you are mistaken. But I am more interested in getting to an enriching conversation than in throwing around expletives. You both clearly have a lot to say on the issues, and would it not be nice to have the other side of the argument focus on what you are saying rather than on personal attacks? Is it not self-evident that we need to elevate the discussion to its proper scientific level? And educate the lay public about the components of these decisions? That is what I ma advocating. <br /><br />I see what polarizing politic and news are ding to our country. We have the opportunity to challenge the fallacy that everything is so black and white that those who disagree with us are idiots. Yes, some are, but most, I bet are not, and like the voters in this election, are turned off by the pitch and rhetoric. So, I invite you to a quiet and intelligent discussion about the issues that we are both knowledgeable and passionate about.Marya Zilberberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16080475886113209344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519234397783312626.post-6989506407131625562010-10-27T14:35:02.372-04:002010-10-27T14:35:02.372-04:00"Without explicitly stating it, he also conti..."Without explicitly stating it, he also continues to equate me with 'anti-vaxers'."<br /><br />Spare me.<br /><br />I've said multiple times that I don't think you're antivax. However, you do use language very similar to that of antivaxers. The reason, as I have said, is almost certainly ignorance. You clearly aren't familiar with the fallacious arguments and abuses of science by antivaxers; so you unwittingly start sounding like one. Let's clarify from my most recent post (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/10/a_fallacy-laden_attack_on_science-based.php):<br /><br />"Let me also say that I believe her [Dr. Zilberberg] when she says she is not anti-vaccine. Even so, she carelessly throws around rhetoric that, whether she realizes it or not, echoes a lot of anti-vaccine rhetoric. (And who is more of an expert on anti-vaccine rhetoric than I? Not many.) As Steve so aptly put it, what she's doing is akin to someone expressing skepticism towards some aspect of evolution and thereby appearing to support creationism because she doesn't know the ways creationists distort and abuse science in the name of attacking evolution. She does the same thing here with vaccines. For example, elsewhere on her blog, as I mentioned before, Dr. Zilberberg referred to "rabid defenders of vaccines," while complaining about the lack of philosophical exemption laws in most states. Let's put it this way. If you don't want to be perceived as an anti-vaxer, don't refer to defenders of vaccines as "rabid" and don't start referring to the possibility of vaccine interactions in a way that is reminiscent of the arguments that anti-vaccine advocates make. I realize that Dr. Zilberberg's mistake is probably due to ignorance of the corrosiveness of the anti-vaccine movement, the depths of pseudoscience to which it regularly descends, and a lack of familiarity with their fallacious arguments, but hopefully this exchange will serve to educate her to be more careful in the future."<br /><br />Apparently I hope in vain.Orachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01370846202152605202noreply@blogger.com