----------------------------------------------
CommentsNote that the slippery slope argument works both ways: If Artmann and Ehgartner are allowed to write for science blogs, why not holocaust deniers? After all, they have "scientific" meetings (in Teheran).
Posted by: Thomas Xavier | December 2, 2008 8:50 AM
----------------------------------------------
I mostly agree, but I'd find it a bit tough to just kick out those guys. A nicer solution can be considered. A new platform should be created, named not ScienceBlogs but PseudoScienceBlogs. And they should be automatically transferred to it. Now, how Seed could be convinced to sponsor such a move, I'm not quite sure. But it should be possible, as it currently has no problem hosting the guys.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | December 2, 2008 9:40 AM
----------------------------------------------
Thanks for pointing out, that neurological differences shouldn't be called "brain damage"
FYI, Artmann called psychiatric wards "nuthouses".
I'm amazed, that the German science community doesn't find that at all offensive.
Posted by: The Gonzo Girl | December 2, 2008 9:53 AM
----------------------------------------------
...Peter Artmann, who is clearly arguing for dangerous quackery by telling his readers that heavy metal in their Ayurvedic herbal remedies is not harmful, as long as an Ayurvedic healer directs their use. People could suffer heavy metal poisoning as a result of following such advice...
But people have suffered heavy metal poisoning as a result of such advice, as I mentioned in an entry I wrote about this yesterday. So-called "folk medicines," including the Ayurvedic hoodoo, has been implicated in literally thousands of heavy metal poisonings in the US. More about that here, but just a snippet:
Traditional medicines may account for up to 30 percent of all childhood lead poisoning cases in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates 240,000 U.S. children were diagnosed with high blood lead levels in 2004 to 2006.
Many more cases are almost certainly going undetected. Only 14 percent of children are tested for lead nationwide...
That these sorts of things should find a pulpit on ScienceBlogs.de is unconscionable, and whomever made the decision to allow them on there should no longer have the responsibility of making such decisions at all.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | December 2, 2008 9:56 AM
----------------------------------------------
"Note also how Ehgartner refers to the changes in the brain that this study found in boys with ADHD as "brain damage." I don't know if that's a mistranslation or not, but it sure doesn't sound good."
The german word he used was "Hirnschädigungen" which indeed translates "brain damage".
Posted by: florian | December 2, 2008 9:57 AM
----------------------------------------------
Eventually something will have to be done about this, preferably involving testing Ayruvedic remedies on german science bloggers....
For now I think the best option for now is just to encourage german readers to keep an eye on them, so we can baet them around the head with The Big Stick Of Science (patent pending) when ever they say something dumb.
Anyone got info on Jessice Ricco? Editors supportive of this sort of stupidity are a much bigger issue.
Posted by: Ramel | December 2, 2008 10:04 AM
----------------------------------------------
Eventually something will have to be done about this, preferably involving testing Ayruvedic remedies on german science bloggers....
Heh...
Posted by: Orac | December 2, 2008 10:17 AM
----------------------------------------------
"It is about clear and obvious misinformation about what science says about vaccines, autism, ADHD, and disease published under the banner of ScienceBlogs. In the case of Peter Artmann, it is about a ScienceBlogger who defends obvious quackery and makes utterly unscientific assertions while doing so. I don't know about my fellow ScienceBloggers, be they English- or German-speaking, but I don't like being associated with two such bloggers. I don't like it at all. As much as I hate to say it, we clearly have a problem in our German division."
I have a blog in the German division of SB and I totally agree with this statement!
Posted by: florian | December 2, 2008 10:24 AM
----------------------------------------------
Fortunately, the aluminum-ADHD puzzle has been solved now.
http://www.scienceblogs.de/kritisch-gedacht/2008/12/aluminium-adhs.phpPosted by: Ulrich | December 2, 2008 10:24 AM
----------------------------------------------
Eventually something will have to be done about this, preferably involving testing Ayruvedic remedies on german science bloggers...
Well for the sake of reciprocity and fairness this also requires that everyone else is thoroughly vaccinated...
Where do I register? I need a few antivir updates anyway.
Posted by: Fischer | December 2, 2008 11:11 AM
----------------------------------------------
Eventually something will have to be done about this, preferably involving testing Ayruvedic remedies on german science bloggers...
For the sake of reciprocity and fairness this also requires that everyone else is thoroughly vaccinated...
Where do I register? I need a few antivir updates anyway.
Posted by: Fischer | December 2, 2008 11:15 AM
----------------------------------------------
For a virologist I just made a copy of the clinical course of a boy with measles who ist in coma since 12.Oct 2007 due to the measles complication SSPE. Until now we have 443 measles cases in 2008 all originated from unvaccinated students in an anhroposophic Steiner school. Total america had 165 cases in 2007.
And here is another piece of Bert Ehgartner- he posted it in the guest book of an anti-vaccine group around 2005.
Translation: In life unfortunately not all things are black or white. I repeat my arguments to mesales. Measles today has nearly nothing to do with the disease measles 20 yrs ago. Caused by immunizations measles appears more frequently in age groups, where the complication rate is significantly increased: In children below 12 month (because immunized mothers give less protection to their babys) in adolescents and in adults. So the measles immunization has caused that a harmless childrens disesae- when good care is given- has changed to a disease with frequent complications. Instead of contributing to the maturation of the immune system of the child and of contributing to the psychic development in toodlers age, the disease is weaker due to immunization, hardly has a positive effect on the immune system and carrys the risk of chronic gut disease, and the causation of severe autoimmundiseases
and here the original text in German
Aber im Leben ist leider nicht alles nur schwarz oder nur weiß. Ich wiederhole nochmal meine Argumentation zur Masern: Masern heute hat mit der Krankheit Masern vor 20 Jahren fast nichts mehr gemeinsam. Durch die Impfkampagnen tritt Masern heute vermehrt in Altersgruppen auf, wo die Komplikationsrate wesentlich erhöht ist: Bei Kindern unter 12 Monaten (weil geimpfte Mütter ihren Babys weniger Schutz weitergeben), sowie bei Jugendlichen und Erwachsenen. Damit hat die Masernimpfung aus einer - bei guter Pflege - harmlosen Kinderkrankheit eine komplikationsreiche Krankheit gemacht. Anstatt zur Reifung des kindlichen Immunsystem und zur psychischen Entwicklung im Vorschulalter beizutragen, verläuft die Masern in folge der Impfung abgeschwächt, hat kaum einen positiven Effekt auf das Immunsystem und birgt das Risiko chronischer Darmentzündungen, sowie die Auslösung schwerer Autoimmunerkrankungen (z.B: Autismus).
in summary this is dangerous bullshit.
Posted by: wolfgang | December 2, 2008 11:24 AM
----------------------------------------------
Die dummen Brände hell
Posted by: Tsu Dho Nimh | December 2, 2008 11:33 AM
----------------------------------------------
As a fellow ScienceBlogs.de blogger, I have followed these discussions (here and over at ScienceBlogs.de) for a few days now. Since I am a computer scientist, who knows jack about medicine, I generally do not blog about medical issues or feel compelled to discuss them.
However, it seems very odd to me, that you would actually link someone who writes an article about aluminum in vaccines - no matter how wrong this article may be - to a Holocaust denier. This is an ad hominem argument so unjust, it makes the Ehrgartner article look much better than it actually is. To compare people with scientificly questionable views (antivax, homeopathy etc.) to actual hate groups such as Holocaust deniers, is certainly not the kind of response you would expect in an academic discussion.
Furthermore, I fail to understand why none of the people who are obviously very agitated by Ehrgartners arguments would bother to just compile a bunch of links to scientific, peer-reviewed studies, that devalidate his claims. Instead of comparing Ehrgartner to a Holocaust denier and demanding that every blogger, who makes an antivax statement be fired from ScienceBlogs, would it not be a much more proper and more scientific way to refute his claims using scientific references?
"An angry man opens his mouth and shuts his eyes."
- Marcus Porcius Cato
Posted by: Christian | December 2, 2008 11:33 AM
----------------------------------------------
I would love to offer myself up to scienceblogs to write about the value of the four humors theory of medicine.
It is a long established, traditional medical "theory" with a long history of successful treatment (in that practitioners had a history of being paid for their services) until it was supplanted by evidence based medicine.
Since there are a handful of diseases, disorders, injuries and poisonings for which bleeding and emesis are actually called for by evidence based medicine, all of the four humor's treatments must be valid, and if you disagree, then you just haven't been bled by the right person.
I demand to be heard, even if I don't believe in what I would be writing.
[Yes, that was sarcasm]
Posted by: Robster, FCD | December 2, 2008 11:37 AM
----------------------------------------------
To be honest, I think this was always going to be the problem with this kind of blogging project. As soon as you allow a single popular magazine to become the hub of science blogging, you end up subject to their whims.
Realistically, the best thing you can do I think is to get someone at Seed onside, or just club together with some colleagues and threaten to walk.
Posted by: Martin | December 2, 2008 11:40 AM
----------------------------------------------
Jepp Florian, I'm with you. Particularly the statement from Jessica was really disappointing and disturbing. I mean, why the hell do we waste precious time to battle anti-science, quackery and scientific misinformation on Scienceblogs.de, again? Not only do have we at least one person sprouting the worst sort of nonsense under the disguise of science right within our midst, the editor also defends him on the basis of his "outstanding" and shining past accomplishments as science writer for the news paper.
I couldn't care less. Bullshit is bullshit and still smells of shit, no matter who excretes it.
I'm tired and I'm frustrated and I'm seriously considering quitting altogether. If anti-science is not only invited but actually defended with very dubious arguments, then Scienceblogs.de is already rotten to the core. And that in the first year of its launch.
BTW. Scienceblogs.de is maintained by Burda media not SEED. A large german publishing company.
Posted by: Ludmila | December 2, 2008 11:46 AM
----------------------------------------------
Christian, to find the arguments you are looking for, see Orac's blog. Heck, a google of scienceblogs.com and vaccination will do. Seriously. Orac has deconstructed this particular nonsense time and time again, with extensive references. It's Ehgartner who hasn't done his homework.
perceval, a fellow computer scientist
----------------------------------------------
Posted by: perceval | December 2, 2008 11:49 AM
@Christian
may I correct you: Bert Ehgartner ist not at all a holocaust denier. He undersigned the rethinkers, who claim that HIV is not the cause of AIDS.
Posted by: wolfgang | December 2, 2008 11:49 AM
----------------------------------------------
Christian, the use of "denial" and "denialist" are partly due to the clumsy English language.
HIV denial is referred to as such because proponents deny the evidence that HIV is the cause of AIDS. We have yet to come up with a word that is more appropriate without being crudely vulgar.
Also, the peer reviewed evidence is known to many of us, and is present in many of Orac's links. I'd love to put a few together, but I am supposed to be grading lab reports, but am an extraordinary procrastinator, and am doing what I do best.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | December 2, 2008 11:50 AM
----------------------------------------------
https://twitter.com/Scienceblogs/status/1034440130Posted by: Tobias | December 2, 2008 11:51 AM
----------------------------------------------
Jepp Florian, I'm with you. Particularly the statement from Jessica was really disappointing and disturbing. I mean, why the hell do we waste precious time to battle anti-science, quackery and scientific on Scienceblogs.de, again? Not only do have we at least one person sprouting the worst sort of nonsense under the disguise of science right within our midst, the editor also defends him on the basis of his "outstanding" and shining past accomplishments as science writer for the news paper.
I couldn't care less. Bullshit is bullshit and still smells of shit, no matter who excretes it.
I'm tired and I'm frustrated and I'm seriously considering quitting altogether. If anti-science is not only invited but actually defended with very dubious arguments, then Scienceblogs.de is already rotten to the core. And that already in the first year of its launch.
BTW. Scienceblogs.de is maintained by Burda media not SEED. A large german publishing company.
Posted by: Ludmila | December 2, 2008 11:52 AM
----------------------------------------------
However, it seems very odd to me, that you would actually link someone who writes an article about aluminum in vaccines - no matter how wrong this article may be - to a Holocaust denier. This is an ad hominem argument so unjust, it makes the Ehrgartner article look much better than it actually is. To compare people with scientificly questionable views (antivax, homeopathy etc.) to actual hate groups such as Holocaust deniers, is certainly not the kind of response you would expect in an academic discussion.
You misunderstand.
The comparison to Holocaust denial is not meant to call Ehgartner a Nazi. It is to point out that he uses the same sorts of logical fallacies, misrepresentations of evidence and science, and dubious assertions to make his case as Holocaust deniers do. Holocaust deniers. In this I consider Holocaust deniers to be of a type with other types of pseudoscience, including creationism, quackery, paranormal phenomena, etc. It is not calling anyone a Nazi or anti-Semite; it is pointing out commonalities among cranks.
In case you doubt my blogging credentials on this, note that I have a long history of speaking out against Holocaust denial, and I daresay that I probably know more about Holocaust denial than you do:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/history/holocaust_denialGiven that history, I am well aware of how toxic the term can be and have in the past urged caution in using it:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/11/denialism_sometimes_theres_no_other_way.phpHowever, that being said, we should not shy away from lumping this very pernicious form of denialism in with other forms of denialism when appropriate just because of its connotation of anti-Semitism and Hitler apologia, either. It fits. Indeed, Michael Shermer did just that in his book Why People Believe Weird Things:
http://skepdic.com/refuge/weird.htmlI view Holocaust denial as being the same as a lot of other pseudoscience, including creationism, quackery, various forms of paranormal pseudoscience, etc., in that it uses the same sorts of fallacious and pseudoscientific arguments, nothing more. Substitute the word "creationist" if you like.
Posted by: Orac | December 2, 2008 11:54 AM
----------------------------------------------
@wolfgang: I know that he associated himself with that weird group. But when did he undersign the rethinkers? Last year, two years ago, five years ago? I could not find any hint on their website. And does his signature mean that he should be automatically banned from ScienceBlogs for life?
I am not against calling out Ehrgartner for his claims. I just question the tone. We should really make an effort to argue with people we do not agree with in a somewhat civil manner. I know I fail that test sometimes, too. But all the agression and the anger directed against this one person...
Posted by: Christian | December 2, 2008 11:58 AM
----------------------------------------------
Asking for studies to look? Not a big problem.
Claiming a connection despite existing studies showing provisional falsification? Problem.
Claiming any opposition is because of "big pharma"? BIG problem.
Feel free to keep looking, so long as you keep publishing the "still nothing here" papers. But don't take the mockery as anything but your just due for looking in an apparent dead-end; just say "Fools, I'll show you all!!!" (with optional maniacal laugh), get back to work, and be sure to mention the mockers by name at your awards acceptance speeches if/when you solidly prove your conjecture.
Posted by: abb3w | December 2, 2008 12:00 PM
----------------------------------------------
And does his signature mean that he should be automatically banned from ScienceBlogs for life?
Not necessarily, but he sure as hell should have to explain himself, and if he no longer believes in "rethinking AIDS" he should tell RA to take his name off of its website. That's a start.
As for the "aggression and anger," I'm actually more annoyed with Peter Artmann now than Bert Ehgartner. Artmann is explicitly advocating quackery.
Posted by: Orac | December 2, 2008 12:00 PM
----------------------------------------------
@Christian: "it seems very odd to me, that you would actually link someone who writes an article about aluminum in vaccines - no matter how wrong this article may be - to a Holocaust denier." Who did so? It certainly wasn't me. If you think so, read my post again. I actually came to Artmanns and Ehgartners defence when they were linked with Hamer.
"Furthermore, I fail to understand why none of the people who are obviously very agitated by Ehrgartners arguments would bother to just compile a bunch of links to scientific, peer-reviewed studies, that devalidate his claims."
But people did so in the comments to their articles and Ulrich did so, too.
http://www.scienceblogs.de/kritisch-gedacht/2008/12/aluminium-adhs.phpJust a personal note: I have seen what AIDS-Denialism does. I have no understanding whatsoever for people who peddle dangerous unscientific nonsense in medicine. And although I have been fighting holocaust denialists for some time now and although these people are the most despicable rabid morons ever, at least nobody dies from their sick lies.
Posted by: Jane | December 2, 2008 12:06 PM
----------------------------------------------
@Orac: I know that your mentioning of Holocaust denialism does not mean that you called Ehrgartner a Nazi. Still, it is a remarkably crass connotation. I doubt that I would ever feel compelled to make that kind of comparison even when confronted with the most hideously false statements in my area of research.
Anyway, the discussion is moot now, since Ehrgartner has been fired from ScienceBlogs already due to the outrage over his aluminum article. I somewhat doubt that this is the best possible decision but so be it.
Posted by: Christian | December 2, 2008 12:11 PM
----------------------------------------------
@christian.
When you look at the list of people who singned the rethinker list you will find Bert Ehgartner making advertisment for his first book "Die Lebensformel" this book was launched in 2004.
So he must have signed after this date. If Ehgartner want to get off the list he could immideately cancel his signature.
Posted by: Wolfgang | December 2, 2008 12:15 PM
----------------------------------------------
Christian, dude, before you make an ass of yourself-- search SciBlogs for 'vaccination' 'thermisol' 'autism' 'HIV' 'denialism', etc.
Several of us over here have had anti-vaxers/HIV Deniers/woo peddlers in our cross-hairs for years (me, Orac, Aetiology, Denialsim Blog, etc).
This might be a new topic to you, but its old as the hills for us-- we spend a considerable amount of time and effort explaining the science of these topics to normal people to combat the idiocy of the tards you have on German SciBlogs.
We are pretty damn pissed off.
Posted by: ERV | December 2, 2008 12:26 PM
----------------------------------------------
Christian, The cause of any dismissal is due to what he wrote, which was patently irresponsible and plainly false, not the reaction to it.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | December 2, 2008 12:27 PM
----------------------------------------------
Cristian, your area of reserch is computer science this is medicine we're talking about, HIV/AIDS denial is causing a holocaust of it's own in some parts of the world. In medicine psuedo-science kills people, in computers it just means you've bought vista.
Posted by: Ramel | December 2, 2008 12:29 PM
----------------------------------------------
This may be the impetus I need to brush up on my German. :-P
Posted by: Aaron Golas | December 2, 2008 12:30 PM
----------------------------------------------
Anyway, the discussion is moot now, since Ehrgartner has been fired from ScienceBlogs already due to the outrage over his aluminum article. I somewhat doubt that this is the best possible decision but so be it.
Actually, if this is true, I'm not entirely sure the worst offender is gone. In the two days since I first posted, I've--shall we say?--done some "rethinking" (sorry, couldn't resist). That rethinking has led me to believe that Peter Artmann might well be a worse offender than Bert Ehgartner as far as peddling pseudoscience goes.
Posted by: Orac | December 2, 2008 12:34 PM
----------------------------------------------
Almost sad that he's gone (Ehrgartner) I'd just come up with a plan to sneak my experiment passed an ethics comitte...
Posted by: Ramel | December 2, 2008 12:45 PM
----------------------------------------------
In medicine psuedo-science kills people, in computers it just means you've bought vista.
Ramel, I may have to steal that line. It's hilarious.
Posted by: Orac | December 2, 2008 12:47 PM
----------------------------------------------
Feel free, but if it makes you a profit I want a cut
Posted by: Ramel | December 2, 2008 1:08 PM
----------------------------------------------
In order for me to get worried that booting these crackpots from ScienceBlogs would impede the discussion here, I'd have to be presented with a legitimate grey area. Arguing over the side effects of a particular drug, or debating the interpretation of a particular set of animal-intelligence experiments, is insignificant next to the wholesale denial of modern science implicit in endorsing Ayurvedic "medicine". By way of analogy, imagine that ScienceBlogs.de had hired an astrologer (perhaps even a Vedic one). Would kicking them off the site hamper the discussions among real astronomers about whether liquid water exists on Saturn's moon Enceladus? Of course not. Would it have a "chilling effect" on the (largely political) argument over whether to continue manned spaceflight? I highly doubt it.
So, when Orac says the following:
I realize that there has been a fair amount of whining and wringing of hands in the comments, in which the ever-reliable logical fallacy of the slippery slope argument has led a couple of commenters to ask "But where do you draw the line? Where will it all end?" This is accompanied with the suggestion that enforcing some standards against obvious pseudoscience will inevitably lead to the censoring of posts that stray from a ScienceBlogs-imposed political and scientific orthodoxy and muzzling any blogger with controversial views. Bullshit.
I fully agree.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | December 2, 2008 1:10 PM
----------------------------------------------
https://twitter.com/Scienceblogs/status/1034440130..good bye Bert Ehgartner !
Posted by: Conrad | December 2, 2008 1:16 PM
----------------------------------------------
Ramelk said,
"Cristian, your area of reserch [sic.]is computer science this is medicine we're talking about, HIV/AIDS denial is causing a holocaust of it's own in some parts of the world. In medicine psuedo-science kills people, in computers it just means you've bought vista."
I don't mean to cause a war between disciplines, but I am also a computer scientist* and I think you're mistaken about more than one of your claims.
* - Though I prefer the term "cognitive scientist" as I research A.I., cognitive psychology, philosophy, and some neuroscience. It also has the benefit of immunizing myself from questions like, "My computer's task bar disappeared, how do I restore it?"
First, I don't think that because one is from outside the medical profession that they cannot research, and learn about manufactured controversies; such as HIV/AIDS denial, or anti-vaccination. I think science bloggers like Orac do a great deal to help me understand the issue, and I think this has helped me pursue additional sources for edifying myself on the issue. I do think that we should be humble about this knowledge, as we don't have the many years of experience Orac has in the medical profession, but I don't think we should be afraid of discussing the topics at a "popular science" level of framing with our friends and family, distinguished medical experts, or if we should ever encounter an anti-vaccination movement in our local communities, our local newspapers and politicians.
Second, in computer science, bad methods can kill people. Computers are utilized throughout the world. They're utilized for the defense of numerous nations, the stability of our infrastructure, transportation, search and rescue, disaster management, and yes, even the medical profession. These devices needs to meet certain standards or people die. It's crass to suggest that computer scientists don't have to worry about human lives, just operating system functionality (which also, might cost human lives if it fails at an inopportune time).
Third, your science is supported by computer scientists that work on developing, and improving medical imaging technology and software. It's also supported by data analysis tools and large scale data management. We'd never be able to analyze the vast amount of genomic data we have on the variety of viruses without the aid of the computer scientists that develop these tools:
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/11/scale_how_large_quantities_of.phpSimilar issues of analysis, and scale can be found in other scientific disciplines.
Forth, our field is not immune from quackery. See this software retailer scamming consumers with his "homeopathic" computer software, and the subsequent debunking by a computer scientist:
Lardge J, "Salt lamp: heated Himalayan salt improves your health" in There Goes the Science Bit..., Sense About Science, 2007. pg. 5
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/voys/theregoesthesciencebit.pdfPosted by: MKandefer | December 2, 2008 1:32 PM
----------------------------------------------
"Ramel, I may have to steal that line. It's hilarious."
Orac, you disappoint me. =(
Posted by: MKandefer | December 2, 2008 1:36 PM
----------------------------------------------
Christian: you don't consider willfully spreading misinformation that has been proven to harm people crass?
Odd.
Posted by: StuV | December 2, 2008 1:37 PM
----------------------------------------------
In medicine psuedo-science kills people, in computers it just means you've bought vista.
Ramel, I may have to steal that line. It's hilarious.
Orac, you are a computer. Have you considered what would happen if you were loaded with MSWinVista?
(And, yes, that line's a keeper.)
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 2, 2008 1:37 PM
----------------------------------------------
What if an Ayurvedic practitioner administers mercury-containing vaccines? Would that be all right?
Posted by: windy | December 2, 2008 1:43 PM
----------------------------------------------
@Christian:
I think you've been reading our friend Nisbet too seriously. It's not our fault that these guys are arguing *like* neo-Nazis. They are continuing to use debunked lines of argument, ignoring new evidence that's contradictory to their views, stubbornly clinging to their conclusions despite scientific consensuses (consensi?) to the contrary ... all classic denialist strategies.
They're putting themselves in line with holocaust deniers with their BS-filled arguments.
Posted by: bob | December 2, 2008 1:56 PM
----------------------------------------------
Now, no one around here claims that we ScienceBloggers are all above reproach and unfailingly brilliant, that we're all saintly, or that we never, ever write stupid things. Certainly, I don't, and certainly I've never claimed not to have fallen prey to my own personal foibles, resulting in the occasional dubious (or in retrospect completely embarrassing) post. And certainly, there have been quite a few times when I've strongly, even violently disagreed with something that a fellow ScienceBlogger has written and said so, even just last week.
Oh, sure - provide a link to an example of the second but not the first. What fun is that?
Posted by: SC | December 2, 2008 2:10 PM
----------------------------------------------
MKandefer:
As one CS to another, lighten up. It was a cute throwaway line.
Of course bad software can kill. More than twenty years ago our office had a poster on the wall of a pilot punching out of an F-16 in flight, with the caption
Fly-by-Wire gives a whole new meaning to the term 'System Crash.'
More recently, a good bit of our current economic meltdown seems to be the result of financial-system software with unexamined premises and dubious logic -- and that's closer to pseudo-science rather than just bad execution of good science. Before anyone goes all holy on "lives vs. mere money," keep in mind that there are always tradeoffs. A billion here and a billion there just might make the difference between life and death for someone.
Still, it's a great line.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 2, 2008 2:10 PM
----------------------------------------------
windy:
What if an Ayurvedic practitioner administers mercury-containing vaccines? Would that be all right?
Congratulations, you've won The Internet!
. . .
Following up on what I said in my last comment, it occurs to me that the presence of these antiscientific crackpots can itself cause a "chilling effect", if for no other reason that we science bloggers are doing this gig in our copious free time. The more we have to smack down pseudoscience and pseudomedicine, the less time we have to actually have fun and spread a positive message about science. You think the internecine quarrels among English-speaking SciBlings are bad, and that our recurring sound-and-fury exchanges are too boring to read anymore? Imagine that, but significantly worse.
If the only purpose of a science blog were to bash creationists, I for one would have gotten tired of the hobby a long time ago. (The same goes for the idea that the primary aim of science blogging is and should be "gee whiz! science is shiny!" cheerleading.) I don't want to have to deal with blatant nonsense and the unsinkable rubber ducks who espouse it any more than I have to, and having these loonballs under the ScienceBlogs banner would certainly shift the balance of obligation in the direction I would not enjoy.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | December 2, 2008 2:34 PM
----------------------------------------------
D.C. says,
"As one CS to another, lighten up. It was a cute throwaway line. [...] Still, it's a great line."
I'm less concerned with the quote, than the context it was offered in, which was to malign computer scientists as outsiders to medicine, incapable of contributing to the discussion. I also wasn't trying to focus on bad software, which as you appropriately point out is related to pseudoscience, but also good software which is used exclusively for the purpose of saving lives, such as disaster management software. It might have been a "cute throwaway line", and I may need to lighten up, but that doesn't make the line (in the context it was offered in) any less false.
Posted by: MKandefer | December 2, 2008 2:38 PM
I'm less concerned with the quote, than the context it was offered in, which was to malign computer scientists as outsiders to medicine, incapable of contributing to the discussion.
Hey, I resemble that remark!
I am a CS (among other things) and as Orac omnisciently knows have been slugging it out with woo merchants for more than a decade. I even like to think that I sometimes have something positive to contribute on health topics other than anti-woo, but that may be a conceit of an admittedly inflated ego.
Anyone who can reason logically (and one hopes that CS isn't totally destructive to that ability) has lots to contribute, particularly when the "opposition" are the minions of irrationality.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 2, 2008 2:45 PM
----------------------------------------------
To be clear, I'm not putting computer science down and I recognise that when computers fail or are miss-used lives can be lost. The key difference is that medical and biological information is important to all our lives in the most fundimental way (except for orac, living creatures are just his hobby) and bad information can be spread a long way and can exist in the public conciousness for a very long time. Bad information leads people to make bad decisions (and we're back to buying vista), I'm stuck with an OS that I hate untill I can afford to change but a cancer patient that chooses alt med over real med will probably die. Thats the point I'm trying to make. And vista sucks.
Posted by: Ramel | December 2, 2008 2:47 PM
----------------------------------------------
Reading the responses to my comment I feel I should clear up any confusion over myself, I am not a health professional nor did I intend to imply that I was. Like D.C. Sessions I have been following debates on woo and psuedo-science for a long time and I feel (and DC may be right about the ego bit) that I occasionally have something to offer a debate. Usually in the form of cruel and/or unusual snarkyness. And I never pass up an oppertunity to bash vista.
Posted by: Ramel | December 2, 2008 2:57 PM
----------------------------------------------
Thanks Ramel. If I understand your point, you're claiming that everyday choices normal people make with regards to computers have little impact on their health, while they do when it comes to medicine. Fair enough, I can agree with that. However, I would encourage you (and any interest computer scientists) to read this (fixed the reference from the previous post):
Sheldon T, "Computer Clear uses your PC to release over 34,000 different homoeopathic type remedies into you" in There Goes the Science Bit..., Sense About Science, 2007. pg. 5
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/voys/theregoesthesciencebit.pdfI thought it was interesting that pseudoscience concepts like homeopathy are applied to software in an effort to make a buck. The rationality for mechanism underlying the software is also a hilarious read.
Posted by: MKandefer | December 2, 2008 3:17 PM
----------------------------------------------
Orac you are missing the links in the statement "ones similar to the ones I had taken on here and here."
Posted by: Danimal | December 2, 2008 3:19 PM
----------------------------------------------
MKanefer I think we're on the same page now. That homeopathic software is truly bizzar and it still amazes me even now that people would pay money for a program like that (although it probably works better than a certain OS).
Posted by: Ramel | December 2, 2008 3:52 PM
----------------------------------------------
Hallo, da bin ich.
It's me. The Pater Artmann. Amen. Better known as bad egg and master of half-truths or spoiler of the science's spirit.
So what's the question? Do you think, I say: heavy-metal is not harmful?
That's rubbish.
I say: Ayurveda is not science.
That's why nobody can say it is wrong.
Ayurveda is simply without any rights and rules and everybody can tell: From now on I am an Ayurvedan physician.
Each village builds there own medicines - do you know what's inside their pot? Does Saper know it?
But if you want to fight against something you need to have a target. Where is it?
I have been to some parts of india, maybe you should see it, too.
There is no bad science in Ayurveda. It is just no science at all.
But the most disturbing thing is: People take this kind of medicine ... and they don't get sick.
Often they get better.
I saw it and I am still looking for an explanation. Do you have it?
And by the way ... you are talking about lead, but did you notice the dirt?
Anyway I have put an update in my old post.
http://www.scienceblogs.de/medlog/2008/09/ayurveda-enthalt-blei-ach-nee.phpIt's in german.
Posted by: Peter Artmann | December 2, 2008 3:57 PM
----------------------------------------------
Nice of you that you don't recommend for anyone to take toxic heavy metals in lethal doses. What would have helped so would have been a recommendation of staying a mile away of Ayurveda since you can't tell if any of the homebrews contains the poison or not, instead of claiming it's intolerant of us to condemn the use of it. Odd, these scientists and their idea of 21st century != 19th century.
Posted by: Mu | December 2, 2008 4:19 PM
----------------------------------------------
Well, I live in Europe, you live in the states, they live in India. I guess they like their homes and medicines.
I am not going to shoot their physicians.
And in fact, they are not so different from us. Shall I say "stay away from Indians"? They have just a different method to cure people. I am not recommending it.
What about you? Are you going to destroy their pots?
Some time ago the europeans went to america and brought Jesus to native americans. They were certain to bring the best of all medicine.
Posted by: Peter Artmann | December 2, 2008 4:35 PM
----------------------------------------------
Nobody can say it's wrong, eh? But, surely you are saying it's right: those who take such medicine don't get worse, and they often get better. So, if they did get worse, or they didn't get any better, then we'd surely say it's wrong, too.
Everybody should see India for their own personal anecdote, which is how science works anyways.
Posted by: Koray | December 2, 2008 4:50 PM
----------------------------------------------
To the various CS's above: from one CS to the others, that *was* a funny line. As inaccurate as it was funny, but funny nonetheless. Well, there was a grain of truth (which seems to have been recognized universally by now): we don't deal directly with matters of life-and-death, whereas in medical science they do.
Just to throw in an anecdote: when I went from biologist to computer scientist to engineer, I got a lot more dangerous. Whereas at first about the worst I could do was come tumbling out of a forest canopy, maybe bringing a colleague or two with me, now ... let's just say that if I took a homeopathic approach to verifying the correctness of a braking circuit for an automobile, that would do a lot more harm.
Posted by: Thomas | December 2, 2008 4:52 PM
----------------------------------------------
Peter,
I don't know if it's the language barrier or you, but what you just wrote doesn't even make sense.
Of course, what you said in your post about Ayruvedic medicines and heavy metal contamination in the post I linked to didn't make sense either, and there wasn't the excuse of not using your native language.
Posted by: Orac | December 2, 2008 4:52 PM
----------------------------------------------
But the most disturbing thing is: People take this kind of medicine ... and they don't get sick.
Oh, really?
Often they get better.
I'm sure the placebo effect is a wholly American phenomenon.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | December 2, 2008 4:54 PM
----------------------------------------------
@Peter: Die Dumm, es brennt!
@Orac: It's an okay summary of his update. You know when you've dug so far down you can barely see the sky? Peter apparently thinks you should keep digging.
Posted by: Thomas | December 2, 2008 5:00 PM
----------------------------------------------
I'm less concerned with the quote, than the context it was offered in, which was to malign computer scientists as outsiders to medicine, incapable of contributing to the discussion.
MKandefer, I might have missed it, but unless I am much mistaken, I'm still the only guest blogger Orac has had, and both my posts where related to health and medicine. Since Orac knows I am a computer scientist, I doubt he seriously consider CS incapable of contributing to the discussion.
It was a funny remark, nothing more.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | December 2, 2008 5:11 PM
----------------------------------------------
I didn't say it's right.
I said I don't understand it.
And I said I don't recommend it.
Maybe its Placebo. I have no explanation.
P. S. I am talking about my experience in india. In Germany our government does not allow medicine with as much lead and arsen as Saper found.
@Blake I guess there are slightly more indians who did not die.
Posted by: Peter Artmann | December 2, 2008 5:13 PM
----------------------------------------------
I think Peter is trying the old "If it's true for you it's not necessarily true for me" philosophy bull.
Posted by: Ramel | December 2, 2008 5:14 PM
----------------------------------------------
@Peter
Peter you are not aware of scientific papers. Ayurvedic medicine makes sich due to heavy metal poisoning, due to e-coli contamination, due to aristolochia acid remedies (a strong carcinogen) due to not standardized production, due to adding mercurials to the remedies and so forth- you gnore the literature. You are not aware of the Belgium nephropathy syndrom where obese ladies made a diet and got kidney cancer- many of them where prophylactically nephrectomezed- dialysis makes people loose weight- correct? So could you agree that the diet was successfull? I can`t
Posted by: wolfgang | December 2, 2008 5:15 PM
----------------------------------------------
Kristjan,
Orac didn't offer the remark, nor the original post I was arguing against. He just said he should keep the quote in mind for future use. I was dissapointed as I thought he was endorsing the view. I think we've resolved the issue with the original author of the quote, and came to the conclusion that it was a miscommunication, and that I should lighten up. Now, let's continue with the "persecution" of the quack. =D
Posted by: MKandefer | December 2, 2008 5:16 PM
----------------------------------------------
Dear Orac,
I am trying again:
There is no Ayurvedan Medicine. There are a thousand ayurvedan medicines.
It seems like some of their medicines are extremely harmful.
But they have never set standards.
Posted by: Peter Artmann | December 2, 2008 5:20 PM
----------------------------------------------
Parts of the update (rough translation):
(...) Das ist nur die eine Seite der Medaille. Auf der anderen Seite gibt es dort fundamentalistisch eingestellte Menschen, die "wissenschaftsgläubig" sind und übereifrig nach "esoterischen" Beiträgen in naturwissenschaftlich-orientierten Gemeinschaften suchen und sich diebisch freuen, wenn sie die Urheber dieser Beiträge als "ungläubig" oder nicht aufgeklärt brandmarken können.
(...)That's just one side of the same coin. On the other side there are fundamentalistically inclined people who are "science-believers" and search fanatically for "esoteric" posts in science-oriented coummities. And then they become fiendishly happy once they can mark the originators of these posts as "infidels" or not enlightened.
Science is not faith-based. You should know that, considering that you are a biologist.
Wie schön und tolerant ist doch Europa, denkt man da. Doch ganz sicher ist man auch hier nicht, denn ob ihr es glaubt oder nicht- sogar ich bin jetzt in genau dieses Feuer mit meinem alten Beitrag über Ayurveda geraten.
One muses how nice and tolerant Europe is.
But, believe it or not, one isn't totally safe here, either - even I was drawn into this fire with my old post about Ayurveda
Poor you. If you don't want to get called out for your stupidity, don't write stupid things.
5. In unserer freiheitlich liebenden europäischen Kultur wissen wir jedoch auch, dass das erste Mittel gegen Syphilis auf Arsen basierte und dass nahezu alles, was wir heute verdammen, vor gar nicht allzu langer Zeit auch hierzulande als Medikament eingesetzt wurde. Es gibt deshalb keinen Grund auf die Medizinsysteme anderer Länder verächtlich herabzublicken.
5. In our liberty-loving, European Culture, we are well aware, that the first Syphilis cure was based on arsenic. And that almost anything we are condemning today was, until recently, used here as medicine, too. That's why there's no reason to be condescending towards the medical systems of other countries.
Yeah, liberty sure has a long tradition in European Culture, eh? And there's a difference between drugs based on something and drugs consisting of something. And yes, there was pseudoscientific medicine in Europe, but guess what? We got rid of that! That's the whole point - the methods which were used did more harm than good and were discarded. Easy, huh? Why should we even be respectful towards a medical system that has no plausible mechanism, hurts more people than it heals (by far) and has shown nothing a placebo couldn't do just as well (maybe without the accidental deaths...)
6. Europäische Toleranz bedeutet mehr als Haschrauchen in den Niederlanden.
6. European tolerance is more than just smoking weed in the Netherlands.
Tolerating something doesn't mean one can't criticize it.
Posted by: DCP | December 2, 2008 5:29 PM
----------------------------------------------
@Peter- Ayurvedic medicines are often dangerous, have no quality standards, and don't work. If they did work real medicine would be doing the same thing.
Posted by: Ramel | December 2, 2008 5:34 PM
----------------------------------------------
(...)That's just one side of the same coin. On the other side there are fundamentalistically inclined people who are "science-believers" and search fanatically for "esoteric" posts in science-oriented coummities. And then they become fiendishly happy once they can mark the originators of these posts as "infidels" or not enlightened.
Ah, yes, the old "Science is just another religion" fallacy, combined with a bit of the ol' "You're just mean" gambit.
All added on top of his previous "You have to believe in woo for it to work."
Posted by: Orac | December 2, 2008 5:36 PM
----------------------------------------------
It's ok to criticize me.
I have no problem with that. In fact, I am blogging.
From my point of view it's not bad science.
Posted by: Peter Artmann | December 2, 2008 5:38 PM
----------------------------------------------
From my point of view it's not bad science.
And that's exactly the problem.
Posted by: Orac | December 2, 2008 5:41 PM
----------------------------------------------
From my point of view it's not bad science.
Says Ken Ham... oops, I've mistaken you for somebody else...
Posted by: DCP | December 2, 2008 5:42 PM
----------------------------------------------
I am talking about my experience in india. In Germany our government does not allow medicine with as much lead and arsen as Saper found.
and
There is no Ayurvedan Medicine. There are a thousand ayurvedan medicines.
It seems like some of their medicines are extremely harmful.
But they have never set standards.
So, do you think that standards are good for one country but not the other? Or are the German standards bad?
Posted by: windy | December 2, 2008 5:43 PM
----------------------------------------------
Nice,
so you have an answer to my questions?
Posted by: Peter Artmann | December 2, 2008 5:43 PM
----------------------------------------------
It's an okay summary of his update. You know when you've dug so far down you can barely see the sky? Peter apparently thinks you should keep digging.
Nonsense. If you find you've dug yourself into a hole too deep to shovel the dirt out, then it's time to start using explosives.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 2, 2008 5:46 PM
----------------------------------------------
I think standards are good, because if you have standards, than you can argue.
In Germany we always had very restrictive laws concering medicines. That was good and helpful.
Posted by: Peter Artmann | December 2, 2008 5:49 PM
----------------------------------------------
"Ayurveda is not science. That's why nobody can say it is wrong."
What?!?! Ayurveda being unscientific is what *makes* it wrong! It's nothing but anecdotes about random treatments, as you just explained!
Gah! Between this and PZ's recent post about Ray Comfort, I need to take a break from ScienceBlogs ... there's too much BS to handle! (BS being reported on, that is.)
Posted by: bob | December 2, 2008 5:50 PM
----------------------------------------------
Well, from a particular point of view, you could agree that it's not bad science -- but that's because it's not science at all.
I think the phrase "not even wrong" comes into play here....
Posted by: G Barnett | December 2, 2008 5:51 PM
----------------------------------------------
Sure, the philosophy/religion behind Ayurveda is not science. But this does not mean that all of its claims are untestable = outside of the realm of science.
That should be obvious. Especially to a PhD student.
Posted by: David Marjanović | December 2, 2008 5:51 PM
----------------------------------------------
"so you have an answer to my questions?"
State them clearly, and we'll answer them.
It amazes me that this is heading for 80 comments when the more interesting and important post on breast cancer only got 8.... I sometimes think we need to sort out our priorities.... Then vista breaks again and I have more important problems to worry about.
Posted by: Ramel | December 2, 2008 5:52 PM
I think standards are good, because if you have standards, than you can argue.
In Germany we always had very restrictive laws concering medicines. That was good and helpful.
So why can't we criticise the lack of standards in Ayurvedic medicine? Standards are good, but we can't argue at all until there are standards? Just trying to follow you here.
Posted by: windy | December 2, 2008 5:55 PM
----------------------------------------------
Peter, do you have any evidence that it works? Other than hearsay and anecdote?
When I was working on my degree in toxicology, I had as classmates two doctors from India. Both of them decried the levels of heavy metal poisoning caused by Ayurvedic medicine. What you observed is apparently not the same as what the medical professionals of India are observing.
-------
Orac, I may have found some woo for you to look at when this dies down. Apparently, there are some chiropractors who think that spine cracking is a treatment for shingles...
Posted by: Robster, FCD | December 2, 2008 5:56 PM
----------------------------------------------
Well, I live in Europe, you live in the states, they live in India. I guess they like their homes [?] and medicines.
Who are "they"? Everyone in India is in complete agreement?
I am not going to shoot their physicians.
And in fact, they are not so different from us. Shall I say "stay away from Indians"? They have just a different method to cure people. I am not recommending it.
What about you? Are you going to destroy their pots?
Scientists pointing to the lack of demonstrated effectiveness and the dangers and calling for evidence in support of an alleged treatment is the same as neocolonial racism, murder, and destruction? Cultural relativism taken to absurd extremes.
I have no explanation.
For what, exactly?
Posted by: SC | December 2, 2008 6:00 PM
----------------------------------------------
My last comment:
Ayurvedan Medicine can be harmful.
Posted by: Peter Artmann | December 2, 2008 6:00 PM
----------------------------------------------
There are some chiropractors who think that spine-cracking is a treatment for anything you can imagine and then some! Orac has blogged about this several times. :-)
Posted by: David Marjanović | December 2, 2008 6:01 PM
----------------------------------------------
Peter you say it can be harmful, that is not disputed. The question is "does it do any good?". The answer is no, no it does not.
Posted by: Ramel | December 2, 2008 6:03 PM
----------------------------------------------
The question is "does it do any good?".
More precisely, "does it do more good than damage?".
Posted by: David Marjanović | December 2, 2008 6:05 PM
----------------------------------------------
very last comment:
Dear windy,
I would support an indian plebiscite for standards in medicine. But the situation in Kerala looked different. People were not interested in more laws.
Posted by: Peter Artmann | December 2, 2008 6:09 PM
----------------------------------------------
Somewhat off topic, I want to add to the discussion between Christian and others, where he was shocked that you compared Artmann to a Holocaust denier. I think most people in the US don't understand how much of a taboo it is in Germany to call someone a Holocaust denier, or even a Nazi. (Yes I know, this is not the same, but both are huge cultural taboos in Germany) I've been living in the US for several years now and I'm still sometimes shocked by the casual use of both terms here.
It is even forbidden by law to deny the Holocaust in Germany, since it is considered a from of hate speech. (I don't want to start a discussion on free speech here, I just wanted to explain why Christian reacted so strongly to your use of the term.)
Posted by: Iris | December 2, 2008 6:09 PM
----------------------------------------------
very last comment: Dear windy,
I would support an indian plebiscite for standards in medicine. But the situation in Kerala looked different. People were not interested in more laws.
And thus it's okay to just watch them how they poison themselves? Charming.
Posted by: DCP | December 2, 2008 6:13 PM
----------------------------------------------
Ayurveda is not science. That's why nobody can say it is wrong.
I can predict the behavior of the stock market tomorrow, that's not science either. Does that mean nobody can say I am wrong about the DJIA?
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 2, 2008 6:13 PM
----------------------------------------------
Except that I didn't call Ehgartner a Holocaust denier or Nazi; so Christian's reaction was still overblown.
Posted by: Orac | December 2, 2008 6:13 PM
----------------------------------------------
Well, I guess that answers your question, windy. Unless and until standards are codified in Indian law, scientists should remain uncritical, apparently. Quite a principle, there.
Posted by: SC | December 2, 2008 6:16 PM
----------------------------------------------
The question is "does it do any good?".
More precisely, "does it do more good than damage?".
More precisely yet, "What balance of good to damage can we reasonably expect from it?"
There is always uncertainty, but we have to make decisions even so.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 2, 2008 6:20 PM
----------------------------------------------
Peter Artmann: "Some time ago the europeans went to america and brought Jesus to native americans. They were certain to bring the best of all medicine."
I nominate the above statement for dumbest tu quoque of 2008.
"Die Dumm, es brennt!"
I like that one.
Posted by: Dangerous Bacon | December 2, 2008 6:21 PM
florian wrote: "The german word he used was "Hirnschädigungen" which indeed translates "brain damage"."
ADHD used to be called "Minimal Brain Damage" in the US, decades ago. I suppose the term he used could be an outdated translation of the old English term. I don't know if it remains current in Germany.
Breaking the German word down to 'brain damage' might be literally correct, but a case of over-translating, missing out on the current usage of the whole word.
Posted by: Jon H | December 2, 2008 6:22 PM
I think most people in the US don't understand how much of a taboo it is in Germany to call someone a Holocaust denier, or even a Nazi.
Yeah. For example, the term "grammar Nazi" gives me stomach cramps ("even though" I'm Austrian).
That said, it's fairly obvious that Christian simply hadn't encountered the term "denier" in another context than "Holocaust denier" so far. Holocaust deniers are a special kind of deniers, not the other way around!
"Die Dumm, es brennt!"
I like that one.
I'm just still wondering what's so feminine about the stupid. Stupidity, yes, but stupid per se? ~:-|
But maybe it's one of those words that have different gender in Austria and Germany, like (Coca) Cola, E-Mail, Blog*... ;-)
* That one actually has a more complicated distribution, though.
florian wrote: "The german word he used was "Hirnschädigungen" which indeed translates "brain damage"."
Well, we could get picky and point out it's a plural. Perhaps "brain lesions" comes closest, though I'm not quite sure what exactly is called a lesion in medicine; Schädigungen would include physiological as well as mechanical damage.
Posted by: David Marjanović | December 2, 2008 6:42 PM
----------------------------------------------
"Brain damage"? I really, really hope that's a translation issue...
I'm not ADHD, but I know quite a few people who are (or are diagnosed ADHD anyway - it's apparently overdiagnosed) and I've never seen anyone act like it was "damage". Most people don't even act like it's a bad thing -- it's apparently strongly correlated with intelligence and creativity. There are certainly downsides, but...
Posted by: William Miller | December 2, 2008 8:14 PM
----------------------------------------------
I was going to say, "Das Dumme, es brennt!" I sort of take exception to the notion that "the Stupid" is feminine! But I learned German in Vienna, and many other students took great delight in teaching me slang, so I don't always know if I am correct on these things!
Posted by: storkdok | December 2, 2008 9:02 PM
----------------------------------------------
@ERV
I kindly ask that you not use "tards" (retards) as a put down. Those of us who have special needs children would most appreciate it! :0)
Posted by: storkdok | December 2, 2008 9:10 PM
----------------------------------------------
@DCP
Thank you for the quick translation, it corroborated what I thought I was reading. I am not very good with nuances and sarcasm in German, but I did get the gist of it, and my thoughts were the same as yours! ;0)
Posted by: storkdok | December 2, 2008 9:15 PM
----------------------------------------------
Christian: "We should really make an effort to argue with people we do not agree with in a somewhat civil manner."
There is incivility that comes from playing loose with the truth and caricaturing one's adversaries. There is also incivility that comes from speaking the truth bluntly. Only the former kind of incivility has no proper place in reasoned discourse. So far, we've been doing only the latter here, and as long as that holds true, complains about civility are largely a distraction.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | December 2, 2008 9:38 PM
There is incivility that comes from playing loose with the truth and caricaturing one's adversaries. There is also incivility that comes from speaking the truth bluntly. Only the former kind of incivility has no proper place in reasoned discourse. So far, we've been doing only the latter here, and as long as that holds true, complains about civility are largely a distraction.
When someone is bullshitting, there really is no way to call them on it that a bullshitter can't twist into "you're picking on me!"
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 2, 2008 9:43 PM
----------------------------------------------
I agree, D. C. Sessions, I agree.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | December 2, 2008 9:52 PM
----------------------------------------------
I would support an indian plebiscite for standards in medicine. But the situation in Kerala looked different. People were not interested in more laws.
That sounds like the Kenyans in Sapolsky's Primate's memoir, who weren't all that upset when the crooked meat inspector and butcher happened to give everyone food poisoning.
I offhandedly asked Timpai, over his tea, whether it was possible that the cows possible that the cows were ever sick when they were slaughtered. Oh no. How do you know? Because the meat inspector tells me when they are good. How does he know? Oh, he knows.
What I would conclude from this is that people in different countries have different priorities, but not that the meat inspector has some "other ways of knowing" that we mustn't criticize, or that TB-infested meat is safer if you trust your butcher.
Posted by: windy | December 2, 2008 10:25 PM
----------------------------------------------
Windy, Thats why there is only one way to cook meat of any kind in Kenya... Well done.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | December 2, 2008 11:49 PM
----------------------------------------------
First to make this clear: This is not a pro Ehgartner post!
After following this "story" on the german scienceblogs and now reading this entries and comments, da completly different question crossed my mind:
"How does time change the way, people stand for their principles". In some times a lot of people demonstrate and even fight for them, and in other time, there is mostly talking.
And this leads to the next question for me: What would happen, if the german devision of the seed media group finaly decides, there is no actual need to take action? Will everything goes back to normal, when the interest in this discussion decrease? Or would any involved blogger take consequences and say "I dont wanna have my name or my work connected with unscientific quackery, and because its wether him or me, i leave scienceblogs".
Perhaps it could be called childish, but on the other hand i dont understand the tendency to complain and talk about things, which one disfavours, but having no option to act..
Posted by: Adromir | December 3, 2008 12:59 AM
----------------------------------------------
Without having read all the comments:
I say kick them out of scienceblogs.de. Tolerance and slippery slope arguments take you just so far, but there is a point when a decision has to be made. Its not on a whim, its because of good and sound arguments, its not my 2c, not an opinion. You can clearly say that those two bloggers have a non-scientific mindset and therefore should look for a forum elsewhere.
Posted by: bcpmoon | December 3, 2008 2:10 AM
----------------------------------------------
The twitter links posted by Tobias and Conrad lead to the below. I am not sure if the message was noted.
Kurze Information bzgl. der überb