sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (09/17/85)
Welcome to the club, Byron. I have stopped responding to Stoll's articles.
I initially felt that it was important to address the inaccuracies which he
passes off as revealed truth, in the hope that the less knowledgeable would
have a better chance of making an informed judgement of his postings. Now,
it seems, that, like all true fanatics, he has more stamina than sense, and
will continue with his combinations of misquotations, self-serving
invective against the orthodox medical profession, and the stubborn refusal
to respond to criticism of his more outlandish notions, until we are all
totally exhausted and disgusted. There is no true interchange here. In
this regard, he is in heady company along with the Velikovskians and the
"scientific creationists" in net.origins. It is worth asking ourselves
whether we really want 'net.med' to take on this flavor. I suspect not.
What is the right way to deal with these problems? Obviously, not by
"banning" anyone: it can't be done, and it's undesirable. But, these kind
of people thrive on attention: their entire stance is contra-orthodoxy, and
without the right kind of feedback (meaning any whatsoever), I'm now
convinced that their contributions will simply fall with a hollow thud.
Certainly we should point out factual errors when we see them so that
people are not misled, but I suspect that a gentle correction followed
by nothing other than a change of topic will suffice to avoid these
religious wars. In other words, I'm proposing a bit of restraint when
responding to fanatical types, letting them have their due say, without
pushing their own buttons, ekeing them on to even more lows of
megalomania. I suspect that most readers of net.med by now have their
BS detectors turned on high sensitivity, and they don't need our help.
This doesn't mean that we need to avoid certain topics: issues like Chinese
Medicine can be fascinating and enlightening, as long as one skirts the
realm of fanaticism. I would go further, setting as one of the ground
rules a certain respect for logic and scientific materialism. Again, this
is no less than anyone expects from the people who design our cars and
airplanes (or computers, for that matter.) It is truly amazing to me that
where one's health is concerned, people will gladly accept theories with no
more proof than "I said so" or "so and so said so."
--
/Steve Dyer
{harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer
sdyer@bbncc5.ARPAwws@ukma.UUCP (Bill Stoll) (09/20/85)
Poor Steve. Sooo predictable!
There are four stages of societal response to the discovery of
radically new concepts (in this order):
#1 Ignore it and it will go away.
#2 Ridicule
#3 Attack
#4 Total acceptance: "Well, that's obvious! We knew that all
the time!
Twice now, Steve has ridiculed something I have placed on the net;
only to have strong evidence to the contrary be published within a few
days of his unsupported position. His response has been to regress
(like the child who reverts to bedwetting when the new baby is brought
home from the hospital) from the relatively advanced societal response
of ridicule to the relatively more primitive strategy of ignoring.
Sorry Steve, you're going to have to work harder and harder to ignore
what is rushing, like an avalanche, into all our lives. Just today,
in one of the many Medical Journals I read every day, in the special
section called Medical Ethics (appropriate, I think), Thomas Preston,
MD, Professor of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine
& Chief of Cardiology at Pacific Medical Center, joined my side. In a
one page statement,"Palliative Care No Match for Prevention of
Disease", one more outstanding clinician points out exactly my
position: Reference--Medical World News/September 9, 1985 (page 19).
The same day two more articles in the same vein: Family Practice News/
September 1-14, 1985, page 16, "Medicare Asked to Take Part in
Promoting 'Wellness'" & page 18 (same issue) "Promoting Healthier
Life-Styles Challenging, Rewarding".
Even the AMA has already reached the last of the four societel
responses. In American Medical News/September 13, 1985, the
announcement is made that the third special supplement to Newsweek by
the AMA appears in the Sept. 9th edition, titled: "To your health!
Building and keeping a healthy body." The supplement covers such
topics as nutrition, exercise, and disease prevention. The only
professional national medical organization that specializes in this
field is the American Holistic Medical Association (AHMA). For the
past 7 years, since the beginning of the AHMA, the AMA has done as
much as it legally could to stifle it. The very things the AMA is now
claiming for its own has been practiced for many years by Holistic
Medical Practitioners. Of course, the AHMA is now practicing an
advanced form of what was known 7 years ago. It will be years before
the conventional medical practitioner catches up though catch up they
will eventually. It should already be considered malpractice to offer
less than is known. Eventually that may be what forces many MDs to go
back to learn all this new stuff.
Trying to pitch the offerings to the net to satisfy the lowest common
denominator would be a sad thing for the rest of us. Maybe we can
create a "special class for slow learners like the Steve Dyers".
--
cbosgd!ukma!wws(Walt Stoll) YOU
Walt Stoll, MD, ABFP
Founder & Medical Director ARE MORE
Holistic Medical Centre
1412 North Broadway
Lexington, Kentucky 40505 THAN YOU THINK
(606) 233-4273usenet@ucbvax.ARPA (USENET News Administration) (09/20/85)
In article <272@bbncc5.UUCP> sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) writes: > ...... I would go further, setting as one of the ground >rules a certain respect for logic and scientific materialism. .... Here is my personal opinion. I have known many people on both sides of this issue. The unorthodox group is often guilty of an unscientific approach lacking in logic. The orthodox group seems to go too far in the other direction, trying to reduce everything to "logic and scientific materialism". (not that I accuse Steve of this, I just used the above as a starting point for this letter.) I thought that Godel's incompleteness theorems, Quantum physics and such had blown scientific materialism out of the water, at least as far as being a "true" description of the world. What the unorthodox approach has in its favor is often based on personal experience, which tends to be difficult to treat scientifically. I think that the orthodox group might benefit from practices promoting personal experience (perhaps Yoga/meditation, fasting or whatever), while the unorthodox group might benefit from a study of logic. -Tom tedrick@berkeley
ksbszabo@watvlsi.UUCP (Kevin Szabo) (09/20/85)
In article <2221@ukma.UUCP> wws@ukma.UUCP (Walt Stoll) writes: (editted!) >Poor Steve. Sooo predictable! >There are four stages of societal response to the discovery of >radically WRONG concepts (in this order): > #1 Ignore it and it will go away. > #2 Ridicule > #3 Attack > #4 Total acceptance: "Well, that's obvious! We knew that all > the time! Poor Stoll, so predictable. What do you think you have been spewing all over the net with statements like "RA RA", "WHO's LAUGHING NOW?", and all the other useless mudslinging articles? Just ridicule and attack, that's all. While you have some interesting points to discuss your method of presentation is that of a raver with a HUGE chip on his shoulder. I am going to apply #1 to you; I hope you will somehow go away. I find your logic VERY offensive, and your narrow-mindedness repungent. I advise everybody else to add "reply to WWS" in their subject line so I can ignore those postings too. Kevin P.S. I don't like electromagnetic pollution either, but it doesn't mean I have to throw the baby out with the bath water. M.D.'s still have my trust, one even suggested I see a chiropractor the other day. This is in Canada of course, we might have a different breed of MD's and Chiropractors. -- Kevin Szabo' watmath!watvlsi!ksbszabo (U of W VLSI Group, Waterloo, Ont, Canada)
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) (09/21/85)
In article <2221@ukma.UUCP> wws@ukma.UUCP (Bill Stoll) writes: >Twice now, Steve has ridiculed something I have placed on the net; >only to have strong evidence to the contrary be published within a few >days of his unsupported position. Garbage, Walt, and you know it! When you stop misrepresenting facts I *might* begin to take you seriously. So long as you continue to deceive, distort and downright lie to promote your position, you are going to have to expect that folks will be suspicious of what you say. I don't want to purge you, I want you to stop trying to deal of the bottom of the (possibly incomplete) deck. >Sorry Steve, you're going to have to work harder and harder to ignore >what is rushing, like an avalanche, into all our lives. Just today, >in one of the many Medical Journals I read every day, in the special >section called Medical Ethics (appropriate, I think), Thomas Preston, >MD, Professor of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine >& Chief of Cardiology at Pacific Medical Center, joined my side. In a >one page statement,"Palliative Care No Match for Prevention of >Disease", one more outstanding clinician points out exactly my >position: Reference--Medical World News/September 9, 1985 (page 19). Sure, Walt. All AMA-type physicians were/are against prevention so they can make big bucks providing useless cures. Nobody ever looked at stress as a causative factor in disease until the holistic physicians came around, nobody was ever aware of dietary factors in disease until holistic physicians came to be and nobody knew about the relationship between diet and mood until holistic physicians discovered it. (The above paragraph is to be read with heavy sarcastic tones.) >Even the AMA has already reached the last of the four societel >responses. In American Medical News/September 13, 1985, the >announcement is made that the third special supplement to Newsweek by >the AMA appears in the Sept. 9th edition, titled: "To your health! >Building and keeping a healthy body." The supplement covers such >topics as nutrition, exercise, and disease prevention. The only >professional national medical organization that specializes in this >field is the American Holistic Medical Association (AHMA). For the >past 7 years, since the beginning of the AHMA, the AMA has done as >much as it legally could to stifle it. The very things the AMA is now >claiming for its own has been practiced for many years by Holistic >Medical Practitioners. Of course, the AHMA is now practicing an >advanced form of what was known 7 years ago. It will be years before >the conventional medical practitioner catches up though catch up they >will eventually. It should already be considered malpractice to offer >less than is known. Eventually that may be what forces many MDs to go >back to learn all this new stuff. You read it here folks. Say, Walt, how come I learned all of these things in elementary school -- before the American Holistic Medical Association came to be. Looks to me like the situation is reversed: you, in the name of the AHMA, are claiming for your own the very thing that have been practiced for years by members of the AMA. Again, this is a false repre- sentation and you probably know it! -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (09/21/85)
Are Bill Stoll and Ken Arnt the same person? Certainly seems that way!
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/22/85)
> [Walt Stoll, in response to Steve Dyer] > There are four stages of societal response to the discovery of > radically new concepts (in this order): > #1 Ignore it and it will go away. > #2 Ridicule > #3 Attack > #4 Total acceptance: "Well, that's obvious! We knew that all > the time! ------ I humbly suggest: #5 A new newsgroup net.med.holistic where Walt could let his "radical new concepts" flower fully without sniping from us "slow learners". (Please forgive me if this has been suggested before. I haven't been reading this newsgroup for too long.) -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/22/85)
> [Steve Dyer] > > ...... I would go further, setting as one of the ground > >rules a certain respect for logic and scientific materialism. .... ------- > [Tom - tedrick@berkeley] > [Stuff omitted] > I thought that Godel's incompleteness theorems, Quantum > physics and such had blown scientific materialism out of > the water, at least as far as being a "true" description > of the world. ------- Wrong. Only as far as being a "complete" description. ------- > What the unorthodox approach has in its favor > is often based on personal experience, which tends to be > difficult to treat scientifically. ------- Those on the "orthodox" side have personal experiences too. Sometimes these experiences include controlled double blind experiments. Amazing how the personal experiences of the "unorthodox" are almost never reproducible by non-true believers in that particular "unorthodoxy". In those few cases when they ARE reproducible, they quickly become the new orthodoxy. ------- > I think that the orthodox group might benefit from practices > promoting personal experience (perhaps Yoga/meditation, fasting > or whatever), -------- How about voodoo? Or wife beating. Those are personal experiences too. Tell me what isn't a personal experience. -------- > while the unorthodox group might benefit from a study of logic. -------- Right on. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
swb@lasspvax.UUCP (Scott Brim) (09/22/85)
In article <1291@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >I humbly suggest: > #5 A new newsgroup net.med.holistic Great idea! I also vote for net.med.holistic. Bill could simply announce in net.med that e.g. "I have refuted all of this in a new posting in net.med.holistic" and all argument could be conducted over there. It just might save this group, which many people turn away from in disgust right now.
sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (09/22/85)
> Twice now, Steve has ridiculed something I have placed on the net; > only to have strong evidence to the contrary be published within a few > days of his unsupported position. His response has been to regress > (like the child who reverts to bedwetting when the new baby is brought > home from the hospital) from the relatively advanced societal response > of ridicule to the relatively more primitive strategy of ignoring. > I would like to clarify my comment, in case there are others like Walt who may have misinterpreted me. I was not proposing "ignoring" crackpots, as much as refusing to engage in extended debate. I have seen too many other news groups degenerate into such harangues, and net.med is not the place for this. -- /Steve Dyer {harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer sdyer@bbncc5.ARPA
usenet@ucbvax.ARPA (USENET News Administration) (09/23/85)
In article <1292@ihlpg.UUCP> you write: >> [Steve Dyer] >> > ...... I would go further, setting as one of the ground >> >rules a certain respect for logic and scientific materialism. .... >------- >> [Tom - tedrick@berkeley] >> [Stuff omitted] >> I thought that Godel's incompleteness theorems, Quantum >> physics and such had blown scientific materialism out of >> the water, at least as far as being a "true" description >> of the world. >------- >[Bill Tanenbaum] >Wrong. Only as far as being a "complete" description. >------- My point is that logic and scientific materialism are useful, but not sufficient for solving all our problems. ----------- >> What the unorthodox approach has in its favor >> is often based on personal experience, which tends to be >> difficult to treat scientifically. >------- >Those on the "orthodox" side have personal experiences too. ----------- Yes, of course. ----------- >Sometimes these experiences include controlled double blind experiments. >Amazing how the personal experiences of the "unorthodox" are almost >never reproducible by non-true believers in that particular >"unorthodoxy". In those few cases when they ARE reproducible, they >quickly become the new orthodoxy. >------- Well, I will risk being branded as a heretic and say that the fact that an experience is not reproducible does not mean it is invalid. (Unfortunately if one is willing to accept reports of such experiences one is likely to be victimized by charlatans and/or irrational people.) Some things may not be susceptible to experimental verification (isn't there a principle in physics that observing an event changes it?) I am not rejecting the scientific method. I am surrounded by these holistic types out here in Northern California and for years have been trying to get some of them to be more rational. But I also think they do a lot of good. I would also like to state that I do not have as much faith in the representatives of orthodoxy as you seem to. I seem to recall that some pioneers in science have been put through all kinds of persecutions before their views became the new orthodoxy. Perhaps some correct views never were accepted. How do you know? --------- >> I think that the orthodox group might benefit from practices >> promoting personal experience (perhaps Yoga/meditation, fasting >> or whatever), >-------- >How about voodoo? Or wife beating. Those are personal experiences >too. Tell me what isn't a personal experience. >-------- I don't have any first hand experience with voodoo or wife beating so I can't endorse those practices. What I was trying to say is that since reason can only take us so far, techniques for changing one's state of awareness may be useful in obtaining new insights. --------- >> while the unorthodox group might benefit from a study of logic. >-------- >Right on. >-- >Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan ---------------- In conclusion, I think there is room for some more understanding from both sides. -Tom tedrick@berkeley
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (09/24/85)
> Are Bill Stoll and Ken Arnt the same person? Certainly seems that way!
No. Arndt is smarter. He has taken a course in philosophy.
--
Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.)
"Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..."
{amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff
{ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeffpeter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (09/25/85)
> I thought that Godel's incompleteness theorems, Quantum > physics and such had blown scientific materialism out of > the water, at least as far as being a "true" description > of the world. Unfortunately no-one never claimed that it's the "true" description of the world. All we can say is that so far it works, unlike any other model of the world that I've ever heard of. Of course choosing a model based on "what works" is part of SM in the first place, but what better criteria fo you have?
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (09/26/85)
Didn't we just have this whole "scientific method vs. personal testimony" and "all great scientists were ridiculed"/"were not"/"were"/... debate on net.origins about a month ago? Is there an echo in here or is net.origins just ahead of net.med? I hope not.
usenet@ucbvax.ARPA (USENET News Administration) (09/27/85)
In article <239@graffiti.UUCP> peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >> I thought that Godel's incompleteness theorems, Quantum >> physics and such had blown scientific materialism out of >> the water, at least as far as being a "true" description >> of the world. > >Unfortunately no-one never claimed that it's the "true" description of >the world. All we can say is that so far it works, unlike any other >model of the world that I've ever heard of. Of course choosing a model >based on "what works" is part of SM in the first place, but what better >criteria fo you have? I'm not so sure that noone ever claimed scientific materialism is a true description of the world. (Isn't something along those lines part of Marxist doctrine?) But anyway basically what I was trying to say is that it is a good model (actually quite an amazingly good model), but that it should be understood as being a model rather than truth. As you say, choosing a model based on what works is part of what SM is all about, as I understand it. My particular pet theory which I've been trying to integrate with existing models is rather controversial and has to do with adding as an axiom the existence of a soul, without saying anything about God, religion etc. Since this is somewhere out in left-field as far as most people are concerned I won't burden you with the details ... (this view is heretical both to religious and materialistic types ...) What I like about Godel's theorems, Quantum physics, etc., is that they seem to suggest something mysterious is going on that isn't readily explainable. I like mysteries ... Apologies to the readers for burdening them with my personal opinions ... I won't put any more of this in the net. -Tom tedrick@berkeley (Organization: The UnPowerful Elite)
carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) (09/30/85)
In article <1291@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >> [Walt Stoll, in response to Steve Dyer] >> #1 Ignore it and it will go away. >> #2 Ridicule >> #3 Attack >> #4 Total acceptance: "Well, that's obvious! We knew that all >> the time! >I humbly suggest: > #5 A new newsgroup net.med.holistic >where Walt could let his "radical new concepts" flower fully >without sniping from us "slow learners". #6 A new newsgroup net.stoll for Walt and/or Bill, whoever he is, can stay and get flamed by Byron without bothering us. (:==>) P.S. If Stoll is at some Holistic Health center, why are his postings from the Mathematical Sciences section of some university? Darwin's Dad (Carl Witthoft) ...!{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!aoa!carl @ Adaptive Optics Assoc., 54 Cambridgepark Dr. Cambridge, MA 02140 617-864-0201 " Buffet-Crampon R-13 , VanDoren B-45, and VanDoren Fortes ."
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (10/07/85)
My main criticism of mainstream physicians is that they give most of their attention to making sick people better, and little or no attention to improving the health of well people. Frank Silbermann