counselo@uvm-gen.UUCP (Counselor) (08/27/85)
Enough Bickering!!!! From the way you go back and forth, precious few
of you have ever taken a class in logic/debate. I am offended by Walt
Stolls religious awe of principles which were set down by the chinese
several thousand years ago. I am equally offended by the "rational"
community invoking "Scientific Method" like some blind, dumb god and
refusing to examine procedures which obviously work (like acupuncture)
...Excuse the flame, I am forgetting what I learned in Debate class,
I apologize for the above, There is however in all flame a little
substance. I propose That the proponents of the scientific method
devise and carry out a study to prove to themselves whether Dr. Stoll's
advice is correct or not. As I presume that there is nothing in his
proposed diet that will kill you, and as he claims that results are
fairly immediate, I would suggest a time frame of a month. I there are
no results after 1 month, then you will have just eaten some funny food.
If there are, I would sincerely hope that Dr. Stoll would be enough of
a gentleman not to say I told you so, and that the rest of the net would
be polite enough to recognize the results of the study without alot of
bickering.
So, how about it folks? Why doesn't someone out there devise a set of
(scientific) guidelines for carrying out this experiment. It could either
be run informally among the net members (respones via mail), or it could
be run simultaneously in several different locations around the country
(or world). This would give us several sets of data to compare, and avoid
the cry of "but can the results be replicated?".
It is my hope that the protagonists of the scientific method have enough
faith in it, to let it decide whether Dr. Stoll is correct.
I apologize again for any flames that may have singed people. Please
respond to the experiment suggestion, not to the extraneous verbiage.
-Doug Nelsonsdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (08/28/85)
> I am offended by Walt > Stolls religious awe of principles which were set down by the chinese > several thousand years ago. I am equally offended by the "rational" > community invoking "Scientific Method" like some blind, dumb god and > refusing to examine procedures which obviously work (like acupuncture) While I tend to agree with you about the tone of this discussion, I must take exception with the characterization of us in the rational community. Being "rational", as we are, none of us would EVER refuse to examine procedures which "obviously work." In the case of acupuncture, there seems to be fairly good evidence that it can relieve pain; frankly, I don't know of any studies of its efficacy in other situations: I've seen it advertised for everything from cramps to weight loss. Any "rational" person might be skeptical. But, as people have said before, skepticism is NOT disbelief. Too, there are enough acupunturists (and acupuncturees) around these days that there certainly seems to be a opportunity for an experimental study. > I propose That the proponents of the scientific method > devise and carry out a study to prove to themselves whether Dr. Stoll's > advice is correct or not. As I presume that there is nothing in his > proposed diet that will kill you, and as he claims that results are > fairly immediate, I would suggest a time frame of a month. I there are > no results after 1 month, then you will have just eaten some funny food. As Byron has mentioned, it seems more than a bit "irrational" to take someone seriously who makes statements like "rabies is a psychosomatic illness", "the spinal fluid reaches to the tip of each nerve", "sugar is deadly", etc., because existing scientific evidence doesn't corroborate even a shred of any of Stoll's statements. Here's another one for you: "cancer can be cured by refined sugar." I just made that up. It is absolutely incumbent upon the scientific community to test this hypothesis. Suuure. It should be emphasized that "proof" is the onus of the proponent, and a single testimonial by Stoll doesn't constitute proof. While I suspect you will find few takers for an experiment here, it would be interesting if Stoll posted his protocol on-line. It might make interesting reading. -- /Steve Dyer {harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer sdyer@bbncc5.ARPA
geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks) (08/29/85)
A proper scientific study as you propose cannot simply be done by following Walt's diet and then seeing how you feel. Why not? Because skeptics would tend to feel the same, or worse, and believers would feel great. That is why we do scientific studies DOUBLE BLIND. Neither the adminstrator or the subject must know which subjects are on Walt's diet and which are on some equally palatable (or more likely, unpalatable) diet. After the questionaires are returned and analyzed by someone who is also blinded, then we could see what was what. Such a study wouldn't be cheap or easy. So there is no way that skeptics are going to run such a study (too much time and effort that could be devoted to more plausible theories). It is up to the proponents of theories to prove them scientifically. It is a valid point that if the proponents are inadequately schooled in science, and unable to, then they may not be taken seriously even if what they say is true, yet on its face implausible. But given the cost of scientific research, them's the breaks. Incidentally, you are quite mistaken about acupuncture. It has been thoroughly investigated by scientific anesthesiologists, including theories as to why it works. This work occurred back in the early 70's, when physicians visited China and became interested in the methods of Chinese folk medicine, a traditional school that puts Walt's and Tom's primitive herbalism in the shade for erudition. Incidentally it is curious to me to see so many people using the fruits of western science (the computer) to decry it. This applies to all the creationists on net.origins as well as the herbalists. Perhaps they would also like to return to the era of semaphore signalling.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/31/85)
In article <269@uvm-gen.UUCP> counselo@uvm-gen.UUCP (Counselor) writes: >Enough Bickering!!!! From the way you go back and forth, precious few >of you have ever taken a class in logic/debate. I am offended by Walt >Stolls religious awe of principles which were set down by the chinese >several thousand years ago. I am equally offended by the "rational" >community invoking "Scientific Method" like some blind, dumb god and >refusing to examine procedures which obviously work (like acupuncture) Well, as a matter of fact, the effectiveness of acupuncture *is* accepted by the scientific community. When it was first reported scientist were properly *skeptical* in the abscence of proper testing under controlled conditions.(Remember the placebo effect is very important). However, as soon as controlled results were available which confirmed the procedure it *was* accepted. In fact recent research has fairly well ellucidated the mechanism by which it works. The mechanism is totally different than the traditional Chinese explanation. If I remember correctly it is based on stimulation of endorphins by accessory electric potentials derived from the spinning of the needles. It has also been shown that mild electric current is a usable substitute for spinning the needles by hand. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (09/05/85)
> Enough Bickering!!!! Here Here!!! I quit posting to this group some time ago when I realized that there was no room for a middle of the roader anymore. With us or aga'n us seems to be the rule. Believe totaly in the MD or totaly in the alternative medicine folks. Don't think that both might have something to offer... > ... I propose That the proponents of the scientific method > devise and carry out a study to prove to themselves whether Dr. Stoll's > advice is correct or not. As I presume that there is nothing in his > proposed diet that will kill you, and as he claims that results are > fairly immediate, I would suggest a time frame of a month. > > -Doug Nelson I volunteer to participate in such a study; who else? Thank you Doug. May we at last get the "IS. ISN'T. IS. ISN'T." debate closed. -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (09/05/85)
> Here Here!!! I quit posting to this group some time ago when I realized > that there was no room for a middle of the roader anymore. > With us or aga'n us seems to be the rule. Believe totaly in the > MD or totaly in the alternative medicine folks. Don't think that both > might have something to offer... No one here who has been pointing out the gaps in Stanions's and Stoll's arguments has been making any claim to "believe totally in the MD". None of us who ask for substantiation of outrageous claims by Stanions and Stoll have claimed that traditional medicine, as practised in Western society, is totally faultless, or for that matter, that some of the goals which have been recently (but not exclusively) identified with the recent "holistic health movement" aren't valuable: e.g., emphases on prevention, approaching the person as more than a collection of organs, etc. If there is anything we believe in, it is simply that saying that something is so isn't sufficient. It is approaching uncontrolled testimonials with appropriate skepticism, knowing all too well that even the most well-intentioned people tend to observe what they wish to see, coupled with the fact that most people improve with or without treatment. Believe it or not, the well-controlled study wasn't in common use by allopathic medical researchers until well into the 1960's, and there are therapies, often quite invasive and potentially dangerous, which had been "proved" beneficial, only to be shown under controlled studies to be worthless or even detrimental to health. It is a tribute to traditional allopathy that results like these ultimately speak for themselves, causing such therapies to be withdrawn. There is nothing in the scientific method which would limit such studies to only traditional allopathic therapies. I might also note that responses to people like Stoll and Stanions really aren't directed at them, or at least minimally. Certainly we hope, but hardly expect, to change their minds. Rather, when I respond to them, I am really trying to reach those people who might be confused by some of their comments, so they can use their own critical faculties to better judge the situation. -- /Steve Dyer {harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer sdyer@bbncc5.ARPA