Re: Questions to an agnostic
Posted: August 22nd, 2018, 11:38 pm
This sentence should read, "since it's mechanisms are electrically and not chemically based" (as is the regeneration of limbs by amphibians).
A Humans-Only Club for Philosophical Debate and Discussion
https://mail.onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/
https://mail.onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15540
ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑August 21st, 2018, 5:11 amA couple of things.LuckyR wrote: ↑August 21st, 2018, 3:59 am
Cynical much? But seriously, your description of Modern Medicine is a very common one, especially among folks blessed with good health. Yet in the same breath the rabble usually are chided for going to see their physicians too frequently. Anyone detect a problem with the logic?
Just because Felix has this view on modern medicine in NO WAY impinges on your claim that the 'rabble' are accused of too frequent visits to the GP.
SO, yes, I do in fact detect a problem with logic ; your logic.
LuckyR wrote: ↑August 23rd, 2018, 1:42 amPhilosophy is about clear thinking, and you invoked a claim about "logic".ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑August 21st, 2018, 5:11 amA couple of things.
Just because Felix has this view on modern medicine in NO WAY impinges on your claim that the 'rabble' are accused of too frequent visits to the GP.
SO, yes, I do in fact detect a problem with logic ; your logic.
If it is your observation that the public is not reprimanded for seeing their physicians too frequently, then our experiences differ. No harm, no foul. But you err in calling my observation: my "claim", since I don't personally believe that this description (which I have heard routinely, even in this thread) is correct.
It is one thing to correctly note that medicine (like practically every facet of modern life) has profit incentives baked into the fabric of it's construction. But it is a giant leap to assume that compared to business, education, government, the clergy and the military that medicine compares unfavorably in the fraction of interactions that adhere to ethical standards (as opposed to profit generating ones).
Eduk: I don't believe I know more about acupuncture than doctors. Why do you?Which doctors? Most physicians have never researched acupuncture and simply accept the consensus view of it without question. Other physicians have studied it and decided that it was efficacious enough to incorporate it into their practice. I trust the educated opinion of those who understand a subject over those who have not studied it and whose opinion about it is based on the same sort of misinformation presented in that online opinion piece you linked to.
ThomasHobbes: This is so bad it is not even wrong. It's just a collection of disconnected ideas.That was just a sound-bite. It's a very complicated biological process that would take me a few pages to explain in layman's terms, but nervous system currents which are electrical in nature play a primary role in it.
ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑August 23rd, 2018, 5:28 amYou are correct, I erred in assuming that my original post was clear. Your post tells me that I am failing to communicate. Allow me to back the truck up (since my most recent posting addressed some "down the line" issues).LuckyR wrote: ↑August 23rd, 2018, 1:42 amPhilosophy is about clear thinking, and you invoked a claim about "logic".
A couple of things.
If it is your observation that the public is not reprimanded for seeing their physicians too frequently, then our experiences differ. No harm, no foul. But you err in calling my observation: my "claim", since I don't personally believe that this description (which I have heard routinely, even in this thread) is correct.
It is one thing to correctly note that medicine (like practically every facet of modern life) has profit incentives baked into the fabric of it's construction. But it is a giant leap to assume that compared to business, education, government, the clergy and the military that medicine compares unfavorably in the fraction of interactions that adhere to ethical standards (as opposed to profit generating ones).
Nothing in your response begins to deal with my comment, and the fact remains that you logic was faulty.
You have either failed to understand the rather straightforward observation I made, or have chosen to ignore it.
To repeat:
I said; "
Just because Felix has this view on modern medicine in NO WAY impinges on your claim that the 'rabble' are accused of too frequent visits to the GP.
SO, yes, I do in fact detect a problem with logic ; your logic."
You have compared a claim Felix made about the nature of medicine with that "fact" that people go to the doctor to often.
There is no link here. The two ideas can go hand in hand perfectly well and perfectly separately.
LuckyR wrote: ↑August 23rd, 2018, 3:55 pm. Thus comments on the known shortfalls of Modern Medicine can be logically addressed with: "compared to what?"As you presented it, could be implied that there was a break down in logic as if it would be impossible for a corrupt health system to be oversubscribed by those wishing to use it.
I was not trying to imply that one made the other impossible, rather that one opposes the other in a universe where inconsistencies are common and expected (as you pointed out)
Is acupuncture a professional medical practice is a moot point.Not sure what your point is? I said it is the scientific consensus that acupuncture has no effect. I'm saying that medical professionals (on the whole) understand the scientific consensus (and the science behind the consensus) better than me, or you, or the vast majority of non medical professionals. Of course there are exceptions and very few fields have zero controversy (some obviously have a lot more than others though) so it's not a perfect heuristic. But it is a heuristic. All I am doing is recognising the worth of the scientific method as an epistemological tool which has, so far, more than proven to the best such tool we have access too. And also recognising the worth of experts, in particular the consensus of experts. I can't think of a single subject where I am at odds with scientific consensus, can you think of one?
Traditional acupuncture is a healthcare system based on ancient principles which go back nearly two thousand years.Ignoring the fallacy, I don't trust ancient medicine. They used to practice blood letting and trepanation (spuriously). Medicine has improved year on year. Survival rates have improved year on year. Life expectancy has improved year on year. Quality of life has improved year on year. I don't want cancer treatment from ten years ago let alone two thousand years ago. I can think of no medical science unchanged for two thousand years except something like don't cut your hand off or it will bleed (not sure that counts as medical science?).
and looks at pain and illness as signs that the body is out of balance. The overall aim of acupuncture treatment, then, is to restore the body's equilibrium.Too vague. This could mean anything. Certainly I couldn't test for equilibrium, except maybe with a balance bar but I don't think that's what they mean.
Traditional acupuncturists believe that the underlying principle of treatment is that illness and pain occur when the body's qi, or vital energy, cannot flow freely.Again what the hell is qi. How would I test for qi? Much too vague. You get similar vagueness if you wonder how needles are supposed to allow the qi to flow. Needles aren't renowned for making things flow? Also the magical points and exactly where they are is vague. This overall huge vagueness is to be expected, seen as it's all made up and has no effect (beyond placebo).
the body responds to acupuncture and its benefits for a wide range of common health conditions. A lot of people have acupuncture to relieve specific aches and pains, such as osteoarthritis of the knee, TMJ, headaches and low back pain, or for common health problems like an overactive bladder. Other people choose acupuncture when they can feel their bodily functions are out of balance, but they have no obvious diagnosis. And many have regular treatments because they find it so beneficial and relaxing.Again so vague. They can't even tell you what it cures. Other than lots of things, from headaches to overactive bladders. This is another warning sign. When treatments claim to fix a 'wide range' of unrelated things then chances of it being woo rise exponentially with each thing you add to the list. Can anyone think of another treatment which benefits so many things?