General Discussion

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)

53. David Gorski now has a response, as well.

Wed May 18, 2016, 03:02 PM

May 2016

Last edited Wed May 18, 2016, 03:56 PM - Edit history (1)

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/05/18/john-horgan-is-skeptical-of-skeptics-or-homeopathy-and-bigfoot-versus-the-quest-for-world-peace/

I do find some of the stuff Horgan said a bit puzzling. SBM certainly covers mammography issues big time. And I think Gorski's take on the world peace issue is quite on the spot.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

118 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Scientific American: Bash Homeopathy and Bigfoot Less, Mammograms and War More [View all] GliderGuider May 2016 OP

Oh dear! And the Blogosphere erupts. longship May 2016 #1

You can always tell from the bellowing whose ox was gored. nt GliderGuider May 2016 #2

Well, I rather like both PZ and Dr. Novella. longship May 2016 #3

Me too, and from what he wrote here, John Horgan seems like a good skeptic also. cpwm17 May 2016 #62

PZ is right. Deadshot May 2016 #6

They're both right. Act_of_Reparation May 2016 #11

David Gorski now has a response, as well. HuckleB May 2016 #53

Well, Gorski is a breast cancer oncologist/surgeon. longship May 2016 #79

Not that troll David Gorski again! womanofthehills May 2016 #80

His blog is under Orac, but your second claim is just bizarre. HuckleB May 2016 #81

I think there is some projection going on here! womanofthehills May 2016 #84

No, you don't. HuckleB May 2016 #87

This message was self-deleted by its author HuckleB May 2016 #86

Thanks! ORAC nails it! longship May 2016 #83

Orac aka SoCalGal womanofthehills May 2016 #85

ORAC is Dr. David Gorski, an oncologist/surgeon, specializing in breast cancer. longship May 2016 #88

This message was self-deleted by its author rjsquirrel May 2016 #4

^^That. Orrex May 2016 #7

+1 Johonny May 2016 #22

Brave fellow. nt bemildred May 2016 #5

I like Eisenstein's perspective GliderGuider May 2016 #8

Had to look up "monistic idealism". bemildred May 2016 #9

That's kind of old-hat, to be honest, and it reeks of pomo reductionism. Orrex May 2016 #12

A skeptic jumping on skeptics for their lack of skepticism fasttense May 2016 #10

Sorry, but alternative medicine can be dangerous. Oneironaut May 2016 #13

So can allopathic "white-coat" medicine. GliderGuider May 2016 #14

This argument is always brought out and it's meaningless. Oneironaut May 2016 #15

Either you're doing rational risk management or you're not. GliderGuider May 2016 #16

OK, here's a risk assessment for you, if you have a case of the shivers, or a mild cold... Humanist_Activist May 2016 #18

American Acad of Pediatrics March 2016 issue contains this article, simplistic memes notwithstanding proverbialwisdom May 2016 #97

So it's like that, eh? Orrex May 2016 #20

So alternative medicine patients are OK, but practitioners are not? GliderGuider May 2016 #23

That's several different questions Orrex May 2016 #25

OK, your positions all seem reasonable. GliderGuider May 2016 #27

Thanks. Incidentally, I should add... Orrex May 2016 #30

No objections on any of that. GliderGuider May 2016 #31

Yeah, that's another good one. Orrex May 2016 #32

The scientific method is what matters. Oneironaut May 2016 #21

To be fair, even science is suffering from a bit of a replication crisis. GliderGuider May 2016 #33

Because there are flaws in the scientific method doesn't mean it should be ignored. Oneironaut May 2016 #34

I said be skeptical, not ignore it. nt GliderGuider May 2016 #35

The argument still makes no sense Oneironaut May 2016 #37

The replicability crisis is unique to science. GliderGuider May 2016 #38

The reason alternative medication doesn't have this crisis is that Oneironaut May 2016 #59

alt.med is accepted uncritically by its believers GliderGuider May 2016 #73

That means that alt. med is useless Oneironaut May 2016 #91

That's medical malpractice, where as alternative "medicine" doesn't even rise to the level of... Humanist_Activist May 2016 #17

How many lives do they save? whatthehey May 2016 #24

I really need to start putting people who use "allopathic" on ignore MattBaggins May 2016 #36

Rather than finding out what they actually think? nt GliderGuider May 2016 #39

If they use silly terms like allopathic, no MattBaggins May 2016 #42

Until you brought it up, I didn't even realize the term was pejorative. GliderGuider May 2016 #45

With respect, your statement is dishonest Orrex May 2016 #94

medical errors 3rd leading cause of death in us - John Hopkins study womanofthehills May 2016 #82

True, and also an irrelevant point. Oneironaut May 2016 #92

There's a reason they're soft targets. Iggo May 2016 #19

+1 Marr May 2016 #29

sorry but as someone who has lost a mother and grandmother to breast cancer I will never liberal_at_heart May 2016 #26

I don't think anyone is asking you to advocate for less screening. GliderGuider May 2016 #28

It's important to consider the evidence, regardless of emotion. alarimer May 2016 #41

You can prefer whatever you want. I don't care. liberal_at_heart May 2016 #43

But think about the hell treatment put them through: why do that to well women? LeftyMom May 2016 #47

All I know is my daughter has about a thousand times better chance of surviving than my liberal_at_heart May 2016 #48

That's not actually true. LeftyMom May 2016 #49

Well I had a preventative double mastectomy when I was 29. I am now 40. liberal_at_heart May 2016 #50

I think many draw the wrong conclusions zipplewrath May 2016 #52

Well of course we need better screening. No one is arguing that. We especially need liberal_at_heart May 2016 #54

More accurate zipplewrath May 2016 #63

Yes opiods cause much harm and yes we need better pain management and we need to liberal_at_heart May 2016 #66

Profit in far too much of this zipplewrath May 2016 #69

Oh, I agree. I am glad to see some doctors refusing to prescribe some cancer liberal_at_heart May 2016 #71

You should be zipplewrath May 2016 #77

As long as you gave informed consent? I'm totally in favor of having that option. LeftyMom May 2016 #56

My daughter is young and has dense breast tissue so she gets digital mammograms. liberal_at_heart May 2016 #58

One, it's not bashing to think critically about these issues. alarimer May 2016 #40

right, there's no use building up a culture war: the CSICOP types are locked into this MisterP May 2016 #44

Interesting comment. GliderGuider May 2016 #46

EXACTLY! nt villager May 2016 #51

All ideologies suck, the scientific included. Life is a messy business, the universe is very big... hunter May 2016 #55

Exactly so. Nt GliderGuider May 2016 #57

There is an authoritarian element among the "skeptics" that accept BS, cpwm17 May 2016 #60

Smackdown! rug May 2016 #61

They are right about religion; it is a delusion. alarimer May 2016 #65

If they think religion is a delusion, they know as little about delusions as they do about religion. rug May 2016 #67

ever note how the only two groups that say there's an irreconcilable difference between religion MisterP May 2016 #72

Yup. They also share a literal reading of scriptures. rug May 2016 #74

I blame the Methodists MisterP May 2016 #75

That's just because Hillary's a Methodist. rug May 2016 #76

BTW, while I'm pro-vax, my wife is anti. GliderGuider May 2016 #64

Good for your wife! CanSocDem May 2016 #78

this seems apropos MisterP May 2016 #89

The Guardians of Orthodoxy strike! GliderGuider May 2016 #90

Upthread you were doing better. Orrex May 2016 #93

Upthread I also said this: GliderGuider May 2016 #98

Well, that was an early weak point. Orrex May 2016 #100

Believe what you wish. GliderGuider May 2016 #101

It's not a matter of belief--it's demonstrable fact. Orrex May 2016 #102

I meant believe what you wish about me and my motivations. GliderGuider May 2016 #103

I make an effort to "believe" as little as possible. Orrex May 2016 #104

As I said above, I'm a Pyrrhonian skeptic GliderGuider May 2016 #106

Curiously, you seem pointedly non-skeptical about alt-med Orrex May 2016 #107

Can you point to an example of me being pointedly non-skeptical? GliderGuider May 2016 #108

Seriously? Orrex May 2016 #109

I did yesterday, too. HuckleB May 2016 #110

Since you bring it up, in the interests of transparency here's how our conversation unfolded: GliderGuider May 2016 #112

That's what it takes for you to participate in discussion fully and honestly? HuckleB May 2016 #114

This wasn't actually a discussion. It was an attempted mugging. GliderGuider May 2016 #115

Wow. HuckleB May 2016 #116

Gladly. Consider yourself cut. nt GliderGuider May 2016 #117

How is it that you missed the fact that I've already checked out... HuckleB May 2016 #118

Skepticism has an even bigger problem with misogyny. alarimer May 2016 #68

It does seem like that has been ignored since it first hit, for the most part. HuckleB May 2016 #70

Thank you. Very, very much. n/t OneGrassRoot May 2016 #95

Yeah, professional asshole Richard Dawkins is a repeat offender in that regard Orrex May 2016 #105

Ha! I was thinking about posting this here... OneGrassRoot May 2016 #96

You're welcome! GliderGuider May 2016 #99

Excellent share! Thanks, GliderGuider! drokhole May 2016 #111

Thanks for the links. GliderGuider May 2016 #113