Almost missed your post in amongst all the others ... do you not whittle your pole then?

p.s. WTF has happened to this site ... a forum which is a spam trap and a blog where the latest Recent Comments section seems some what sub-optimal in its execution. Then we have signing in to Disqus to post with the added benefit of vote up and down buttons - that will come in handy!

Jabster, I feel dumb. I just got the intended/unintended: pole wittling and being given a hand.

Bad bump bump.

@Sunny D

yes indeedey ... anyway I'm whittling away at my pole as we speak and I'm hoping to get it erected at the weekend - my better half says they'll will give me hand if need be.

That wooshing sound you heard was, nevermind Obliviousness is another of her superpowers.

I'm impressed, Sunny, you actually learned something. Good job, keep it up. ^_^

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totem
"A totem is a being, object, or symbol representing an animal or plant that serves as an emblem of a group of people, such as a family, clan, group, lineage, or tribe, reminding them of their ancestry (or mythic past).[1] In kinship and descent, if the apical ancestor of a clan is nonhuman, it is called a totem. Normally this belief is accompanied by a totemic myth. They have been around for many years.
...
In modern times, some single individuals, not otherwise involved in the practice of a tribal religion, have chosen to adopt a personal spirit animal helper, which has special meaning to them, and may refer to this as a totem. This non-traditional usage of the term is prevalent in the New Age movement and the mythopoetic men's movement."

Kessy is of course free demonstrate her amazing superpower of being ignorant of a subject yet somehow knowing if someone else is wrong about it.

@Jabster due to my Native American heritage it wouldn't feel right to me to use a Totem Pole, you could prolly get away with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totem_pole
"Poles illustrate stories that commemorate historic persons, represent shamanic powers, or provide objects of public ridicule."

Consider putting the face of a wolf on each side of the pole to represent your connection to Gemini. With a crow hanging droopingly from one of it's mouths?

@Sunny D

Excellent ... looks like you've got your stalker back which gives me sometime to concentrate on receiving wisdom from the master himself:

http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

... and working out how to make the best of my animal totem - a wolf apparently. Not sure how this stacks up with being a Gemini though. Any ideas?

p.s. Now maybe Kessy will start refering to Sunny Day & co in every other post.

Aaaaaaand you apparently don't know what "New Age" means, either. Honestly, do you *ever* think? And it's not my fault that your faith doesn't stand up to critical analysis.

Given your amusing preoccupation with new agey malarkey its easy to be confused which definition of totem you want to use. Still, I take your meaning with the same seriousness as if you claimed to be a member of House Hufflepuff.

"And just because you agree with a poster's argument doesn't make it the superior one. Show me that I'm wrong and I'll change my opinion."

HA HA HA HA.

(facepalm) You don't actually know what the word "totem" means, do you?

Noun

totem (plural totems)

Any natural object or living creature that serves as an emblem of a tribe, clan or family.

Honest, it's a completely mundane term, nothing mystical about it at all.

And just because you agree with a poster's argument doesn't make it the superior one. Show me that I'm wrong and I'll change my opinion. But just saying, "Well, it's *obviously* woo," isn't showing anything other then your prejudice.

Totem animal, totem spirit, pfft as if one category of woo is any different to me than the other.

I haven't promised you FA. But the heaping plates presented to you buy other posters in the multiple threads you've blown up you've thoroughly demonstrated your steadfast refusal.

@Sunny: LOL, you keep promising me a meal of crow, but all you've served up so far is a bunch of empty plates.

And I said totem animal, not totem spirit. Totem as in mascot. You're probably thinking of a spirit guide, which is something different. Don't read more into what I say then is actually there.

Custy, I really don't see why you're pushing this. I think you know you're only going to make yourself more upset. But since you insist...

I do change my opinion, all the time. Just in the discussion of acupuncture, I started out just thinking that I vaguely remembered hearing somewhere that there was some research supporting it. Then I looked it up, found what the NIH, NHS, and WHO had to say, and thought that made it seem really quite solid. In fact, at one point I was going to use acupuncture as an example of evidence based medicine that's not Western. I'm glad I didn't, because what Noelle had to say changed my opinion and now I'd say that the evidence for acupuncture isn't nearly as solid as I had been thinking.

The problem is that changing my opinion isn't what you want. You want me to simply agree with you. A while ago, I said to you that if I hadn't convinced you of my position, that's my fault because it's my responsibility to present a convincing argument. It works the other way, too. If you want me to accept your position, you have to present a convincing argument. Convincing to me, not to you. Reasonable people can look at the same facts and come to very different conclusions. That's something that everyone needs to accept and respect.

For example, it's entirely reasonable to look at the evidence we've examined about acupuncture and conclude that the evidence isn't very strong, and it seems pretty unlikely that there's anything to it. On the other hand, it's also entirely reasonable to look at it and conclude that there's enough positive evidence there that there may well be something there and it's well worth pursing further. The evidence we currently have simply isn't conclusive either way. There's certainly not the evidence to support a conclusion that acupuncture is unequivocally nothing but a placebo and there's no controversy about it. Considering that the NIH, WHO, and NHS are disagreeing with you, claiming that there's no controversy seems especially absurd.

Just look at the facts? You know it's not that simple, and there's always interpretation involved. I don't know if you're qualified to look at the raw data of dozens of clinical trials and draw conclusions from them, but I know I'm not. Interpreting evidence well requires skill and experience, so the collective judgement of groups of professionals (such as at NIH, NHS, and WHO) is what should be given the greatest weight. That doesn't mean they can't be wrong, but it does mean they're much more likely to be right then me.

"ALL THAT YOU DO can be summed up by one phrase: "Teach the controversy!""

As you may have noticed, I love a good mystery. I'm drawn to anything enigmatic or uncertain. That's just how I am, so it's only natural that the conversations I get most involved in concern things that are in some way mysterious or controversial. I entirely understand if you don't care for that sort of thing, if you want to deal with things that are more certain and well defined. But if that's the case, you should simply avoid conversations that stray into such topics, not attack me for being interested in them.

And it's worth noting that there's a big difference between an intellectual question, "Does Bigfoot exist?" and a political issue, "What should education policy be?" Policy issues typically require us to make a definite decision in the near term, intellectual issues typically do not. And as far as I can tell, we seem to mostly agree on policy.

Hey what happened to Kessy's post about her totem spirit being a crow? I was so going to reply to it but now its kind of contextless. Oh well here it goes anyway.

"Actually the Crow thing would make sense considering your steadfast refusal to eat it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_crow"

[Got caught in the spam purge. Fixed. Thanks for the notice. - Vorjack]

Well, that was a massive barrage of straw-men!

" Are you so afraid of giving "them" a victory that you can't even agree to disagree? "

Are you fucking serious? You massive MASSIVE hypocrite! I've seen you proved wrong in threads on this site again and again and again and again and again, and you have not budged an inch. You have repeatedly ignored evidence you didn't like, deflected, complained, diverted and - just like now - built up straw-men to argue against.

So let me answer your question: I care that people don't get conned by charlatans who pretend to be able to do things THEY CANNOT DO and to cure things THEY CANNOT CURE. I care about people claiming that placebo effect and regression to mean is some kind of magical woo-woo proof for their UTTER bullshit.

" Are you really going to abandon your own principles and resort to the sort of sophistry we see from fundies? "

OMIGODTHEHYPOCRISYITBUUUUUURNS!!!!! ALL THAT YOU DO can be summed up by one phrase: "Teach the controversy!" - But just like creationism versus evolution, THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY!

"Are you really going to give more credence to a site that can only charitably be called an advocacy site with an agenda then you are to the NIH, NHS, and WHO because it tells you what you want to hear?"

Advocacy site?! LOLOLOLOLOLOL! Ye Gods, you're so deluded! And anyway, no. What I did was to go to the primary sources - the ACTUAL evidence. The data. The FACTS that do not rely on subjective opinion. I suggest you follow the links on that site and actually educate yourself.

Just ONCE it would be fucking amazing to see you actually attempt to assimilate actual facts and alter your opinion. You are TOTALLY unable to do that. You have this closed-minded, intractable, unmoveable position. And you're not even honest about it! Masking "I believe in woo-woo" behind "I just think you need to look at the evidence!" - Well I HAVE looked at the evidence, and it does NOT support the woo-woo.

LOL for once I agree with you, Sunny. Although I'm not sure I should be a bear. My totem animal has always been much more the crow. And besides, I wouldn't want to infringe on Ursa's turf. ;)

~_~ You just can't let it go, can you, Custy? Are you really so caught up in this us versus them attitude that you can't give a single millimeter? Are you so afraid of giving "them" a victory that you can't even agree to disagree? Are you really going to abandon your own principles and resort to the sort of sophistry we see from fundies? Are you really going to give more credence to a site that can only charitably be called an advocacy site with an agenda then you are to the NIH, NHS, and WHO because it tells you what you want to hear? Is that really the road you want to walk? Is that really the person you want to be?

I'll be very sad if that's the path you choose, Custy. Because I won't go down it again - it leads to very dark and terrible places. And because you're better then that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_poke_the_bear

Acupuncture. Eviscerated.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/a-very-special-issue-of-medical-acupuncture/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

"But let’s look at the rest of what Dr. Hobbes wrote. Truly, it could very well have qualified for Kimball Atwood’s much missed feature, the Weekly Waluation of the Weasel Words of Woo. I particularly like the part where he contrasts the “traditional paradigms that many of us use every day in treating patients” versus the “views that are informed by those subjects we studied in medical school.” Notice how he refers to his beliefs about “acupuncture” as “paradigms” and what he was taught in medical school about the science that says that acupuncture is pseudoscience as “views.” It’s a simultaneously subtle (if you’re not familiar with CAM weasel words) and not-so-subtle (if you are) denigration of scientific medicine. I also like how he uses what I consider to be the racist distinction between “Western” medicine (i.e., evidence- and science-based medicine) and “Oriental” medicine (i.e., traditional Chinese medicine). Seriously, does he even realize the implication he’s making, namely that “Western” medicine is scientific and “Oriental medicine” is touchy-feeling and “holistic”? Doesn’t he realize that there are some damned good “Oriental scientists,” every bit on par with “Western” scientists, and that they have come to the same conclusion, namely that acupuncture is placebo?"

@Noelle: I completely agree with everything you said about looking for causal mechanisms. You're absolutely right that this is an essential part of the scientific process and a major avenue to further discoveries. What I've been saying is that it's not appropriate to refuse to even look to see if there's an effect in the first place because there's no established causal mechanism. Like you said, looking for the how and why is the next step after establishing that there is an effect. It's not a precondition.

I thought it was very obvious reading those sources that they weren't exactly declaring acupuncture to be a miracle cure. Which was never the point to begin with. As I said in the OP, "I think it's a mistake to simply dismiss everything in the field as woo out of hand. A lot of things included in CAM have had far too little research done to reach any firm conclusions one way or the other. And for those that have had research done, the results are not as universally negative as some people seem to think." I am essentially arguing against the notion that there are the things "proven" by science, and then there's complete and utter woo, and absolutely nothing in between.

For those interested in the Prince Charles aspect for the NHS advice here's a short article in the Guardian from last week.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/feb/13/prince-charity-lobbied-government-homeopathy

@FO: Then I owe you an apology. If I'd realized that what you were turning around comments that'd been made to you with what you said about the death of curiosity, I'd never have tried to turn it around again.

While I obviously can't speak to the behavior of the people you've dealt with, I certainly understand the frustration of dealing with people who simply pigeonhole you and don't really listen to what you're saying. However, is it a good idea to judge an entire field of inquiry based on the obnoxious behavior of some of the people who are interested in it? Would it be fair to judge conventional science by the behavior of woo warriors like Jabster & Co? I'm just guessing, but do you think that might be exactly what the people you've dealt with were doing?

Although it's in no way an excuse for bad behavior, and certainly does not apply to everyone interested in CAM, I do think it's important to keep in mind where a lot of those folks are coming from. Generally, people who speak primarily in terms like "cosmic intelligence" and "tree of life" have little or no background in hard science. A lot of them are completely unfamiliar with the idea of scientific rigor, and are speaking in very general metaphorical terms. And remember that in this context, "energy" is being used in pretty much the same sense as in, "I have no energy in the morning until I've had my coffee."

The NHS link is interesting, too. Originally the NHS' online advice about homeopathy, acupuncture, etc. basically amounted to "It's a load of bollocks, save your money", but Prince Charles is a massive CAM enthusiast and he exerted a lot of political sway to get that changed. It's quite the scandal amongst British doctors and sceptics, and many of us who are employed by the NHS have been shouting very loudly and waving Cochrane Systematic Reviews at people over it for a while.

@Kessy: because I hear long and wide that I have no curiosity, that I have no imagination, that I am intellectually rigid and stiff because I don't buy into woo.

This by people who could not care less about evidence unless it's to validate their pet ideas and that refuse to understand reality outside of human-sized ideas ("memory", "cosmic intelligence", "tree of life", "spirit", "energy", "love").

This said, you definitely got my point.

Godsdamnit, Yoav, what the hell is worng with you people? Honestly, I try to show just a little concern about someone I like and respect and I'm being condescending?? Yeah, just like how if I try worrying about someone's emotional well being here it's suddenly an attack! But no, all you lot care about is showing the world hoe much Righter you are then everyone else, because that makes you ever so special and superior. Being right doesn't matter, because guess what? In the end, we're all wrong. deal with it. Things don't matter, people do. And ideas are very definiately things. Get your fraking priorities straight. And if all you want to do is sit at your computer and stroke your ego about how much smarter you are then all those idots in the world who don't think like you do, you can shove it up your ass. Because you know what the measure of being a good person is? It's not believing the right ideas. It's not saying the right thing. It's not hanging out with the right crowd. It's what you do, and how you treat other people.

Wow Kessy, that was some condescending shit even by your standards. The altmed proponents are not just disinterested in testing their claim, they spent a lot of money lobbying all over the world so they can sell their magic potions without having to submit to the kind of testing required for actual medicine, if they really cared they would have spent the money on proving their stuff actually work and then we wouldn't had to have this discussion.

I'm sorry that I made you mad, FO, that really wasn't my intention. I don't want to make you any angrier, so maybe we should take a minute to talk about that before continuing the main discussion? To me, this is really just an intellectual exercise. I don't really have any significant emotional attachment to any of this.

I understand what you're saying: that you feel that alt proponents are not interested in the fundamental science behind what they do, and that you think that they're only interested in money and validation. And that you think these fields have been adequately investigated already and nothing fond, and that any further research should be funded by the alt proponents themselves.

What I don't understand is why that'd make you angry. Is there something more to this then just an intellectual discussion for you? If there's anything you'd prefer to discuss privately, you're more then welcome to email me. I'm my forum id at yahoo dot com.

In short, you check every single night that there are monsters under your bed, and think that this makes you curious.

Plus, you think that it is my duty to come and check under your bed, and I am not curious enough because I prefer to play with some boring shit that you use every day.

No Kessy, that's not curiosity, that's trying to validate your ideas.
Please don't taint the word "curiosity" with that shit.

Please find me a single instance where a proponent of an Alt-Med-Whatever published something contrary to his expectations "we tried, but it seems that our idea does not hold water."
They do not care about finding the truth, they care about proving themselves right.

Also, it is incredibly arrogant of you to tell me that they should use their own resources and energies to investigate whatever random claim some loop-head comes out with.
Remember, there are infinite possible ideas.
The resources to investigate ideas are limited.
Do you believe that those might be true?
Let the loop-heads do the research, if they believe their ideas are true.
Put your money where your mouth is and finance some rigorous research.

Yet, NEITHER YOU NEITHER OTHER ALT-PROPONENTS ARE FINANCING ANY SERIOUS RESEARCH.

Produce some solid evidence, you will have the corps covering you in gold to further your research.
Thing is, people tried already and FAILED MISERABLY, this is why only the loons are left.
And the loons don't care about scientific rigor.

The photoelectric effect had definite PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
Again, do you know about something coming?
Do the research yourself or finance it.
NONE IS PREVENTING YOU FROM DOING IT.

We are not focused on theory.
On the contrary.
We are focused on PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

But you have none, so we have to resort to theory.
I agree that if acupuncture works, it works.
In fact I tried it and couldn't sleep for two days afterwards.
Recent studies found that acupuncture does not win vs sham treatment.
So, evidence for acupuncture vs placebo, ZERO.
I don't even have to refute Qi and meridians.

BTW, since we are here.
Have you ever found someone trying acupuncture on other animals?
How does phisiology change the shape of Qi and meridians?
But they don't care, because THEY ARE NOT CURIOUS.
They don't want to build a theory, because they CAN'T.

They don't have QUESTIONS.
How can yo ube curious without questions?
These people have only answers, and are looking for questions because they have none.
Science is based on questions.
But Alt shit is the DEATH OF CURIOSITY.
You don't even know what curiosity is.

Assuming that we live all inthe same, objective reality, rigor (mathematical or not, you'd be surprised) is the only way to ensure that we are not fooling ourselves.
If you want to make science, you have to remove subjective stuff and make it objecte, independent from the observer.
This is long and difficult, and the woo-peddlers avoid it entirely exactly for this reason.
Because most people are NOT CURIOUS and will follow and pay for whatever stimulates their simplicistic ideas.

Without logic, you can't make ideas OBJECTIVE and you can't COMMUNICATE them effectively, preserving their integrity.
And Alt-shit CAN'T do this.
It CAN'T because when it tries (and it tried) it disappears in vacuous ideas, ambiguous statements and fuzzy catch-all words.
Science can't afford this.
Science must rigorously define its words and its concepts, because otherwise they cannot be communicated effectively.

When I'll see the Alt-proponents exploring the limit cases of their ideas, striving for coherence and for soldi evidence, thinking about all possible experiments that could challenge their ideas, THEN I will pay attention and respect.
But then it wouldn't be "Alt" anymore.

And why the hell should someone demand less rigor only because they have less means?
That's one of the most stupid things I have ever heard.
Reality doesn't give a shit about money and resources.
And it's NOT OTHER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO FINANCE YOUR IDEAS.
Can't prove it works?
Too bad, it's not like we can give resources to any loon that comes out with a completely unsupported idea.
As said above, it's a practical problem: there are INFINITE false ideas, how do YOU decide which one to finance?
Just the ones that give you warm fuzzy feelings?

And what the hell have seatbelts to do with economy?
They save people, don't make money for those who sell cars.
Did you even read the comic?

And what pathetic excuse is it "companies don't take risks"?
They do, hell they do, and they can definitely spare some change to do some stupid alt-research.
How much do you think it would cost for the US military to do research on homoeopathy?
How much would it incide on Exxon's budget to employ some crystal 'experts' to extract crystal energy?
Are you serious?
Really?
Are you seriously telling me that NO COMPANY WHATSOEVER HAS **EVER** RIGOROUSLY TRIED SOME ALT SHIT, even the simplest and most easily testable forms!?

And yes, all the CAPS are there because I'm fuming.

@FO: While I can't speak for anyone but myself, for me, that's *exactly* why I find alternative medicine and other things that get dismissed as woo to be so interesting. In fact, I could easily turn what you said around to be an indictment of the scientific community for a profound lack of curiosity in dismissing "woo" without any sort of real investigation.

It's not necessarily easy to tell which odd anomaly is a clue to a profound new understanding of the universe, and which is just something a bit unusual. Would you have been able to guess beforehand that the photoelectric effect would lead to completely turning physics on its ear? Is the Pioneer anomaly a clue that gravity fundamentally does not work the way we think it does, or is it the result of an engineer 40 years ago forgetting to carry a 2?

I also think that you guys (and to a degree the scientific community in general) are too focused on theory. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean it's not real. If something happens, it happens, and if it works, it works, even if our theory about how it happens or works turns out to be completely and totally wrong. For example, if acupuncture works, it works, even if qi and meridians turn out to be complete nonsense. And in a complex biological system like the human body, I don't think making assumptions about where exactly something strange is coming from is a good idea.

Besides, turning something weird and unexplained into new theory is a long, difficult process, even once you determine there is something fundamentally new going on. The physics community, for one, pretty much demands mathematical rigor before they'll even look at something new. This sort of thing takes a lot of work and demands high competence in a diverse skill set. Which is why big discoveries coming out of conventional science typically are team efforts, and wind up with a long list of co-authors and contributors. Is it reasonable to demand that people interested in "woo" subjects, who often do not have advanced degrees, completely replicate everything built up by the scientific community over the last few centuries before you'll consider what they have to say?

As for economics, I would point out that the automotive industry had to be dragged kicking and screaming into putting seatbelts into cars. If all regulation disappeared today, how well do you suppose cars without seatbelts would sell today? The market is many things, but it is neither prescient nor omniscient. companies act in what they perceive to be their self interest, not necessarily what actually is in their best interest. They also tend to be adverse to risk, and investing a lot of resources into unproven methods that may or may not work, that may or may not be marketable even if they do work is a pretty big risk. Even if an unconventional method turns out to work, that doesn't automatically mean that it will be superior to conventional methods. There's a story that a monk came to the Buddha and said, "I've spent the last ten years meditating alone in the mountains and have become so enlightened that I can levitate and float across this river." To which the Buddha replied, "Well, then, you've spent ten years learning to do something that I can pay the ferryman a few coins to do for me."