Flutes are simply wrong. Stick that in your coffe and drink it!

I meant "caw-fee." Sorry for the mixup.

Thank you for the link!

I still can't figure out for the life of me if that Brownback site is satirical or not. Can someone help me out?

MDPrime,

The Brownback site is obviously satirical. It reminds me of the ShelleytheRepublican site.

This article on the Brownback site is a lot more obvious about being fake. The "flat-earth" one almost had me convinced he was for real. So many people tried to reason with him, and failed. He's quite good at emulating the style of a fundamentalist, quotes the bible frequently, doesn't listen to reason, believes that President Brownback would be like the Second Coming of Christ. This latest article definitely confirms my suspicion and hope that it was a parody. I'm so glad.

As to Hitchens, I could have written that review, except I'd have to act a lot more pompous and full of myself. Of course JK Rowling made a happy ending, they are kids' books. I find the idea of an "intellectual" like him tearing the book apart incredibly stupid actually.

As to the last link, well, it has one good point: scientists should not belittle everything currently unproven merely because it's unproven. I very much doubt that many of the things in alternative medicine work the way they claim to. However, many people, including me, have benefited from it. I'm not sure that I like it being dismissed as readily as astrology.

On the Dawkins delusion, the guy isn't so much defending astrology in that piece (except implicitly; he is, granted, an astrologer). He's more pointing out some of the weak chinks in Dawkins' true-believer, science-is-the-answer-to-everything armor. And he makes some points that, to my eyes, are fairly compelling. Or at least, worth a fair hearing and consideration.

As a fan of Dawkins, I can see where you (Norm) would feel an inclination to mischaracterize the piece as an attempted defense of astrology, since that would let you fight the battle on turf much more to your liking. But that's not really what it is, for the most part.

Dawkins, like anyone convinced that his One Big Idea holds the Ultimate Answer to Everything, is prone to ignoring the weaknesses in his own arguments, while erecting strawmen to knock down on the other side of the debate. That tendency to slip into advocacy, rather than staying with the objective analysis of reality, is a human failing, one that all of us share, so I hesitate to make too much of a big deal out of Dawkins (whom I mostly admire and agree with) or you (whom I likewise admire and agree with) being prone to it. But that's what I'm seeing here.

I guess it's inevitable that when foolish people assert ridiculous things, people on the other side will want to enter the meme battle. I do it myself. But there's a real danger there. The truth is sometimes a delicate, subtle thing, and it can be trampled into the mud pretty quickly once the scrum starts.

As a fan of Dawkins, I can see where you (Norm) would feel an inclination to mischaracterize the piece as an attempted defense of astrology, since that would let you fight the battle on turf much more to your liking. But that's not really what it is, for the most part.

I wasn't really trying to characterize the piece, though I can see how it could be taken that way. I meant it more as just an aside. That said, he mischaracterizes Dawkin's view. He provides a little straw man that he sets alight.

Homeopathy and acupuncture are particularly repellent since they work through mechanisms unknown to the laws of physics.

He tries to make the case that double-blind studies can't be used here. Why is that? Like many of those who defend the quackery you hear this tired old saw.

Feelings, alas, are not amenable to regulation or double-blind tests, for we are not creatures only of reason but of intuition and emotion. Nothing makes that point as clearly as the great human preoccupation with love and romance.

The fact is that you can use objective measures to determine the efficacy of such treatments. Saying science is sometimes gets it wrong is simply fallacious reasoning and serves no purpose other than obfuscation.

The guy is a hack, his arguments are weak from the beginning to the end. The fact that he believes in astrology was just a warning shot that he confirmed over and over again.

Find any good argument you think he makes that you believe Dawkins would disagree with. I don't believe you can.

I don't know about homeopathy, but acupuncture definitely works within the laws of physics. They have nerve charts now that show how nerves in the feet, hands, neck & back connect to other areas of the body. That's all acupuncture is - nerve therapy. There's nothing supernatural about it.

They have nerve charts now that show how nerves in the feet, hands, neck & back connect to other areas of the body. That's all acupuncture is - nerve therapy.

Can you say how it's supposed to work? Can you point to any credible studies that offer evidence of its efficacy?

The only evidence I've been able to uncover is anecdotal and poorly designed studies.

The strangest and funniest part of that Brownback site are the comments. Very strange stuff.

I think Hitchens should avoid doing reviews of fantasy fiction, it's just too strange to hear him pontificating upon the wizards of Harry Potter land. :)

Can you point to any credible studies that offer evidence of its efficacy?

Here's one that shows acupunture as an effective treatment for low back pain: http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/142/8/651.pdf

Here's one for postoperative nausea:

http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab003281.html

Here's a study where researchers used MRI to see which parts of the brain were being stimulated by which acupuncture points: http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/2/3/315

Here's the National Institute of Health's statement on acupuncture:

http://nccam.nih.gov/health/acupuncture/#work

Here's one that shows acupunture as an effective treatment for low back pain

Sorry, no cigar. First it's not a double-blind study it is meta-analysis of other studies, and like they say garbage in, garbage out.

Woodwinds are the Instruments of Satan « Blogs 4 Brownback

By this point, I don't care whether it's parody or not; I find it friggin' hilarious either way. Although, I think he missed a bet by not mentioning bassoons, when even the name sounds lewd. Thanks!

It may be anecdotal but after several years of constant pain from a fall down the stairs, three trips to an acupuncturist removed all traces of pain and stiffness from my wife's neck.

We had spent thousands dollars on chiropractors, theraputic massage, prescription pain killers and none of them worked for more than a few days.

Now, I'm the only pain in her neck ;)

Sorry, I forgot the comma before the 'but' in my first sentence. It won't happen again!

I think the most that can be said for accupunture at this time is that it is promising at least for pain relief. Of course the claims for accupunture go far beyond pain relief. I'm perfectly willing to accept it as beneficial for pain relief if the promising studies stand up to peer review.

You know don't you syngas that your anecdotal account of pain relief for you wife falls short of scientific proof, though I'm happy her pain is gone whatever the reason.

I did an indepth analysis of homoepathic solutions to breast cancer and other solutions such as chemotherapy and certain drugs such as Tamoxifen. There are no studies which back up the efficacy of any homeopathic so-called solutions. The Lancet studies on chemotherapy and anti-cancer medications don't even indicate any incredible results.

At this point in time, it's mostly a matter of luck.

I think that we sometimes believe that which we really want to believe.

I asked my oncologist if I had chemotherapy all for about a 10% chance of living longer than I would have otherwise, and she said that I was right... and that few people addressed this question, but that those who did went with the 10% advantage...

Very complicated.

Here's why alternative medicine pisses me off. First of all This story (sorry for the long quote, i can't get the link to post right)::

A homeopathic doctor was suspended Tuesday for his role in a botched liposuction operation earlier this month that resulted in the death of the patient. A state regulatory board deemed Dr. Greg Page a "clear and present danger to the public." Page performed the liposuction procedure on July 3 at the Anthem office of Dr. Peter J. Normann, whose practice was restricted by the state in May after two other liposuction patients suffered cardiac arrest on the operating table and died. Normann, who provided follow-up care in the July 3 surgery, was suspended last week, and both doctors are awaiting hearings with an administrative judge, who can revoke their licenses or reinstate them. Page's suspension by the Arizona Board of Homeopathic Medical Examiners followed a half-hour executive session and an hour of questioning. Page took part by phone. Under state law, homeopaths may do "minor surgery," and Dr. Bruce Shelton, president of the Arizona Homeopathic and Integrative Medical Association and former president of the Homeopathic Board, said whether liposuction can be considered minor surgery "is a huge gray area." "In my opinion, it (liposuction) is best left to plastic surgeons," he said.

Second of all, they seem to take credible uses for such things as acupuncture (pain relief, which as those studies show, it apparently does quite well), and then they also claim that it cures stomach cancer.

The author of the article claiming that alternative medicine cannot be put through double blind studies because it's "special" is the same arguement Faith heads use when you try to study the effecacy of prayer. "oh, it doesn't work THAT way, you can't Study it, you have to have faith that it will work".

Sigh.

This is not to say that ALL alternative medicine is bad, and pharmeceuticals are the only way to cure illnesses. However, don't claim "The Secret" is a work of Truth or that cancer is cureable through acupuncture.

. By contrast, Dawkins' one-eyed view turns reason, as Blake warned, into the enemy of imagination and of art

I hate it when people say that