Medicine and skepticism

When the people who promote and sell something also collect the data on its effectiveness, I tend not to trust the results and assume the products effectiveness is being overstated.

True independence in studies of medical procedures and substances is rare, which is why many questionable interventions are much hyped and promoted by those who practice and profit from them, yet when a more independent, balanced study is done it turns out the procedure is of limited worth.

Well-constructed, independently performed, double-blind studies of medical procedures are rare, which is why much of what is currently practiced as medicine is hardly scientific, as is claimed.

I believe it pays to be skeptical of anything we are being sold, whether by a doctor, a car mechanic or anyone else who is invested in the product, and to closely research it ourselves, when we are able.

Sharka Todd

One man's pseudoscience is another man's-

gospel truth!

The boundary between science and pseudoscience

Star Wars Episode III

Article source: WIKIPEDIA

The boundary lines between the science and pseudoscience are disputed and difficult to determine analytically, even after more than a century of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists in varied fields, and despite some basic agreements on the fundamentals of scientific methodology.

The concept of pseudoscience rests on an understanding that scientific methodology has been misrepresented or misapplied with respect to a given theory, but many philosophers of science maintain that different kinds of methods are held as appropriate across different fields and different eras of human history. Paul Feyerabend, for example, disputes whether any meaningful boundaries can be drawn between pseudoscience, "real" science, and what he calls "protoscience", especially where there is a significant cultural or historical distance.

An argument in support of Homeopathy

Homeopathy has come under fire in recent times from people who call themselves “skeptics”. They claim that the methods used to create homeopathic medicines could not possibly result in an active ingredient being present in the medicines and therefore such medicines are worthless. It is claimed homeopathic medicines are no better than placebos.

Even if the preceding is true, there would still be value in homeopathic medicines. The reason for this is that homeopathics harness the power of belief (which gives rise to the placebo effect) in people who have faith in the efficiency of the medicine. In those with no such faith we would expect no effect, if the claims of the skeptics are true. Such people would not be drawn to homeopathic remedies. If it is believed homeopathic medicines will give the desired result with no negative side effects, then those who are able to harness the power of belief to heal their own body will receive a good result.

A response to James Randi's call to ban psychics

 Watch a video of James Randi expressing his desire to outlaw the promotion of supernatural beliefs here.

Well known "skeptic" James Randi believes supernatural ideas are promoted by the media to please sponsors. But he fails to mention that the sponsors like having people watch their ads and that TV and radio are programmed to draw an audience to increase advertising revenue. In other words, psychic matters are discussed because people are interested in them and it therefore draws an audience with the resulting advertising revenue. This is democracy in action in the marketplace.

What Randi seems to be suggesting is some kind of elitist or totalitarian approach to remove from the media those things that a select "knowledgeable" few believes promotes untruths or "pseudoscience". But who gets to choose what is banned and what would this mean for a supposedly "free" society?

Randi seems unable to realize what he is promoting. He is certainly un-American in his thinking. Instead, he is more aligned with the Communist Chinese Government who seek to control what the public has access to, to protect the government's interests. Why any free society would wish to move closer to such a repressive regime remains unclear and highlights the shallowness of thought entertained by James Randi.

Sharka Todd