It's Time We Did Something

[UCLAri]

<p>
[quote]
The gadget in his jacket is evidence for what appears obvious, but it would not matter if I had never seen that gadget. I am NOT basing my opinion on that. (What do YOU think the gadget was, btw? You never did say.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't really care about the "gadget" as I can't say what it was, one way or another. It may have been something security related for all I know. However, since I have no definitive proof one way or another, it's largely meaningless to any debate. It's like arguing over how many women JFK slept with: it's fun to debate, but ultimately meaningless when it comes to policymaking.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You conveniently don't comment when I make a good point. This happened towards the end of the 911 discussion too.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm also a busy grad student/TA who really only has time to half-arse a lot of these things. Meh.</p>

<p>Plus the 9/11 debate was a lot of circular debating and the same thing over and over again. You enjoy rehashing the same old arguments, it seems. I don't. I have plenty of other threads to enjoy. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I consider the idea of bush being charge and actually having any policies at all completely laughable!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I hate appeals to authority, but most of the best educated political scientists I've encountered have said this much about Bush: he's not always the best policymaker, but it's clear that he's in charge of his policies, for better or for worse. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I have never minded the fact that we disagree. I am ok with disagreeing with people. What has always perterbed me about your discussion is your attitude that anyone who disagrees with YOUR assessment is whacko. That, I find offensive.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, I think that thinking that everything that goes on the world is some sort of Illuminati-esque conspiracy borders on the deep end. You'll find that plenty of people disagree with me vehemently on issues, but I don't think that they're whacko. Just talk to sakky. He's sane as can be. But I disagree with him on a lot.</p>

<p>Let's put it another way: I disagree with much of what Francis F.ukuyama says about the progression of history after the Cold War. I don't think he's whacko. On the other hand, I think that the people who say that the pyramids were built by interstellar aliens are whacko.</p>

<p>Slight difference.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The one about applying it to the big picture vs the details. I thought it was rather well-crafted, actually.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I fall in and out of threads. You're much more passionate about it than I am, I suppose. /shrug</p>

<p>
[quote]
Can you deny that he speaks only in platitudes?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Name me a politician who doesn't.</p>

<p>
[quote]
What does that say about the American people?</p>

<p>Pathetic.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is news? :confused:</p>

[kunfuzed101]

<p>Why blame BUSH, after all the majority of the American people were the ones who made the mistake of voting for him for the "SECOND TIME." Geez we were loosing in '04 and wow...we are still loosing. Congratulations to those who have turned this country from being vibrant to hated, I hope your happy!</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>kunfuzed101,</p>

<p>There was far less pessimism surrounding our losing battles in 2004.</p>

<p>Besides, it's arguable whether or not Gore in 2000 would have mattered much in terms of how the US is viewed. Unipolar hegemons are almost guaranteed to suffer from declining popularity, as their power will be seen as threatening in the absence of a demonstrable threat.</p>

<p>That, and it's so easy to blame Bush, but ignore the House and Senate. But y'know, they're just like...the legislature and all.</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>"most of the best educated political scientists I've encountered have said this much about Bush: he's not always the best policymaker, but it's clear that he's in charge of his policies, for better or for worse."</p>

<p>Are you CERTAIN they meant BUSH THE MAN and not the BUSH ADMINISTRATION? Often when political scientists speak of a president, they are referring to the ADMINISTRATION. Did you ask them straight out or are you ASSUMING? </p>

<p>"It may have been something security related for all I know. "</p>

<p>Case in point. Yes, and it MAY have been a transmitting device by which Cheney told him what to say. But see, you cannot admit that possibility. I can admit the possibility that it was just a security device, but you cannot admit the possibility that it was a transmittal device. You claim to be objective but you are not.</p>

<p>"I'm also a busy grad student/TA who really only has time to half-arse a lot of these things. Meh. Plus the 9/11 debate was a lot of circular debating and the same thing over and over again. You enjoy rehashing the same old arguments, it seems. I don't. I have plenty of other threads to enjoy."</p>

<p>That's a blow-off. You always conveniently drop out of the discussion as soon as I meet your challenge and provide good answers, so that you don't have to answer my direct questions. </p>

<p>"Name me a politician who doesn't."</p>

<p>ALL the others. bush is the ONLY one I know of who speaks in ONLY platitudes. Again, your answer is just a blow-off.</p>

<p>"I think that thinking that everything that goes on the world is some sort of Illuminati-esque conspiracy borders on the deep end."</p>

<p>Case in point. You continue to exaggerate and twist my words. You know damn well I don't think EVERYTHING in the world is a conspiracy. Again, another blow-off because you are unable or unwilling to admit that there is merit to the other side of the argument. You think in all-or-nothing terms. To you, everything is black-and-white. You are unable to see the shades of grey; the validity of differing viewpoints. You think something is either ALL right or ALL wrong and if you don't understand it, you blow it off as 'whacko.'</p>

<p>Very few things in life fit neatly in a single category. Perhaps you will learn that someday.</p>

<hr>

<p>"...House and Senate..."</p>

<p>Easier to just blame the neocons. That sums it up.</p>

<hr>

<p>Do you think people who believe in alternate realities and other dimensions are whacko too? Interstingly, I just saw a show on Discovery the other day about Membrane Theory. They had scientists from Harvard speaking of the 11th dimension. Mainstream scientists on mainstream tv. The culmination of Einstein's missing theory that reconciles all the mysteries of the universe.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>
[quote]
Case in point. Yes, and it MAY have been a transmitting device by which Cheney told him what to say. But see, you cannot admit that possibility. I can admit the possibility that it was just a security device, but you cannot admit the possibility that it was a transmittal device. You claim to be objective but you are not.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Here we go with the assumptions. I never said it wasn't. I just don't care either way.</p>

<p>
[quote]
That's a blow-off. You always conveniently drop out of the discussion as soon as I meet your challenge and provide good answers, so that you don't have to answer my direct questions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Meh. The Internet is such srs</a> bizness, after all. I've debated with enough people on the wonderful Interweb to know when people are debating and when they're just stonewalling. I don't deal with the latter much, as my patience for it has grown thin over the past couple of years.</p>

<p>/shrug</p>

<p>
[quote]
ALL the others. bush is the ONLY one I know of who speaks in ONLY platitudes. Again, your answer is just a blow-off.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>All the others? Have you heard Ted Stevens speak? How about Teddy Kennedy? How about Bush Sr.? Tons of platitudes.</p>

<p>"Read my lips..."</p>

<p>:rolleyes:</p>

<p>
[quote]
You think in all-or-nothing terms. To you, everything is black-and-white. You are unable to see the shades of grey; the validity of differing viewpoints. You think something is either ALL right or ALL wrong and if you don't understand it, you blow it off as 'whacko.'

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh...huh. I'm the one that's reserving judgment on most of these issues (instead saying, "I just don't know") yet I'm the one thinking in black-and-white?</p>

<p>How does that work again?</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>"Here we go with the assumptions. I never said it wasn't. I just don't care either way."</p>

<p>Well then that proves you like to argue for the sake of argument, since you back off from the argument whenever you are bested on a particular point. I've seen you do it countless times. Since you admit you don't care, then why do you bother, other than for the sake of arguing?</p>

<p>"...to know when people are debating and when they're just stonewalling..."</p>

<p>A person who is genuinely interested in the topic being debated will listen to each point and respond to each point. That is what I have done. If you go back to the previous threads I almost always address every point you bring up. As opposed to someone who just wants to bluster and argue for the sake of argument (which is what you do). Such a person leaves points hanging and just backs out when he gets uncomfortable. </p>

<p>"All the others? Have you heard Ted Stevens speak? How about Teddy Kennedy? How about Bush Sr.? Tons of platitudes."Read my lips..."</p>

<p>Bush SR.???? You have GOT to be kidding! Bush Sr. is the real deal. He earned all that he did. He was a true statesman. He speaks intelligently and is clearly up on all the issues. There is absolutely NO COMPARISON between him and his imbecile son. Unbelievable that you could even think to compare the 2. Ted Kennedy has take quite a stand on many issues and also speaks intelligently. (I've never heard Ted Stevens so I won't comment on him.)</p>

<p>Look up the word 'platitude' on dictionary.com. It does NOT mean 'a figure of speech.' </p>

<p>"Uh...huh. I'm the one that's reserving judgment on most of these issues (instead saying, "I just don't know") yet I'm the one thinking in black-and-white?"</p>

<p>But see, you say you don't do that but you do. If you truly were reserving judgment then you would not be calling people whackos. And you'd be able to admit that there were valid points on both sides. But you can't even do that. And no I don't believe you that you cannot see ANY valid points on the other side. That's just simply not true. It's far easier for you to just make blanket statements rather than admitting that something might warrant further investigation.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>
[quote]
Well then that proves you like to argue for the sake of argument, since you back off from the argument whenever you are bested on a particular point. I've seen you do it countless times. Since you admit you don't care, then why do you bother, other than for the sake of arguing?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I hate these types of arguments, but...And you don't? We're all here to argue, get our opinions out, and be heard. The cafe is our little soapbox.</p>

<p>But I think in this particular case, you missed my point. I don't care if he had a device on his back, because it doesn't make a bloody difference. Let's say he did, and Cheney was whispering sweet nothings into his ear. So what? It still isn't proof of anything since we don't know what he said.</p>

<p>And as for him saying "I'll do what Cheney says," maybe it was the great Freudian slip that shows that Bush is the tool of the century. Or not. We can't say with absolute impunity. So it's safer, from a social science perspective, to say nothing at all and work with the variables we actually have in front of us. </p>

<p>
[quote]
A person who is genuinely interested in the topic being debated will listen to each point and respond to each point. That is what I have done. If you go back to the previous threads I almost always address every point you bring up. As opposed to someone who just wants to bluster and argue for the sake of argument (which is what you do). Such a person leaves points hanging and just backs out when he gets uncomfortable.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ehh...not really. You claim to "listen" then turn around and continue on your merry way. It's qualitatively not that much different. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Look up the word 'platitude' on dictionary.com. It does NOT mean 'a figure of speech.'

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I realize that. A platitude is a truism or inanity. And all politicians deal in those. You claim that Bush Sr. was the real deal. Yes, he was more experienced, older, and a better president on a lot of counts. But I'm sure that somewhere you could dig up someone who argues that Bush Sr. was just a Reaganite tool, and the puppet of the neo-conservative band. And they could probably connect just as many dots as you have.</p>

<p>That's the problem with these conjecture-based arguments. They can be made so easily and so readily. </p>

<p>Hell, I once read an article that argued, in excruciating detail, that Nixon was nothing but Kissinger's puppet. Kissinger was the power behind the throne. Then someone turned around and responded in the opposite.</p>

<p>Both were pretty interesting and convincing at the most basic level. Both were based mostly on conjecture. Both failed to use empirical data. </p>

<p>
[quote]
But see, you say you don't do that but you do. If you truly were reserving judgment then you would not be calling people whackos. And you'd be able to admit that there were valid points on both sides.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not every debate is between two valid sides. Alchemy vs. chemistry. Creationism vs. evolutionary biology. Astrology vs. astronomy.</p>

<p>Not everyone has something valid to say. You are making a conclusion based on conjecture You're letting the slippery slope take you wherever you want. </p>

<p>And whenever someone points that out, your response is to label them some Bush supporter (which I'm not).</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>"Let's say he did, and Cheney was whispering sweet nothings into his ear. So what? It still isn't proof of anything since we don't know what he said."</p>

<p>It would be AN INDICATION supporting my contention that he cannot speak for himself and is not a leader.</p>

<p>You go on and on about PROOF. I clearly said in my previous posts that there is no way to conclusively PROVE that bush is a puppet. I said it was my OPINION that he was, and my opinion is based on my own personal OBSERVATIONS. You asked me WHY I thought that, and I ANSWERED you. I mentioned the gadget and Cheney incidents as 2 observations among many, as EXAMPLES of what I have observed.</p>

<p>Yet, you once again twist what I say and try to make this into an argument about physical facts. And then you bring up alchemy and astrology, as if the 911 issue were in the same category. ALL of my posts about the 911 issue presented PHYSICAL DATA such as the speed of the towers collapsing, the squibs, the molten metal, and many other PHYSICAL items consistent with controlled demolition. It's fine if you conclude that there was no controlled demolition. But to say I am whacko because I am open to a different interpretation of PHYSICAL data puts me in the category of crackpots who believe in nebulous psychic stuff (yours or my opinion of such topics being irrelevant to such a comparison) is just simply an illustration of a lack of integrity on your part.</p>

<p>"your response is to label them some Bush supporter "</p>

<p>I never said any such thing. Really, I don't think I EVER said that or anything remotely like that.</p>

<p>sheesh.</p>

<p>I really don't care to debate with you any longer. (Yeah, I know, I've said that before, but succumbed. Well THIS time...) Your mind is in a concrete box. I'd rather be whacko and open to new ideas than be so limited as you. It is the open-minded among us who are the great thinkers and movers into new modes of thought. (Like those Harvard scientists postulating the 11th dimension, for example.)</p>

[Cuse0507]

<p>Sure, Iraq isn't going well right now. But if we pull out, MORE Iraqi civilians will die than if we stay. Right now we are losing because our troops secure an area, force the terrorists in the area to flee, and then move on because we don't have enough soldiers there to hold the area. With more troops, we will be able to hold the areas that we fight for and we will deny the terrorists safe havens. This will persist until the Iraqis are ready to take over and do the job for themselves.</p>

<p>Pulling out of Iraq shows the world</p>

<p>1.) We are weak
2.) We don't mean what we say
3.) We have no clue what we are up to
4.) We don't care about anyone other than ourselves</p>

[neutralnuke]

<p>Cuse0507, same thoughts here.</p>

<p>I was against starting the war because of the lack of evidence. But presently, we cannot back out regardless of the legitimacy of our invasion. We have to stay there and secure the place. Pulling out will help Iran and the terrorists.
Diplomacy always sounds like a good and peaceful option - but we are not in a position to negotiate with Iran. I do think we should talk to Syria.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>
[quote]
I'd rather be whacko and open to new ideas than be so limited as you. It is the open-minded among us who are the great thinkers and movers into new modes of thought. (Like those Harvard scientists postulating the 11th dimension, for example.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh jeez. You didn't say this...</p>

<p>Doing work on dimensions with mathematics is way different from making the slippery slope logical leap that Bush is a puppet. One is based on sound mathematical principles, the other based on speculation.</p>

<p>I mean, really...</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>Oh yes I did say this and I stand by what I said. If I had mentioned a belief in the possibility of an 11th dimension and you didn't know that Harvard scientists were exploring that possibility, you would surely have labeled me whacko. The point is that you are behind the curve because you only accept knowledge from those that you perceive to be within your preset, established boundaries.</p>

<p>Your opinion that only mainstream sources of info are to be considered valid, and anything on the fringe is to be considered whacko, is simply another opinion. (You know what they say about opinions.) You neglect to realize that all mainstream ideas that turn out to be truly revolutionary were once on the fringe. To dismiss the fringe is short-sighted, limited and closed-minded. Your apparent belief that your opinion is more valuable than that of someone like me, who is open to ideas you aren't, is simply arrogant. You are entitled to your beliefs, of course. It is the condenscension that I find amusing.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>
[quote]
If I had mentioned a belief in the possibility of an 11th dimension and you didn't know that Harvard scientists were exploring that possibility, you would surely have labeled me whacko. The point is that you are behind the curve because you only accept knowledge from those that you perceive to be within your preset, established boundaries.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're missing the point. If you said that you believed in an 11th dimension based on pure speculation, I'd say you were intellectually lazy.</p>

<p>If you said that you believed in an 11th dimension and it was causing Hiro Nakamura to come to our planet to save New York from a nuclear attack, I'd call you a whacko.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You neglect to realize that all mainstream ideas that turn out to be truly revolutionary were once on the fringe. To dismiss the fringe is short-sighted, limited and closed-minded.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This isn't about the fringe. This is about assumptions without the data to back them up. I never discount the possibility that Bush is a tool. In fact, it's possible that every POTUS since Washington has been one. However, without direct evidence, I say it's up in the air and technically moot when we create models to explain what's going on.</p>

<p>It's never impossible. It's just not worth worrying about until evidence to support it is brought forward. That's the difference. I say we should withhold judgment and make our arguments based on what's in front of us. You'd prefer to go on intellectual wild goose chases.</p>

<p>
[quote]
To dismiss the fringe is short-sighted, limited and closed-minded.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There's a difference between "the fringe" (which mathematical modeling of the many dimensions is not, by the way) and speculation. You're attempting to validate your claims by saying that you're just more open-minded that I am. I'm saying that there's a difference between an open mind and a willingness to make assumptions that cannot be supported by fact.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Your apparent belief that your opinion is more valuable than that of someone like me, who is open to ideas you aren't, is simply arrogant.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Is it more arrogant to withhold judgment, or to levy it hastily?</p>

[neutralnuke]

<p>UCLAri, here is incontrovertible proof that Cheney is a tool
<a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43189%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43189&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

[UCLAri]

<p>Oh man. I <3 The Onion. It's so awesome.</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>"You're missing the point. If you said that you believed in an 11th dimension based on pure speculation, I'd say you were intellectually lazy."</p>

<p>Research often begins with someone's speculation. It is the creative ideas from which intellectual discourse, debate, and research spring forth. It is an important step in the process and should not be demeaned.</p>

<p>Imagination is more important than knowledge, for knowledge is limited while imagination embraces the entire world.
- Albert Einstein</p>

<p>"This isn't about the fringe. This is about assumptions without the data to back them up. I never discount the possibility that Bush is a tool. In fact, it's possible that every POTUS since Washington has been one. However, without direct evidence, I say it's up in the air and technically moot when we create models to explain what's going on."</p>

<p>Ah, but you DO make assumptions. You have made the assumption that, despite contradictory data about 911, that data is irrelevant because of the people who are discussing that data. You are CHOOSING to ignore pieces of data such as the freefall speed, the light flashes BEFORE the planes hit, the squibs, the firefighters' reports of explosions in the basement and lobby, the impossibility of the 'plane' both burrowing in thru several layers of concrete (when direct experiments show that planes disintigrate when they hit concrete walls, not burrough thru them - see <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=ydGRDh2AZFo%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://youtube.com/watch?v=ydGRDh2AZFo&lt;/a>
for a 1-minute actual demonstration of what happens when a plane hits a concrete wall - why did that NOT happen at the Pentagon? why is there not a huge pile of disintigrated plane dirtying up the lawn? But no, it is pristine with only a few scattered pieces. This is NOT consistent with the above experiment. And if that had happened, there would have been NOTHING LEFT to burrough thru and make those neat holes in the rings of concrete.) - these are all PIECES OF DATA which you have CHOSEN to ignore. I'd say that is MAKING AN ASSUMPTION. So you are doing the very thing that you criticize me for doing!</p>

<p>It may be more accurate to say that you CHOOSE to believe ONLY those pieces of data that are accepted by the mainstream. In which case, you ignore any pieces of data deemed by you to be on the fringe. So it is about the fringe after all. (Regardless of the fact that many new ideas that are now mainstream were once on the fringe. Not all fringe ideas are valid, but just because they are fringe does not make them invalid.)</p>

<p>"It's never impossible. It's just not worth worrying about until evidence to support it is brought forward. That's the difference. I say we should withhold judgment and make our arguments based on what's in front of us. You'd prefer to go on intellectual wild goose chases."</p>

<p>No, I'd prefer to make my own decisions about what I think based on my own observations and I choose which experts to believe, just as you do and everyone one else on the planet does. Just because I arrive at different conclusions than you do does not make me a whacko. That is YOUR judgment and it is condescending, arrogant, and offensive.</p>

<p>"There's a difference between "the fringe" (which mathematical modeling of the many dimensions is not, by the way) and speculation. You're attempting to validate your claims by saying that you're just more open-minded that I am. I'm saying that there's a difference between an open mind and a willingness to make assumptions that cannot be supported by fact."</p>

<p>Ah, but WHICH facts do you CHOOSE to believe? Dr. Atkins has proven, with research, and therefore FACTS, that SOME people following his high-fat, high-protein diet lose weight and lower their cholesterol. But Dr. Ornish and Dr. McDougall have proven that people following their low-fat vegetarian diets lose weight and lower their cholesterol. WHICH facts do you believe? How do you reconcile such contradictions?</p>

<p>I assert that you can find data to support WHATEVER you choose to believe, in virtually ANY area of discussion. The FACTS are that 911 has pieces of data to support BOTH the official theory AND the alternative theories. You cannot discount the FACTS that I mentioned above. Yet, you INSIST that such pieces of data are irrelevant. I contend that you are indeed quite closed-minded because you are SELECTIVE about WHICH pieces of data you are willing to look at.</p>

<p>Again, your arriving at different conclusions is fine and I have no problem with that. But that is now what you did. You consistently IGNORE any pieces of data that don't fit your preconceived beliefs.</p>

<p>"Is it more arrogant to withhold judgment, or to levy it hastily?"</p>

<p>Oh, so now you are saying that I levy judgment hastily? Please back up that statement.</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>Are you more closed-minded than I am? Overall, I'd say yes. But, I admit that I am closed-minded on some things. I am doing the same thing with bush as you have done with the 911 issue. I have observed and arrived at a conclusion that he's a puppet, and that belief is pretty strong right now. Not unshakable, but it would take some very intensely strong evidence to the contrary to change my mind. So, I admit that I am closed-minded about my opinion of bush. </p>

<p>The difference is that I am aware of it while you seem to be oblivious.</p>

<p>An open-minded approach on my part about bush would be for me to say something like this:
"Well, my observation of him is that he's a puppet. But I am always open to changing my mind. And I respect people who disagree with me." I am NOT open-minded about bush because actually I have a very hard time understanding, and therefore respecting, anyone who thinks he's a good leader, or a leader at all, for that matter. I struggle with the temptation to think that they're idiots for not seeing what is to me obvious. So yeah, I ADMIT IT!!</p>

<p>And open-minded approach on YOUR part about 911 would be to say something like this:
"Right now it seems to me that there is more evidence supporting the official story than alternative theories. However, I remain open to considering the available data as new evidence becomes available. And, although I disagree with those who think there is more to it than the official story, I can respect that they are just seeking the truth and interpreting the data differently than I am. I reserve judgment and remain open to the possibility that they MAY BE RIGHT."</p>

<p>But that's NOT what you're doing. You are essentially saying "Anyone who continues to evaluate the data and arrives at different conclusions is whacko." </p>

<p>Do you see the difference? It's like Dr. Atkins calling Dr. Ornish whacko.</p>

<p>Undoubtedly you will now say that's different because they are both doctors. Well, again, it is YOUR choice to believe ONLY people with certain qualifications. That's fine. But I have news for you: There are millions of people in this country who were given up for dead by the mainstream medical establishment, and then healed themselves of such diseases as cancer by alternative means. I have met some of them personally and I myself have gotten healing of some other problems (not cancer) thru alternative means, after the mainstream doctors offered me nothing further. Just because something is mainstream does NOT mean it is the ONLY way. THAT is why I think you are closed-minded. You are in that category of people who thinks ANYTHING not ordained by the mainstream authorities is whacko. Such thinking is enclosed in a very solid box.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>lealdragon,</p>

<p>I admit-- I shut my mind when the scientific method is thrown out the window.</p>

<p>But in my case, I call that a blessing and not a curse. I'd rather live my whole life avoiding the alchemists, astrologers, and mystics than deal with them. </p>

<p>I don't necessarily bow to someone with qualifications, however. But when an English professor starts attempting to legitimize the 9/11 conspiracy movement (and the science behind it), I almost immediately discard it because it's just an empty appeal to authority.</p>

<p>I remain skeptical. Perhaps a little more inclined to side with establishment, yes, but skeptical of establishment as well. I don't think Bush did a good job. I was skeptical of his work from day one. But I won't make any conclusions without evidence.</p>

<p>
[quote]
There are millions of people in this country who were given up for dead by the mainstream medical establishment, and then healed themselves of such diseases as cancer by alternative means.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ah, but here's the problem: was it the "alternative means" or was it something else? how can you isolate the variables? </p>

<p>And besides, I'm sure Andy Kaufman might have something to say about that...</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>"I remain skeptical. Perhaps a little more inclined to side with establishment, yes, but skeptical of establishment as well."</p>

<p>Thank you for admitting that. Not quite an admission of closed-mindedness, but I'll take what I can get. <wink></wink></p>

<p>"Ah, but here's the problem: was it the "alternative means" or was it something else? how can you isolate the variables? "</p>

<p>You don't need to isolate the variables to validate that SOMETHING healed them AFTER conventional medicine failed them. It's up to the doctors and scientists to isolate those variables, and the fact is that most medical research is funded by the pharmaceutical companies. They are NOT likely to fund research into treatments they cannot patent. There are documented cases of promising therapies that got shelved because they could not isolate the active ingredient and make it into a drug. For those people who CHOOSE to try alternative therapies because they are on their death beds and desperate, and it works for them, no one has the right to criticize or scoff at it. But, that's what the medical establishment does - scoffs at such treatments as if only crazy people would consider them.</p>

<p>I am a living example. The medical establishment told me I would never be able to have a child. It was alternative therapies that healed the condition I had. And I am now on this forum because obviously I have a child. I was not satisfied with the conventional assessment and I am glad I sought help elsewhere. That is how my mind got opened. Until I was in that situation, I was a junk-food junkie who frequented doctors' offices for prescription drugs, just like everyone else. It usually takes something drastic to get people to open their thinking, unfortunately, and I was no different from anyone else in that respect.</p>

<p>Now, you will probably challenge me on my experience. Don't bother. It's been done before. What makes people think they have the right to go to someone and say 'What happened to you is not valid. It must have been a fluke or a placebo, but it's not what you think' is the epitome of rudeness. (Never mind that the placebo effect itself is accepted by conventional science and it's one of the few mind phenomenons that is.) I don't have to explain my experience to anyone. My point is that there are LOTS of people, many of them with far more severe illnesses than I had, who have seemingly miraculous stories, and the medical establishment absolutely REFUSES to acknowledge them other than to say they are 'unexplained.'</p>

<p>Anyway, my point was NOT to 'prove' any one particular alternative treatment - I don't actually believe it is any one thing, in most cases, but a combination of many lifestyle changes, therapies, attitude adjustments, faith, supplements, etc. in varying combinations. My point was that alternative therapies DO exist and people ARE getting results from them, even though the medical establishment does NOT accept most of them.</p>

<p>In other words, the mainstream establishment, whether in the field of medicine, politics, religion, science, or whatever, does not always have an interest in alternative ideas. In some cases they have a vested interest to dispute/debunk alternative ideas. So, whereas you seem to put all your trust in the establishment, I consider the establishment but ONE of MANY possible sources of information.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>
[quote]
Thank you for admitting that. Not quite an admission of closed-mindedness, but I'll take what I can get. <wink>

[/quote]
</wink></p>

<p>Look, if you want to call me closed minded because I damn snake oil peddlers, then fine. It's your prerogative to do so. But they are what they are: peddlers of snake oil. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You don't need to isolate the variables to validate that SOMETHING healed them AFTER conventional medicine failed them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, you do. Otherwise you don't know what healed them, and you're just letting all the variables confound themselves.</p>

<p>[mod note: please use quote tags
[quote ]

[/quote ]
<-- close the brackets and you have quote tags]</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't actually believe it is any one thing, in most cases, but a combination of many lifestyle changes, therapies, attitude adjustments, faith, supplements, etc. in varying combinations.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, the only good studies done on attitude have demonstrated that when isolated, there is very little correlation between attitude and survival rates with cancer. The only reason this doesn't make sense is that optimistic people tend to be more gung ho about treatment. Otherwise, attitude has no effect on survival rates, nor would it, sadly.</p>

<p>I mean, all those "millions of people" that you cite (without a source, mind you) may have actually been saved by anything. It may have been their own bodies managing to defeat the cancer (which is possible.) But if you can't isolate the variables, you can't say anything. Otherwise, it's like doing a rain dance and then being happy when it rains, but ignoring when it doesn't.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In other words, the mainstream establishment, whether in the field of medicine, politics, religion, science, or whatever, does not always have an interest in alternative ideas. In some cases they have a vested interest to dispute/debunk alternative ideas.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The problem with so many "alternative ideas" is that they're usually so soft in the science.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So, whereas you seem to put all your trust in the establishment, I consider the establishment but ONE of MANY possible sources of information.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I only put trust in the establishment because it tends to follow the scientific method, and I believe that the scientific method works. I do social science research, my girlfriend does biological research, and I know how important a good model is. If you don't isolate the variables correctly, you might as well not conclude anything, because you're just leaving it all up to chance.</p>

<p>And science attempts to filter out chance.</p>