RK wrote in part:
First off, please stop using ad homenim attack-words
like
"scientism"; this is grossly offensive to those of us who
use science to separate claims from facts. If you want to
discuss a specific issue, please discuss the issue without
the words that show anger and fear of scientists.
Of course, many people use the term "scientism"
that are not angry or fearful of scientists.
Even some people that *are* scientists!
Of course, this is to be expected.
The only useful categories are these:
(A) There exists peer-reviewed data, duplicated by
many
reseachers, that a claimed technique actually works.
(B) No such data exists, and we are expected to take
someone's word, or believe in anecdotes.
This isn't western or eastern. It is about facts
versus a
charlatan taking your money.
So if data doesn't exist, then it's from a charlatan?
Or is the dichotomy in the last sentence different from the A/B dichotomy?
If the latter, then you might elaborate.
Viajero wrote:
>however, there vast realms of human knowledge
which
>have not yet been verified by these means, and to
>dismiss such empirical knowledge out of hand is both
>foolish and not our job.
I totally agree; yet I have no idea why you believe
such a
thing is happening here.
Perhaps Viajero believes it because you say things like A/B above.
This (false) dichotomy suggests that if a practice is not yet verified,
that then we are expected to believe it without verification.
It's a darned good thing that other people noticed MNH before you did, RK,
or it might have been EoT all over again -- where the regular Wikipedians
ignore your charges because you back them up with exaggerations
and biased rhetoric. Next time leave it to people like Viajero.
-- Toby