[troutman]

Defending CAM with Bad Logic and Bad Data

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...-and-bad-data/

CAM proponents tend to use the same bad arguments over and over again. They have no choice (other than deciding not to be CAM proponents) – if a treatment were backed by solid logic and evidence it would not be CAM, it would just be medicine. As SBM’s fourth year comes to a close I thought I would round up the most common bad arguments that CAM proponents put forward to defend their position. Like creationists, pointing out the errors in their facts and logic will not stop them from continuing to use these arguments. But this lack of imagination on their part makes it somewhat easy to counter their arguments, since the same ones will come up again and again.

The Argument from Antiquity
This is a common claim – that some CAM modalities have been around for centuries, or even thousands of years, and so they must work.
The Argument from Popularity
We are constantly being told that CAM is popular and that its popularity is growing. This argument is used to justify incorporation of CAM into academia, spending research funds on CAM, and licensing CAM practitioners.
False Choice
If there are deficiencies in science-based medicine, then CAM is an appropriate “alternative.”
Tu Quoque
A similar strategy to the false choice is to justify the failings of CAM by pointing out the failings in mainstream medicine – the tu quoque logical fallacy.