Argument from authority
Stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. It is reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the proper background, education, and credentials, or to be suspicious of the claims of someone making authoritative statements in an area for which they cannot demonstrate expertise. But the truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it.
Thank you for re-educating me on the pitfalls of logically fallacies.
I wasn't making an argument, which would necessitate me taking a position and defending it. I was merely stating things from a Flames-orientated point of view, considering the context we find ourselves in. A matter of fact statement if you will. But I appreciate the strength of your opinion.
Thank you for re-educating me on the pitfalls of logically fallacies.
I wasn't making an argument, which would necessitate me taking a position and defending it. I was merely stating things from a Flames-orientated point of view, considering the context we find ourselves in. A matter of fact statement if you will. But I appreciate the strength of your opinion.
You do make an argument - that Naturo services have value.
You support your view with two arguments from authority:
1) Naturo has value because certain members of the Calgary Flames make use of the services (possibly on the advice of team doctors)
2) That I have no standing (by implication) to comment on the claim if I'm not involved in the medical field
You do make an argument - that Naturo services have value.
You support your view with two arguments from authority:
1) Naturo has value because certain members of the Calgary Flames make use of the services (possibly on the advice of team doctors)
2) That I have no standing (by implication) to comment on the claim if I'm not involved in the medical field
My "support" is how you interpreted what I was saying. Point 1 was, as I said, a matter of fact observation. I did not say "they received treatment, thus naturopathy must be 100% legitimate." Point 2 is also how you interpreted what I was asking, as I was only trying to understand the basis for your opinions. If you had medical training I could see some sort of situation by which you understood the scientific intricacies of multiple branches of medicine and were therefore inclined to believe that naturopathy is "bunk." If you don't have medical training, and I am now going to assume that you do not, then I am also led to believe that your conclusion may not be as educated as I initially supposed it could have been and therefore your labeling of naturopathy as bunk seems a little heavy handed, thats all. I have no medical training myself, so I have no scientific insights one way or another. I just don't think such definitive statements as some made by yourself are necessarily appropriate considering that many people apparently DO find merit in naturopathy. But as you said, some aspects may be legit, some may not.
I have a 13+ years of post secondary training in medicine/sciences and I agree with everything Troutman has to say.
The "scientific intricacies" of naturopathic medicine are based on the weakest of scientific merit, if any. Non-blinded trials, inadequate samples, confounding bias galore, uncontrolled variables, statistically insignificant differences reported as significant, laughable inclusion/exclusion criteria.....the list goes on and on. I've read many published papers on homeopathic remedies (including reviewing all the ColdFx papers, totally spurious by the way) and the overwhelming majority are garbage.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to NuclearFart For This Useful Post:
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by prizefighterinferno
But as you said, some aspects may be legit, some may not.
Determining which is which cannot be done using naturopathic "methodology" - a certain indicator that it is fundamentally flawed. I could make up some bizarre treatment today, try it out on some people tomorrow, claim it works the next day, and by 2010 it could be the next "holistic medical miracle" without any naturopath being able to definitively say, "No, jammies' Willow Branch Colonic Imploder is the work of a charlatan" - because there is no way within the discipline to tell.
That an informed layman can authoritatively say that it is bunk, is *why* it is bunk - that is the point that is continually missed by the proponents of all these types of pseudo-sciences. I don't need to be an engineer to know that a building with no foundation will fall. I don't need to be a lawyer to know that running old ladies over in the street is against the law. I don't have to have an accountant's designation to see that a $5 bill won't pay the rent. Similarly, I don't need to be a doctor to know that naturopathy is not real medicine, and that *some* doctors think there is something in it is because doctors are no more immune to bad logic than the rest of us - they SHOULD know better, but some doctors smoke, too, don't they?
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
My good friend is currently studying to be an ND (Doctor of Naturopathy) in Toronto. His program is four years and based on what he tells me, is as rigorous as medical school. It also requires an undergraduate science degree and is extremely competitive to get into.
My view is that as long as one doesn't alienate regular medicine, naturopathy can, at best, help and at worst, do no harm.
I agree bcb
Some skeptics don't believe in Chiropractics, yet people hobble into Chiropractor's offices every day in pain, and walk out minutes later pain free.
Most people go to traditional Doctors first, if that fails, they seek alternatives.
My Doctor referred me for a CT scan for back (sciatica) pain, I couldn't wait so I went to a Chiropractor, he fixed me up in one visit.
100 yrs. ago traditional medical doctors thought they knew everything, we know now they didn't. Your crazy if you think they do now.
The Naturopathic Doctors do 3 years pre med, and then 4 years of intense Naturopathic studies, most do more. Not exactly the "quacks" skeptics would have you believe.
I've got an initial consultation booked, referred by a dietitian. I suppose the sceptics don't believe in dietitians either.
My Stepmom had some mysterious illness for almost two years. Tons of specialists here in Canada and trips to the States, came up with nothing definite. She went to to some Naturopath, he looked at her and told she had Lyme Disease. A trip back to a real Doctor, and yep, he was right.
My Stepmom had some mysterious illness for almost two years. Tons of specialists here in Canada and trips to the States, came up with nothing definite. She went to to some Naturopath, he looked at her and told she had Lyme Disease. A trip back to a real Doctor, and yep, he was right.
I too have had a mysterious illness. Then I finally gave in, and went on the internet to self diagnose. I couldn't find out what I was afflicted with so I finally went to a doctor. The doctor took one look at me and told me that I was a hypochondriac and to go home. He was right.
I'm not railing on you or your story or anything, I just find the huge amounts of anecdotal evidence or support that is always brought up in favor of "natural" medicine funny. My anecdote is doing organic chemistry with a girl who was going to one of those schools after she finished her degree. She told me proudly that she only needed a C average to get in, which is why she wasn't working very hard as my lab partner.
Of course science based medicine doesn't have an answer for everything yet. They do however, have respectable controls in place to hopefully limit any harm they might inflict as well as advance what they do know. Those limits, controls and rigorous training are what make me place my faith in them above other forms of "medicine".
My wife is into homeopathy and while I really need to bite my tongue when she comes home with $50 bucks worth of sugar pills and ointments. Most of the time the diagnosis that is given is correct, or at least jives with what the doctor says when I insist they go see one.
Doesn't mean anyone should rely on them at all. If I could somehow change her mind about them I would in a heart beat.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
I'm giving homeopathy a try; in fact, I've got an appointment in less than an hour.
I've been being treated for my condition since May 2009 and still am suffering symptoms. Traditional medication and treatments haven't solved the problems, so why not give homeopathy a try?
Homeopathy looks beyond the symptoms and more at the feelings and experiences underlying that may underlie these symptoms. In that way, it kind of reminds me of psychiatry. But the remedies are all natural. So like bcb said, at best, it will help me, at worst, no harm is done.
Besides, if you try it and don't like it, nobody is forcing you to keep going. But from my experiences and opinion, it's worth a shot.
100 yrs. ago traditional medical doctors thought they knew everything, we know now they didn't. Your crazy if you think they do now.
No, they don't think they know everything. Science is a never-ending self-correcting process. If any CAM therapy can produce reliable evidence that it works beyond a placebo effect, it will be added to "traditional" medicine without hesitation.
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
Also, it's very important to ensure that an N.D. is reputable. As with any profession, there are good and bad N.D.s. My N.D. helped my mom with some of her troubles in 2005. I asked my doctor, and he said that even he can't argue with some of the things the N.D. recommends. No, an N.D. is not a doctor, but they are highly educated in their field. Everything that they tell you to take is natural, so again, what's the harm in trying?
The other thing I like about naturopath is everything is about you, the patient. It's not "This is Bob, who's got chronic headaches. We are giving him treatment X because that's what works for everyone else." Naturopath is more like, "This is Bob, with chronic headaches. We are looking into treating Bob with treatment Y, because given what we know about Bob and his headaches, not other people's headaches, this should work." So it's a nicer feeling in some ways to be treated like this, for me anyway.
Homeopathy is on the ropes in the UK. Earlier in the year The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (STC) released a report, Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy, essentially saying that homeopathy is bunk and should no longer be supported. Recently representatives of the British Medical Association (BMA) condemned homeopathy as “witchcraft.”
Now the BMA is going one step further – calling for a ban on homeopathy in the UK. They do not want homeopathy to be illegal, but they want a ban on any National Health Service (NHS) support for homeopathy. The NHS currently spends about 20 million pounds a year on homeopathic remedies (about 0.01% of the NHS budget) and maintains four homeopathic hospitals. This is a small amount overall – but anything spent on homeopathy is a waste. More importantly, as the BMA notes, homeopathy has “‘no place in the modern health service.’
For my first blog entry, I wanted to write about something important, and I couldn’t think of anything more important than a recent book by R. Barker Bausell: Snake Oil Science: The Truth About Complementary and Alternative Medicine. If you want to understand how medical research works, if you want to know what can lead patients and scientists to false conclusions, if you have ever used complementary or alternative medicine or have wondered why others do, if you value evidence over belief, if you care about the truth, you will find a treasure trove of information in this book.
He doesn’t try to tell us what to think, but he educates us in how to think critically about medical claims and about medical research. He doesn’t aim to dissuade anyone from using CAM. He just doesn’t want anyone to choose it for the wrong reasons, to be fooled into thinking there is credible evidence where there isn’t. He emphasizes that CAM nourishes hope, and its placebos work, if only for symptoms that would eventually resolve on their own anyway. The comfort CAM brings can be valuable, as long as it is not used in place of effective treatments for serious conditions – and most of the time it isn’t, despite the occasional horror story of a patient who refuses effective cancer treatment and dies using a worthless remedy. Bausell ends his book with advice on how to choose an effective placebo therapy!
I'm giving homeopathy a try; in fact, I've got an appointment in less than an hour.
I've been being treated for my condition since May 2009 and still am suffering symptoms. Traditional medication and treatments haven't solved the problems, so why not give homeopathy a try?
Homeopathy looks beyond the symptoms and more at the feelings and experiences underlying that may underlie these symptoms. In that way, it kind of reminds me of psychiatry. But the remedies are all natural. So like bcb said, at best, it will help me, at worst, no harm is done.
Besides, if you try it and don't like it, nobody is forcing you to keep going. But from my experiences and opinion, it's worth a shot.
I don't think I'd agree with the "no harm" bit - they cost money after all, and help finance scam artists (I consider all homeopaths to be either scam artists or deluded, since the underlying principles have been shown to be wrong and properly designed clinical trials consistently show it doesn't work). The big harm comes when people go and see a homeopath and get their water/sugar placebos instead of getting real treatment though. http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html
I'm not the type to buy into "NEW AGE" weird stuff but the health care from traditional Doctors leaves alot of room for improvement IMO.
Tell the Doctor your not feeling right, something has changed, this that...
What do they do ? They write you a prescription every time. Maybe we need better traditional Doctors.
When I booked this appointment I was told to stop by and pick up a detailed questionnaire that would take an hour to fill out.
My initial consult will take 1.5 hrs, that with the questionnaire would be more time than my Doctor has spent on me in 15 years.
Why would I waste my time and money on a Consultation with a Naturopathic Doctor if my traditional western Doctor was doing a good job?
Here in BC they need alot of schooling, more than I thought.
What kind of education do Naturopathic Doctors Have?
Quote:
Naturopathic doctors have completed a minimum of 3 years of university courses with pre-requisites for the ND program. They also have graduated from a 4 year program from an accredited naturopathic medical school that includes roughly 1500 hours of basic and clinical sciences, 1900 hours of standard medical therapeutics (e.g. pharmacology, family medicine, internal medicine etc.) and extensive training in naturopathic treatments. ND’s in BC have passed 2 sets of licensing exams as well as BC provincial board exams.
