"Chinese Superstition as a Process of Thought" part 1

[vaytw]

I don't think I'm allowed to link directly to websites on youtube, but I highly recommend looking up (in addition to the "Acupuncture - Through the Looking Glass" article I already recommended) these very pertinent SBM articles: "Exorcism and Sorcery as Health Benefits?" and "Rhinos and Tigers and Bears - Oh My!", as well as "What's the Harm in Herbal Remedies?"

[microsample]

@vaytw and taipeiforum:

I wrote a detailed reply a little while back that got lost in the internets. Since then it appears that the discussion has continued. I'm glad that you are continuing to discuss the speech, but Youtube doesn't really allot me enough space to reply to some of these questions adequately. So I'll just say the following:

[ethankegley]

la la la la la, my ego... look at it balloon up like a blimp. You obviously dont know me.

[taipeiforum]

Sorry, I really have to apologize, this is not my place to have this discussion. This was my speech, I did not study this subject. Does anyone else want to throw in their two cents, so to speak?

[taipeiforum]

when I go picking cherries, I never like to eat the rotten ones, does anyone? Does western medicine start their "We are so great" mantra with "By the way, sometimes we kill people..."

[vaytw]

@taipeiforum : I think to begin to address this question we need to have some awareness and understanding of statistics. On a given day, people have a certain percentage chance of dying. Of course if one goes into a hospital, your odds are dying are higher - people who are completely healthy don't generally go into hospitals, not to mention the higher number of germs. But in any case, for medicine to have an effect, it's going to by definition also have the possibility of complications.

[vaytw]

@taipeiforum Much of alternative medicine does have the "benefit" of having little or no active ingredients, therefore there is less danger involved in taking it - as long as one's illness or condition is the kind that gets better on its own! (IMO, the fact that most problems ~do~ get better on their own, in combination with post hoc reasoning, is largely why we have alt med!) But that's not to say alt med is entirely without its dangers. Google "what's the harm?" to find out what I mean.

[taipeiforum]

@vaytw Wait, so you have gone through all the herbs in all herbal medicines around the world and found that all of these herbs are devoid of any active ingredients? I am dubious.

[vaytw]

@taipeiforum Of course not. I said "much" because alt med includes things like Homeopathy & Reiki ( & rare animal parts-ology) among other assorted quackery. To really make meaningful observations, we need to be specific.  Some herbs have active ingredients; they therefore also necessarily have potential side-effects. We don't get one without the other. Do a search on 'science-based medicine' and 'herb' to find some good articles on this topic.

[taipeiforum]

@vaytw Still, your statement "much of alt medicine... little or no active ingredients" I think its sad that you throw in things like "animal-part ology" <--- that is not serious medicine, that is superstition. If you really take the herbs from around the world I think you will find the active ingredient list is closer to 100 percent. Though you might not think they are active, like you may not believe that there are mushrooms which can fight disease or that chamomile can have a calming effect.

[vaytw]

@taipeiforum I don't really have an argument with this. I think herbs definitely have a place in medicine. I use one regularly myself actually. There are however problematic issues and we shouldn't take a 'natural fallacy' (IE whatever is natural, is therefor good) approach to herbs. Like I said, check out science-based medicine blog if you want a broader perspective on herbs. That wasn't really my main point in posting my question though.

[taipeiforum]

@vaytw Here is the problem I have with your "Natural Fallacy" --> do you know when grain companies started removing the 'germ' from the whole grain, people started getting sick. So companies eventually figured out that they had to start putting vitamins back into the grain products that we all ate. This is what happens when you remove one or more vitamins, minerals, or amino acids from a holistic system that is a whole grain. Reductionist science cannot properly account for these benefits.

[vaytw]

@taipeiforum No, I wasn't aware of that, but that's one example. Life isn't black or white. Ever wonder why Malthus turned out to be wrong that population would always outstrip agricultural output? Well, ever heard of IR8? It's a GM rice strain. IR8, with no fertilizer, produced five times the yield of traditional rice varieties. In optimal conditions with nitrogen, it produced ten times the yield. And that was only the beginning. I could give you countless similar examples.

[vaytw]

@taipeiforum And regarding the naturalistic fallacy... you've studied philosophy, so you should know this is a legitimate logical fallacy. (Also see "appeal to nature".) I'd also like to point out that my original intent in posting here was how Chinese medicine distinguishes itself from phrenology, homeopathy or for that matter astrology in gaining its legitimacy through systemization. Plenty of systematic modes of inquiry have turned out to be baseless.

[taipeiforum]

@vaytw well, yes, I have studied plants, if thats what you are asking. and yes I know how your type love to use words like "natural fallacy" and "appeal to nature." My point is, plants do contain chemicals, some are good for us, some are bad for us. But the plant is always better in its whole form. This is where Western Medicine and Western Food has gone wrong. Do you think Western food is better because it is science based? I guess you will say no...but its the same thing with Food and Medicine

[vaytw]

@taipeiforum "The plant is always better in its whole form"? Erm, that's an awfully broad statement, and smacks of intelligent design ramifications - as if nature were somehow inherently beneficent and designed around our needs. And what is "my type"? As I said, "natural fallacy" is a legitimate logical fallacy. Look it up. Like I said, I think some herbs are good, some downright useless. Depends on the individual case. But again, none of this has anything to do with my original question.

[taipeiforum]

@vaytw Really? simple one: Is a whole grain better, or should the germ and bran be separated out? If you answer A. they should be separated out, then I will agree that god created the world for us to have dominion over. If you answer B. that the germ and bran should be left with the grain, then I will say yes, it is better for us and other animals that way. Your "type" my good sir, is the type that uses those Latin or otherwise phrases to describe things that you think worthless arguments.

[vaytw]

@taipeiforum Sorry I think you're missing my point. I'm talking about the argument from intelligent design that nature was designed specifically with us in mind, and therefore what is "natural" is also beneficent. This is the type of thinking behind Naturopathy (in alt med), and is a big driver of things like the raw food movement. But I'm surprised you take issue with my identifying logical fallacies. How can one profess interest in philosophy and not appreciate them?

[vaytw]

@taipeiforum Incentally, this comment: "That is not serious medicine, that is superstition."

Do you have any criteria by which animal parts can be separated from the bulk of Chinese medicinal practices? Is your definition simply that flora = legitimate medicine vs. fauna = superstition-based medicine? To my knowledge, the Chinese make no such distinction.

[taipeiforum]

@vaytw I tell you what. You brought it up at the forum, you can go back and watch the video yourself. You are the one who argued against what you call "animal part-ology." I am not basing this on Chinese Medicine, I know very little about it. I am basing this on what I believe to be true. As far as I know all plants contain chemicals, and as part of the natural world we can benefit from some of those chemicals. Are we talking about what is is real in our world or the Chinese Medicine world?

[vaytw]

@taipeiforum Yeah I remember what Andrew said, but as I've thought about it, it doesn't ring true. There's at least some sympathetic logic involved in Chinese herbology, just as in animal parts medicine; nor is all animal parts medicine based on sympathetic logic. Again, though, that doesn't mean I blanket dismiss herbology - we must take it case-by-case.

[vaytw]

@taipeiforum But I really have seen no evidence that Chinese medicine distinguishes between animal parts and herbs as to which is "legitimate" and which is "superstition". Now, since there aren't well-established, uniform standards, what constitutes Chinese medicine is itself a tricky question - but what I see people do is cherry pick the bits they like and apply the "No true scotsman" fallacy for the rest. And the original topic of Andrew's talk was "Chinese superstition", was it not?

[taipeiforum]

@vaytw I think I am going to let Andrew get in on this. I have never taken Chinese medicine, other than drinking Mah Huang tea and maybe some other herbs. I have not studied it to see what chemicals the different substances contain. I surely do not know all of these "fallacies" you keep bringing up. Man I should make some up myself. It sure bugs me when people lettuce grab for things they don't like and apply the "No new taxes" fallacy to the rest. Now, I bow out:)

[vaytw]

@taipeiforum That's fine, but none of the fallacies I've mentioned were "made up". What is it about them that bothers you? The use of short-hand? Sorry, but space and time are limited commodities! Suggest you check out a good resource like Brian Dunning's "A Magical Journey through the Land of Logical Fallacies" or Infidels dot org's "Logic & Fallacies - Constructing a Logical Argument".

[taipeiforum]

@vaytw Or you could do a speech on it:) Save us all a lot of trouble. I'm pretty sure someone had to coin the phrases, there by, they are made up...though it was not you who made them up. There are many things that are abstractions until they are brought into concrete form with our words as structure. Then, after we bring them into concrete form, we can give them funny names that only the person using that language game can understand. Bowing out again. I wont reply to this thread anymore.

[vaytw]

@taipeiforum Well in that case every word we are using to engage in this discussion qualifies as "made up", so I don't really see your point. There is this subject called logic which has seen a couple thousand years of development, and fallacies are part of that subject. It's fine if you don't want to answer the thread, but I wish you could see how your ego is throwing up a wall against learning something new here. Think about ~becoming~ right instead of ~proving~ yourself right.

[vaytw]

@taipeiforum The point of knowing about fallacies is to recognize the various forms of flawed reasoning, so we can avoid them. Isn't that a worthy thing to know?

[vaytw]

On my reasons for having a low opinion of Acupuncture's track record, I suggest you check out a Science-Based Medicine blog article: "Through the Looking Glass of Acupuncture Research". It's a nice summary. Of course acupuncture proponents are going to try to cherry pick out some stuff to try to make a good showing, but then again so does homeopathy, so does Reiki, so does everybody...

[taipeiforum]

Good, very glad to see a continued discussion here:)

[vaytw]

Andrew please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you're saying that what gives Chinese medicine it's strength is the fact that it's systematic. However, there are plenty of examples of "systematic" practices (phrenology, homeopathy and astrology come to mind) that we can pretty safely say are baseless in empirical terms. Other than popularity, how is Chinese medicine distinct from these? Also, so far acupuncture's record when it comes to testing has been pretty lousy - any thoughts?

[taipeiforum]

@vaytw I will pass this question along to Andrew, thanks for posting:)

[microsample]

@vaytw

Not certain that I agree that acupuncture's testing has been so lousy. As I mentioned before, the more studies they run on TCM the less conclusive the results seem to be -- both sides can pick and choose from a larger and larger set of studies which confirm their prejudices. AFAIC this speaks as much to a weakness with the evidence-based medicine paradigm (studies which contradict one another coming out every six months) as it does to acupuncture itself.

[microsample]

@vaytw

Not certain that I agree that acupuncture's testing has been so lousy. It all depends on where you get your information. The more studies they run on TCM the less conclusive the results seem to be -- both sides can pick and choose from a larger and larger set of studies which confirm their prejudices. AFAIC this speaks as much to a weakness with the evidence-based medicine paradigm (studies which contradict one another coming out every six months) as it does to acupuncture itself.

[microsample]

Not certain that I agree that acupuncture's testing has been so lousy. It all depends on where you get your information. The more studies they run on TCM the less conclusive the results seem to be -- both sides can pick and choose from a larger and larger set of studies which confirm their prejudices. AFAIC this speaks as much to a weakness with the evidence-based medicine paradigm (studies which contradict one another coming out every six months) as it does to acupuncture itself.

[chainsmokeryo]

Nice work.

[rodcarew1]

Excellent! What a great speech!

In a way, I was hoping you'd have taken a minute to list a dozen or so Chinese superstitions.

When gift-giving, you shouldn't give A, B, C because . . . When you're pregnant, you shouldn't eat dates or soy sauce, and shouldn't move furniture or use scissors or a hammer because . . .

I've been in a position in which I have given placement tests to thousands of Chinese speakers of English; it's interesting how they answer the question, "Are you superstitious?"

[ethankegley]

wow, what a great speech, I hope we can have some people commenting on it