ScienceBlogs Pseudo-Skeptic Craves Scientific Respectability

Science Blogs Pseudo-Skeptics Crave Scientific Respectablity They Cannot Have

Straight to the article source: Child Health Safety.

A characteristic of those who infest the internet with fake science blogs is they desperately crave the respectability and validation which science confers.

Dr David Gorski's "Respectful Insolence" blog over at Science Blogs seems to fall into this category.  These kinds of people want to be seen as evidence and science-based but on the other hand, they don't seem to understand what science is.  So they do not realize they do not have the confirmation and validation they delude themselves into thinking they do.   Relative to the overall population of internet users, Science Blogs' audience tends to be Caucasian; it also appeals more to childless men aged under 25 and 55–65 browsing from school and home.  Got the picture?  [Science is easily confused with Science with just one 's' difference in the names].

When it comes to medicine, the problem Gorski and his readers have is that their ideas about the causes of disease and how to treat it are not based on science.  This explains the propensity for medical quacks and some of Science Blogs' apologists for quackery to present medicine as some form of science and try to convince people that it is entirely safe and reliable when not.  They seem not to understand and have also entirely lost sight of the fact that the term "quack" is slang used to describe someone who practices medicine.

Their ideas are usually founded on pseudo-scientific methods which none of them appear to understand are not science, including randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and observational studies, [the statistical "tobacco science" studies incorrectly described as epidemiology].

It's not surprising, then, that their ideas are nonsense from the outset.

Imagine if the reliability of aircraft components was established in the same way: the trials show that if say alloy bolts were used in the airframe 70% of the time these will work, so 30% of the time the aircraft fall out of the sky.  Or imagine if 70% of the time when an apple comes off a tree it falls down but the rest of the time it falls upwards. In terms of scientific falsification, a theory of gravity would not have lasted long.  But that is the quality of what for them passes as "science".

The stupid it burns.

This explains why the pseudo-science skeptics and apologists for pseudo-science speak about medicine as if it were a branch of science.  They claim medical "science" is safe and provides effective treatments when most medical treatments are unproven even by their gold standard of RCT.  Medicine can be unreliable and dangerous.  Normal people understand that all medical interventions carry risks – but not them.

When US broadcasters like Gary Null produced evidence indicating medicine could be killing 600,000 people a year in the US they dismiss this out of hand as patently untrue claiming it would mean more than one in five people in the US who die each year die due to medical treatment.  So that obviously to them has to be utter nonsense, as medicine cannot be ineffective or downright dangerous, can it?  So what if the figure were 300,000 or 200,000 or 100,000?  At what point is it OK?  Or are they claiming it is zero?  That is nonsensical.

So when Sayer Ji over at highlights in his recent post "Evidence-based medicine": A coin's flip of certainty more issues with the unreliability of the medical evidence base of published journal papers, Dr David Gorski emerges from his dark cellar, tightens his neck bolt and engages in the usual internet bullying including the usual nonsensical personal attacks and abuse which he seems unable to live without.  [Psychologists please form an orderly queue when analysing this behaviour].

Continue to Page 2

Pages :
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


That made my day. Thanks for all the laughs.

Why IS Anecdotal Data Denigrated?

As the Author points out, the suspect science being poured out like water on the masses is not only proliferating but seems to be going after everything the Corporate string pullers have even a passing discomfort with. Often, the specific issue, condition, illness or whatever talking point you'd care to point at is somewhat out of most folks experiential "mainstream" anyway. I'm not saying unimportant, but as an example, the recent explosion of Public Discourse on GMO's and Chem-Trails highlights this perfectly. I felt Genetic Modification had unanswered questions back in the 90's, but my focus was on Organic versus "Conventional" or Industrial Food. I found I preferred Organic because it tasted better and I could eat less of it and feel fuller. I DID read some purported science on the subject, but chose from my experience, based on experiences I read or heard from others. We have a proliferation of "Authorities" who would have us believe THEIR experience, Academic Expertise or Hierarchical oversight trumps our personal experience. Cults of Personality derive their power from such thinking. Actually, thinking has little to do with it. We humans need to be honest with ourselves about our greatest failing. If someone, for the exchange of allowing them to assume or be vested with some Authority, is willing to also wear the mantle of responsibility, that truthfully, we've never been entirely comfortable with...well...we just let them. After all, they have that paper, or poll, or title, or that new suit. I can cease beating that drum, because the astute among you should not only get it, but recognize the flaw in yourself as I do. So, I prefer to talk to people who have EXPERIENCE with the things I have an interest in. Their experience, when verified, will always trump that of "Authorities" every time. Not that I ignore experts-I'm on this site after all, but I'm sure Sayer Ji won't be offended if I take his ideas "to the street" to find "Anecdotal Evidence" to go along with it. And there it is-that much denigrated term, "Anecdotal Evidence", that thing "Authorities" love to denounce, because perhaps they never experienced it, don't want to, prefer the comfort of well-worn ideas or simply like information more than revelation. We have a whole Society trying to become like that, but that's a conundrum for another day. I LIKE "Anecdotal". Don't throw Science away...but real world experience? It's always cool when you can find it.

Paid Bloggers

Writing dis-informative pieces has become a lively profession....Unless you know the truth these agenda-ed liars spread false tracks to sucker the casual reader...After reading thousands of them, I question everything! Every truly effective therapy has dozens of articles warning against it...consider the source...WEb MD, Quackwatch, even Factcheck and other seemingly respectable sites are pure marketing...How many times have I heard the words "Clean Coal"...??? Even supplement info is for fear selling...add the words natural cure to a search and see the difference! GMI, Mercola, Hawkes Health, Earthclinic are a few straight shooters... Another good example is the recent presidential campaign...Voting has become an exercise in futility where both choices result in corporate dictatorship...notice 3rd party candidates by their complete absence from the mainstream media. 98% of ALL information is FALSE!!!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to write a comment

Popular Threads

This website is for information purposes only. By providing the information contained herein we are not diagnosing, treating, curing, mitigating, or preventing any type of disease or medical condition. Before beginning any type of natural, integrative or conventional treatment regimen, it is advisable to seek the advice of a licensed healthcare professional.

© Copyright 2008-2016, Journal Articles copyright of original owners, MeSH copyright NLM.