British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

[Trinoc]

OK, the consensus seems to be that the answer to my original question is "no". If so, that is very good and restores a little of my faith in (skeptical) human nature. I will of course keep watching the evidence ... we are all human after all*.

[* Those of us who are non shape-shifting reptilians, of course.]

(Just got a "Will Robinson" ... Bob, do you suppose you could be a little bit less combative occasionally? It's not east to carry on a rational debate when accusations of stupidity are being shouted about the place. The validity or otherwise of an argument does not depend on how powerfully you can insult the opposition.)

[tolman]

Even if someone here believed that chiropractic very likely didn't work for condition X, they'd probably be interested in evidence that it might be, even if principally to examine the evidence and see if there were any obvious flaws in it, or to prepare themselves for someone else citing it in support of chiropractic.

[Trinoc]

Even if someone here believed that chiropractic very likely didn't work for condition X, they'd probably be interested in evidence that it might be, even if principally to examine the evidence and see if there were any obvious flaws in it, or to prepare themselves for someone else citing it in support of chiropractic.

Exactly, but the underlying assumption would be that it is still nonsense unless some really compelling evidence came to light.

I "know" God doesn't exist, I "know" homeopathic medicines can't possibly have any therapeutic effect, I "know" chiropractic can't treat colic. I also know that it would take a hell of a lot more evidence to convince me otherwise about any of these than I would require for any "plausible" scientific hypothesis. My "centre" of the universe of ideas is skewed well over to the rational, just as that of many others is skewed to the paranormal, and I would view any evidence for anything starting from that point. I would expect others to do the same. It's a good strategy, until you come across a completely bizarre, way-out idea that just happens to be right, then the whole process goes wrong.

[tolman]

Exactly, but the underlying assumption would be that it is still nonsense unless some really compelling evidence came to light.

I "know" God doesn't exist, I "know" homeopathic medicines can't possibly have any therapeutic effect, I "know" chiropractic can't treat colic. I also know that it would take a hell of a lot more evidence to convince me otherwise about any of these than I would require for any "plausible" scientific hypothesis. My "centre" of the universe of ideas is skewed well over to the rational, just as that of many others is skewed to the paranormal, and I would view any evidence for anything starting from that point. I would expect others to do the same. It's a good strategy, until you come across a completely bizarre, way-out idea that just happens to be right, then the whole process goes wrong.

'The whole process' doesn't go wrong. It's just that the inertia of past failed claims of efficacy will tend to drag on future claims of efficacy in a given field.
I'd see that as a feature, not a bug.

In any case, last time I looked, I wasn't responsible for approving treatments for the NHS, or even offering advice to a parent about treatment options for their child, so there's no obvious downside to me taking time to be convinced.

If I was in charge of approving treatments for funding, unless I was requiring an 'alternative' medical treatment to go through a more rigorous process of risk/benefit analysis than a regular medical treatment, even if I might personally be sceptical of the particular alternative field it came from, that skepticism wouldn't actually be a barrier to the treatment getting used.

[Blue Wode]

The latest development:

Chiropractors fail to smear Sense About Science
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/...site/about/406

[Croydon Bob]

... Bob, do you suppose you could be a little bit less combative occasionally? It's not east to carry on a rational debate when accusations of stupidity are being shouted about the place. The validity or otherwise of an argument does not depend on how powerfully you can insult the opposition.

Do you think you could restrain yourself from collapsing into your ridiculous "I wonder if skeptics are actually the complete opposite of skeptics?" mode occasionally? It's not easy to carry on a rational debate when accusations of skeptical stupidity are being shouted about the place. The validity or otherwise of an argument does not depend on how you weakly create lots of straw men about us not being skeptics.

You didn't have an argument you just launched into a worthless straw man attack using the words "let's imagine". Therefore there is no question of the "validity" of your position. It was another pointless diversion from the thread.

[Trinoc]

Do you think you could restrain yourself from collapsing into your ridiculous "I wonder if skeptics are actually the complete opposite of skeptics?" mode occasionally? It's not easy to carry on a rational debate when accusations of skeptical stupidity are being shouted about the place. The validity or otherwise of an argument does not depend on how you weakly create lots of straw men about us not being skeptics.

You didn't have an argument you just launched into a worthless straw man attack using the words "let's imagine". Therefore there is no question of the "validity" of your position. It was another pointless diversion from the thread.

Yes, well perhaps we should occasionally stop behaving like a "we know it all" skeptics' playground gang sometimes and subject some of our own pronouncements to the same scrutiny as we insist on from everyone else.

[tolman]

Yes, well perhaps we should occasionally stop behaving like a "we know it all" skeptics' playground gang sometimes and subject some of our own pronouncements to the same scrutiny as we insist on from everyone else.

When you say 'we', it rather sounds like you're saying 'you'.

[Trinoc]

When you say 'we', it rather sounds like you're saying 'you'.

No. I mean "we". I know I'm not some sort of secular saint, incapable of bias, and I don't know anyone else who is either.

[Pebble]

Yes, well perhaps we should occasionally stop behaving like a "we know it all" skeptics' playground gang sometimes and subject some of our own pronouncements to the same scrutiny as we insist on from everyone else.

Sometimes indeed we should, but only occasionally. As Newton remarked, he saw further because he stood on the shoulders of giants. Incessantly questioning the solid foundations of current knowledge is a recipe for failure.

[tolman]

Failing to use past experience as a guide would be what I'd call stupidity, not 'being unbiased'.

Prejudice (educated guesswork) is only a handicap when it gets in the way of actual thinking. Up to that point, it's an indespensible part of much thinking and practical life.

[Blue Wode]

Jack of Kent summarises the background to next week's hearing on the Simon Singh libel case:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/...t-hearing.html

[Blue Wode]

More developments related to this topic:

The General Chiropractic Council is knowingly and deliberately violating its own code of practice
http://adventuresinnonsense.blogspot...ouncil-is.html

[Blue Wode]

Simon Singh wins permission to appeal!

See http://twitter.com/jackofkent

COURT 75
Before LORD JUSTICE LAWS

Wednesday, 14th October, 2009
Not Before 10 o'clock

APPLICATION
A2/2009/1196 British Chiropractic Association -v- Singh. Application of Defendant for permission to appeal.

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/c...t_coacivil.htm

Updates from Jack of Kent on Twitter (you don't have to have an account to view them, just keep refreshing the page):
http://twitter.com/jackofkent

Also, BBC Newsnight last night carried a small clip of Jack of Kent talking at the Westminster Skeptics in the Pub campaign meeting, followed by a brief interview with Simon Singh. See 37:04 to 39:00 in. I think it's available for the next 7 days only:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...ht_13_10_2009/

[chaggle]

Also, BBC Newsnight last night carried a small clip of Jack of Kent talking at the Westminster Skeptics in the Pub campaign meeting, followed by a brief interview with Simon Singh. See 37:04 to 39:00 in. I think it's available for the next 7 days only:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...ht_13_10_2009/

I would really like to watch that but I can't because I'm not in the UK

Anyone know a way I can see it?