In following the skeptic debates about public health and free expression, it appears to me that an interesting distinction is emerging.
On one hand, there is concern about the attempts to use libel (and other law, such as copyright) to restrict or deter criticism of certain treatments. Here the skeptic instinct is that free expression should not be limited.
On the other hand, there are calls by skeptics to use the law to restrict or eliminate promotional claims about certain treatments, for example the unfair commercial practice regulations, ASA, the Cancer Act, etc. Here a skeptic is perhaps saying by implication that free expression has limits.
Accordingly, is the skeptic position that criticism of CAM should always be free, whilst promotion of CAM should always be regulated?
(And, is the CAM position the converse of this: that criticism should be regulated but promotion should not be?)
Or is this an invalid distinction?
I do wonder if some people simply "want it both ways": I should be free to say what I want, but you are not.
Any thoughts or comments?
Last edited by Jack of Kent; 19th March 2009 at 06:45 AM.
The truth should be free, fraud should be regulated against. It's not about for or against CAM, it's about for or against truth.
The truth according to whom? Skeptics are just as prone to being selective about the evidence as are the people they claim to oppose.Originally Posted by Matt
The genuine skeptical view should be to allow anyone to have access to the information from all points of view. It is not our business to decide what other people should be allowed to know.
Would it be a no true scotsman fallacy to say that someone being selective of the evidence wasn't being a very good skeptic? But yes I agree. It's quite possible for both sides to belive they have the truth on their side, that the truth will vindicate them and that the opposition are posting harmful lies which whihc should be quashed for the good of everybody. It's up to the courts to decide who's right and firthermore to punish those who abuse the system.
You think fraud is just another point of view? You think that it's OK for me to sell you property I don't own so long as other points of view are available?
I should of course have pointed out that your dichotomy between "truth" and "fraud" was not a balanced one. The opposite of "truth" is "untruth", and there is no law against saying something untrue per se. Fraud, as Jack will often remind us, is a serious offence of knowingly using untruth to make a dishonest gain (Jack can doubtless supply the exact definition).
But it was fraud I was talking about.
OK, understood. I was addressing the main point of the thread - I quoted your post because I wanted to comment on the issue of who decides what is true and what other people should be allowed to know.
Jack, are you saying that CAM should be a special case?
I don't see that it should be treated differently from anything else. If you are selling or promoting cars, food or washing machines you are not allowed to make untrue claims for them and you must be able to substantiate and any claims you make. If you do not comply you would rightly be called to account sooner or later either by the public or by the authorities.
Conversely if someone makes unfair or untrue criticisms or comments about your product, you would have every right to ask for restitution by whatever means.
I fail to see why CAM should be treated differently.
Nope; you're attacking a straw man.
Oh well. I'll shut up then.
Is not the pivotal point here 'promotion'
Free speech is fine, if someone wishes to say that jungle juice is a wonder treatment for whatever - they are free to do so.
If however one advertises, promotes or otherwise tries to convince potential customers to buy said jungle juice, are we net dealing with an entirely different issue?
Yep, that would be exactly my stance on this issue, Pebble. If a person wants to claim that homeopathy ( crystal healing/whatever ) works, then fine - I'll enter into debate with them if it's appropriate, but they are completely free to express their opinion as rigorously as they wish.
If, on the other hand, that person sets-up in business, advertises themself and charges for their 'service', then they place themself in a different category.
But what if they were offering a service they had trained in, believing it to be beneficial and provide it to their clients who also believe it to be beneficial?
For me, this is a can of worms...
Should, say, Priests be charged with fraud on giving final absolution to dying patients of their Parish? Or performing a Christening?
Some CAM has beneficial outcomes for people who use it. It is used by the NHS everytime they pass people over to, say, Cancer Care. Millions of people use some form of loving touch therapy at some point in their lives, and we ALL use alternative stuff every time we 'treat' ourselves at home!
As usual, I am trying to defend the good parts of CAM. The last discussion I had here, on another thread, was about a new report on herbal remedies. The remedies that were found, scientifically, 'to work' are no longer considered CAM. Something a bit cocked up there I think - don't you?
Public Health should be about Public Heath and the enormously beneficial aspect of 'well being'. People derive health from many different aspects of their lives. If someone wants to visit a crystal healer, they should be free to. And the crystal healer should be able to offer his service without persecution. It seems to be a belief system, like prayer.
I think a priest has the right to offer christenings, blessings, prayer - whatever - to the people who are wanting it - that is their right and his too.
Jack of Kent
This is Uk Skeptics forum so I think the CAM haters will just be poisonous as usual because CAM (to them) = Homeopathy and Woo.In following the skeptic debates about public health and free expression, it appears to me that an interesting distinction is emerging.
On one hand, there is concern about the attempts to use libel (and other law, such as copyright) to restrict or deter criticism of certain treatments. Here the skeptic instinct is that free expression should not be limited.
On the other hand, there are calls by skeptics to use the law to restrict or eliminate promotional claims about certain treatments, for example the unfair commercial practice regulations, ASA, the Cancer Act, etc. Here a skeptic is perhaps saying by implication that free expression has limits.
Accordingly, is the skeptic position that criticism of CAM should always be free, whilst promotion of CAM should always be regulated?
(And, is the CAM position the converse of this: that criticism should be regulated but promotion should not be?)
Or is this an invalid distinction?
I do wonder if some people simply "want it both ways": I should be free to say what I want, but you are not.
Any thoughts or comments?
At this point there is usually an addled attack on me from Cuddles.....after which I go away for a rest.
Hello, Allo Allo!
I apologise if this is a selective quote, but when I use loperamide, ibuprofen, paracetamol, allo(!)purinol, and other stuff, at home, these are not "alternative" medicines, they are proven to be effective.and we ALL use alternative stuff every time we 'treat' ourselves at home!
Perhaps I have misunderstood.
PS Cuddles has not posted here for quite some time.
Last edited by bindeweede; 24th April 2009 at 10:40 PM. Reason: added comment.
Interesting implication here. According to this definition, anything that works is not CAM (as Allo Allo implied seems to be the standard belief among skeptics), therefore the standard skeptical retort that CAM does not work becomes nothing more than a hollow tautology.
If you define it this way ... Conventional = Works, CAM = Doesn't work ... then you are no longer logically entitled to say something like, say, some sorts of herbs do not work simply because they are in a field regarded as CAM. Such a definition of CAM can not co-exist with the simple "CAM is whatever doesn't work" idea ... unless of course you can provide conclusive evidence that (in this particular example) all herbs, without exception, are ineffective, and that this ineffectiveness is intrinsic to their herbal nature.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks