Goliath

One question about the enema that Corwin should take:

Aren't enemas dangerous? After all, since the pressure of the water in the bowels exerts a force on the bowel walls, and this force is energy that has to go somewhere , then wouldn't the energy suddenly become thermal energy? And, over time, wouldn't this cause the person receiving the enema to burn to death?

Sincerely,

Goliath

PS In case you're wondering: No, I couldn't type all of that out and keep a straight face.

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]</p>

Corwin

A serious answer to a facetious question.

In a closed system, over time, yes.

However, the body isn't a closed system, and (with a few exceptions I suppose... no accounting for individual taste...) nobody in their right minds is going to stand there while you blast enough water up their recutm for it to make any difference for long enough for it to make any difference.

For the amount of time in question, and the force in question, in an open system like the body the heat will dissipate into the environment.

Goliath

ROFL! I got a response!

No, I'm sorry, Corwin, you're incorrect. Force is not, and never will be, the same as energy.

Sincerely,

Goliath

To the others in this thread: Sorry for the temporary derailment.

(Editud cuz me not had gotten such gooderer grammar)

(Edited again to say: Woohoo, Post # 500!)

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]</p>

Secular Pinoy

Goliath! That was funny!!! Reminds me of another thread about gravity, and a certain poster who's full of something.

galiel

The problem is that, once again, you
a) refuse to provide evidence for most of your claims,
b) willfully ignore counter-evidence,
c) lie, in the same way for the same ends and from the same style dogma as the fundies.

Here are exerpts from your first post on this topic:

Does anyone else note the significance that you do not claim that the entire Quackwatch site is bogus, only the part that happens to conflict with your dogma. Also, what is your evidence to support your claim that it is "crap"?

so, when it is expedient, you rely on insurance companies as your appeal to authority? Puleeze, I don't even have to explain this one.

But you do not have to do better? In fact, you do not even provide reasons to reject logical objections to your dogma. You simply put your hands over your ears and chant "I can't HEAR you! I'm not LISTENING!"

Why? What reason do you provide to support such a contrary and radical proposal? As usual, none. Simply assert. Loudly. Repeatedly. Just like the fundies.

I am really too tired tonight to list all the logical fallacies you employ in unyielding defense of the indefensible. You make some of the creationist arguments look good by comparison.

As someone who has repeatedly undergone acupuncture in the past, and whose best friend from Israel used to be the master acupuncture researcher and teacher at the Shattuck Pain Clinic in Boston, I could come up with infinitely more persuasive and challenging arguments to support the validity of acupuncture in some instances for some treatments. However, since I have critically examined and dispassionately rejected them all, I am not going to set them up like ducks in a row to shoot down. You make it far too easy already with this ridiculous argument-by-tantrum.

utter irrelevant misdirection. The study was not to determine if people could feel the needle going in, it was to study the placebo effect. Studies of this sort are designed deliberately to mimic the environmental and sensory inputs of the treatment, so as to isolate the variable of the treatments physical effect. I do not believe you do not understand this. I believe you are deliberately being obtuse in order to defend the indefensible.

No, making the kinds of arguments you do and dismissing contrary scientific results is based on fear and things that you refuse to acknowledge.

Of course, the claims that were quoted are the precise ones made by [oxymoron alert!]"reputable" [/oxymoron alert!] praactitioners of acupuncture, but you conveniently simply deny that, and then go on in later posts to extensively cite sources from the Internet.

Is it any wonder that I claim you are just another fundie with a different label for your dogma?

Hey! I know! I can just post quotes of yours to refute your own quotes. That way, you can be having this argument with yourself!
What fun!
Let's try it again:
Sigh. It almost makes me feel guilty, like taking candy from a baby. Not quite, though. I abhor intellectual dishonesty just as much within the supposedly nontheist community as without. In fact, I am willing to forgive the ignorant or the genuinely stupid their limitations, but you are obviously neither ignorant nor stupid, simply afraid of introspection. You are obviously smart enough to know that a life unexamined is hardly worth living, yet you refuse to critically examine your emotional beliefs, despite the opportunity to research the abundant evidence presented in this topic which challenges those beliefs. In fact, you, like many fearful, superstitious people today, have simply replaced one blind faith with another.

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Devilnaut

Hey Corwin, check this out (from <a href="http://www.dictionary.com):" target="_blank">www.dictionary.com):</a>

an·ec·dot·al Pronunciation Key (nk-dtl)
adj.
also an·ec·dot·ic (-dtk) or an·ec·dot·i·cal (--kl) Of, characterized by, or full of anecdotes.
Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis: “There are anecdotal reports of children poisoned by hot dogs roasted over a fire of the [oleander] stems” (C. Claiborne Ray).


And the silliest debate ever comes to a crashing halt...

Autonemesis

I stopped smoking after 4 days on Zyban (aka Wellbutrin) and haven't smoked since. It wasn't even stressful. I just stopped wanting to smoke.

Pseudonymph

Got something to prove much?

What is your damage? How are you even associating a fundamentalist with...never mind, forget it. It isn't worth my time to engage in such tactics.

Quite the opposite actually. Self examination for anything you believe in is critical to make sure you aren't wasting your time on nonsense. I'm sure most of us here would agree. And my examination of acupuncture has lead me to a different conclusion. That's just me and my (as objective as I could possibly make them) observations.

Galiel..I think if you had been here a little longer you might have known that I don't easily buy into a lot of things in the field of medicine unless I feel very strongly and have done the best research to the limits of my ability.

What I have found with acupuncture is that while sure, the Qi aspect of it is obviously in question, the benefits for many people are not. In this day and age...to find relief with no fear of addiction or side effects is a great thing.

I have also found that since acupuncture is still so mysterious to many people, they simply shun it away as junk science because all the reports that try and highlight the negative aspects(of which none are really negative...just saying that acupuncture is useless) are the ones that are highly publicized.

I apologize again...to everyone for losing my temper.

Corwin

There's nothing like endorsing something that isn't fully understood scientifically to make the psudeoscientists that hang out here come crawling out from under their rocks.

Come on people. Grow up. Learn to accept that if you don't understand something, the correct response is to study it, not disregard it offhand.

But then knee-jerk uberskepticism based on principle instead of science is just so much more FUN isn't it?

Dr Rick

It may work, and I never claimed it didn't; objective clinical studies are useful, and anectodal evidence is not a substitute for objective evidence.

<strong> That's ironic; You're the one posting studies in favor of your view.

<strong> Yes it is, neither you nor Corwin should do it, but if you do, I'll once again respond in kind.

<strong> Corwin is full of shit because he is ignorant and intellectually dishonest.

You manage to distort a great many things, Aleko;
I never once claimed acupuncture was ineffective. It's dishonest of you to post a response filled with so many strawmen.

Rick