Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mad Kally · 09-19-2002, 01:32 PM

Quote:

posted by Corwin:
Hence my description of your logic as falling under the logical fallacy of 'complete bullshit.'

Rick,
I don't think there's any chance of trying to understand anything Corwin is saying. Maybe a psych eval, eh?

P.S. We cross posted. Thanks Nickolaus.

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Mad Kally ]

Dr Rick · 09-19-2002, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Corwin:
And when I've strained a muscle or am in caffiene withdrawal, there's a valid, objective reason why I meditate instead of using an extremely addictive and extremely dangerous opiate.

If that or works for you, fine; your experience is still anecdotal and does not constitute a study. If a patient feels that prayer or accupuncture provides pain relief, that's fine, too.

Rick

Dr Rick · 09-19-2002, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Corwin:


I am aware that evolutionary theory does not claim that dogs will give birth to cats.

Creationists, however, claim that this is part of the theory. (Essentially claiming that evolutionists do claim that dogs will give birth to cats.)

So, since 'it doesn't matter where the claim comes from,' then by your logic, evolutionary theory is wrong because the above refuting claim is entirely true. The fact that it's an irrelevant claim and doesn't matter in any rational sense is no longer relevant.

Hence my description of your logic as falling under the logical fallacy of 'complete bullshit.'

Wow...you are becoming progressively more incoherent;

An irrelevant and false claim is irrelevant and false, regardless of its source. A relevant and true claim is relevant and true, regardless of its source.

Rick

Corwin · 09-19-2002, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rbochnermd:


If that or works for you, fine; your experience is still anecdotal and does not constitute a study. If a patient feels that prayer or accupuncture provides pain relief, that's fine, too.

Rick

Yet you still deride them for that belief, and for using that treatment... simply because there's been no 'study' done that you accept. (Mostly because you seem to reject research such as the NIH study.)

Take it from someone who's done research work. Studies are nice, and they're frequently useful... they are NOT, however, the be all and end all tool that some people claim they are. They're a tool. Nothing more. And like most tools they can be used for all kinds of purposes, including deception.

Rejecting something that has claims of effectiveness simply because a major lab hasn't been motivated enough to put findings on paper is stupid. It's also a logical fallacy, (although not the 'complete bullshit' fallacy this time, rather the 'argument from authority' fallacy.)

Dr Rick · 09-19-2002, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad Kally:
I don't think there's any chance of trying to understand anything Corwin is saying. Maybe a psych eval, eh?

I'd recommend he take a soap-suds enema.

Rick

Corwin · 09-19-2002, 01:49 PM

Quote:

The origin of the claims is not the issue; the lack of objective evidence supporting them is.

Rick

And

Quote:

An irrelevant and false claim is irrelevant and false, regardless of its source. A relevant and true claim is relevant and true, regardless of its source.

Rick

Are you usually this indecisive and self contradicting?

Dr Rick · 09-19-2002, 01:58 PM

No, I'm certain you should take that enema.

Rick

Mad Kally · 09-19-2002, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rbochnermd:


I'd recommend he take a soap-suds enema.

Rick

Maybe a nice Harris flush? I have forgotten if that's 200cc in and out or 1000cc..

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Mad Kally ]

Corwin · 09-19-2002, 02:26 PM

Such a relevant and mature argument from the 'Pure Science Duo...'

I realize it's rather a bitch to be arguing against your own words Dr Rick... but you could at least try.

Dr Rick · 09-19-2002, 02:29 PM

What are you muttering about, now? What contradiction? How long is your buzz going to last?

There is nothing contradictory in the two following statements, they go hand-in-hand:

"The origin of the claims is not the issue; the lack of objective evidence supporting them is.

An irrelevant and false claim is irrelevant and false, regardless of its source. A relevant and true claim is relevant and true, regardless of its source."

On the other hand, if you're talking about the fact that I'm recommending an enema for you and not taking one myself, it's because you're the one that's full of ...

Rick

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

09-19-2002, 02:29 PM	#90
Dr Rick Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,393	What are you muttering about, now? What contradiction? How long is your buzz going to last? There is nothing contradictory in the two following statements, they go hand-in-hand: "The origin of the claims is not the issue; the lack of objective evidence supporting them is. An irrelevant and false claim is irrelevant and false, regardless of its source. A relevant and true claim is relevant and true, regardless of its source." On the other hand, if you're talking about the fact that I'm recommending an enema for you and not taking one myself, it's because you're the one that's full of ... Rick [ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-19-2002, 01:58 PM	#87
Dr Rick Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,393	No, I'm certain you should take that enema. Rick

09-19-2002, 02:26 PM	#89
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	Such a relevant and mature argument from the 'Pure Science Duo...' I realize it's rather a bitch to be arguing against your own words Dr Rick... but you could at least try.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.