CAM Logical Fallacies (HuffPo fails with its health science reporting again)

[HuckleB]

Last edited Sat May 5, 2012, 11:06 AM - Edit history (1)

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/cam-logical-fallacies/#more-4467

"There are times when an article packs in logical fallacies so densely that I just can’t help deconstructing it. Another feature that often lures me in is a blatant self-contradiction that the author seems to be oblivious to. HuffPo Canada has recently published an article by “investigative journalist” Isla Traquair that does both. The articles emerges from her health consumer series that she is filming. The result is a confused, conflicting, and profoundly naive article that makes me wonder how much investigation she could have done.

Let’s go through and count the logical fallacies and contradictions. She wonders:

"What exactly makes a medical treatment accepted and trusted by mainstream society? Does it make a difference if a practitioner wears a white coat and gets employed through the health service? Do they need a certificate and letters after their name? Or do we trust someone who has learnt ancient teachings using the laws and patterns of nature?"

She begins by begging the question about what creates medical authority, and in so doing creates a straw man (a nice double). She cites some of the superficial trappings of legitimacy (formal recognition, degrees, and the standard uniform of the trade), as if this is what people trust about mainstream medicine. She could have asked – is it the years of training and education, the culture of science and self-criticism, the mountain of hard-won evidence, or perhaps the layers of regulation?

She then follows with another double: a false assumption that again begs the question, leading to the naturalistic fallacy – do ancient teachings reflect legitimate laws and patterns of nature? Pre scientific cultures generally did not understand much about how nature works (the laws and patterns). Even ancient cultures had certainly accumulated a great deal of practical knowledge about their environment, but they had no clue about underlying laws. So they invented fanciful philosophies to explain the mysteries of nature. They invented mysterious energies, spirits, astrological connections and cycles, and bizarre notions about how our bodies work. To venerate these hopelessly superstitious ideas from the perspective of 21st century science is curious.

..."


-------------------------------


Why, oh, why, does such trash continue to flood MSM?

[bemildred]

1. Yep.

The non sequitur lies in thinking that the flaws and limitations of modern medicine somehow imply that the old superstitious crap must be right. It is quite true that pre-moderns knew lots of stuff that is well worth knowing, but theory was not their strong suit, and like us they made lots of stuff up because it made them feel better. Empiricism has it's limits, but it's still the way to go.

[xchrom]

2. Du rec. Nt

[longship]

3. HuffPo is a disgrace!

Their science reporting, specifically about medicine, is worthless. Fuck Arianna for putting out such trash.

[CanSocDem]

4. What "trash" are you talking about?

You should have linked the HuffPo article so we could see what you and the Industry blogger were so fired up about. We would surely then understand, what "trash" you are talking about.

It couldn't have been the HuffPoCa article because it appears to completely agree with you...:

"I'm not for one second criticising the amazing advances we've made in medicine. It is, quite frankly, miraculous what modern medicine does and we must continue to fund research so more cures can be found and causes identified."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/isla-traquair/is-traditional-alternativ_b_1449390.html

The writer makes a very good case for the deliberate misuse of the language surrounding alternative health programs. You know, your standard default position?


.

[HuckleB]

5. The HuffPo piece is linked in the article in the OP.

Further, an attempt to hedge oneself in regard to science does not change the content of the rest of the article.

Thanks for getting upset about the need to point out the logical fallacies of the anti-science crowd.

[Celebration]

6. here is the article

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/isla-traquair/is-traditional-alternativ_b_1449390.html

Anyone who reads this critically will realize that the blog is putting a spin on it that does not reflect the overall article, and it is selectively quoted.

It does not purport to be a scientific article, so criticizing it for not being a scientific article or for being typical of bad scientific reporting is a huge straw man.

[HuckleB]

7. Hogwash.

The blog is pointing out the logical fallacies used to push anti-science practices. That's not spin. That is showing that it is bad scientific reporting. If you are supposedly reporting on health care practices, and trying to justify their use, then science comes to the fore.

There is no straw man whatsoever in the piece in the OP.

[Celebration]

8. most critical readers

will realize that she is approaching the subject philosophically, not scientifically. Selectively quoting the article and calling it an example of bad science writing are not capturing the flavor of the article.

Anyone is welcome to disagree with me, but I thought it important to provide the link to the article itself, so people here can make up their own minds about this.

[HuckleB]

9. Now THAT is spin.

Any truly critical reader is going to understand that you can't push a health care treatment as philosophy. It must be proven to be effective via science. To do otherwise is to push yet another logical fallacy, and another spin on the marketing bandwagon of alternative woo.

[Celebration]

10. she is not "pushing" anything! n/t

[HuckleB]

11. Uh huh.