PDA

View Full Version : Annoying and wrong article: "What skeptics believe"



jokergirl
2010-Jan-28, 12:17 PM
http://www.naturalnews.com/028012_skeptics_medicine.html

Want to help me pick at this, please? I need to take a breather before I can even stop sputtering...


What skeptics really believe
I thought it would be interesting to find out exactly what "skeptics" actually believe, so I did a little research and pulled this information from various "skeptic" websites. What I found will make you crack up laughing so hard that your abs will be sore for a week. Take a look...

• Skeptics believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective (even if they've never been tested), that ALL people should be vaccinated, even against their will, and that there is NO LIMIT to the number of vaccines a person can be safely given. So injecting all children with, for example, 900 vaccines all at the same time is believed to be perfectly safe and "good for your health."

• Skeptics believe that fluoride chemicals derived from the scrubbers of coal-fired power plants are really good for human health. They're so good, in fact, that they should be dumped into the water supply so that everyone is forced to drink those chemicals, regardless of their current level of exposure to fluoride from other sources.

[...]

That's not right. That's not even wrong.


• Skeptics believe that DEAD foods have exactly the same nutritional properties as LIVING foods (hilarious!).

Buh... wha?

:doh:

Glom
2010-Jan-28, 12:59 PM
That's not right. That's not even wrong.

Yeah I really don't know what I can add to that.

What is dead food anyway?

ABR.
2010-Jan-28, 01:05 PM
The "What Skeptics Believe" article and the guy behind it has been discussed on the Pharyngula blog of late, particularly in this (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/sometimes_i_think_we_break_the.php) post. I think that article represented some sour grapes for losing out in some Internet poll. As always, language among the pharynguloid hordes may not be suitable for all viewers.

SolusLupus
2010-Jan-28, 01:13 PM
"Skeptics believe that pregnancy is a disease and childbirth is a medical crisis. (They are opponents of natural childbirth.)"



As opposed to that, maybe, doctors are better able to deliver a child through their training? (I'm not saying that's the case; I've heard of studies that show that midwives are actually safer, statistically, for the child; just that we do not need vast strawmen to argue the case).



"Skeptics do not believe in hypnosis. This is especially hilarious since they are all prime examples of people who are easily hypnotized by mainstream influences."



Lawl. It is "hilarious", but more for me.



"Skeptics believe that there is no such thing as human consciousness. They do not believe in the mind; only in the physical brain. In fact, skeptics believe that they themselves are mindless automatons who have no free will, no soul and no consciousness whatsoever."



I don't believe in the soul, but why does that mean I don't believe in consciousness? I'm obviously conscious; if I wasn't, I wouldn't be typing right now, now would I?



But no, I'm not religious, nor "spiritual", or whatever else. So the hell what?



"Skeptics believe that water has no role in human health other than basic hydration. Water is inert, they say, and the water your toilet is identical to water from a natural spring (assuming the chemical composition is the same, anyway)."



Ah yes, the ol' "WATER LOSES ITS INFORMATION WHEN IT MAKES HARD RIGHT ANGLES" logic.



"Skeptics believe that all the phytochemicals and nutrients found in ALL plants are inert, having absolutely no benefit whatsoever for human health. (The ignorance of this intellectual position is breathtaking...)"



Buh... what?


It goes on!


• Skeptics believe that all the phytochemicals and nutrients found in ALL plants are inert, having absolutely no benefit whatsoever for human health. (The ignorance of this intellectual position is breathtaking...)
• Skeptics believe that the moon has no influence over life on Earth. Farming in sync with moon cycles is just superstition, they say. (So why are the cycles of life for insects, animals and humans tied to the moon, then?)
• Skeptics believe that the SUN has no role in human health other than to cause skin cancer. They completely deny any healing abilities of light.
• Skeptics believe that Mother Nature is incapable of synthesizing medicines. Only drug companies can synthesize medicines, they claim. (So why do they copy molecules from nature, then?)
• Skeptics do not believe in intuition. They believe that mothers cannot "feel" the emotions of their infants at a distance. They write off all such "psychic" events as mere coincidence.
• Skeptics believe that all healing happens from the outside, from doctors and technical interventions. They do not believe that patients have any ability to heal themselves. Thus, they do not ascribe any responsibility for health to patients. Rather, they believe that doctors and technicians are responsible for your health. Anyone who dismisses doctors and takes charge of their own health is therefore acting "irresponsibly," they claim.
• Skeptics believe that cell phone radiation poses absolutely no danger to human health. A person can be exposed to unlimited cell phone radiation without any damage whatsoever.
• Skeptics believe that aspartame and artificial chemical sweeteners can be consumed in unlimited quantities with no ill effects.
• Skeptics believe that human beings were born deficient in synthetic chemicals and that the role of pharmaceutical companies is to "restore" those deficiencies in humans by convincing them to swallow patented pills.
• Skeptics believe that you can take unlimited pharmaceuticals, be injected with an unlimited number of vaccines, expose yourself to unlimited medical imaging radiation, consume an unlimited quantity of chemicals in processed foods and expose yourself to an unlimited quantity of environmental chemical toxins with absolutely no health effects whatsoever!
All the beliefs listed above were compiled from "skeptics" websites. (I'm not going to list those websites here because they don't deserve the search engine rankings, but you can find them yourself through Google, if you wish.)

ineluki
2010-Jan-28, 01:21 PM
http://www.naturalnews.com/028012_skeptics_medicine.html

Want to help me pick at this, please?

Why bother? Sometimes it's clear that even the best explanation is useless against hateful beliefs, and this seems one of these cases.

jokergirl
2010-Jan-28, 01:23 PM
:doh:

I would like to make a list of things skeptics *really* believe. Want to help?

• Skeptics believe that if something helps YOU, good for you; but if you can't get it through a double-blind, randomized trial there's a good chance it won't work for anyone else.
• Skeptics believe that logic works.
• Skeptics believe that ...

Hrm, too braindead. Need more blood in my caffeine.

;)

Nick Theodorakis
2010-Jan-28, 01:24 PM
Woo-folk apparently feel they can only win argument points against straw men. And even then, they're not doing so great.

Nick

Buttercup
2010-Jan-28, 01:29 PM
I agree with ineluki: Why bother?

The person who wrote the article makes absolutist "blanket statements." His or her approach is either dumb...or calculated (to push others' buttons/stir the pot).

Either way not worth the time.

Glom
2010-Jan-28, 01:31 PM
According to the comment thread at ABR.'s link, the guy is also a 9/11 conspiracist.

swampyankee
2010-Jan-28, 01:37 PM
I find the "live" vs "dead" food logic especially bizarre. Other than accidentally ingesting a few bugs while cycling, I've certainly never eaten live food, or at least macroscopic live food.

tnjrp
2010-Jan-28, 01:42 PM
I agree it tends to be rather pointless to debate with or comment on such sites/blogs/whathaveyou as this one :hand:

Specific subject matter is currently popular in our post (one hopes) swine flue scare world where various anti-vaccine groups have had their 15 minutes of fame and have been accordingly "awarded" for their "efforts" by a number of skeptic organizations. So similar entries have been posted for example on the Finnish skeptics board as of late.

Fazor
2010-Jan-28, 02:56 PM
This skeptic believes that a person should understand what the word "skeptic" means before writing an article about skeptics.

But what do I know, I'm just an idiot who prefers to eat food that's dead rather than food that's still alive.

NEOWatcher
2010-Jan-28, 05:20 PM
http://www.naturalnews.com/028012_skeptics_medicine.html

Want to help me pick at this, please?
It would take too much time. There's way to much picking.

But; for entertainment value, I did click on the related articles. This guy really hates science.

And; thinks Feynman is "perhaps the greatest physicist to have ever lived"

Grey
2010-Jan-28, 05:39 PM
But what do I know, I'm just an idiot who prefers to eat food that's dead rather than food that's still alive.I find the food that's still alive to be too hard to catch. Maybe I'm just too lazy, though. :)

NEOWatcher
2010-Jan-28, 05:49 PM
I find the food that's still alive to be too hard to catch. Maybe I'm just too lazy, though. :)
I guess that means you've never tried escargo sushi...

LaurelHS
2010-Jan-28, 07:07 PM
"Skeptics believe that pregnancy is a disease and childbirth is a medical crisis. (They are opponents of natural childbirth.)"

Sometimes childbirth is a medical crisis. Complications happen. Natural childbirth is not always the best method.

http://whatstheharm.net/homechildbirth.html (http://whatstheharm.net/homechildbirth.html)

Gillianren
2010-Jan-28, 07:12 PM
You know, I chose to go with drugs when I was in labour because, well, it hurt and it didn't have to. What's more, midwifery is all well and good when there are no serious complications, but the qualified midwife I know made sure to have a doctor's number on hand and, from what I understand, drove at least one mother to a hospital because she knew the woman needed a C-section. And this? This is why blanket statements are essentially meaningless.

Fazor
2010-Jan-28, 07:14 PM
And this? This is why blanket statements are essentially meaningles.

Hmm . . . that sounds like a blanket statement about blanket statements, if you ask me.

Swift
2010-Jan-28, 07:16 PM
"Skeptics believe that pregnancy is a disease and childbirth is a medical crisis. (They are opponents of natural childbirth.)"

Sometimes childbirth is a medical crisis. Complications happen. Natural childbirth is not always the best method.

http://whatstheharm.net/homechildbirth.html (http://whatstheharm.net/homechildbirth.html)
Given the thousands (millions?) of women who have died in childbirth before the invention of modern medical practices, I'd guess that overall, medical care during childbirth is a good thing.

Moose
2010-Jan-28, 07:19 PM
"By definition - I begin - alternative medicine - I continue - has either not been proved to work or been proved not to work. Do you know what they call alternative medicine that has been proved to work?

Medicine."

-- Tim Minchin, Storm (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9bT73BM2Ic&feature=response_watch).

Grey
2010-Jan-28, 07:34 PM
I guess that means you've never tried escargo sushi...I suppose I probably could catch that, but why would I want to? :)

Van Rijn
2010-Jan-28, 07:40 PM
The person who wrote the article makes absolutist "blanket statements." His or her approach is either dumb...or calculated (to push others' buttons/stir the pot).


I agree - I too was thinking of starting a thread on that post, but eventually decided that he's just trying to get attention with his ridiculous comments.

Alan G. Archer
2010-Jan-28, 08:58 PM
What is dead food anyway?

The website, "Stuff4myhealth.com (http://www.stuff4myhealth.com/candida.html)," may explain what is meant by "dead food":


ENZYME - provides the body with the proper enzymes that enhance proper food digestion which envelopes many other benefits. It has been well established by research and experiment that vitamins and minerals are essential for normal bodily function. Digestive enzymes are nutrients that are equally as important but not as well know as vitamins and minerals. Digestive enzymes are found naturally in food. Enzymes are easily destroyed when they are processed, heated (118 degrees F), stored, genetically altered, etc.. When the enzymes have been destroyed, the food is then considerd dead. In order to digest dead food the body relies on organs in the body that secrete digestive enzymes. Over-use of these organs can lead to improper digestion and chronic disorders. Supplemental digestive enzymes rest digestive organs, promote proper digestion, and help prevent chronic disorder.

kleindoofy
2010-Jan-28, 09:16 PM
... What is dead food anyway?
Dead food - not good.

If I want a tasty chicken drum stick, I just chase down a chicken, pluck a few feathers and take a good bite. Hmmmm, yummy.

Doesn't everybody? ;)

Alan G. Archer
2010-Jan-28, 09:43 PM
The chicken is better that way -- full of digestive enzymes.

No Kentucky frying (or grilling), just as nature ordered.

And you get more exercise.

Nick Theodorakis
2010-Jan-28, 09:55 PM
The website, "Stuff4myhealth.com (http://www.stuff4myhealth.com/candida.html)," may explain what is meant by "dead food":

I think nobody should be allowed to give advice about enzymes unless they can explain what a Km and a Vmax are.

Nick

Swift
2010-Jan-28, 10:26 PM
Actually, the way to really get all of the nutritional goodness (enzymes, etc.) of the live chicken is to eat the entire bird - head, feet, guts, everything. I just unhinge my jaw and swallow them whole.

cran
2010-Jan-28, 10:42 PM
:think:
I thought the whole point about skeptics is that they don't believe ...

SolusLupus
2010-Jan-28, 11:03 PM
:think:
I thought the whole point about skeptics is that they don't believe ...


Sort of. But without the backing of some beliefs/philosophy (such as science and empiricism), a skeptic becomes the extreme of the word, and doesn't believe anything :P

Moose
2010-Jan-28, 11:41 PM
:think:
I thought the whole point about skeptics is that they don't believe ...



No, that's cynicism. It's a common (and often deliberate) misconception.

Skepticism is about deferring acceptance of a claim (or set of claims) until there's sufficient evidence from which a justifiable conclusion may be drawn. The more significant the claim, the more significant the evidence that is required to justify the claim.

If you told me you had eggs for breakfast this morning, your testimony would be sufficient evidence because that claim is plausible on its face and has no tangible impact on my life. If you told me you would give me a million dollars tomorrow if I gave you ten grand today...

Fazor
2010-Jan-29, 12:18 AM
I'd define skepticism as the choice to judge a claim based on the facts, rather than emotional or other arguments, as well as a healthy ability to say "I don't know".

But my last name's not Webster.

closetgeek
2010-Jan-29, 12:36 AM
It's the pompous attitude that baits me into arguments like that. If you want to lump all skeptics into one set of beliefs, by all means, say it loud so more people are aware of your clear lack of understanding. Please don't slap your knee laughing at me because I don't blindly believe everything I read, just because it's on a really authentic looking Site. It hits a nerve with me and suddenly "it's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt," is no longer enough. I just want to rub their noses in reality.

Van Rijn
2010-Jan-29, 01:11 AM
"Skeptics believe that there is no such thing as human consciousness. They do not believe in the mind; only in the physical brain. In fact, skeptics believe that they themselves are mindless automatons who have no free will, no soul and no consciousness whatsoever."


I don't believe in the soul, but why does that mean I don't believe in consciousness? I'm obviously conscious; if I wasn't, I wouldn't be typing right now, now would I?


It depends on what you mean by "conscious." That's a pet peeve of mine: Half a dozen people can talk about "consciousness" and each one can be discussing a different concept. From his post, Mike Adams does not appear to know about this (and, I suspect, doesn't care). He also appears to equate "mind" and "consciousness" (again, that depends on how one defines those terms).

Mike Adams appears to be using the concept of dualism, so if I wanted to apply the same techniques he is (that is, making poor interpretations, adding poor assumptions, throwing in a bit of nonsense just for fun, and suggesting it applies to a large group of people) I might say that "alt-med people believe that rocks are conscious (http://onphilosophy.wordpress.com/2006/05/18/are-rocks-conscious/). Therefore, they think they're no better than rocks! Even they would have to admit this!"

Van Rijn
2010-Jan-29, 01:32 AM
Orac has a good page on the Adams post:

A pyromaniac in a field of strawmen (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/01/a_pyromaniac_in_a_field_of_straw_man_or.php)

One of the irritants with the Adams' post is that you need to register to read all of it (in my case, that's not going to happen!). Orac quotes the conclusion, which, naturally, is at least as ridiculous as the rest of it. No, I won't quote it here. Part of it is probably due to Adams' ignorance, but I also think he is very deliberately trying to provoke a reaction. That's a good way to get more readers.

tnjrp
2010-Jan-29, 07:17 AM
It depends on what you mean by "conscious." That's a pet peeve of mine: Half a dozen people can talk about "consciousness" and each one can be discussing a different concept. From his post, Mike Adams does not appear to know about this (and, I suspect, doesn't care). He also appears to equates "mind" and "consciousness" (again, that depends on how one defines those terms)Indeed consicousness is an issue sunk in well and truly muddied-by-philosophers* waters of debate. Par example, Richard Dawkins' forum has had two massive threads on the subject as of late, together running to more than 200 pages within ca. two weeks of existence, with several demarcation lines running through them.

---
*) Of both bona fide and armchair varitety

Jens
2010-Jan-29, 07:51 AM
Skeptics believe that the SUN has no role in human health other than to cause skin cancer.

Good gracious. . . Other than to, like, keep us alive? :(

SolusLupus
2010-Jan-29, 11:02 AM
Good gracious. . . Other than to, like, keep us alive? :(

He seems to be focusing on some idea where the sun can "heal" you... apparently, if you have cancer, just go outside and it cures you? I dunno.

swampyankee
2010-Jan-29, 11:25 AM
Actually, the way to really get all of the nutritional goodness (enzymes, etc.) of the live chicken is to eat the entire bird - head, feet, guts, everything. I just unhinge my jaw and swallow them whole.

The question, then, is when does the chicken stop being live food? When you eat the head?

Incidentally, I can see Swift being quoted on several web sites as an example of how horrible skeptics are. He'll probably get some animal rights activists really upset, too.

SolusLupus
2010-Jan-29, 11:30 AM
Incidentally, I can see Swift being quoted on several web sites as an example of how horrible skeptics are. He'll probably get some animal rights activists really upset, too.

People that want to show how horrible skeptics are will take the effort to pick and choose and misstate and misrepresent anyways, regardless of jokes people like Swift say.

Glom
2010-Jan-29, 11:57 AM
How much of ingested enzymes survive the onslaught of the stomach?

Drunk Vegan
2010-Jan-29, 01:23 PM
Skeptics believe that the SUN has no role in human health other than to cause skin cancer.

That's one of the most retarded things he could have said... what, does he think that the data on Vitamin C deficiency, and the benefit of (limited) exposure to sunlight in curing it, was gathered with a dowsing rod or something?

Click Ticker
2010-Jan-29, 02:53 PM
Regarding childbirth. Of course statistics show that midwives and home births are safer. As soon as something starts going wrong - they call an ambulance and the hospital gets credit for the infant or mother not surviving. When nothing goes wrong, they finish up the delivery and, "Yippee - another success for the good guys!"

Regarding the broad generalizations, I rather liked the insinuation that if a person finds vaccinations acceptable - then unlimited quantities are acceptable too! Or, if the Sun isn't responsible for one thing, then we don't think it's responsible for anything.

Silly article.

Nick Theodorakis
2010-Jan-29, 03:03 PM
Regarding childbirth. Of course statistics show that midwives and home births are safer. As soon as something starts going wrong - they call an ambulance ...

Unfortunately, not always soon enough (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245926/Mother-butchered-like-piece-meat-midwife-botched-home-birth.html).

Nick

Swift
2010-Jan-29, 03:08 PM
Originally Posted by Swift
Actually, the way to really get all of the nutritional goodness (enzymes, etc.) of the live chicken is to eat the entire bird - head, feet, guts, everything. I just unhinge my jaw and swallow them whole.The question, then, is when does the chicken stop being live food? When you eat the head?

Incidentally, I can see Swift being quoted on several web sites as an example of how horrible skeptics are. He'll probably get some animal rights activists really upset, too.
Gosh, really???? Wow! That made my day. :dance:

eric_marsh
2010-Jan-29, 04:09 PM
Yeah I really don't know what I can add to that.

What is dead food anyway?

If it's still on the hoof it's living. If it comes packaged from the store or on a plate in a restaurant it's dead.

Biggest problem with living food is getting hair in your mouth.

Moose
2010-Jan-29, 04:12 PM
The author may be a Klingophile. Gagh, in particular, is best served live.

Jens
2010-Jan-30, 02:10 AM
Gosh, really???? Wow! That made my day. :dance:

I can just see the next one on the list: "Skeptics are really snakes in disguise." :)

swampyankee
2010-Jan-30, 02:23 AM
I can just see the next one on the list: "Skeptics are really snakes in disguise." :)

I can see some sort of reference to Genesis (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Genesis+3) here. Of course, if skeptics were really snakes in disguise, it could be a mite challenging for them to type.

AstroRockHunter
2010-Jan-30, 02:35 AM
If it's still on the hoof it's living. If it comes packaged from the store or on a plate in a restaurant it's dead.

Biggest problem with living food is getting hair in your mouth.

It isn't so much the hair in my mouth that bothers me, it's when the hair gets stuck between my teeth ... :doh:

ETA: Of course, it eventually helps with flossing ...

swampyankee
2010-Jan-30, 02:44 AM
If it's still on the hoof it's living. If it comes packaged from the store or on a plate in a restaurant it's dead.

Biggest problem with living food is getting hair in your mouth.

:D

A friend of mine, back in my college days, got to go to Camp Lejeune for a few weeks. One of the first presentations was some survival training. It started with a marine sergeant holding up a small, live creature: "This is a lizard. You can eat these." Then he did.

OK; I'll admit it: I never eat living food. I'm not going to butcher my own meat, nor is my rather small yard sufficient to supply me and my family with vegetables. Somehow, I suspect that, outside of the hunter-gatherers and subsistence farmers, quite few people ever eat "live" food.

ginnie
2010-Jan-30, 03:09 AM
One of the comments on the bottom of that link:

What a great article, and you are so right, and I had a good laugh too. Its all brainwashing, and amazing some people are so stupid!!

:confused: