Last week David Colquhuon gave a talk sponsored by the Centre for Inquiry and the University of Toronto Secular Alliance [Quackery in Academia] [Science in an Age of Endarkenment]. During his visit to Toronto he was interviewed by Michael Enright of the CBC Radio show The Sunday Edition. The interview was broadcast on Sunday, January 27th. As you might imagine, there were lots of comments and emails and a second show was required in order to restore some "balance." The second show was broadcast on Sunday, February 3rd [The Sunday Edition].
A stirred-up hornet's nest is a mild disturbance compared to the firestorm we unleashed last week over my conversation with Dr. David Colquhoun. Dr. Colquhuon is a gangly, pipe-puffing British pharmacologist who thinks all alternative medicine, all of it, is a fraud perpetrated by quacks. But he went further, somehow suggesting that those who believe in it probably supported Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and the Ayatollah Khomeini. He pooh-poohed acupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy, even vitamins.Two quacks were required to restore the rift in the space-time continuum caused by too much rationality: Dugald Seely of the Canadian College of Natrupathic Medicine and Dr. Kien Trinh of the DeGroote School of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton. It's shocking that one of them is from a genuine medical school: he's in a Ph.D. program.
Well, his remarks opened the floodgates of listener mail, screaming for Dr. Colquhoun's head on a pike. In a few moments, alternative or complimentary medicine strikes back. With the help of two experts, we will try to give the other side of contentious Colquhounism.
You can listen to the podcast on the CBC website but I can assure you that you won't learn anything new. There's some important issues here. Here's one of the letters that was read on the show ...
Most proponents of alternative medicine do not deny the place of Western medicine. It is too bad that for some the respect is not reciprocal.The logic here is that just because some quacks are able to recognize the value of evidence-based medicine then it follows that scientists should extend the same respect to quacks who promote non-evidence-based medicine.
Dale Jack
It's a mark of how silly our society has become that such an argument even merits a response. It would be like saying that the most outlandish ideas deserve equal time as long as their proponents are respectful to the proponents of reality.
Here's a similar comment ...
He [Colquhoun] is the very representative of the darkness of the scientific method. He is one of the very ilk that would have driven the new hand-washing surgeons to suicide. As a past-President of the Complementary and Integrative Physicians of B.C., I do hope you will spend the next few weeks in contrition—to re-establish your usually balanced and worthwhile reputation.Coming from a quack, I guess we shouldn't be surprised at the "logic" exhibited here. The first example is the old saw about truly brilliant innovators who were originally scoffed at. The idea is that because one person took on the scientific establishment and won, it follows logically that all renegades must be right. Conversely, scientists who scoff at quacks must be wrong.
Steven Faulkner
No, this does not compute. As they say, people laughed at Galileo but they also laughed at Bozo the clown.
The second example of silly logic is the concept of "fairness" and "balance" that is used time and time again by quacks and IDiots. Apparently it doesn't matter how stupid your ideas are, society demands that you be given a hearing if you are attacked. Well I've got news for all you quacks out there. You don't get to promote your crazy ideas just because you have them. There's no rule that says you have to be given a platform on public radio just because you've been criticized.
If you want to be heard go the Hyde Park on a Sunday morning. Take a soapbox.
9 comments :
Most unicorn fanciers do not deny the existence of horses. It is too bad that for some the respect is not reciprocal.
ID's favorite, argumentum ad temperantiam!
"Some would say that arsenic is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet, but others claim it is a toxic and dangerous substance. The truth is somewhere in between..."
I think you mean "too much truth" not "too much truthiness." Truthiness is what the other side is offering:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
I was going to say the same, and I've noticed LM misuse the term a couple of times recently. "Truthiness" is essentially a measure of misguided gut thinking and received wisdom. It is not a way of complimenting a point of view.
I've listened to the second show twice now (long boring drive) and it's my opinion that the alties did not address much of what Colquhoun said. They did not mention homeopathy at all and spent much of the time superficially discussing acupuncture which Dr. Colquhoun had mentioned as one of the three possibly reasonable Naturopathic practices.
Although homeopathy was not mentioned the inference I took was that Dugal Seeley was not a fan. He accused Dr. Colquhoun of dismissing all of naturopathy based on one example. From that I have to assume that he thinks homeopathy is crap or at least he can't defend it.
They also talked about spending time with patients and looking at the person as a whole. Recommending things like nutrition education. I see this as a criticism of the current medical process rather than of evidence based medicine. Sure it would be great if we could spend hours at a time with our doctors but the current system doesn't allow for it. Spending time with people will give them a nice warm glow and nutrition education is common to both camps but adding to that some unproven remedy only moves more money from the patient's pockets to the altie's pocket. I see nothing but placebo.
It's too bad Colquhoun wasn't there to defend himself because much of what he said was misinterpreted in the second show.
nowoo says,
I think you mean "too much truth" not "too much truthiness." Truthiness is what the other side is offering:...
Thanks. I changed "truthiness" to "rationality" to avoid confusion.
As they say, people laughed at Galileo but they also laughed at Bozo the clown.
That's a line from one of Stephen J Gould's essays (I'm away from home so can't check my books to see which one.)
Larry Said…
Well I've got news for all you quacks out there. You don't get to promote your crazy ideas just because you have them. There's no rule that says you have to be given a platform on public radio just because you've been criticized.
But there is rule that says “If it’s entertaining let’s have it!”. I’m sure you understand that this is all about spectacle and spectacle SELLS, especially if it means pitting the irresistible force against the immoveable object: Clowns versus straight men, the Hulk versus the Thing, Predator versus Alien, Streisand versus Adelman, Christians versus lions… This is what a laissez faire media is all about, the more bizarre the contest the better! ‘No moon landing’ conspiracy theorists? Bring them on….
stephen says,
That's a line from one of Stephen J Gould's essays (I'm away from home so can't check my books to see which one.)
I think it's a paraphrase of something Carl Sagan said ...
"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
---Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)
Post a Comment