1. Patients launch a $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
ME/CFS: In Free Fall Through the Looking Glass
Jody Smith continues to try to put into words the horror of the altered state that hobbles the brains of those with ME/CFS...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

XMRV testing PART 2: Blood doesn't come cheap (the butchers bill)

Discussion in 'XMRV Testing, Treatment and Transmission' started by jace, Aug 17, 2012.

  1. In Vitro Infidelium

    In Vitro Infidelium Guest

    Messages:
    646
    Likes:
    280
    I don't understand how this is in any way 'particular' to the BWG - all of the points you make are explicable in terms of of a disatisfaction with (in shorthand) Popperian science. Where in practice is there a paragon of the science of 'proof' (as empiricism) and 'truth' that you affirm is the ideal ? I don't think such a thing exists, there are whole volumes of debate (Karl Popper on the empirical base of science ) but science as practised primarily follows a utilitarian application of Popper's basic propositions. Criticising the BWG because it proceded in the way that all other science procedes hardly seems useful. Personally I have a lot of time for Kuhne's critique of Popper, but that can't tell us anything useful about any single scientific project. Though in any event I'm not in anyway interested in 'truth' as a scientific issue, whether such were to be arrived at by convention or reason. Science can give us probabilities, and those probabilities can be reassessed in the light of new data, but this is not truth, and while reason is certainy required to make sense of probabalistic answers, I don't see how inductive reasoning can provide useful conclusions of 'fact' in the absence of measurable phenomena.

    IVI
  2. In Vitro Infidelium

    In Vitro Infidelium Guest

    Messages:
    646
    Likes:
    280
    I'm afraid I have no idea what you are writing about. At no point have I ever argued (I think it is true to say - anywhere, ever in the last forty years) that anyone should be disuaded from engaging in critique of anything (or indeed everything). To be effective though any critique has to follow from establishable, truths (philosophy) facts (in general conditions) and data (science). I respnded to Jace's posting of a pseudonymous article by pointing out deficiencies of data in the article. So far there's been a number of 'defences' of the article on the basis of counters regarding the deficiencies of the BWG - but like the article, the absence of data remains a barrier to any effective critique being made. In fact in the end it sort seems to boil down to 'we don't like it'.

    IVI
  3. Firestormm

    Firestormm Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,819
    Likes:
    5,941
    Cornwall England
    I would like to get back to the BWG (although I think debate of this one has been done to death previously), but I'm also kind of enjoying the broader arguments and philosophising (when I can understand it) :)

    For the sake of the thread though, when I have some more time, I'll have a crack at some of the specific points that were raised in Jace's original post. Maybe. :ninja:
  4. Adamskitutu

    Adamskitutu *****

    Messages:
    56
    Likes:
    58
    Go back and re-read your posts. You manage to argue both against specific critiques by patients AND against critiquing by patients of science per se, though done in a back and forth manner, hence my responding to the issue of patients critiquing scientists brought up in your assertions. One core of your oft-repeated argument is about how powerless patients are and therefore scientists can ride roughshod over patient communities, and that's ok because that's how science is, and only deference and inside voices has any hope of enabling patients to be occasionally listened to, at best.

    And your assessment of the arguments above is not accurate either. You are not even following your own demands for effective argument here. And you sometimes cut off important contexts in order to manage your argument against others, which is even more frustrating. I'm also talking about other arguments you have made since you've been around on the forums - since you brought up the last forty years yourself here.
    Dan_USAAZ likes this.
  5. In Vitro Infidelium

    In Vitro Infidelium Guest

    Messages:
    646
    Likes:
    280
    If you really want to read over what I’ve written then go to http://cfsmirror.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/profit-and-loss.html where I’ve covered the ground relevant to this thread (at least where the thread started) – be aware though I won’t publish comments that are stuck on the ad hominem fallacy. Or if you are concerned over my perspective on how M.E/CFS advocacy is most effectively pursued, there are two blog posts (now a year old) dealing with the issue: When PR means Public Relations, not a mythical rebirth part oneand When PR means Public Relations, not a mythical rebirth part two.

    I’ve already written that I can’t follow your reasoning, and you’ve given no explication other than to repeat that I’m guilty of some unidentified inconsistencies.

    IVI
  6. Kina

    Kina Moderation Team Lead

    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes:
    3,441
    Ontario, Canada
    Please note, please refrain from making negative comments about each other and stick to the topic of the thread.

    Thank you.
  7. Adamskitutu

    Adamskitutu *****

    Messages:
    56
    Likes:
    58
    Thank you IVI, but I wish to discuss the issues about this thread on this thread, not your blog.

    I have already identified the points you make on this thread which I take issue with.
  8. Firestormm

    Firestormm Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,819
    Likes:
    5,941
    Cornwall England
    Hi Adam,

    So what did you make of the original posting from Jace? Maybe we can now get back to that. If I were to critique it I would need to return to the paper itself, let alone refresh my memory as to what did happen, and check all her references.

    I'm simply not able to do that today. But I'd be interested to hear what you and others might think, either specifically in relation to each issue (or selected parts) or generally.

    Thanks.
  9. Adamskitutu

    Adamskitutu *****

    Messages:
    56
    Likes:
    58
    I don't know Firestormm. I'm trying to understand it. There's a lot to take on board and work through.
    Firestormm likes this.
  10. Mula

    Mula Senior Member

    Messages:
    131
    Likes:
    46
    This is strongly favoring full disclosure from Redlabs if they believe this to be clinical validation and is probably damaging to the WPI if they think that this is sufficient.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page