eric_s
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,925
- Location
- Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
I will once again try to explain what i meant...But your words certainly gave the impression you think only some people with 'insider status' can 'do science'. I haven't got time to explain Mary Anning in detail to you, but she was a major discoverer of paeleantological evidence who was an 'amateur', and did not get her due recognition because of that. Indeed, you appear to have very narrow beliefs on what the ME/CFS community is 'permitted' to do ('our jobs' - raise money?). By your logic, some of us have not right to be critiquing bad science (you misrepresent that as 'getting angry') but should sit on our hands, or our hair, like Rapunzel, waiting for the prince (Mr 'good science') to rescue us, except for raising funds. By your logic, no-one should have done work showing the flaws of psychogenic explanations, because psychs are 'scientists' (that's an unsafe assumption, but they do claim to be and are accepted by others as such).
I'm sorry, but this shows an (to my mind, by now, inexcusable) ignorance of the rank poverty affecting many ME/CFS sufferers, and possibly an ignorance of the issue of poverty per se. That's even before we discuss that even your unrealistic scenario is still unlikely to be enough of a 'miracle' to get that panacea of 'research' completed. There are people out there living in 'Dickensian conditions' (a key advocate for ME/CFS sufferers' quote actually, not my own) who can barely afford heating or food (one of these has to suffer usually) because of the affects of psychogenic dismissal on benefits.
I'm sorry, but making a literary reference is hardly uncivil, which is what you are implying, and it's unreasonable to expect somebody to 'stop talking this way'.
Which may be why you resorted to accusing people of being paranoid and aggressive. Lack of ability, for whatever reason, to be able to follow something, does not mitigate ad hominem attack on members of this community, which is what you did.
IAd hominem fallacies (whether deliberately rhetorical or errors) do not have to attack specific people. Misrepresenting someone's argument as 'paranoid and aggressive' (or that of more people), rather than explain what's happening, was designed to make the reader believe certain people are 'paranoid and aggressive' rather than merely incorrect in their argument. People, for all I know, may be acting reasonably in their objections, and you won't present the evidence needed to present a case that this is otherwise.
But you not looking for a discussion is futile. You put your opinion in a forum, you might get a discussion!
Regarding the 'Dusty Miller blow-up'. I'm still trying to find out the exact details. What has interested me in the interim is that allegedly, Dusty Miller accused a patient of probably believing in Cold Fusion, as a guilt by association ad hominem!
IF this is true (the smoke and mirrors problem that dogs all internet interaction seems to be particularly bad, with people claiming other people are Miller, Mikovits etc. so it might not be) then Miller's fallacy here is outrageous, and hardly likely to reassure people.
But - I would be interested in other people's careful analysis of what's been going on (I'm not interested in any "objectors are paranoid and aggressive memes". A summary of the argument would do!) I'd actually be grateful for a reasonable summary, it doesn't have to be completely neutral, just reasonable! If anyone can do that - thank you in advance.
I did not say who is "allowed" to do science and who is not. This is not my way of thinking. What i said is that you need knowledge, an amateur might have this too. My argument is that the best way of critique is to produce evidence that proves the other side wrong. Who is most likely to produce that evidence? The best qualified scientists.
Yes, psychologists are scientists and they may be proven wrong by science. It's not like all the scientists have the same point of view and also often the view of an individual changes over time.
I am not ignorant of the life of people with ME/CFS (i live it myself) and what i said is not unrealistic. I think we should never have such a defeatist attitude. We have it in our own hands and once again, i believe it's actually not hard to do. Is it unrealistic to save 8 or 9 US Dollars per month in the UK? I am convinced it's not.
Making a literary reference is not uncivil at all, that's not what i was referring to.
I did not "resort" to calling some people paranoid and their behaviour aggressive. It was exactly what i wanted to criticize because in my opinion this is how they behaved and i don't think this is good or helpful. I am very well able to follow something. I read the thread in question, about 20 pages of it. But my time and energy is limited and i do have other things to do.
You expect people to provide you with a summary and analysis. Why don't you go over there and read it yourself?
Do you have ME/CFS? I think in another one of your posts i read you don't, but i'm not sure anymore. If you don't have it, you should not want me to do time and energy consuming work for you, please.