Thanks. (My head is now pounding though.)
I've only skimmed section two, but they seem be throwing everything in, rather than trying to construct one overwhelming argument. There are quotes about XMRV being the cause of CFS, but also quotes about CFS being heterogeneous - seemingly without addressing the tension there, and presenting both as authoritative and without contradiction.
There's certainly a lot of evidence of various biological abnormalities amongst CFS patients, but I don't think that these yet add up to proof that is not a psychological condition. It's hard to prove a negative, and I'm certainly not impressed by the claims of the orrenmaffia (is it catching on yet?), but I think the nature and cause of CFS is still unknown. The magical medicine piece presents a lot of reasons to think that physical abnormalities are at the heart of CFS, but doesn't even seem to be trying to prove that this is the case, or develop a unified argument.
They started by talking a lot about Martin Pall's work - as if it was pretty authoritative. I've really not kept up with recent CFS research - and don't know him. Is he well regarded here? It seemed like they were citing unpublished work - maybe this will be conclusive proof, but I've not seen it yet, and they didn't seem to go into much detail..
To esther
1) Surely a better analogy would be 'as likely as a creationist presenting a convincing argument'.
NO
2) 'People using words' is not much of a limitation. Words are pretty good at communicating ideas and information. I think they can be very convincing - although I've never found Stalin's of Goebbel's to be. Which of their arguments do you find compelling?
I dont find any propaganda convincing however skillfully disguised
Words are very good at conveying misinformation and propaganda. Ideas are not facts Words can have multiple meanings skillfull protagonists know this and exploit the fact in constructing very plausible and apparently convincing arguments .I am sure you would find words convincing most people however would want facts.Just because words are convincing it does not make them true
3) What facts have I contradicted?
you have not contradicted any facts because you have not used any
4) The 'fact' that CFS is not a psychological illness does not seem widely recognised. No-one here seems to have access to the over-whelming evidence which proves this fact either. Some people here speak as if Wessely etc are publishing academic papers arguing that the world is flat - it's not that clear cut.
The fact is not recognised by people with a vested interest in denying it even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.Some people misdiagnosed with cfs may well have a psychological illness and, in fairness ,they may not be able to understand the science. Indeed such denyers of biomedical causation may not be able to recognise anything at all.I dont think anyone claims that wesselly is publishing academic papers of any kind. As for refernces of biomedical evidence of causation how many do you want.I would offer the references of evidence re psychological causation but I cant there aren't any!
5) No - I've pretty consistently assumed that people are intelligent enough to distinguish good arguments from bad, to be able to develop and explain their own ideas, to be able to avoid posting things which would serve to discredit CFS patients. I think that we can all sometimes act stupidly, but that we should still proceed on the presumption that are capable of acting sensibly too.
Its not a question of good or bad arguments but a question of fact versus propaganda.Inviting clever manipulative psychiatrists who are highly skilled in the misuse of words would be acting stupidly whatever the presumption
1) Yes.
2) You'd said that Stalin and Goebbals could explain their position very convincingly - I don't think so.
I'm not sure about this, but I think that for something to be a fact, it would need to be symbolically expressed. You cannot point at a person and say "That is a fact."
Sometimes words will be used dishonestly or stupidly, as was the case with Stalin and Goebbals, but it seems neither of us find them terribly convincing, so I do not think that we need to worry about that. Personally, I think that had either of them engaged in the sort of open ended discussions that can take place here, this would have served to undermine their totalitarian regimes, that depended upon a restriction of free speech and debate. Too much free discussion and debate was not a problem in either case.
3) You'd said 'The problem is that you dont speak for the facts' - I assumed this meant you thought I'd made some factual error. You actually meant that I am not acting as spokesperson for some entity known as 'the facts'?
4) One reference to an academic paper proving biomedical causation for CFS would be fine (assuming it's been replicated).
5) You'd started by saying I was underestimating the intelligence of people here, and end by saying that, while you would not be conned by the psychologiser's propaganda, they're so smart that they would be able to trick other, less gifted members of the board? I don't think it is I who is underestimating the intelligence of members here.
I note you dont want to see any facts on this matter.
It is impossible to exaggerate the absolute literal absence of energy and exhaustion which lies at the core of this illness.
It is however a simple matter to trivulize the illness by using the word tired.if you understand that using this term plays into the hands of denigrators of our fellow sufferers then why one earth are you using it.
A great many people with ME cant get out of bed let alone "overanalyze" their symptoms.
When in a war you dont give ammunition to the enemy
I'm not at war. I'm not going to fight dirty. I don't like propaganda.
In a debate, I want to highlight my own weaknesses to my opponent. It's wonderful to genuinely lose a debate, as you will have been shown that you are wrong, and allowed to learn and progress.
The ways we describe our illness can be used against us whatever we do - best not to worry about it imo.
It is possible to exaggerate how badly CFS affects patients - I could have a go if you wanted.
