Look, with respect Esther, you can't just claim I've been 'set off' or claiming I 'no longer' have a problem with claiming CFS patients are tired (implying I've had a position change, which I haven't) or that I take something as an 'insult', without me thinking you have a tendency to use ad hominem against people in your argument style- which I certainly have a problem with. These are all just recent examples of your misrepresentation of what I've argued.
I certainly did have a problem with your use of the term 'tired patients' which itself was a misrepresentation (possibly because of your misunderstanding) of Canadian defined 'ME/CFS'. However, cohorts used by, for example, Wessely et al, may well have 'tiredness' and little else, again, bearing in mind my pointing out to you the problems around claims of 'tiredness' and 'fatigue' in 'CFS' patients by doctors etc. which I note you have still not acknowledged. I think that is a significant problem, either because you are ideologically committed to a position which my explanation problematized, or because you have a problem with constructing argument without resorting to ad hominem and appeals to authority.
I wrote about the problem of 'fatigue'- focusing in patient cohorts in response to Cleare and Wessely following the publication of the Erlwein paper. This is available on the Plosone website (Readers responses). This is another major problem with psychogenic explanations for 'CFS'.
The majority of participants on this board appear to have Canadian defined ME/CFS, or, like me, are supporters of loved ones with such. The reducing of serious impairments to 'fatigue' is a major flaw of psychogenic explanations of 'CFS'. This has already been explained to you on this thread. So it is an important point - even if you wish to dismiss the problem and my raising of it.
Certain comments you make - if taken to their logical extreme conclusion- can show how flawed they were. This is a common way to analyse if reasoning is fallacious in argument construction. Your comments are often like that - they are not playing into my 'prejudices', they are flawed arguments, and I need to object to them, because some of them are potentially damaging and misinformative. Other people are in the same position as me. This is the essence of public debate, in effect.
I don't really care if you have a problem or tendency in trying to prove people wrong. But, like others, of course I am not going to refrain from objecting if I find what you write is objectionable.
And - again taking arguments to logical extremes - shall we now find ever-increasing ludicrous ways to 'exaggerate' CFS - in the way you have? What purpose does it serve? What other subjects shall we do? Pitbulls?
I really thought that tracing the discussion back for you would have helped, but it doesn’t seem to have.
You think that you are ‘taking arguments to logical extremes’ but you are not. When you read my comment “On-line forums seem to me to be the ideal place for tired patients to be able to engage in this sort of discussion” and decided that I was misrepresenting Canadian defined ME/CFS, or could not possibly understand the levels of impairment faced by others, this was not a logical extension of what I said, just a misrepresentation of it.
I would not want you to refrain from commenting upon elements of my posts which you find objectionable, but please try to limit yourself to my posts. When you attempt to logically extend my comments you usually end up attacking a position I do not hold. I thought that my last post, going through the trail of our discussion, would have made that clear.
Re I misrepresenting you: I do not see where I have done so. You gave two examples:
1) You being ‘set off’ is my own characterisation of your response, I think it is a fair one, but even if it were not, it came immediately beneath a post where I had posted your response in full for all to see. I think I show be allowed my own commentary on it, even if you disagree with it.
2) You being angry/not angry about me talking of ‘tired patients’. So is it true that CFS patients are often tired or not? If so, then why is it such a problem for me to say so? Again, I’d posted your full quotes here as well.
I may not have acknowledged your points about Wessely, ‘tiredness’ and ‘fatigue’. As you present them again here, they are of no relevance to anything I’ve said, but I’m happy to acknowledge them for you. It’s not a significant problem for me.
Considering the tone of your own posts, I do not think you can complain if I’m occasionally less the courteous in reply.
Re exaggerating CFS: The whole discussion, from me being picked up for saying it’s possible to exaggerate how bad CFS is, was ludicrous and pointless.
so misinterpreting A statement is a trivial point now?
No, me trying to improve you rather confused analogy was a trivial point.
It seems that you have read a lot into one sentence or perhaps I should say misread.it seems like you have a real problem with overanalyzing simple statements and assuming the intention of others. Imagine what difficulty you would have with people who were making complex statements with multiple possible meanings .
Okay. Lets go back through this again.
You’d written: “A compelling argument made by a proponents of the view that ME is a psychological disorder would be about as likely as creationists aknowledging the primacy of evolution.”
The only assumption I’d made was that you were using a definition of ‘creationist’ which included a rejection of the primacy of naturalistic evolution in the emergence of life. You may been referring to those creationists who claim a Creator was involved at some earlier point, and then left the universe unguided – but this would have made even less sense.
If a creationist is someone who does not acknowledge the primacy of evolution, then it is impossible to have a creationist who does so. It would be like 1=/=1.
I’ll now go back to my earlier explanation, which I think did a fair job:
>You were saying: It would be as likely to get a convincing argument that CFS is a primarily psychological illness as a creationist not being a creationist (ie – impossible).
>The fact that the impossible thing you are mentioning happens to involve a creationist has nothing to do with the point you are trying to make, but because you are making a point about poor arguments which are unsupported by the evidence, the mention of a creationist is a distraction. I thought that maybe you mentioned creationism because you wanted to draw a parallel between creationism and the psychologisers, so re-phrased your analogy in a way which would do this. Just lending a hand.
Some of this post of yours seems a bit garbled eg: “g: It would be as l”? Letters seem to be missing or in the wrong order.
These are simple points, and I’ve not over analysed them. I’ve just taken the time to explain them.
Part 2. You seem to have missed out your reply to the first half of this part.
you mean that moving money around cant be described as a fact
As I tried to make clear, I’m not sure about this. But I think that if someone was to gather a crowd of people together and say “This is a fact:” and then spend a few minutes shifting money about, a lot of the crowd would think he was nuts. If someone then said “He’s moving money around”, that would be a fact.
Regardless, the point I was trying to make is that there is nothing wrong with being convinced about something just because of words – words are very useful way of communicating information and facts, indeed, I think that facts might require some such form of communication in order to be considered ‘facts’.
you do seem to have trouble understanding the word fact dont you.words may or not be used to express facts. Facts and claims are different entities.are facts not evidence in your lexigon?
I was talking about something different. I don’t think that facts and evidence are synonyms, although I think that facts can be used as evidence. This is all getting a bit linguistic and off topic though.
what I said was that that free DEBATE(not speech) and discussion had no EFFECT and was actively encouraged.you appear to have a very strange idea of the meaning of this statement!
In my original post I’d said “free speech and debate” – in your reply you’d phrased it as “free debate and discussion”, but gave no indication of a change in meaning. Even if we accept your change of terminology, you’re still wrong.
I don’t think you can be said to have free debate if it is known in advance that anyone who opposes the ideas of the government will be punished for doing so. If that’s free debate, what’s restricted debate? When people have their mouths sown shut at birth? I think it is you who have a warped understanding as to what ‘free debate’ would entail.
you mentioned that you had stupidly misrepresented my post not me.
I was playfully highlighting your slightly garbled use of language: “The problem is that you dont speak for the facts” is not a terribly clear way of communicating anything.
Of course I don’t speak for ‘the facts’. No-one does!
If you look at point number three of post #166 you can see you’re complaint that I misquoted you: “I actually said that you dont use any facts. If you can misinterpret that you would have little chance in a debate against someone who deliberately used words with a specifc definition hidden as plain english.” You can see that I quoted you correctly with “The problem is that you dont speak for the facts” if you go to post #155.
The whole thing makes you look a little silly I’m afraid.
so the entity I referred to seemed to you to be an entity.what has that got to do with my actual comment.
The post I was replying to began with “I did not say any such thing.” I then posted the quote in support of my claim, introducing it as ‘such a thing’.
I am glad that you begin to realise that manipulators "ala goebbels" can convince people that they are right when they are not.I cant understand that you cant see the problem with that
It’s possible for people to be convinced of stupid things, but I think that it is patronising to assume that they will be (I suppose some people deserve to be patronised), or to use that as a reason to limit the available discussions on a forum like this.
I think that your position assumes rather less of people than mine.
You also seem to have missed out some replies to part 4.
Esther : Good for you for trying to have a difficult discussion aired. It would indeed be interesting to hear the views of as many medics as possible - that would allow an opportunity to challenge them if necessary. I think the medical profession's handling of this illness is a global scandal.
Thanks KFG. I’m not remotely worried by the verbal flourishes and attempted bullying from others though – I’m quite happy to join in.
I quite agree with more jokes though. Best to keep things light hearted.
I guess that constitutes fair warning, Esther. Not that you have misrepresented yourself re this tendency in the past.
I don't understand why you find being a provocateur so satisfying but, clearly, you do. I'm trying not to judge - and failing - but I cannot understand why you do not put this energy to better use. Do you honestly believe this is useful dialogue of benefit to anyone?
Please treat that as a rhetorical question.
You knew I couldn’t treat it as rhetorical Koan – I can’t let things go!
I don’t think of myself as being a provocateur- I don’t say things which I do not believe just to cause trouble. I just really try not to keep quiet about things I believe in order to avoid trouble.
I think that much of this dialogue is totally pointless – but I feel like I’m just clearing up the misunderstandings and confused attacks of others. I don’t want to let that slide, and if I did, I think that it could further lead to an atmosphere in which people were unwilling to present views they thought might be unpopular.