Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site uiucdcs
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcewan
From: mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: Contempt prior to Investigation
Message-ID: <97400009@uiucdcs>
Date: Fri, 4-Apr-86 16:41:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.97400009
Posted: Fri Apr  4 16:41:00 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 9-Apr-86 11:24:08 EST
References: <721@hounx.UUCP>
Lines: 57
Nf-ID: #R:hounx.UUCP:721:uiucdcs:97400009:000:2369
Nf-From: uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU!mcewan    Apr  4 15:41:00 1986


>> The adherents of every quack medical treatment I've ever heard of claim
>> (probably correctly) that a majority of people treated *thought* the
>> treatment was beneficial.
> 
>    SO, Mr. McEwen, have a majority of the people treated by every "legitimate"
> medical treatment.  So what?

First, to restore the context which you've removed (I'd use the exact quotes,
but I don't have a copy of the original article), my comment above was in
response to the claim that 70% of people who underwent therapy found the
therapy to be helpful. The person making this statement seemed to think that
it proved the usefulness of therapy. I was merely pointing out that this is
an extremely poor measure of the usefulness of a treatment. Most "legitimate"
medical procedures have much better evidence than patient satisfaction
supporting them.

>    You obviously have a strong negative view of psychology and psychiatric
> therapy.

You obviously can't read.

>  You are welcome to them, and welcome to express them.  Unless you
> are able to produce significant evidence to support your claims, however,
> you have no right to label such therapy as "quack medical treatment".

I didn't label therapy as quack medicine, I was pointing out a fallacy.
For the record, I don't think that therapy has been proven to be effective -
certainly, no such proof has been reported in this newsgroup. That is not
the same as saying that it is quackery. I will say, however, that *you*
argue like a quack. Quacks often insist that they don't have to prove their
treatment works, others have to prove that it doesn't (were you around
for the laetrile wars in net.med?)

>    It is wonderful for you that you are so together and self-assured that you
> don't need help.

Where did you get that idea?

>  Where do you get the audacity to presume that everyone else
> ought to be the same, and that those who can't do so without outside assistance
> are somehow failures?

How do you derive this from my comment?

>  This is what your derogation of the entire field of
> psycho-theray implies.

You'll have to explain this to me. Does the fact that I think that laetrile
as a cancer cure is pure quackery imply that I think that cancer victims
are failures?

			Scott McEwan
			{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan

Green s/m watchlizard seeks s/f/wl - object: companionship. Reply
Box 23, Cynosure.