Letters to the Editor
-
Sam
Sam, these institutions - Salon, JAMA, "the medical establishment" - are just that: institutions. They represent huge communities of individuals. In thinking about them, you are committing what epidemiologists call "ecological fallacy", which means that you're ascribing characteristics of some members of a group to all members of a group. You do this over and over again in your writing and thinking.
Some doctors and scientists believe that there may be a connection between spirituality and science, while other don't. Still others would press you for your definition of "spirituality" and how you define "connection". Are you talking about something mystic and/or groovy, or something down-to-Earth, i.e. a scientist who subjectively reports being spiritual and who reports that this spirituality gives him inspiration to pursue science.
Some doctors probably believe virtually all of what Andrew Weil purports; some doctors probably believe only parts of what Andrew Weil purports; some doctors probably hope Andrew Weil chokes to death on his own tongue; some people only claim to be doctors in order that they can weigh in forcefully on the compelling Andrew Weil debate. If we wanted to characterize "the medical establishment's" opinion on Andrew Weil, we'd need to take into account all of these factors in formulating our judgement. Furthermore, we'd need to ask ourselves whether any old douchebag with an M.D. is entitled to represent "the medical establishment", or if there were other criteria such as, say, having completed a fellowship or specialty training, having conducted research, having taught at an academic establishment, etc.
If science had a door that we could knock on and politely ask questions such as "Is Andrew Weil full of shit?" or "To what extent is climate change caused by humans?", that'd be awesome. But sadly, it doesn't. So we do what we can: as individuals, we study the scientific process and try to adhere to it with discipline. Some are better than others. Some people who don't have any degree at all are better scientific thinkers than people with PhD's in Neurobiology. So who do you listen to?
Time for a hypothetical exercise. Let's say, oh, we're wagering the future of humanity's survival on planet Earth. We'll define that as our outcome variable. How about our exposure variable of interest is... oh, let's define this as "modern human industrial practices". Now, the question is: do we believe there is an association between exposure and outcome? In this entirely hypothetical situation, what process does a person go through in attempting to answer this? You could say, "beats me! I ain't no climatolologistathingy in no Ivory Tower!" Or, you could say, "there is disagreement and therefore no way to reach any conclusion." Or, you could say, "perhaps we ought to see what people who have studied this think." Or, you could say (with enthusiasm!), "You crazy left wing bumblefuck nutjob! You people will believe anything!" There are all kinds of things you could say! And the choice is entirely up to you!
Personally, I'd want to be very careful in my approach. That outcome, hypothetical though it may be, sure sounds serious. I'm drawn towards the third choice outlined above: that of consulting with the people who study this. Granted, skepticism is extremely healthy in science; many people who have jumped through the necessary academic hoops necessary to put a bunch of letters after their name are idiots. But it's also true that many people who have not jumped through any academic hoops are idiots. Hmmm. Who to believe? Furthermore, many people who have degrees are smart. And many people who don't have degrees are smart. Hmmm.
Sham Scam Sam, this is where you're getting hung up. You don't know who to believe in the face of remote uncertainty, and the fallacies in your thinking are, I believe, what are holding you up. You've obviously sought many opinions from many sources - many of which are no doubt dubious, but, I'll grant, many of which may not be. I don't have time to go through and evaluate each and every link you put up. I've got other shit to study. Next time, please make your arguments on your own, point by point, in the highest resolution you possibly can. State your assumptions and define your terms. Acknowledge uncertainty, but don't be frightened by it. You'll come out on the other end as a much stronger thinker who, ultimately, I believe (and this is, perhaps, a point of dogma I'll acknowledge from the Church/Cult of Reason known as science), serves to benefit the greater good.
-
Joseph
First, let me say how *nice* it is to get a thoughtful response. Thanks for that. Second, let me say, writing online, anyone can sound like they believe all people are this or that. But, let me assure you, I don't. And last, I'm not going to torture you with a line-by-line rebuttal featuring lots of links. Let's just "talk". (I'm ramblin' here:)
I am just a black guy. A black guy with a history that doesn't mirror many people I meet. For instance, I grew up as a foster child in South Central, Los Angeles. I know more about violence than most people want to know, and will defend it's use 'till,...well, the death. When I hear people saying we should be non-violent, it sounds like the most idiotic thing I ever heard: it's the only thing that's protected me from those that want to do me harm. But it is the prevailing thinking out there. So most people end up looking wimpy - and stupid. I'm no big guy, but most wouldn't make it where I've been.
That kind of background, in the larger society, makes me an iconoclast. (A word I only recently learned.) I can see how the herd mentality can form around ideas that have no basis in reality - like with violence. Most of the talk around global warming seems based on fear. I don't share that fear. I don't trip on fear much at all. Except fear of the mob. It's what I know, and have seen how it can sweep clear thinking aside; the weak finding strength in numbers. That's what I see going on. Kicking skeptics out of the scientific debate - where they've always been, and belong - is a reflection of that fear.
It's like with the war. Somebody asked John McCain (someone else with an intimate knowledge of violence in his life) "How long are you going to keep doing what you think is right, when the American people voted to do something else?" I thought that was a stupid question because, in my experience, you don't stop doing what you think is right - ever. (And, yes, I think the American people, at this stage, are a bunch of former hippy baby boomers who have the war, the president, etc., wrong - because they're scared.) I've had to stand up for myself too many times, in the face of overwhelming odds, to give in to a crowd now - because I won.
I think I know right from wrong. And, sorry, but I think I know who to believe - though I put no faith in beliefs. I believe in those who choose to be strong. Who will stand up to the logic of the mob. Who keep their heads about them as others are losing theirs. I can't be swayed by appeals to my race, compassion, "spirituality", a subjective opinion, women, or politics. I believe in the human spirit to survive.
That's not what I hear, either in the scientific community or outside of it, about global warming, or the war, or anything else. I hear fear. I hear mysticism. I hear we're not gonna make it. And, to that, I say "bullocks". I'll eliminate those fears. I want to wipe out mysticism. We're gonna make it. But we have to make up our minds to do so. And not based on hope or dreams.
Losers are losers. My life experience says they are to be ignored and, when that's not possible, fought. (New age, to me, is to be fought.) There have been too many people trying their best to convince me that there's no real world I can grasp, but I keep fooling them. I've always proved stronger than they are: I ain't no pastel nigga - I'm an American - from the old school.
What does all this mean? It means you guys are gonna have to do better to get me scared. And quit making appeals to "save the planet" 'cause it won't work - the planet's never been kind. And neither have people - I don't trust you. All you can do is be honest, and open, and, maybe, I'll give your argument chance. I know there are cults - and I know the con is on. The con is always on.
And I ain't gonna be no sucka.