Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Gregor, I tend to agree that sailing is an engaging sport to participate in, and NZ seems to be good at it. It's nice that an old fella can be part of it.
I think a lot of anti-America's Cup-ness is jealousy, and the perception is that sailing is a sport for the wealthy because yachts are expensive, especially America's Cup ones. Which is silly because most of the people participating don't own the yachts, just like most rugby players don't own the club.
Of course anyone who does own a yacht, or part share in one, is likely to take a keen interest, and the hype around the America's Cup is largely through strong promotion from such characters, who are regarded with a great deal of hostility throughout NZ. We have never had a culture of praising the wealthy, unless they appear to be self-made salt of the earth Bob Jones types, and even then they are eventually distrusted.
Call it tall poppy syndrome, or egalitarianism. Whatever, it's a phenomenon I didn't really encounter so much living in Ozzie. I don't think it's the most admirable quality about Kiwis.
Having said all that, I still find yacht racing a very substandard spectator sport. There's just not that much to see. The subtleties you refer to are mostly invisible to the human eye. The fact that a huge part of the outcome is simply decided by who has the better boat is also an unappealing factor. Every time I've ever watched a head-to-head yacht race series, it was usually an all-nothing outcome. One side totally dominates the other through the better boat and probably better crew. That makes for a dull spectacle. Once one boat pulls ahead, the game is usually over and the next hour is spent confirming that. Unless there's some kind of equipment failure, which hardly seems like a matter of skill.
Strangely, motorcar racing has a similar 'better equipment' factor, but it's much more engaging. I think that probably comes down to:
1. Everyone can drive so everyone can appreciate it
2. Lots of cars on the track means there's a battle for at least some of the placings to watch
3. The crashes are spectacularThese yacht races might be more interesting if there were more boats on the water? Just a thought. Then you'd have numerous tacking duels, possibly involving more than 2 craft, all sorts of drama would be possible. But 1 on 1 yacht races are just dull to watch, sorry to say it.
There are lots of sports like that. I personally like to watch MMA (no holds barred striking and grappling fights), but most people get bored watching the wrestling part, and most MMA, as with most real empty handed fights, goes to the ground and becomes a highly tactical war of attrition. I can see that does not interest even people who like martial arts, on the whole, much less people who don't like to watch violence.
But I'm not about to insist everyone else watches MMA, or that the city pays for a massive event. I just enjoy it in my own time on my own money. And I think that's really the main gripe NZers have with the America's Cup. It's just not fun to watch, however deep and fulfilling it is for the participants.
-
Sailing is the opposite of rugby. Fun to do, boring to watch. Rather like golf, and I think it's the same demographic that take interest - at least an oldie can still hit a golf ball or steer a yacht. Of course soccer is more popular than everything else, anyone can play it pretty much anywhere, usually without getting seriously hurt in the body or the wallet.
-
Kyle, yes, the way people talk about science shows a lot more about what they don't know than what they do.
And yes, a lot of people have written about it. Philosophy of science is a big field, one of my favorites. I even think postmodernists have some useful contributions, much though I hate to admit it. My favorite philosophers on the subject are Karl Popper (for the sheer originality), and Paul Feyerabend (for No-science-Nazis comeback). But most philosophers of the 20th century have plenty to say on the matter, even if they don't specialize.
Good start text: What is this thing called Science? By Alan Chalmers
-
Hi Hansel
It's my cross to bear, and I don't feel let down by anyone but luck/god/fate, etc. The docs have always done what they could and what they have done has provided a lot of relief. I'm only giving my personal account to show a personal experience of fringe treatment. I don't write off the possibility there is someone out there with the meanest herbz I could ever need. I sure hope so. But I certainly don't find it likely at this stage, on experience.
The specialists I'm with now are at the hospital all paid for by the man. They're awesome and people who say public health is crap are full of crap. My experiences with hospitals was always the absolute best of the best. Private is much more hit and miss.
I totally agree about the "western" title which is why I'm putting it in quotes all the time. Science transcends political boundaries and the dichotomy is actually a political one, or a quack's way of getting brand distinction, IMHO. Or even worse it's postmodern (don't get me started). "Western" medicine has been ripping off Chinese herbz since before China was even discovered by the West. If the Chinese haven't been doing the same back, that's their loss. As for Western alternatives, if they insist on being quacks and people insist on believing in it, that's just an interesting sociological phenomenon. It doesn't really tell us much about which system is better. And even a stopped clock is right twice a day (unless it's digital). Quacks should be allowed. I just don't trust them.
-
It's an interesting science vs not-science debate. As always it comes back to the definition of science. I'm inclined to agree with Stephen Judd and include in science anything that follows a scientific process. Which includes a great deal of traditional/natural/alternative medicine. To talk of Science, as a body of facts, is to misunderstand it and treat it as a religion. Anyone engaged in science knows it is not like that at all, particularly wrt anything new. Sure, there are many scientific 'facts' meaning pieces of theory that are so well established that few rational people will believe otherwise. But most of the new stuff is highly controversial, and you will even find people working on the same research project who have profoundly different opinions on which theory is true. All they agree on, all that makes them scientists, is the belief that subjective opinion can be turned into experiments and thus become objective observations corroborating one theory or another (or more likely refuting it utterly).
It's not a club. I think it's pure twaddle to call it a western construct to oppress the colonized. The colonized were scientists too, they just didn't have so much access to other science, since the colonists were the ones moving around, exposing themselves to the knowledge of the world. So their science could not progress so rapidly. Science is knowledge, and knowledge is power, so it often isn't freely given away. But any rational culture took absolutely every bit of knowledge they could get their hands on. Those that didn't were eventually just left behind, and preyed on by those who did.
If there is a meaningful distinction, it is between *mainstream* and *fringe*. Mainstream is simply the area where the greatest level of consensus is. And it's not automatically right. It's not guaranteed to be right. It's just more likely to be. But very often a huge revolution happens and it turns out that what the mainstream thought was right is in fact completely wrong. These are the historic moments in science.
Usually, those revolutions are achieved by people who are deeply trained in the orthodox, but are simply choosing to forge in a direction that has been overlooked or not seen as promising. It is seldom quacks that make for these revolutions. It is seldom those that refuse to stand on the shoulders of giants. But occasionally it is - which is why fringe science should always be allowed.
Even animals engage in science. My cat works out through observation and experiment how to get through the catflap. She's shockingly slow and stupid, as most animals are, but she gets there in the end and gets a survival advantage from it. Some have even argued that evolution itself is simply nature engaging in science, where DNA is the theory, and survival to reproduction the critical test. But I'm not about to ask my cat to cure my eczema, and I'm not going to just die so that my DNA doesn't pass on. Some science is better than other science, for the purposes we want to achieve.
-
Joe, naturally doctors are patronizing too. But to me they're like the boxer who *knows* he can punch your lights out, as opposed to the Tai Chi person who *thinks* they can. The boxer's eye is based on dozens of fights they personally have been in, the Tai Chi based on thousands of fights that supposedly happened hundreds of years ago.
And don't get me wrong, Tai Chi is not without merit. It's a much healthier activity than boxing, I think. It may even serve some purpose as a martial art for self defence. But that's a big 'may'. There just isn't good enough evidence for it. I have never ever seen anyone professing to be a Tai Chi expert last more than 1 minute against an experienced fighter in any kind of ring fight, boxing, grappling, weaponry, anything. Unless they have more skills and experience than just the Tai Chi, that is.
I think this is analogous to the "western" vs "alternative" approach. I'm sure there are highly scientific ways to approach homeopathy. I just have never seen any of it in any practitioners I've ever dealt with. But 95% of the doctors I've dealt with have had a consistent and systematic approach. They've trained for many years and stood on the back of many centuries of knowledge reaching deeply into all aspects of human and biological science. They often specialize extremely deeply, and their specialties are similarly 'standing on the shoulders of giants'. They can be severely criticized by their own for making bad choices, and even lose their reputations and jobs permanently.
Sure, traditional medicine has even longer and deeper roots, going back well into prehistory. But so does thinking the earth is flat, and that doesn't make it right. It comes down to the method by which choices are made. From what I can tell about chinese medicine, the approach is different, coming from symptoms angle, rather than the underlying causes. When they do talk of underlying causes the theory is laughably simple when compared to the level of detail that "western" medicine has achieved. It may seem complicated to a layperson, as does anything that is not in your area of expertise. But it's really nowhere near as complicated as the thousands of competing theories being clinical tested over decades on millions of people that "western" medicine is.
I am not criticizing the chinese. They have probably done the best ever job that you can with an approach that most other cultures have tried and got nowhere near as far with. But any system that doesn't expose itself to critical tests eventually becomes dogmatic and anecdotal. The proponderance of evidence connection between symptoms and herbal (or other) treatment that the chinese have amassed is great. It's really helpful to "western" medicine, for starters. I'm sure it's been a great help to millions of chinese people for millennia. But too often it is seen as an "alternative", rather than "complementary" and people with minuscule skill, talent and training can claim a great deal with no comeback. This detracts from those with real talent and training in medicine, real testable training and skill in herbs and other therapies.
That is what I lament. That the quackery feeds off the arrogance and success of "western" medicine. Any time it fails (as it slowly has for me) people with poor logic conclude that it's time to turn one's back on "western" medicine and embrace every quack that claims to be a healer. And it sucks because the real healers are lost in the noise.
-
Hansel
"Seeing as how you confess to having little knowledge of the subject a simple statement that frauds and quacks do exist in the field of natural health would be fine. If you are impressed by Diplomas then you can look for those from recognised schools of naturopathy. People like Natural Ange (who I grew up listening to on bFM) are members of industry bodies."
Hansel, I don't have to have detailed knowledge to notice the sheer number of people just among my acquaintances, who have attempted to give me all sort of advice about my particular problem and the alternative cures available. Most of the time I have never asked for their advice. They make the assumption that doctors don't have a damned clue about any of the stuff they are talking about, and insist they know just the herb to cure all my ills. Some of them are homeopaths, claiming to have been trained in creditable schools, others have had homeopathic treatments of their own, or other alternatives.
Not one single one of them or anybody they even knew suffered from my problem to the extent that I do, since I'm one in 150 out of eczema sufferers alone. The doctors I deal with are dermatologists and other skin professionals who have seen countless people with the same or worse problems. They have approached it completely scientifically, trying one set of controlled treatments after another, based on case notes that track into my infancy, along with providing me with excellent relief from what is a horribly frustrating condition. They have tried allergy testing, in which I had over 100 patches of various substances put on me. They've tried phototherapy. They've tried topical immunosuppressants. They've tried many kinds of steroids and moisturizers. They've tried antihistamines to suppress the itching. They've recommended many lifestyle changes. All have worked to some degree, and come with their own well known, well documented side effects.
Contrast that to the homeopath who has no detailed knowledge of eczema *whatsoever*. They couldn't classify my condition to save themselves. They couldn't explain it in any way. They certainly can't tell me the research that has gone into people with my condition and how they have responded in massive samples to their various potions. They couldn't tell me the potential side effects, both in short or long term use. Most of the time they wouldn't even be able to tell me what chemicals are in their herbs.
If they could, I'm damned sure it's because they have conventional "western" medical training as well.
I have suffered this problem for my entire life and am well acquainted with many cures both orthodox and alternative. Only the orthodox ones have ever done anything at all to help me. All of the alternatives have done nothing or made it worse. Many have burned my skin off, or made me feel sick, or break out in shocking rashes, or other allergic reactions. Hence my wariness. It's not based on a closed mind, or being "impressed by a diploma", it's based on a burned hand. Literally. A burned face, too. Days in bed. Weeks of weeping eyes and crusted broken skin.
"I'm not trying to defend a particular school of thought on this issue but I do find it dangerous how much faith people put in the medical profession. And I don't like the fact that most (but not all) Doctors will not recommend a generic (i.e herbal product) for minor conditions where they are appropriate. Usually preferring to sell you something from one of their pharmaceutical providers"
If I were simply working on faith, you might have a point.
I have only once experienced a doctor profiting in any way at all from something they prescribed me, usually the profit goes entirely to the chemist. And that doctor was only profiting because the cream she sold me was so damned expensive off the shelf that she was able to get me a massive discount if I bought it through her. But she made it extremely clear the stuff was new, that it was pretty weak, and it had some side effects. I have not continued with it, because it was too weak and expensive, and that doctor referred me for hospital treatment when she could have kept me forever as an extremely profitable patient. So I don't buy the conspiracy theory. If anything, I've found that to be way more the case from herbal healers, who insist you buy their herbs.
Across this thread, defenders of alternative treatments have insisted that the "western" "conventional" medical professionals have closed minds towards alternative treatments. That has not been my experience at all. I have many times raised the question, and their answers have been astoundingly consistent. They tell me that extensive trials have been done for tens of thousands of compounds for treating eczema, many many of which have derived from herbal healing theories, and only a few, which have all ended up in "western" "conventional" medicine (which could well have only just been invented), have been found to have success without totally uncontrolled side effects. So I will be taking alternative treatment at my own risk. And I have, and it was, and I suffered.
This is referring to external medications. When it comes to things taken internally, in particular regulating one's diet, the answer has also been consistent. Many allergy sufferers have specific compounds that activate their condition. But since food is a massive mishmash of compounds, isolating out the ones that affect you is a huge task. Some people are lucky and find that a simple major food group, such as dairy, when removed, alleviates their problem. With others it is extremely specific, down to some kinds of preservatives, or traces of certain nuts. To conduct such an experiment on oneself is the work of decades in many cases, and will have the side effects that come with screwing around with your diet a lot. There *certainly absolutely* is not one particular kind of food that causes eczema. Nor is there a herb that will cure it.
I don't have a closed mind on the issue either. I'm reporting my experience of alternative healing, which is that it's mostly ineffective or dangerous. That has been my experience across decades with a problem that afflicts me terribly. I would absolutely love it if there was a miracle cure, as so many have promised, but there isn't so far. In fact, outside of "conventional" treatments, there has been no cure whatsoever, just pain, inconvenience, and cost.
I will continue to seek whatever treatment I can, since the steroid cure is finally exhibiting the side effects I was warned of as a teenager. My skin tears easily now, on the parts which have been most extensively treated. The recently posed alternative, by a hospital specialist, is to take oral immunosuppressants. This scares me a great deal, and I really need to consider it hard. When stacked up against the risk of cancer, any alternative sounds like it's worth trying.
Hence my lamentation that so much of the natural healing world is so unregulated, so untested, and so fucken patronizing about the other medical world that has served me for decades, that I quite literally wouldn't know where to start with alternatives. I'm not about to jump into some alternative that may have an even higher risk of cancer than immunosuppressants. That would simply be stupid.
-
OK Emma, would it have been better if I said "An huge proportion of" rather than "the entire"? And since I'm not an expert on herbal medicine myself, telling the quacks from the creditable is a heck of a lot of work. A lot more work than just seeing their Diploma in Medicine from a known university on the wall of their surgery.
-
Stephen, don't ask. You'll find there's a much more natural form of insulin at 1000 times the cost, extracted from the balls of a live goat. Or it could just be normal insulin.
-
Juha, you're on the wrong track. It's much better to push a remedy that has no effect at all beside placebo, than one which actually takes a real punt. You can't get busted if your vial of a liquid scientifically indistinguishable from plain tap water provides only a placebo effect. But you could if one in 10 people who drank it died.
The real art is in the packaging...call it 'Tincture of Potency', put a picture of some especially potent animal on it, an interesting chinese character, and it will suck in anyone seeking herbal viagra. Better yet, have a range of tinctures, so they buy the whole lot.
There are millions of whacky salespeople out there quite happy to whack a huge margin on your water, as a compliment to their therapies.
Even the placebo effect is worth having. Unfortunately for me, it doesn't work when you know it's a placebo.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 … 1066 Older→ First