argh

response to http://www.livejournal.com/community/apothecarium/19210.html
***
http://www.geocities.com/singular_truth/confessions.html

Mr. Mather sounds like a sellout? No, he sounds like a person of integrity and goodwill.

He was willing to put his long-held beliefs to the test. Ones that he went to substantial expense for - between time invested in learning and money invested in equipment.

He was strong enough to face what he uncovered and to give up his erroneous beliefs changing the course of his life away from what he expected and had prepared for.

Here you are, upset because these people are showing links to actual studies. If you can come up with acceptable reasons how these studies are flawed, and design ones that are better tests -- otherwise it sure doesn't look good for iridology.

Anecdotal evidence, such as the story about your sister being properly helped, or your coworkers curiousity don't prove that iridology works. Mather explains well how iridologists in practice can find out what is wrong with people and treat them. It's more akin to cold-reading or good bedside manner; it takes asking enough questions to uncover the problem. The eyes alone don't have it.

Now the results of actually helping people is good. Much of medicine, both allopathic and alternative is art rather than science. Much of it involves the psychology of the patient. If you are a good listener and put the real effort into understanding the treatments - herbs and such - you prescribe, then you can do some good as an alternative practitioner. If it makes your patients trust you more or feel more like you are being scientific and special by taking pictures of your eyes, then go for it I suppose.

What upsets me is your attitude of putting your fingers in your ears and go "Nyah nyah I can't hear you." Not all alternatives are created equal. Better to put your efforts into learning properly those that have been actually shown to be useful or to have the courage to test the others properly and honestly yourself.

Who is more of a sellout? The person who honestly evaluates and reevaluates their position as they get new information? Or the one who is "distressed" when confronted with evidence in conflict with a pet theory?

Arianna and Peter get a room !

Another week, another governor debate.

Again Arnold was a no show. This time Peter Uberoth was also, but that is because he's dropped out of the race. Tom McClintock was missing, possibly because this being a debate specifically focused on minority issues with the journalists all representing various minority media - he knew that his answers would only have infuriated the audience.

So the debaters were Cruz Bustamante, Arianna Huffington, and Peter Camejo.
They all pretty much were giving the answers you would expect them to, even if some of them don't make much sense. For example Cruz thinks that forcing employers to pay for benefits for their low-wage workers would decrease rather than increase unemployment.

It started feeling downright surreal though when it got to the part where they got to question each other.

First question - Cruz asked if Camejo would accept an environmental post (coastal protection) in his (Cruz's) government if Cruz won. Camejo said yes, and that he was also concerned about forests.

Camejo used all his Arianna questions to get her to explain her position on issues on which they emphatically agree. Camejo repeatedly said that any of the three of them were better than the other candidates.

The only bit of touchiness between Arianna and Peter was when he insisted that he was the only candidate who explicitly says that the rich should pay their proportional share of taxes, and Arianna countered that she also says that.

While Camejo was willing to be nice to Cruz in hopes of future influence if he was elected, Arianna was not. She kept telling Cruz that his decision to use the disputed Indian tribe money to fight Prop 54 (which all three of them oppose) was not good enough. That he should first give the money back to the tribes and let them donate to "No on 54" directly themselves. She figures that Cruz will insist on being in all of the anti-54 commercials he's funding with this money, so that it still has the effect of being used as part of his campaign and that this "donation" thing is bogus.

I'm somewhat torn between cheering thrill that Arianna is so willing to speak her mind and not kiss up in hopes of favors... and thinking that Peter Camejo's more diplomatic approach would probably better aid working together with others to actually accomplish things.

Finally a reporter asked Peter and Arianna about whether one of them was going to give their support to the other and they both said that if it looks like one of them might have a chance of actually winning the other one would drop out in their favor. Happiness and cuddles around.

Instant run-offs, instant run-offs, instant run-offs... It's the only way to give these people a fair chance. To put an end to this - "well if you agree with Arianna that Cruz is bad you have to vote for Arnold, not her" garbage.

Instant run-off! sigh, uphill battle to break this Republocrat <=> Demican false diversity and get realler representation.