From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD Alternative Medicine
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:50:48 GMT
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany

Rick Adams wrote:
>>>	Given the demonstration of unbiased communications those with a
>>>scientific orientation have displayed thus far, however, it may need to be a
>>>moderated group to permit unbiased discussions to take place.

I wrote:
>>What is unbiased discussion?  For that you seem to need people without
>>opinion (opinion leads to bias).  These people - let's assume they exist -
>>obviously can't discuss opinions but only facts.  Unfortunately with the
>>chosen subject there are no facts, only opinions.
>>
>>Conclusion:  You don't want unbiased discussion, you want a group with postings
>>biased in the direction of your opinion, forbidding unwelcome criticsm.
>>That's not even discussion.

Rick Adams wrote:
>	Actually, what I would like to see would be open discussion in which
>the concept of information exchange was more important than that of
>self-righteousness.

You want a moderated group, as you said above.  That doesn't allow *open
discussion*, as the moderator can throw out opinions he perceives as
self-righteous.  Proponents of pseudosciences tend to perceive the slightest
doubt as closed-minded and offensive, so the danger that the group gets
totally out of touch with reality is definitely there.
Assume you are the moderator, and someone wants to post an article that
proposes a treatment which you know can be dangerous to one's health,
do you allow it?  If yes, and another person wants to post a follow-up
saying in a rude way that it's dangerous, do you allow it?

>From many of the comments posted here, however, it
>appears rather unlikely that the "scientific" participants would grant the
>courtesy of free, informed, debate to those who are interested in
>alternative medicine.

How is it possible for them to restrict free debate?  It's not them who want
the group to be moderated.

>	Remember, those "scientific" principles you have been espounding at
>length here in order to ridicule the alternative medicine advocates came
>from alchemists, folklore, superstition, and religious practices originally.
[boring platitudes I heard hundreds of times omitted]

I have not mentioned any principles; two paragraphs are not "at length";
and "espound" is not even in my dictionary.  Anyway, I don't see why that's
a reason to make it a moderated group.  Remember, this is news.groups, and
this discussion is not about alternative medicine but about name and status
of a newsgroup about it.

>	Alternative forms of medicine may not always be scientific - and one
>major effect of such a newsgroup would be to explore those areas of
>contention both from the standpoint of inquiry and to inform the reader of
>potential dangers - but they =are= as worthy of investigation as any other
>area.

Agreed.  I'm in favor of the group if really free discussion is enabled.

>	Those with an interest in them will participate, those without one
>will not - but in neither case is the kind of "scientific bigotry" being
>demonstrated here at all justified!

That means that those with an interest in the subject but without belief in it
shouldn't be allowed to participate?

--
thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Science is like democracy - it's not perfect, but it's the best thing available.