From: kaminski@netcom.com (Peter Kaminski)
Subject: Re: A Guide to Health-Related Usenet Newsgroups
Summary: What's worth more -- a quarter, or a paradigms?
Organization: The Information Deli - via Netcom / San Jose, California
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:22:27 GMT

In <1ii005INNqi9@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell
Turpin) writes:

>Of course, this rephrasing points straight at the differences
>that advocates of "alternative" medicine would prefer to obscure
>behind meaningless phrases.  Since political analysis is now the
>rage in sci.med, what is the political motivation for such 
>obfuscation?

I'm flattered that you would ascribe "political motivation" to my
simple Guide, Russell, but I assure you any obfuscation is due to
ineffective expression, and not ulterior motive.

I have a couple of motivations in compiling and distributing the
Guide, one of which is indeed promotion of misc.health.alternative.
(Just the newsgroup, though, not alternative health itself -- I'd
like the Guide to be as non-partisan as possible.)

My main purpose, though, is to inform the general Usenet readership
as to the health resources available via Usenet, and their
appropriate use.  I'm sorry if that's disappointing.

>In article <1993Jan5.221425.6200@netcom.com> kaminski@netcom.com (Peter Kaminski) writes:
>>  sci.med
>>     Scientific discussion and information about medicine and health.
>>     This is the main newsgroup for discussions about medicine and
>>     health, from a mostly conventional Western medical view.
>>     Technically speaking, this newsgroup is for scientific and
>>     professional discussions, but others are welcome as long as they
>>     stay more or less within the scientific paradigm.  ...

>What an empty phrase!  There is no such thing as "the scientific
>paradigm."  Instead, there is a large body of knowledge about
>various ways of investigating general empirical phenomena, about
>these methods' benefits and drawbacks, about ways to evaluate
>evidence, and about problems related to such investigation and
>evaluation.

Or, in other words, the scientific paradigm.  I personally don't see
much difference between my "stay ... within the scientific paradigm"
and your replacement, "not be advocated in a manner that is out of
proportion to the evidence that carries them," unless you're just
reacting to the fact that "paradigm" has been overused as a
no-content buzzword.

Which I'll happily concede is true, and I'll be happy to get it
reworded more clearly.

>Try the rephrasing below. 

>>  sci.med
>>     Discussion and information about medicine and health.  This
>>     is the main newsgroup for discussions about medicine and
>>     health.  Various health professionals participate.  
>>     Discussion of *any* medically related topic is welcome,
>>     but proponents of outre notions should pay attention to the
>>     evidential issues.  Particular medical ideas should not be
>>     advocated in a manner that is out of proportion to the 
>>     evidence that carries them. ...

Remember that I was writing for general Usenet consumption, and not
just for sci.med readers.  I suspect the last half of your reworking
will sail right over the heads of many readers.  "Hot air," indeed!

When I said "Technically speaking, this newsgroup is for scientific
and professional discussions, but others are welcome...," I wasn't
aiming at "proponents of outre notions," but at ask-a-doctor posters
and others interested in general discussions about health.

Adding "...as long as they stay more or less within the scientific
paradigm" was an attempt at saying discussions in sci.med shouldn't
get stupid or non-scientific (or, as you say, "advocated in a manner
that is out of proportion to the evidence that carries them").


Let's start over.  Here are the points I'd like to make:

1) sci.med is the place for general discussion about medicine and
health.

2) Discussions should be generally "scientific", meaning technical/
professional ("as a scientist would discuss"), and cognizant of the
scientific method.

3) Notwithstanding (2) above, questions from non-technical people
(asking for medical advice or insight, generally) are okay, as long
as any resulting discussion doesn't get stupid or unscientific, or
take up so much bandwidth that doctorly types start leaving.

4) sci.med has a conventional orientation (as opposed to that of
misc.health.alternative, for instance).  This point is included
separately from (2) so that people looking for medical information or
advice such as that you'd get from a medical doctor will choose
sci.med over misc.health.alternative.

5) Any advice is for general informational purposes only, and cannot
replace personal consultation with a qualified professional.


Here's another try, most likely not the final one.  Some of my points
from above might be made too subtly.  Suggestions and corrections
cheerfully accepted at <kaminski@netcom.com>, or if you'd prefer to
keep me politically honest(!), in sci.med.

(Is there a sci.med.d? 1/2 :)

|  sci.med
|     This is the main newsgroup for discussion and information about
|     medicine and health.  Discussions tend to be technical, and
|     should remain scientifically oriented.
|
|     Non-technical folks can ask general medical questions here, and
|     will usually get an answer from a friendly doctor or other
|     knowledgable person -- but remember that any advice may or may
|     not be correct, is for general informational purposes only, and
|     cannot replace personal consultation with a qualified
|     professional.


Pete