Skeptical?

[Former castleva]

At first,I´m not looking to challenge anyone...still reading? It seems that many people here have feelings for TCM (so to speak).This may not be directly tcm related then,but I just thought whether you do apply skepticism/are skeptical of alternative medicine (or as I say,alternative-to-medicine) in general or in particular (outside of tcm perhaps)? You might want to vote,but I´d really appreciate mature replies too.

Thanks a bunch.

Alternative medicine being;
acupuncture/tcm ( http://www.skepdic.com/acupunc.html ) (Additional,fascinating article on TCM http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-03/acupuncture.html )
Iridology ( http://www.skepdic.com/iridol.html )
Ayuervedic medicine ( http://www.skepdic.com/ayurvedic.html )
Homeopathy ( http://www.skepdic.com/homeo.html )
(These are only some examples,the list would have been way too long for me to write.)

[Former castleva]

Not exactly the kind of reply that I have been waiting for.

Excuse me?

[chen zhen]

Dumber than a post?! wtf

anyway, voted for "looking for scientific proof, but not a strong sceptic."

[Former castleva]

So do you think it takes faith then? Reading your post,one could think so.

[Former castleva]

Majority of our voters,so far,do not seem to practice critical thinking.

[Former castleva]

" Not trying something because you don't understand it is not critical thinking. It's arrogance to believe that if you don't understand something it can't be true. It's also tiresome doing others homework. If I can figure out principles of TCM and how they interelate with western thought (they do), anyone else of average intelligence should be able to. If you don't understand something, you put it away until you have the knowledge to deal with it. If you ask someone for help or information you do so because you have faith that they perhaps know more about the subject than you. If that's the case to not take the advice would be foolish."

OK...We have been trough this before.I did not find myself asking for this.
I agree that to not try something because one does not understand it,is not critical thinking.I also agree that it can be considered arrogant to diss something without knowing about it.
That however,does NOT mean that should a person be critical of something,it must be because the person is simply arrogant or/and ignorant.It is not quite that black&white.
It is,however,the easy way out.

"If I can figure out principles of TCM and how they interelate with western thought (they do), anyone else of average intelligence should be able to. "

Let´s see...
I cannot agree.You conclude that the principles of TCM relate to what you consider western thought.
You say that you can figure out the principles of TCM (which itself is not the problem) but I do not think that what follows is that "anyone else of average intelligence should be able to".
This includes two conclusions by now.
You have concluded that TCM and "western thought" relate (while it was not necessarily the case in the first place) You also conclude that anyone with average intelligence should be able to,thus you are linking qualities "intelligence" to support your conclusion (disagreement would be linked to failure) This has to do with the fallacy of "appeal to force" ("you may think that tcm is bunk,but you are not too wise to say so"--unpleasant consequences are linked) and especially "prejudicial language" ("A person of average intelligence would agree that..."--emotive,or related words are used to attach value to the argument).

"Again with the lightbulb. When I was three I had no idea of how electricity works, yet my parents showed me that when I flipped the lightswitch it went on or off. I have a reasonably good understanding of electricity today, yet the lightswitch still worked when I didn't understand it at all. This is faith."

I will not comment on this,yet at least.

[Former castleva]

"If I've stymied you with the lightbulb analogy good!"

?

"Not emotion, fact. I am of slightly below average intelligence and if I can figure this out so should anyone of comparable or superior intellegence. "

Hmmm.You´re just repeating the same thing again,stating it is a fact even.This is argument ad nauseum.

[Former castleva]

"When you point a finger there are three pointing back at yourself."

?

"P.S. I'm the other person that voted for looking for theoretical/scientific proof, not a strong sceptic."

Good.Theoretically,that is.

[chen zhen]

U like to stirr up trouble, dont u Paleo

Keep on fighting

[Former castleva]

"U like to stirr up trouble, dont u Paleo"

Blah,shut up.
No,seriously.I do not.But I think that sometimes it may follow my moves ("trouble" being relative)

"Keep on fighting"

Always!

[method man]

http://www.quackwatch.org

[Former castleva]

A good one by method man.

One of the classic quackbusting sites,have used that for a time or two.

[Former castleva]

The skeptical ancestor (skeptic who predates me,for one)

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...&threadid=2829

[yenhoi]

I picked option #2.

I trust personal (my own) expierence more then most other sources of info.

There are some methods I have witnessed that I would call usefull, but not for myself or my goals.

[Former castleva]

"There are some methods I have witnessed that I would call usefull, but not for myself or my goals."

Am I wrong,assuming that those goals have to do with the interest of those providing you with the methods in question?