Jul 27 2010
Maloney Declares Victory
Christopher Maloney does not get it – on many levels. Some of my regular readers may remember a few months ago when a naturopath by the name of Christopher Maloney frequented the comment section of my blog, making outrageous claims and generally getting a smackdown from the other commenters. I occasionally joined in until it was clear that Maloney was not engaging in fair and substantive discussion. Well now Maloney has copied much of this exchange onto his own website and has declared victory.
I will get to the “meat” (perhaps tofu is a better term) of his claims in a moment, but first will recap the exchange. The exchange began with this blog post in which I reported the accusation that Maloney complained about another blogger who was then temporarily shut down by his blog host. Maloney denied the accusation, which I reported as soon as he did, and clarified that the accusations were only alleged. It then came to light that another CAM practitioner, Andreas Mortiz, was responsible for complaining about the blogger, and I immediately updated my original blog post with that information. That is pretty standard blogging practice, and in fact was rather diligent in providing updated and corrected information as it became available.
Maloney, however, wanted something more. I think he just liked playing the role of the injured party. Meanwhile the substance of my original blog post (and a subsequent one naming Maloney) was about the health claims that Maloney was making on his website (more on that below).
In any case, this sparked the exchange that Maloney is now calling “The Novella Debates.” Incidentally, as further evidence that Maloney doesn’t “get it”, he reproduces my entire blog post, and many comments from my blogs, on his site without my permission, and without even the minimal courtesy of a link back to my website. This is considered stealing content – Maloney, the accepted practice is to provide an excerpt or leading paragraph with a link back to the original post. I officially request that you change your website accordingly, and provide a link back to every comment you quote.
That breach aside, Maloney spends a lot of time dodging the substantive questions put to him by whining about my lack of attention to his comments. Actually, he simultaneously claims that I should be too busy as an academic to give him any attention, and then complaining that I am not giving his comments enough attention. He seems to think that I monitor and actively participate in every comment section of every post I have written, without limit. He also seemed perplexed by the notion that I “let” my readers debate for me. Well – I was not aware we were in a debate. He does not seem to understand the blog format: I write a blog post, and then readers are free to comment and discuss among themselves. I comment occasionally as warranted, but am always putting up new posts and therefore don’t follow all my old posts.
But let’s get to the substance of Maloney’s claimed “victory.” Initially Maloney, apparently trying to bait me, and engaging in the tu quoque logical fallacy, claimed that science-based medicine kills patients and does not work. He gave as examples the treatment of hypertension, depression, and ear infections. I and many readers pointed out that the references he selectively quoted did not support his position – he misinterpreted the very evidence he gave to back up his points. In fact, modern treatments for hypertension work. For depression, you have to divide between major depression (good evidence for efficacy) and minor depression (weaker and controversial evidence for efficacy). And for ear infections he did not seem to get the fact that I support the evidence-based standard of care and criticize those physicians who deviate from this by overprescribing antibiotics.
But finally (because the name “NeuroLogica” and the description of this blog as being about neuroscience, and my bio were not enough clues for him) Maloney got the fact that I am a neurologist and so we focused on neurological treatments. He wanted to discuss 5-10 neurological diseases (because he likes the Gish Gallop), but I focused on one – ALS. I wrote:
But if you want to play – let’s focus on ALS. Tell me what magical new treatments you have for ALS that I have somehow missed.
The challenge I put before him, because this was relevant to our discussion, is to inform me about an effective treatment for ALS that derives from naturopathy/alternative medicine that I missed because of my focus on science-based practices. The details here are important because, as you will see, Maloney later moves the goalpost. This was his response:
Turns out your colleagues in Seattle already came across the same idea, but I don’t think you’re using it yet. It involves Clostridium difficile causing a portion of the ALS cases. I came across this idea when I was researching possible ALS support and I found a small study on stool analysis of ALS patients. About 1/3 had significant Clostridium overgrowth, but I can’t find the study on medline listed under Clostridium. I assume the Seattle neurologists must have found the same study.
So here’s the thought: if a portion of ALS patients (peripheral onset?) are genetically susceptible to the relatively mild Clostridium difficile toxins then a stool analysis would give a possible treatment option: systemic antibiotics and the addition of Sacchromyces boulardii. Previous trials with antibiotics and ALS haven’t focused on the possibility of an antibiotic resistant organism causing the problem. I think the addition of S. boulardii is essential to provide competition to C. difficile regrowth.
Maloney references a paper in Medical Hypotheses – a journal notorious for publishing highly speculative notions of dubious scientific merit. In fact, the journal editor was recently replaced over this, with the promise of better peer-review in the future. You see what Maloney did – I asked for a treatment for ALS and he sent me a wild speculation. Further, this speculation comes from mainstream scientific medicine – not naturopathy, and not anything that can be considered “alternative” – even by the fuzzy definition of that term. So he failed to meet the two criteria of my challenge.
He then tried to turn it back on me – saying that I should somehow take up his suggestion as a research priority. This is a hopelessly naive statement. I belong to an ALS research consortium. The primary purpose of this group is to discuss and determine clinical research priorities for ALS. This is important because resources are limited. Specifically, ALS is a rare disease and patients do not survive long, so it is difficult to get large numbers of patients into trials. This means that we need to focus our clinical research on the most promising approaches. Maloney, however, with no expertise and no involvement in ALS research, thinks he can set our research priorities after a few minutes of searching on Medline. (He also does not understand that ALS clinical research requires cooperation among many centers, as no one center sees enough patients to enroll sufficient numbers into a trial.)
I further pointed out that the lack of follow up publications probably means that the researchers themselves did not find any promising results, or else they would be running with that ball. Essentially, more preliminary research would need to be done to show that this approach would be promising before I would even get involved as a clinical researcher.
Having failed with that response, Maloney then shotguns with supplements:
Megadoses of vitamin E- good safety profile and short term benefits, no long term benefits or long term side effect picture.
Antibody screening for celiac disease- several reports of celiac mimicking ALS
Any of the following supportive therapies: creatine, folic acid, alpha lipoic acid, lyophilized red wine, coenzyme Q10, epigallocatechin gallate, Ginkgo biloba, or melatonin?
Again – Maloney fails to make the case that any of this is “alternative” or derives from naturopaths. In fact, this is all coming from science-based medicine. He further puts his foot in his mouth by writing:
Given Dr. Novella’s dismissal of any possible bacterial link, I’ve moved on nutritional supplements as support for ALS patients.
…I am truly interested if Dr. Novella is using any of the supplements in clinical practice, but I suspect that he is dismissive of any supplementation.
Maloney displays the black and white thinking typical of cranks – I never dismissed “any possible bacterial link” with ALS. I simply pointed out that the hypothesis is not very plausible, especially in light of previous trials with antibiotics in ALS, and that therefore more basic science evidence would be necessary to warrant clinical attention. His suspicion that I am dismissive of supplements is also based on his own prejudices, not mine. He thinks that supplements are somehow alternative – but that is his label, not mine. I had even previously clarified that I subject all claims to logic and evidence, and don’t discriminate based upon the “alternative” false dichotomy. Maloney displayed no comprehension of my explanation.
In fact – I prescribed creatine for a few years to my ALS patients, with full informed consent that it was not a proven therapy and was experimental but with some good animal data. That is – until several clinical trials showed no effect (here is an updated review concluding no effect). The ALS research group to which I belong actually conducted the largest trial of creatine (also negative). I actually change my practice in response to new evidence. The final nail is probably not in the coffin of creatine for ALS, but any possible effect is likely to be so small that it is not worth the risk and inconvenience of taking the supplement (there is the potential for kidney damage if not used carefully).
I also prescribed Coenzyme Q10 to my patients for a while, based upon preliminary evidence and the likelihood of safety. However I stopped after a clinical trial found no effect. In fact, if you look at the list of authors on that study you will find one “Novella SP” – here’s a hint, Maloney – that’s me.
Made clear by this exchange is the difference between the science-based approach and Maloney’s approach, which is typical of naturopaths. I look at all the evidence for plausibility, safety, and the reasonable potential for benefit. If I am convinced that I can offer my patients the probability of benefit in excess of harm, I will use a treatment (no matter how it is labeled) with proper informed consent. But I will then closely follow the evidence and will stop using a treatment if good clinical evidence is negative. Or I will start using a treatment when new evidence shows that it is safe and effective.
Maloney, on the other hand, appears to trade in wild speculation. In my opinion he has demonstrated sloppy, black and white thinking, an inability to understand the implications of published research, a bias against science-based medicine, and a willingness to prescribe treatments based upon the flimsiest of scientific justifications. He then accuses me of being “dismissive” and has the stones to declare victory in our exchange because I eventually tired of his evasiveness and crank tactics.
Further, Maloney, if anything, has demonstrated that the naturopathic/alternative approach has nothing to offer. The science is the science, and properly using scientific research as a basis for practice is the ideal of mainstream medicine. The optimal standard of this is what I have termed science-based medicine. Maloney, however, is laboring under the false dichotomy of “alternative” medicine. As evidence of how ultimately worthless this false category is, he pulls from the scientific literature to find alleged alternatives to science-based practice. He claims that supplements are alternative and “suspects” that I would ignore them because of this, when they have received research attention in accordance with the basic-science evidence without discriminating based upon their “supplement” status.
The big picture is that so-called “alternative” medicine is nothing but a deliberate distraction from the thing that really matters when it comes to medical treatments – what is the science behind them. Are they safe and effective, and how do we know?
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Print This Post
80 Responses to “Maloney Declares Victory”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It seems to be a common blog phenomena. The time-waster with the most time to waste claims victory when everybody else gets bored.
Maloney’s reputation precedes him.
“‘maloney is a quack’ About 8,200,000 results (0.11 seconds)”
Steve, excellent post. (You may want to blockquote the “Given Dr. Novella’s dismissal of…” paragraph.)
Maloney does the typical I am the underdog ‘defense.’ Unfortunately, people respond to that underhanded tactic, misguidedly taking the side of the so-called common man hero instead of realizing what a slimy, sloppy, silly arse he is. Especially people who lack a baloney detection kit, and who will never find one if they follow Maloney.
Bravo, Steve, an excellent vehicle for teaching others about what this useless and dangerous piece of garbage does.
And then there were the dynamic duo…
I recently posted “ND Maloney, Homeopathy, and Coded Vitalism – The Baloney He Doesn’t Transparently Reveal” at Naturocrit, which is “a survey of his web pages”
(see http://naturocrit.blogspot.com/2010/07/nd-maloney-homeopathy-and-coded.html ).
I was particularly interested in his NCNM background and the difference between NCNM’s description of what is essentially naturopathy and his portrayal.
Both claim science upon the science-exterior.
Yes, Maloney baloney. Couldn’t help myself.
-r.c.
OK, I have to admit that was a serious smackdown. Well done.
Agreed, very well executed intellectual smackdown.
I like his quote in the previous blog “Science is great in the lab, but I work in the field.” Hilarious how irrational that statement is (or is it sad?). I guess he meant that literally as his website has a field of trees as its background. I guess its true that if you go to that field, you will not find science being used.
BillyJoe7, who are the dynamic duo that you are comparing to a naturopathic quack? Another gratuitous insult perhaps to those who have exposed you as the biggest quackpot in the blogosphere. Spit it out. Who specifically are you comparing to Maloney? Have the guts to back your insult up with some specific data.
Derail another valid post on another valid subject. Your moronic smiley face does not excuse you from responsibility for your own brand of stupidity.
Here’s a couple of my favorite gems from Maloney’s response:
http://maloneynd.tripod.com/thenovelladebates/id35.html
” I would request you correct all of your online blogs to address me by the title Dr. It is legally a title I hold, and to not do so continues to make it clear to everyone reading that you are treating me with contempt, sir.”
“P.S. You are officially denied permission to reprint this letter on your hate blog. Feel free to link here, though.”
Mr. Maloney, you are not a doctor, and calling Neurologica a “hate blog” is just adorable. Thanks for the entertainment.
I thought someone insisting on being called ‘Dr’ was only done in movies.
“In fact, if you look at the list of authors on that study you will find one “Novella SP” – here’s a hint, Maloney – that’s me.”
BUUUUUURRRRNNNN!!!
And I thought Batman & Robin were the “dynamic duo?”
BillyJoe7 farts, stompsfrogs shows up on cue.
Wow. I believe Maloney’s entire response to this post can be summarized with “OH YEAH!”
In my opinion, it can be more thoroughly described as follows:
- You are a “boorish oaf” with a “hate blog” that doesn’t call me “Dr.”
- I am not impressed by your publication record. Not all of us can afford to be as lazy as you, Steve. Now go back to teaching, practicing, researching and heading a movement within medical science, you bum.
- I am not surprised your Coenzyme Q10 study was negative… it only works when combined with 500 mg of special pleading.
- Each time you dismantle my arguments only makes me stronger!… so you should really stop doing it.
- I have no interest in a dueling on blogs as you are just such a meanie.
It’s also so nice of him to give you advice on how to conduct ALS research. Keep a look out for him at the next American Academy of Neurology conference.
ROFLMAO
That was the best response ever Hubbub
“who are the dynamic duo”
Another comprehension fail.
I said “were”.
It seems you are on you own now.
BillyJoe7,
So you were and are gratuitously insulting me just now? Be specific. What have I advocated that in any way supports this naturopathic quackery? You with your beliefs that everything is at bottom an illusion without consequence represent the “no harm can be done” mentality that allows these quacks to dupe the more unsuspecting public.
Apparently you haven’t got the guts or knowhow to disagree with the Maloneys of the world intelligently, so you come up with your usual
moronic commentary as a substitute.
Say something directly to Maloney if you can, without giving him an opening to further use the commentary here as ammunition.
If you can. Intelligently.
Do it.
I’ve told Maloney again and again on my blog (the one he helped get shut down*) that he can not make things better; he can only make them not worse.
*On the point that he was not responsible for getting my blog shut down: he admitted to being in email contact with the quack who actually complained to my host. And the complaint? That I said Maloney was not a doctor and Maine law says he is. The other quack, Andreas Moritz, is likely too dense to know to make such a complaint all on his own.
What mazeedt said. Well done Dr. (If that is your real title
)
I’ve addressed the issue. Again.
(If the link doesn’t work – http://forthesakeofscience.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/maloney-makes-it-worse/)
Maine law says that he is a doctor?? Since when does the law hand out academic titles?
I’m confused on a bit of semantics which is making the following the banter between SN and CM a little difficult.
Are no supplements considered naturopathic remedies?
The use of plants (e.g. ginko biloba; herbalism) considered naturopathic remedies?
Are plant extracts (e.g. tea, EGCG, lyphilized red wine) considered naturopathic remedies?
Are you saying that because the methods/ingredients that CM claims are naturopathic are also found in hypothesis driven research make CM’s claims that they are naturopathic wrong?
http://maloneynd.tripod.com/thenovelladebates/id21.html
I’m famous!
“This is considered stealing content – Maloney, the accepted practice is to provide an excerpt or leading paragraph with a link back to the original post. I officially request that you change your website accordingly, and provide a link back to every comment you quote.”
Looks like he’s working on it. Heh, he’s trying to blog. Now, where is the “Leave a Reply” function on his website?
“The Novella Debate” is one of the many, many random websites Maloney has set up. His actual blog can be found here.
“You with your beliefs that everything is at bottom an illusion without consequence represent the “no harm can be done” mentality that allows these quacks to dupe the more unsuspecting public.”
Massive apprehension fail.
I wrote a long post on this many threads ago and you provided not a single commentary on it. But here you are restating your misapprehension of my view as if that post has never written.
Oh well…
Draal – Maloney was trying to make the point that naturopathy/CAM adds something to the practice of medicine. But he gave as examples treatments and research questions right out of science-based medicine. But because they involved supplements, they were magically alternative. This is based upon the false premise that science-based medicine does not deal with supplements (contradicted by his own references) or that they are all alternative.
This results from the false dichotomy, fake category of CAM. When you try to nail down what it is, the category evaporates. It turns into anything not backed by adequate science, and so you cannot have a CAM treatment backed by science, because then it’s not CAM.
You can turn the question into – has the CAM community (including naturopaths) added any science-based interventions to our toolbox, and there the answer is a big no. They have tried to steal some things that were already part of scientific medicine, like nutrition and exercise, but that is just historical revisionism.
ahhh, makes sense now. Thx!
“Maine law says that he is a doctor?? Since when does the law hand out academic titles?”
Perhaps this is an obvious point, but he is saying that Maine recognizes his ability to practice through licensure. Most states do not recognize the profession in this way and do not license naturopaths.
BillyJoe7,
“But here you are restating your misapprehension of my view as if that post has never written.”
Instead of disabusing me of my misapprehension, why don’t you do so to Maloney, whose views are what this post was supposed to be about until you tried to make it suit your own moronic purposes.
I say again, you haven’t got the guts or knowhow to disagree with the Maloneys of the world intelligently, so you’ve come up with your usual moronic commentary as a substitute. Show me where I’m wrong. You can’t.
@ccbowers: correct me if I am wrong, please. I seem to recall in an earlier thread that Maine licenses NDs, but they are not supposed to call themselves DOCTOR; they can put Name, ND but not Dr Name.
@bindle: I can’t figure out WHAT you are trying to accomplish.You don’t make any sense to me. From your first comment in the thread, where you jumped all over the “dynamic duo” comment, to your last comment, there is no logic to me in your comments. We have all tried to talk to Mr Maloney, ND, in these threads, but he doesn’t reply with logic either. He either denies, uses straw men logic, or runs away.
“Show me where I’m wrong. You can’t.”
Hmmmm…doesn’t sound like a very viable position for someone to take if they were using critical thinking…just saying.
tmac57, You’re right, he can no more show me that I’m wrong about him being a moron than you can.
Dawn,
BillyJoe7 has admitted the dynamic duo comment was meant for me, in an attempt to align me with Maloney when in fact I’ve been as vocally against his sort as anyone here. So if this was an attempt by BillyJoe7 to go after Maloney, it missed the mark, as BillyJoe is closer to Maloney in his ideation than almost anyone. (Except apparently tmac57.)
Obviously BJ’s still whining that I somehow don’t pay him enough attention, and he resents it. I hadn’t even posted on this thread when he brought me into it. He follows me around begging for attention, like some forlorn waif.
You say we have all tried to talk to Maloney. Right, all except BillyJoe7, who seems afraid to get involved directly. How does insulting someone Maloney never heard of serve as a rebuke to him even indirectly?
But hell, Dawn, I’ll clear it up and direct this to Maloney:
BillyJoe7 was using me to tell you you’re an asshole. Was it effective?
Maloney is a medical underdog – my dog knows more about medicine than him.
And I don’t have a dog.
@Dawn,
I have a complaint pending with the relevant licensing board based upon Maloney’s claims that he is a doctor. The law is clear – he must qualify the sort of doctor he is. The stand-alone term carries too much importance to allow it to be abused by naturopaths and other quacks.
“Show me where I’m wrong.”
I given up trying to show you anything.
Lamarckism and quantum consciousness differ from Moloneyism only in degree.
But, in fact, I was referring to where Steven Novella said that Moloney provides links that do not say what he thinks they say. Ring a bell?
But I’m not going back to a topic that you declined to take part in many threads ago when I took the time to respond at length to one of your links – which, as I clearly demonstrated, did not say what you thought it said.
But, if you continue to talk bullshit, I’m going to continue to call you on it, but in a dismissive way as has been your style towards me and nearly everyone else around here.
BillyJoe7,
What exactly were you calling me out on here when I hadn’t even posted and you couldn’t even bring yourself to mention me or my ideas directly? Was Maloney supposed to know what you were up to or about? Did you expect to somehow ring his bell?
Stop whining, waif. You’ve never clearly demonstrated anything, and this obtuse attempt at referencing some nitwit theories of yours as relevant to the post at hand is more than moronic, it’s idiotic.
By the way, Lamarckism as we see it now represents a testable scientific hypothesis, and a legitimate source of disagreement within the scientific community. Quantum consciousness is not something that I’ve tried to demonstrate, but when Paisley tried to to so, all you could cry was bullshit. Hardly a rational response to another proposition amenable to scientific scrutiny.
Maloney’s crap on the other hand has nothing to do with science, and adds nothing, as Dr. Novella said, to the practice of medicine.
You still don’t seem to know a way to tell him that without looking stupid. Can you prove me wrong?
Give us a rehash of that marvelously prescient post that I so cavalierly dismissed? See if that will do the job. You game?
I didn’t want to get into the middle of this vitriolic squabble, but man:
Really? Really?
Yes, really: Self engineering capabilities of bacteria
http://star.tau.ac.il/~eshel/papers/Interface.pdf
That’s one example of how we now see Lamarckism, or some of us, unless you want to say these people and those they cite are not scientists. I’d say that qualifies as evidence of a disagreement within the scientific community, wouldn’t you?
From Wikipedia:
Current views on “Lamarckism”
Interest in Lamarckism has recently increased, as several studies in the field of epigenetics have highlighted the possible inheritance of behavioral traits acquired by the previous generation. Some recent notable studies include those made by the University of Linköping, Sweden, which have looked at foraging behavior in chickens as well as stress factors[7]. The conclusion of the referenced study is as follows:
Our findings suggest that unpredictable food access caused seemingly adaptive responses in feeding behavior, which may have been transmitted to the offspring by means of epigenetic mechanisms, including regulation of immune genes. This may have prepared the offspring for coping with an unpredictable environment…. Transmissions of information across generations which does not involve traditional inheritance of DNA-sequence alleles is often referred to as soft inheritance [8] or ‘Lamarckian inheritance’.[7]
The group of researchers at The University of Linköping again highlighted the apparent link between food intake and cross-generational inheritance of acquired traits. This link has been shown before in studies of human populations who have experienced starvation, where epigenetic factors have altered the functioning of genes[9]. These changed epigenetic factors appear to show traits in the next generation such as an increased occurrence of diabetes. The process of methylation is thought to be behind such changes.
Several historians have argued that Lamarck’s name is linked somewhat unfairly to the theory that has come to bear his name, and that Lamarck deserves credit for being an influential early proponent of the concept of biological evolution, far more than for the mechanism of evolution, in which he simply followed the accepted wisdom of his time. Lamarck died 30 years before the first publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species. According to Stephen Jay Gould, if Lamarck had been aware of Darwin’s proposed mechanism of natural selection, there is no reason to assume he would not have accepted it as a more likely alternative to his own mechanism. Note also that Darwin, like Lamarck, lacked a plausible alternative mechanism of inheritance – the particulate nature of inheritance was only observed by Gregor Mendel somewhat later, and published in 1866. Its full significance was not appreciated until the Modern evolutionary synthesis in the early 1920s. An important point in its favour at the time was that Lamarck’s theory contained a mechanism describing how variation is maintained, which Darwin’s own theory lacked.[citation needed]
Several recent studies, one conducted by researchers at MIT and another by researchers at the Tufts University School of Medicine, have rekindled the debate once again. As reported in MIT’s Technology Review in February 2009, “The effects of an animal’s environment during adolescence can be passed down to future offspring … The findings provide support for a 200-year-old theory of evolution that has been largely dismissed: Lamarckian evolution, which states that acquired characteristics can be passed on to offspring.”
You don’t have to agree with any of this to at least recognize that
“Lamarckism as we see it now represents a testable scientific hypothesis, and a legitimate source of disagreement within the scientific community.”
Care to dispute the accuracy of my comment further, Michael Hawkins. Really? No, really? No, I mean really?
More on the legitimacy of the controversy here:
http://www.2think.org/lamarck.shtml
Hawkins and his new best friend will really hate this one:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/paris.php
The End of Bad Science and Beginning Again with Life
Mae-Wan Ho Institute of Science in Society and Department of Biological Sciences, Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK
Hawkins, your new best friend has called this subject bullshit, but some scientists seem to disagree. Do you have an opinion one way or the other?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
The quantum mind or quantum consciousness hypothesis.
Apparently I touched the crazy button.
That darn habit.
Hawkins, Is that the best you can do? Really? Really really really?
Why not invite BillyJoe7 to comment on your “science” blog. Sounds like you and Maloney are two sides of the same pewter coin. And BillyJoe7 knows how to flip ‘em.
BillyJoe7 wanted to be a biologist someday too.
Dawn –
I am not that familiar with the details of the laws in various states. I live in New York state and the naturopathy “profession” is not recognized in that it is not licensed by the state. Maine licenses naturopaths, but I do not know the details of the practice there. The comment above by Michael Hawkins indicates that there are restrictions for the use of “doctor.” I think it is a good idea to be specific whenever we use the term since more and more professions and fields of study utilize or require a doctorate.
“Apparently I touched the crazy button”
Actually, what you perceive to be a button is a volume knob only. A button would be capable of turning off when pressed.
“Choices are acts made by entities. They don’t “do” anything, such as find a purpose. Purpose is a quality that you attribute to an entity or idea by looking at the outcome, and is not something intrinsic to that entity or idea.”ccbowers
“Natural selection alone may not be able to explain which traits contribute to fitness, but so what?”ccbowers
“The theory of natural selection does not need to explain everything; it is what it is.”ccbowers
“There are other components to the theory of evolution and that is fine.”ccbowers
BillyJoe7 says
“Whether a coin falls heads or tails, or even on its side, is the result of deterministic cause and effect. Yet the outcome of a coin toss is random. Every time you toss a coin (eliminating the rare side landing) there is an even chance of head or tails. The more coins you toss the more closely the ratio approaches 1/2. Therefore deterministic cause and effect can cause random events.”
What’s wrong with that syllogism?
ccbowers said nothing’s wrong.
Neo Darwanism is a 100+ year old theory which has been expanded upon significantly. The term is inaccurate. You keep using it however to attemp to undermine the argument. Massimo can school you on the history of evolution:
http://vimeo.com/8870291
Here you will see that at the time of Neo Darwinism there wasn’t even a theory of heredity. ccbowers.
# ccbowerson 26 Jul 2010 at 1:46 pm
“It is not uncommon for people on farms who adopt food animals as pets to have great difficulty killing and eating that animal for food.”
Perhaps some of this is due to the fact that most people in the United States (and many other countries) in recent times are used to seeing meat in a styrofoam and plastic package with nothing resembling the outside of the animals to which they could become emotionally attached.
There is bindle hijacking the comments section as usual. Why don’t you create your own website that no one will read rather than hijack this one with your nonsense?
I don’t see the point of posting comments out of context on unrelated topics. All of the comments were direct responses to your statements on previous posts, so they will be lost the the readers of this Maloney post. Its nice to see that you love the quotes so much that you keep them so accessible that you can retrieve them in a moment’s notice.
Bindle = Troll
Bindle = artfulD, I tells you! He or she just doesn’t have the guts to admit it, and doesn’t want to be banned again. Quorum sensing, purpose, that snide and demeaning attitude… and the fact that artfulD has not posted on any of these threads in the past few months. I looked through his or her most recent effusion of links, and was not surprised when I found that none of them supported his or her views. Of course, the uselessness in pointing this out to him or her will soon become apparent to anyone that tries, for he or she will just fish up more crappy links.
I’ll just point out one thing, to explain something to him or her which should be exceedingly obvious. In a post in this thread, he or she in fact quoted this from Wikipedia:
“Several historians have argued that Lamarck’s name is linked somewhat unfairly to the theory that has come to bear his name, and that Lamarck deserves credit for being an influential early proponent of the concept of biological evolution, far more than for the mechanism of evolution, in which he simply followed the accepted wisdom of his time.”
What Michael Hawkins objected to, binfulD, is the Lamarckism of Darwin’s day, which is the one that most people, especially people who’ve taken a course in biology, are familiar with, not the newer version which seeks to explain details of epigenetics, and merely supplements rather than supplants natural selection and modern evolutionary theory. Lamarckism is often discussed at the beginning of textbook chapters on evolution to explain how Lamarck’s original theory of inheritance is incompatible with evolution as we understand it. Hence the (perfectly understandable, when you consider this understanding of the somewhat ambiguous phrase “Lamarckism”) “really, really” of disbelief from Michael.
Now, with that particular bit cleared up, let’s return to civilized, rational discussion, discussion that wouldn’t have everyone clawing at throats if this were to occur at a cafeteria table in real life? One can hope.
Hi ho.
I think the bindle=artfulD=artie=troll equation is well established.
Just stop feeding it.
I had no intention of commenting on this post at all until BillyJoe7 tried out of the blue to compare me to Maloney. If that wasn’t “posting comments out of context on unrelated topics” I don’t know what the hell it was. Keep that little guttersnipe away from me and you won’t have a problem. And keep your own mouth shut with those snide remarks and you won’t have a problem.
You two in particular can’t stand it when I make a serious comment about the new biology. You do everything you can to block me, and even go to other sites to try to stop these “dangerous” ideas by slander. I warned you not to start a war with me, but you did it anyway. I’m going to try to keep on making serious comments, but any shit I get from you, I’ll give back by the shovel.
Of course BillyJoe7 has such a compulsion to follow me around, he tries to get there first and whines if I don’t show up. Watch what happens next. Novella will post, I won’t comment, both of you will say something dumb about the subject, BillyJoe7 will whimper out some veiled reference to me, and wait for me to kick him.
bindle I suggest that if you want people to take your claims to not be trolling seriously it might help if you didn’t open your post threatening people to keep their mouths shut. You are completely swamping the comment section on almost every thread with arguments, your personal collection of links to various random topics and your ongoing vendettas. Do you not have anything more productive to do? Ever considering starting your own blog to present your opinions to the rest of the world or are comment sections your media of choice?
Oh and also I’d add a vote for the bindle=artfulD theory. Same posting style, same attitude and same emphasis on twisting definitions and presenting research in a misleading way.
Jesus, now that loser Heinleiner weighs in, with some juvenile excuse for Hawkins that didn’t even make it for himself.
What I said was “Lamarckism as we see it now represents a testable scientific hypothesis, and a legitimate source of disagreement within the scientific community.” As we see it NOW, you fool.
And you just made my point that there’s a newer version that has grown from the older.
Oh yeah, do you still maintain that bacteria can’t make choices and are completely unaware of what they’re doing? Taken a course in biology yourself, or are you still just a lab rat?
Do they teach anything like this at your night school?
http://star.tau.ac.il/~eshel/papers/Interface.pdf
God help us if you and Hawkins are the future in biology.
CKava, another one with no ideas of his own, or anybody else’s for that matter.
Don’t they they teach like this at your night school either?
http://star.tau.ac.il/~eshel/papers/Interface.pdf
Nowhere I have studied has emphasised the benefit to overwhelming the comment section of a blog with long winded and poorly thought out arguments… no. Anyway the consensus is already clear there is nothing to be gained from any discussion with you except wasted time. Adios amigo, got better things to do!
Oh, and Heinleiner, you looked through my most recent effusion of links, and found that none of them supported my views, such as on quorum sensing and purpose. Quorum sensing has no purpose, is that what you understood the references to say. Or is that just what you have been taught to believe? Care to comment rationally on that? No, I didn’t think so.
But after a lot of thought, here’s what I want you all to understand, if it’s the last thing they ever let me say here, and it’s about surrendering all logic for survival:
You have to think in terms of genes. A gene wants to survive into the next generation. It is an advantage for a gene to group with other genes in the form of a cell and help each other into the next generation. Similarly it is advantageous for a cell to group together with other cells in the form of animals. Finally, it is advantageous for animals to group together with other animals in order to enhance their chances of survival into the next generation. For this last group this is especially true if the groups consist of animals that are genetically related. In pre-industrial times, such groups were quite small and hence most members were genetically related. If the individuals in the group contained genes that result in them surrendering themselves to the group, the group would have a survival advantage over one where all the individuals rated self interest above the group.
See, I really learned a lot from all you guys.
And after all is said and done, I learned a lot from Eric Thompson too.
Like, “What follows from our ignorance of how X works is that we are ignorant of how X works.”
Or, if you’re too dumb to know why something works, are you too dumb to know why it doesn’t?
Of course not, he would say, because in a deterministic universe, all “whys” are predetermined. So why life happens is not a question a determinist can ask.
Thanks Eric, I’ll never forget that, and never let you forget it if I can.
Thanks, BillyJoe7, we really ran this post into the ground. Call me when you’re ready to do it again.
What was that again about genes want to survive and help each other? Cells want to group together in the form of animals? You’re kidding, right?
And I recall a very nice exchange with Billy Joe about illusions, and he provided references I had not known of previously.
Artie! You’re back! Wow, the amount of piss and vinegar you’ve stored is a lot. What happened? You fail you’re qualifying exams? Your boss not get tenure? You’re girlfriend dump you?
That aside, viruses have genes. Do they make decisions?
My biggest resistance to your ideas is your use of personification without adequately defining your use of such terms like “decision”, “choice” and “awareness”.
“Similarly it is advantageous for a cell to group together with other cells in the form of animals.”
If that was always true, shouldn’t single cell organisms have gone the way of the dinosaurs a long time ago? Oh wait, that doesn’t make sense, the dinosaurs survived.
(cranks up volume knob)
cwfong,
Thanks for that.
“What was that again about genes want to survive and help each other? Cells want to group together in the form of animals? You’re kidding, right?”
That was bindle quoting me out of context.
And I was clearly anthropomorphising in that post.
Bindle either knows that and is being disingenuous, or there’s no hope for him. I think it’s both.
And he also knows – because I told him so in another rather long post – that my point of view includes the view that we can overcome the “tyranny of our genes”. Well, it’s not even a point of view. It’s a fact. It’s called contraception. And, one day, robots may overcome the tyranny of their human creators.
Draal,
“That aside, viruses have genes. Do they make decisions?”
He may have been joking, but he’s claimed that even electrons make choices.
“My biggest resistance to your ideas is your use of personification without adequately defining your use of such terms like “decision”, “choice” and “awareness”.”
Again, I think he means the personification/anthropomorphising literally. But it’s hard to tell because he is never quite clear.
““Similarly it is advantageous for a cell to group together with other cells in the form of animals.”
If that was always true, shouldn’t single cell organisms have gone the way of the dinosaurs a long time ago? ”
As I indicated to cwfong, that was bindle quoting me out of context. It was a shorthand answer to a specific question about how altruism could have evolved in terms of the “selfish gene” concept. Unlike bindle, I was anthropomorhising for brevity and clarity not because I meant it literally.
@Michael Hawkins and ccbowers: Thanks for the info.
When I first read the dynamic duo comment by BillyJoe7, my thoughts went to a pair of bloggers whom I shall not name, not Batman and Robin (not that I didn’t get the cultural reference..yeah, I am that old…). That’s why I was so confused by bindle’s jump on it, and more confused that he insists that he was meant by the reference. But now, reading that he’s artD, the narcissism makes sense.
I’m ignoring the thread hijack and the trolls.
ccbowers picked bindle as artfulD from almost his first few posts. I felt bindle was too reasonable to be artfulD. However, it was not long before bindle’s style and methods became indistinguishable from artfulD’s. At this point there is no doubt they are one and the same.
I don’t think artfulD was actually banned though.
It’s hard to keep track of who’s saying what; this blog has be so thoroughly hijacked, I’ve little stomach to read through it all in detail.
Anyways, I’ve got the ultimate evolutionary goal. The PCR machine. I mean, how else can a gene copy itself several billion times in a matter of a couple hours any more efficiently?
“Again, I think he means the personification/anthropomorphising literally. But it’s hard to tell because he is never quite clear.”
I actually think it’s he just likes using the jargon from his echo chamber of a “research” group.
“ccbowers picked bindle as artfulD from almost his first few posts.”
At least we no longer have those creepy, cringeworthy ‘Notes to self’.
Brrrrrrrrr…
Given the evidence that it is hard to distinguish acupuncture from strong placebo in many cases, it is still surprising to me that acupuncture worked in mice in the recent Nature study. Perhaps it depends on the cause of the pain?
Oops ignore, meant that for acupuncture thread, will repost.
CKava, have you written any good limericks lately?
Here’s a new video up by ND Maloney at Youtube,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZQ4t1ktCIM
“talking about what a naturopathic doctor is.”
I’m a little puzzled at his admission that one of the great things about being an ND is that the ND State oversight board lets him experiment with patients in ways that the overall healthcare system labels — and I’m sure we can all agree ‘for the sake of the patient’ — EXPERIMENTAL.
Strikes me as boasting of one’s salves, without actually transparently addressing ‘what the naturopathic is.’
-r.c.
@daijiyobu
What I got from the video is that he enjoys being able to do the things physicians do without being confined by things such as evidence. Favorite quotes:
“Naturopathic doctors are a funny group.”
“After 4 years of naturopathic medical school, all I really learned is how not to kill people”
@ccbowers, “Evidence” or oversight! He describes NDs a ‘bunch of cats doing their own things.’ The Wild West of ‘medicine’.
In medical ethics parlance, perhaps by ‘not killing people’ he means “non-maleficence” — do not passively or actively cause harm to the patient. Though I’m going to guess that NDs can’t care so much about keeping patient’s away from effective standard medical treatment. How would they know what they don’t know? They’re not trained well enough to know ACTUAL medicine, in my view.
His language has me thinking of the 2002 “International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects”:
“the physician may combine medical research with medical
care, only to the extent that the research is justified by its
potential prophylactic, diagnostic or therapeutic value. When
medical research is combined with medical care, additional
standards apply to protect the patients who are research
subjects [...] the benefits, risks, burdens and effectiveness of a new method should be tested against those of the best current prophylactic, diagnostic, and therapeutic methods.”
-r.c.
In my spare time today I looked up one of bindle’s heroes, Mae-Wan Ho who wrote one of his bindle’s references – the one that I characterised as a load of quantum pseudoscientific gobblydegook.
Check out this gem where she buys into homoeopathy and the “memory of water” nonsense.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/WaterRemembers.php
Hmmm…I think she may have a credibility issue.
Here is a sampling of Mae-Wan Ho’s quantum gobbledegook: