INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Good Thinking Society

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Message
Author
User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3232
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Good Thinking Society

#21 Postby Tetenterre » November 14th, 2015, 2:40 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

^

Excellent.

I thought he was remarkably restrained with Fisher, as was Simon Singh on R5Live earlier (I missed the R4 one).
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3232
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Good Thinking Society

#22 Postby Tetenterre » November 14th, 2015, 4:10 pm

Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Good Thinking Society

#23 Postby Alan H » November 16th, 2015, 11:33 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Good Thinking Society

#24 Postby Alan H » March 6th, 2016, 1:06 am

Expose in today's Mail on Sunday of the advertising of the Hale Clinic by Marsh of the Good Thinking Society with a bit of technical assistance from me (I took the screenshots, not the Mail on Sunday as claimed!): Holistic clinic used by the Royals is probed over 'dangerous' ads which claim its natural therapies can cure MS and Parkinson's
Hale Clinic in London boasts 'widest range of holistic treatments in Europe'
Its clients have included the late Princess Diana and the Duchess of Cornwall
Advertising Standards Authority looking at 'misleading' claims made by clinic
It claimed one type of massage 'can be of great assistance… after a stroke'
Also said 'the Hale Approach' has potential to cure people of multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease
Among the most striking claims made by the clinic is that 'complementary medical opinion should be considered first line' – in other words, before all others – to treat multiple sclerosis, 'since these [complementary] therapies are aiming at a cure, whereas orthodox treatments deal with the symptoms and hope for a remission'.

The Mail on Sunday, which took screen grabs of the web pages on which the claims were made, approached The Hale Clinic for comment on Friday.

Subsequently the most contentious claims were removed. Clinic director Teresa Hale said yesterday she was 'unable to find the more serious allegations on our website'.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Good Thinking Society

#25 Postby Dave B » March 6th, 2016, 9:15 am

Was it a case of Hale being, "'unable to find the more serious allegations on our website" because they had already been removed after the article?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Good Thinking Society

#26 Postby Alan H » March 6th, 2016, 10:13 am

Dave B wrote:Was it a case of Hale being, "'unable to find the more serious allegations on our website" because they had already been removed after the article?
I couldn't possibly make such an allegation...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Good Thinking Society

#27 Postby Dave B » March 6th, 2016, 10:18 am

Alan H wrote:
Dave B wrote:Was it a case of Hale being, "'unable to find the more serious allegations on our website" because they had already been removed after the article?
I couldn't possibly make such an allegation...

Was her comment pre- or post- site modification?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Good Thinking Society

#28 Postby Alan H » March 6th, 2016, 10:35 am

Dave B wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Dave B wrote:Was it a case of Hale being, "'unable to find the more serious allegations on our website" because they had already been removed after the article?
I couldn't possibly make such an allegation...

Was her comment pre- or post- site modification?
As I understand it, the comment was made after the website changes.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Good Thinking Society

#29 Postby Dave B » March 6th, 2016, 11:07 am

^
Surprise? Nope!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Good Thinking Society

#30 Postby Alan H » June 7th, 2016, 3:29 pm

The Good Thinking Society welcomes NHS Liverpool CCG’s report on homeopathy funding

We were quoted in the report, but it was a slightly odd quote to take from the 26 pages we submitted! However, it could be they see what I said as important.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Good Thinking Society

#31 Postby Dave B » June 7th, 2016, 4:38 pm

Yup, from the wording of the "preamble" to the auotations that you got one included looks like a strong acknowledgment of your opinion.

Parallel application of therapy seems utterly stupid, a total waste of money. If individuals want to throw money away that's OK, but charge them for private treatment if they want to do so in an NHS hospital. Might as well take some of their cash if they are that stupid!

Well done again.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Good Thinking Society

#32 Postby Alan H » June 7th, 2016, 5:01 pm

Dave B wrote:Parallel application of therapy seems utterly stupid, a total waste of money.
I was prepared for that and cited this study:

Ostermann JK, Reinhold T, Witt CM. Can Additional Homeopathic Treatment Save Costs? A Retrospective Cost-Analysis Based on 44500 Insured Persons. PLoS ONE 2015;10:e0134657. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0134657

Conclusion

Compared with usual care, additional homeopathic treatment was associated with significantly higher costs. These analyses did not confirm previously observed cost savings resulting from the use of homeopathy in the health care system.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Good Thinking Society

#33 Postby Alan H » June 14th, 2016, 4:09 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Good Thinking Society

#34 Postby Alan H » July 18th, 2016, 7:29 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Good Thinking Society

#35 Postby Nick » July 19th, 2016, 1:38 pm



Steve Wight is hardly a bastion of scientific rigour and knowledge. :rolleyes:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Good Thinking Society

#36 Postby Alan H » July 19th, 2016, 2:19 pm

Nick wrote:


Steve Wight is hardly a bastion of scientific rigour and knowledge. :rolleyes:
As demonstrated by that complaint...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Good Thinking Society

#37 Postby Alan H » July 19th, 2016, 10:59 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3232
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Good Thinking Society

#38 Postby Tetenterre » July 21st, 2016, 11:52 am

Thing is that the BBC just doesn't learn. This is one I complained about a few years back; I kept getting fobbed off, and eventually had to persist in getting it to the ECU; I think there were a few more like this around the same time. The buggers still seem to think that "imapartiality" means "balance evidence with bullshit".
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Good Thinking Society

#39 Postby Dave B » July 21st, 2016, 7:59 pm

Tetenterre wrote:Thing is that the BBC just doesn't learn. This is one I complained about a few years back; I kept getting fobbed off, and eventually had to persist in getting it to the ECU; I think there were a few more like this around the same time. The buggers still seem to think that "imapartiality" means "balance evidence with bullshit".

Naw, it's whatever some arts degree holding producer thinks makes a good story. Fact and truth are often sideline issues.

Sorry to sound cynical, listened to too many producers excusing their progs on PoV and similar programmes. Only ever heard one hold up her hand and admit she got it entirely wrong. She came in for far more approbation than condemnation from the audience in the final analysis. Probably got fired for being too honest.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Good Thinking Society

#40 Postby Alan H » July 21st, 2016, 8:11 pm

Dave B wrote:
Tetenterre wrote:Thing is that the BBC just doesn't learn. This is one I complained about a few years back; I kept getting fobbed off, and eventually had to persist in getting it to the ECU; I think there were a few more like this around the same time. The buggers still seem to think that "imapartiality" means "balance evidence with bullshit".

Naw, it's whatever some arts degree holding producer thinks makes a good story. Fact and truth are often sideline issues.

Sorry to sound cynical, listened to too many producers excusing their progs on PoV and similar programmes. Only ever heard one hold up her hand and admit she got it entirely wrong. She came in for far more approbation than condemnation from the audience in the final analysis. Probably got fired for being too honest.
When it comes to science reporting, the BBC really doesn't have any excuses any more. Prof Steve Jones' report on impartiality in science dealt conclusively with the issues and the BBC has made headway in making sure his recommendations were promulgated throughout the organisation (above examples excluded, of course).

Only two problems remain: get other media outlets to do the same and apply the same criteria to politics, etc...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Good Thinking Society

#41 Postby Dave B » July 21st, 2016, 10:01 pm

Alan H wrote:
Dave B wrote:
Tetenterre wrote:Thing is that the BBC just doesn't learn. This is one I complained about a few years back; I kept getting fobbed off, and eventually had to persist in getting it to the ECU; I think there were a few more like this around the same time. The buggers still seem to think that "imapartiality" means "balance evidence with bullshit".

Naw, it's whatever some arts degree holding producer thinks makes a good story. Fact and truth are often sideline issues.

Sorry to sound cynical, listened to too many producers excusing their progs on PoV and similar programmes. Only ever heard one hold up her hand and admit she got it entirely wrong. She came in for far more approbation than condemnation from the audience in the final analysis. Probably got fired for being too honest.
When it comes to science reporting, the BBC really doesn't have any excuses any more. Prof Steve Jones' report on impartiality in science dealt conclusively with the issues and the BBC has made headway in making sure his recommendations were promulgated throughout the organisation (above examples excluded, of course).

Only two problems remain: get other media outlets to do the same and apply the same criteria to politics, etc...

Think part of the problem could be the producers being protective of their perceived artistic integrity and independence (heard one actually complain thst his was being challenged). Be interesting to compare intenally pruduced with externally commissioned output.

Still too much "old school" thinking in the Beeb?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015


Return to “Sciences and pseudo-science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests