i don't have a problem with you. yes, i think you are snide and construct straw people of your opponents when you've smarted from getting jumped on for your pacificism for instance. i understand the sentiment. i dont' understand the continual engagement in it because it gets everyone nowhere.but when that happens, you have tended to lump us all into one big leftist boat and failed to give anyone the dignity of individual thought.
anyway, i apologize for thinking you introduced the term. I barely read doug's commentary. i was responding to carrol. _I_ replied to ravi who appeared to use the term to me and I was explained why I used it back.
And yes, ravi, i continue to think you snark at your opponents who you've decided have nothing but poorly thought out reasons for not being big fans of homeopathic remedies. i'd say that wether you wrote the term hippie medicine or not. you snarked at the guy's article the whole time, denying the very things he said at all. it isn't putting his words in the best light possible. it is setting fire to straw. the guy doesn't denounce all "natural" medicines. he doesn't hold wester med on a pedastal.
he ever told people not to get all smug about the results!
and yet, the article was treated as if it were all smug about the results!
At 03:43 PM 8/8/2006, Dwayne Monroe wrote:
>Ravi:
>
>
>Either I have a style of writing or expression (or
>just way of thought) that is quite different from what
>I think it is [most of the time], or you harbor some
>deep personal grudge against me that makes you chose
>to write such commentary as the above. I can do
>something about the former, and I invite list-members
>to tell me (either on or off-list) so.
>
>..............................
>
>
>
>
>FOR EACH of us, there's at least one issue which
>reliably inspires a strong reaction.
>
>
>I'm annoyed, for example, whenever someone starts in
>about blogs being a kind of failed amateur journalism
>(a description of very limited use since only a small
>minority of blogs focus on politics and political
>commentary).
>
>
>
>
>Clearly Ravi, you're agitated by the reality or
>appearance of what you call "scientism".
>
>No doubt, when you read the article, you zeroed in on
>moments such as the following:
>
>
>
>"When I was a patient with a serious problem of
>uncertain outcome, I felt the powerful temptation to
>seek a magical solution. Most doctors are sympathetic
>to this sensibility. But a good doctor distinguishes
>magic from medicine."
>
>
>
>
>There it was, the equation (or at least, what seemed
>to be the equation) of all 'alternative' therapies
>with "magic". I think you viewed this as a
>provocation of sorts, it reminded you of the scientism
>you defined at some length in the May 9th thread,
>"Ravi, What is Scientism and Why Does the Left Love it
>so?"
>
>
><http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20060508/037773.html>
>
>
>
>I would describe it, imperfectly, thus:
>
>a) A sort of thorough-going Platonism regarding what
>is true or real and an "assertions and refutations"
>approach to describing this truth or reality. This is
>typically coupled with thorough-going reductionism and
>the recognition of contingency of results only in the
>face of irrefutable contrary argument or data.
>
>[...]
>
>
>
>full -
>
><http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20060508/037773.html>
>
>
>Come to think of it, the thread's title could be
>interpreted as being just the sort of condescension
>you're ready to oppose.
>
>
>I'm sympathetic to many of your ideas about this, but
>I think you sometimes go too far in the opposite
>direction - at least rhetorically - calling into
>question elements of the scientific endeavor (or the
>whole bag) for reasons that aren't always clearly
>defined.
>
>
>Consider, for example, this sentence, which you wrote
>today in response to B|L:
>
>
>I thought the scientific method (if there is such a
>beast) was to present the data and make your
>references explicit?
>
>
>Listserv communications are easily misinterpreted. It
>struck me as a bit unfortunate you'd (apparently) call
>the scientific method into question in the course of
>making your argument. A casual - or rushed - reader
>might think you were suggesting 'alternative'
>techniques were universally superior to those derived
>from science which, it appears, you either dismiss or
>de-value.
>
>
>I don't think you dismiss or de-value science; after
>all, your livelihood is built upon electronics and
>mathematics. Still, whenever anything smelling of
>'scientism' comes up, you seem to vigorously dive in
>on the side of, well, whatever happens to appear to be
>the other side (be it religious expression as in the
>case of your objections to Daniel Dennett's "Breaking
>the Spell" or our current imbroglio).
>
>
>
>
>
>.d.
>
>
>
>
>
>The most important isotope of plutonium is 239Pu, with a half-life of
>24,110 years.
>
>......................
>http://monroelab.net/blog/
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
"Scream-of-consciousness prose, peppered with sociological observations, political ruminations, and in-yore-face colloquial assaults."
-- Dennis Perrin, redstateson.blogspot.com
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org