Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cadre.ARPA Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cadre!geb From: geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks) Newsgroups: net.med Subject: Re: RABIES IS A PSYCHOSOMATIC DISEASE ! Message-ID: <495@cadre.ARPA> Date: Tue, 20-Aug-85 20:12:53 EDT Article-I.D.: cadre.495 Posted: Tue Aug 20 20:12:53 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 22-Aug-85 08:38:57 EDT References: <2062@ukma.UUCP> Reply-To: geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks) Distribution: na Organization: Decision Systems Lab., University of Pittsburgh Lines: 63 In article <2062@ukma.UUCP> wws@ukma.UUCP (Bill Stoll) writes: > >I am really enjoying the few frightened people on the net who are so >"enjoying the entertainment" as they so blithly describe the >offerings of the "health and vitamin freaks" (I'M PROUD TO HAVE >GRADUATED TO THAT CATAGORY). How presumptious of you! Anyone who dares to argue with you must just be quaking in their boots with fear. > Since the positions are so far apart, >and so clearly defined, somebody is going to look pretty foolish >pretty soon. Actually, someone is looking pretty foolish already! > Since I have considerable experience and training in >both approaches, I have no qualms whatever about MY position. You keep mentioning this, and signing your name with professional titles. Are we supposed to accept whatever you say on the authority that you have graduated medical school and are a board certified Family Practitioner, despite the fact that instead of citing published scientific evidence for your claims, all you seem to come up with are anecdotes? I know plenty of doctors who are crazy as loons, and even some nobel laureates, so I for one am not impressed with your credentials. As for being a "holistic practitioner", I will just say that I don't consider that partaking in a delusion makes one an reliable guidepost for others. >When >anyone (even the most obtuse eventually see--if they keep looking) >begins to see the light I will welcome that person to join the rest of >us who know how much more we have to learn. Perhaps, together, we can >learn more, and faster, than we can alone. > > >To quote the famous Indian Philosopher NAROPA: > > "NEVER SAY THIS THING: > > If I do not know a thing, it is not so." > But what this is talking about is having a closed mind. Science is agnostic by nature. This doesn't mean that science rejects all unproved arguments as untrue, simply as unproved. It is YOU who claim to be "gnostic" in the sense that you know something that the world does not. We do not say that your claims are absolutely false, but that you have not presented sufficient evidence to establish them. We remain in a state of disbelief. That is not the same as saying that what you are proposing is false. (Of course the scientific evidence IS strongly against many of the things you teach.) YOU are the ones with closed minds. YOU are the ones that start with theories and then sift all evidence, picking and choosing those items that seem to support your claims and throwing out the rest. (Try to tell me you don't read the papers and magazines just looking for cases to grind your own little axe on!) "Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good." -Paul the apostle