Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 1
In other words, an argument is more valid if it is based on no knowledge and no contact? Interesting.

If setting up strawmen make you happy, by all means carry on.

Your original post was prefaced by a disclaimer that you had “social contacts” in healthcare (who doesn't?) and that your wife had undisclosed “particular reasons” to know a lot of them. You then stated that you watch the news and read “certain” (undisclosed) medical journals.

Your argument had all the trappings of an argumentum ad verecundiam, as I pointed out in my last post. Read all about it here:

These morsels looked like what you had tried:

We must often rely upon expert opinion when drawing conclusions about technical matters where we lack the time or expertise to form an informed opinion. For instance, those of us who are not physicians usually rely upon those who are when making medical decisions, and we are not wrong to do so. There are, however, four major ways in which such arguments can go wrong:

...The "authority" cited is not an expert on the issue, that is, the person who supplies the opinion is not an expert at all, or is one, but in an unrelated area. The now-classic example is the old television commercial which began: "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV...." The actor then proceeded to recommend a brand of medicine.

...The authority is an expert, but is not disinterested. That is, the expert is biased towards one side of the issue, and his opinion is thereby untrustworthy.

...While the authority is an expert, his opinion is unrepresentative of expert opinion on the subject. The fact is that if one looks hard enough, it is possible to find an expert who supports virtually any position that one wishes to take. "Such is human perversity", to quote Lewis Carroll. This is a great boon for debaters, who can easily find expert opinion on their side of a question, whatever that side is, but it is confusing for those of us listening to debates and trying to form an opinion.

Back to you.

Antibiotics have been around for the better part of a century; certainly not a new treatment.

I never stated that they were, so lay off beating on the strawman, OK? I used that as an example to counter your claim that: “This demand is seldom driven by the patient, who very often has no clue at all. Much of this demand is from the doctors themselves who have been steered by the marketers who sell the machines and technology.” It is an ironclad example of the fact that demand for healthcare services is driven by the patient. The best you could do in response was erect a strawman and try to change the subject. Very telling.

Beyond that, most patients most of the time have absolutely no clue about how they are to be treated, or what is right or best. The patient who is well informed is the rare exception.

Lack of information on the part of a patient is a low hurdle. They overcome it all the time by bringing in ideas they got from watching TV, talking to a friend or relative, or any number of unreliable sources.

So, yes. The treatment regimen demand is virtually all driven by the doctors. The need for treatment isn't, but the means by which it is accomplished most certainly is.

If you're saying that the final prescription for treatment is signed off on by the physician, I guess one could hardly argue with you there, but then, that would seem kind of self-evident, wouldn't it? So, the doctor signs off and that's it. There is no way of getting a second opinion, or of opinion shopping among other doctors? Come on.

Now, wrt your engineering analogy. First, the fact that you would compare engineering with medecine is very revealing about your understanding of medecine.

Seriously, you have no memory of your own analogy (“comparison”, whatever) from 2 days ago? ( : “Consider, for instance, the case of the bridge designer.

My bad if I improperly equated “bridge designer” and “engineer”. Care to elaborate on the distinction?

It was not an analogy, it was a comparison.

a•nal•o•gy Pronunciation Key ( -n l -j )
n. pl. a•nal•o•gies
a. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
b. A comparison based on such similarity.

I guess I see the distinction. </sarcasm>

That the one is unlike the other does not obviate the need for comparable processes and procedures.

So, you conceede that they're dissimilar in nature, but that didn't stop you from using them as a "comparison" 2 days ago? Roger.

Further, I find the attitude you display in your response to be as abyssmal as the spelling you display in the post.

You've abandoned arguing the matter on it's merits and resorted to an
argumentum ad hominem. Isn't that tantamount to concession?

Accordingly, we are done discussing the matter; you are not worth it.

Right, I transpose when I type so discussing any idea with me is not “worth it”.

Who can argue with logic like that?
Print the post  


What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.