neurosurgery

Hubris versus skepticism: The case of neurosurgeon Ben Carson

oracknows — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 06:00:20 +0000

Hubris versus skepticism: The case of neurosurgeon Ben Carson

As a surgeon and skeptic, I find neurosurgeon turned presidential candidate Ben Carson to be particularly troubling. I realize that I've said this before, but it's hard for me not to revisit his strange case given that the New York Times just ran a rather revealing profile of him over the weekend, part of which included Dr. Carson answering criticism for the really dumb things he's said about vaccines, evolution, and the like. People like Ben Carson are useful examples of how highly intelligent people who are incredibly competent in one area can also demonstrate unbelievable ignorance in other areas. Ben Carson, having spent his life caring for patients with incredible dedication and skill, can't seem to go a day without saying something incredibly stupid now that he's running for President. Whether it's pandering to the antivaccine wing of the Republican Party, denying that he used to be a shill for Mannatech, a supplement company whose business practices have been less than ethical, or denying evolution, Carson's depths of scientific ignorance and willingness to lie have reached crank levels.

So, you might think, if Ben Carson is such a crank and there's considerable evidence that the views he's been espousing on the campaign trail are not new, why is it that no one seemed to realize this until Carson entered politics? It turns out that Carson was such a private man that few people knew:

When he was not in the operating room at Johns Hopkins Hospital, performing one of his 400 surgeries a year, Dr. Ben Carson could often be seen walking slowly through the hallways, hands behind his back, nodding, smiling and speaking softly to co-workers and students who approached.
“When he walked around Hopkins,” said Dr. Anthony Avellino, a former colleague, “he was like God.”

Patients and nurses asked him to sign his books. Medical students flocked to his occasional lectures or a campus showing of the TV movie version of “Gifted Hands,” Dr. Carson’s memoir.

One student, Dr. Jonathan Dudley, recalled that “Some of my friends had a big poster of him up in their dorm room.”

It seemed fitting, then, that in 2013, Dr. Carson, who was retiring as chief of pediatric neurosurgery, was chosen to give the commencement address for Dr. Dudley’s class. But that March, during a Fox News interview, Dr. Carson appeared to liken same-sex marriage proponents to pedophiles and “people who believe in bestiality.”

We learn a lot of things in this profile. During his years at Johns Hopkins, Carson was basically a rock star whom seemingly everyone admired. He did way more cases than the average neurosurgeon (around 400 a year compared to the usual 250 a year for a typical academic neurosurgeon at Hopkins), and he did some of the most difficult cases. He worked long hours and by all accounts was a good teacher. In the world of surgery, a surgeon who does a lot of cases, many of which are more difficult than average, does them well, and works very hard will earn a great deal of respect and good will. In fact, these are measures of status in the world of surgery, one way for a young surgeon to build a reputation. (Research is another, but, quite frankly, surgeons seem to admire technical skill and dedication more than they admire research, even in academic settings.)

Carson was also daring. he would undertake operations to separate conjoined twins. He revived an old operation for seizures, the hemispherectomy, which involves removing half the brain. Surgeons also admire this in other surgeons. So putting together Carson's work ethic, his technical skill, the number of cases he did, and his daring, it's not to surprising that he was so universally admired at Hopkins, the only complaints being from partners who had to cover for him so often when he traveled to give motivational speeches and do other events. Reading this profile, I couldn't help but wonder whether part of the problem was perhaps that, while Carson did have to engage in the rough-and-tumble given and take that normally occurs in a high-powered academic department of surgery over his surgical decisions, when it came to his crankier views, such as his belief in creationism and his promotion of cancer quackery, no one ever challenged him. After all, no one seemingly knew about them, and those who did seemed able to compartmentalize, just as Carson apparently compartmentalized. It's not hard to imagine a scenario in which Carson, as he became more and more famous based on his life story as told in his biography, his motivational speeches, and his increasing political activism, started to develop a touch of hubris and that that hubris carried over to his political campaign.

Think about it. Carson is a man who has never held elective office or even run a large organization, such as a company. The entire Johns Hopkins Pediatric Neurosurgery Program only has six surgeons and two physicians' assistants, which is actually a pretty big for such a program. Add ancillary staff, such as secretaries, nurses, and research faculty and staff and it's doubtful that there were more than 20 or 25 people in the entire department. This means that Ben Carson thinks himself capable of running the federal government after having only run a small academic department. Not only that, he thinks himself the best qualified person to lead the nation. (Every Presidential candidate thinks himself the best qualified person to lead the nation; otherwise he wouldn't run for President.) Also consider that Carson has no elective experience. As much as we like to delude ourselves that we don't want politicians as our President, running a country is an inherently political job. The two can't be separated. A President skilled at politics, who knows how the federal government works, how its departments work, how the legislature works, will be more successful than one who does not. So right there there's incredible hubris. So bad is Carson's lack of relevant skills for the presidency that even one of his campaign advisors gave an on the record interview to the NYT characterizing him as struggling to grasp foreign policy, leading one pundit to ask if there's a double agent in the Carson campaign.

And, as we all know, hubris is the enemy of skepticism. Hubris destroys skepticism because it interferes with the questioning of oneself, one's belief, and one's knowledge that must occur as part of critical thinking. Taken to an extreme, hubris can lead one to believe he is never wrong. Already, we see that in Ben Carson. When questioned about, for example, his long relationship with Mannatech, Carson basically lied through his teeth and denied that he was a spokesperson. Whenever questioned about anything, his first reaction is to double down and/or make excuses.

We see this in the interview published by the NYT. For instance, here is what Carson now says about vaccines:

Some people feel that I make the declaration and everybody has to march to my drum.

My point was that there are a lot of people who are so concerned about the load of vaccines that they are getting in a very short period of time that they may abandon the use of vaccines altogether, which would be a very significant public health issue for us. I think we have to be willing to talk with them and to look at alterations in schedule.

When you look at how many times the schedule has been altered by so-called experts, it tells you right there that whatever schedule they come up with is not necessarily the perfect schedule. Take into consideration the concerns of these people and let’s work with them, so that we can get people on the same page, rather than declaring: “I’m the great Oz. No one else could possibly know anything.”

Notice the straw men. No one was looking to Dr. Carson as the arbiter of whether vaccines cause autism and what should constitute the ideal vaccine schedule. However, because he is a pediatric specialist, his opinion does carry more weight to the general public than, say, that of Jeb Bush or Donald Trump. Given his past stance supporting school vaccine mandates, it was disappointing to see Carson change course and start to pander to the "health freedom" antivaccine wing of the Republican Party. It's even more disappointing to see that he is still pandering to them and still repeating antivaccine "concerns" wrapped in anti-establishment, anti-pointy-headed expert rhetoric.

He does it to the point of some seriously burning stupid:

There are some diseases where I think there is room for discussion. Chickenpox. Now, chickenpox is generally not a fatal disease by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, when I was a kid, they used to have chickenpox parties. Somebody would get it, and they’d bring everybody over so they would get it, too. And then everybody would be immune to it.

Oh,. My. God. Carson is actually parroting antivaccine talking points and blithely dismissing chickenpox parties as though they were OK. You'd think that a neurosurgeon would know the potential complications of varicella. Yes, such complications are uncommon, but they include pneumonia, coagulopathy, encephalitis, secondary streptococcal infections, and more. A doctor should know better. This doctor does not.

He also completely misunderstands the antivaccine movement:

The question for the antivaxers is, do the vaccinations create more problems than they solve? You are never going to convince them unless you are willing to sit down with the data and unless you are actually willing to listen to them and listen to their concerns. That’s been the problem.

I generally am very pro-vaccines and pro-vaccinations. I think they’ve saved a lot of lives and cut down on a lot of morbidity in our society.

I think the problem we are having now is we have an increasing number of antivaxers. I think they are being reactionary. And I think they are being reactionary because of the way things are being imposed upon them.

It is a microcosm of the bigger problems that we are having in our country right now where people try to impose things on everybody rather than sitting down and having an intelligent conversation and looking at the data, looking at the evidence.

This level of naïveté is painful to behold. What on earth does Carson think that vaccine advocates have been doing for all these years but showing the data and trying to convince antivaccine loons that vaccines are not only not dangerous but are safe and effective. Indeed, the very reason for vaccine mandates is because antivaccine activists can't be convinced with evidence, reason, and rational arguments. You can't have an intelligent conversation with them. It's certainly possible to have an intelligent conversation with the vaccine-averse parents (who are very different from the real antivaccinationists), but with hard core antivaccinationists? Not so much.

Then there's creationism:

I believe the Bible. I do believe it is the word of God. I do believe he created heavens and earth. It says in Genesis 1, in the beginning God created heaven and earth. Period. We don’t know how long that period is before he started the rest of creation. It could be a minute. It could be a trillion years. We don’t know. I have never stated that I have an understanding of how old the earth is. That’s something that a lot of people will ascribe to me.

Organisms, animals have the ability to adapt to their environment. But the evolutionists say that’s proof positive that evolution occurs.

I say it is evidence of an intelligent God who gave his creatures the ability to adapt to its environment so he wouldn’t have to start over every 50 years.

What is it with neurosurgeons and creationism? So Carson might not be a young earth creationist, as he has been accused of in some quarters, but he is clearly a creationist. The problem is that evolution is not only well supported by the existing scientific evidence but is currently the best explanation for the diversity of life.

I've said it before (many times). I'll say it again: Most physicians are not scientists, and highly intelligent people (like Ben Carson) are frustratingly all too often not skeptics.

As I've said before, every human being on this planet has the potential to believe the same nonsense the Ben Carson, or maybe nonsense on the same level as what he believes, if not necessarily the exact same beliefs. Add to that the considerable hubris that Carson has exhibited over the last three years, and you have a very toxic combination.

Hubris is the enemy of skepticism because skepticism begins with recognizing how our thinking can go awry, not just Ben Carson or other cranks but you, me, everybody. Critical to that recognition is having the humility to recognize that we all believe things without evidence and to begin to test our most deeply held beliefs against reality in order to determine which ones are supported by evidence and which ones aren’t, testing that must involve seeking out disconfirming evidence. Most importantly, we must have the humility to be able to admit when we are mistaken and be willing to change our minds when the evidence does not support our beliefs.

Ben Carson is a walking, talking, nonsense-spewing example demonstrating that a high level of knowledge and skill in one area does not necessarily make one a skeptic. As importantly, he also demonstrates how, no matter how soft spoken and seemingly self-effacing a person might seem, that does not mean that person is not full of hubris that destroys skepticism and critical thinking.

oracknows Mon, 11/23/2015 - 01:00

Tags

medicine

Skepticism/Critical Thinking

surgery

Ben Carson

Categories

Two points:

1) Carson's naive expectation that one can just "sit down and talk" with anti-vaxxers brings to mind a certain 2008 presidential candidate and his naive belief that one can just "sit down and talk" with certain world powers such as Iran and Russia.

2) It's not entirely clear, at least from the quoted portion of the interview, that Carson is expressing a policy rather than a religious belief. One can be religious, and believe in a god that created the universe billions of years ago, a god who designed the universe in such a fashion that it would give rise to life through the mechanism of evolution - and yet not think this is a legitimate subject of discussion in a science classroom.

Notice that Carson is expressing the willingness to accept as fact the existence of evolution (as a mechanism through which god manages the development of living beings in the world). Perhaps, then, when he says - as he has in other interviews - that evolution was an idea created by "the adversary" [presumably Satan], he merely means evolution as a replacement for God.

To be fair, this is highly unlikely to be the case (cf. his idiocy with the pyramids). But on the off chance that it is, it's not really fair to label him a creationist in the "crank" sense.

Dear friends, whom I love so,
This is a copy of an email I recently sent out
To a circle of bodhisattvas.
Please, please pay attention.

"Friends,

I have an urgent request to you.

First, read this article. h[]tp://http://washingtonspectator.org/donald-trump-and-the-f-word/

Pay attention to the news. Do not turn away.

Next, watch this video. h[]tp://http://www.ted.com/talks/carl_safina_what_are_animals_thinking_and_feel…

Now, educate yourself to the best extent you can on our factory farming practices.

And for the love of God, don't kill the f*cking mice that are pooping on the shelf where the towels are. Just trust me on this one.

Go back and read the Cain and Abel story and reflect upon the fact that I have a tattoo on my right arm, which I got done with a gift certificate from the Dharma auction a few years back which reads "Thou Mayest." It might also be good to look up the relevant part of John Steinbeck's East of Eden.

Thank you and good night.

Perhaps Carson has never seen a child die from a vaccine-preventable disease, though I'd think maybe as a neurosurgeon he might have put in some VP shunts on pediatric meningitis (Hib, pneumococcal, meningococcal infections--all vaccine preventable) survivors which would have impressed up him why vaccines are so important. I've seen one (unvaccinated) two-year old die horribly from Hib meningitis/sepsis, and the older pediatricians (this was in 2002) told me how they would see a case very month before Hib vaccination started. Lesson learned and forever burned into my cortex for me as a 2nd year pediatric resident.

At 64 years of age, maybe Carson is just "young" enough to have not seen a lot of vaccine-preventable diseases first hand, but the ignorance of what they used to be like is inexcusable for a physician.

One way (legislatively) or the other (after more VPD outbreaks with resultant death and morbidity) vaccine rates will start increasing in the US. Carson's views, depressingly, help to push things to the latter.

Unfortunately, Carson’s answers will seem moderate and reasonable to a great many people, especially agnostics of the “who knows?” variety, and the great majority of at least marginal believers. To the average person, it probably seems not unreasonable to spread out the vaccine schedule. My own children, one in particular, had his vaccines spread out in the extreme because he always seemed to have a bad cold when they were due. No doctor ever explained to me any harm that this might cause, and I was blissfully unaware of the attendanst risk until finding this blog (in spite of being a long time atheist and skeptic).

Your concerns are real, but it would seem difficult to convey them to the masses.

The vaccine thing, I'm convinced, is just to pander to far-right antivaxxers and to try and rope in some more liberal-leaning antivaxxers. I don't for a second think it's anything other than that, especially considering his very strong statements on mandatory requirements in the past.

Which makes it worse, actually. He's risking lives for a few votes. At least true antivaxxers really think they're right.

@ Chris Hickie / Yerushalmi

I'm afraid Ben Carson's position is more about pandering to as many niches of voters as possible, but especially to the various groups big on freedom, small on government.
His basic message, be it on religion or vaccines, could be summarized as: "government is providing guidelines, but feel free to do whatever you want".
In short, I don't know about being a neurosurgeon, but Ben Carson is definitively a politician: trying to appear reaching for a middle-ground position. 'Let's just sit and talk it out."

Left out of the window is, of course, the little issue of how much compromise is ethically acceptable in a given situation when following the other side's position is likely to result in avoidable harm.

That's why I'm not too thrilled by his half-mouthed acceptance of evolution. It sounds too much like "you call it evolution, I call it the Hand of God, but I will be a nice guy and let you call it whatever you want". To answer Yerushalmi:

he merely means evolution as a replacement for God.

I could buy that. He doesn't seem to be a young earth creationist, but the way he talks about "evolutionists", he seems to equate them with hard-line atheists. In other words, he does deny evolution, but as a standalone process.
That's still mixing up magical thinking and science, however.

No need to post this comment, just wanted you to fix a typo in this excellent and much needed post.
no one seemingly new
should be " no one seemingly knew"

Never forget the first principle.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."
If you forget the first principle, then no matter how intelligent, educated and experienced you are - it's all useless.

@Yerushalmi: I agree with Helianthus on this point. Look at Carson's quoted words:

But the evolutionists say that’s proof positive that evolution occurs.

The term "evolutionist" is a code word telling creationists that he's one of them, not one of those evil scientist types who believe[1] in evolution. He claims not to have a position on whether the Earth is 6k-10k years old, or substantially older, but he is clearly stating his opposition to the theory of evolution.

[1]Yes, I know, scientists don't believe in evolution per se, they believe that the evidence in favor of the theory is overwhelming. But that's not how fundamentalist religious types see it--they need to believe in something, so they project that need on scientists.

He's in the ID camp, IOW a stealth creationist.

I wonder if the groundwork for hubris wasn't laid at an early age-- a combination of early issues with learning, religious training, and being raised his mother's precious nebbish.

Being treated as a god later in life would be enabling to say the least. Still can't get over that seriously weird painting of him with Jesus.

Organisms, animals have the ability to adapt to their environment. But the evolutionists say that’s proof positive that evolution occurs.

Isn't that basically the definition of evolution? I think what he really means is that he accepts evolution, but not common descent (or, as creationists like to say, "microevolution but not macroevolution.") This seems to be the crux of a lot of the "talking past one another" that inevitably occurs when creationists and "evolutionists" (for lack of a more accurate but equally concise term) get into it.

We don’t know how long that period is before he started the rest of creation. It could be a minute. It could be a trillion years.

Yes, we do know, Dr. Carson. It just doesn't fit the narrative that you need to win over the current Republican base. That's why you want to pretend that "we" don't know. But we do. Carbon 14 is a hell of a little atom. You should get to know it sometime.

Other than the extreme he has taken his hubris--running for president--I don't see that there is much difference between Dr. Carson and celebrities who attempt to cash in on their popularity to advance a cause that is dear to them, however misguided they may be. Ultimately, the common sense of most Americans prevail, but it can be painful to watch and disheartening to see so many swayed by ignorance, lies, and misinformation.

@Helianthus

He doesn’t seem to be a young earth creationist, but the way he talks about “evolutionists”, he seems to equate them with hard-line atheists. In other words, he does deny evolution, but as a standalone process.
That’s still mixing up magical thinking and science, however.

Let's say you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient god that created the universe.

Almost by definition, you have to believe that any process present in the universe is one that that god set into motion and/or actively maintains. Similarly, every outcome of that process, no matter how small, must have been part of that god's original intent. After all, being omniscient, he knows all the actual, real-world outcomes of the laws and initial conditions he set into motion; and being omnipotent, he had the ability to set up a different set of laws and initial conditions in order to create an identical universe except for that one undesirable outcome.

That means that, if you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient god, and you also believe that evolution is the mechanism by which humans arose on Earth, you *must* believe that evolution took the path it did because god set it up that way.

Nothing I have said so far is in any way anti-science. There is no "magical thinking" involved here, nor is there the denial of evolution as a "standalone process". "Magical thinking" only arises if you take that as your endpoint. If you say "God wanted it that way" and leave it at that. (This would also prevent you from jettisoning the theory of evolution if and when evidence emerged that presented a competing theory.)

But if you instead say, "God created this principle of how the universe works, and now I will investigate exactly what the parameters of this principle are" - there is no functional difference between this and saying "this is the principle by which the universe works, and now I will investigate exactly what the parameters of this principle are". The basic definition of science is not "there is no God" or "there is no magic"; the basic definition of science is the hunt for the rules by which the universe works. (Magic and science are not incompatible, as long as it's of this type: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SufficientlyAnalyzedMagic.)

In conflating the generalized belief in God with "magical thinking", you are doing *exactly* the same thing Carson is doing in conflating "hard-core atheists" with "evolutionists", only from the other side. It might be *unscientific* to believe in god, but there's nothing that necessitates it being *anti-scientific*.

Consider that the Vatican has absolutely no problem with evolution or a 14-billion-year-old universe. Neither does Judaism.

I am an Orthodox Jew. The compatibility of Big Bang-like theories with Judaism, for instance, is established in rabbinical writings as far back as the 13th century, long before the actual Big Bang theory was created. Yet in the past fifty years there has been a surge of anti-scientific, anti-evolution attitudes among Orthodox Jews, mostly because of spillover in the war between anti-science modern evangelical Christians, and anti-religious atheist crusaders. A cultural attitude has emerged that says that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible, supported by the agendas of both sides in this war, and it's actually become quite damaging to Judaism. We've *never* had a problem with the basic principle of "God created a universe with a set of laws, and we can investigate and explain what those laws are", but all of a sudden this anti-science attitude has begun to emerge, and it makes me quite sad to see my religion trending in the direction of modern evangelical Christianity.

You can slice, dice, and parse and philosophize about faith anyway you like. What's going on with Carson matters because of current American politics, the 800 lb. gorilla subtext of which is attempts to wedge religion into science classrooms (see Kitzmiller v. Dover).

In general for purposes of discussion here, I think this guy is on the right track:

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
― Dalai Lama XIV

Yerushalmi #14,

You appear to be an educated and intelligent person, but you are stretching a bit here. It's one thing to say "God is just another name for the Big Bang, through which the laws of physics were established", and quite another to say "God is just another name for the Big Bang, and he really would prefer that you don't eat pork."

The latter represents the reality of Orthodox Judaism and Seventh-Day Advent-ism and so on. The former is something UU types might say, as one of the "least religious" religions.

Zebra, you are being divisive. Stop it. You are better than that.

I am saying neither.

I am saying that the belief in god does not preclude one from being a scientist and thinking rationally about the world. Believing in god doesn't prevent you from doing an experiment, reading the result, and changing your understanding of how the world works based on that result.

In assuming these are incompatible, hard-core anti-religionists do the cause of science a disservice by basically convincing the world that, in order to be religious, one *must* to stand in opposition to science. (The hard-core anti-science religious right does the exact same thing to their side, driving people away from religion by making them choose between being religious and being rational.)

As for eating pork, well, that's a matter of simply accepting upon yourself a legal and moral framework written by another. It has nothing whatsoever to do with science, neither for nor against it.

@ Yerushalmi

That means that, if you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient god, and you also believe that evolution is the mechanism by which humans arose on Earth, you *must* believe that evolution took the path it did because god set it up that way.

Yes, but you missed part of my point: It's actually about the "god set it up that way" part of your answer: there is an underlying assumption here, you are using the past tense.
I emphasized how Ben Carson doesn't believe in a standalone evolution. As in, god is playing with it, right now.

I lack the philosophical/theological background to put it in exact words, but I wanted to distinguish between:
- a believer who sees god as a watchmaker: the old guy put the world together, cranked the spring, and now the watch is ticking all by itself. All of its moves may have been planned in details in advance, but right now, it's a standalone process, with strict relations of cause-and-effects between its gears.
- a believer who sees god still walking among us, shaping events on the go.

The 1st believer may only hope to be part of god's plan; the second may hope for the rules to be bend occasionally around him.
The 1st believer won't be tempted to pray for a personal intervention of god in his life. The second will; it may actually be part of his credo. Hence, magical thinking.
From your description, you are close to the first type (with all due respect, I'm not trying to offend).
Ben Carson is of the second type.

I agree I may be going a bit too far with pulling out "magical thinking" out of the bag (eh, now I can say that sometimes i veer off into "scientism"); on the other hand:

A cultural attitude has emerged that says that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible,

But they are.
It's not just science and religion. Similarly, most religions, down to most religion currents, are incompatible with one-another. Only one could be right.
Well, I guess a lot of them could be half-right. That's where the more ecumenical currents stand. To paraphrase Theodore Monod, we are all taking different paths to climb the mountain, and all we can hope is to meet again at the top.

To emphasize, two systems of visualizing the world are incompatible whenever they have different point-of-view on reality.
No matter how you cut it, young earth creationism is incompatible with paleontology, geology, astronomy, biology, archaeology...
And to some extend with theology itself :-)

People with different visions of the way the world is working may try to live side-by-side. Trying to work together may be more difficult.
But a single person having two of these systems coexisting in its head? It will need to compartmentalize, and some parts of each system will have to gave way for the other.
It will be easier if both systems in that person's head are very clear on their limits, and open to change and self-scrutiny. Science could be quite thick-headed with its quest for evidence and facts; any religion generally has a strong, unmovable dogma at its core. That reduces strongly the maneuver room.

tl;dr: when people's metaphysical beliefs collide with science, I would prefer the side with evidence and facts to win.

– a believer who sees god as a watchmaker: the old guy put the world together, cranked the spring, and now the watch is ticking all by itself. All of its moves may have been planned in details in advance, but right now, it’s a standalone process, with strict relations of cause-and-effects between its gears.
– a believer who sees god still walking among us, shaping events on the go.

They are both true. We are G-d, or at least we are paving the way for Him/Her to come. I do not know what happens next.

Yerushalmi #18,

I assume you are responding to me.

Helianthus is making a similar point to mine, and I don't think you are addressing it. Of course one can compartmentalize, and perform scientific experiments while believing that one is communicating/interacting (through prayer or not eating pork or whatever) with a supernatural entity.

But then one must be acting outside either religion or science, which JP may (or may not) be trying to get at.

^ Preparing the way would be a much better choice of words.

A good song.

We have all been doing a good job at holding fast to the truths that we are suited to. Now is the time to work together, and to speak truth to power, and to no longer tolerate lies.

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
― Dalai Lama XIV

I'll see your eastern mystic and raise you a Pat answer,

“You go back in time, you’ve got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things, and you’ve got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas, They’re out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don’t try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years....”

“If you fight science, you are going to lose your children, and I believe in telling them the way it was,”

-- Pat Robertson

@ JP

They are both true.

Yes, I wanted to add that believers - and religions themselves - spread the full spectrum between full determination and free will, or whatever I was trying to say.
That worries me is that Ben Carson appears more and more as an extreme on this spectrum. Worse, even when he is in mild-mannered politician mode.

We are G-d, or at least we are paving the way for Him/Her to come.

Eh, careful, you are getting close to the omega point heresy, which almost resulted in the excommunication by the catholic church of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
OTOH, being compared to Chardin is a big compliment, in my book.

Sidenote: both Teilhard de Chardin and Theodore Monod were deeply religious men and successful scientists - I cannot quote them and not agree with Yerushalmi that it is indeed possible to be both.
Actually, I have worked in scientific labs with people of various religious sensitivity, from mild Catholic or Muslim to hard-line evangelical Calvinism, without much fuss. My misgivings are more about what will happen if my evangelical coworker was to become prime minister. He is very nice and polite and professional, but frankly, I'm not exaggerating by saying I would feel a strong urge to flee the country the day after his election.

I do not know what happens next.

Eh, no need to rush.

#24
Touché.

@Helianthus
I take no offense at anything you're saying. But it's clear that so many of your beliefs about religion are shaped by the prevalence, either in the media or in your personal background or both, of one particular religion, and these criticisms do not apply to almost any other religion.

Most religions are incompatible with one another because they are in *direct contradiction* with one another. I do not argue with this. You either believe in one god or three or seven or seventy or zero.

But religions contradicting one another is not evidence of religion contradicting science; science offers no opinion on the number of gods because nobody has run an experiment with that number as an output.

Applesauce (#15) put up this interesting quote:
“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
― Dalai Lama XIV

This is a great quote because it very closely reflects my own beliefs with regards to religion. There's a saying in Orthodox Judaism: "If you think that science and Torah are in contradiction, then either you misunderstood the science, or you misunderstood the Torah." Christianity fought for centuries against the idea that the Earth was not the center of the universe, until eventually it was realized that such a belief wasn't strictly necessary to being a Christian. Similarly, almost every single one of the more ridiculous Jewish beliefs that I've encountered have turned out to come from medieval-era rabbis who based their beliefs on superstitions prevalent at the time. The Talmud at one point describes an argument between the Jewish rabbis and the Greek philosophers about where the sun goes at night, and the discussion in the Jewish religious text ultimately comes down on the side of the Greeks because, it concluded, "their words make [more] sense than our words". (Though, hilariously, the Greeks' reasoning is completely flawed even though they turned out to be right.)

You use young earth creationism as your example, and yes, young earth creationism stands in contrast to almost every branch of science known to man. But that's an example of *one* belief system: a belief system that follows neither the Buddhist principle from Applesauce's quote nor the Jewish principle from mine; a belief system that does not represent even the whole of its own religion, given the Vatican's (and many other Christian sects') lack of a problem with evolution or the scientific age of the universe; a belief system that, yes, is probably stubbornly hanging on to outdated imperalist dogm- sorry, I mean outdated unscientific beliefs not because it is antithetical to their religion but because of the *societal* rifts that cause them to believe that science, as they misinterpret it due to the anti-religious sentiments of its loudest and rudest proponents, is actively attempting to distance them from their religion.

Young earth creationism is infecting Judaism nowadays, for that same societal reason. But it's not part of our belief system, and it never was. I would not be surprised if modern Buddhism is having the same problem.

This is one of my favorite quotes:
https://twitter.com/loresjoberg/status/525035527225892864

I love the Pat Robertson quote. A similar thing was said by Rabbi Natan Slifkin (I don't have the exact words):

"If God invested so much effort in trying to convince me that the universe is billions of years old, why should I believe He is lying?"

“… was basically a rock star whom seemingly everyone admired.” Check.

“… he became more and more famous based on his life story as told in his biography.” Check.

“… started to develop a touch of hubris and that that hubris carried over to his political campaign.” Check.

“… a man who has never held elective office or even run a large organization, such as a company.” Half-a-check.

“… basically lied through his teeth.” Check.

“… even more disappointing to see that he is still pandering.” Check.

“… a walking, talking, nonsense-spewing example demonstrating that a high level of knowledge and skill in one area does not necessarily make one a skeptic.” Check.

That’s six and a half checks for Obama.

SN, the article was not about Obama. You must be confused by the skin color of the subject of this article.

science offers no opinion on the number of gods because nobody has run an experiment with that number as an output.
Russel's teapot much? This is why I find theology so useless...

To Helianthus #19:

“The 1st believer won’t be tempted to pray for a personal intervention of god in his life. The second will; it may actually be part of his credo. Hence, magical thinking.”

Aren’t BOTH believers engaged in “magical thinking”, in your view?
...........
“I agree I may be going a bit too far with pulling out “magical thinking” out of the bag (eh, now I can say that sometimes i veer off into “scientism”)”

And your “scientism” is not science. It’s a philosophy, a world-view.
.........
“A cultural attitude has emerged that says that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible, But they are.”

No, they are not.
Fides ET ratio.
..........
“Similarly, most religions, down to most religion currents, are incompatible with one-another. Only one could be right.”

Agreed! THAT makes sense.

@AdamG: I don't see what Russel's Teapot has to do with anything. I've never claimed that the lack of a disproof indicates that the existence of a god or gods should be assumed. All I'm saying is that the lack of a disproof indicates that the sum totla of our scientific knowledge to date is not actively incompatible with such a belief.

To Yerushalmi #27:

“This is one of my favorite quotes:
https://twitter.com/loresjoberg/status/525035527225892864”

I kind of liked the quote above it:
“If Darwinian evolution applies to religion, then religion must have some evolutionary value.”
.....
I'm a YEC who has sometimes said something similar:
'Don't get mad at me. I just "evolved" this way.' Or
'Don't blame me. Blame evolution.'

Carson has simply realized that to get noticed in today's anti-science and pro-racist republican party you have to say things they like: state that what is believed to be established science really isn't, that what people who don't worship the way the masses do are evil and need to be tracked and kept out of the country, and that facts don't matter (saying you met with someone who wasn't in your city about a scholarship that doesn't exist is good since the subject was a military academy: the fact that it was entirely made up doesn't matter and really is just a "gotcha" question).

In short: to have a chance as a republican candidate, you have to lie through your teeth. That's what makes him appealing to so many on the right: he's one of them.

Also, AdamG, it is precisely that dismissive and condescending attitude towards religion that is contributing to the great science vs. religion rifts in modern American society. I come and say that I represent an example of how the two sides need not fight, and you answer by telling me how useless my beliefs are.

If you instead respect my beliefs, especially seeing as I am in no way trying to convince you to share them, you will demonstrate that you don't have the active hostility towards religion that the religious right in America always assumes the atheist left has.

All I’m saying is that the lack of a disproof indicates that the sum totla of our scientific knowledge to date is not actively incompatible with such a belief.

Isn't that the whole point of burden of proof though? I don't see it as being all that far off from an antivaxer saying 'science has no opinion on autism and vaccines because [insert impossible study here] has not been conducted'

I emphasized how Ben Carson doesn’t believe in a standalone evolution. As in, god is playing with it, right now.

The only clear meaning I can extract from Carson's tergiversation is that 'evolution' is something that 'evolutionists' believe in, but only because they're misinterpreting the evidence. He accepts 'adaptation' but not evolution.

it is precisely that dismissive and condescending attitude towards religion that is contributing to the great science vs. religion rifts in modern American society.

I've seen this tone argument play out a thousand times. No evidence for this statement, as usual.
And I'm out.

I don’t see it as being all that far off from an antivaxer saying ‘science has no opinion on autism and vaccines because [insert impossible study here] has not been conducted’

Science has expressed opinions on autism and vaccines because literally dozens of studies have been done. Waiting for the imaginary perfect study (or using its absence as an excuse) is nowhere near the same thing as expressing an opinion on something that, virtually by definition, cannot be tested. Show me a study that purports to prove the nonexistence of god, and then we'll talk; until then, I'm free to believe what I like, and so are you.

Isn’t that the whole point of burden of proof though?
Where did I set out to prove the existence of god? Why are you making that assumption of me?

Yerushalmi @36:
I come and say that I represent an example of how the two sides need not fight

I have nothing intelligent to contribute on that broader issue, but on the narrow question of Carson's own beliefs and statements, you seem to be offering an excessively charitable reading of his words.

Carson is *not* accepting a kind of divinely-guided evolution, or "evolution as the workings of the divine clockwork". He presents his belief in contrast to what "evolutionists" believe (i.e. that adaptation to the environment is "proof positive" that new species can arise).

#36 Yerushalmi,

"If you instead respect my beliefs..."

But we have no idea what your "beliefs" are, Yerushalmi.

If you follow the various quoted instructions about accepting scientific proof over traditional religious views of the physical universe, then what is it that anyone here is "not respecting"?

If you say that e.g. not eating pork is a choice independent of the claim that God doesn't want you to eat pork, what exactly qualifies you as "religious"? It sounds much more as if you are a Jewish version of Cafeteria Catholic, which is fine, but it is more a choice of cultural identity than a matter of "belief".

Yerushalmi - what does "respect my beliefs" mean in this context? What different actions or statements would be required to show sufficient respect? How do you reconcile that with your previous statements which, if I may be so bold, claim that anyone who says their religious beliefs conflict with science are incorrect?

FWIW, like Stephen Jay Gould I believe that religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria. However, there are those who clearly disagree with me on this.

Some of my best friends are Hubris, and they are not opposed to skepticism.

@herr doktor bimler:
The last paragraph of my very first post (#1) here makes it clear that the differences between our opinions on Carson are not very great:
To be fair, this is highly unlikely to be the case (cf. his idiocy with the pyramids). But on the off chance that it is, it’s not really fair to label him a creationist in the “crank” sense.

@zebra, Mephistopheles:
I was referring to my belief in god in the most general sense. You don't need to know the details about my belief - beyond the fact that it exists - to see that why phrasing "Russel’s teapot much? This is why I find theology so useless…" would be construed as dismissive and condescending.

I will say that I've thought Stephen Jay Gould is an idiot ever since I was twelve years old, when I read the introduction he wrote to one of the Far Side books and noticed that in one of the strips he referenced he utterly failed to get the joke.

Thank you for your conversation.

And please, continue. With dignity and good humor.

Yerushalmi,

I will say that I’ve thought Stephen Jay Gould is an idiot ever since I was twelve years old, when I read the introduction he wrote to one of the Far Side books and noticed that in one of the strips he referenced he utterly failed to get the joke.

I'm surprised by that; are you sure you didn't misunderstand him? I've thought Stephen Jay Gould was brilliant since I too was twelve years old, when my brother bought me a copy of 'Ever Since Darwin'. I loved it, and then read my way through everything he had written that I could get my hands on. My impressions were only reinforced when I attended a lecture he gave in London circa 1989 (about spandrels as I recall), in which he displayed a well-developed sense of humor. I don't agree with him on everything, but I love his style of thinking; I think you may have dismissed him prematurely, which would be a shame.

@ Yerushalmi

But religions contradicting one another is not evidence of religion contradicting science; science offers no opinion on the number of gods because nobody has run an experiment with that number as an output.

I agree, at least in general terms. It was my point about each system needing to know its limits in order to coexist with the other one.
You forget to mention that, in all most known religions, god(s) are notoriously difficult to coerce into cooperating with some scientific experiment...
This is fine by me. Religion is about belief, and beliefs, by definition, is about thinking something is true without evidence of it being true (and also without evidence of it being false - if there was such evidence, it's not a belief, but a delusion).

Connoisseurs will speak about religious beliefs being unfalsifiable: you cannot prove they are wrong. Or right.

On specific terms, religion - well, people talking under the guise of their religious beliefs - does contradict science from time to time, like when Carson talked bout the pyramids being Joseph's granaries.
That's an assertion which could be assessed scientifically. Heck, forget the scientists in a labcoat, anyone with some knowledge on how to store grains can go and check by itself. Pyramids aren't designed for grain storage.
That doesn't make Carson's religion wrong; but it does make him wrong and him using his religious beliefs wrongly.

Again, my misgivings are about when facts and beliefs collide.

but because of the *societal* rifts that cause them to believe that science, as they misinterpret it due to the anti-religious sentiments of its loudest and rudest proponents, is actively attempting to distance them from their religion.

Yerushalmi, please don't school me on "anti-religious sentiments". You get it easy.
All your non-fully secular countries (US, Israel...) got are "loud and rude proponents" for a little less religion in the streets. (and unfortunately, the occasional gunman on a rampage)
But you still have freedom of religion. And your countries are still religious countries. You can go to your church of choice whenever you want. Nasty atheists are not running around blasting themselves to smithereens.
What atheists (and mild agnostics like myself) want is freedom from religion. You don't get the right to tell me the lie that the Earth is 4000 years old or that the Garden of Eden is East of the Himalaya; you certainly don't have the right to lead a policy based on any of this.

That my country had, a little more than a century ago, was an anti-clerical government who went out of its way to separate church and state.
They had some good reasons for this; notably it had more to do about the secular activities of the Catholic church than its theological message.
Still, during this period, the state was actively suppressing religious freedom. There is no other word.
I'm pretty sure any historian can come with dozens of tales of anti-religious oppression in other countries.

So, when you complain about "anti-religious sentiments", give me a break. Newflash: the world is a large place, and you cannot expect everybody to like you. People have the right to think this whole religion thingy is sh!t. Even if I think they are id!ots for annoying people publicly with their opinion.

You spend a lot of text explaining to me how religious people - or at least your coreligionists - can still make good scientists, because they are not afraid of confronting their beliefs, and vice-versa. As it happens, I agree that this is possible and that it is happening.

I will leave you with another pearl of wisdom from a religious friend of mine: when a relationship is going sour, both parties are responsible for it.
I will grant you that the atheist movement certainly has its share of imbeciles in its ranks. Human nature is the same everywhere.
But when you complain about these rude atheists disgusting your fellow believers from science, it sounds to me like they still have trouble having their beliefs questioned. They may misinterpret science because they want to.

And frankly, these weeks are a bad time to tell me that religious people are fair-minded. Do some effort to clean your ranks of your crazies, and we will clean ours. Deal?

I’m saying is that the lack of a disproof indicates that the sum totla of our scientific knowledge to date is not actively incompatible with such a belief.

Well, the smart religions have all moved on to making unfalsifiable claims, so science can say nothing about their validity. With that, it all comes down to a matter of what you find interesting and what sorts of priors you find plausible.

And I find the idea that some unphysical intelligence created the physical universe to be very implausible, and it leads to a nasty recursion problem. To me, the universe simply exists, and the great and probably unanswerable mystery is why there is something rather than nothing. Anthorpomorphizing this mystery seems childish to me.

And that, for once, is all.

To Yerushalmi:

I don’t know what complement of religious beliefs is considered orthodox for an Orthodox Jew, but what do you believe about this verse from the Jewish scriptures (i.e. Old Testament)?

“And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Daniel 12:2.

Yerushalmi #45,

"...beyond the fact that it exists..."

But that is not a "fact" at all. That is simply your assertion.

Yerushalmi, I'd like to apologize for being so flippant before. It was entirely unnecessary and driven by my previous unpleasant experiences surrounding this topic.

All movements for social change are composed of people with wildly differing philosophies, and the least effective strategy for change is infighting.

See Noevo

Shut up, you piece of shit!

zebra 52 -- The "it" in Yerushalmi's post refers to his belief, which evidently exists

Although I don't believe in an extraphysical God, there is no question that God exists as an idea that many people believe. My own reconciliation with religion is to consider God to be a placeholder, so to speak, for the sense that many of us have that there are important things that are bigger than any of us, and for the instinct to empathize with others. Or something like that.

I dismiss the silly claims of religion, but I sure don't dismiss those overarching ideas.

I will reprise a point I made on Dave original Facebook post when he commented on the New York Times article: What seems to have happened to Dr 'Gifted Hands' is that he has indeed developed a severe case of hubris, brought on, in my view, by too many people saying how great he was for too long, and starting too early in his life. His age has only accentuated these difficulties, as when we age, our basic personal traits often become even more ingrained. And not only that, he has also spent too much time in revival meetings and other such stops on the Praise the lord circuit; he now - literally - thinks he sits at the right hand of Jesus Christ himself. He has, in short, been creating his own bullshit for so long, he actually believes it.

OT, I know, but pretty proud to be an Aussie today :
http://m.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/no-jab-no-play-laws-passed/28507…
Seems that the guvmint has seen sense and backed SBM over anti-vax woo, by hitting where it hurts - right in the wallet !

Of course I couldn't stay out of this one, if only to change the topic back to Ben Carson.
I also read the Times profile, and I was impressed by the loyalty he inspired in his PA. That AAPA wanted to honor him shows that he must be a strong ally of and contributor to the PA profession, and that this was cancelled suggests his opinions were well beyond the pale - PAs are politically and philosophically a very mixed bunch or people. PAs are like that old joke about Jews that if you ask two you'll get three opinions.
Getting back to his hubris, which I don't doubt is the correct word, and in spite of his sedate(d) appearance, an observation by Hunter S Thompson applies to him. As the good doctor said, every politician has to have a little kinky streak of Mick Jagger in him, and it's there in Carson too. He loves the adulation of the crowd, and he's got a kind of counter-political appeal that I think he cultivates to make himself stand out. This inner Mick Jagger lives very nicely alongside quiet hubris, just as it does with Donald Trumpery's self-aggrandizement and megalomania, or Chris Christie's crassness (or should we just call him Chrass Christie?).

#49 "People have the right to think this whole religion thingy is sh!t. Even if I think they are id!ots for annoying people publicly with their opinion."

I'm not entirely clear why it seems to be okay for believers discuss their beliefs but, should one thing the whole thing is a pile of horse pucky, it's some how rude or not nice or insensitive to state that.

Carson's religious beliefs are deeply disturbing to me. I suppose I should be grateful he is so public about them as it means I know he's not a man I'd trust with the running of my country. As if the anti-vax stuff wasn't enough.

@Krebiozen
You shouldn't take that statement *THAT* seriously :)

@Helianthus
Wow. You just brought in a LOT of straw-man arguments:
* What does anti-religious *oppression* have anything to do with my assertion that our culture has created an environment of religious opposition to science and vice versa? I'm not saying "religious people have it bad". I'm only saying that an environment has been created in which religious authorities and rationalists seem to believe their two groups cannot intersect.
* Why do you bring that "pearl of wisdom" into this discussion? I've said multiple times in the earlier posts of this thread that modern evangelical Christianity is responsible for much of the attitude that religion must be in opposition to science; my later posts, which lack this even-handedness, are addressed to the hostility towards religion expressed by people *in this thread*.
* What does Islamic terrorism have anything to do with my assertion that you can be religious and yet be rational? And in the context of that terrorism, telling somebody *Jewish* to "clean my ranks of the crazies" is a low blow.

@palindrom
The smart religions have moved on to making *mostly* unfalsifiable claims, yes. But almost every religion has a history that can at least in part be verified. For instance, it is fashionable to claim that many things in the Bible are metaphorical and not literal, and to claim that god's omnipotence allows him to weasel out of any test you might conduct that is designed to reveal his existence. You can say that god, being omnipotent, wrote the Torah in such-and-such a fashion so that it would fool later generations of linguistic investigators, for example. But there is only so far one can move the goalposts before anybody's faith snaps under the strain, including mine. So while the core belief in an omnipotent being may be unfalsifiable, the surrounding beliefs that support it certainly can be.

@See Noevo: I'm not familiar enough with the book of Daniel, I'm afraid.

@zebra: palindrom has it right. My belief is something that exists; I make no assertions to you about god.

@AdamG: Apology accepted. Thank you. I certainly believe that those of us who are rationalists - regardless of our positions on religion - ought to fight together against the irrationality that is sweeping modern religion. (And, before the obvious objection is brought up, I will remind you that I am Jewish, not Christian; my religion has *always* had a rich vein of rationalism, and it is only recently that some authorities have begun to reject its legitimacy.)

@Meg: I have no problem with people telling me they think my beliefs are stupid, but there are ways to say it without being condescending, dismissive, or offensive. Palindrom's objections to religion, for example, are a good example of how to express it.

Please, tell your truths proudly. We have all done very well, and we have much to be grateful for - from each other. Don't forget to be excellent to each other. I think I might go on holiday for a while, but I'll be dropping in and out to hang our with all you lovely, intelligent people.

^ hang out.

@ Yerushalmi

Wow. You just brought in a LOT of straw-man arguments:

Maybe.
Although I think that , due to a bit of cultural difference, we are talking past each other.

What does anti-religious *oppression* have anything to do with my assertion that our culture has created an environment of religious opposition to science and vice versa?

- I over-reacted, thinking how atheists/free-thinkers movements in US are framed as "war on Christianity".
- I also wanted to put things into perspective. A local group of vocal anti-religious people is not the same threat on religion as a state-enabled anti-religious policy.

Let me put it this way: your paragraph about rude anti-religious goons gave me the impression you were playing the oppressed minority card. It riled me up.
You weren't, and I apologize for this.

At the same time, I was trying to tell you that, from my little experience in USA, we in France went a lot further into separating religious expression and public life. A French president who "prays for his enemies" while declaring war will be laughed out of office.
(although, recently, there have been a surge of "France has Christian roots" politicians; but it's disguised racism rather than religion bigotry)

In this context, what you see as rude anti-religious expression may be considered normal in my country and doesn't stop us from being religious. We are expected to heavily compartmentalize our religious beliefs and our professional life and accept it as routine.
In short, you may see your country as secular, but for me, you country is still deeply religious. So we don't have the same reaction to people saying "bring less religion in professional/public life".

What does Islamic terrorism have anything to do with my assertion that you can be religious and yet be rational?

Religious-based violence is not the monopoly of Islam.

And in the context of that terrorism, telling somebody *Jewish* to “clean my ranks of the crazies” is a low blow.

Should we let the discussion veer off into Israel politics? Not so long ago, Ariel Sharon's government was entertaining the idea of expanding current borders to match the Old Testament borders (the Great Israel).
Sharon since recanted on the idea, but still. There are still hyper-religious Jews to entertain the idea (along with a few hyper-religious US Christians, who see the restoration of Jerusalem temple as a necessary step before the second coming of Christ),

I see it as a prime example of religion driving (bad) politics.
The Israel-Middle Eastern conflict is a lot more complex than just a religious war. Just the geo-politic aspect of resources access is a diplomatic nightmare.
But the local interactions of the three Abrahamic religions are not helping. And I am sorry, but each side does have its share of crazies.

But I agree my shot was a bit dirty.
If anything, you are not responsible for anyone I deem "crazy" and on "your" side (emphasis on "I deem" - my opinion, my biases).

Yerushalmi (and also for Palindrom),

This is one of those concepts that must be spelled out very carefully, I suppose:

I am not questioning an assertion that God exists.

I am questioning your assertion that you believe God exists.

It is no more possible to prove or disprove the latter than the former.

The point is, Y, that you are claiming some authority based on this untestable internal state, which is not much different from someone telling me that he knows the truth because God speaks to him.

If you want to make a case in the context of a nuanced, psycho-social, scientific analysis of human behavior, by all means have at it. I would argue, for example, following on from Helianthus' point about the ME, that you could explain suicide bombers without invoking religion at all.

But I don't think your personal philosophical viewpoint, whatever it might be, is at all relevant to the actions and reactions of the groups in question.

I appreciate the apology, Helianthus. I will also point out that I don't actually live in the US; religious Jews in Israel are certainly not an "oppressed minority".

The reason I said you were talking about Islamic terrorism is because you said I shouldn't discuss being religious and fair-minded in "these weeks", and you're from France. It wasn't that much of a leap. :)

I don't want to get into a discussion of Israeli politics either, but I should just point out that hyper-religious Jews are not the ones who espouse Greater Israel philosophies; in fact, the more hyper-religious they are, the less they support (and, after a certain threshold, the more they *actively oppose*) the existence of the State of Israel. Some links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edah_HaChareidis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satmar_%28Hasidic_dynasty%29#Satmar_and_t…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neturei_Karta

There are other misconceptions in your post as well but I *really* don't want to get into the discussion.

@zebra
All I said is that it's not hard to imagine how somebody who believes in god, such as me, might find a particular phrasing condescending or offensive. I have no idea what you're trying to say in disputing that I believe in god.

# 27 Yerushalmi
Christianity fought for centuries against the idea that the Earth was not the center of the universe

Excuse me but this is nonsense overall. The Catholic Church, at least, did not fight against this the idea but rather refused to change a earth-centred model for a helio-centered model without adequate proof. Certainly the Catholic Church had no real problem with the idea as long as it could be convincingly demontrated and for a good century or so it could not be untill future research showed that the helio-centric proposition was a better explanation of the data.

In fact, the Church's position was just the same as the Dalai Lama's that you posted.\If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
― Dalai Lama XIV

"Stop badmouthing and lying about our future president Ben Carson! It's mean! And it makes you all seem ridiculous. Obama is much worse! The worst, bloody communist muslim immigrant."
"We're not lying, we're just asking him to explain what he said." says someone from the audience.
"You liberals are trying to smear him! It's all lies!"
"There's recordings of him saying those things, evidence-"
"Bah! Evidence, shmevidence, who believes in those things anyway. Bible says it all, the age of the Creation and how even Jews belive in the afterlife!"
"Somehow it doesn't surprise me that guy is a young earth creationist..." whispers one spectator to another, while holding the camera.
"It's not his fault, it's just that he was createth dumb."

(pause)

Irritated by the giggling from the audience, See Noevo stomps the stage hard in anger. "Now listen!" he shouts, before to muster a calmer demeanor and an air of reasonable discussion. "I took time off my busy and incredibly important schedule of studying the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact to be here for you people, so you should accept what I have to say without questions."

(pause)

"And when you think about it, isn't that what honest debate is all about?"
"No." answers the audience.
"Shut up, I wasn't asking!" shrieks See Noevo.

@ Yerushalmi

Two points I would like to clarify, because I feel I was not clear enough, and it's bugging me since yesterday it could have been seen as offensive:

In conflating the generalized belief in God with “magical thinking”

Actually, I was trying not to:
- by magical thinking, I meant the act of believing that the universe will make an exception for the believer.
Believing in an afterlife or that some supernatural entity is watching over you is not.
Believing that you can jump off a cliff and said supernatural entity will catch you is magical thinking.*
I guess I could have just said religion-based hubris. Or just hubris: magical thinking is not necessarily linked to a given religion, or to any religion.
Note that I am not judging on the existence - or non-existence - of miracles; just on the belief that a miracle will happen.

- dogma: I was using the term in a non-pejorative way. I meant by it the core beliefs and rituals of a given religion/set of beliefs; the ones by which one identifies itself and its fellow coreligionists.

* If someone is already on the way down, I certainly won't blame it for hoping for a magical rescue.

@ Yerushalmi

There are other misconceptions in your post

Oh. Fair enough.
Eh, I'll have learned something today.

jrkrideau #66,

It might be more accurate to say that many in physics were reluctant to embrace a position that, given what was generally accepted as Church doctrine, might alienate a powerful entity and its followers. You can hardly suggest that there were not factions within the Church (as there are today) less open to change.

But you are quite correct that the numbers were still with epicycles for a while there.

@Helianthus
I saw nothing wrong with the use of the word "dogma". As for "magical thinking", I don't entirely see how prayers for intercession relate to evolution, which was when the first term was brought up.

Yerushalmi #65,

You have no idea what I am trying to say? How could I be any more clear than saying that "God exists" and "I believe God exists" are equally empty statements?

It may be that you empathize with people who profess belief, but your claim that the empathy is because you Believe is unsupported. And that's what you are claiming.

I have no idea what you're trying to say *in this context*.

p = I believe God exists.
q = I found statement x to be hurtful.

How does the verifiability of p in any way change your ability to evaluate the statement p->q?

Yerushalmi,

Let's dispense with trying to use logical symbols, which is really a form of distraction. The validity of

"I found statement x to be hurtful because I believe God exists"

obviously depends on the validity of the second part.

If I say "I found this racist comment offensive because I'm an African American", it would not be true.

Do you really not understand that?

As Carson tries to wiggle out from the flaps over fabricating stuff in his autobiography, some of what he HASN'T made up shows more hubris than the his inventions or stretching of the truth..

His oft repeated claim he was offered a scholarship to West Point caps a narrative arc of extraordinary boot-strapping, in which he takes control of his of life, and transforms himself from the young 'thug' who stabbed a friend and only escaped being a murderer by the hand of God's belt-buckle into a thoroughly disciplined and respected young-man-headed-for-great-things. He says he received the 'scholarship offer' after having dinner with William Westmoreland on Memorial Day 1969, having been selected to attend dinner with the General by virtue of being "the highest student ROTC member in Detroit." Here's how he describes this momentus day in Healing Hands:

"I felt so proud, my chest bursting with ribbons and braids of every kind. To make it more wonderful, we had important visitors that day. Two soldiers who had won the Congressional Medal of Honor in Viet Nam were present. More exciting to me, General William Westmoreland (very prominent in the Viet Nam war) attended with an impressive entourage. Afterward, Sgt. Hunt introduced me to General Westmoreland, and I had dinner with him and the Congressional Medal winners. Later I was offered a full scholarship to West Point.

Lets forget about the 'scholarship, as it's merely a footnote to the paragraph, and focus on what no one's disputing:
• In 1969 Carson was the highest ranked Junior ROTC candidate in Detroit.
• He was more excited to meet William Westmoreland than to meet Medal of Honor winners.
• He knew Westmoreland had recently returned to the U.S. and a Pentagon post after having been the commander of U.S. forces in Viet Nam during the height of the war.
• He was very impressed by Westmoreland's entourage.
By 1969, only utter tools were proud of being in ROTC. After Tet and Chicago, revelations about body-counts and possible atrocities, anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skills and/or intellectual humility was rethinking the Vietnam War and American militarism and imperialism in general. Parading in front of a ROTC group bursting with pride at your chest full of non-combat) medals took considerable hubris.

But not as much as recounting the incident the way Carson did in his book. He writes about how "wonderful" it had been to meet Westmoreland? The general who said:

The Oriental doesn't put the same high price on life as does a Westerner. ... We value life and human dignity. They don't care about life and human dignity.

...while instituting 'kill anything that moves' tactics that resulted in massive civilian casualties, and then covering-up the atrocities like My Lai that inevitably followed? It was bad enough he couldn't manage critical thinking on Vietnam in 1969. That his head could be so far under the sand in 2003 boggles the mind

But that's probably indicative of why Carson is polling up there with The Donald:

Here is the thing. The central and sacrosanct tenet of 21st century conservatism—the core ethic against which to judge a Republican politician’s fidelity and consistency—is not fiscal prudence, or the preservation of social tradition, or even cold post-human market rationality. It’s flailing, entitled hostility toward the very notion of reason. Trump and Carson are at the middle of the debate stage, Fiorina and Rubio and poor Rand Paul on it at all, because what they say is ridiculous, because them saying things about policy and policymaking is itself ridiculous, because they rather obviously are the most ridiculous people to take seriously when they say pretty much anything at all. They’re there to express an idea: Refusal.

Do you want to stay here and play some more?
No!
Okay, well, then, let’s pack up our stuff and head home.
No!
Uh, well, sweetie, we have to either stay or go.
I don’t want to!
You don’t want to what?
I don’t know!

Tired and cranky, arms crossed, glassy eyes pinched shut, heads swiveling back and forth in simple stubborn refusal. You can’t make me! I don’t wanna! Refusing everything. The point is refusal...

The thing those eight clowns were put there to conserve isn’t money, or tradition, or individual liberty, or some proud American heritage. The constituency... empirically and emphatically does not give a fuck about any of those things. The thing being conserved is a fantasy, and a privileged, childish one: that the universe bends itself to the pieties and self-assurances and red-faced insistences of the entitled; that truth comes from authority and not the other way around; that I don’t give a good goldang what some fancypants “math” book says, under my roof two plus two equals five and don’t you forget it. – Albert Burneko

jrkrideau #66
The Church certainly did fight the heliocentric model.
You often hear the woo-ful say "They laughed at Galileo." They did no such thing. He scared the living piss out of the Church. It had a major investment of intellectual and moral capital in geocentrism. At the same time they had nothing to refute him with. They allowed him to publish, but only if he cast it as an intellectual exercise. He failed to do so to their satisfaction, and instead put his ideas in a dialogue in which the Church positions were defended by a character intended to be seen as a fool and simpleton. This led to his trial and so forth.
At least that's how I learned it, to the best of my recall (I have no fear that any error I have made will go uncorrected (although I do fear that things I've gotten right will also be corrected)).

Excuse me but this is nonsense overall. The Catholic Church, at least, did not fight against this the idea but rather refused to change a earth-centred model for a helio-centered model without adequate proof.

Ah, well, that explains why the Inquisition ordered Galileo to abandon "the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing." The banning of all books about the Copernican system (including Kepler's) was merely a courtesy detail.

@zebra
I'll start with the really tiny picture objection and move on to the big-picture objection.
1) You are objecting to this statement:
You don’t need to know the details about my belief – beyond the fact that it exists – to see that why phrasing “Russel’s teapot much? This is why I find theology so useless…” would be construed as dismissive and condescending.
All that's said in this statement is that, if you assume that somebody believes in god, they would find that statement dismissive and condescending. Arguing against the assumption doesn't argue against the logical progression that follows from the assumption. "Unicorns don't exist" is not an argument against "if a unicorn had wings, then it could fly".

2) Think about what you are ultimately asserting here: that you have the right to disregard somebody's feelings absolutely, just because it cannot be proven that those feelings are genuine. That is not a good model of interpersonal interactions.

“If Darwinian evolution applies to religion, then religion must have some evolutionary value.”

Of course, Darwinian evolution doesn't apply to religion...

Yerushalmi #78,

I think I've been quite clear about my point, starting with my pretty benign and non-controversial first comment, and have no interest in repeating myself.

You are misinterpreting it for whatever reason-- perhaps you have doubts about your faith and my observations make you uncomfortable, so you are trying to change the subject. That's OK, it's all part of the journey.

You are misinterpreting it for whatever reason

Yes, you complain about this often. It's an outstandingly stupid example in this case.

It says in Genesis 1, in the beginning God created heaven and earth. Period. We don’t know how long that period is before he started the rest of creation. It could be a minute. It could be a trillion years. We don’t know. I have never stated that I have an understanding of how old the earth is.

Carson seems to be making it clear that he is not interested in any scientific evidence.

He is only interested in what is written in his Bible.

How does this make him any different from Ken Ham?

At least we have a current president who’s knowledgeable about science, and even uses it to fight the biggest worry on people’s minds:

“Next week, I will be joining President Hollande and world leaders in Paris for the global climate conference. WHAT A POWERFUL REBUKE TO THE TERRORISTS IT WILL BE, when the world stands as one and shows that we will not be deterred from building a better future for our children.”
– Barack Obama

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/24/obama-says-paris-climate-confere…

I feel so much better.

See Noevo, if you don't wake up and get over yourself, you are going to go to Hell.

SN, I just read the comments on that climate depot page you made reference to. Nice bunch of friends you have there.

SN, I just read the comments on that climate depot page you made reference to.

At least S.N. recycles.

Old Rockin' Dave #76:

The Church certainly did fight the heliocentric model...
At least that’s how I learned it, to the best of my recall

That's what everyone "learns", but in reality it's more complicated than that.
The church was mostly neutral on the matter. At that time, the evidence, as it was, supported geocentricity better than heliocentricity. It was only with the advent of better telescopes that the evidence swung towards the latter.
The problem the church faced is that it didn't want to be seen to flip-flop. If it endorsed heliocentricity and then later data proved geocentricity, that could damage its image, or so it feared.
Another problem was that even though Galileo was ultimately correct, he was a jerk about it. The church wanted him to frame the discussion as a "thought exercise" and include a line because of the aforementioned weakness of the data. Galileo did so, but put the line in the mouth of a character who was written to be a fool.
Of course, it's even more complicated than what I've written, but it's not as simple as "church fixated on geocentrism".

Julian Frost,

Another problem was that even though Galileo was ultimately correct, he was a jerk about it.

Galileo lived the rest of his life under house arrest to shut him up.

It took the church hundreds of years to admit the mistake.

You, and other defenders of the Church, pretend that Galileo was the jerk.

All Galileo did was educate people about science.

Because science exposed the problems with the Church's mandated "Christian science," Galileo was confined to his house for the rest of his life.

If Galileo had been less famous, the church might have burned him at the stake, as they did with others they convicted of heresy.

Yet, you claim that Galileo was a jerk for advancing science. Brilliant!

Rogue Medic:

Yet, you claim that Galileo was a jerk for advancing science. Brilliant!

No, I claim he was a jerk because he was obnoxious towards geocentrists when the evidence wasn't yet definitive. The fact that it's definitive now doesn't change the fact that back then it wasn't.
Nice ad hominem, by the way.

Dudes, chill out.

Entirely OT: That is an extremely flattering picture of Dr. Carson. So much so that if people were into electing physicians and I was in his camp, I'd recommend using it for his campaign.

Julian Frost, # 87
You say "...The church was mostly neutral on the matter".
Well, I think it is inaccurate. Catholic Church had a vested interest in saying that Sun revolved around Earth, because this is what its Holy Book had said (Joshua 12 f). And no Holy Church can admit errors in The Book.
As Karl Popper says (Three Views Concerning Human Knowledge), "... There was no objection to Galileo's teaching the mathematical theory, so long as he made it clear that its value was instrumental only , as Cardinal Bellarmino put it; a kind of mathematical trick, invented and assumed in order to abbreviate and ease the calculations.... Galileo himself, of course, was very ready to stress the superiority of the Copernican system as an instrument of calculation. But at the same time he conjectured, and even believed, that it was a true description of the world; and for him (as for the Church) this was by far the most important aspect of the matter".

Julian Frost,

No, I claim he was a jerk because he was obnoxious towards geocentrists when the evidence wasn’t yet definitive.

Being obnoxious toward people who lock up the people they disagree with is not being a jerk.

Being obnoxious toward people who kill the people they disagree with is not being a jerk.

But you will probably keep claiming that Galileo was the jerk, not those who persecuted scientists.

To perodatrent #93:

“Well, I think it is inaccurate. Catholic Church had a vested interest in saying that Sun revolved around Earth, because this is what its Holy Book had said (Joshua 12 f). And no Holy Church can admit errors in The Book.”

Where does Scripture say the sun revolves around the earth?

To Julian Frost and jrkrideau:

Thanks for the Galileo posts.

Is it also true that Galileo was proposing the false idea that the sun was the center of the universe, not just the center of our solar system?

But you will probably keep claiming that Galileo was the jerk, not those who persecuted scientists.

Lovely strawman there. I never said that the Vatican weren't jerks. Oh, and please stop presuming to tell me what I am or am not thinking. You have no idea how wrong you are about me.
And remember what I said about the evidence for geocentrism? Galileo was being a jerk to everyone who believed in geocentrism. Until he and Copernicus came along, the majority viewpoint was geocentrism and he insulted everyone.

“If Darwinian evolution applies to religion, then religion must have some evolutionary value.”

Of course religion – or rather the mental character that seems to establish a 'preference' for religious belief – has evolutionary value, serving a variety of functions that help get the 'chosen' genes into the next generation. That doesn't mean there's a God, or that any piece of dogma is necessarily correct. If anything, the proliferation of so many different religious beliefs among the species shows that while belief has an evolutionary function, the content of that belief is essentially irrelevant, as long as it serves the socio-behavioral functions of natural selection for creatures inhabiting a specific environment.

Keepin' it cool, sadmar.

“If Darwinian evolution applies to religion, then religion must have some evolutionary value.”

Bull. First of all, define religion. Second, evolution is an ongoing dynamic process. We're not looking at perfect end states, but adaptations to conditions that may or may not be successful to varying degrees for varying populations in the long run. It should be trivially obvious to anyone paying attention to politics that as a group, humans are chock full of buggy software.

Julian Frost,

Lovely strawman there. I never said that the Vatican weren’t jerks.

Locking people up and killing people for discussing science is far worse than being jerks.

Science depends on criticism of hypotheses, not on manners.

Being a jerk is how science progresses, but you object to that when you state that any scientist was a jerk for explaining his thinking about the evidence.

Oh, and please stop presuming to tell me what I am or am not thinking. You have no idea how wrong you are about me.

Will you keep claiming that Galileo was a jerk?

I expect that you will, even though that is not telling you what you are thinking. I am just making a prediction based on the evidence you have provided.

Let's see if you continue to call Galileo a jerk.

And remember what I said about the evidence for geocentrism? Galileo was being a jerk to everyone who believed in geocentrism.

I was right.

You are the one creating straw men, but you accuse others of what you are doing. Either you don't know what you are doing or you are completely dishonest.

It would be wrong for me to pretend that I know which applies to you, because that would be pretending to read your mind. I don't do that, no matter how much you claim otherwise. Anyone can look at our discussion and see the truth.

Go ahead.

Until he and Copernicus came along, the majority viewpoint was geocentrism and he insulted everyone.

Promoting an alternative hypothesis is insulting to those who have not yet been persuaded by the evidence?

Providing evidence to support that alternative hypothesis is insulting.

We need to stop learning, because it will be insulting to those with entrenched faulty beliefs!

A reasonable person might conclude that we need more jerks like Galileo and fewer people like you.

Guuuuuys, relax. Keep it cool. Be excellent to each other.

Maybe it's time for a nice cold beer, or whatever it is you like. No need to worry about time zones; you can drink at 7 AM if you want to. The Beastie Boys fought for that kinda thing.

Another good song. (I think I like this guy.)

Julian Frost - By the time of Galileo, geocentrism had been in increasing trouble for hundreds of years. Proponents had been forced into ever more intricate rationalizations in the attempt to keep it alive in the face of better observations and better math. Galileo's telescopic observations of Jupiter's moons was pretty much the coup de grace.The Church was aware of this, and was unable to refute him and knew it. Various Church fathers came to look through his telescope; most were impressed, though at least one claimed that the view through his telescope was nothing but an elaborate trick (and who more than a clergyman would know about elaborate trickery?).
There are numerous verses in the Bible that are not only geocentric, but flat-Earth:
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
The Church of course was heavily invested in Biblical inerrancy, so could not in the end endorse a finding that overturned it, no matter how powerful the evidence.
This article on the Bible as a source for flat-Earthers gives a good idea of the Biblical conception of the skies: https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

To Old Rockin’ Dave #105:

The verses you quote have nothing to do with a stationary earth but rather with a lasting earth.

Unless you think the Bible is saying the wicked shall never change physical positions:
“In the pride of his countenance the wicked does not seek him; all his thoughts are, "There is no God."
He thinks in his heart, "I SHALL NOT BE MOVED;
throughout all generations I shall not meet adversity."
[Psalm 10:4,6]

Or you think the righteous are physically frozen in place:
“who does not put out his money at interest,
and does not take a bribe against the innocent.
He who does these things SHALL NEVER BE MOVED.” [Psalm 15:5]
…………..
I’m not aware of any place Scripture says the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa.

See Noevo:

Chill, man. Go drink a beer or walk the dog or smoke a reefer or something. Whatever helps you. We've all been real tense for a long damn time. Just relax.

The verses you quote have nothing to do with a stationary earth but rather with a lasting earth.

Lasting is good. We're gonna last a looooooong time, friends and neighbors.

See Noevo,

The verses you quote have nothing to do with a stationary earth but rather with a lasting earth.

That is one of the many problems with the Bible.

It can be used to justify whatever you want, depending on which verse you quote and what interpretation you use.

The Ku Klux Klan appear to be just as sincere in their interpretation of the Bible as Pat Robertson or Mike Huckabee.

They all use their interpretations to promote immorality.

The Bible is the vaguest, most relative book in history.

There is nothing that all Christians agree on - except that there was something special about Jesus.

God thinks like the believer, because there isn't any credible source to tell us what the people who wrote the Bible meant and they probably had very different beliefs, but they ended up in the same series of books with no editor.

The Bible is the vaguest, most relative book in history.

There's a reason for that.

JP, you are doing the good work here! I lift my stone-cold cup of tea to your persistence and calm demeanor.

Maybe everyone just needs a nice cuppa.

I lift my stone-cold cup of tea to your persistence and calm demeanor.

Some of the chillest amongst us are a bit Asian in demeanor. ;) The tea ceremony is a real nice thing... lovely manners.

The oh-so-cool JP may be right.
Just chill. Everything’s under control.
Like he says here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3epkCVAx0F8

Things couldn’t be better.

Although JP #84 also says in holiday jest that I’m self-absorbed and going to hell.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Although JP #84 also says in holiday jest that I’m self-absorbed and going to hell.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Different truths are appropriate for different times. Please come along with us. This is an honest plea. It just won't be as much fun without you. And I, for one, would be very sorry if you missed the boat.

Let’s see if you continue to call Galileo a jerk.

Galileo was a jerk; I don't think that was in dispute. It is the one point on which his contemporaries could agree.
But Julian Frost is hardly offering an exculpation for the Catholic Church of the day by arguing that the Pope silenced Galileo and placed him under house arrest primarily for being a jerk, rather than primarily for being a heliocentrist.

Promoting an alternative hypothesis is insulting to those who have not yet been persuaded by the evidence?
We need to stop learning, because it will be insulting to those with entrenched faulty beliefs!

Another strawman. Casting the believers in geocentrism as ignorant simpletons was insulting. And yes, your comment is presuming to tell me what I am or am not thinking.

A reasonable person might conclude that we need more jerks like Galileo and fewer people like you.

A reasonable person would realise you're replacing arguments with logical fallacies.
With regards to what I said about the evidence at the time favouring geocentrism:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/13/geocentrism-was-gali…

In fact, by even the late 1500s, 50 years after Copernicus, this geocentric explanation was far-and-away the most superior way to predict what the positions of the planets would be.

Getting back to my point...
Geocentrism predates the church by centuries. To cast the events as "church sticking to a ridiculous viewpoint and shutting up Galileo" is a monumental and grotesque oversimplification of what actually happened.

But Julian Frost is hardly offering an exculpation for the Catholic Church of the day by arguing that the Pope silenced Galileo and placed him under house arrest primarily for being a jerk, rather than primarily for being a heliocentrist.

herr dokter bimler gets my point.

A song for SN:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEKuGcmW70I

Julian Frost@87:

The church wanted him to frame the discussion as a “thought exercise” and include a line because of the aforementioned weakness of the data. Galileo did so, but put the line in the mouth of a character who was written to be a fool.

Even worse, Galileo's Simplicio was not just any old fool, but a detectable parody of Pope Urban himself. He was damn fortunate in being old and famous enough that this was only a career-ending move: questioning Biblical infallibility is one thing, openly insulting the Vicar of Rome quite another.

And I, for one, would be very sorry if you missed the boat.

You're talking about someone who can't even find the pond, here.

While I'm giving thanks for Orac and my fellow Orac-minions, I still have more to say on Galileo.
Obviously the Church was heavily invested in geocentrism - they put him on trial for heresy, for pity's sake, for contravening Church doctrine. Clearly it wasn't merely a polite difference of opinion. The went so far as to show him the instruments of torture, the last step before actually using them, so clearly they took a serious view. That has nothing to do with whether or not he may have been a jerk. Being a jerk is not heresy, or the Church would have disappeared long before, and not usually a capital crime or maybe our ancestors would have exterminated each other while still in the trees.
Now, SN, you may read biblical verses any way you choose, which is what you and everyone else will do anyway, but however you read them has nothing to do with how the Church read them.
Besides, the Church had adopted the geocentric cosmology of Ptolemy as doctrine. Cosmology was serious business in those days.

Today I give thanks that JP is here, and shillin' for chillin'. We're all passengers on that boat going across the Styx, but the ride is gonna last a looong time, so we should indeed relax and have some fun before we reach the other shore.

Yes, "be most excellent to each other". But I'm not a SoCal dude, so I have a different film reference to invoke based on where I grew up. In A Serious Man Danny goes through his Bar Mitzvah stoned on weed, and then is taken to see the aged Talmudic-scholar senior Rabbi Marshak. Danny could care less, though his troubled father Larry has desperately sought to speak to Marshak about the meaning of the series of calamities that have befallen him. He wants Marshak to explain what Hashem (God) is trying to tell him, but Marshak has no time to see him.

Danny sits down, and Marshak pulls out the transistor radio one of the Hebrew school teachers had confiscated from Danny in one of the opening scenes:

MARSHAK:
When the truth is found. To be lies. And all the hope. Within you dies...
Then what?
Grace Slick. Marty Balin. Paul Kanta. Jorma ...something. These are the membas of the Airplane. Interesting. Here.
[He gives Danny back the radio]
Be a good boy.

Throughout the movie, as Larry suffers one indignity after another, he protests again and again, "I haven't done anything wrong!" And he hasn't, But he hasn't done anything right either. He's a physics professor, but his brother Arthur is deep into bizarre mysticism. The film suggests both the scientist and the woo-ist have chosen the wrong path, trying too hard to plumb all the answers in a universe that refuses to explain itself or give up all its mysteries. 'The parable of the goy's teeth' is actually the film's 'message', (though presented as a joke, as the Coen's are wont to do with 'the point'): peace and happiness depend on giving up the quest for answers at some point, and just caring for other people, being a mensch.

The truth – whatever you think it is – will ALWAYS turn out to be some form of lie.

Then what?

Be good.

I'm off for a cuppa with old friends. All sinners. All who have been good to me. Le chaim, y'all.

To Old Rockin’ Dave #121:

“Obviously the Church was heavily invested in geocentrism…”

Really?
Why?
What Scripture verses and what Catholic dogma necessitated geocentrism?
..........
“Now, SN, you may read biblical verses any way you choose, which is what you and everyone else will do anyway, but however you read them has nothing to do with how the Church read them. Besides, the Church had adopted the geocentric cosmology of Ptolemy as doctrine.”

No.
Unlike with Protestants, if I read/interpret the Scriptures in a way the Church condemns, then I change my read/interpretation so that it is not in conflict with the Church, the body which formed the Scriptures.

But again, where did the Church adopt the geocentric cosmology of Ptolemy as *doctrine*?

I asked a question earlier and no one here has answered:

Is it also true that Galileo was proposing the false idea that the sun was the center of the universe, not just the center of our solar system?

“The truth – whatever you think it is – will ALWAYS turn out to be some form of lie.
Then what?
Be good.”

What a bunch of new age garbage.
Go smoke another "cuppa" joints, and maybe that mindless garbage will smell better.

I asked a question earlier and no one here has answered

@SN:

I asked a question earlier and no one here has answered

Maybe because said question, namely...

Is it also true that Galileo was proposing the false idea that the sun was the center of the universe, not just the center of our solar system?

...is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

SN, for detailed evidence of the Church's position of heliocentrism, there is quite a lot of well-sourced material here, ironically on a site devoted to geocentrism: http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentrism-101-part-iii-s…
Ptolemaic cosmology as dogma:
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/aristotle.html
Now go forth and read and learn, and remember, you could have found this out as easily as I did.

I think it is inaccurate to see the Church wanting to defend the geocentric cosmology by reference to the Bible. Actually, the authority of the Church was based on "knowledge" and "knowledge" was aristotelian philosophy at this time. And the power of the Catholic Church was threatened by a much more serious issue than earth revolving around the sun, it was bread being changed in the body of Christ. Transubstantiation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation was supported by aristotelian philosophy and "heretics" did not believe in it.
So, the position of the Church was close to what we see now in contemporary issues involving knowledge and power, and not to that of backward people believing in creation.

To Julian Frost #127:

Me: “Is it also true that Galileo was proposing the false idea that the sun was the center of the universe, not just the center of our solar system?”

You: “… said question …is totally irrelevant to the discussion.”

I don’t see how it’s “totally irrelevant” to the discussion that the theory proposed by Galileo was not only unprovable at the time, but was in fact false.

I asked a question earlier and no one here has answered

I asked a question earlier and no one here has answered

^ Rats, should have been two blockquotes. Selah.

The truth – whatever you think it is – will ALWAYS turn out to be some form of lie.

Everything you've ever been taught is WRONG.

I don’t see how it’s “totally irrelevant” to the discussion that the theory proposed by Galileo was not only unprovable without resorting to scientific instruments and complex math at the time, but was in fact false. better at explaining the observations and for making predictions.

Fix'd.

Unlike with Protestants, if I read/interpret the Scriptures in a way the Church condemns, then I change my read/interpretation so that it is not in conflict with the Church, the body which formed the Scriptures.

So how do you reconcile this with your stance on evolution, which, i believe, directly contradicts the Catholic Church's acceptance of evolution?

To TBruce #135:

Me: “Unlike with Protestants, if I read/interpret the Scriptures in a way the Church condemns, then I change my read/interpretation so that it is not in conflict with the Church, the body which formed the Scriptures.”

You: “So how do you reconcile this with your stance on evolution, which, i believe, directly contradicts the Catholic Church’s acceptance of evolution?”

No need to “reconcile” anything, as my stance is NOW, and has always been, acceptable by the Church. In fact, for over 90% of the Church’s existence, my stance was virtually unanimously held by the Church and its Fathers.

I think “acceptance” (i.e. of evolution) is too strong a word as far as the Church is concerned. The Church has NOT said evolution is true, and it has NOT said it is false.

Julian Frost (117),

You continue to promote the logical fallacy that whether Galileo was a jerk is relevant in science.

You add to this with -

A reasonable person would realise you’re replacing arguments with logical fallacies.
With regards to what I said about the evidence at the time favouring geocentrism:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/13/geocentrism-was-gali…
In fact, by even the late 1500s, 50 years after Copernicus, this geocentric explanation was far-and-away the most superior way to predict what the positions of the planets would be.

You make it seem as if the author stopped there. Do you also use the Darwin quote about the impossibility of an eye developing, but omit what he wrote after that?

Here is the rest of what the author you cited wrote -

So which was better? Was Galileo, the most passionate of all the heliocentric proponents, justified in his adamant rejection of geocentrism?

Up until the early 1600s, I would have said “no.” But right around 1609, something remarkable happened that scientifically settled the issue.

He explains the way the telescope changed everything and how after 1609 the evidence was clear. Galileo's trial was decades later.

The Church didn't admit its error until 1992.

Here is the final paragraph -

But the idea that “Galileo was wrong” is now 401 years out of date, and very, very easy to disprove. The geocentric model has yet to come up with an explanation for the apparent size of Venus in its different phases, and the scientific conclusion is that’s because it’s wrong. But perhaps someone out there knows better… any ideas?

But it is easy to excuse threatening to kill a scientist because he was a jerk.

Recant or we will burn you alive.

That's horrible.

The guy we are threatening is a jerk.

Oh. That's completely ethical and exactly what we expect from people who brag about being moral paragons.

A model that puts the Sun at the center of the entire universe with the Earth in orbit around it is less false then one where the Sun orbits the Earth.

The truth – whatever you think it is – will ALWAYS turn out to be some form of lie.

I could go on about nihilism but what's the point.

OT: Does anyone know why scanners (at multiple arprts) flag my right ankle for a pat down when it's my left ankle that contains the plates, screws and tightrope?

139 NaT, OT

Don't know, but some guesses.

Perhaps it's "the other left." If the imagery is taken from the back and screener reads the image as facing front...

Or do ankle monitors usually end up on the right leg?

Or perhaps the screeners, if they face you, routinely work from their left to their right.

"No need to “reconcile” anything, as my stance is NOW, and has always been, acceptable by the Church. In fact, for over 90% of the Church’s existence, my stance was virtually unanimously held by the Church and its Fathers."
So if for over 90% of the Church's existence I was responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, then it's acceptable to blame me for that today?

O. Applesauce,

Thanks for the reply. I've looked at the monitor over my shoulder and there are front and back depictions. It's definitely the right ankle colored in.

The agents always start with the right ankle and then pat the left as well. Until today. They only touched the right ankle. Afterwards when I stated "the plate is in the left ankle." the agent said something entirely unheplful that it only scans the surface.

Makes me wonder what I'm carrying around on the skin of my right ankle...but not really.

Daniel Corcos: Go to the links I posted above. You will see that Ptolemaic cosmology was dogma and that various Church authorities, including Popes in Papal Bulls, cited the inerrancy of the cosmological implications of various biblical verses.
However they felt about bread becoming slices of godmeat is entirely irrelevant to their flatly stated reactions to Galileo's new model of the Universe as heretical. Allowing anything that challenged inerrancy by implication was out of the question.

Rogue Medic:

You continue to promote the logical fallacy that whether Galileo was a jerk is relevant in science.

Stop lying and stop strawmanning. I never said that that was relevant. My point was and remains:
To cast the events as “church sticking to a ridiculous viewpoint and shutting up Galileo” is a monumental and grotesque oversimplification of what actually happened.

You make it seem as if the author stopped there.

Once again, no. My point is, it wasn't that cut and dried even then.

But it is easy to excuse threatening to kill a scientist because he was a jerk.

Do you make straw men for a living? You're actually quite good at it.
One other thing: I looked at what Wikipedia said. The second paragraph reads:

Galileo's championing of heliocentrism and Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system. He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of an observed stellar parallax.

So even other astronomers in Galileo's day had doubts about heliocentrism.
My point was and is, life is seldom as simple as the narrative we are told, and this is one such instance.

Gaaah! I hope my blockquote fail hasn't rendered what I wrote unreadable.

@See Noevo:

From Wikipedia:

The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six day, twenty-four hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God

Well, that's interesting. I was wrong. Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis endorsed the theory of evolution, but the church's official stance is that acceptance of evolution is up to the individual, leaving the 6 day creation option open if one wishes.

Individual choice, what a concept! Maybe they should apply that to the contraception issue.

To cast the events as “church sticking to a ridiculous viewpoint and shutting up Galileo” is a monumental and grotesque oversimplification of what actually happened.

The original point, IIRC, was Gould's idea that science and religion comprise non-overlapping magisteria, and the failure of this idea to convince the leaders of religions, who have often insisted that science is very much part of their jurisdiction (while having the power to enforce their insistence).

From that perspective, it doesn't really matter whether Galileo was accused and convicted of heresy because of a genuine inquisitorial belief that his ideas about astronomy emperilled the souls of the masses by clashing with theology, or because he stepped on the toes of various thin-skinned authoritarians, who ginned up the theological show-trial as a way of taking him down.

Either way, the church claimed the right to stop scientists observing the objective world and making hypotheses from their observations. Indicating that Gould was a bit of a numpty for proposing that science and religion do not interfere.

I was just reading this article by Stephen Jay Gould about non-overlapping magisteria (as mentioned by M.O'B. and HDB above), which includes some musings on the RCC's views on evolution. More recent Popes (since Pius XII aka "the Nazi Pope") seem to believe in evolution, though IIRC papal opinion is not church policy/dogma. Pope Francis has said, "there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such", though he points out we are still in the dark about the origins of life, there are some plausible hypotheses around (much more plausible than supernatural explanations.)

BTW, I too disagree with Gould on non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA as he calls them). I think there are many areas where religion and science's realms overlap: miracles and intercessionary prayer spring to mind. For NOMA to work, God would no longer intervene in physical reality either directly (miracles) or by providing information (visions, "God spoke to me"), meaning there is little point in praying, other than for a better time in the afterlife I suppose, but prayer seems to me to be a fairly constant characteristic of religion. A religion that offers nothing but spiritual succor and promises for an uncertain afterlife seems somewhat unappealing to me.

Julian Frost,

Stop lying and stop strawmanning. I never said that that was relevant. My point was and remains:
To cast the events as “church sticking to a ridiculous viewpoint and shutting up Galileo” is a monumental and grotesque oversimplification of what actually happened.

You put quotation marks in there, as if you are quoting me, but I did not write that.

If being a jerk was not relevant, why did you mention it?

Another problem was that even though Galileo was ultimately correct, he was a jerk about it.

So what?

Science is not supposed to make people feel good.

Science is supposed to help us learn the truth.

You make it seem as if the author stopped there.

Once again, no. My point is, it wasn’t that cut and dried even then.

The author of the article you cited disagrees with that conclusion in the article you cited.

Did you just read enough to find a quote you could use and then stop reading?

Did you hope that I would not read the article you cited?

Did you hope that I would not understand what the author wrote?

Did you understand what the author wrote?

You tried to support your position with an article that explicitly contradicts your position.

So even other astronomers in Galileo’s day had doubts about heliocentrism.

Even today, there are biologists who have doubts about evolution, but they are not taken seriously outside of religious circles.

Were those other astronomers attempting to lock Galileo up, or even merely advocating locking Galileo up?

A bunch of paragons of morality locked Galileo up, because . . . .

Rogue Medic:

You put quotation marks in there, as if you are quoting me, but I did not write that.

I was not quoting you, I was speaking generally. I was taught that story in history, and I was not the only one. I've since learnt that it was not that simple.

If being a jerk was not relevant, why did you mention it?

I didn't say it wasn't relevant. I never claimed the church was right to respond the way it did.
I've learnt from work experience that antagonising people, even when I'm right, is a good way to be ignored, and get grief.

Even today, there are biologists who have doubts about evolution, but they are not taken seriously outside of religious circles.

Today, there is overwhelming evidence of evolution. Back then, the evidence for heliocentrism wasn't overwhelming.
To repeat what I quoted from Wikipedia:

[Galileo] met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of an observed stellar parallax.

So in Galileo's day, there were "astronomers who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of an observed stellar parallax." That says that back then, the evidence wasn't as overwhelming as it later became.
Stories, particularly ones where truths, half truths and inaccuracies merge, can be very dangerous. And the story of Galileo as I learnt it was a myth.

Replace the last two words in my comment with "one such story".

Either way, the church claimed the right to stop scientists observing the objective world and making hypotheses from their observations. Indicating that Gould was a bit of a numpty for proposing that science and religion do not interfere.

I find I must disagree.

Look at Lysenkoism in Stalin's Soviet Union. The Soviet system was of course officially opposed to religion, but the system under Stalin nevertheless had its doctrines which you could not question without reprisal. It had everything to do with the fact that it was a powerful system that could exert pressure to coerce allegiance to its dogma, and nothing to do with whether the dogma were religious, anti-religious, or a-religious in origin.

That's why people keep alluding to the fact that Galileo 'was a jerk'. Does his jerkishness mean he deserved his treatment from the Church? Of course not. But he was basically acting the way you would if you wanted to provoke a powerful institution into acting against you. Again, compare it to Lysenkoism: You might of course get in plenty of trouble just by saying "With all due respect to the learned Professor Lysenko, none of the experimental evidence matches his claims", but if instead you phrased it as "Josef Steelbrain: Derp, derp! Lysenko's the stuff for me, even if it can't show any results whatsoever!" then you shouldn't really be surprised at your abrupt all-expenses-paid trip to Siberia. (I should be able to walk into a dive bar in Southie and start trash-talking the Red Sox and expect that no one will start violence against me. But if it happens, it will be at least partially due to my poor judgment - not to mention the fact that I just had to go trash-talking.)

In other words, the conclusion that "Here's an example of a big institution with a great deal of worldly power and authority which reacted with a show of force when that authority was publicly challenged in a personally offensive manner - and the challenge happened to be over a point of religious doctrine, therefore science and religion do interfere!" appears to me to be missing the actual dynamics.

Does his jerkishness mean he deserved his treatment from the Church? Of course not. But he was basically acting the way you would if you wanted to provoke a powerful institution into acting against you.

That was the way that Galileo consistently demonstrated that he was right.

He challenged the authorities and then demonstrated that they were wrong.

As I wrote above - we need more jerks.

– and the challenge happened to be over a point of religious doctrine, therefore science and religion do interfere!” appears to me to be missing the actual dynamics.

The irony is that the religious institution has adopted but the science of Galileo and the religious interpretation of Galileo.

The reason Noma is silly is that science includes philosophy. We use scientific evidence to draw conclusions about the ways the world works. That is philosophy.

This includes the evolution of morality, which has become a very interesting field.

Ideologies, such as religion, use claims of special access to morality and truth to claim that they are better at it than others, but there is no consistent moral doctrine even among sincere members of the same religion.

The only thing that Christians agree on is that there was something special about Jesus. They do not even agree on what was special.

Sincere Christians take opposite sides on capital punishment, euthanasia, pain management, abortion, contraception, fetal research, corporal punishment, marriage equality, women as ministers/priests,bishops/deacons, the treatment of members of other races, . . . .

If there is no moral common ground, it is only coincidence when the religious agree on what is moral.

Monkeys throwing darts are also superior to the experts in picking stocks, but you will get an argument from many human stock pickers.

Why should we give the religious credit they clearly do not deserve?

the conclusion that “Here’s an example of a big institution with a great deal of worldly power and authority which reacted with a show of force when that authority was publicly challenged in a personally offensive manner – and the challenge happened to be over a point of religious doctrine, therefore science and religion do interfere!” appears to me to be missing the actual dynamics.

I can see the appeal of drawing a line between "genuine religious response to scientific theory" and "thin-skinned tyrants using religion as a pretext to persecute challengers and maintain power"... but it seems to be a True Scotsman kind of argument.

the conclusion that “Here’s an example of a big institution with a great deal of worldly power and authority which reacted with a show of force when that authority was publicly challenged in a personally offensive manner – and the challenge happened to be over a point of religious doctrine, therefore science and religion do interfere!” appears to me to be missing the actual dynamics.

I can see the appeal of drawing a line between “genuine religious response to scientific theory” and “thin-skinned tyrants using religion as a pretext to persecute challengers and maintain power”… but it seems to be a True Scotsman kind of argument.

Well, I certainly agree with you that it's not the most clear-cut issue in the world. I may well be wrong on this. But it seems to me that when we look at the historical mistakes that we want to keep ourselves from repeating, and ask "What were the actual causes of this? Was religion necessary and sufficient, or anywhere near so? Would things have really worked out much better if all the same power dynamics were in place, but the specific obsessions of those who acted out their obsessions were non-religious?" the answer is quite surprisingly "Religion is the culprit less often than you think; it often acts as a catalyst perhaps more often than more falsifiable points, but very often, it's merely the most visible identifier of clashing sides, not the actual source of the conflict." Again, you may disagree, and you may be right to disagree; we may never know for sure, but I know how the balance of the evidence looks to me.

FELDSPAR IS BULLYING ME!!!

I don't want in any way to bully herr doktor, but I would agree with Anteus. For me, this story has much to do with totalitarianism, and the issue was Church infallibility. At that time, Church had to defend against those questioning Church and Aristotle infallibility, and the main issue was transubstantiation.

Ok Rogue Medic, I get it.
You were trolling me. Congratulations, you won.

Julian Frost,

I was not trolling you at all.

The true jerks were the Catholic Church.

Threatening torture and execution is no way to conduct any kind of discussion, but it is very Catholic.

To Rogue Medic #159:

“Threatening torture and execution is no way to conduct any kind of discussion, but it is very Catholic.”

It’s very Catholic? I didn’t realize that.

How many were tortured and executed under Pope Francis, or under his recent predecessors Benedict XVI and John Paul II?
What’s the Church's death toll up to in the last 500 years?

“Threatening torture and execution is no way to conduct any kind of discussion, but it is very Catholic.”

It’s very Catholic? I didn’t realize that.

How many were tortured and executed under Pope Francis, or under his recent predecessors Benedict XVI and John Paul II?
What’s the Church’s death toll up to in the last 500 years?

Clearly, I did not state that torture and execution are very Catholic, only that threatening is very Catholic.

The last several hundred years may be only a temporary break with tradition.

The Catholic motto appears to be We don't do that any more.

It is good that Catholics are capable of some moral progress, but there is still opposition to the use of condoms to prevent the transmission of AIDS. Catholics claim to be interested in protecting life, but this is one way that demonstrates that ideology is more important than saving lives.

The same is true of contraception to prevent abortion. How many abortions would be prevented if the opposition to contraception were removed?

Then there is the threat of the torture of eternal hell that is the persuader for so many. That is still very Catholic, isn't it?

So what if it isn't real? Reality is not Catholic.

"What’s the Church’s death toll up to in the last 500 years?" Depends on how you want to count it. Until the later 19th Century, the Pope was a secular prince ruling the Papal States. Through them, the church was involved in a substantial number of wars from about the 14th Century to the 19th. I don't have any casualty figures, but I am confident the totals are somewhat more than zero. The Swiss Guard weren't always a squad of police and a platoon of anachronisms armed with cabbage cutters; they were once a substantial and lethal fighting force.
If you're only thinking of the Spanish Inquisition and the like, remember that it was only officially ended in 1931; although I'm sure it wasn't putting people to death that late, I know the Holy Office was doing it in some places up to as late as the early 19th Century. The Papal States surely put people to death for both civil and religious crimes at rates comparable to the rest of Europe.
Then there are the crimes of others carried out with either Vatican silence or Vatican complicity. Many in the Spanish colonial administrations actively supported the often-fatal enslavement of native peoples, and the executions for heresy, blasphemy, or revolt against church authority of the same. peoples. Churchmen took active roles in the crimes of the Ustaše in Croatia, even the command of one of the concentration camps where Jews, Serbs, and Roma were murdered by the Croat collaborationist state, and with the full knowledge and silence of the Pope. That same Pope failed to speak out against the Holocaust, taking part in only small and nearly meaningless rescue efforts. Just before the Allied liberation of Rome, he failed to speak out and possibly stop the Adreatine caves massacre, even when assured he could do so safely by ranking officials of the Nazi administration of Rome. After the war he acquiesced to Eva Peron's request to aid Nazi war criminals to escape to Argentina; Jews who were aided by Catholic orders to be smuggled into Mandatory Palestine were sometimes housed on different floors of the same monasteries those Nazis were sheltered in.
No one can even begin to count the number of women who have died from one pregnancy too many, botched illegal abortions, violence at the hands of men they couldn't divorce, vicious abuse in the convent laundries and orphanages of Ireland, and doubtless numerous other causes that can directly or indirectly be laid at the Holy Door, the so-called gate of justice.
So let me ask you, "What's the Church's death toll up to in the last 500 years?"

See Noevo,
Any comment about the recent Planned Parenthood shooting? Do you think it's possible the man responsible might have been encouraged in his actions by people who write things like this?

PP exterminates more human lives than anyone on the planet.

I'm sure you don't condone these murders but I'm curious to know how (or if) you justify spouting the rhetoric (such as "no more baby parts") that leads to this kind of tragedy.

To Old Rockin’ Dave #162:

“… although I’m sure it wasn’t putting people to death that late, I know the Holy Office was doing it in some places up to as late as the early 19th Century.”

With that kind of certainty, you may have a Pulitzer Prize coming your way. Do tell us more.

“So let me ask you, “What’s the Church’s death toll up to in the last 500 years?””

Approximately zero.

To Krebiozen #163:

“Any comment about the recent Planned Parenthood shooting?”

I think the shooter should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

I also think that, year-to-date in the abortion wars,
killings by pro-lifers = about 3,
killings by pro-aborts = about 1,000,000.

TOTALLY off-topic

IIRC, when Satan showed up to wrestle over theological issues with Martin Luther he (Satan) would often depart, leaving only a turd behind.

Here on RI, SN shows up, comments and departs, leaving only a coprolite.

Coincidence?? I think not!!

What’s the Church’s death toll up to in the last 500 years?

Are you counting deaths by suicide of those who underwent sexual and other abuse in childhood by priests and in Catholic residential schools?

“So let me ask you, “What’s the Church’s death toll up to in the last 500 years?””

Approximately zero.

An inadvertent work of art. I take it the unstated circumscription is "burned alive for heresy in Rome" or some such.

So, according to See Noevo the creep, approximately zero Catholics took part in either World War, fought for/against Napoleon, in the War of Independence or in any of the wars during the last 500 years....

...it's a peculiar world it lives in.

gaist,

It isn't reasonable to hold an entire church responsible for the actions of its members if those actions weren't based on the teachings of that church, in the name of that church, or with the approval of the leadership of that church.

If individuals went to wars without invoking a church's authority, that can't be laid at the church's doorstep.

A better case could be made for deaths in missionary endeavors, including those oh the Spanish conquistadors. Actions by other Catholic countries such as Austria might well qualify.

SN,

I also think that, year-to-date in the abortion wars,
killings by pro-lifers = about 3,
killings by pro-aborts = about 1,000,000.

Can't you see that rhetoric - "wars", "killings" and equating an aborted fetus's life with that of a mother of two young children or a police officer - is deliberately designed to evoke the emotions that drive people into the kind of horrific actions we saw recently? Personally I think those who encourage people to commit murders share some moral culpability for those murders. In the past there has been at least one successful prosecution for encouraging the murders of abortion clinic workers, so I would tread carefully if I were you.

How would you feel if you found out the shooter had been following your comments on-line and had committed these murders as a result? I have trouble understanding your mind-set and I'm curious. Like creationism, such rabid opposition to abortion is utterly alien to me. I had never heard of PP or their harvesting of fetal tissue (which seems eminently moral and sensible to me) until you mentioned them here, so when I saw a UK news report of murders at a PP clinic with the shooter stating, "no more baby parts", I immediately thought of you and wondered how you felt about this horrific event.

Badly worded on my part, didn't mean a blanket statement of everyone self-identifying as Catholic...

..but with Arch-Bishops and Catholic priests encouraging conscription and the formation of "Catholic brigades", holding sermons calling a conflict the Just War, and the taking up of arms a duty, for example, even if done without direct orders from the Pope, do lay some responsibility on the Church.

Then there are the wars (mainly against Ottomans) where the Papal state was actively involved in, and fought by mainly Catholic Italian states like Venice with Papal blessing. Papal states (and Catholic volunteer armies joining them) also fought against Garibaldi's troops, which are, in my book and given the wording of See Noevo's question, directly attributable to The Church. Just a few examples, there are others too.

Having had a recent discussion with my son about abortion, this topic strikes home.

Although I lean towards the opinion that people often use religion as a convenient excuse for what they want to do anyway, the Catholic Church because of its authoritarian structure certainly has its share of responsibility for war and suffering.

First to jump to my mind was the 30 Years War which, although it involved a fair amount of regional and national politics, was first and formost about the Church trying to maintain and enforce its authority in the face of the spreading Protestant reformation.

Wikipedia cites a number of 8 million causualties, both military and civilian.

I remember reading a military historical analysis some years ago that noted that some regions still (centuries later) hadn't completely recovered from the effects.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War

@See Noevo:

Are you also counting the millions who contracted and died of HIV infection thanks to the Church's rabid opposition to distribution of condoms?

Let's not forget the toll of death and misery from unsafe abortions.

@ Krebiozen

How would you feel if you found out the shooter had been following your comments on-line and had committed these murders as a result?

If SN is like any of these brave twittering twits on Twitter, he would feel very happy.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/11/28/pro-lifers-take…

But SN is not like this. After all, he chastised me for daring to think of killing one (dying) human being in order to save the life of another one. So of course he is going to be aghast at the idea he may be morally responsible for murders.

Since SN doesn't have a practical solution for reducing the number of abortions, he is actually as much responsible for his million dead babies as about anyone else.

Renate @118

I'd have gone with this one - (Tim Minchin's 'Pope Song')

NOT SAFE FOR WORK OR SMALL CHILDREN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRDfut2Vx0
NOT SAFE FOR WORK OR SMALL CHILDREN

Maybe that's why The Church is against abortion and contraception - they need a steady supply of kids.

Helianthus,
Those comments are frightening. What is wrong with those people? I can understand people being against abortion, but supporting the murder of those offering abortion services makes no sense to me. As far as I am concerned, and the US Justice Department shares my view, this is terrorism, just as much as the Paris attacks were, and I hope those who have expressed those opinions are being checked out.

BTW, the victims were two civilians and one police officer, not vice versa as I stated above.

Look for sn to quickly adopt the position Ted Cruz has staked out.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/11/29/3726311/ted-cruz-planned-paren…

Helianthus,

You suggest that SN is accurate in stating that the Catholic Church is opposed to abortion.

That is just a ruse.

The Catholic Church's adamant opposition to contraception guarantees large numbers of abortions.

As with any ideological organization, this manufactured controversy brings in donations.

The Catholic Church could easily have a dramatic effect on the number of abortions, but they don't want to.

Catholic morality - claim to be in favor of life, but oppose things that would cut abortion, cut AIDS transmission, and research that would improve the lives of infants and children.

Science has dramatically improved the lives of infants and children.

The Catholic Church has changed Extreme Unction to the Sacrament of the Sick, but that is the extent of their progress in treating infant mortality.

Meaningful progress does not come from religion.

Krebiozen, # 178
I think the right naming should be "stochastic terrorism".
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/10/934890/-

As for some previous comment, Holy Roman Catholic Church had a real world state until 1871. Of course, death penalties were sentenced, especially for what now would be believed political reasons.
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo_Targhini_e_Leonida_Montanari
By the way, it was only after 1801 that death penalties in Holy See were made with the modern humanitarian tool brought in Italy by Frenchs, the guillotine. Before that date, people were executed with "mazzola e squarta" (that is, club and rip).

Selective Blindness AKA See Noevo:
Let's examine your response to me.
Church killings in war or under color of law as a secular power - not addressed.
Church culpability and complicity in colonial, especially Spanish and Portuguese, crimes - not addressed.
Church culpability and complicity in, and willful ignorance of, the Holocaust and related crimes by Croatian, Ukrainian, and Romanian Catholics including clergy - not addressed.
Church failure to take an easy and safe step to halt an atrocity on its own doorstep - not addressed.
Church abetting escape of Nazi war criminals who went on to aid murderous regimes - not addressed.
Church-committed and/or sanctioned abuses leading to death of minors supposed to be in their care (Magdalen laundries et. al.) - not addressed.
Church policy leading to unnecessary and avoidable deaths, principally of women - not addressed.
Factual statement regarding murders by the Holy Inquisition - addressed, incorrectly dismissed, and not refuted, viz. this quote from the Wikipedia article on the Inquisition: "The last execution of the Inquisition was in Spain in 1826. This was the execution by garroting of the school teacher Cayetano Ripoll for purportedly teaching Deism in his school."
I don't want a Pulitzer; you can go and pull it, sir.

To Krebiozen #171, and other Catholic Church bashers here:

Regarding “How would you feel if you found out the shooter had been following your comments on-line and had committed these murders as a result?”

I ask
How would you feel if you found out a future shooter in a Catholic Church or an assassin of a pope had been following your comments on-line and had committed these murders as a result?

Somebody should start a pool on S.N.'s favorite pope. My money's on Sixtus V.

See Noinfo:
As our host has so well quoted, "A statement of fact can not be insolent." Call a recital of facts Catholic Church bashing if you will, but historical facts, like the theory of evolution, don't go away just because you don't like them. You still have not addressed the points I raised, not even to acknowledge your blatant error regarding the one you chose to respond to. You probably thought it was easy pickings because you hadn't heard of it. Or are you might be taking a leaf from the papacy and declaring yourself infallible? By the way, you missed my punctuation error. At least you would have had firmer ground to stand on in replying to me.
If you are so bothered by what you call Catholic Church bashing, convert to something else and I will be happy to bash that instead. Better yet, learn to distinguish between Catholic Church bashing and See Noinfo bashing.

How would you feel if you found out a future shooter in a Catholic Church or an assassin of a pope had been following your comments on-line and had committed these murders as a result?

I would feel very bad.
That's why I don't go around throwing terms like “wars” and “killings”.

Re: Catholic-bashing
I would like to point out a little fact:
- people working in abortion clinics are doing so respecting the local laws they have accepted to follow when signing in on the job. When they are suspected they don't, plenty of people are willing to drag them to a judicial hearing, as evidenced recently.
- Catholic high priests have been found again and again not following their own rules. Apparently, pedophilia is OK if it's a priest doing it. That scandal resulted in a UN report a few years back.
So maybe some verbal Catholic-bashing is warranted.

See Noevo,

I ask
How would you feel if you found out a future shooter in a Catholic Church or an assassin of a pope had been following your comments on-line and had committed these murders as a result?

I don't believe any of my comments have been designed to elicit an emotional reaction that would lead to violence, so I don't see how anyone could commit a violent act as a result of reading my comments. I have tried to remain objective in my interactions with you, using scientific language. I don't believe any of my comments could be seen as remotely inciting violence against Catholics.

You, however, use rhetoric that is clearly designed to affect people emotionally, to incite disgust, anger and even violence. You talk of killing millions of babies, when you know very well that a fetus is not a baby and no babies have been killed. You have repeatedly linked to websites that write of how babies are torn apart alive while cruel technicians cackle evilly, when you know that this is dishonest (to put it politely).

If I were you, and had posted large amounts of dishonest inflammatory material accusing PP of being baby murderers, I would feel some moral culpability for my actions given recent events. Clearly your moral compass is different to mine.

It's cute how pissy See Noevo the creep got when it didn't get the answer it wanted.

Who here apart from you, See, has been using violent imagery and words in their posts? I'd imagine the killer 'inspired' by Krebiozen would say something like "In the spirit of reasoned moderation and patient and polite discussion I gunned down these..." Not a very likely scenario. Even I spent many a post pointing out how you and your pal APV or whatever were not representative of the Catholic Church or it's members.

Whereas... "In the spirit of Christ I gunned down these baby-killing murderers..." sounds a tad more realistic. Which incidentally brings me to point of how you failed to answer the question while repeating it yourself. Quid pro quo, or are you too cowardly?

@ squirrelelite

Although I lean towards the opinion that people often use religion as a convenient excuse for what they want to do anyway,

Oh, I would totally agree. At the society's level, I see religion more like a social tool toward a mean rather than the source of all evils.
Like any tool, it could be used for good and for bad purpose.

Re: the 30-years war
A fine example indeed of religion being used for the pursuit of geo-political gain. Or vice-versa. When spiritual leaders become fully involved into secular matters, it's difficult to tell where religion ends and politics start.

I remember reading a military historical analysis some years ago that noted that some regions still (centuries later) hadn’t completely recovered from the effects.

One of my mom's hobby is peering through old documents and retracing the genealogy of her village's late aristocratic family, which was also Protestant, à la Fortunes de France.

As she was following the trails of the family's numerous expatriates (gosh did people travel a lot, even before we invented airplanes), she came across similar historical analyses: whole regions of today's Germany were so ravaged as to be literally a no-man's land. That was left of the local authorities granted land for free to any willing immigrant, just to have someone, anyone occupying that was until the war a nice settlement place.

That's why so many German people of today have French-sounding names (like the fictional German protagonist of Vercors' "Le Silence de la Mer"). They are the descendants of the French Calvinists who fled France during the religion wars.*

* religion wars, as in people killing each others in the name of their interpretation of god, with the most enraged Catholic priests promising full redemption of all past and future sins for killing a single heretic. There was a fair bit of collateral damage among non-combatants. Including babies.
And, why, it's about 400-year old. Right inside the time window of someone's query of a tally list.

To Krebiozen #187:

You write
“I don’t believe any of my comments have been designed to elicit an emotional reaction that would lead to violence, so I don’t see how anyone could commit a violent act as a result of reading my comments.”

Yet when TBruce wrote “Are you also counting the millions who contracted and died of HIV infection thanks to the Church’s rabid opposition to distribution of condoms?”

you immediately responded
“Let’s not forget the toll of death and misery from unsafe abortions.”

It seems as though you’re blaming the Church for the millions who contracted and died of HIV infection thanks to the Church’s rabid opposition to distribution of condoms as well as for the toll of death and misery from unsafe abortions.

And it also seems that such death-dealing accusations could most definitely elicit an emotional reaction, perhaps even violently emotional reactions.

Or don't you see that?

See Noevo,

Yet when TBruce wrote “Are you also counting the millions who contracted and died of HIV infection thanks to the Church’s rabid opposition to distribution of condoms?”
you immediately responded
“Let’s not forget the toll of death and misery from unsafe abortions.”

It is a fact that the RCC's prohibition of abortion has led to millions of women choosing unsafe abortions and many dying and suffering as a result. TBruce and I did not use any emotive language, we merely pointed out the facts. If you had stated that you objected to abortion on moral grounds except in exceptional circumstances and were concerned about how PP was harvesting fetal tissue I would have no problem.

It seems as though you’re blaming the Church for the millions who contracted and died of HIV infection thanks to the Church’s rabid opposition to distribution of condoms as well as for the toll of death and misery from unsafe abortions.

Yes, I do think the Church bears some moral culpability for the death and misery that unsafe abortions cause. I have stated to you (in another thread) that I think the RCC is well-intentioned but that it has inadvertently caused a huge amount of suffering. I have not been not been ranting that the RCC are child-molesting women murderers.

Conversely, your repeated condemnation of PP as baby killers carries, in my opinion, a strong implication that they should be punished. You shouldn't really be surprised that someone stepped up to the plate.

And it also seems that such death-dealing accusations could most definitely elicit an emotional reaction, perhaps even violently emotional reactions.

I think there is a very big difference between making factual statements using objective language, and dishonest rhetoric about cutting up babies while they are still alive. Perhaps you don't.

Or don’t you see that?

No, I don't see that. If the facts upset someone, I do not see that as my responsibility (unless I am responsible for those facts, of course). If I lie and use inflammatory language that is designed to upset people, and that does upset someone and they then do someone awful as a result, I believe I am partially culpable.

It seems as though you’re blaming the Church for the millions who contracted and died of HIV infection thanks to the Church’s rabid opposition to distribution of condoms as well as for the toll of death and misery from unsafe abortions.

Why...yes, we are!

And it also seems that such death-dealing accusations could most definitely elicit an emotional reaction, perhaps even violently emotional reactions.

No way! Well, I'd better just sit down and shut up, hadn't I?

BTW, I am aware of only one assassination attempt on a pope in the last 100 years. It had nothing to do with anger at the Church's policy on contraception or abortion. I am not aware of any violent attacks on Catholic churches resulting from their opposition to women's choice. Attacks, arson and murder directed at women's health providers, on the other hand...

To Krebiozen #191:

“It is a fact that the RCC’s prohibition of abortion has led to millions of women choosing unsafe abortions and many dying and suffering as a result.”

That’s not only not a fact, it’s ridiculous.
Those who have chosen abortion obviously cared more about abortion than they did about any prohibitions of the CC. And it wasn’t the CC that made abortion in the U.S. illegal prior to 1973, it was the government.

“If you had stated that you objected to abortion on moral grounds except in exceptional circumstances and were concerned about how PP was harvesting fetal tissue I would have no problem.”

As I think I have done here on these blogs for the most part. But when pressed as to WHY I object on moral grounds, I explain that abortion is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life. This is a FACTUAL statement of what abortion is. [Arbitrary and illogical quibbling about whether some human lives are not human beings aside.]
And this explanation, this factual statement, is considered by you to be inflammatory, I guess.

“If I lie and use inflammatory language that is designed to upset people, and that does upset someone and they then do someone awful as a result, I believe I am partially culpable.”

I don’t lie. But if my factual language and logical arguments in defense of innocent human lives upsets and inflames people like you, so be it.

"I don’t lie."

Wow. Which of the numerous statements that modern cosmology is completely wrong, evolution is false, the earth is only a few thousand years old, priests never abused children, and more, is factually correct? None of them - every statement you've ever made about science has been false.

I don’t lie.

If you believe that, you're even better at self deception than I thought humanly possible.

Back to Ben Carson for just a second...
I wonder if Ben should offer to examine Hillary’s brain.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/hillary-clinton-blood-clot-life-threatenin…

Some people were pretty concerned about her head.
Like Huma Abedin: “She’s often confused.”
And hubby Bill: "…was a terrible concussion that required six months of very serious work to get over."

Although Ben was a pediatric neurosurgeon and Hillary’s not a kid, brains is brains. Should Ben check her out?
What a great “reach across the aisle” that would be!

August 16, 2012 may have been a dark day for Krebiozen, et al.
What their rhetoric hath wrought!
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/15/us/dc-shooting/

Good old See Noinfo. When the going gets tough, the desperate change the subject.
Just a quick comment about your Clinton/Carson comment: I wouldn't trust the average neurosurgeon to do much in the way of neurology. If they can't do a procedure for it, they tend to forget how to diagnose or treat it. Which would make him the perfect person to examine your brain - info has leaked out of his brain, but never made it into yours.

It seems as though you’re blaming the Church for the millions who contracted and died of HIV infection thanks to the Church’s rabid opposition to distribution of condoms

The Catholic Church, as an institution, is not responsible in the secular sense, but it is definitively not helping by sticking to inefficient solutions, or standing by and doing nothing, or ignoring the wicked in their ranks. In this regard, yes, there is moral responsibility.
When the Catholic Church, as an institution, is hiding and abetting someone who has committed a crime, in most societies, civilized or otherwise, the act would be considered as complicity, and the accomplices would be held responsible for the crimes of the felon, past and future. Pure and simple.

Now, Catholics as individuals. Like anyone else, they come in all types and shapes.
In the 80's, a French archbishop had this to say regarding AIDS and condom use: "at the very least, don't add the sin of murder to the sin of flesh".
He was in essence saying that the full ABC campaign is saying in the US. It was a well-received message, because it was making sense and it was telling people to take responsibility for their acts.
Sadly, he was pretty much a lone voice among the clergy, French or otherwise. He always was bit of a maverick.
The previous pope made it crystal clear during an Africa tour that the Church line is that condoms are making things worse.

To Old Rockin' Dave:

“Good old See Noinfo. When the going gets tough, the desperate change the subject.”

I’m not about to argue with you over every perceived transgression of the Catholic Church over the last hundreds or thousands of years.

I would, however, consider addressing one, JUST ONE, of your points (e.g. from #182).

You pick. Throw your favorite flag.

See Noevo,

Regarding “How would you feel if you found out the shooter had been following your comments on-line and had committed these murders as a result?”

I ask
How would you feel if you found out a future shooter in a Catholic Church or an assassin of a pope had been following your comments on-line and had committed these murders as a result?

I would wonder why you see a connection, but the lack of understanding of cause and effect is probably why you are religious.

I have not advocated for any violence against anyone.

I have criticized the immorality of the Catholic Church.

There is only morality in murder in the Bible, but I criticize that.

If you treat the Bible as true, then you really should correct the popular bumper sticker - John 3:16.

For God so loved the world that he drowned everyone except for 8 people, but he made a rainbow to apologize for the worst crime ever documented. Your God planned the flood when most of the people to be killed had not even been born.

For God so loved the world, that he decided to show Abraham how real parents handle human sacrifice. After all, kids are just property to do with as you please. The trick is convincing Jr. to believe it's his idea.

Rogue Medic@201
How about:

For God so loves his faithful, that he let Satan kill Job's family to win an argument. Because why have cool toys if you can't show off to your friends?

See Noevo,

I explain that abortion is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life. This is a FACTUAL statement of what abortion is.

You've got to admire Catholics. They shamelessly contradict themselves. This is divine arrogance.

Innocent?

When did you guys (and this does all come from guys) repeal original sin?

Original sin wasn't invented until after the Gospels were written, so it is appropriate to state that all of the fetuses God drowned in the flood were innocent, but it is inconsistent to claim that fetuses are exempt from original sin, when that is one of the major selling points of Catholicism.

Or do Catholics claim that original sin is passed from mother to infant in the birth canal, the way herpes is transmitted? If that is the case, how do cesarean births transmit this essence of Catholicism?

The mental gymnastics of Catholic catechism.

Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

capnkrunch,

How about:

For God so loves his faithful, that he let Satan kill Job’s family to win an argument. Because why have cool toys if you can’t show off to your friends?

They don't count, because women and children are just property.

That is one of the reasons you will not find any rules against abortion in the Bible.

That is unless you twist the meaning of cherry picked verses.

That is a good example - and the only case of Satan ever killing anyone. The supposed Big Bad of the Bible has much more respect for life than the Good Guy.

Literacy and a Bible are the antidotes to Christianity.

It’s worth noting that sn has repeatedly said pregnancy and birth are safe while abortion is dangerous in many ways. He’s also argued against increasing access to health care for all, calling it socialism and not needed.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/01/health/maternal-mortality-rate-u-s-increa…

Giving birth is one of the most dangerous things a woman will ever do and it's easily the most dangerous day of a baby's entire childhood. Anyone who denies or downplays this is either clueless or harbouring a foolish agenda.

capnkrunch: "For God so loves his faithful, that he let Satan kill Job’s family to win an argument. Because why have cool toys if you can’t show off to your friends?"

In a recent podcast, author/filmmaker Chris Matheson stated he thought the Book Job was actually satire.

To Delphine #206:

“Giving birth is one of the most dangerous things a woman will ever do and it’s easily the most dangerous day of a baby’s entire childhood. Anyone who denies or downplays this is either clueless or harbouring a foolish agenda.”

Giving birth – horror of horrors.
Perhaps giving birth should be outlawed.

You know what’s even more dangerous than child birth, and in fact lethal, over 99.9% of the time?

Hint: It's something that's legal now, but used to be be outlawed.

See Noevo,

Hint: It’s something that’s legal now, but used to be be outlawed.

It was only outlawed in part of the 19th and 20th centuries.

It isn't outlawed in the Bible - unless you twist the verses that you cherry pick, but that's the point of the vaguest book ever written. It means whatever you want it to mean.

Some sincere Christians oppose abortion, while other sincere Christians do not.

Christian morality is whatever you want it to be.

I will just leave this here, in regard to the recent Planned Parenthood shooting.

I stand with planned parenthood

To Rogue Medic #209:

“Christian morality is whatever you want it to be.”

Well, if you were to put quotation marks around that first word, I would definitely agree.

However, *Catholic* morality (i.e. Catholic Church definitive teaching on morality) is *not* whatever you want it to be.

Regarding #210, I will just leave this here:
Helianthus stands with such things as

“America is filled with terrorists”;
“Forget Syria. The most dangerous religious extremists are migrants from North and South Carolina.”

However, *Catholic* morality (i.e. Catholic Church definitive teaching on morality) is *not* whatever you want it to be.

sn, since you are one of the low-lifes who defended the thousands of priests who abused children, there is no need to put quotation marks around the word catholic: you interpreted catholic morality exactly the way you wanted to.

See Noevo,

“Christian morality is whatever you want it to be.”

Well, if you were to put quotation marks around that first word, I would definitely agree.

No quotation marks are necessary.

There is no ultimate source of Christian truth.

If one of the Christian Gods decides to materialize and give us objective rules for what Christianity is, I will have to revise that statement.

Until then, anyone can sincerely claim to be as Christian as anyone else and nobody can provide objective evidence that they are wrong.

The Ku Klux Klan and Pope Francis appear to be equally sincere Christians, even though they appear to disagree on many things and base those disagreements on the Bible.

If the Christian Gods were competent at communication, this would not be a problem, but the Christian Gods appear to be the worst communicators ever.

Why couldn't they come up with something that explained what they meant, rather than limiting themselves to the technology of the people who created the Gods?

It is almost as if the Gods aren't real and do not have any magical powers.

You know what’s even more dangerous than child birth, and in fact lethal, over 99.9% of the time?

Hint: It’s something that’s legal now, but used to be be outlawed.

I give up--I know it isn't abortion, since the mortality associated with medical abortions is 0.6 deaths per every 100,000 procedures (not 999 out of every thousand) but for the life of me I can't guess what it actually might be.

Care to give us another hint?.

That is one of the reasons you will not find any rules against abortion in the Bible.

Actually, there is a passage (Exodus 21:22-25) that addresses acting to cause a pregnant woman to miscarry (i.e., causing her to abort) and it is treated as a property crime, punishable by a fine rather than a murder punishable by blood (the whole eye for an eye thing)

And guess who gets to set the fine and pocket the money? her husband, of course. It's his property that has been damaged, after all.

@ See Noevo

Remind me again, in all the mass shootings and gun rampage there was in the US these past 2 months, how many were from evil muslims?
I will give you a hint: one less than in my much smaller country.

I stand by the article's content I linked.
Showing up at an healthcare facility and gunning down people is terrorism. In your case, Yankees, most of the time the culprits of mass shootings are white people of Christian culture.

Also, for the lurkers, please note that the article I linked to is presenting strong arguments and social studies that the ones actually reducing the rate of abortion are pro-choice people, with all their silly ideas about contraception and sex education.
Pro-life people are making things worse.
Seems SN is unable to face some hard truths. Nothing news. We already had a 2000+ thread on this topic.

To Rogue Medic #214:

“There is no ultimate source of Christian truth.”

Is that an infallible statement of yours?
................
“If one of the Christian Gods decides to materialize and give us objective rules for what Christianity is, I will have to revise that statement.”

Well, get busy revising, because it’s already happened.
..............
“If the Christian Gods were competent at communication, this would not be a problem, but the Christian Gods appear to be the worst communicators ever.”

Communication’s not the problem.
*Willful* deafness and *adamant* ignorance are.

Giving birth – horror of horrors.
Perhaps giving birth should be outlawed.

Perhaps we should give birth and the women who do it (along with the HCPs who guide them) the respect they're due. I could tell you all kinds of horror stories that happen to women and babies in LDCs that I have witnessed and that I continue to read about on a weekly basis, but I suspect that you likely already know that sh!t happens to poor women and babies on daily basis.

I nearly died giving birth, in a Western country with comparatively low rates of maternal mortality. I have no uterus now, because after giving birth to a perfectly healthy baby after a perfectly normal pregnancy, my uterus would not stop expelling blood. What I suspect you don't know is how sh!t can go south, in just a few heartbeats, often with major irreparable consequences.

Instead, you just make this about abortion. Your tunnel vision is exquisite.

Again, you make me profoundly ashamed to be Roman Catholic.

To Delphine 219:

“Again, you make me profoundly ashamed to be Roman Catholic.”

What would be shameful, and actually sinful, is if you present yourself as Roman Catholic but are also, say, “pro-choice” (i.e. pro-abortion/pro-abortion rights), pro-contraception, pro-“gay marriage.”

You are not my confessor or my priest, asshole.

JGC,

Actually, there is a passage (Exodus 21:22-25) that addresses acting to cause a pregnant woman to miscarry (i.e., causing her to abort) and it is treated as a property crime, punishable by a fine rather than a murder punishable by blood (the whole eye for an eye thing)

And guess who gets to set the fine and pocket the money? her husband, of course. It’s his property that has been damaged, after all.

Very true.

"When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

The harm is to the woman, who is also considered the man's property, but he is compensated differently for harm to her, because she is not a fetus.

See Noevo,

What would be shameful, and actually sinful, is if you present yourself as Roman Catholic but are also, say, “pro-choice” (i.e. pro-abortion/pro-abortion rights), pro-contraception, pro-“gay marriage.”

Being in favor of human rights is a sin for Catholics.

If you are right, then I guess there is very little morality in Catholicism.

Fortunately, Catholic morality keeps evolving.

A few centuries ago, they would have burned me alive for writing what I have written.

There is hope for even the lowest of the low (since I do not expect you to understand, that is a reference to the Catholics, SN).

See Noevo,

“There is no ultimate source of Christian truth.”

Is that an infallible statement of yours?

No.

If you read a little bit further, you will have an explanation.

“If one of the Christian Gods decides to materialize and give us objective rules for what Christianity is, I will have to revise that statement.”

Well, get busy revising, because it’s already happened.

Yet Christians continue to demonstrate the error of your assumptions.

“If the Christian Gods were competent at communication, this would not be a problem, but the Christian Gods appear to be the worst communicators ever.”

Communication’s not the problem.

True.

The imaginary friends and the belief in imaginary friends are the problems.

*Willful* deafness and *adamant* ignorance are.

I don't take confessions, but it is good that you are acknowledging your limitations.

Let me remind you, See, that you asked me once:
"Are you saying NO ONE apart from Jesus Christ has authority to say definitively what Christianity is, and even authority to decide what proper Christian behavior is?"
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/05/20/why-do-doctors-deny-evolut…

You won't acknowledge Jesus Christ as the ultimate authority. What does that make you?

Seems SN is unable to face some hard truths. Nothing news. We already had a 2000+ thread on this topic.

That sounds like an excellent reason to stop feeding him so that he can go back to being largely ignored in the Breitbump comments.

To Delphine #221:

Me: “What would be shameful, and actually sinful, is if you present yourself as Roman Catholic but are also, say, “pro-choice” (i.e. pro-abortion/pro-abortion rights), pro-contraception, pro-“gay marriage.”

You: “You are not my confessor or my priest, asshole.”

Ouch! That’s one more to add to your sin list when you DO see your priest confessor. I mean, in addition to the pro-abortion, pro-contraception, etc.

BTW, DO you participate in the sacrament of reconciliation (a.k.a. confession)?

To Rogue Medic #223:

“Fortunately, Catholic morality keeps evolving. A few centuries ago, they would have burned me alive for writing what I have written.”

Catholic morality evolves? Not really.
Heretics have always been condemned, with at least excommunication.
Any punishment *beyond* excommunication seems unique to a historical context and a prudential judgment regarding *state security.*
Consider that, even today, the governments of most countries have severe penalties, sometimes extending to capital punishment, for treason or for other actions against the state. Back in medieval Europe, I think most, if not all, the states were Christian states. That is, they were states *not* run by the Church but states which had Christianity as the state religion; states with a “Christ constitution”, if you will. Christian heresy was considered a *threat to the state and its social order.* Obviously, such threats to the state and social order would be considered very serious business. [Nevertheless, as I understand, the medieval states usually maintained secular courts where the majority of “inquisitions” were held. I also understand the sentences in the secular courts were usually more severe than in the ecclesiastical courts, to the extent that defendants often tried to have their hearings moved TO the ecclesiastical courts.]

Again, the Catholic morality hasn’t changed – the same sins then are the same sins now. However, the temporal punishment for the sin can be a matter of prudential judgment.
To take perhaps an extreme current day example: One priest may give you a penance of three Our Fathers, while another priest may give you, for the same confessed sins, a penance of a whole decade of the Rosary.

Catholicism made Europe. It’s why Europe isn’t an extension of the darkness of the Islamic Middle East. (At least for now.) It’s why Europe was the ground of the first universities and hospitals, and common law systems.

Europeans should thank God for the Catholic Church. They should, but they don’t any longer.

To Gray Falcon #225:

“Let me remind you, See, that you asked me once:
“Are you saying NO ONE apart from Jesus Christ has authority to say definitively what Christianity is, and even authority to decide what proper Christian behavior is?”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/05/20/why-do-doctors-deny-evolut…

You won’t acknowledge Jesus Christ as the ultimate authority. What does that make you?”

Are you serious, Gray One?
I used to think you were joking, but given the many times you’ve posted this on other blogs here, I guess you actually *are* serious.

You *seriously* need to read your Bible, Gray. In light of my quoted question to you above, here are some verses to get you started:

"He WHO HEARS YOU [apostles] HEARS ME, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." [Luke 10:16]

“I will give YOU [Peter] the KEYS OF THE KINGDOM of heaven, and WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth SHALL BE BOUND IN HEAVEN, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." [Mat 16:19]

“As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them FOR OBSERVANCE THE DECISIONS which had been reached BY THE APOSTLES and elders who were at Jerusalem.
So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily.” [Acts 16:4-5]

“I write this while I am away from you, in order that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of THE AUTHORITY WHICH THE LORD HAS GIVEN ME for building up and not for tearing down.” [2 Cor 13:10]

“Declare these things; exhort and reprove with ALL AUTHORITY. Let no one disregard you.” [Titus 2:15]

‘I have written something to the church; but Gray Falcon, I mean, Diot'rephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge MY AUTHORITY.’ [cf. 3 John 1:9]

“that THROUGH THE CHURCH the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.
This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord” [Eph 3:10-11]

“if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is THE CHURCH of the living God, THE PILLAR AND BULWARK OF THE TRUTH.” [1 Tim 3:15]

Are you serious?
Tell.. me… grey…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsozyGR6Eo4

See Noevo,

Apologists for the Catholic Church continue to worship Pontius Pilate.

We convicted the heretic, but we handed him over to the state for punishment and we wash our hands of the matter. We don't have any control over what happens.

Of course, the secular heads of these countries were crowned by the popes, so they want to do what pleases the popes. No coercion of any kind would be perceived by someone who looks the other way and makes excuses for these shenanigans.

Catholic morality doesn't change?

When did the Catholic Church develop their opposition to abortion?

The Catholic Church developed its opposition to slavery a little earlier than most organizations. This is one of the few things that the Church did right, before, rather than after the rest of society.

However, this change policy on slavery was still a change in the moral rules of the Church.

I let SN out of killfile jail and see that the Catholic Church *protected* knowledge??? The very same Catholic Church that plunged Europe into the Dark Ages and kept it there, ages after Islam had recognized and developed things like, oh, higher mathematics, medicine (although still basic, was FAR more advanced than Europe), and kept libraries alive instead of a)burning them entirely or b)tucking all books away into monasteries?

The Catholic Church, which believed that Jews were baby-killers and drank the blood of Christian babies? Kept Jews locked up into ghettos and allowed open season on them whenever things went wrong, as it *had* to be the Jew's fault?

The Catholic Church, where, if you had enough money, you could be reassured you would go to heaven, as you could buy indulgences, pay beaucoup bucks to get others to pray for you, etc, so it didn't matter how you lived life?

The Catholic Church, who allowed the abuse of women in Magdelene convents and laundries? Allowed the abuse of young boys and hid it by shifting the priests around? Allowed a priest to refuse my mother communion at the alter rail?

SN - I'd say you'd made me laugh at your stupidity and ignorance, but thinking of all the abuses of the Catholic Church just makes me sad.

Jesus stated the accumulation of earthly wealth and power was a sin, the Catholic church is built on those. They chose to disregard Christ's teachings, they cannot be called his church.

To Delphine #221:

You: “You are not my confessor or my priest, asshole.”

Ouch! That’s one more to add to your sin list when you DO see your priest confessor. I mean, in addition to the pro-abortion, pro-contraception, etc.

BTW, DO you participate in the sacrament of reconciliation (a.k.a. confession)?

Do you act like the first Catholic who ever Catholiced with everyone, or just here?

I grew up in a heavily Catholic area, went to Catholic day school, then was sent overseas to a Catholic boarding school. I did my grad work at a Jesuit university. You're easily the most deluded, dogmatic Catholic I've ever encountered.

And to answer your question, yes, I do. And we send our child to Catholic school. And we attend Mass. Where we worship with people who are kind and welcoming and forgiving.

Ouch! That’s one more to add to your sin list when you DO see your priest confessor. I mean, in addition to the pro-abortion, pro-contraception, etc.

Have you ever printed out your on-line antics and asked a priest how he thought your camel was doing with that getting through the eye of a needle thing?

When you think of internal threats to the United States don't think of the extremely rare folks like the couple in San Bernardino, guilty of horrific and senseless acts in communities, think of people like sn who are actively working to defund science, education, rights, access of women to healthcare, and the already meagre social welfare net. The tea-baggers would drag the country to a place suitable for rich white folks and nobody else

@Narad - did you mean, "with getting the beam out of your own eye?" Unless See Noevo is rich as well as hypocritical.

To Rogue Medic #230:

“When did the Catholic Church develop their opposition to abortion?”

I don’t know off hand, but it was probably pretty early, given meditations on revelations like Luke 1:43.

“However, this change policy on slavery was still a change in the moral rules of the Church.”

Developing a formal stance on an issue for which you never before had a formal stance should not be considered a "change".
Perhaps, just maybe, you could forgive the Catholic Church for not immediately and explicitly condemning something (i.e. slavery) that was not even condemned by its Founder and Purpose, Jesus Christ.
It’s a curious thing. Maybe Jesus had so many other sins to condemn (e.g. adultery, fornication, murder) that He just never got around to it.

By the way, abortion, specifically, murdering a baby in the womb, is objectively far worse than slavery. At least a slave is treated fairly well and kept alive and healthy, because otherwise he’s not much use to the master. [In fact, back in the B.C. days, slavery may have been the most attractive survival option for some people.] And as long as he’s alive, the slave has the hope of freedom. Many slaves in the U.S., of course, eventually DID see freedom. The tender targets in the womb aren’t so lucky.

good god - sn never ceases to amaze with his demonstrations of how large an ass he is.

By the way, abortion, specifically, murdering a baby in the womb, is objectively far worse than slavery

Apparently God doesn't feel that way, since murdering a slave is a capital crime* whereas causing a woman to miscarry only requires one to pay a fine to her husband (as long as the woman herself doesn't die) (Exodus 20:22). Some pro-lifers try to reinterpret this passage as referring to premature birth rather than miscarriage, but most of the commentaries written before abortion became a political issue seem to take it for granted that the phrase "so that her fruit depart" refers to a miscarriage, which makes sense since a premature birth would have been practically guaranteed to result in death in the days before modern medicine.

*Unless, of course, you merely beat the slave to within an inch of his/her life, and he/she dies a few days later - then YHWH says the loss of the slave is punishment enough (Exodus 21:20 - 21)

Do you act like the first Catholic who ever Catholiced with everyone, or just here?

Delphine -- remember, this is the poster who boasted that he/she should be offered the opportunity to meet with the Pope, in order to correct him on certain topics (during the Papal visit this September).

To Delphine #233:

“You’re easily the most deluded, dogmatic Catholic I’ve ever encountered.”

Dogma can be a good thing. And the Catholic Church’s dogma is all good in a Catholic’s eyes. Otherwise, the “Catholic” wouldn’t really be Catholic.

So, “dogmatic” is not necessarily a derogatory term, of course. But apparently you’ve intended it as such, as you’ve paired it with “deluded.”

Would you please give one example of where you think I’m “dogmatic”
and one where you think I’m “deluded”, in the context of Catholic teaching?

Fuck off.

Do you act like the first Catholic who ever Catholiced with everyone, or just here?

Delphine — remember, this is the poster who boasted that he/she should be offered the opportunity to meet with the Pope, in order to correct him on certain topics (during the Papal visit this September).

I was about to type "you're kidding", thought the better of it.

To Sarah A #240:

Me: “By the way, abortion, specifically, murdering a baby in the womb, is objectively far worse than slavery”

You: “Apparently God doesn’t feel that way, since murdering a slave is a capital crime* whereas causing a woman to miscarry only requires one to pay a fine to her husband…”

You refer to Exodus 21:20-22.
The death of the baby sounds like manslaughter, at most. Like an unintended, secondary effect of the people fighting. The penalty for such a death back then, as well as now, would be expected to be less than for murder.

See Noinfo says, "I would, however, consider addressing one, JUST ONE, of your points (e.g. from #182).
You pick. Throw your favorite flag."
First off I was refuting your claim about the church's body count for the last 500 years - "approximately zero".
So let's go over it again. The church used to be a secular power controlling the Papal States until the later 19th Century, and those states fought wars and administered what used to pass for justice in those times. Refute that, can you?
Church participation in the Croatian part of the Holocaust? "In all, there would be 22 concentration camps in the NDH, almost half of which were commanded by Roman Catholic Croatian priests." (from this site - http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/othercamps/jasenovac.html)
Deaths over and above the abuses and torture in the Magdalene laundries? http://www.irishcentral.com/news/1663-Irish-women-died-in-Magdalene-lau…
For the actions, or better, inaction, of Pope Pius XII regarding the Holocaust and the Adreatine caves massacre, try the book "Hitler's Pope".
Aid to wanted Nazi and Fascist war criminals? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_%28World_War_II_aftermath%29 and https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/how-the-catholic-church-she…
See Noinfo, this is how I picture you after you start to read this: https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/show_picture.pl?l=english&rais=1&oiu=h…

I almost forgot this one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/06/09/the-truth…

I carried a baby with a lethal aneuploidy, a baby with half his heart. My son would have been born without the ability to even suckle for comfort, doomed to a short life of pain and useless intervention. I prayed for my boy to die in my womb so I wouldn't have to go through with an abortion. He did die and I didn't have to do it. You are less forgiving than any priest with whom I've ever sought counsel. By far. You're just an asshole wearing the mask of religion.

@#244 - Nope.

@Narad – did you mean, “with getting the beam out of your own eye?” Unless See Noevo is rich as well as hypocritical.

Eh, it doesn't matter. He's been asked the same basic question before, and the answer is always the same: he doesn't have the balls to submit his activities to pastoral evaluation.

He's just a frustrated, 60-year-old bachelor for life.

@Delphine - I am so sorry; I can't even imagine going through something like that.

@See Noevo - Looks like someone need to spend more time reading his bible. God specifically addresses involuntary manslaughter - the killer's like was still technically forfeit, but he (or she) could escape vengeance "in a place I [God] have set aside" (Exodus 20:13), which became the 6 cities of refuge once the Hebrews conquered Israel by brutally slaughtering and enslaving the original inhabitants entered the Promised Land. Even within the passage to which I referred, God specifies that the attacker only gets off with a fine if the woman isn't seriously injured or killed. If she is, the payment is still "life for life, eye for eye..." etc. (Exodus 20:23 - 25.) In short, It's abundantly clear that God does not, in fact, consider the life of an unborn baby to be equivalent to that of an adult.

The moral of the story - don't try to argue scripture with a recovering fundamentalist.

^The killer's life was still technically forfeit

To Sarah A #251:

“@See Noevo – Looks like someone need to spend more time reading his bible.”

Looks like someone need to spend more time reading her bible,
and at least getting her chapter and verse numbers right.

You’re a “recovering fundamentalist”? What church are you in now, if any?
Maybe this one would suit you. Sounds like another new Protestant sect in the making:
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/12/03/stoner-jesus-bible-study-group-ge…

To Delphine #243:

Touché, mommy potty mouth!

@See Noevo - Really? You can nitpick about typos but you have nothing to say about the simple fact that your own holy book contradicts your views?

^To clarify for anyone following along, the verses I referred to are in Exodus 21, as stated at the end of my first post (#240), not Exodus 20.

Old Rockin’ Dave #246:

Me: “I’m not about to argue with you over every perceived transgression of the Catholic Church over the last hundreds or thousands of years. I would, however, *consider* addressing one, *JUST ONE*, of your points (e.g. from #182). You pick. Throw your favorite flag.”

You respond with yet another scatter gun blast of *multiple* incidents over hundreds of years to tally (although you gave no tally) murders and misdeeds of the Church.

You blew it.
My offer is withdrawn.

P.S.
IF your main point is that Catholic clergy and laity have been guilty of extremely un-Godly behavior over the last two millennia, you’ll get no argument from me.
In fact, I would be very surprised if many self-identified Catholics, including many priests and bishops (and who knows, maybe even some Popes), do NOT end up in hell.

Nevertheless, the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church (cf. Mat 16:18). They never have in 2,000 years, and they never will. (The CC puts the Energizer bunny to shame.)

And I’d rather die than be anything but Catholic.

To Sarah A #255:

“@See Noevo – Really? You can nitpick about typos but you have nothing to say about the simple fact that your own holy book contradicts your views?”

Contradicts my view that the lot of a slave is better than that of the target of abortion?
I don’t see that. I don’t even need a Bible to not see that.

Contradicts my view that a miscarriage is not murder, not abortion?
I don’t see that either.

P.S.
Perhaps you missed my question earlier:
As a self-described “recovering fundamentalist”, what church are you in now, if any?

@ See Noevo - God says that killing a human being, even by accident, if punishable by death. God then says that causing a fetus to spontaneously abort by accident is not punishable by death. Ergo, God does not recognize the unborn fetus as being morally equivalent to an human being. If you're serious about not understanding my point, I honestly don't know how to make it any clearer to you. But I strongly suspect that you're just being deliberately obtuse in order to avoid the issue.

And since you're asking, I don't attend any church.

To Sarah A #259:

“God says that killing a human being, even by accident, if punishable by death.”

Where does it say that?

P.S.
Apparently, you missed my question yet again:
As a self-described “recovering fundamentalist”, what church are you in now, if any?

See Noinfo: You say "You respond with yet another scatter gun blast of *multiple* incidents over hundreds of years to tally (although you gave no tally) murders and misdeeds of the Church." I never agreed to take you up on your "offer" and I simply offered you some basic sources for my claims, sources which it would do you some good to investigate further. I have not only cited misdeeds by clergy, but actions, willful blindness, and policies that came from the highest levels of the Vatican, including any number of popes. I am merely pointing out to you that more than "approximately zero" deaths can be laid at the gates of the Vatican, by several orders of magnitude, and depending on how you count, they conceivably may add up to several millions. I don't quite care enough about your opinions to make the tally you seem to require, since many of these happenings are impossible to get accurate figures on instead of rough and problematic estimates (as in divorce, contraception, and abortion denial).
Evaluating those actions, etc., is a whole 'nother discussion, which would take us not merely down the rabbit hole, but down the TauTona mine.
I have cited facts which are on the whole irrefutable. How you would choose to justify or deny them is of scant interest to me.

Sheesh, I knew Catholics don't lay the same stress on the bible that protestant fundamentalists do, but this is ridiculous; I gave you the chapter and verse, FFS - do you even own a bible? If not, here's the passages I refer to (from the Contemporary English Version):

Death is the punishment for murder. But if you did not intend to kill someone, and I, the Lord, let it hapen anyway, you may run to safety to a place that I have set aside (Exodus 21:12 - 13)

This is elaborated on in Numbers 35:20 - 21:

Or suppose you get angry and kill someone by pushing or hitting or throwing something. You are a murderer and must be put to death by one of the victim's relatives (Numbers 35:20 - 21)

[Note that neither premeditation nor intent to kill are required - if you are fighting with someone and he/she dies as a result, God considers it murder]

But if you are not angry and accidentally kill someone in any of these ways, the townspeople must hold a trial and decide if you are guilty. If they decide that you are innocent, you will be protected from the victim's relative and sent to stay in one of the Safe Towns until the high priest dies. But if you ever leave the Safe Town and are killed by the victim's relative, he cannot be punished for killing you (Numbers 35:22 - 27)

Note that, even if the townspeople decide that the death was a complete accident (not just an unintended outcome of a conflict), you're not scott free - you still owe life for life, but you will be protected in one of the cities of refuge (that's from the KJV I grew up with, sometimes I think the CEV over-simplifies well-known and culturally significant terms unnecessarily.) If you leave the city, the avenger is still allowed to kill you, and it won't be considered murder on his part, because you still owe your life for the life you took.

This is just an interesting diversion, however, because the fact that God doesn't consider the unborn fetus's life to be equivalent to that of the mother is actually implicit in the passage I originally brought up:

Suppose a woman suffers a miscarriage as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn't badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve. But if she is seriously injured, the payment will be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, cut for cut, and bruise for bruise (Exodus 21:22 - 25)

Note that in this situation, the perpetrator doesn't intend to harm the woman - she is injured in the course of a fight between two men (that part is actually more explicit in he KJV). Nevertheless, if the woman is seriously injured (beyond the miscarriage itself) or killed, the same rule applies as if the perpetrator had actually injured or killed the man he was fighting with - life for life, eye for eye, etc. But if the only death is that of the fetus, only a fine is imposed. Obviously, God doesn't consider the life of the unborn to be equivalent to that of an adult.

P.S. I didn't miss your question, you missed my answer - at the end of #259

To Sarah A #262:

“Obviously, God doesn’t consider the life of the unborn to be equivalent to that of an adult.”

So it would seem.

And obviously, God doesn’t consider slave owning sinful.
Not even Jesus condemned slavery.

So maybe abortion and slavery are OK today, Scripturally speaking.
……………….
“I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.” [John 16:12-13]

Truth, what is truth? How can we know it?

“that THROUGH THE CHURCH the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.” [Ephesians 3:10]

“if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is THE CHURCH of the living God, THE PILLAR AND BULWARK OF THE TRUTH.”
[1 Timothy 3:15]

P.S.
I’m sorry to hear you don’t attend any church.
Particularly *the* Church.

P.S.
I’m sorry to hear you don’t attend any church.
Particularly *the* Church.

You really don't understand how badly you reek of utter desperation for attention, do you?

Purely hypocritical cowardice is probably the least of your character flaws.

Orac,

I feel a little sorry for you, and for Ben Carson.
Whatever happened to the focus on your blog against Ben?

It seems that whenever a blog is about someone questioning something scientists say (people who thus become science “deniers”, in the eyes of the Left) the commenters almost inevitably begin attacking religion, and ultimately condemning or at least criticizing the Catholic Church?
And before you know it, we’re talking about abortion and what not!

On this particular blog, Helianthus #25 was the first to bring up the CC (and Ben Carson isn’t even Catholic!). I think the majority of the over 230 comments that followed involved religion and especially Catholicism. (Yes, I contributed some of them. About 17% of them.)

Too bad Ben Carson isn’t Catholic. Then we could get him more in the mix here.

And I’d rather die than be anything but Catholic.

I don't think that tediously making an ass of yourself on the Intertubes is enough to pull off the (deranged, unsolicited) martyr routine.

See No Nuffin'

So the church doesn't evolve except when it does.

And those who subvert the thread bemoan the fact that the thread has been subverted.

Guess what:
Reason is not the same as rationalization.

What I've learned from SN:
Apparently faith makes an excellent excuse for rigid, intellectual laziness if not outright perfidy.

@See Noevo

“Obviously, God doesn’t consider the life of the unborn to be equivalent to that of an adult.”

So it would seem.

Well, I'll give you this much credit - I wasn't expecting even that much of a concession from you. So with end-of-semester deadlines looming I think I'll quit while I'm ahead.

And obviously, God doesn’t consider slave owning sinful.
Not even Jesus condemned slavery.

And now you know why I neither rely on, nor recommend, the bible as a source of moral guidance.

See Noevo,

“When did the Catholic Church develop their opposition to abortion?”

I don’t know off hand, but it was probably pretty early, given meditations on revelations like Luke 1:43.

Very Deepak Chopra, but it has nothing to do with abortion.

“However, this change policy on slavery was still a change in the moral rules of the Church.”

Developing a formal stance on an issue for which you never before had a formal stance should not be considered a “change”.

The Catholic Church approved of slavery, then changed its mind.

It is good when they improve their morality, but there is still too much immorality ordered by the Church.

Perhaps, just maybe, you could forgive the Catholic Church for not immediately and explicitly condemning something (i.e. slavery) that was not even condemned by its Founder and Purpose, Jesus Christ.

Why didn't your Gods know that slavery is immoral?

It’s a curious thing. Maybe Jesus had so many other sins to condemn (e.g. adultery, fornication, murder) that He just never got around to it.

Slavery is unimportant?

Your Gods are excellent examples of immorality and incompetence.

And then you give a long example of a childish excuse.

Morality appears to be whatever allows you to do whatever you want.

What I’ve learned from SN:
Apparently faith makes an excellent excuse for rigid, intellectual laziness if not outright perfidy.

I suspect s/he was an asshole long before s/he converted.

To Rogue Medic #269:

You: “When did the Catholic Church develop their opposition to abortion?”

Me: “I don’t know off hand, but it was probably pretty early, given meditations on revelations like Luke 1:43.”

You: “Very Deepak Chopra, but it has nothing to do with abortion.”

Sure it does, if you think about it just a little.
…………….
You: “However, this change policy on slavery was still a change in the moral rules of the Church.”

Me: “Developing a formal stance on an issue for which you never before had a formal stance should not be considered a “change”.”

You: “The Catholic Church approved of slavery, then changed its mind.”

When and where did the approval happen?
……………….
“Your Gods are excellent examples of immorality and incompetence.”

From what we know of Jesus Christ, would you say he was crazy and/or evil?

From what we know of Jesus Christ, would you say he was crazy and/or evil?

Fictional.

But, if you wish to play that game, after reading the bible, would you say his father was a murderous psychopath or simply a fan of genocide?

See Noevo,

You: “Very Deepak Chopra, but it has nothing to do with abortion.”

Sure it does, if you think about it just a little.

That is why there are so many different ways of interpreting the Bible - the people who wrote were writing like Deepak Chopra and his ilk. Chopra, and others, want you to think they are profound, when they are just vague and meaningless.

See Noevo,

You: “However, this change policy on slavery was still a change in the moral rules of the Church.”

Me: “Developing a formal stance on an issue for which you never before had a formal stance should not be considered a “change”.”

You: “The Catholic Church approved of slavery, then changed its mind.”

When and where did the approval happen?

Some examples of Catholic-approved/Catholic-ordered slavery (as part of canon law) from Wikipedia -

In the early thirteenth century, official support for slavery and the slave trade was incorporated into Canon Law (Corpus Iuris Canonici), by Pope Gregory IX,.[62] Canon law provided for four just titles for holding slaves: slaves captured in war, persons condemned to slavery for a crime; persons selling themselves into slavery, including a father selling his child; children of a mother who is a slave.

Slavery was imposed as an ecclesiastical penalty by General Councils and local Church councils and Popes, 1179-1535...

(a) The crime of assisting the Saracens 1179-1450.....

(b) The crime of selling Christian slaves to the Saracens 1425. Pope Martin V issued two constitutions. Traffic in Christian slaves was not forbidden, but only their sale to non Christian masters.

(d) Unjust aggression or other crimes, 1309-1535. The penalty of capture and enslavement for Christian families or cities or states was enacted several times by Popes. Those sentenced included Venetians in 1309.[63]

Pope Gregory XI, excommunicated the Florentines and ordered them to be enslaved if captured[64] Little seems to have happened before the order was removed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery#Slavery_incor…

See Noevo,

“Your Gods are excellent examples of immorality and incompetence.”

From what we know of Jesus Christ, would you say he was crazy and/or evil?

Evil is a religious concept, like free will and original sin, so I would not use this magical term to describe something.

Jesus was probably just the same as the other apocalyptic preachers of that time.

Someone persuaded Constantine that some coincidence was due to Jesus magic, so one powerful person believed, and the official state religion caught on.

If the Christian Gods were so impressive, why did the followers so quickly abandon them and go worship so many other Gods?

If Jesus was so impressive, why did it take 40 years for somebody to write something down?

And why couldn't the Christian Gods come up with a means of passing on this information that was clear? You don't get 41,000 different flavors of Christianity from clear communication.

dean,

From what we know of Jesus Christ, would you say he was crazy and/or evil?

Fictional.

But, if you wish to play that game, after reading the bible, would you say his father was a murderous psychopath or simply a fan of genocide?

That's a trick question.

The God of the Bible is all three.

The God of the Bible is a fictional murderous psychopath who dabbled in genocide and - only one time - engaged in worldwide genocide to cover up the evidence of his unintelligent design.

To Rogue Medic #275:

“Someone persuaded Constantine that some coincidence was due to Jesus magic, so one powerful person believed, and the official state religion caught on.”

That must have been some marvelous magic, because I think the Roman Empire already had an official state religion with its own gods. But nobody’s followed Jupiter, Venus, Bacchus, etc. for many moons.

“Jesus was probably just the same as the other apocalyptic preachers of that time.”

Yeah, probably.
Maybe it’s like those guys in Acts 5 said:
“When they heard this they were enraged and wanted to kill them.
But a Pharisee in the council named Gama'li-el, a teacher of the law, held in honor by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a while.
And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you do with these men.
For before these days Theu'das arose, giving himself out to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he was slain and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing.
After him Judas the Galilean arose in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered.
So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail;
but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!"
So they took his advice, and when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.”

Almost 2,000 years, and still going… the CC bunny.

...........
P.S.
“And why couldn’t the Christian Gods come up with a means of passing on this information that was clear?”

Consider it done, a long time ago.
It’s called the Church (cf. 1 Tim 3:15).

Someone persuaded Constantine that some coincidence was due to Jesus magic, so one powerful person believed, and the official state religion caught on

It's debatable whether or not Constantine was a believer at all. Christianity had already caught on to the point that ceasing to persecute Christians was a politically advantageous move for him anyway..

He did convert on his deathbed. But he didn't need some random "someone" to show him the light. His mother (by whom he was raised) was a Christian -- Saint Helena, who's best known for discovering the True Cross.

The Morgan Library a beautiful little gold altar/reliquary with Mosan enamels that show her embarking on the quest for it by throwing Jews into a fire so that they'd tell her where it was. The Stavelot Tryptych, it's called.

Triptych.

I always spell that wrong.

Almost 2,000 years, and still going… the CC bunny.

Gautama squints at you.

See Noevo,

I see that you only respond to comments when you can suggest that the popularity of your flavor of Christianity is somehow more special than the other flavors.

P.S.
“And why couldn’t the Christian Gods come up with a means of passing on this information that was clear?”

Consider it done, a long time ago.
It’s called the Church (cf. 1 Tim 3:15).

Everything you cite is just a matter of interpretation of a predecessor of Deepak Chopra.

41,000 different interpretations and your interpretation is just another one.

It is special to you and to the few others who share your specific interpretation. As has already been demonstrated, there are even many versions of Catholic.

Your type of Catholic is probably going to be left behind as the rest of Catholicism abandons the ancient immorality that your revere.

Catholicism abandoned its defense of slavery.

Catholicism abandoned its executions for heresy.

Catholicism abandoned its wars of conquest.

Catholicism abandoned its opposition to science.

While it is slow to learn, eventually Catholicism does seem to abandon many of its immoral practices. So can you.

That should read -

Your type of Catholic is probably going to be left behind as the rest of Catholicism abandons the ancient immorality that you revere.

@Rogue Medic: now if they Catholic Church would only become intelligent and remove its prohibition of birth control, abortions would probably decrease immensely, making everyone happy. After all, almost every women would rather prevent an unwanted pregnancy instead of having to have an abortion.

After all, that was the basic premise for Planned Parenthood: Every child a WANTED child.

Gah! "almost every woman" Too early and the coffee hasn't kicked in enough for proofreading.

And SN keep failing History forever.
The interested lurker can just hop in at wikipedia or any other educational site for some basic historical facts about, oh well, everything, from hospitals to common law to slavery in Old Europe.

Re: slavery

It’s a curious thing. Maybe Jesus had so many other sins to condemn (e.g. adultery, fornication, murder) that He just never got around to it.

Wait, slavery has nothing to do with adultery, fornication, murder?

I stand by Granny Weatherwax definition of sin, as a starting point. Sin is when you treat people like things.

"They never have in 2,000 years, and they never will. (The CC puts the Energizer bunny to shame.)"
The Orthodox church is at least as old as the Catholic, and also has shown great staying power, and has every right to argue that it is the true and original Christian church.
Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism are all far older and show no signs of dying out.
The religious beliefs of ancient Egypt lasted three thousand years.
Come back and make your case a thousand years from now.

To Old Rockin’ Dave #286:

Me: “They never have in 2,000 years, and they never will. (The CC puts the Energizer bunny to shame.)”

You: “Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism are all far older and show no signs of dying out. The religious beliefs of ancient Egypt lasted three thousand years.”

I’m not talking about religious beliefs, per se.
I’m talking about an *organization*, as in a body of people with mission statement and doctrines and rules, and with a hierarchy of “management”, and a visible head/“CEO”.

Who’s the global “CEO” of Judaism, of Buddhism, of Hinduism?

P.S.
And quick, without peeking, who’s the head of the Orthodox Church right now?

Sn, thanks for admitting the Catholic Church is nothing more than a multinational corporation.

The last individual who committed such a sin of pride as SN, was Lucifer, himself.....

And I'm not quite sure how that definition would be considered "better" given that the CC has, for long periods of its history, been nothing more than a tool of kings, or worse, a political body dedicated to nothing but abject power (like electing a Borgia as Pope).

To Lawrence #290:

“And I’m not quite sure how that definition would be considered “better” given that the CC has, for long periods of its history, been nothing more than a tool of kings, or worse, a political body dedicated to nothing but abject power (like electing a Borgia as Pope).”

How are those kings and their kingdoms, and those Borgias, carrying on *today*? How many years is their tenure up to now?

How many years is their tenure up to now?

About 5 foot 4.

"I’m not talking about religious beliefs, per se.
I’m talking about an *organization*, as in a body of people with mission statement and doctrines and rules, and with a hierarchy of “management”, and a visible head/“CEO”.
Who’s the global “CEO” of Judaism, of Buddhism, of Hinduism?"
None of them need one. That's the biggest reason for our endurance.
No one is exactly the "CEO" of the Orthodox Church. The "official" head of the Orthodox Church is Jesus Christ. The de facto, though not de jure, leader is the Ecumenical Patriarch. Currently that's Bartholomew I, though his leadership is described as primus inter pares.
Meanwhile, your hierarchy of management is a dismal failure in many areas. Much of it is a self-perpetuating bureaucracy committed to its own privileges, and capable of thwarting any attempt at reform. The Church has allowed many of its personnel to run amok, engaging in all kinds of sins with little fear of consequences. It's been in a long slow decline for centuries now, and its long survival owes more to its secular operations than its religious ones.
Just by the way, how do you feel about your pontifex maximus having a pre-Christian Roman priesthood among his titles?

To Old Rockin’ Dave #293:

Me: “[In terms of historical longevity] I’m not talking about religious beliefs, per se.
I’m talking about an *organization*, as in a body of people with mission statement and doctrines and rules, and with a hierarchy of “management”, and a visible head/“CEO”. Who’s the global “CEO” of Judaism, of Buddhism, of Hinduism?”

You: “None of them need one. That’s the biggest reason for our endurance.”

And the biggest reason for, as you say, “41,000 different flavors of Christianity”.

But “OUR” endurance?
Are you of the Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism persuasion?
…………..
Me: “And quick, without peeking, who’s the head of the Orthodox Church right now?”

You: “The de facto, though not de jure, leader is the Ecumenical Patriarch. Currently that’s Bartholomew I, though his leadership is described as primus inter pares.”

Wow. You’re pretty good for not peeking. I wouldn’t even have come up with Bartholomew absent a little Googling. I’d bet the majority of the folks out there wouldn’t either.
(But I’d bet they would come up with the title and the name of the head of the Catholic Church.)
………….
“Meanwhile, your hierarchy of management is a dismal failure in many areas. Much of it is a self-perpetuating bureaucracy committed to its own privileges, and capable of thwarting any attempt at reform. The Church has allowed many of its personnel to run amok, engaging in all kinds of sins with little fear of consequences. It’s been in a long slow decline for centuries now…”

I agree.
………………
“Just by the way, how do you feel about your pontifex maximus having a pre-Christian Roman priesthood among his titles?”

How do I feel about it? Probably about the same as I do the Vicar of Christ also being called “papa” (i.e. Pope).

Wow, is that old pervert (^) still going on and on about "peeking under the hood"? Must be jealousy.

See Noevo- Jesus Christ is the head of the Christian Church, always and forever.

The power of an organization often has little to do with how well-known its current chief executive is. There are probably a lot of people who would tell you that the CEO of Microsoft is Bill Gates; the company profits, and its influence on the computer industry and my local economy, don't depend on them getting it right.

Is it hubris to put that much of your ego into the fame of someone you have no influence on or direct interaction with?

Are you of the Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism persuasion?

I had no idea that S.N.'s Torquemadita routine could actually descend even further.

"Later, Carl and Bernie told me Meat Hook had told them, in describing the way he ran his drug clinic in Harlem, that he didn’t 'fool around with these characters.' He took them to a darkened back room and examined their cοcks by the light of a candle to make sure no drugs were concealed under foreskins. He also sang the Star Spangled Banner at football games, my favorite sidelight on this incredibly demonic personality. With enemies like Meat Hook, one might ask, who needed friends?"

^ Eh, close the italics after "Banner" in your minds.

Let's see, as recently as the past few years, the Vatican Bank was used to launder money for a variety of mafia organizations....

So when exactly do you have a "cut-off" for scandalous behavior? Because it can be argued that the cover-up of the massive abuses committed by priests continues to this day......

To Lawrence #300:

“So when exactly do you have a “cut-off” for scandalous behavior?”

Unfortunately, probably not until the Second Coming.
Scandalous behavior has been seen in the Church from the start (e.g. Judas Iscariot, an apostle hand-picked by Christ himself), and in its earliest days:
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” [Mat 7:15]

“Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.
I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.
Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears.”
[Acts 20:28-31]

And the wolves have been within the Church, ‘from among our own selves’, ever since. For those to whom much is given, much is expected. And I think there will be a great deal of hell to pay, as I noted in #257’s P.S.

I think See the creep just described itself...

Exactly gaist....

See- I will concede one point. Churches are, indeed, meant to enact Christ's will on Earth. So why should I trust a church that only cares about itself? The Lutheran church hasn't covered up any sex scandals, nor has the Episcopal, Methodist, or Orthodox churches. Why not join them instead?

The Lutheran church hasn’t covered up any sex scandals, nor has the Episcopal, Methodist, or Orthodox churches.

I'm not sure about the first three there, but that's not entirely true about the Orthodox Church. They do have a much better record than the RCC, though. Letting parish priests marry probably helps a lot.

^Blockquote fail, but, oh, you guys get it.

The leadership of the Methodist church takes an especially vile position on homosexuality, however. In that sense they are just as disgusting as the leaders of the RCC.

See Noevo,

You: “However, this change policy on slavery was still a change in the moral rules of the Church.”

Me: “Developing a formal stance on an issue for which you never before had a formal stance should not be considered a “change”.”

You: “The Catholic Church approved of slavery, then changed its mind.”

When and where did the approval happen?

Some examples of Catholic-approved/Catholic-ordered slavery (as part of canon law) from Wikipedia –

Slavery was imposed as an ecclesiastical penalty by General Councils and local Church councils and Popes, 1179-1535…

(a) The crime of assisting the Saracens 1179-1450…..

(b) The crime of selling Christian slaves to the Saracens 1425. Pope Martin V issued two constitutions. Traffic in Christian slaves was not forbidden, but only their sale to non Christian masters.

Pope Gregory XI, excommunicated the Florentines and ordered them to be enslaved if captured[64] Little seems to have happened before the order was removed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery#Slavery_incor…

Can we expect any explanation for this blatant reversal on morality by the Catholic Church?

Why can't the Catholic Church tell what is moral?

To Gray Falcon #304:

“So why should I trust a church that only cares about itself? The Lutheran church hasn’t covered up any sex scandals, nor has the Episcopal, Methodist, or Orthodox churches.”

From what I remember reading, the incidence of sexual abuse is about the same in Protestantism, as well as in Judaism, Islam. It may be even worse in the public schools. (The coverups *might* be as bad, as well, given how seldom you hear about them compared to the CC.)

Here’s a short piece on Evangelicals:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/01/protestant-sex-abuse-boz-tchiv…

“Why not join them instead?”

Never.

“Why not join them instead?”

Never.

Whelp, have it your way, I suppose!

See Noevo,

You: “However, this change policy on slavery was still a change in the moral rules of the Church.”

Me: “Developing a formal stance on an issue for which you never before had a formal stance should not be considered a “change”.”

You: “The Catholic Church approved of slavery, then changed its mind.”

When and where did the approval happen?

Some examples of Catholic-approved/Catholic-ordered slavery (as part of canon law) from Wikipedia –

Slavery was imposed as an ecclesiastical penalty by General Councils and local Church councils and Popes, 1179-1535…

(a) The crime of assisting the Saracens 1179-1450…..

(b) The crime of selling Christian slaves to the Saracens 1425. Pope Martin V issued two constitutions. Traffic in Christian slaves was not forbidden, but only their sale to non Christian masters.

Pope Gregory XI, excommunicated the Florentines and ordered them to be enslaved if captured[64] Little seems to have happened before the order was removed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery#Slavery_incor…

Can we expect any explanation for this blatant reversal on morality by the Catholic Church?

Why can’t the Catholic Church tell what is moral?

Why do you try to answer other questions, but keep avoiding this question?

Then we can address other examples of the Catholic Church changing its stance on morality.

To Rogue Medic #311:

There was no “blatant reversal on morality by the Catholic Church.”

The linked piece below may help you understand why.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/l…

So creepy See, you're arguing that the Church and the Papacy just lost their way for hundreds of years and made slavery an official part of their Canon Law, but that did not somehow end up being a "blatant reversal of morality"? What would you call it? A moral hiccup?

And that's just for slavery. Officially sanctioned killings went on for much much longer, among other sins.

New Carson Links To Mannatech

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ben-carsons-ties-to-mannatech-are-many-1450…

The article talks about Carson recommending Mannatech products to his patients (one who was interviewed spent $2,600 on Mannatech supplements for his daughter's epilepsy without finding them useful), referring them to his "personal assistant", a Mannatech associate who now works for his campaign.

"In a 2009 letter to Mannatech’s then-CEO, Mr. Carson thanked the company for a $25,000 donation to help fund an endowed professorship Mr. Carson had been awarded by Johns Hopkins, according to a copy reviewed by The Wall Street Journal."

“May God continue to richly bless the entire organization as you serve Him and mankind,” Mr. Carson wrote. Mannatech’s products have often been marketed to an evangelical Christian audience."

"In the interview, Mr. Carson said the letter was sent in error. He said he solicited the gift by asking Mannatech to donate funds in lieu of payment for something he didn’t specify, but “there is no record of it having being received.” Hopkins said it won’t comment on donors."

See Noevo,

That apologist site claims that the Catholic Church "tolerated" slavery and did not have any policy opposing slavery.

Then there was the magical, but not divine, recognition of the obvious.

Slavery is immoral.

Slavery has always been immoral.

The Catholic Church has not only not known this, but has endorsed slavery - as I documented above.

There is no morality in the morning Catholic Church.

There are only dishonest excuses for the extensively documented history of immorality by the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church participated in slavery, because the Catholic Church had no moral objections to slavery.

The Catholic Gods didn't know that slavery is immoral.

The word "morning" should not appear above.

It appears to be a bit of humor from the gods of predictive text.

I still have to redo the story in response to S.N.'s fantasy about slipping Pope Francis a "sneaky Pete" carefully worded letter of corrections, but this was too good not to be memorialized. (Image here.)

Narad,

That one sentence contains so much that is wrong, but See Noevo, and the rest of the big government promotion of religion types, will never understand.

If anything, See Noevo is the Pee Wee Herman of ___________. Insert any subject that requires understanding that he chooses to comment on.

There is always the possibility that Noevo is a Poe, making intentionally ridiculous comments.

He seems to think that his Gods were too busy to tell anyone that slavery is wrong, while ignoring the Catholic Church's orders to enslave people.

There is a moral lesson here, but it is apparently well beyond the understanding of See Noevo.

Ben Carson's alternative cancer cure testimonial for Mannatech

oracknows — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 07:00:15 +0000

Ben Carson's alternative cancer cure testimonial for Mannatech

Over the years, I've frequently made the points that the vast majority of physicians are not scientists and, in fact, that many of them suffer from a severe case of Dunning-Kruger when it comes to science. Even going back to the very early history of this blog, you can find examples, the most common of which seemed to be physicians denying evolution and embracing creationism. Of these, the doctor I wrote about most frequently back in the day was the creationist neurosurgeon Michael Egnor, but with the onset of the 2016 Presidential race there's been a new creationist neurosurgeon in town with arguably even more ignorant attacks on evolution. I'm referring, of course, to noted neurosurgeon Ben Carson, whose creationist stylings and other idiocies have been so bad that I had to use him as a reason to update my posts regarding how physicians are not scientists and often have an inordinate and unjustified confidence in medicine as a "check on BS."

Over the last couple of weeks since that post, unfortunately, Ben Carson has continued to spew statements that are nothing but downright embarrassing, be they his statement in the wake of the Oregon mass shooting that it would be advisable to attack an armed gunman during a mass shooting "because he can't get us all" or his many other statements that make me wonder how someone with so little critical thinking skills could get through medical school and a neurosurgery residency to become such a respected surgeon.

While I knew Dr. Carson shows an uncanny lack of critical thinking when it comes to most issues outside of medicine, I had never in general doubted his medical abilities. Oh, sure, I was disturbed and disappointed when during the second Republican debate, instead of repeating his full-throated defense of vaccines, he waffled and pandered to the G.O.P. base regarding Trump's antivaccine views, but I didn't think that was because he truly thought vaccines cause autism but because he was too cowardly to speak out as clearly as he had in the past. I expect behavior like this from Rand Paul, the other physician running for office, but not from Ben Carson, at least not based on his history.

Then, over the weekend, while I was away at the American College of Surgeons meeting, there was an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled Ben Carson Has Had Ties to Dietary Supplement Firm That Faced Legal Challenge. Unfortunately, I'm not a WSJ subscriber; so I can't read the whole article. Fortunately, there's enough of it excerpted out there in various blogs and other news outlets that I can get the gist of the story and what he said. Actually, I could experience everything he said in this 2004 YouTube clip of Ben Carson shilling for Mannatech, and now you can too:

The video is 1:19 long; so I admit that I haven't had time to watch the whole thing. What I have seen in it is quite disturbing. A bit of background was in order. Over ten years ago, Ben Carson faced prostate cancer at a relatively young age, his early 50s, and he went to an unexpected source for help:

Faced with a prostate-cancer diagnosis more than a decade ago, Ben Carson, the Republican presidential hopeful and retired surgeon, consulted an unusual source: the medical director of a Texas company that sells nutritional supplements made of substances such as larch-tree bark and aloe vera extract.

The company doctor “prescribed a regimen” of supplements, Mr. Carson told its sales associates in a 2004 speech.

The video above is basically an infomercial for Mannatech. The video was taken down from the company website, apparently after the WSJ made inquiries about it, but the Internet never forgets, and so the video is still around. Fortunately the part about his prostate cancer diagnosis is near the beginning of the video; so you don't have to watch the whole hour and 19 minutes of it.

According to Carson, a couple of years before his talk, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. He described himself as an individual who underwent routine medical screenings and annual physicals and had his PSA checked. However, he noticed that when he was in the operating room for long periods of time he became very interested in the clock because, unlike in the past, he couldn't go many hours without having to go to the bathroom. So he went to see the chief of urology at Johns Hopkins, who thought at first that he had some prostatitis and gave him antibiotics. The symptoms, however, didn't go away. So the urologist suggested that maybe he had some prostatic hypertrophy and gave him some Flomax, but the symptoms still didn't resolve. His PSA was checked again, and it was somewhat elevated; so a biopsy was recommended. Now, I have to admit, Carson is a very folksy and engaging speaker, particularly the part where he described undergoing his prostate biopsy. I can see why Mannatech would want him to shill for it: A famous neurosurgeon who is a very likable speaker (or at least was, as I don't find much of Carson's schtick that likable any more).

In any case, he related getting the news in the operating room that he had high grade cancer. Now, personally, if I were in the operating room and received news like that, I'm not entirely sure that I could "put it out of my mind" the way Dr. Carson relates, and continue with the operation. On the other hand, that's what surgeons do; patients must not be abandoned just because of our own personal traumas. Be that as it may, next Carson described getting an MRI and having a copy given to him without a radiologist reading. Looking at it, he saw "lesions up and down my spine."

So how did his association with Mannatech begin? Basically, somehow the news got out that Carson had some sort of cancer, and as a result people started sending him products from all over the world. The father of one of Carson's patients also apparently heard the news and asked him if he had ever heard of glyconutrients. This recommendation from his patient's father led Carson to contact Mannatech and a "Dr. Reg," who I can only assume must have been Dr. "Reg" McDaniel, who was at that time medical director of Mannatech and is now Director of Research at Wellness Quest, LLC, who doesn't appear to be particularly science-based. Let's just say that "Dr. Reg" is proud of having been awarded the "Discovery of the Year Award" by the American Naturopathic Medical Association n 1996 for his glyconutrient work and claims and that he's still selling dubious dietary supplements. In any case, Carson described how Dr. Reg sent him some product and prescribed a regimen. He began to take it, and "within about three weeks my symptoms went away, and I was really quite amazed." Carson even stated that "I actually toyed with the idea of not having surgery done, because it was recommended that I undergo surgery."

Let's stop right there for a second. According to his story, Dr. Carson was diagnosed with high grade prostate cancer. He apparently thought it had metastasized to his spine based on reading his own MRI scan. That's a terminal diagnosis, although prostate cancer can be fairly indolent and even at stage IV take a long time to kill. Yet, surgery was still being recommended to remove the prostate? Something doesn't quite add up here, because usually the treatment for metastatic prostate cancer is not surgery, but castration, because most prostate cancers are androgen-dependent. In the old days (back when I was a resident), that would have been surgical castration, but these days chemical castration is used. Castration can often give a long period of palliation before the prostate cancer becomes androgen-independent and starts growing again. As I listened, all I could think is that Carson's surgeon must have thought that the cancer was still localized and therefore potentially curable. Otherwise, it's doubtful he would have offered radical prostatectomy, which is an operation not without risk and significant morbidity.

In any case, Carson continued on about how he read up on the "theory behind" Mannatech, the "bolstering of the immune system," saying "this makes an awful lot of sense," and thought about whether the cancer could just be controlled. Now here's why he decided not to rely solely on Mannatech:

Then I began to realize that, having a high profile, if I did that, a lot of other people might follow that example too, but they might not be quite as diligent as I was about taking the product, and there might be a lot of needless deaths, and I didn't feel as though I could have that on my conscience. So I went ahead and had the surgery done.

So let me get this straight. He thought that Mannatech's product would work but that others would die if they followed his example because they wouldn't be as awesomely diligent as Dr. Carson. Yes, Dr. Carson's rationale for undergoing the surgery was, apparently, that he might be able to cure himself with Mannatech's supplements but others would die because they wouldn't follow the protocol closely enough. How many times have I discussed this victim-blaming explanation for the failure of alternative cancer cures? More times than I can remember. It's a common thread in alternative cancer cure advocacy, that if you don't follow the protocol to the letter it will fail and it will be your fault. So, awesomely selfless guy that Carson was, he underwent major surgery in order to save people from that fate. Or perhaps he didn't believe quite as strongly as he made it sound in his speech. Probably the latter.

Whatever the case, Carson underwent a nerve-sparing prostatectomy, which is designed to spare the nerves responsible for sexual and bladder function whose damage was a common complication of radical prostatectomy, later to discover that the MRI findings were a congenital abnormality of the bone marrow and not metastatic cancer at all. The cancer was within 1 mm of the capsule of the prostate, but still confined to the prostate, meaning that the surgery was potentially curative. Given that it's something like 12 years later and Carson is still alive and kicking, the surgery was just curative. In his talke, Carson attributed his good fortune to prayers more than Mannatech, but he was still basically shilling for Mannatech. In fairness, Carson also pointed out that, although people have told him that it was the glyconutrients that cured him—an odd thing to say, given that he still had cancer in his prostate that was almost to the capsule—he does advocate what might be called "integrative" medicine, at least with respect to Mannatech:

Now some people have concluded that I was cured without without surgery and that I was just cured by the glyconutrients. Maybe it would have happened, maybe it would not have. I do not advocate abandoning traditional medical cures that have been shown to work. What I would, however, advocate is using natural products to supplement what's done by traditional medicine. The two things do not have to be adversarial. In fact, they can be extremely complementary.

Oddly enough, he then said that he was not a Mannatech associate, because he didn't think that would be appropriate, nor was he a Mannatech spokesman, because he didn't think that would be appropriate either. Really? He just gave what amounts to a Mannatech cancer cure testimonial to an auditorium full of Mannatech associates! He might not have been an associate, but he was definitely an unpaid spokesman. He even pointed out how he set up a system in his office to people asking him about Mannatech to the "right people" and described how he and his wife were still taking Mannatech glyconutrient supplements every day and later said in a promotional video:

The wonderful thing about a company like Mannatech is that they recognize that when God made us, He gave us the right fuel. And that fuel was the right kind of healthy food. You know we live in a society that is very sophisticated, and sometimes we’re not able to achieve the original diet. And we have to alter our diet to fit our lifestyle. Many of the natural things are not included in our diet. Basically what the company is doing is trying to find a way to restore natural diet as a medicine or as a mechanism for maintaining health.

Fast forwarding in time, it turns out that this wasn't the only time Carson promoted Mannatech. He spoke at Mannatech conferences in 2011 and 2013 and spoke about glyconutrients for a PBS special just last year. His relationship with Mannatech thus went on for at least a decade, apparently only to be severed when he decided he wanted to run for President.

It must be emphasized just how dubious Mannatech is. As this National Review article points out:

Mannatech has a long, checkered past, stretching back to its founding more than a decade before Carson began touting the company’s supplements. It was started by businessman Samuel L. Caster in late 1993, mere “months,” the Wall Street Journal later noted, before Congress passed the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, which greatly loosened restrictions on how supplement makers could market their products. Within a few years of its inception, the company was marketing a wide variety of “glyconutrient” products using many of the same tactics previously described in lawsuits against Eagle Shield, Caster’s first company.

In November 2004, the mother of a child with Tay-Sachs disease who died after being treated with Mannatech products filed suit against the company in Los Angeles Superior Court, seeking damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent misrepresentation, and conspiracy to commit fraud. The suit alleged that the Mannatech sales associate who “treated” the three-year-old had shared naked photos of the boy — provided by his mother as evidence of weight gain, with an understanding that they’d be kept confidential — with hundreds of people at a Mannatech demonstration seminar. The sales associate was further accused of authoring an article, in the Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association in August 1997, explicitly claiming that Mannatech’s supplements had improved the boy’s condition, even though the boy had, by that time, died. The suit also presented evidence that Mannatech was still using photographs of the boy in promotional materials on its website in March 2004, “with the clear inference that [the boy] was alive and doing well some seven years after his actual death.”

I also note that Mannatech's associates hawk one of its products, Ambrotose, as a near cure-all for everything from cancer to multiple sclerosis to AIDS. It's even been described as a sham in a journal article. I might have to do a post on Mannatech, but in the meantime if you doubt the dubious nature of the company and its products, Quackwatch has a resource.

As disturbing as Dr. Carson's advocacy of pseudoscience like creationism is, I find this revelation about his longstanding relationship with Mannatech to be far more disturbing, striking as it does at the heart of his strength, his reputation as a physician and neurosurgeon. It turns out that Carson's lack of critical thinking skills goes beyond just evolution, the Big Bang Theory, geology, and physics. As great a neurosurgeon as he was, he was so easily persuaded by pseudoscience that he was willing to promote nonsense like Mannatech as a treatment for prostate cancer.

oracknows Fri, 10/09/2015 - 03:00

Tags

cancer

complementary and alternative medicine

Skepticism/Critical Thinking

complementary and alternative medicine

medicine

Science

If we didn't have people as stupid, and patently dishonest, as the current crop of Republican candidates, we'd have to invent them just for the laughs. (The political climate would, however, be much better without their ilk.)

"It turns out that Carson’s lack of critical thinking skills goes beyond just evolution, the Big Bang Theory, geology, and physics."

Sounds like Carson has successfully made the transition from surgeon into a GOP politician.

All of that fabulous woo PLUS Murdock thinks he's really black!

I especially like the part where he says that G-d made us and gave us the "right fuel" which, of course, we've totally ruined until Mannatech came along and did G-d's will!

I wonder how many supplements are sold to evangelicals based upon copy like that.

I don't know his ancestry, but there is a set of pathogenic BRCA mutations that are common in people of west African descent. I would suggest genetic counseling, not dietary supplements, for Dr. Carson.

I especially like the part where he says that G-d made us and gave us the “right fuel” which, of course, we’ve totally ruined until Mannatech came along and did G-d’s will!

I assume you caught the reference in the company name. Of course this company's products are heaven-sent.

@ Eric Lund:

I missed that- I suppose it was embedded far too much for my secularism ( I'm usually very good at that sort of thing) but I'm sure that someone tuned into Holy Writ would spot it immediately.

Interestingly, Mikey has aimed his spiel at conservatives through various rants against the liberal media ( compleat with a cartoon token lesbian broadcaster) which targets Christians, white, straight people and rural dwellers LIKE HIM! But he doesn't quite call his products manna from heaven yet- only Superfood. The other alt media honcho casts his nets for fundamentalists in a less obvious fashion because he also courts Jewish folk in NYC- so it's more about his downhome fundamentalist background complete with sermonising and gospel songs ( some black listeners might be impressed with that)..

"Persuaded by pseudoscience" or per$uaded by p$eudo$ien$e?

“I don’t know that he’s ever had a compensated relationship with Mannatech,” says Armstrong Williams, Carson’s
business manager.

Such a lovely non-denial, denial. We do know Carson makes $40,000 'above the table' for each speaking appearance...

You have to give it up for the 'I only got the surgery because had I cured myself with the Mannatech supplements, lesser humans would have imitated me and done it wrong' routine. What would be obvious BS from anyone else becomes credible from Carson because it's consistent with his massive ego. Sorry Ben, everything else you've ever said shows you don't give a flying f-bomb about anybody else. You got the surgery because you didn't want to die, and knew the supplements wouldn't do the job. Then you had to come up with an excuse in order to cash in as a Mannatech shill. Bingo! The great Carson is just looking out for the weak! As if!

He may believe some of the moon-loonie things he says, but this guy shows too many signs of a classic con-artist to think true-woo is all that's going on here.

Forget the "autism epidemic". It seems the real epidemic is Narcissistic Personality Disorder — how else could support for Trump, Carson and Fiorina combine to over 50% in GOP polls if voters weren't being drawn to kindred spirits? ...It must be the vaccines! ;-)

I think they used the wrong biblical term in their name. A more appropriate name would be Mammontech...

More Loony-Tunes from Carson.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ben-carson-holocaust-gun-control_56…

@ sadmar:

I don't know if there are REALLY more people with NPD or are they just more visible/ audible because of the internet and because talking about yourself adoringly has become more acceptable that it had been in former times?
That's just a guess, I have no data to support it.

Orac, I'm glad you're driving home the point about the lack of critical thinking skills. Speaking as a urologist, Dr. Carson's comments are jaw-dropping in their lack of consistency. As you pointed out, if the glycoproteins cured the prostate cancer, why was it present on his final pathology? If it were already cured, he would have had pT0 disease (no evidence of cancer on final pathology). While the proximity to the margin of the cancer on the final specimen is less of an indicator of virulence (that finding is usually related to the aggressiveness of the nerve-sparing dissection by the surgeon), if it were gone...it would be gone! How does someone reconcile these two facts without being intellectually dishonest? Sadly, as I'm sure the other docs who read and comment on this blog will attest, graduating from medical school does not imbue anyone with critical thinking skills. I believe these need to be taught from an early age to "hard-wire" them from the start. Otherwise, it's very easy to become susceptible to the siren-song of woo (which sounds like "woo woo woo, woo woo," in case you were wondering).

@JeffM:

Yes, the whole "What if the Jews had been armed?" nonsense. Well, we know what happened when the Jews armed themselves and resisted, as they did in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and other uprisings, such as the Białystok Ghetto Uprising and the Częstochowa Ghetto Uprising and uprisings in the Sobibor, Treblinka, and Auschwitz. The Nazi war machine crushed them and sent the survivors to the death camps.

Dr, Carson should have known better.It seems he was only one of who knows how many cancer patiens,who fell for Mannatech's scam artists.In 2007,there was an ABC 20/20 Full Investigative Report on MannatechIt revealed sophisticated multilevel marketing and DVDs preying on desperate cancer patients,in particular.At 8:57,we see a young woman with a serious brain tumor saying she believes "God has put this product in front of her".

Apparently Mannatech also made claims glyconutrients could cure AIDS,Multiple Sclerosis,Down Syndrome,Cystic Fibrosis,and yes autism as well.The researchers who were doing serious work in glyconutrients were appalled at how Mannatech was twisting their research,and admits the claims Mannatech makes are false.

Note what the 20/20 story says about the shady background of Carson's buddy Sam Caster.Who was also mentioned in this National Review story earlier this year.Caster admits,on camera,that glyconutrients do not cure cancer,or anything else.Class action suits for fraud,investigation by state attorney generals were all initiated against Mannatech.Mannatech was also funding its own research to cite in its conferences and promotional material.

And Carson has the gall to go after vaccines.

SMH!!

Re Carson's own-a-gun-avoid-the-Holocaust comments:

There was a character in the novel Fail-Safe who argued that if Jews had owned and used guns on the first Nazis who came to arrest them, the rest would have backed off. I always thought this was stupid on multiple levels, including the assumption that Jews in Germany knew they were going to be not just imprisoned but slaughtered, and thus would've been willing to sacrifice their lives and those of their families in order to take some Nazis with them.

Like a lot of other things, Ben hasn't thought this through.

I'm a humble community "flea", but I know enough to google "ProductName scam" when I hear about a product with claims that are too good to be true. Maybe fancy, academic surgeons are too pressed for time?

Dr, Carson should have known better.It seems he was only one of who knows how many cancer patiens,who fell for Mannatech’s scam artists

It's an all-too-common phenomenon that victims of scammers don't want to admit that they've been scammed. See also Burzynski, Stan. Some of his biggest boosters have been next-of-kin of people who tried his treatments and died anyway. Including, in at least one case, a policeman who ought to have known a thing or two about scams.

Oh pleas please PLEASE do a post on Mannatech products! My inlawas have been selling it for decades (in Canada) and have tried to convince me that their products will "cure" my Type 1 diabetes. Well, they said, not "exactly" cure but reduce the amount of insulin I take! It's amazing! Ugh. I can't stand the way they are hooked on this as some kind of magically health supplement - no they insist on calling them "foods" not medicines, even though they are all pills and powders and lotions - even though there is no real science to support it. I would love to see a proper scientific evaluation of the supposed merits of Mannatech!

Isn't Ben Carson a Seventh Day Adventist? They're big into all kinds of health food and supplement nonsense. In fact, some of them even opened up a health food store in the town I went to school in as a kid - it's since moved to the town across the river in Oregon. I mainly remember that they used to sell vegan "pizza" from a "deli."

Incidentally, the Adventists are basically "cousins" of the Jehovah's Witnesses - you can trace both groups back to Billy Miller in the 19th century - so I grok a lot of their weirdness.

Ernie Gordon@2:

Sounds like Carson has successfully made the transition from surgeon into a GOP politician.

Like an enchillada through the intestine of Dr Oz.

many of the same tactics previously described in lawsuits against Eagle Shield, Caster’s first company.

Definitely worth noting that Caster has a previous history of frauds, which went bankrupt until he realised that the path to success was to tie it in with religion and tap into the affinity fraud. The guy has even been convicted in Texas!

“I don’t know that he’s ever had a compensated relationship with Mannatech,” says Armstrong Williams, Carson’s business manager.

Williams is of course noted for corruption and dishonesty. IIRC, he has elsewhere conceded that Carson was well-remunerated for pimping Mannatach, but on a purely professional basis where he didn't know who was paying him.

I know enough to google “ProductName scam” when I hear about a product with claims that are too good to be true.

Everyone in the Mannatech ziggurat scheme thinks that other people are the suckers, and apart from Caster at the top, everyone in Mannatech thinks that God wants it that way.
There's nothing like the conviction that God wants you to be rich, to help rationalise being part of the con-job. For Carson and all the lower echelons, sincerity and cynicism go together...

2018 State of the Union speech

Let me now take 30 seconds to tell you about the wonders of Mannatech.

"How does someone reconcile these two facts without being intellectually dishonest?"

They don't.

He knows they're inconsistent. But God has given him, the most exceptional Ben Carson, the privilege of not having to trouble with such minutiae, such is his higher calling.

It's not a lack of critical thinking skills. It's putting other motives first. It's not caring whether your sh!t makes sense, not even TRYING, because you believe. The guy's a 7th Day Adventist, a denomination that adheres to biblical literalism and infallability: Among the Adventists listed by Wikpedia under "Science, health and engineering" after Carson:
Robert Gentry - A nuclear physicist and young Earth creationist, known for his claims that radiohalos provide evidence for a young age of the Earth
Frank Lewis Marsh – Creationist and the first Adventist to earn a doctoral degree in biology.
Walter Veith - South African Zoologist, creationist and end times lecturer.

... and speaking of things Ben hasn't thought through.

His argument isn't 'What if the Jews had been armed?' He told Wolf Blitzer "I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed,." That's "the people" as in everybody. See, Ben loves invoking Hitler, and did so again on The View in an analogy to his opposition to all things Obama.

So what I said is most of the people in Nazi Germany did not believe in what Hitler was doing, but did they speak up? No. They kept their mouths shut. And when you do that, you’re compromising your freedom and the freedom of people that come behind you. You have to be willing to stand up for what you believe in.

Apparently flabbergasted, Joy Behar replied, "“But… Hitler won the election in Germany... He won the election.” And Carson, apparently non-plussed, simply explained, It doesn’t matter what he did. We know he’s an evil man.”

If Carson was thinking, he'd realize people are going to interpret his remarks as 'What if the Jews had been armed?', since the proposition that the Aryan population of Germany was so opposed to "what Hitler was doing" they would have taken up armed rebellion against the Reich if only they'd had the guns is just too batsh!t crazy to hear.

And if he was thinking, he'd realize that people could take certain implications from statements about armed resistance to bigotry/ghettization/legalized-murder-of-minority-populations, coming from an African-American man. Yo, Ben! Brothers Huey Newton and Bobby Seale were way ahead of you, my man! Not to mention brothers Nat Turner (hanged), Field Marshal Cinque (burned alive in police shootout) and Fred Hampton (assassinated by the Chicago PD).

Speaking of Chicago, that's one place where African-American folks have definitely not been disarmed. Lots of guns in West Garfield Park, West Englewood, Chatham... If Ben was thinking, he might conclude that if folks in those hoods actually listened to him, his right-wing backers might not like it too much...

Or Ben's more of a sly fox than we realize, since if any bloods took his advice, there's the excuse to round 'em all up and make Ferguson look like a cakewalk...

Nah! Just a delusional jebus-ranting tool...

@ JP:

Yup on the Aventists as veggie/vegan health foodies. I'm not sure that necessarily extends to supplements, or just leaves some of them more open to that.

The Adventists with the biggest effect on American culture were likely the Kellogg Brothers: John invented Corn Flakes and Will started the breakfast food company. Together they had run the Battle Creek Sanitarium, "a pioneering effort " (Wikipedia) based on Adventist principles described by Will as "a composite physiologic method comprising hydrotherapy, phototherapy, thermotherapy, electrotherapy, mechanotherapy, dietetics, physical culture, cold-air cure, and health training." Corn Flakes, of course, were created in the belief eating would prevent masturbation. C.W. Post allegedly stole the recipe for Corn Flakes from John Kellogg's safe when he was a patient at Battle Creek. It was Post's market success that led Will to leave the sanitarium biz and start his breakfast food company, though John stayed on to help poor mad devils by reducing their wanking through diet.

Does this sound familiar?

Kellogg made sure that the bowel of each and every patient was plied with water, from above and below. His favorite device was an enema machine that could rapidly instill several gallons of water in a series of enemas. Every water enema was followed by a pint of yogurt — half was eaten, the other half was administered by enema, “thus planting the protective germs where they are most needed and may render most effective service." The yogurt served to replace the intestinal flora of the bowel, creating what Kellogg claimed was a squeaky-clean intestine.

Kellogg believed that most disease is alleviated by a change in intestinal flora; that bacteria in the intestines can either help or hinder the body; that pathogenic bacteria produce toxins during the digestion of protein that poison the blood; that a poor diet favors harmful bacteria that can then infect other tissues in the body; that the intestinal flora is changed by diet and is generally changed for the better by a well-balanced vegetarian diet favoring low-protein, laxative, and high-fiber foods; and that this natural change in flora could be sped by enemas seeded with favorable bacteria, or by various regimens of specific foods designed to heal specific ailments.

Toxins! Gut bacteria! Colon cleansing! Now why would a guy who preached, and presumably practiced, sexual abstinence be so obsessed with enemas?

Anyway, it seems it all traces back to Michigan! Who knew! Thankfully Orac and JP seem unscathed for all their time there...

The weird thing about Carson and the gun nonsense: I was always under the impression that SDAists, like JWs, were supposed to be pacifists. JWs aren't supposed to take any job that involves packing heat, for instance, and they reject military service. Personal hunting rifles or something might be okay, though I'm not even entirely sure about that; thinking back, the JW guys I knew were pretty much all bow hunters if they hunted.

I’m not sure that necessarily extends to supplements, or just leaves some of them more open to that.

This place, which I made reference to, has a big supplement shelf at least.

^I think Ezekiel Bread is an SDA enterprise, too. (I actually like the stuff, although I think Dave's Killer Bread is superior. I've never seen either out here, though.)

Lots of SDA conscientious objectors. Perhaps it's OK to enlist in an army as long as it's only for six days and you can revert to civilian status while keeping the 7th Day Holy.

The church seem to oppose a militarised society:
http://www.adventist.org/information/official-statements/statements/art…

Carson manages to combine his feigned religious sincerity with a betrayal of most of the tenets of his purported religion. From the perspective of his Religious Right supporters, that is only further reassurance that he really is one of them (as opposed to belonging to some weird cult).

@ sadmar:

And now we have hymns of praise to the microbiome.. ( Conrick @ AoA)

I'm sure that either you or JP ( and others) can think of a verse or two.

HDB @21
Armstrong Williams.Now there's a name I hadn't heard in years.I remember catching a little of his nutty radio show,back when he was shilling NCLB,and even earlier when he was going after the Clintons in the late 90s.He was heavily syndicated on virtually every Christian talk station in the country.A typical conspiratorial whackaloon.I had no idea Williams was "Ben Crazy's" campaign manager.

The GOP field in 2016 really is a bottom of the barrel clown car.Most of us have seen the Enquirer story about Carson leaving a surgical sponge inside a girl's skull,causing her to have brain damage,but Carson's response is getting a smaller amount of coverage,

“My reaction is that I did 15,000 operations,” Carson said. “And the people who oppose me have been crawling through every ditch, every place I’ve ever been my whole life looking for stuff. They found five or six disgruntled people, that’s a very small number, and many of those cases never went anywhere, because the legal system said, ‘Are you kidding me?’ and threw it out.”... “I would probably find myself in some difficulty if I do begin to discuss that stuff publicly,” Carson continued, adding that “generally speaking there is no one who does the number of operations that I did who aren’t going to find some people who are going to be disgruntled.”

Colmes pressed Carson on the question of the sponge. The candidate responded, saying that “it is true that we put a certain type of sponge in to pad things away and sometimes there is a reaction to that sponge and that’s what happened.”

Of course this wasn't the only screwed up operation our brilliant brain surgeon and Presidential wannabe had performed.As the family of one Mary Perna could tell you.Carson did four unsuccessful brain operations on MS patient Perna,without reviewing the literature.Perna had lesions on her brainstem,and after Carson's botched operations,was left with seizures,muscle spasms,and more.There was an out of court settlement.

All this,and Mary Perna still supports Dr. Carson

Came here to make a comment about manna and saw that I was beat. However, I do feel safe declaring to be the only one here who as an alter boy, muttered "hosanna on rye" for the really early masses to get back at the priest making the schedule.

So, Carson thinks that 1 in 15,000 can be written off as acceptable casualties, and ~80% of the remaining allegations are those of the "disgruntled" and couldn't sustain their burden in court?

I wonder how that scales.

The GOP field in 2016 really is a bottom of the barrel clown car.Most of us have seen the Enquirer story about Carson leaving a surgical sponge inside a girl’s skull,causing her to have brain damage,but Carson’s response is getting a smaller amount of coverage,

This is what I said on Facebook about this particular story yesterday:

As much as I detest Ben Carson's views and his advocacy of creationist pseudoscience, as a surgeon I find this story agonizingly and infuriatingly dumb. First, there are few neurosurgeons who have practiced as long as Carson did who don't have at least a few malpractice suits against them, particularly if they practice in high risk areas and even more so if they practice in highly urban areas, where juries tend to be more sympathetic to patients and generous in judgments. It's the way things are in our system. Indeed, few are the doctors, period, who've practiced as long as Carson who don't have at least one malpractice suit against them. Second, there is only one side of the suits presented in the story and then it's presented in the most inflammatory way possible.

Finally, even leaving a sponge in a patient is usually not the surgeon's fault. It's usually due to a failure of the system. The OR team does sponge, instrument, and needle counts before and after the case. At the end of the case, the surgeon asks if the counts are correct. It's only if the counts don't match that the surgeon has to start looking. If the surgeon's told the counts are correct, there is no reason to go looking for a missing sponge, instrument, or needle. The surgeon, however, takes the blame for the failure of the system, unless he ignores the OR team telling him a count is incorrect. I've known a couple of what I would consider excellent surgeons over the past couple of decades who have had this happen.

And, as I also noted on Facebook:

One other note: In fact, neurosurgery is at the top of the list of specialties for malpractice suits, according to a 2011 NEJM study. According to the study each year 19% of neurosurgeons face a malpractice suit, and, by age 65, 99% of neurosurgeons have faced at least one malpractice suit.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1012370

So, personally, as much as I detest Dr. Carson's creationism and other nonsensical statements revealing a profound lack of critical thinking skills, I consider that National Enquirer to be a despicable and unwarranted smear job that has no relevance whatsoever to Dr. Carson's competence as a neurosurgeon. He is, in fact, correct, and probably has at most an average number of lawsuits for a neurosurgeon with the number of years of practice he has. I was going to blog about it or include it in this blog, but didn't. I was, however, waiting for someone to bring it up so that I could tell him he's full of shit for believing it. You just won that honor.

I might have to do a blog post on this. It irritates me just that much.

The "Ezekiel bread" sounds a lot less appealing if you read a little more of the bit of the bible the recipe is based on. (The FDA may be prepared to tolerate a small amount of animal droppings in grain, but adding them on purpose would be another matter.)

So, Carson thinks that 1 in 15,000 can be written off as acceptable casualties, and ~80% of the remaining allegations are those of the “disgruntled” and couldn’t sustain their burden in court?

Actually, in a specialty as risky as neurosurgery, 1 in 15,000 is pretty damned good. Seriously.

Yep. More and more I'm thinking a blog post might be in order. We'll see if I'm still as irritated on Sunday, when it's time to write Monday's post.

Roger Kulp@31
To be fair, I think this is quite accurate:

...Carson continued, adding that “generally speaking there is no one who does the number of operations that I did who aren’t going to find some people who are going to be disgruntled.”

I had a teacher who used to say, "there's a reason we call in practicing medicine."

I wouldn't be surprised if even our esteemed host has made a mistake or two in his career and I don't mean that as knock on him but rather that people make mistakes as a matter of course. There's a reason why there are checklists and the like in place now and it's not because leaving surgical tools behind was a vanishingly rare mistake only committed by incompetent bozos.

By all accounts it seems Carson was indeed a skilled surgeon. Lambast him all you want for the stupid sh!t he says and the shady things he does (i.e. the subject of this article) but I think denigrating his surgical competency is unwaranted mud-slinging.

...and Orac beat me to it.

Ben Carson

this makes an awful lot of sense

I think it is safe to assume anything that makes a lot of sense to Ben Carson is Fractally Wrong

He will however have the last laugh as he will outlive us all. As Georges Clemenceau said about Henri Petain - He is an immortal - he has no heart, no brain and no guts. How can a man like that die?

Actually, in a specialty as risky as neurosurgery, 1 in 15,000 is pretty damned good. Seriously.

I know that. I thought the analogy to the antivaccine Nirvana Fallacy and NVICP would have been clear, but perhaps I've been reading too much of the political babbling of the AoA commentariat.

I agree with 95% of what you say here. I come here to learn the reality behind some of the crazy views people have on medicine. I absolutely bow to your knowledge on medicine. But my expertise is training people to deal with terrorism. Carson is pretty close to correct on that one thing. If you are unarmed, and unable to get away from a shooter, you go after them with whatever you can grab. If the day comes when this is everyone's instinctive reaction, the shooters will have to come up with another plan. Of course, many will be unable to do anything but just stand there, and it is hard to predict who will react in a particular way. But it does not really take that many people. It is kind of like aircraft hijacking. Hijacking is over. You try to hijack a plane, and you are going to get ripped apart by the other passengers. Because we no longer tolerate hijackers. Just my two cents.

Finally, even leaving a sponge in a patient is usually not the surgeon’s fault. It’s usually due to a failure of the system.

What is more concerning is Carson's insistence that any error in his operating theatre is inconceivable, and therefore he must have meant to leave a sponge in the patient's brain -- like foam packing -- so any subsequent brain damage was the patient's fault for reacting badly.

“it is true that we put a certain type of sponge in to pad things away and sometimes there is a reaction to that sponge and that’s what happened.”

I would have thought that Americans have had enough of complete reality denial in their Presidents.

it would be advisable to attack an armed gunman during a mass shooting “because he can’t get us all”

Well...one would think that taking evasive action is the best option when someone is shooting at you and I'm guessing the average individual will instinctively do so.

We were taught (this would be 1979) that troops in the kill zone must turn in the direction of the ambush and immediately, everybody, assault through it. This of course required troops in the kill zone be armed and shooting back at the ambusher.

(I remember thinking at the time "yeah, right. You first.")

I have been told (I wasn't in the infantry and have never been ambushed except in training) that this is what you call an oh shit moment, but by reacting instantly you can increase a "no chance" to "some chance."

The “Ezekiel bread” sounds a lot less appealing if you read a little more of the bit of the bible the recipe is based on.

Fortunately this is a parody.

@41

Well, you thought wrong didn't you.

/young frankenstein

I consider that National Enquirer to be a despicable and unwarranted smear job

Geraghty's Mannatech-themed hit-piece in NRO did not halt the rise in Carson's popularity, so the Republican establishment turned to Jen Rubin as their mouthpiece; now it sounds like they're stovepiping stories through National Enquirer. Perhaps there is more hope that way of reaching the target audience.

Of course this wasn’t the only screwed up operation our brilliant brain surgeon and Presidential wannabe had performed.

That Guardian story from May (at Roger Kulp's link) notes that the number of malpractice claims leveled at Carson is in line with the statistical background.
The author does not do any favours for his research skills or his concern for accuracy by opening with the claim that

Carson was known as a master of his craft, and renowned as the first surgeon to successfully separate siamese twins.

herr doktor bimler@41:

What is more concerning is Carson’s insistence that any error in his operating theatre is inconceivable, and therefore he must have meant to leave a sponge in the patient’s brain — like foam packing — so any subsequent brain damage was the patient’s fault for reacting badly.

Exactly this. Carson seems to have an excellent record as a neurosurgeon, but the pathological inability to accept or acknowedge an honest error or analyze why it happened damns his suitability as a leader.

Not that this will slow him down, mind. While the reluctance to admit one's own mistakes has always been a universal failing in humans, US right-wingers now enthusiastically embrace absolute denial as massive personal strength - and are utterly unafraid to bomb the other party down to bedrock just so they never have to say "sorry'".

Hell, most of today's GOP base would vote Greg Stillson if they could; that's how out of control their masturbatory power fantasties and craving obsequiousness has become.

Dirk@41: Do you seriously expect untrained, unarmed civilians to spontaneously rush a shooter as soon as an incident starts? As shay notes below you, it's hard enough to get trained and armed soldiers to react that way.

The situation on UA93 was exceptional and, for the reasons you describe, unlikely to be repeated. Hijackings were treated as hostage situations until sometime between 9 and 10 AM EDT on 11 September 2001, because that was how they had always played out prior to that day. The passengers on UA93 knew what had happened to three other planes that morning and knew that they were unlikely to survive no matter what happened. More importantly, they had at least several minutes to plan their attack--time which people in shooter situations don't have.

In a shooter situation, instinct will tell most people that they have a chance of survival if they either (1) duck and cover or (2) run in a direction other than the line of fire. Most of the time, they are right, and they won't have time to figure out whether this particular incident is an exception. Running straight at a shooter is likely to get them killed, even if the shooter had specific targets in mind and is willing to ignore anybody who doesn't interfere with their objective (which is the case in a significant fraction of shooting incidents--not all shooting incidents are mass kills like Roseburg or Sandy Hook).

I absolutely agree that shelter in place and flee the scene are the best tactics when faced with a shooter or similar danger. But in a situation where you cannot flee or hide, you should attack with what you have. In a classroom, throw a book or chair, or grab a desk and charge. I absolutely understand that many people are unable to do this. I have a lot of experience with studying people under such stress, and predicting the ones who will act is very counter intuitive. And you will not have time for a strategy meeting when you are being herded into the corner and shot. Just like on aircraft, we should change the agreed-on default response to a shooting situation. One of the reasons that we have repeat instances of these shootings is that the perpetrators have a twisted sort of romantic vision of what they are doing. They see themselves as tragic figures, getting revenge and going out in a blaze of glory. They do not have fantasies of being shown on the news in a hospital, on a ventilator, covered with lacerations and bruises.
Each situation is different, and I understand that it is easy to advise someone to charge a gunman, when you are not yourself in peril. I will offer no criticism of those who cannot or will not act.

I just saw a presentation on television that illustrated exactly what Dirk W describes: people in an enclosed classroom throwing books at the shooter as distraction, interfering with his plan.

Also, about that 'romantic vision', which is another place where we can- hopefully- proactively interfere IF news coverage focuses less on the shooter ( I believe that his name was mentioned much less in the Oregon situation by design) and portrays victims and survivors more prominently.
It's difficult to understand motives but I venture that tampering with the screen play-like scenarios of the Tragic Loner Finally Bursting Free is a place to start.

OT but since we are speaking of deluded Tragic Visions...

Dan at AoA, visits Japan, drinks coffeee and notes that the lighter vaccination schedule may be linked to lower infant mortality there, is taken to task by - surprise!- a commenter who snarkily calls the "investigative reporter" out, explaining why mortality rates are not relevant here.

Hijacking is over. You try to hijack a plane, and you are going to get ripped apart by the other passengers. Because we no longer tolerate hijackers. Just my two cents.

There have been six hijackings this decade so far. There were seven at this point in the 2000's***, and eight in the first five years of the '90s.

I wouldn't call that "over."

Passengers have fought back during three of the thirteen hijackings that have occurred since UA 93.

I wouldn't call that a guarantee that if you try to hijack a plane, you're going to get ripped apart by the other passengers.

Furthermore, were that to become the standard, it would be perfectly possible for hijackers to plan for and work around it, considering that they have the advantage of advance preparation for the conflict.

One of the reasons that we have repeat instances of these shootings is that the perpetrators have a twisted sort of romantic vision of what they are doing. They see themselves as tragic figures, getting revenge and going out in a blaze of glory. They do not have fantasies of being shown on the news in a hospital, on a ventilator, covered with lacerations and bruises.

No. Nor will they ever, even if showing them on the news like that became routine. You're not talking about rational people. And you're also not talking about reality, but rather fantasy.

Each situation is different, and I understand that it is easy to advise someone to charge a gunman, when you are not yourself in peril. I will offer no criticism of those who cannot or will not act.

You just did, implicitly. IMO. And I don't say that because I take it personally. I personally would be exponentially more likely to charge a gunman who was threatening someone else's life than I would be if I were the one being aimed at.

But I don't know why that is.

***Counting September 11th as one incident.

The "active shooter" scenario training that we get here (so far the most heavily-armed client we've had to deal with was a gentleman who walked in with a golf club looking for his ex-wife) teaches "bug out, hide out, strike out."

Run if you can -- if you can't, hide. And if you can't run or hide, then you fight back.

The problem with fighting back is that to overwhelm the shooter you have to rely on everyone else in the room with you to do the same thing.

AND needless to say, it's much harder to get weapons onto planes than it was in 2001.

Hell, most of today’s GOP base would vote Greg Stillson if they could; that’s how out of control their masturbatory power fantasties and craving obsequiousness has become.

For me, pictures of Ted Cruz often bring Greg Stillson to mind.

Device Walter@55

AND needless to say, it’s much harder to get weapons onto planes than it was in 2001.

But is it? My understanding is that the TSA is largely ineffective and the policies put in to place since 9/11 are mostly "feel good" policies that don't really do anything. The acupuncture of security if you will.

Acting TSA director reassigned after screeners failed tests to detect explosives, weapons
7 Reasons the TSA Sucks (A Security Expert's Perspective)

Heh, Device Walter again. Sigh. Please accept my apologies Denice Walter.

Dr Carson and Mal-practice cases. In one of the above posts Dr Carson was quoted as saying that he had done 15,000 surgeries. This is obviously an exaggeration. The average neurosurgeon does between 200 and 350 cases a year. Academic neurosurgeons do less since the Residents and Fellows are doing the bulk of the surgery. If Dr Carson did 15,000 surgeries over 35 years that would be 500 per year. This is not true.

Um, I've known academic neurosurgeons who averaged 400-500 cases a year; so I don't find Dr. Carson's estimate that far beyond the pale.

^^Irresoective of all of which, Ben Carson literally does not know what the debt limit is.

So even if his critical thinking skills were first-rate, he still would be too ignorant of the basics involved in running a country for his opinion about how best to do it to mean much of anything..

Has anyone considered that Ben Carson's idiotic statements are actually due to brain damage caused by vaccines?

NaturalNews has astutely noted that Hillary Clinton displays all the signs of vaccine-induced brain injury (among other things, she was noted to have said "uh-uh" 88 times during a recent appearance caught on video).

Repetitiveness - tics - thimerosal. The correlation is inescapable.

"Yes, the whole “What if the Jews had been armed?” nonsense. Well, we know what happened when the Jews armed themselves and resisted, as they did in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and other uprisings, such as the Białystok Ghetto Uprising and the Częstochowa Ghetto Uprising and uprisings in the Sobibor, Treblinka, and Auschwitz. The Nazi war machine crushed them and sent the survivors to the death camps."

Dunning Kruger Affect? You are a scientist, so now you know about everything? Plus, how does science determine when is the correct choice to stand up and fight? Maybe this specific comment of yours has NOTHING to do with science? Just a thought. But you are correct on his pseudo science BS.

I'm also rather well versed in WWII and Holocaust history because I've studied it extensively. I'm not a historian-level expert, but I'm quite knowledgeable.

JP @ #19: "Isn’t Ben Carson a Seventh Day Adventist? They’re big into all kinds of health food and supplement nonsense."

According to National Geographic Magazine, "Residents of Okinawa, Sardinia, and Loma Linda, California, live longer, healthier lives than just about anyone else on Earth." Loma Linda is the location of Loma Linda University, the Adventist medical school. The magazine wrote, "Loma Linda is home to a concentration of Seventh-day Adventists with a remarkable distinction: Study results have shown that, as a group, they currently lead the U.S. in longest life expectancy." I've got distant relatives who are Adventist and that side of the family definitely has 80 and 90-year-old members who are still going strong after this side has long since expired. There is something to be said for healthy living.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2005/11/longevity-secrets/buettner-te…

Jay@63

Dunning Kruger Affect? You are a scientist, so now you know about everything?

Orac cut his teeth debunking Holocaust denial. Like he said, he's not a historian but he's smarter than the average bear.

Plus, how does science determine when is the correct choice to stand up and fight?

I'm not a sociologist but I imagine one method would be looking at historical precedent, which as Orac noted, mostly (entirely?) involved armed Jewish uprisings being crushed. Brutally and mercilessly (without so much as denting the Nazi war machine).

More importantly than whether or not it is true, many Jewish people frown upon using the Holocaust to advance political agendas.

...the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today called on critics of gun control legislation to stop using references to Hitler and the Nazis, saying they are “historically inaccurate and offensive,” especially to Holocaust survivors and their families.

The ADL doesn't represent the entirety of the Jewish people, but for what it's worth as a Jew who often finds the ADL way oversensitive I fully agree here. Coopting the Holocaust to advance your own agenda is just low.

Orac's position is better supported by historical evidence while Carson's is both inaccurate and insensitive. Regardless of how apt you think the reference when you ignore the pleas of "get your grubby hands off our Holocaust" your position is weakened significantly simply by way you being an exploitative sh!tbag.

@Ernie Gordon:

Healthy living is one thing. It wouldn't surprise me if SDAists lived longer than average, what with the vegetarianism and all. (I'm one myself. Well, okay a pescatarian, and I make hospitality-related exceptions.)

But most supplements have been proven to be worthless, and I doubt that so-called health foods like spirulina and bulghar wheat and whatnot do anything special. They certainly don't cure cancer.

Jay @63:
Dunning Kruger Affect? You are a scientist, so now you know about everything?

It is not a pretty sight when an academic goes Emeritus so if Orac is spiralling down into D-K syndrome then you're only doing him a favour by pointing it out. Of course the best way to make the point is to call his attention to an error he has made in his depiction of the Holocaust, and see how he reacts.
Spelling "Effect" properly also helps.

It also occurs to me that the question, "Are the opinions of a surgeon on late-30s / early-40s European history worth the pixels they're printed on?" would be better addressed to Ben Carson than to Orac, if only to reflect the former's academic priority.

Jay@63: So would you like a baggie to carry your ass home in?

Also worth noting: owning guns didn't do squat either for Poles, Dutch, French, or other European nations when the Nazis came from them. And it's not like they weren't already tooled up, trained, and fully expecting trouble to kick off at some point, nor was it even their first time in such a crisis situation, with the Great War still fresh in mind and myriad European conflicts spanning the centuries before.

This constant braggagio about the Good Guy with the Gun being the Hero of the Hour is nothing but witless wank fantasies for Travis Bickle/Willy Lomax/Walter Mitty sad-sack wannabes with bloated voracious "American Dream"-fed egos and not a single actual life achievement to feed it. Its unending, uncritical indulgence is an appallingly unhealthy habit for both individual practitioners and democratic society as a whole - the sort of behavior one expects from tantrum-throwing teens or toddlers, not supposedly responsible decision-making adults in one of the most powerful and influential nations of the world.

So please, grow the f*ck up already. Or, if you can't do that, then at least have the good grace to shut-up while the grown-ups are talking, because as it stands you and your kind have not a single thought of worth to offer.

Denice,

And now we have hymns of praise to the microbiome.. ( Conrick @ AoA)
I’m sure that either you or JP ( and others) can think of a verse or two.

I couldn't get this idea out of my head so, but here is my attempt, FWIW. Think of a Church of England dirge (them's my roots).

Mighty biome up my bum,
Oh how I worship thee.
You help me to digest my food
Boost my immunity.

My probiotic microbes thrive
on prebiotic pills.
They make me very flatulent
but overcome all ills.

A billion years we coevolved,
Now which is me, which thee?
Our metabolisms entwine,
In symbiotic biochemistry.

So sing this to a dreary tune,
Grammar be sure to torture.
Rejoice! All those bugs up your ass,
are of a Holy Ordure.

Sorry about the odd "so, but here" edit above.

Jay@63: Now let me correct you on a few things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central principle of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. These are mistakes, Jay. I looked them up.

In the real world, stopping the Nazis took all of the combined resources of the USSR and the UK, plus substantial resource commitments from the USA and Canada. And even then it was a close thing. A bit of better strategy on the Axis side (such as not opening a second front by betraying the USSR while still fighting a pitched battle against the UK) might have been enough for them to prevail. The uprisings Orac mentioned are historically documented. That's how we know for sure they were ineffective--they barely distracted the German war effort. If the US Army were ever needed to put down a rebellion of American gun nuts, the latter would be no more effective than the ghetto uprisings were against the Wehrmacht.

“Yes, the whole “What if the Jews had been armed?” nonsense. Well, we know what happened when the Jews armed themselves and resisted, as they did in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and other uprisings, such as the Białystok Ghetto Uprising and the Częstochowa Ghetto Uprising and uprisings in the Sobibor, Treblinka, and Auschwitz. The Nazi war machine crushed them and sent the survivors to the death camps.”

Dunning Kruger Affect? You are a scientist, so now you know about everything?

It doesn't really take more than a modicum of common sense and a moment's thought to grasp that it takes more than gun ownership and the willingness to fight to defeat an opponent that not only has guns but also tanks, planes, bombs and -- in short -- a fully trained and equipped army and police force.

That's just as true in the here and now as it was in the '30s and '40s. It's a pure childish fantasy to suppose that preserving the Second Amendment will protect you from unwelcome armed incursions by the state. I mean, what are you going to do? Beat their drones to death with an open-carry permit?

Focus on preserving the First and Fourth Amendments if you really want to be in a position to go up against the government. That way you'll be organized and prepared enough that if it gets to the point of armed conflict, you can find a way to buy whatever arms you need on the black market. Just being a bunch of liberty-loving but politically powerless individuals with guns will get you nowhere.

Kreb:

Excellent! One brilliant line after another. A great fart joke, followed by the more profound and perfectly worded, "which is thee, which me?" A+.

ann: "It’s a pure childish fantasy to suppose that preserving the Second Amendment will protect you from unwelcome armed incursions by the state."

So much this. Tanks, planes, bombs, and always vastly superior numbers. Of course, where the two strands of this thread cross — SDA and armed resistance to the Feds — didn't turn out so well for the Branch Davidians.

Jay @63 tries a little sophistry by straw-manning Orac, who never claimed his remarks about Jewish resistance had anything to do with science. If he'd taken away the science deflection and the ad hominem, Jay might have had a point: 'It's not always a simple matter to determine if the coreect choice is to run away or stand and fight.' The fact that Carson is a major newsmaker has us paying within his loopy premises – so we're talking about the Warsaw ghetto, and rushing gunmen like they're similar things, which they're not at all. The Jews in Warsaw were trapped, didn't have much of a 'run' option, were facing death camps anyway, and weren't reacting on the spur of the moment. We could say they gained nothing for themselves, but lost little (already targeted for) and their actions had profound historical importance.

By the same token, I was taking liberties including Nat Turner in my comment above. The thing is – you and has are spot on about the gun nuts as spoiled children. We're talking about mostly white-male wage-earners with enough capital to buy fairly expensive weapons legally, and keep a big 4 x4 in their two car garage – who imagine themselves as some kind of repressed minority comparable to Jews under the 3rd Reich, plantation slaves, and so on. It's a tautology: we have to have guns because we're afraid the guvment will come to take our guns. (Talk about burning stupid...)

And, of course, the serious undertone of my satire @24. Carson especially might be expected to understand how the whole focus on "postal" mass-shootings is a deflection from the real gun problem: everyday violence in street crime in impoverished neighborhoods, and domestic disputes that turn fatal because guns are in the house when people are angry and intoxicated.

Krebiozen, that's hilarious.

-btw- Readers who have never "enjoyed" the creative talents of Teresa Conrick ( who is Gamondes' closest rival at AoA) should peruse her collected works. Anyone can pull stuff like this out of their microbiome-enhanced orifices but it doesn't mean that it has any relationship to reality.

Conrick has an adult daughter with autism which she wants to explain away through any trope she can find and vaccines-disrupt- the-microbiome-leading-to-autism appears to be her choice.

But she's not the only one! TMR often features variants on the theme and recipes for kim chi and sauerkraut. Then there are diverse schemes involving yougurt. as well as interpersonally transplanted poo.
Ideas about microbiomial omnipotence are rife in alt media-
it's an integral part of their culture- vegans use soy yoghurt.
But yeast in bread or wine is totally evil.

ann@74

Focus on preserving the First and Fourth Amendments if you really want to be in a position to go up against the government.

Oddly enough, there seems to be significant overlap between 2nd Amendment nuts and supporters of invasive data gathering policies. The NSA's warrantless data collection and the constant push by the 3 letter agencies to legislate against crypto are the real threats to freedom.

sadmar@76

Carson especially might be expected to understand how the whole focus on “postal” mass-shootings is a deflection from the real gun problem: everyday violence in street crime in impoverished neighborhoods, and domestic disputes that turn fatal because guns are in the house when people are angry and intoxicated.

Dwarfing even those is suicide by firearms. Greg Laden recently wrote on gun control. It's worth reading all the through but the takeaway is the success rate of suicide by firearm is 85% vs for example 20% by jumping. Since only 10% of people who attempt suicide and live make a second attempt removing that method (or at least making it significantly harder) would save many lives.

I'd be curious in a comparison with Australia or the UK to look at if that actually pans out and I didn't really care enough to double check his references so make of that what you will. Regardless about two thirds of gun deaths are suicides and about half of suicides are by firearm (per the CDC's 2013 mortality data [pdf, p22-23]).

Denice Walter@77

[...] as well as interpersonally transplanted poo.

Ugh. There's growing evidence that this is effective for C. diff but done by quacks to cure autism is just squicky.

And now we have hymns of praise to the microbiome

"Hymn to In-Anna" is crying out to be a microbiome-themed sonnet by a Metaphysical poet.

[…] as well as interpersonally transplanted poo.

I'm waiting for the arrival of fecal transplants from celebrity sources. If not in the real world, then as a plot device in a Cronenberg movie.

Speaking of fecal transplants, guess what's shown up over at SBM?

guess what’s shown up over at SBM?

Goodness me! Phillip Hills has become stupider! But he seems to be confining himself to random insults rather than copy-pasting his own fabrications.

But he seems to be confining himself to random insults rather than copy-pasting his own fabrications.

Except when he's making them even less coherent:

"Was that the one by the Cochrane collaboration that looked at the top claims for flu vaccine over 96 seasons of data?"

Thank you very much: I truly relish my role as straight man.
It's an art form,

I’d be curious in a comparison with Australia or the UK to look at if that actually pans out

The suicide rate in the United States is double that in the UK, per the World Health Organization.

I don't know how much of the difference is attributable to guns, though. It appears to be true in all demographics, and I don't think there are enough female suicides by gun in the US to account for that.

Incidentally, the two countries that have high suicide rates for no very apparent reason (that I can think of) are France and Belgium. Were it not for them, the US would have the highest suicide rate of any country on earth that wasn't impoverished, war-torn, unfree and/or regularly plunged into darkness for long periods of time.

I’d be curious in a comparison with Australia or the UK to look at if that actually pans out and I didn’t really care enough to double check his references so make of that what you will. Regardless about two thirds of gun deaths are suicides and about half of suicides are by firearm (per the CDC’s 2013 mortality data [pdf, p22-23]).

IIRC, putting one's head in the oven was once the most popular (and a very effective) suicide method in the UK; when coal gas was switched out for less lethal natural gas, the suicide rate dropped by a third, and it was a permanent reduction. Having (or not having) a ubiquitous, quick and lethal method to hand does make a large difference.

Incidentally, the two countries that have high suicide rates for no very apparent reason (that I can think of) are France and Belgium.

Ennui?

I'm sure that some religious apologists would attribute the suicide rate in France to their relatively large number of atheists. Or fast living or alcohol.

@JP --

Ha.

Thanks for that.

But, you know. The Flemish.

JP@86

IIRC, putting one’s head in the oven was once the most popular (and a very effective) suicide method in the UK; when coal gas was switched out for less lethal natural gas, the suicide rate dropped by a third, and it was a permanent reduction. Having (or not having) a ubiquitous, quick and lethal method to hand does make a large difference.

Very interesting, I had never heard that before. A quick Google suggests you did remember correctly and that it is generalizable[1]. I don't follow the gun control debate very closely but am I right in assuming that when not ignoring the issue gun nuts claim people who want to kill themselves will find a way so gun control wouldn't have an effect? If so there's yet another anti-science position from the conservatives.

[1] Restriction of access to methods of suicide as a means of suicide prevention (PDF)

#35 Viki

I had never even heard of Ezekiel Bread. This really is not a Poe?

Ezekiel 4:9 products are crafted in the likeness of the Holy Scripture verse Ezekiel 4:9 to ensure unrivaled honest nutrition and pure, delicious flavors.

Good lord (oops) there are all kinds of google hits for it.

Denice/Shannon have you seen it up here?

#78 capnkrunch

Your wish is my command. Actually fell over the ref today while looking for something es and have only read the abstract but the strict gun laws in Oz seems to had a humungous effect on suicides.

Leigh, A., & Neill, C. (2010). Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives? Evidence from Panel Data. American Law and Economics Review, 12(2), 509–557. http://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahq013

http://aler.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1093/aler/ahq013

@jrkrideau:

Ezekiel Bread is totally for real and it TASTES GOOD, I do not care if it is silly. I just found some at Trader Joe's, and I am pretty happy about it.

Ezekiel 4:9 products are crafted in the likeness of the Holy Scripture verse Ezekiel 4:9 to ensure unrivaled honest nutrition and pure, delicious flavors.

Oh yes. An Old-Testament description of famine bread, eking out palatable grains with disgusting stuff that people will only eat when the alternative is starvation, so the nimrods convince themselves that the description must be an instruction -- and therefore the resulting Dwarf Bread must taste good.

I wonder if they can be sold on my 2 Kings 6:25 recipe

But Nimrod was a mighty hunter among men; shirley he would've been able to eat just about any part of any animal he wanted.

In any case, plenty of people voluntarily eat head cheese. And blood pudding.

jrkrideau@92
Thanks! Here's the full text if anyone is interested:
http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/36943/1/629737827.pdf

I also haven't read it but the takeaway from the abstract seems to be:

We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. [emphasis mine]

Suicide by firearms decrease significantly and isn't accompanied by an increase in other methods. This is in line with what JP said as well as what Greg Laden wrote and what the reference I posted in #90 said.

Before I read that Greg Laden article I had never even put together gun control and suicide prevention. Like I said, I don't follow the debate closely but it seems like this should be focused on way more than it is. Mass shootings are flashy but suicide prevention seems like where the most lives would be saved. I wonder if lack of public sympathy for suicide victims makes it an ineffective argument.

JP@95

And blood pudding.

As a child I was tricked into eating blood pudding by my Irish relatives. I think that may have been the exact moment I stopped being able to trust people.

Ezekiel 4:9 products are crafted in the likeness of the Holy Scripture verse Ezekiel 4:9 to ensure unrivaled honest nutrition and pure, delicious flavors.

Oh yes. An Old-Testament description of famine bread....

There's a line of breads carried by "America's Most European Supermarket" that I don't think is Mestemacher (more varieties, at least), but I've seen the Ezekiel stuff in the freezer section of the local hippie mart, and I'm putting strong odds in favor of the latter's being more appetizing than even the normal varieties.

I'm guessing that the Ezekiel's pretty crumbly (read: "best toasted"), though. I was a great fan of "Natural Ovens" over here before the Stitts sold the operation.

^ Let's see...

"that I don't think is Mestemacher ... but is pretty similar in appearance"

and

"even the normal varieties of those bricks."

My father, I have heard, was fond of head cheese growing up; then one day he was over at the neighbor lady's house and nosing around the kitchen. He noticed a pot boiling on the stove, and lifted the lid to see what was cooking; back at him stared a partially desiccated pig's head in boiling water. He never ate head cheese again.

Very interesting, I had never heard that before.

Sylvia Plath springs to mind.

I'm pretty sure I meant something more like "disintegrated" rather than "desiccated."

He never ate head cheese again.

I haven't been able to face liverwurst since encountering a package of Oscar Mayer as a boy that seemed to be full of ~1 mm (if that), inedible, glistening spheres.

plenty of people voluntarily eat [...] blood pudding.
My fondness for the Hanseatic Diet -- coffee, beer and black pudding -- is on record.

Sylvia Plath springs to mind.
Alvarez in "The Savage God" records gas ovens as being the UK suicide of choice. The shift to natural gas (non-carbon-monoxide) hadn't occurred at the time he was writing.

Spike Milligan:

When Daddy saw what he'd done, he put his head in the gas oven.
That must have been terrible.
No, it was delicious!

He noticed a pot boiling on the stove, and lifted the lid to see what was cooking

Does this recipe work for the ass's head that I just bought for fourscore pieces of silver?

You might want to clean the fur off first.

As a child I was tricked into eating blood pudding by my Irish relatives. I think that may have been the exact moment I stopped being able to trust people.

As a kid I loved blood pudding, but I seem to've lost the taste for it.

(Other things I've lost the taste for are fish balls and soda. There doesn't seem to be much of a pattern here.)

@ shay #54

Run if you can — if you can’t, hide. And if you can’t run or hide, then you fight back.

Or as Sun Tzu put it in his still-taught-in-officer's-school Art of War:
"If surrounded, plot. If cornered, fight."

(well, it's actually a quote from the video game "Shogun: Total War", but it was lifted more-or-less straight from the book)

The problem with fighting back is that to overwhelm the shooter you have to rely on everyone else in the room with you to do the same thing.

And hoping no-one will be shooting in your direction, mistaking you for the miscreant or just not watching their line of fire.

@ Jay #63

how does science determine when is the correct choice to stand up and fight?

If the question was about the moral decision to take arms, your remark would be accurate.
But the question's context here is about being somewhat successful in the process; specifically, about German Jews repelling the whole Nazi war machine all by their lone selves.
And WW2 historical examples of local uprisings show how doomed the notion of personal resistance is.

Organised resistance movements in west Europe and in Serbia (by example) did manage to force the Germans to commit military forces which could have been very useful somewhere else, like in Africa or in Russia. But in these cases, they were backed-up by government funding and provided with military-grade weapons (or stole them from the German). And, at least in West Europe, they still paid a very high price for this.

Worse, the Nazi propaganda would have - and had - seized on any example of gun-totting Jews and pointed them as criminals, foreigners, terrorists. Feeding back "reasons" to keep rounding-up and interning Jews and other undesirables.

The French-famous "Affiche Rouge" is an example of such propaganda. We like to think it didn't work much, but my compatriots had 4 years of Occupation to figure out who the invaders really were. Pre-war, such propaganda would have been much more effective, if the political atmosphere at the time is to be believed.

Alvarez in “The Savage God” records gas ovens as being the UK suicide of choice. The shift to natural gas (non-carbon-monoxide) hadn’t occurred at the time he was writing.

For certain values of "non." My last place had a nice, roomy oven. And two nice, yellow-burning back stovetop burners. Then again, I only hit 97 ppm one Thanksgiving. With the doors and window open thanks to the heat.

There must be a Brandy/Looking Glass/"Mercaptain" gag in here, but I'm too tired to find it.

@Narad: I still love liverwurst - but I get it from the deli, not OM. I can't eat it as often as I used to, or in as large quantities. On the other hand, I never got into head cheese or blood pudding (rare to find in the US). My former FIL loves head cheese, but the look and smell makes me sick.

"I know what would be tasty, congealed boiled pig's head," said absolutely no-one ever.

And WW2 historical examples of local uprisings show how doomed the notion of personal resistance is.

Probably true against a larger force. What if it's a single armed person in a train who's shoting?

I have seen Ezekiel bread in a hippie-ish store. No thanks..

And right, blood/ black pudding, liverwurst, sausages in general, no, thank you very much. Unfortunately, the Eastern Europeans nearby have stores which sell diverse products which will never be bought by me but are sometimes prominently displayed ((shudder)) so I see them.
Chinese hung ducks are alright though.

Interestingly, around hipsterville and hippietown- i.e. places I frequent- I seem to notice two trends in dining amongst the youngsters:
- ultra- ( supposedly) healthy, GMO-free, sometimes vegan choices, non-antibiotic fed meat ,raw, free range poultry, etc
- over-indulgent meats - double burgers- bacon-laden, comfort foods, ridiculous desserts, deep-fried, BBQ-
the other day near the galleries, I saw 20 people ( young men, mostly) waiting outside a newly opened place that served over-laden sandwiches and bizarre combinations like peanut/ plantain/ bacon.
But no congealed pig's heads YET. I'm sure it's on its way.

But the question’s context here is about being somewhat successful in the process; specifically, about German Jews repelling the whole Nazi war machine all by their lone selves.

Then there's the question's subtext:

Carson supporter pens Fox News op-ed blaming Jewish timidity for the Holocaust

It's a true dog-whistle, in that most non-haters probably really can't hear it. But that Ben Carson might not be as innocent as he looks. SDAs were decidedly not rooting for the Jews to oust the Nazis, back in the day.

@#112 --

Probably true against a larger force. What if it’s a single armed person in a train who’s shoting?

Per Ben Carson, the correct response to that kind of situation is to assist him or her by identifying the target:

On Wednesday, Carson told SiriusXM radio host Karen Hunter that he had been held at gunpoint before. But in his telling, he did not react as he said he would, and he definitely did not attack the gunman:

I have had a gun held on me when I was in a Popeyes [in Baltimore]. … A guy comes in, puts the gun in my ribs, and I just said, "I believe that you want the guy behind the counter." … He said, "Oh, okay."

But if you're asking me, I think that if you find yourself in a position where you can do something to prevent potentially lethal violence, you should do it.

@ M O'Brien

Probably true against a larger force. What if it’s a single armed person in a train who’s shoting?

Oh, good point. I was talking in the context of resisting a large organised force. A few people may survive the first encounters, but unless they receive some help or manage to go into hiding, it won't matter in the long run.
Well, again, the topic is about armed resistance of a few citizens stopping a larger force. A lot of people escaped Nazi Germany, with or without using guns, but their escape didn't stop the Nazi from going after the people left behind.

On the other hand, in the context of a single encounter, in an enclosed space to top it, rushing the shooter is making more sense. If cornered, fight.
(easy to say on my part, I know)

If you are evoking the recent wannabe "highwayman" in a French train ('twas his line of defense, he is no terrorist, just a common armed robber), at least half the courageous people who tackled him were trained soldiers. Their training must have helped them going for the right decision and the appropriate approach (including watching for the guy pulling spare weapons out of various pockets).

Expecting ordinary citizens to decide to intervene is doable; wish I was as courageous as the above heroes; but for an ordinary guy or lady to have these types of combat reflexes is maybe putting the bar a bit high. If I go against an armed guy, I have a higher than average chance of getting offed, given how untrained and slow I am.

Well, I suppose I can go into some sort of autodefense school. Won't help me much against a squad of armed paramilitary nasty guys, to go back to the original question. Especially with relatives (children, etc.) right behind me in the line of fire.

Re #73

I am in agreement that launching an attack against the former Soviet Union before forcing Great Britain out of the war was a colossal blunder on Frankenberger's part. However, the big strategic mistake was made long before the war started, which consisted of building the battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz instead of Uboats. Had the manpower and materials expended in building those ships had been instead utilized to construct Uboats, Germany would have had available in 1940 40 or 50 oceangoing vessels which would have been sufficient to starve Britain out of the war in 1940. By the time that a such numbers were available in 1943, Britain had greatly strengthened its anti-submarine Bismarck and Tirpitz contributed forces, which in addition to the intelligence provided by ULTRA, turned the tide. Bismarck and Tirpitz contributed little to the German war effort.

@ ann

Then there’s the question’s subtext:

Ah, of course. I missed it the 1st round. But now that you mention it...
Sounds familiar, we had a Quebecois holocaust denier on a RI thread a few years back. It was my first encounter of the type.

Funny how some opinions are like a corroded copper coin: the head side is not much to look at, and the accompanying flip side is even worse.

at least half the courageous people who tackled him were trained soldiers.

And one of them was the size of Hoover Dam.

# 113 Denice Walter
Thank's Denice,
We don't have many hippie-ish stores here but I'll have a look around.

Scratched the blood pudding---I had it in Rivière de Loup once due to my bad French and the server's bad English accent but I am envious of the sausages and the duck. Perils of living in a small city.

Team,

Here's a thought experiment:

So far, there are three people with a real or, in the case of the last one, potentially real desire to see me dead. The threat is very very real.

First one is an excellent social parasites and was my first case of PCL-R certifiable psychopath with an excellent self-control most of the time.

The others two are certifiable total bonkers loose cannon whose self-control ability is non-existent (ask any questions leading to introspective thinking of the subject and see the subject goes into full blown psychosis).

One of the last two is sitting in the provincial forensic hospital after a not-guilty verdict by insanity.

In both last cases, I can assert with very reasonable confidence that in both of the last two, there isn't a day they don't think about me.

If I meet them on the street, what can I do?

Discuss ;)

Alain

Ah, of course. I missed it the 1st round. But now that you mention it…

It's not obvious. And (to be scrupulously fair) it isn't always -- and might not be for Carson -- an antisemitic or denialist argument.

Hannah Arendt made a very similar case in Eichmann in Jerusalem, for example. And while I personally think it would be fair to say that making it was functionally a form of denial for her, she wasn't denying the Holocaust as much as she was the regular old things people have an emotional motivation to deny -- ie, their own vulnerability and their fears about it, etc.

To some extent, that's very likely true for many present-day guns-rights types as well, imo. The difference is that they have much less basis in reason for the fear.

You know, one thing this comment thread is teaching me as a blogger is never, ever—ever!— to mention anything having to do with guns, even in passing, if the main topic of the post is not about guns because invariably even the most passing mention of guns will lead to a hijacking of a major part of the comments to be about guns, much to my annoyance.

As it did here.

Orac,

Sorry, I was more interested in the tangential point of self-defence but I am truly sorry to add oil to the fire.

Alain

There is a vast difference between an uprising and resistance fighting.

Back to main topic of this blog. Mr. Carson (I refuse to use his MD when he is acting as a politician and not a Dr.) is basically saying do as I say not as I do. If he really believed in manna from haven (Mannatech) he would not have had the surgery and probable chemo for his prostate cancer.

Mr. Carson seems to be courting a strange segment of the population for his nomination run.

JP @ 100

Why do you think they call it"Head Cheese" anyway?Have you ever looked up a recipe for this culinary delight? Take a look at these two web pages with graphic pictures and details galore.

From the second article

"A pig's head is an embarrassment of riches."

" The snout is pure skin and fat; since the entire head is covered with skin,you have, literally, square footage of skin with which to fashion your dishes. The ears, in addition, offer the unique textural crunch of cartilage."

"If you've gone through the trouble of stewing a whole pig's head, making headcheese is simply a matter of taking everything that you've cooked and plopping it into a pan with salt and pepper."

".Head flesh wants to bind. If you add the gelatinous meat with collagen and tissue into your loafpan, then the entire mixture will easily come together into one solidified mass."

"Head flesh wants to bind."This woman has a wonderful way with words.If you peruse Ms Wang's other recipes,she will tell you how to prepare such delights as Octopus,Jellyfish or,Lamb's Face Salads,Deep Fried Brains,Beef Lungs and Omasum,Pig Ear Pizza,the proper way to cook penis and testicles (Hopefully not your husband's.),and lots more.

Denice Walker@ 77

"Ideas about microbiomial omnipotence are rife in alt media-
it’s an integral part of their culture- vegans use soy yoghurt.
But yeast in bread or wine is totally evil."

Not sure what you mean here.Care to elaborate?

I went (mostly) vegan a couple of years ago,after developing very bad protein malabsorption.I do most of my own baking.I use yeast in bread.Using eggs to bake with does not cause the acute pain,and odd looking poo that eating a nice omelette would.It may be similar to alcohol? Wine is a definite no-no for me.I have mitochondrial disease.I can't drink the slightest bit of alcohol.I causes either seizures or acute mito crashes.But baking or cooking with alcohol is no problem.I know it has something to do with cooking evaporating the alcohol.

the proper way to cook penis and testicles

Ah, yes, I have heard of this: Rocky Mountain Oysters, as sheep testicles were called back where I grew up. Thankfully we were never quite that backwoods.

Bull penis, or "pizzle" (seriously) is often dried and sold as a chew toy for dogs, incidentally.

@Orac --

I apologize for causing you annoyance.

But I'm not sure I understand why you're annoyed. And I don't mean that in an argumentative spirit. On the contrary, actually. I don't dispute that it's your call to make. I'm just seeking guidance.

Ann:

I didn't read Orac's comment about threadjacking as directed against you. It takes more than one commenter to go off on a tangent. But I must also say I'm perplexed Orac is chiding himself for opening McGee's closet of guns. Orac may see the OP topic as specifically about Mannatech, and prefer the comments stay to Carson's positions contrasted to medical science.

However, this is not just a medical science blog, but a skeptic blog. 'Science' here is typically associated with 'critical thinking skills' that ought to be more broadly applicable in dealing with a variety of issues. That is, we often find encouragement in the forums (meaning the skeptic community generally) to treat social issues the ways scientific experts treat questions in their fields of expertise.

Orac expressed his intent to focus on the more specific this way:

[Carson's] statements i[e.g., re: the Oregon shooting] make me wonder how someone with so little critical thinking skills could get through medical school and a neurosurgery residency to become such a respected surgeon.

While I knew Dr. Carson shows an uncanny lack of critical thinking when it comes to most issues outside of medicine, I had never in general doubted his medical abilities...

Which kind of begs the question, 'why the hell not?' Orac may have reason to detach Carson's Dunning-Kruger on medicine outside of neurosurgery to his Dunning-Kruger crankery on science, or to detach his Dunning-Kruger crankery on science to his Dunning-Kruger crankery on social/historical issues. But if readers make that connection, I don't think that's necessarily a deflection.

The discussion of 'guns' here strikes me as based in Carson's views, and framed as evidence of bizarre thought patterns. If it veers away from Carson a bit to consider the general prevalence of "if they'd only been armed!" mythologies, that's evidence of what sort of political masters and agendas Carson is serving instead of the scientific rationality some expect of him.

Some RI regulars may see an apparent irony in my response to Orac's #122: He frequently evokes the concept of "crank magnetism," which suggests that folks inclined to one loopy view typically have many, or that a fall for one loopy view leads to another. And I often note that I don't buy that at all as any kind of valid general principle at all. People compartmentalize, have different approaches to different subject, might even be said to adopt different personas in different contexts...

But I certainly don't contest the observation that some people seem attracted to a host of different 'irrationalities'. I just don't think that's all that common, or that 'one leads to another'. Rather, I'd posit some underlying X-factor accounts for such wide-ranging 'wrongness' in certain individuals, something quite different from what might lead other to embrace one woo while rejecting others.

In fact, I came back to this thread today to note a tidbit on Carson from today's news feed that supports a "crank magnetism" thesis in his case. The latest headline-grabbing quote from Dr. Ben is that he's opined we're getting "closer" to "the end of days." I just happened to note this view came out in an interview he did with Sheryl Attkisson – known here for anti-vaxer friendly 'journalism'.

The question of an armed citizenry may not be a medical science issue per se, but beyond being a logic and rationality issue in general, gun violence is a massive public health problem that would seem to call for something like a scientific approach, not anecdotes of imaginary tough-guy responses. But just as I'm still not buying "crank magnetism" as a widely applicable mechanism, I doubt Orac would claim the "hijacking" is irrelevant. I have the feeling he's just personally had his fill of this particular line of argument...
______

While I agree that Carson's "if only the Germans had guns!" ideas are not necessarily denialist or anti-semitic*, I have to take exception to your suggestion that Arendt "made a very similar case" to his proposition. From the get-go, reading the stuff about Carson's anti-Nazi fantasies brought the whole Arendt/Goldenhagen 'debate' to my mind. Now, I'm not confident I know exactly what Arendt was thinking with Eichmann in Jerusalem, e.g. I'm not sure she settles into a definitive position, or was just working through some different, perhaps contradictory, lines of thought. But the legacy of that work (perhaps inaccurately?) is the concept of "the banality of evil", or more properly 'the evil of banality'. From this POV, Eichmann and the everyday Germans who were complicit in the Holocaust by simply playing 'hear/see/speak no evil' are not getting any kind of pass for not having the enthusiastic genocidal bloodlust Goldenhagen attributes to them. On the contrary they are seen as MORE monstrous because their evil is so cold, amoral, so devoid of human passion, and framed by instrumentalist 'rationality'.

It's the critique of "I wasn't invested. I was just following orders, doing my job the best I could." In this interpretation, Eichmann's personal feelings about Jews were utterly secondary to his desire to rise through the ranks by doing whatever job he was given skillfully, and delivering quantifiable improvements in efficiency – the man who Taylorized mass murder. The German public then, may have been generally anti-semitic to some degree, but that wasn't the driving motive behind their non-action. They were just being 'good Germans', staying in line, not making waves, max-ing their 'go along to get along.'

I have no desire or intent to re-stage the debate over this take here. I just wanted to note that afaik NO serious scholar of the Holocaust thinks the German public was so opposed to Hitler's ideologies they would have engaged in wide pro-active resistance to them not matter how well they had been armed. He's just MAKING SH!T UP, totally off-the-wall, based on his religious views.

[*] His BS isn't anti-semitic, because it's not about the Jews. As I noted upthread, he's NOT saying "the Jews should have armed themselves and fought back." Both his reply to Joy Behar, and his statements about issues, clarify the context. He's claiming German Christians would have overtly, actively and aggressively opposed Hitler (a stand in for 'Satan' in this mythos) had they not been disarmed. He's reading Germany in the 1930s through lenses borrowed from Phil Robinson, and other wing-nuts who fantasize a mass armed revolt against the Satanic socialism represented by Barrack Obama. It's truly daft...
___

@Orac: apologies if this late entry adds to your annoyance. But honestly, I don't think the comments are "about guns", but rather about just how far bat-quano wacky can go with someone extraordinarily qualified in an elite medical specialty. I'd say we're more following the "doctors aren't necessarily scientists" lead and suggesting it goes much deeper than that...

I do wonder, between his anti-vaccination and his Natural Healthy Eating, how much overlap now exists between Bill Maher and the current GOP frontrunners.

"It’s difficult to understand motives but I venture that tampering with the screen play-like scenarios of the Tragic Loner Finally Bursting Free is a place to start."

I am re-reading Assassination Vacation, and your comment reminds me of how John Wilkes Booth was motivated by the general Northern veneration of John Brown. (JWB disagreed with his politics, but loved his style.)

"Bull penis, or “pizzle” (seriously) is often dried and sold as a chew toy for dogs, incidentally."

I have handled more cast-off bits of farm animals in the service of my dogs than a vegetarian ever expected to.

@ Roadstergal:

I notice that dear old Bill is now in sympathy with those who link shooters with anti-depressant usage. He is going off towards the deep end but that's not new. He's gotta go woo any way he can.

I do think that news coverage can over-simplify shooters and their illnesses, motives and life histories. Does this affect youth with problems? Who knows? But murder is never simple and actions like these should not be fodder for tv explanationeers.

"He is going off towards the deep end but that’s not new"

What pisses me off more than anything is that the scientists who come on his show never challenge him on his various inanities. NdGT didn't, Bill Nye didn't - Dawkins didn't, but he's thrown off rationalism for a membership in the Aggrieved Affluent White Male club, and Maher is a member. I am endlessly disappointed in his guest scientists.

@ Roaderstergal:

I know. So far, I've only seen Chris Matthews and Andrew Sullivan really argue against him to much effect ( about vaccines and meds, respectively).

@Denice:

Interestingly, around hipsterville and hippietown- i.e. places I frequent- I seem to notice two trends in dining amongst the youngsters:
– ultra- ( supposedly) healthy, GMO-free, sometimes vegan choices, non-antibiotic fed meat ,raw, free range poultry, etc
– over-indulgent meats – double burgers- bacon-laden, comfort foods, ridiculous desserts, deep-fried, BBQ-

Yeah, I've been noticing this for a while. The whole hipster-bacon thing is pretty much old hat at this point, for instance.

It seems to be mostly divided along gender and age lines. It's mostly the guys who go for the decadent, meat-and-gravy-and-biscuits-and-bacon and whatever type stuff, although some young women indulge along with them. It's mostly women (and some young men, but mostly older men going along with their wives/partners) who go for the super-"clean," "healthy" stuff.

I don't know if I've ever mentioned it before, but in some ways it seems to me that food has become our culture's center of both weird asceticism as well as hedonism; it's almost a new religion, with sinners and saints to go along with it. I mean, don't get me wrong, I like food a lot, and/but I also (especially lately) try to eat fairly sensibly. (Even when it comes to the few "health" foods that I eat, like, say, Ezekiel bread, I eat them because I like them for whatever weird reason.)

I mean, I sort of think nostalgically back on the days when people indulged in sex and drugs and whatnot - it's like that has all gotten transposed onto food now. (Well, okay, not all. But you catch my drift.) And the converse is the super-duper "healthy lifestyle," the juice cleanses and asparagus water and whatever it is those people do. I find it kind of odd.

Anyway, I have been up to things. (Yes it hurt; and the photo quality is sadly poor. I only have my kindle right now, and it's a difficult angle.)

^ Oh: and not just saints and sinners: aesthetes, too. Food is the new art and, generally culture these days, it seems. I mean, certainly there's an art to it, but...

JP,

Have a look at mine: http://www.securivm.ca/2013/12/a-work-of-art.html

@Alain:

Wow, that's gorgeous, and also huge! It looks like you got at least the wings in a separate sitting, though. BTW, is that a nod toward the Hermetic* tradition I see? I think Asclepius's rod traditionally has just the one snake. ;)

The biggest single tattoo I have is these two phoenix feathers (constantly taken for peacock feathers, but whatever, and it's probably apropos anyway) that go all up my arm, including through the "ditch" of the elbow; getting it was a real b!tch, but I am kind of weird and actually enjoy that kind of thing.

*I have this story...

It seems to be mostly divided along gender and age lines. It’s mostly the guys who go for the decadent, meat-and-gravy-and-biscuits-and-bacon and whatever type stuff

I can assure you that these represent different subpopulations. And you left out the tail of the pork-belly distribution.

On-Cor "salisbury steaks," however, are often out of stock. If the hipsters weren't aging off, I'd call those as a decent long play.

JP and Narad:

There are definitely sub-cultures in foodie world- I left out the Posh and the Exotics- who will go to any lengths to acquire either extremely over-priced esoterica or that which originates in farflung locales- e.g. a tall tower of artfully arranged Adriatic seafood or Nepalese cuisine, respectively- this is especially true of the City where money flows like Italian mineral water.

But on the vegan vs carnivore dimension- which is especially apparent in a place which has arisen like a Phoenix from an old drug-infested, post-manufacturing area attracting artists and the fashionable from more expensive rentals. Quite a few areas like that actually. But this particular one is a veritable barometer of restaurant chic, changing as frequently as the fashion scene does. I am often invited to the Scene because I know a few gallery owners/ artists.

Perhaps food IS the New Sex, JP, because it although it can be discussed and photographed endlessly on the net- unlike sex- you actually have to BE there to eat- that part can't be virtual. ( I DO wonder how much virtual obsession is based upon lack of funds though)

So there's the Healthy vs Indulgent and artistic vs deliberately messy dimensions which may correlate. Oddly, I saw a food truck with insanely expensive sandwiches ( lobster, steak, cheese) parked across the street from the aforementioned sandwich place so I suppose they aren't direct competitors.

On the clean food movement/ vegans/ ascetics - I truly wonder how much those loons I survey have had on general culture ( or is it the other -opportunistic- way around?). Although the organics/ vegans/ health compulsion has always been around, I think that the internet makes it more commonplace as they spread their fears about electronically like Vani Hari - but I admit that a small part of what they say is true- there is some unhealthy food and some people eat terribly.
Some but not all.

The paragon of precious clean veganism is of course Gary Null who has opened a spa/ resort/ health counselling villa which features design=conscious vegan meals- all photographed with the overly conscientious care which one usually devoted to babies and small pets ( seen on his various websites ).

It's sad to discuss food without lilady though,

-btw- artful tattoos kids, but not my cup of tea,

JP,

One sitting, 4 hours. The wings were more painful than the spine.

Good decision on behave of Dr. Carson to search out for natural solutions!! He's still alive with surgery, but favors natural solution, too!!
Keep an open mind to the possibility that NATURAL CURES for cancer do exist and will continue to surface worldwide...until big pharma can NOT block the human spirit for natural solutions any more. Natural solutions will never pass FDA approval, why? Bc the FDA doesn't approve natural solutions.
The name of the game at big pharma (which contrls the FDA) is to discover some drug that will keep the patients depended on a drug for life. So they can PROFIT. Natural solutions don't make money, they are too inexpensive.

Look ahead: "Keep an open mind to the possibility that NATURAL CURES for cancer do exist and will continue to surface worldwide…"

Okay, post the PubMed indexed study from any country to support that assertion.

"Bc the FDA doesn’t approve natural solutions."

The FDA is only in the United States of America. There are other countries, so just post the verified proof from another country.

Natural solutions will never pass FDA approval, why? Bc the FDA doesn’t approve natural solutions.

Natural solutions don't receive FDA approval because natural solutions don't receive FDA approval.
I can't argue with logic as flawless as that.

Chris,
Did you know big pharma is the second largest economic power in the world? Big oil is #1. Wars are fought over oil. Big pharma will silence anyone anywhere in the world - who has the potential to reduce their profits.
Side note: Doctors only have an optional 8 hour class in nutrition as part of their professional training. They are trained (brainwashed) to prescribe drugs only!
The whole system has to changed to favor natural solution - even if there are less profits. That's the challenge and the best choice, imo.
Stay healthy and informed.

@look ahead

I see you haven't provided any citations to support your assertions, so I have to assume that you are a blatant liar or just deluded.

Either way, you are just a sad troll until proven otherwise.

Doctors only have an optional 8 hour class in nutrition as part of their professional training.
All doctors, everywhere in the world, go through a single standardised curriculum of professional training. Everyone knows that.

Did you know big pharma is the second largest economic power in the world?

Biblioteca Pléyades is not your friend when the lights are on.

Look Ahead inhabits a happier world than ours, in which no-one ever needs to eat, so there is no agriculture / food-production economic sector.

Actually, most physicians don't have a class in nutrition, because it's integrated into the whole education, rather than pulled out as a specific class. Most medical classes (nursing and medical, that I'm aware of) focus on the person and the illness - i.e., when learning about diabetes, you learn about the appropriate diet (s) and if necessary, medication (insulin, metformin). When learning about children, you learn about appropriate nutrition at each stage of life (newborn: breastmilk/formula. Infant: breastmilk/formula/start solids), and so on.

So, in effect, Look Ahead is *kinda* correct...but mostly wrong.

"the FDA doesn’t approve natural solutions...Natural solutions don’t make money, they are too inexpensive."

Somebody at the FDA must therefore have been asleep at the switch when all these "natural solutions" (plant-based drugs) were approved:

http://www.rain-tree.com/plantdrugs.htm#.VjDJHFPiU5g

Note that the above article was written by a naturopath (make of that what you will).

Formal nutrition classes as part of the curriculum at many medical schools. Example:

http://nutrition.med.harvard.edu/education/edu_undergrad.html

As noted, principles of nutrition, nutritional and metabolic disorders are incorporated into med student required learning as part of multiple courses, and studies continue through residency and practice as continuing education. But do keep repeating "doctors don't know anything about nutrition" if it makes you feel better.

Orac, you need to listen to the rest of the video. Let me know what you learn about Carson's position regarding Mannatech product efficacy.

Most doctors are not scientists, Ben Carson paper bag edition

oracknows — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 06:45:57 +0000

Most doctors are not scientists, Ben Carson paper bag edition

Early in the history of this blog, I had a running gag that I'd use every now and then. Basically, it involved humorously extravagant descriptions of how I wanted to hide my face behind a paper bag in sheer embarrassment at the antics of fellow physicians, particularly fellow surgeons. Over time, the gag evolved to my expressing a mock desire to hide my visage behind a metal Doctor Doom-style mask, again, over sheer embarrassment over the idiocy of my colleagues about a scientific issue, again, usually evolution. Sadly, creationist physicians are a very common source of such embarrassment, although I don't write about them very often any more. They are perhaps the best example to illustrate a point that I've made many times: Most physicians are not scientists. While it's true that being a scientist is by no means a guarantee that one will not be taken in by pseudoscience, it helps. Worse, a disturbing number of physicians fail to abide by Harry Callahan's wise admonition in Magnum Force:

All too many physicians do not know their limitations, especially with respect to science.

As time went on, I used the gag less and less. As is the case with a lot of gags, it became harder and harder to think of new ways to use it without becoming too repetitive. So it appeared less and less and less, until finally it appeared no more. Indeed, I don't remember the last time I used it. There was also another issue that contributed to the demise of this recurring joke. I started to encounter physicians with ideas that were worse than just not believing in evolution because they were beliefs that could result in direct harm to patients. I'm referring to the "rise" (if you can call it that) of physicians spewing antivaccine beliefs, doctors like "Dr. Bob" Sears, for instance. These physicians are physicians who betray their profession—and, even worse, their patients. It just wasn't that funny to me any more.

I'm starting to get that same old familiar feeling about Dr. Ben Carson. Whenever I see him, I want to put a paper bag—or Doctor Doom mask—over my face, the better to hide my shame at a fellow surgeon's idiocy.

I find the resurrection of this particular feeling in me to be particularly disturbing not just because Carson is a Presidential candidate, thus providing his scientifically ignorant pronouncements far more publicity than they deserve, but because he truly was a magnificent pediatric neurosurgeon. I don't know if I'm mentioned this before, but I work mere blocks from the Ben Carson High School of Science and Medicine. It's part of the Detroit Public Schools for students with an aptitude for science and was founded in 2011, before Dr. Carson began his descent into pseudoscience, at least publicly. Back then, Carson was known as a truly gifted—brilliant, even—pediatric neurosurgeon, the chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University. When Carson was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2008, believe me, he deserved it.

So what happened? I was wondering exactly that during the Republican Presidential debate last week, as I cringed.

You might recall how last week I took an opportunity to recount Donald Trump's long sordid history of antivaccine statements promoting the idea that vaccines cause autism. I did this intentionally because I knew that the second Republican Presidential debate was nearly upon us and I wanted to remind my readers about his history and to prepare them in case the issue came up during the debate. It did.

Given Trump's history, it's unnecessary for me to quote what Trump said about vaccines in the second Republican debate last Wednesday because it was virtually identical to what he's been saying about vaccines since at least 2007 if not before. Still, it's useful to set up the context. The question that provoked The Donald's repetition of his oft-repeated antivaccine tropes from the last eight years was not actually directed at him. After making a reference to the measles outbreak that started at Disneyland earlier this year, moderator Jake Tapper actually asked Ben Carson this question: "Dr. Carson, Donald Trump has publicly and repeatedly linked vaccines—childhood vaccines—to autism, which, as you know, the medical community adamantly disputes. You're a pediatric neurosurgeon. Should Mr. Trump stop saying this?"

It was obvious that Tapper was trying to provoke an argument between Trump and Dr. Carson. Otherwise, he would have just asked Trump directly about his previous statements about vaccines and autism. It was a golden opportunity for Dr. Carson to defend vaccines, given that earlier this year, Dr. Carson had been quoted strongly defending school vaccine mandates:

"Although I strongly believe in individual rights and the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit, I also recognize that public health and public safety are extremely important in our society," Carson, a retired pediatric neurosurgeon, told The Hill in a statement.

"Certain communicable diseases have been largely eradicated by immunization policies in this country and we should not allow those diseases to return by foregoing safe immunization programs, for philosophical, religious or other reasons when we have the means to eradicate them," he added.

That's right. Back in February, Dr. Carson opposed religious and personal belief exemptions to vaccine mandates. Last winter, he published an extensive statement in which, while acknowledging the issue of personal freedom, nonetheless came down on the side of vaccine mandates, stating:

I am very much in favor of parental rights for certain types of things. I am in favor of you and I having the freedom to drive a car. But do we have a right to drive without wearing our seat belts? Do we have a right to text while we are driving? Studies have demonstrated that those are dangerous things to do, so it becomes a public safety issue. You have to be able to separate our rights versus the rights of the society in which we live, because we are all in this thing together. We have to be cognizant of other people around us and we must always bear in mind the safety of the population. That is key and that is one of the responsibilities of government.

I am a small-government person, and I greatly oppose government intrusion into everything. Still, it is essential that we distinguish between those things that are important and those things that are just intruding upon our basic privacy. Whether to participate in childhood immunizations would be an individual choice if individuals were the only ones affected, but as previously mentioned, our children are part of our larger community. None of us live in isolation. Your decision does not affect only you — it also affects your fellow Americans.

This was an eminently reasonable position, acknowledging the balance between individual rights and how they can be constrained when an individual's choices affect other people. Now, fast forward to September and Carson's response to Tapper's question:

Well, let me put it this way. There has — there have been numerous studies, and they have not demonstrated that there is any correlation between vaccinations and autism… This was something that was spread widely 15 or 20 years ago and it has not been adequately, you know, revealed to the public what's actually going on…

This was technically correct. Incredibly tepid and cowardly, but technically correct, although I don't know what the heck Carson meant about "this" not having been "adequately revealed to the public what's actually going on." It's not as though it hasn't been widely publicized that science does not support the claim that vaccines cause autism and that Andrew Wakefield's research was fraudulent. Then, whether it's because he didn't want to attack Trump or didn't want to upset the Republican base (perhaps both) Carson went to undermine what he just said:

Vaccines are very important. Certain ones. The ones that would prevent death or crippling. There are others, there are a multitude of vaccines which probably don't fit in that category, and there should be some discretion in those cases.

First of all, as Tara Haelle pointed out, all the vaccines on the current CDC schedule prevent death and severe morbidity. Which ones does Dr. Carson consider "discretionary"? I'd love to hear his answer. Later, after Trump once again channeled Jenny McCarthy and her "too many too soon" misinformation, in which it is claimed that children are receiving too many vaccines at too high a dose at too young an age (or, as Trump has put it, "monster shots") and it is advocated that vaccines be delayed and spread out, Carson actually bought into this antivaccine gambit, saying, "But it is true that we are probably giving way too many in too short a period of time, and a lot of pediatricians now recognize that and, I think, are cutting down on the number and the proximity in which those are done." The only pediatricians who "recognize that" are antivaccine pediatricians like "Dr. Bob" Sears and antivaccine-sympathetic pediatricians like Dr. Jay Gordon. Delaying and spreading out vaccines just prolongs the time when children are susceptible to vaccine-preventable diseases without any benefit.

Basically, Dr. Carson flubbed a chance to hit a home run defending vaccines. Whether it was his fear of Trump or his fear of his own base, he equivocated, parroted one antivaccine talking point ("too many too soon") and in the end refused to tell Trump to his face to stop spewing antivaccine misinformation. It was an epic fail. Worse, it was an epic fail in which he basically gave supported antivaccine fallacies, such as the idea that we're giving "too many" vaccines "too soon" and it's somehow causing autism. During the same debate Rand Paul, also a physician and surgeon (an ophthalmologist) also implied that there was a problem with "too many too soon," consistent with his previous antivaccine statements. Overall, I'm not sure which was worse, Ben Carson knowing that antivaccine BS is BS but being too cowardly to say so (leading him instead to pander) or Rand Paul clearly believing that vaccines can cause neurologic damage and that "too many too soon" can harm children.

I wouldn't be writing about Ben Carson, though, if it were only vaccines. Arguably, Carson knows what is and isn't antivaccine misinformation; he simply chose not to stand up for science. However, in other areas of science, he's outright taken the side of antiscience. For example, he's long been known to reject evolution in favor of creationism, even to the point of arguing that evolution is "encouraged by Satan" and that the Big Bang is a "fairy tale":

At the Celebration of Creation event, he discussed at length why he believes the Big Bang theory is impossible for him to comprehend.
He said: ‘Now, what about the Big Bang theory? I find the Big Bang really quite fascinating.'

‘I mean here you have all these high-faluting scientists and they’re saying it was this gigantic explosion and everything came into perfect order.’

He explains the same scientists promote the second law of thermodynamics – entropy – which says that things move towards a state of disorganization.
‘So now you’re gonna have this big explosion and everything becomes perfectly organized and when you ask them about it they say “Well, we can explain this based on probability theory because if there’s enough big explosions over a long enough period of time - billions and billions of years – one of them will be the perfect explosion”.

‘So I say, what you’re telling me is if I blow a hurricane through a junkyard enough times over billions and billions of years, eventually, after one of those hurricanes, there will be a 747 fully-loaded and ready to fly?’

Skeptics will recognize the "hurricane in a junkyard" mischaracterization of evolution as a classic creationist fallacy. It gets worse, though. Check out this transcript of the actual speech by Carson at the Celebration of Creation conference, which was organized by the Adventist News Network. Here's the actual video. It is painful to watch if you have any knowledge about evolution, geology, and other sciences:

As Ed Brayton put it, this is Kent Hovind-level scientific ignorance. It's a greatest hits of creationist tropes, dominated by the most scientifically ignorant, easiest-to-refute bits of creationist stupidity. Here's but another taste:

You know, according to the theory [of evolution] it [the eye] had to go pukh! and there was an eyeball, overnight, just like that, because it wouldn't work in any other way. And when you ask the evolutionists about that they say, 'well, we don't understand everything.' And I say, 'well, I don't think you understand anything.'

The evolution of the eye is actually relatively well understood. Seriously, Dr. Carson. Your stupid, it burns.

So why is it that so many physicians fall for pseudoscience like antivaccine views (as Rand Paul, Bob Sears, and Jay Gordon do) and creationism (which Ben Carson and his fellow creationist neurosurgeon Michael Egnor do)? Why are so many surgeons and physicians like Ben Carson? We've seen their like before on this blog over the years, ranging from the infamous creationist neurosurgeon Michael Egnor to the antivaccine pediatrician Dr. Bob Sears to the antivaccine-pandering pediatrician "Dr. Jay" Gordon. In all cases, the physician shows that he doesn't understand science and as a result adopts purely pseudoscientific beliefs, be they creationism, antivaccine views, Big Bang rejection, or any number of beliefs not supported by science. The reason is simple, and my saying what it is might piss off some of my fellow physicians. The vast majority of physicians are not scientists. Many of them think that they are scientists, but they are not.

It's been a long time since I've discussed this, but Dr. Carson's rise as a major candidate for the Republican nomination demands that I discuss it again because Dr. Carson is taking advantage of a misperception. That misperception is that physicians are scientists. Of course, so deep has been the idiocy flowing fast and furious from his mouth that Andy Borowitz posted what I consider to be the most hilarious take on Carson's nonsense, Ben Carson Shattering Stereotype About Brain Surgeons Being Smart. Particularly hilarious was this part:

“When people found out I was a brain surgeon they would always assume I was some kind of a genius,” said Harland Dorrinson, a neurosurgeon in Toledo, Ohio. “Now they are beginning to understand that you can know a lot about brain surgery and virtually nothing about anything else.”

Exactly. That's the case with most physicians.

The reason is simple. Medical training is not the same as scientific training. Yes, science is a prominent part of medical training, but not in the same way it is for scientists. In actuality, although medicine is based in science, it is an applied science. The vast majority of physicians do not do scientific investigation or contribute to scientific knowledge. Rather, they apply known science to the treatment of patients. This is not a knock on them, or an insult, or a criticism. It is simply an acknowledgement of what most medicine is. Medical school is very much more like a trade school, in which students are taught how to take care of patients, than a school teaching how to do science. Basically, medicine as a profession resembles engineering far more than a scientific specialty in that the vast majority of physicians apply science to the problem of diagnosing and treating illness, as engineers apply science to the problem of building things. Again, this is not a knock on either physicians or engineers. How they apply existing science to solve problems (or, in the case of engineers, to build things) can involve incredibly clever feats of mental prowess, but it is nonetheless a very different process than doing science to produce new scientific knowledge.

None of this is to say that physicians (or engineers) can't be excellent scientists. They can, but such people tend to be a subset of the overall profession. For example, I like to think of myself as a decent scientist, and my publication and funding record indicate that I've had some success. I also made it a point to gain additional training by spending years getting a PhD and doing a surgical oncology fellowship that had a significant laboratory research component very much like a traditional basic science postdoctoral fellowship. I also have to point out that I've known many physicians who are also excellent scientists.

As an MD/PhD, I've straddled both worlds, the world of the clinician and surgeon and the world of the basic scientist. It's not an easy task, because both worlds require very different skill sets, particularly in surgery. Wearing two hats is not something all doctors can do. For example, when I entered medical school (and I attended what was—and is still—considered to be one of the top tier medical schools in the country) I was surprised at how superficial the teaching of basic science was, from a strictly scientific standpoint. However, from a practical standpoint, the teaching of science in medical school was exactly what was required to take care of patients, no more, no less. For most physicians, that is as it should be. They need to know how to take care of patients, not how to do research.

But, I hear you saying, Ben Carson is a lot like Dr. Mehmet Oz. Before he became a politician, he was an academic neurosurgeon; Dr. Oz still is one. Both have published over a hundred papers. Yet, both have embraced pseudoscience, with Dr. Oz embracing a wide variety of quackery (such as reiki and homeopathy) and Dr. Carson embracing creationist pseudoscience, among other dubious scientific ideas. It's at this point that I have to speculate a bit. One thing that comes to mind is that if you don't have the solid grounding in the very philosophy of science, such that it infuses your very being, sure you can do clinical science. You can even be pretty successful at it, as Oz and Carson were. So that's not it, at least not by itself.

So what is the problem? From my perspective, it boils down to two things. The first is not listening to Harry Callahan's admonition that "a man's got to know his limitations." Surgeons—particularly heart surgeons and neurosurgeons—do amazing things. Dr. Oz can repair a person's heart, and Dr. Carson can separate conjoined twins. These are matters of life and death, and doing such things requires a level of confidence in one's own abilities that can easily evolve into arrogance. (Some might argue that most surgeons are pretty arrogant at a certain level to begin with.) So it's not surprising that doctors like Drs. Oz and Carson might start to think that their incredible skills and knowledge in one area will translate into other areas, such as science unrelated to the narrow specialty they know. The second contributing factor is ideology and/or personal relationships. In Dr. Oz's case, he became enamored of the idea of the physician-shaman-healer, not to mention that he also married a reiki master. In Dr. Carson's case, it's clearly fundamentalist religion that's led him to reject evolution and the Big Bang in favor of what seems to be a variant of intelligent design creationism. Basically, Ben Carson is now coming across like the brain surgeon in this classic Mitchell and Webb sketch:

Doctors occupy a highly privileged position in society, and because of it their opinions are often given great deference, even on topics about which they are clearly not an expert. For all their accomplishments, it's nonetheless important to remember that physicians are human and thus prone to the same cognitive shortcomings to which all human beings are prone. All too often, they are also given a status in society as all-purpose experts about all things that can be related to human biology or medicine, including evolutionary biology. The reason that Borowitz article is so spot on devastating is that it states just that in a humorous fashion and uses the example of Ben Carson to deconstruct the idea that brain surgeons are experts at everything. They're not. Nor are most of them scientists. Their pronouncements outside of their areas of expertise should be judged as you would judge anyone else's. On matters of science outside of their specialty most doctors are probably no more knowledgeable than an educated lay person and all too often let their professional status delude them into having undue confidence in their conclusions. It's the sort of behavior we expect from a buffoon like Donald Trump. It's just depressing to see Ben Carson behaving similarly, albeit with a much less bombastic voice.

oracknows Thu, 09/24/2015 - 02:45

Categories

Brain and Behavior

In my many years of working in research labs, I've seen a lot of medical students rotate through. They are a very mixed bag: some of them lack a comprehension of the practice of research, others were sharp, driven and great scientists.

Orac nails it here, though. Education and experience that focuses on practical applications of medicine doesn't qualify one to expound on theory and basic science. I would hazard a guess that Bert Vogelstein isn't your best choice for tumor removal, although his work has advanced our understanding of cancer possibly more than any other living person.

By coincidence I've been wondering how scientific the typical pharmacist is. At my weekly discussion group my topic was an article about TCM which mentioned James Reston's use of acupuncture as a purported anesthetic in China back in the 70s. I explained why acupuncture is nothing more than show business masquerading as healthcare and, not unexpectedly, I was countered by arguments and disbelief from two of the attendees. My attempt at explanation (placebo, regression to the mean, etc.) was countered with not only disagreement, but with some animosity. Two men vociferously objected, stating beyond all shadow of doubt that they were absolutely cured of their chronic pain by acupuncture with a degree of certainty that approached 100%! Sadly, one man is a pharmacist, a profession that I expect might require a modicum of familiarity with science and the scientific method. But when I asked the pharmacist if he even knew what the scientific method is he responded with a blank stare. At that point I yielded the floor to the next person in line. Some days I wonder why I even bother to explain simple things to my fellow human beings...

Maybe Carson genuinely believes in creationism,

His flip-flop on vaccines suggests that he is seeing a path to the GOP nomination, and has calculated that there are more votes in appealing to fear and dislike for "experts" than in supporting sound science.

It is not unusual for politicians to compromise their integrity in direct correlation to their ambition for higher office.

#3
"...appealing to fear" "..."dislike for “experts”"

Isn't this required to be tatooed on your ass cheeks when you join the GOP?

Dangerous Bacon @3

Dr. Carson is a member of the Seventh Day Adventist faith. The founder of SDA _invented_ 6-day/6,000year creationism, in the late XIXth Century. SDA George MacCready Price _invented_ so-called Flood Geology in the 1920s.

IINM, but there was an attempt, in the 1970s or ''80s, to transplant a baboon heart into an infant. It wasn't successful, and the SDA surgeon didn't know why it wouldn't be, since evolution wasn't a real thing.

Orac you can't be that naive or blind-sighted.Dr. Carson knows what he is saying is a steaming pile of fetid dingo kidneys.Unlike Trump,Carson,can't really believe the nonsense he is spewing.When Carson decided to run for President,he ceased to be a neurosurgeon,and became simply another Republican politician.A man who will say anything to appeal to the base of the party to get elected. There are those that will deny it,but the broad base of the GOP is anti-science,and anti-vaccince.

There is only one man who has run for President in the last 70 years who has said same stuff for over fifty years.

I actually did distinguish between Carson's cynical pandering to antivaccination pseudoscience and his true belief in creationist pseudoscience. I also note that he was spewing creationist nonsense long before he decided to become a politician and run for President. For example:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/09/24/ben_carson_anti_sci…

Italics fail.More consistent goodness from Bernie from the 1980s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ2LyFiO9GI

@5 It was Baby Fae. The baboon blood type was AB and Fae's was O. And yes, when asked why he didn't choose a primate closer to humans on the evolutionary chart, the doctor said "I don't believe in evolution." 1984

@ Orac:

Whenever you feel awfully about doctors or surgeons behaving badly/ spouting woo- remember it could be worse, you could be a psychologist -your paper bag would wear out rather quickly from over-use.

You're right, Orac, physicians aren't scientists; we're technicians. But sometimes we are also the closest thing to a scientist that our patients will meet, and I think we have an obligation to defend and promote the scientific method wherever we can. Most of us will do nothing to expand scientific knowledge, but without someone making those discoveries we can do nothing at all. Of course we should promote science at all opportunities. That's why it makes me a bit mad when my colleagues are overly complacent about patients pursuing non-treatments like acupuncture and homeopathy. "If it makes them feel better..." translates into "I am being complicit in a lie..." if you smile and say nothing.

The medical profession in the US seems to attract a disproportionate share of hubristic SOBs, and surgeons have a reputation for being disproportionately hubristic SOBs compared to other MDs. That's one of the things that makes MDs vulnerable to Dunning-Kruger syndrome. Some of it is woo pushing, yes. There are other aspects, too: MDs have a reputation for being particularly poor investors, to such an extent that you should be wary of financial advisors whose offices are in close proximity to hospitals.

Carson is an extreme example, and I can understand why Orac feels like putting a paper bag on his head. Certain of my fellow physicists make me feel the same way: most notoriously Brian Josephson (a Nobel Prize winner who subsequently went emeritus), but there are one or two others I have actually met.

Hey, the people all want their pleasing lies, and they're willing to pay damn good money for it. Everything else follows downhill from there. Grifters like Carson and Oz are just serving the marketplace; even easier if they buy into the same horseshit themselves.

I guess that's what happens when unbounded narcissism is repeatedly cultured over basic honesty and earned, not entitled, self-respect. Why know your limitations when you can simply believe them away? Especially when you can now do so twice as effectively for the low, low price of $29.95?

I have to admit, I haven't made it through this entire article. Looks like more of the same.
Like this near-1700 comment classic: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/05/20/why-do-doctors-deny-evolut…

Or the even bigger
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/07/27/when-the-antiabortion-move…

Maybe it’s like the old joke about
‘Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.’

But it’s
‘Those who can, are doctors; those who can’t, are “scientists”.’

Lancelot Gobbo@11:

That’s why it makes me a bit mad when my colleagues are overly complacent about patients pursuing non-treatments like acupuncture and homeopathy. “If it makes them feel better…” translates into “I am being complicit in a lie…” if you smile and say nothing.

If nothing else, they ought to be rigorously honest in calling it for what it actually is: Go away and stop bothering me medicine.

That at least would enable patients to distinguish physicians who've had enough of their hypochondriac shenanigans (or just don't like sick people in the first place) from those who have genuinely disappeared up the feculent rectum of woo and thus don't even warrant the title of "doctor" any more.

See Noevo@14: Back to your bridge, troll.

(Directions included.)

Physicians are expected to know everything, and some of them think they do. No one else is entitled to be addressed as "Doctor" outside the office; most Ph.D.'s feel silly being addressed that way at work. Doctors put "M.D." after their name in letters to the editor, as if to give extra weight to their opinions on subjects ranging from zoning to international terrorism.

Garou @#4
If tattooed there, how could they possibly read it?

@has (15): I think he got lonely, since we got bored and left. So now he's here hoping to stir things up again. Since his comment added nothing to the discussion, I'm leaving him killfiled.

(back on topic) As a nurse with APN training, I'd have to agree that some doctors have a very clear "god" complex - that the letters MD or DO after their name makes them all knowing and all powerful. It appears in many surgeons and I suspect is due to the residency training they go through, especially those who do specialties. I have a few stories but won't put them down here (although one I will always remember for my rejoinder to the sr resident - "does Betadine CLOT???" I nearly gave my head nurse a heart attack.)

Who garners more respect than a cardiac or brain surgeon among the general public? Those doctors *physically* hold your life in their hands while doing surgery. So they absorb the adoration and think they are better than anyone else.

I respect those doctors who can say "I don't know" about things outside their specialty. I had a lot of respect for Dr Carson until he started running for president and showed how much he doesn't know about being a real leader.

Eric Lund -- a particularly harmful variant of Physics Dunning-Kruger these days are the small subset of physicists who figure that climate scientists can't possibly know what they're talking about, or if they do it can't possibly be as bad as they say, or what have you.

Rich Muller, to his credit, changed his tune when he went and re-analyzed the temperature record on his own, and discovered that, by golly, the surface temperature really is skyrocketing at a historically unprecedented rate.

Steve Koonin, on the other hand, has no excuse.

Spot on, Orac. Being a physician does not mean one is or has been a scientist. I, too, found the medical school science classes rather shallow in teaching science to medical students. With my undergraduate physics experience and PhD in neuroscience with a postdoc as well, there were times I felt like I was back in undergraduate classes and also felt that a lot of the medical students either couldn't get it or didn't want to get it when any science was taught.

I'm not doing research now and am strictly clinical as a pediatrician. I do miss the lab greatly, but I don't think I could wear both hats as you do and not burn out doing it. But that scientific training I've had still serves me well, especially when it comes to anti-vaccinationists.

Carson probably had no big issue refuting (albeit weakly) Trump on any link between vaccines and autism. It's not a big limb to go out on given that Wakefield has been discredited and de-licensed and no studies since have supported his fraudulent claim. Carson, however, did not oppose alternate vaccine schedules in part, I suspect, because those anti-vaccine pediatricians (Sears and Gordon) have received no profession rebuke or censure for their clearly wrong and dangerous positions on vaccines. And people think that Sears and Gordon are scientist--and they are not one bit scientist.

It feels like the proverbial hens coming home to roost after almost 10 years or AV pediatricians profiting and preaching their nonsense without any large-group opposition. This has in turn also given the NVIC more undeserved credibility. I am ashamed that those who should have taken on and taken down Sears and Gordon (the AAP and the CA Medical Board) have refused to do.

As a scientist, I've seen plenty of MDs (whether still undergrads doing internships or MD/PhDs, or graduated MDs doing a MSc or PhD) in the lab, coming without much idea how a lab works. That's par for the course for pretty much any newcomer, actually. What's galling quite often is their attitude. They act as if they are better than us, because their are in medicine, yet they are emperors often without clothes (but with much better salaries). Having a non-physician telling them what to do in a lab seems difficult for those. And we often see the attitude that our work counts less than theirs...

Someone above mentioned some doctors’ “God complex”.

Brought to mind this fun scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g2dkDh4ov4

Alec is one wacky liberal, but he’s an entertaining actor.

Chris Hickie@22:

I, too, found the medical school science classes rather shallow in teaching science to medical students.

This particular problem goes right the way back to high school though. All the emphasis there is on memorizing facts and performing equations, much as you teach a small dog to jump through decorated hoops. Students pick up the form but not the substance; develop mimickry rather than understanding. It is a very bad way to start, for how then can they distinguish one apparent form of ritual from another, or even be aware there is a difference?

Personally I think if STEM education was done right, it'd spend a good quarter on the *history* and *philosophy* of science and math, with no shyness about bringing technological tools to bear on the rest (better to learn relationships through interactive computer simulations, for example, than develop no understanding at all simply due to a weakness in math). Which would also have the significant bonus of making science vastly more relevant and accessible to all those students who aren't into it for the math jiggery and minor explosions (amusing though the latter may be). And then perhaps we might not have quite so much magical thinking in the first place.

Obligatory Feynman, natch:

http://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education

http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm

@ 20 MI Dawn

If tattooed there, how could they possibly read it?

When doing the daily “insert head” exercise?

"If tattooed there, how could they possibly read it?"

jr beat me to it.

@palindrom: Yes, I was aware of the physicist climate-denier loons. They are especially facepalm-worthy because to get to that position you have to ignore things like conservation of energy. If the energy absorbed from the sun by the earth isn't all radiated away, it has to go somewhere--like raising the temperature of the earth until the two are in balance again.

But those aren't the people I was referring to. I have personally met at least one physicist who is a fundamentalist Christian. He's never been explicit with me about his views on creationism, but I have no reason to think he isn't a YEC. This guy is so out there that (according to the rumor mill) he managed to get fired from a tenure-track position in Alabama (!) for pushing his version of Christianity a bit too hard. PZ Myers had a post on the guy a few months back.

@ has (#25).

I saw Feynman speak in the mid 80's at my college. It was amazing to see him take apart a problem. He took questions from us students (on anything) and showed what it meant to really understand something.

In grad school I did teach an undergraduate physics lab for pre-med students. I was aghast at how often students just wanted to give a memorized answer to each write-up question (just like in the Brazil reference).

And, Orac, regarding limitations, that is so true as well. I am a pediatrician. I know pediatric medicine, including, of course, vaccines. I wouldn't pretend to have medical expertise in the areas where Drs. Carson, Oz, or Paul specialize. But they don't have that appreciation of their limitations when it comes to vaccines and their political need to publicize their opinion is what so angers those of us trying to maintain US vaccination rates so as to prevent more Disneyland-type outbreaks.

This is probably one of the biggest reasons that I believe MDs should stick with the label "physician" and PhDs "doctor". Why? Because MDs are essentially a trade degree whereas PhD scientists have obtained terminal degrees and been taught basic science so they may understand underlying principles of disease. It may be an unpopular opinion, but it would help to delineate those that are trained as physicians/MD's vs. those that are trained to be experts in scientific data. Just a thought.

Eric L -- I know at least one deeply religious physicist, but at least he accepts that the earth is not young -- if I recall, he thinks of Genesis as a metaphor for the Big Bang. He also works in an area in which natural history isn't important. Same area as yours, actually.

I don't know if people have seen this old blog post from a fundamentalist biology professor named Todd Wood -- it's about the only intellectually honest thing I've seen from that side of the fence, though I find it jaw-droppingly strainge:

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

jrkrideau (26) and shay (27)...I only wish I'd said that...it was Janet at 19. :)

Multi-Quoted:

“…appealing to fear” “…”dislike for “experts””

Isn’t this required to be tatooed on your ass cheeks when you join the GOP?
Garou @#4
If tattooed there, how could they possibly read it?

.... yep, that's where there heads are anyway.

*their.
DAMMIT.

"They act as if they are better than us, because their are in medicine, yet they are emperors often without clothes (but with much better salaries)."

(resists temptation to make nasty crack about spelling, succumbs to temptation to say that our new clothes are better styled)

DB, M.D. (plus I have a Masters' degree in Science!)

(plus I have a Masters’ degree in Science!)

Do you know more than I do?

I can't tell you how many times I've had to resist the impulse to slap hand to forehead when having a discussion with a colleague about science outside of medicine. What's more concerning to me, though, are the occasions were I see a lapse in critical thinking as it applies to medicine. To give an example in microcosm: when confronted with a well-designed study, or better yet, an emerging consensus of studies on a medical topic, the contrary response I often hear is "Well, I've always done it a different way, and it's never been an issue!" I feel fortunate to have been trained with a solid grounding in evidence-based medicine, but clearly the lure of anecdotes and "going with your gut" is often hard to resist. Add motivated reasoning to the mix, as in the case of religious or other long-held beliefs, and it's not hard to see why physicians deviate from the scientific method both in and out of their areas of expertise. It helps to have training (and therefore practice) in the lab or in research, but ultimately, it takes a commitment to a certain type (a scientific type) of thinking not to get lost in the weeds.

Also, rocket science seems way harder than brain surgery, FWIW.

I work with lots of doctors, nurses and scientists. My observation is that the former, doctors and nurses, are very good at confidently explaining information (even in a handful of rare instances where they've been dead wrong). Their jobs depend on them being able to reassure patients that they know what they're talking about. The scientists I work with, however, are always careful to explain the limits of their knowledge - no, we can't say x, we have to say probably between x and y under certain conditions. It's a sort of professional embodiment of the idea that the first steps to knowledge are admitting you know nothing.

I had a surprising experience with this when my first child was born in 2013. Both my own primary care provider and my daughter's pediatrician recommended that I delay vaccinations and eliminate some entirely. They both cited their own experience with patients who had serious adverse effects as the reason why they don't follow the CDC schedule. And yes, they said they had witnessed healthy kids develop autism after being vaccinated. Apparently, this viewpoint is not that uncommon - see "Vaccination practices among physicians and their children" from Open Journal of Pediatrics, 2012, 2, 228-235 which finds that since 2009, 21% of pediatric specialists would NOT follow the CDC schedule for their own children. Has anyone else had a similar experience??

Since climate change has already been brought up in the comments above, and since I had no luck posting this on a nearby blog, I’ll try posting it here.

Three items:

1)
I’m always fascinated by how much emphasis scientists and alleged lovers of science put on “consensus”.
Obviously, “consensus” has no necessary relationship to truth.
“Consensus” is a word used, and a goal sought, by politicians, not truth-seekers.
But for what it’s worth…
……..
2)
I hadn’t heard of this group before, but anyway…
“31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs”
http://www.petitionproject.org
………..
3)
George Mason University conducted a survey regarding global warming of the 7,000+ voting members of the American Meteorological Society. The survey drew enough interest only for about 1,800 responses.
Some responses to questions I found noteworthy:

Question 4: Over the next 100 years, how harmful or beneficial do you think global warming will be to people and society, if nothing is done to address it?
38% – Very harmful.
62% – Very beneficial to somewhat harmful, and “Don’t know”

Question 5: ‘How much global warming harm can be prevented through our actions?’
22% – All or a large amount of GW harm can be prevented.
78% – No amount to a moderate amount of GW harm can be prevented, and “I don’t know”.
http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/report/american-meteorologica…

Factoid quoted above: 62% of meteorologists surveyed that global warming will be beneficial to somewhat harmful or don't know.

I can trump that: Did you know that 63% of dentists surveyed believe that an endoscopic transnasal approach is the optimal approach to the craniocervical junction in brain surgery?

Now the tough question: Do you know why the two factoids are comparable??

No profession, no manner of training, is exempt from participants who can perform the tasks at hand well enough, but are otherwise... well, mad as a hatter. Carson appears to be one such outlier, having now proposed so many bizarre (and clearly unconstiutional) policies "loony paranoid loon" is the sort of label critics are applying to him.

FWTW, looking at the popularity of GOP candidates as a whole, I don't think Carson's appeal has anything to do with people imagining he has scientific credentials or knowledge. Quite the opposite. Charles Pierce has labeled The Donald's appeal as a form of Magical Thinking, and suggested (as have others) the same applies to Carson and Fiorina as well. All three are presenting grossly simplistic and/or unrealistic proposals – 'let's build a wall to keep out the Muslims!' And all three are standing behind "qualifications" that are utter BS upon examination. Fiorina and Trump are supposed aces in business, but Fiorina is considered THE paradigmatic 'horrible CEO' by virtually everyone in the NoCal tech sector, and Trump having had numerous business failures, only plays an infallible CEO on "reality TV". Carson's talking points are about as far removed from any knowledge base he might have as a surgeon as you can get: condemn Muslims, establish a 10% flat tax and balance the budget, unleash the dogs of war against Putin and the A-rabs, condemn Muslims, keep Gitmo open, free Kim Davis and ban gay marriage, bring God back into government, NO gun control, and condemn Muslims.

Pierce wrote:

[Trump] is the inevitable product of anyone who ever argued that our political institutions should be run "like a business..." of anyone who ever argued [the government can] balance its books "the way any American family would...." of the economy that was deregulated out of a well-cultivated wonder and awe directed at the various masters of the universe. Sooner or later, all of this misbegotten magical thinking was going to burp up a clown like Donald Trump. The politics of this country have dedicated themselves to the pursuit of hallucinations today.

What Pierce misses here is the element that has propelled the candidates offering nothing but magical thinking about easy 'tough-guy' fixes to national problems to now command over 52% support combined (Trump + Carson + Fiorina) in the GOP polls, where in previous presidential election cycles, candidates with similar positions either garnered only fringe support or had brief bursts of interest followed by a precipitous decline. Trump, Carson and Fiorina are all not only 'outsiders', but all three present their halluncinatory platitudes with a tone of hyper-confidence, unshakable rectitude, absolute commitment, and refusal to back down or compromise.

Thus, while Carson may come by this in part from the stereotypical 'God'-complex of "disproportionately hubristic SOB" surgeons, what is appealing to his supporters is simply the bombastic 'tude he shares with Donald and Carly. The poll respondants want a maximally-hubristic SOB, and any excuse for the candidate to act that way works as well as another.

As bad as Carson's sh!t may be, it's not drawing flies because anyone thinks he's a scientist, or even because the opinions of physicians typically receive great deference. Being an M.D. isn't doing wonders for Rand Paul (a whopping 2.3%, lowest among the 'main stage' candidates... even Huckabee is at 3.5%), nor did it do wonders for Bill Frist. As elected officials, they just can't talk like that.

Ted Cruz arguably rivals the poll leaders in bombast, but he comes off too canned and calculated... ironic in that he's undoubtedly MUCH more of a 'true believer' than Trump or Fiorina. They just sound more 'authentic' to the paranoid ear, apparently. And perhaps not being able to present himself as anything other than a politician hurts his numbers as well.... So let that be our label for Carson's background as perceived by the massive majority of his supporters: not 'scientist' or 'miracle-working surgeon'; just 'NOT a politician!'

@ Opus:

I know! I know!

Because...

dentists : brain surgeons
is analogous to
TV weather reporters : climatologists

...with the exception that the 'meteorologists' tend to be better-looking and more skilled at reading from teleprompters while standing in front of chroma-key drops than the dentists.

@ sadmar:

But dentists have nitrous oxide! Beats a chroma-key seven days a week. Twice on Sundays.

Opus:
http://pa.memeshare.net/imgs/1/871-2.jpg

Ted Cruz arguably rivals the poll leaders in bombast, but he comes off too canned and calculated… ironic in that he’s undoubtedly MUCH more of a ‘true believer’ than Trump or Fiorina. They just sound more ‘authentic’ to the paranoid ear, apparently.

Cruz came by his opportunistic theocratic grifting the easy way, by inheriting it from his dad. Carson is more authentic because he earned his opportunistic theocratic grifting, by rejecting the foundational tenets of his nominal religion (for all its sectarian whackyness, 7th-Day Adventism is inflexible on the issue of church / state separation); in the eyes of the fundamentalist voters, this makes him more religious.

But the bulk of the christianist Values Voters seem to be lining up behind Trump, because he has no discernible values and makes no attempt to present himself as christian.

@has (15): I think he got lonely, since we got bored and left. So now he’s here hoping to stir things up again. Since his comment added nothing to the discussion, I’m leaving him killfiled.

Wise choice. In the meantime, he's been banned by Jason Rosenhouse (as a bonus, after fraudulently stating that "I’m not allowed to post on Greg Laden’s articles" despite promptly oozing right over there afterward).

His desperate, wretched antics have been reminding me repeatedly of late of Fr. Thomas Reese's recent remark in NCR:*

"The third reason the pope’s message may get through is that Francis is an extraordinary communicator in both words and actions. He knows how to use simple language to communicate. He is not afraid to use graphic images when speaking. He avoids academic language and abstractions. He preaches the Gospel, not the catechism. He is more interested in how people live their faith than how they articulate it."

This ordering of things is obviously a straight-up recipe for an S.N. fistula in ano, Kaz Matsui disease, or something closely related.

* I'm out of links; h[]tp://ncronline.org/blogs/faith-and-justice/will-we-listen-pope-francis

When I see Ben Carson in action I think of these little aphorisms by Robert A. Heinlein.

"An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until he finally knows everything about nothing at all."

And…

"Expertise in one field does not lead to expertise in another, but experts often seem to think so. In fact the narrower their field of expertise the more likely they are to think this."

Regarding an earlier comment by he-who-shall-not-be-named: The whinging about consensus =/= science, the meteorologists, and even the laughable Oregon petition (!) are points-refuted-a-thousand-times, plus there are feeding regulations to consider, so I'm not even bothering. For once.

I'll handle it then. :-)

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/03/24/hostility-towards-a-scient…

@ Taylor #40.

As a pediatrician I don't know any other pediatrician in Tucson who prefers any "alternative"r schedule to the CDC schedule. I do know a lot of pediatricians (myself included) who are frustrated with parents requesting an "alternative" schedule because they've read some nonsense on the internet or been mislead by the lies spread by one despicable self-serving quack named Robert Sears, MD, FAAP.

lies spread by one despicable self-serving quack named Robert Sears,

C'mon Chris -- tell us how you really feel!

(And with every justification, I might add.)

You're probably being totally unfair, by the way. I imagine that Jay Gordon may have something to do with it, too.

Those are nice quotes by Heinlein (via Romantic Heretic) and are a reminder that surgeons aren't unique in needing an embarrassment-shield paper bag. I really should bring mine to every faculty meeting at my liberal arts college.

On a depressing note for Friday: if you do a search on amazon.com under "vaccination", the great majority of books that turn up in the first few pages of the search are antivax books.

They include this recently published tome by an apparent chiro-and-spouse team:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Vaccines-Wreck-Human-Immunity-ebook/dp/B013RY…

I mention this partly to note an unusual disclaimer I've never seen before. The authors "certify" that "at least one" statement in their book and/or on their websites is wrong. This seemingly is intended to immunize them against legal jeopardy.
The same disclaimer appears in another book by the female half of the team, "Melting Breast Lumps" (which explains that breast cancer is due to bad nutrition.)

I'm pretty confident that their disclaimer is correct.

To Orac:

Regarding your #51…

“For example, the scientific consensus supporting the theory of evolution, particularly common descent, is exceedingly strong. Based on multiple lines of converging evidence from many different disciplines, evolution one of the strongest of all scientific consensuses. Similarly, the consensus that natural selection is one major driving force behind much of evolution is nearly as strong. However, as the discussion devolves into more detailed areas, inevitably the consensus weakens. Eventually, subsidiary areas of a discipline are reached where the consensus is weak or where there is no consensus. Often these questions are at the frontiers of the science and, because there is not yet a consensus, the most heavily researched and hotly contested areas of the science. Denialists often attack science at the very edges of a field as a proxy for attacking the much more strongly supported core theory…to hide the fact that the core theory of evolution is supported by mountains of evidence and not in doubt by scientists.”

I believed in evolution for about 30 years. I started DIS-believing in evolution when I began reading about its DETAILS, from the evolutionists’ mouths.
In EACH and EVERY case, I found the details ludicrous or, at a minimum, unconvincing.
I’ll use your metaphor of the “mountains of evidence”:
Each and every time I found a problem with the cow chip of detail I was given, I was told
“You don’t like that cow chip? That’s OK. We’ve got other cow chips. Let me get you another from the mountain of manure we have back yonder.”

What a bunch of B.S.
Or C.S.

Perhaps another metaphor – “the Tree of Life”: Oh, you’ll have significant disagreements about the branches, but you all agree about the trunk. Except you don’t know, and don’t agree on, what the trunk IS (i.e. What the universal common is.).

(And as you probably know, the iconic “Tree of Life”, still probably appearing in school textbooks, was essentially chopped down by the evolutionists years ago. Too problematic. Now they’re talking “bushes”/multiple trunks.)
…………………
“Creationists like Casey Luskin, for instance, spit the term “Darwinist” at evolutionary biologists and frequently try to link evolution (and thus its defenders) Nazi-ism and the Holocaust, eugenics, social Darwinism, and all manner of evils. Above all, evolutionists must be atheists…”

Firstly, I’d say all atheists are evolutionists, but not all evolutionists are atheists.

Secondly, it’s quite true, I think, that a positive correlation exists between belief in evolution and many other things I find objectionable. As I’ve said before in these blogs, the increasing acceptance of evolution seems positively correlated with the increasing acceptance of, or increasing incidence of,
– abortion,
– contraception,
– population decline,
– fornication,
– divorce,
– extended or perpetual singlehood,
– out-of-wedlock births,
– homosexual lifestyle and gay marriage,
– sexually-transmitted diseases,
– pornography,
– drug addiction,
– depression and dysphoria,
– social isolation/disintegration of community,
– socialistic government programs
…….
“Richards apparently doeesn’t know the difference between scientific theory and scientific fact. That salt is sodium chloride is a fact. That light travels 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum is a measurement and a fact. That blood carries oxygen to our organs is a fact. Of course, no one argues about them; they are well-settled facts, not theories. They are trivially obvious. Arguing about them would be as trivial as arguing about what I had for breakfast this morning or whether the above paragraph by Richards represents the essence of scientific ignorance. A theory is a higher level construct supported by facts, experimentation, and evidence.”

So, at least you’d agree that evolution is not a scientific fact.
That's mildly encouraging.

@Taylor #40 and Chris Hickie #52:

"Open Journal of Pediatrics" is published by SCIRP. That outfit is commonly viewed as a predatory publisher, with obvious implications for the reliability of any data or conclusions published therein.

Narad@48: Given that it's now just outright spamming and not even pretending to engage, I'd say Mr Rosenhouse is fully justified in doing so. Much as we enjoy our robust chew toys here at Casa del Orac, this one is full of pus and slime mold, with the profoundly unpleasant aftertaste of quietly sobbing altar boys and trains that always run on time.

Chris Hickie@29:

In grad school I did teach an undergraduate physics lab for pre-med students. I was aghast at how often students just wanted to give a memorized answer to each write-up question (just like in the Brazil reference).

Ugh. I hope that was only the lingering after-effects of the high school rote mentality, and not how they intended to go on in their lives. Such mindless ontological exercises are for machines and daytime quiz show contestants, not those seeking to make life-and-death decisions.

has @59 -- I see what you did there.

has @60 -- What makes you think that they'll change once they're doing clinical work?

I'm happy to report that my more recent crops of pre-meds have been pretty good, in the main, mostly quite a bit more curious that the ones from several decades ago.

They're also mostly nicer people with more realistic and altruistic motives for being MDs than earlier cohorts. Doctorin' isn't perceived as a straight shot to riches like it used to be -- the people who want to do it are in it because it's intersting, useful, and fulfilling work, and are willing to do it despite the crushing student loan debts and the ever-decreasing autonomy that physicians typically put up with these days.

"Could you just please leave us alone," says the former member of the audience. "We get it you're lonely and you got no place to go, but that doesn't give you the right to pester us still!"
"Yeah", agrees another former spectator of the Nerve-rending See Noevo 'show'. "We're waiting for a bus to get us the hell away from you."
See Noevo waves its hand in dismissal "You left before I got to the good part!" it exclaims.
"I doubt that very much."
"Evolution!" shouts See Noevo. "And-"
"Not this again." sighs the former members of the audience in unison.
"Oh, you picked up on my subtle anti-evolution symbolism. Naming my monkeys Darwins, for example..."
"Real subtle indeed, not to mention your rants and your previous show and-"
"I'm worried particularly with," interrupts See Noevo, "how belief in evolution poisons the society and leads to population decrease and all sorts of nasty liberties and human rights!"
"So you're saying human population has decreased since Darwin?" asks the former member of the audience.
"It's so obvious it's ridiculous so-called scientists don't notice it, right!" says See Noevo, nodding.
"That's preposterous!"
"Indeed."
"No, sorry, you must have misunderstood me. I meant you're preposterous!"
"What?" See Noevo yelps, taken aback. "You're not one of them nasty feeble-minded and unskilled scientists are you?"

I saw Feynman speak in the mid 80’s at my college. It was amazing to see him take apart a problem. He took questions from us students (on anything) and showed what it meant to really understand something.

I never had a chance to see Feynman give a talk as he died long before I became a physicist (5 years old at the time of his death). Have read the lectures and seen videos of some of his talks he really did show what it meant to understand a topic.

In grad school I did teach an undergraduate physics lab for pre-med students. I was aghast at how often students just wanted to give a memorized answer to each write-up question (just like in the Brazil reference).

I had a similar experience while TAing undergraduate physics labs, where I demonstrated and marked for both physics and engineering students. My physics students wanted to know 'why' something was the way it was, but my engineering students wanted a formula or algorithm that they could memorise to get a correct answer. That plus a worrying lack of basic math skills (again the whole memorise, not understand problem) gives me pause when driving over a bridge or through a tunnel etc (Mostly kidding, but only mostly ^^)

Re: Garou (#4) and Janet(#19) How could they read it? Where else would you expect their heads to be?

palindrom@60:

has @60 — What makes you think that they’ll change once they’re doing clinical work?

Why, wishful thinking, of course! Seems to work for the rest of humanity. :)

stewartt1982@63:

My physics students wanted to know ‘why’ something was the way it was, but my engineering students wanted a formula or algorithm that they could memorise to get a correct answer.

My guess: engineers (like my old dad, for example) lean towards the conservative and enjoy their certainties - which is all you really require to make cool things, after all - whereas scientists thrive on the very opposite. I suppose it's understandable. You wreck the LHC, red faces all round, nobody dies. Your bridge falls down… that is major sh_t-fan interface.

It is a great shame though that this mindset should extend all the way back through education; the whole point of learning should be to make interesting mistakes in safety.

Have you...ever studied history? Like, mores, norms, in other times? Try the Regency era on for size.

Orac,

There is one part that you wrote (as have many others) that drives me up the wall: Creation Science. Creation and Science are polar opposites of each other by definition. In science we prove or disprove our hypothesis to try to develop our theory. Most science is eventually either disproved or found to be a smaller subset of a more complex problem. With Creation there is nothing to prove or disprove because Creation is the only and final (no matter who's creation) answer.

Therefore, no one can be called a creation scientist because creation defies science.

Um, I wrote no such thing. Nowhere in my post is the phrase "creation science." Nowhere. I searched—multiple times. So I am really puzzled why you would criticize me for something I didn't write in this post. The closest I came was "creationist pseudoscience," which I assume you approve of.

Orac,

I did not mean to be criticize you personally for creation science. I really meant it as a general comment about what is written and what the creationists call themselves.

Please take my apology for not making sure that it was taken as general comment and not a swipe at you. I am sure you and most commenters know the difference between science and creationism.

Again my apology.

Since climate change has already been brought up in the comments above, and since I had no luck posting this on a nearby blog, I’ll try posting it here.

More stupidity, dishonesty, or both?

Frankly, if See Noevo wants to complain about the concept of science, he should do so with a pen and paper.

@Taylor #40 and Chris Hickie #52:
“Open Journal of Pediatrics” is published by SCIRP. That outfit is commonly viewed as a predatory publisher, with obvious implications for the reliability of any data or conclusions published therein.

Open Journal of Pediatrics, in particular, is recognised as a useful pukefunnel for pipelining made-up crap straight to the more credulous journamalists. It's more expensive than stapling one's cyclostyled rantings to telephone poles, but it gets them wider attention, and the peer-review standards are equally low.

Joe Mangano has used OJP to promote several emissions of Fukushima-related fabrications --
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=28599
-- and brought OJP to the attention of Jeffrey Beall, for the scuzzy graping dishonesty of its editorial practices:
http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/04/29/fallout-from-questionable-article-in-…

But Taylor, writing in a style more associated with a Letter to Penthouse, just happens to have a copy of the paper, and just happens to have met two paediatricians who illustrated its claims of widespread autism-vaccine beliefs among paediatricians. And Taylor wonders whether other readers have had similar experiences.

And I am Marie of Romania.

Delphine @26

Have you…ever studied history? Like, mores, norms, in other times? Try the Regency era on for size.

I find most of the items on SNs list of the "evils" allegedly correlated with evolution to be good things.

Gray Falcon

Frankly, if See Noevo wants to complain about the concept of science, he should do so with a pen sharp stick and paper clay tablet.

FTFY

"I believed in evolution for about 30 years. I started DIS-believing in evolution when I began reading about its DETAILS,"

You've said you never studied it.

Dean, shirley you aren't expecting anything resembling truth, accuracy or a coherent argument from SNE? We haven't sen that yet...

This is reminds me of Science Mom (LMAO):

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/08/25/to-science-bloggers-livin…

This reminds me of Science Mom (LMAO):

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/08/25/to-science-bloggers-livin…

[Forgive me if the following seems a little out of focus - my recall problem is kicking me right in the Republican tattoos tonight - ORD.]
It occurs to me that one reason physicians overestimate their ability to evaluate science outside their own fields is that all physicians (at least the good ones) are empiricists, sometimes brilliant ones. I am thinking of such examples as the discovery of quinidine, or John Snow and the Broad Street pump, or even, but anyone who has been in or around the practice of medicine can think of more pedestrian examples. Off-label prescribing, rough and ready improvisations in the ER or the OR or out in the street, inspired guesswork - someone who has been successful at it gains a self-confidence that lets them think they are either smarter or more capable than they really are.

I believed in evolution for about 30 years. I started DIS-believing in evolution when I began reading about its DETAILS, from the evolutionists’ mouths.
In EACH and EVERY case, I found the details ludicrous or, at a minimum, unconvincing.

If S.N. hadn't run away, I'd almost be inclined to ask what business Bracovirus had being in the genomes of parasitic wasps, but then I remembered that, when pressed, he turns out to redefine "evolution" as short-term baramin change.

Then again, his whole recent fascination with "The Tree of Life" versus "The Bush of Life" suggests to me that Freudian psychoanalysis still has its place.

The author, Orac, does not explain or cite an example of scientific endeavor vis-a-vis applied scientific endeavor, the latter to which he refers to as what physicians really do. Clinical research and trials (cited by the author) and are still applied science, not basic science. Albert Einstein with his thought experiments performed the scientifically purist form of theoretical scientific endeavor which was subsequently proven by scientific observations in 1919 [Eddington] and 1923 in the area of General Relativity (Curveture of Space.) excellent doctors, such as Drs. Carson and Oz have worked tirelessly at applied science, taking the world as it is and using it to perform medical "miracles" such as the separation of conjoint twins or CABG procedures. They took the 'black box" of Nature as we know it and used it to do their thing. Newton, Toricelli, Lorentz and Einstein when to the core of Nature or the actual core of the Black Box and came up with, at the time, new hypotheses which were later PROVED by observation which, thus, made their hypotheses actually theories (scientific facts.)
An example of such core thinking comes in the form of stem cell transplantation. The use of genetically foreign material (donor) stem cells transfused to a host with a genetically different genome than the donor SHOULD NOT WORK, but it does and the work in discovering the why is a basic science endeavor. The Carson's and Oz's have not delved that deeply but have spent countless hours working with the minutiae of their works.
Small wonder why physicians (applied science) don't have the time (or money) to delve into highly theoretical areas (pure science.)

My former cardiologist in Alabama was a young earth creationist, which I discovered from his response to my comment that I was a grad student in evolutionary biology. I totally would've let that slide, except that when we were discussing antibiotic prophylaxis and the AHA's then-new recommendations against it for my condition, everything he tried to tell me about antibiotic resistance was completely wrong. Beginning with, "It's not really a big problem."

So, yeah. I bring up that story every single time my alma mater says Evolution shouldn't be a required course for all biology majors when the majority of them are pre-med.

Cathy @85 -- To be fair, I think most Young Earth Creationists (YECs) acknowledge that "micro-evolution" (or some such other term) does happen, but assert that evolution somehow can't produce new species ("forms", I think). If that's the case, there's no reason why a YEC would reject the development of antibiotic resistance among bacteria.

I fully agree that evolution should be a required course, but it sounds to me like you just happened to have a not-very-good cardiologist.

@Cathy: I think I would have run away as fast as you apparently did!

Happy Sunday Night, all! I was away for the weekend, doing many of the things SN frowns upon. I did wave in the Pope's general direction as we passed by Philly. And no, I have do no confessing of my so-called sins because 1)I don't believe they are sins and 2) I'm sure not repentant...already planning for the next trip! :)

To Cathy Newman #85:

“…I was a grad student in evolutionary biology…
So, yeah. I bring up that story every single time my alma mater says Evolution shouldn’t be a required course for all biology majors when the majority of them are pre-med.”

I see study in “evolutionary biology” as a double major, or a major minor.
It’s effectively a major in “Creative Writing” with a minor in “Biology”.

I think a regular “Creative Writing” curriculum would do well to include “Evolution” as a required course.
P.S.
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is not evolution.

The development of antibiotic resistance in microorganisms is a well-recognized form of microevolution.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/evoscales_03
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3317155/

#84 Stephen Garramone,

Interesting analysis. I agree with Orac's basic points on this, but yes, one can try to create a "higher resolution" picture of how we endeavor to understand and work with nature.

MD/Engineering training gives one some skills and techniques, and one can apply scientific rigor and scientific method towards some goal, and we can correctly call it applied science. As with discovering the best way to make a spear-point or an arrowhead out of rocks. (I have a lot of respect for those scraggly, lice-infested, "primitives" who created elegant and beautiful solutions to the mundane problems of their age.)

So, you would be correct that the educational credential alone is not really dispositive.

But you aren't making clear what the distinction is in your examples that qualifies something as "real" science. I understand the term "applied science" to indicate that there is a desired outcome of the program, for commercial or other purposes-- a lack of neutrality in developing the experimental design, as it were.

But you seem to be distinguishing between theoretical and experimental, or something along those lines, and I wouldn't agree with that characterization at all. It's the nature of the question that defines basic science, not the method for finding the answer.

Someone should do a study on the mental effects of long-term celibacy. It'd be interesting to know whether having an unpleasant personality is an effect or a cause and how sperm travels to the brain and poisons it.

See, antibiotic resistance in bacteria is evolution by definition: change in the frequency of alleles within a population over generations.

But... but... scientists and doctors both wear white coats and use big words! Doctors must be scientists!

Someone should do a study on the mental effects of long-term celibacy.

I presume in women as well as men?

M'OB: I doubt there'd be much detrimental effect in women, as it's much easier to conduct day-to-day life without having to do all the work that is necessary in a relationship, like cleaning the living space, waking up an hour early to put makeup on, learning to practice mindreading etc. Also, women don't tend to lash out violently like celibate men do.

To JGC #93:

“See, antibiotic resistance in bacteria is evolution by definition: change in the frequency of alleles within a population over generations.”

If that were all there was to “evolution”, than I (and the 45% of Americans who dis-believe in evolution) would believe in “evolution.”

But I don’t believe in evolution.

Also, women don’t tend to lash out violently like celibate men do.

Yah, those Sri Lankan monks are pretty violent.

^ Oops, I guess some of them actually are, had forgotten about that. Was thinking about a few I know personally.

Outside of the U.S. many people, including myself, are watching in disbelief and horror at the parade of Republican idiots presenting with delusions of grandeur for the presidency. Did someone put something in the drinking water in the U.S., or is it just the 'cool-aid' these days? These people are a danger to your society and the world. Look at the mess George Bush caused and the bill he ran up doing it. Anyone could tell he wasn't the brightest nail in pail, and the same goes for this Carson character and the rest of them. Of course, what they are really playing to is the right-wingnut religious base, which is how Bush came to power. Hell. He even promised Billy Graham and the ilk a prayer room in the White House where, according to leaks, they did anything but pray and mocked the very Christian base that put them in power.

@See Noevo: Um, I think you're missing the factor of mutation in evolution.

And what's up with all the OBGYNs in US politics?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olfFNq8b1_E

@ Lighthorse

Outside of the U.S. many people, including myself, are watching in disbelief and horror at the parade of Republican idiots presenting with delusions of grandeur for the presidency.

It was already like that last time around. Except that the new batch seems decided to outdo last candidates' performance.
The frelling Donald is not the worse, for FSM sake. For now.

It is as if there is some sort of competition between them (well, there is one, but I was under the impression it's not about who is saying the dumbest things or the most transparent lies). Every times I think I have heard it all, comes another candidate who pushes the boundaries of idiocy even deeper.

PGP @96

You've never been out in the Bigg Market in Newcastle upon Tyne on a Friday or Saturday I take it?

You'd be amazed how many fights are taking place between groups of women...One of my partner's colleagues nearly missed her wedding after getting her nose broken on her hen night.

Lighthorse @101

You forget that SNE is actually Humpty Dumpty...Us lesser mortals are obviously not in possession of the necessary understanding to keep up.

It was already like that last time around. Except that the new batch seems decided to outdo last candidates’ performance.

It's not a promising trend.

Republicans (43%) are more than twice as likely as Democrats (20%) to say that they could conceive of a situation in which they would support a military coup in the United States. Independents tend to say that they could not (38%) rather than could (29%) imagine supporting a coup

The sheer size of the country and diversity of the populace affords some measure of protection against that sort of thing, as does competition among the political and monied interests vying for power.

But it's not pretty. If forcing government shutdowns gets to be a routine action rather than a regular threat, it'll be a real problem.

The sheer size of the country and diversity of the populace affords some measure of protection against that sort of thing

That whole civilian control of the military thing doesn't hurt, either.

@shay --

Absolutely.

I guess I'm presuming that "coup" means that no longer applies, though. So I suppose it would really be a takeover by rogue militias, not the military.

Not that I actually think it's imminent. I just find the tone of the discourse a little alarming.

To ann #106:

“But it’s not pretty. If forcing government shutdowns gets to be a routine action rather than a regular threat, it’ll be a real problem.”

Government shutdowns! The horror. The horror.
Especially the 17% shutdowns, like we had in 2013.
Shiver.

I wouldn't be exaggerating much if I said
I think this government is at its best when it’s shut down.
I long for more of them.

The relative absence of shutdowns in recent years just goes to show that the so-called government gridlock is not all it’s claimed to be. Instead, the liberal big government behemoth keeps bopping along relatively unimpeded, even with a now Republican-controlled Congress.

The socialistic slither was not always so smooth.
I read that the government was shut down seven times under Ronald Reagan, with a Dem-controlled House under Tip O’Neill.
O’Neill also was party to five shutdowns under President Jimmah Cawhta, where the Dems also controlled the Senate.

And on the latter, most of the shutdowns apparently were over abortion policy.

Speaking of abortion, Cecile Richards made an interesting admission recently. You know the old line that abortion constitutes just a 3% sliver of Planned Parenthood’s "health care" services? Well, it depends how you measure.
Because Cecile offered that about 86% (eighty-six percent) of Planned Parenthood’s non-federal funding revenues come from abortion.

But then again, perhaps Cecile’s words were heavily and misleadingly edited?

@ Lighthorse and Helianthus:

I agree.

Recently one of the most frothing of them, Carly Fiorina, carried on about abortion and the "selling of baby body parts" by Planned Parenthood. A reasonable journalist interviewed her, questioning her misinformation but she persisted in her folly. I wondered how suited is she for high office ( including high corporate office- which she's already botched) if she can't see through an anti-abortion propaganda film?

To Denice Walter #110:

Some follow-up Carly Fiorina’s comments in the last presidential debate about the abortion video…

“Carly Fiorina appears to have conflated the video of the fetus with the story being told by O’Donnell at the same time. It’s fair to say Fiorina’s description was incorrect to the degree it treated both incidents as relating to one fetus; however, both the brain harvesting incident and the video of a fully formed, kicking fetus are real.”

Be forewarned - Graphic video content:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/29/graphic-content-carl…

Carly lied? What a non surprise.

I'm happy to see that someone here doesn't think a $2 billion dollar shutdown (cost of the last one, and that's just direct costs) is a big deal.

see Media Matters- Chuck Todd interviews Carly Fiorina
video/ transcript

Remember, this is the same See Noevo who once asked, in all seriousness, "Are you saying NO ONE apart from Jesus Christ has authority to say definitively what Christianity is, and even authority to decide what proper Christian behavior is?"

In other words, he considers himself above his own Messiah.

Jen Gunter has been posting rather a lot of info at her blog about the great steaming pile of mendacity that is those videos. Short version: the famous fetus video does not depict an induced abortion, but that's just one aspect of this whole fractally-wrong sack of fetid dingo's kidneys.

@115: Well, he also asserted he'd solved the halting problem and that he had obtained an "elite" ivy league education - personal integrity and honesty are things not known to him.

To shay #113:

The last government shutdown – 16 days in 2013 – cost $2 billion?

First of all, I’d like to see your breakdown of the $2 billion.

Secondly and more importantly, even if the $2 billion cost were valid, that sounds like a true bargain – about $125 million per day - when the regular, open-for-business government costs over $10 billion per day.

madder -- I think the creators of the video understand their audience is not going to quibble that the actual fetal footage was not shot at Planned Parenthood but came from other sources.

My source is Reuters. I'm glad you believe that paying people not to show up for work is a bargain.

Standard & Poor, on the other hand, estimated the 2014 shutdown cost to the American economy at $24 billion.

I was very hesitant to post to this thread out of fear that I'd just be guaranteeing its hijack by SN.

Drat.

To Gray Falcon #115:

“In other words, [See Noevo] considers himself above his own Messiah.”

Old Gray One, are you trying to get in a competition with dean as to who can post the most falsehoods?

But ann...you ought to feel so honored that he followed you, a mere woman, to this thread. (Ugh. Just typing that made my brain hurt.)

There isn't a Republican running that I would even consider voting for. I'm not thrilled with the Democrats, totally, either, but they are 100% better than the alternative. I just hope the House and Senate get more Democrats in them, too, to break the Republican stranglehold they like to use on the country to force us to bow to their whims.

@shay--

Yes, you're certainly right about the audience for whom this kind of thing is red meat; for them, the truth is mere nitpicking. But I think the video was also intended to reach the people who don't pay that much attention, and to "shame" pro-choice people in general. That's why it's important to point out the truth.

I read that the government was shut down seven times under Ronald Reagan, with a Dem-controlled House under Tip O’Neill.

" During Gerald Ford's presidency, one funding gap occurred. Under the Carter administrations, funding gaps caused 5 partial shutdowns that affected only the departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare. These lasted from 8 to 18 days and the primary issue of dispute was federal funding for abortion. During the Reagan administration, there were funding gaps with technical shutdowns lasting less than 48 hours or over weekends while spending measures were negotiated rendering them to be of negligible effect. A funding gap during the George H. W. Bush administration also caused a weekend shutdown, resolved late the following Monday." (Wikipedia).

Well, he also asserted he’d solved the halting problem and that he had obtained an “elite” ivy league education – personal integrity and honesty are things not known to him.

He has an MBA from an Ivy League school. But "elite" is an overstatement, and "education" suggests an academic rather than professional degree.

So that characterization is misleading, at best.

"He has an MBA from an Ivy League school. "

He's never provided proof of that that I've seen.

"Old Gray One, are you trying to get in a competition with dean as to who can post the most falsehoods?"

I will simply point out that twice, once at Ethan's, once at Greg's (at Greg's after you lied and said you were no longer allowed to post there) you became upset because I cited you "nothing should be studied unless there is an immediate application" comment: you insisted you'd never said it and wanted a specific statement of where and when it was done. I supplied them. You never returned to the comments.
Being accused by you of telling a lie does not mean a lie has been told: it means that you don't like the comment.

Secondly and more importantly, even if the $2 billion cost were valid, that sounds like a true bargain – about $125 million per day – when the regular, open-for-business government costs over $10 billion per day.

^^Of course, even if you had so many business degrees from Stanford, Harvard and Tuck that you'd lost count of them, you still wouldn't be much of an advertisement for any MBA program as long as you made comments like that.

That programs and services come to a halt has a huge impact on numerous sectors of the economy, not excluding finance and healthcare. Jobs go uncreated. And revenues are lost.

It's not like they're just taking that $10 billion and setting fire to it.

The $2 billion, on the other hand, is all loss.

fear that I’d just be guaranteeing its hijack by SN.

This is where I would link to that Bloom County strip which ends with the words "Leaving a trail of slime whereever he goes...", but I can't find an on-line copy.

Oh jeez, are we (tinw) really doing this again?

The subject of government shutdowns was first broached here, I think, by ann.

I have a scenario and some questions for you all:

The government will soon be embroiled in another budget fight, and will likely throw up its collective hands, and pass another kick the can down the road Continuing Resolution. But the CR will be based on a projected full year budget of approximately $4 Trillion.

Now, if the GOP provides a “clean” CR, funding everything Obama wants, EXCEPT for Planned Parenthood's $500 million (0.0125% of total gov't budget), should Obama veto the CR and essentially cause a shutdown of the government?

If “yes”, why? On what principle?

Because depriving a few million under-served and poor women of a variety of necessary health care services is just a plain stupid and politically motivated idea....

Any reasonable President would veto such an attempt.

Because defunding an agency that provides a valuable service to an underserved population, has not violated any state or Federal law, and for no reason other than to placate its enemies, sets a dangerous precedent.

A shutdown would happen before the possibility of veto arose, not after. So civics fail.

But to answer the question on the proposed terms:

The electorate supports continued federal funding for Planned Parenthood by a margin of two to one, according to polls.

Seven out of ten are opposed to a shutdown over the issue. And that includes 59% of Republicans, as well as 91% of Democrats.

So the answer is:

On the principle that rewarding an attempt by 28 members of congress to use blackmail in order to ignore the will of the American people would mean the end of democracy.

Be forewarned – Graphic video content

Wait, you're actually dumb enough to think that people follow your Breitbump link spam?

On consideration, it occurs to me that the part about the veto is just some unrealistic fantasy about making it Obama's fault.

The shutdown would happen because they couldn't pass a CR, due to the aforementioned blackmail attempt by 28 members of congress. And the GOP would be faulted for it.

I mean, it just happened two years ago. You don't have to be a political scientist to figure it out.

@ Narad:

Heh. My thoughts exactly.

Anne Dachel at Age of Autism was horrified by this exchange between Dr. Carson and a radio host:

Radio Host Bill Cunningham: "what is the association if any of inoculations on one hand and autism on the other?"

Pediatric neurosurgeon and Republican Presidential Candidate Ben Carson: "There is no relationship between vaccines and autism, but what has happened is that we've learned a lot more about autism, and the spectrum has increased tremendously, our ability to diagnosis it has increased tremendously, and therefore there are those who think that because we're diagnosing it more, we're creating it with vaccines.

"Because we live in a society where almost everybody gets vaccines, they make that false correlation. There've been multitudinous scientific studies that have demonstrated that there's no correlation....

"I guarantee you, if you stop all the vaccinations, you'll still have the same number of people being diagnosed with autism. "

This is where I would link to that Bloom County strip which ends with the words “Leaving a trail of slime whereever he goes…”, but I can’t find an on-line copy.

This one?

@Narad --

Nice.

And very befitting wrt someone who claims conservatism is about taking responsibility while daydreaming about forcing his personal agenda on the nation against its will at the cost of billions of dollars and then blaming it on Obama.

haven't been following, but regarding video from the usual slimy sources:

http://wonkette.com/594388/uh-oh-lying-liar-carly-fiorinas-planned-pare…

via Mike the Mad Biologist

To Lawrence #133:

“Because depriving a few million under-served and poor women of a variety of necessary health care services is just a plain stupid and politically motivated idea…. Any reasonable President would veto such an attempt.”

Are they being deprived by the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”)?

Can’t they find appropriate health care at the many clinics run by other than Planned Parenthood?
In about sixty seconds I googled “alternatives to planned parenthood clinics” and found this website http://getyourcare.org/

Looks like a lot of non-PP clinics. (And probably some of them even offer mammograms, unlike PP.)

What would be “a plain stupid and politically motivated idea” would be Obama shutting the government down for a politically/ethically-charged 0.0125% of the gov’t budget.

To shay #134:

“Because defunding an agency …”

Agency?
When I hear “agency”, particularly in this context, I think government agency.

But Planned Parenthood is a PRIVATE organization.
If a supposedly private organization requires federal funding to survive, it should go out of business.
About 40% of Planned Parenthood’s funding is from the federal government.
Accordingly, PP should either go out of business or reduce its operations such that it can survive without the fed funding.

And if the government is dead set on spending (and it always is) the $500 million that used to go to PP, maybe it could open some government-run health care facilities similar to the VA hospitals/clinics.

What actually “sets a dangerous precedent” is continuing federal funding of PP.

To ann #135:

“The electorate supports continued federal funding for Planned Parenthood by a margin of two to one, according to polls.”

And USA Today says “An even bigger majority opposes shutting down the government as a tactic to deny funds for the group.”

So about 70% would be OK with shutting the remaining 99.9875% of the government down
if the 0.0125% is denied to PP.

How about some out-of-the-box thinking?
What if that 0.0125% ($500 million) went instead to other non-PP clinics, or to the creation of non-abortion-providing government-run clinics?

Couldn't that work, maybe?

“So the answer is: On the principle that rewarding an attempt by 28 members of congress to use blackmail in order to ignore the will of the American people would mean the end of democracy.”

I guess the other 500 or so members of Congress don’t understand
- the spirit of the law (e.g. the law forbidding federal funding for abortion), nor
- the elementary principle of the fungibility of money.

On the latter, about how much of abortion promoter and overseer Cecile Richardson’s $520K salary comes from federal dollars? I think PP’s revenue/funding breaks down about as follows:
$500M federal funding
$645M abortion revenues (86% of non-fed funding revenue, per Cecile)
$105M non-abortion revenues
--------
$1,025M total funding/revenue

Boy, those abortion services are quite a revenue generator!

Anyway, so, maybe about 40% of the salary of abortion promoter and overseer Cecile Richardson comes from federal funding (i.e. taxpayer dollars).

All hail democracy!

To ann #137:

“On consideration, it occurs to me that the part about the veto is just some unrealistic fantasy about making it Obama’s fault. The shutdown would happen because they couldn’t pass a CR, due to the aforementioned blackmail attempt by 28 members of congress. And the GOP would be faulted for it.”

I’ll rephrase:
If a “clean” CR is presented to Congress, funding everything Obama and the Dems want, EXCEPT for Planned Parenthood’s $500 million (0.0125% of total gov’t budget), should Congress not pass the CR and essentially cause a shutdown of the government? If “yes”, why? On what principle?

Doesn’t matter. Your answer would be the same.

I'm not ashamed that my answer would still be that:

Since none of that money is spent on abortions and the 28 members of congress withholding it would therefore not be saving a single life or achieving a single goddamn thing other than engaging in a senseless act of terrorism that harmed hundreds of millions of people and wreaked havoc with the economy out of sheer spite and an inability to take responsibility for the failure of their arguments, I'm against it.

"It’s fair to say Fiorina’s description was incorrect to the degree it treated both incidents as relating to one fetus; however, both the brain harvesting incident and the video of a fully formed, kicking fetus are real.”

Of course, the brain harvesting incident depends entirely on the word of one woman who didn't work there and the video is not really of an abortion, has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood, probably wasn't shot in the last fifteen years, and Carly Fiorina hadn't seen it when she described having done so.

Other than that, she was totally right.

And it's very morally virtuous of you to root for shutting down the government without saving a single life simply in order to compromise the freedom of people on Medicaid to get their healthcare where they choose.

The question remains:

Could you be any stupider?

I've never made a request like this before. But please ban that hateful insane troll before I live to regret doxing him.

Humpty Dumpty rides again.

haven’t been following, but regarding video from the usual slimy sources:

http://wonkette.com/594388/uh-oh-lying-liar-carly-fiorinas-planned-pare…

via Mike the Mad Biologist

Yep. Even Daleiden's not claiming it was filmed at Planned Parenthood. He's actually barely pretending it's not a spontaneously aborted pregnancy -- aka "a miscarriage."

I mean, I haven't seen a single doctor who says it's anything else. Daleiden says it's an abortion, but he doesn't push the point:

Then it gets really interesting! Ya see, Daleiden admits his videos use NOT ABORTED AT PLANNED PARENTHOOD imagery — like the photo of a stillborn fetus he stole from a grieving mother to imply it had been aborted and sold for scrap at Planned Parenthood — because really, what’s the difference?

DALEIDEN: [It’s] used to illustrate exactly the kind of late second-trimester baby, fetus, that we’re talking about in these cases of organ harvesting.

CUOMO: But if you’re talking about organ harvesting and abortions, and how terrible they are, why would you use a stillborn fetus, which is not a function of an abortion?

DALEIDEN: Do you think that the fetuses are different somehow? It’s the same gestational age, it’s the same baby, whether it’s born dead or alive, whether its organs are harvested or not. That’s the same kind of infant.

Not that he'd have any idea whether it was, in fact, an abortion. It's stock footage from the same place that supplied the stillborn pictures he also used to "illustrate" what he was saying without specifying or disclosing it. It appears to show a miscarriage. And it probably does.

But Carly Fiorina was right!!!

Just because.

CUOMO: But if you’re talking about organ harvesting and abortions, and how terrible they are, why would you use a stillborn fetus, which is not a function of an abortion?

Incidentally, for those too stupid to figure it out for themselves, the true answer to that question is:

"Because there are no born-alive, kicking, fully formed fetuses with beating hearts being slaughtered for their organs by abortionists. The whole thing's a great big lie we like to tell to people who are so stupid that they'll believe anything. That's why!"

But what the hell. Shut the government down anyway.

To ann #147:

“And it’s very morally virtuous of you to root for shutting down the government without saving a single life simply in order to compromise the freedom of people ON MEDICAID to get their healthcare where they choose.”

I don’t understand the first half of that, but regarding the latter part:

So, the people going to Planned Parenthood for other than abortions are using Medicaid (or maybe something through Obamacare, or some other insurance), but STILL require ADDITIONAL federal subsidies to get the care from PP?

Now THAT would be “stupider.”

Most of the federal funding is Medicaid reimbursement, you idiot.

Also, I'd like to change my answer to:

On the principle that the state is supposed to prove that a crime occurred and someone is guilty of it before rushing off to punish anyone (let alone millions of poor women who are entirely innocent) simply because a bunch of ill-informed fools saw a video of a woman miscarrying fifteen years ago and got upset about it.

To ann #148:

“But please ban that hateful insane troll before I live to regret doxing him.”

Wow! That sounded like a threat, and I don’t even know what “doxing” is!

I had to look it up: Per Urban Dictionary – “Doxing is a technique of tracing someone or gather information about an individual using sources on the internet. Its name is derived from “Documents” or “Docx”. Doxing method is based purely on the ability of the HACKER to recognize valuable information about his TARGET and use this information to his benefit. It is also based around the idea that, “The more you know about your target, the easier it will be to FIND HIS OR HER FLAWS.”

My goodness, annie!
It’s almost like you’re trying to “dig up dirt” on a person because you can’t handle the person’s arguments. Like ops research to fuel ad hominems.

Nah. That just couldn't be.

It most certainly couldn't.

I mean look at the arguments. Also, I didn't actually "dig up dirt" on you. You outed yourself on the first thread you posted to here, because you're an idiot. It took one G--gle search.

It's the hateful misogyny I don't feel compelled to tolerate. But although you've obviously got problems and are fairly plainly seriously handicapped by them, I'm not in a position to really know what they are. So out of caritas, I'm reluctant to dox you.

Incidentally:

75% of that funding is Medicaid reimbursements, which are subject to the Hyde Amendment.

The other 25% is Title X money, none of which funds abortion to begin with.

The only thing defunding would accomplish would be to force states to raise taxes in order to meet their obligations. Because there would be just as many women on Medicaid as there were before.

Possibly even more, depending on how that shutdown thing goes.

Planned Parenthood would continue providing abortions as usual. There's no reason why that part of the business would be the least bit affected. You'd just be getting rid of the other stuff.

Ban, please.

That he gets off on this is repellently obvious.

Probably including getting roughed up by girls.

To ann #151:

“Because there are no born-alive, kicking, fully formed fetuses with beating hearts being slaughtered for their organs by abortionists. The whole thing’s a great big lie…”

Perhaps no born-alive, kicking, fully formed fetuses with beating hearts were slaughtered for their organs by abortionists.
However, at a minimum, that Holly O’Donnell has said otherwise.
If Holly lied, she should be appropriately punished, to the full extent of the law. You’d be OK with some kind of court process with discovery and cross-examination and testifying under oath – of O’Donnell AND the person or people she alleges were doing the live harvest – wouldn’t you?
I would.

But you’re OK with harvesting the organs, as long as the abortionists slaughter the kicking, fully formed fetuses first.
After all, you’d never stop a woman, even if you could, from having any abortion she wanted.

If a supposedly private organization requires federal funding to survive, it should go out of business.

You don't say. Remember when you ran away from this one?

And very befitting wrt someone who claims conservatism is about taking responsibility while daydreaming about forcing his personal agenda on the nation his imaginary daughter to carry a rapist's baby to term against its her will at the cost of billions of dollars and then blaming it on Obama.

FTFY.

@See- That was a direct quote. I can link you to it if you want. Next time, when you post, ask yourself, "Am I committing blasphemy when I write this?"

If a supposedly private organization requires federal funding to survive, it should go out of business.

Do you have any idea how many large companies would be out of business without federal funding?

http://www.cheatsheet.com/business/high-on-the-hog-the-top-8-corporate-…

You don’t say. Remember when you ran away from this one?

That's nothing. He couldn't have made a living if he wasn't willing to see taxpayer dollars turned into private profits.

Which is also nothing, relative to the fact that if someone shows him a video that's not of anything he cares about, then proposes a political action that won't address any of his concerns, he's so dangerously stupid that he'll support them while they overthrow the government.

@#157 --

I'd be okay with any legal proceeding you care to name, as long as it met all the criteria for one.

But hauling people into court because one person made unsupported allegations is not how we roll here in the USA.

Especially since there's plenty of evidence that the Center for Medical Progress is lying and several state-level investigations have already failed to turn up jacksquat in the way of evidence that Planned Parenthood broke the law.

Under those circumstances, suggesting that a trial is warranted is basically just you fantasizing about making your irresponsible failures of good judgment somebody else's fault again.

Agency? When I hear “agency”, particularly in this context, I think government agency.

Your history of making up your own definitions is already well known here.

If a supposedly private organization requires federal funding to survive, it should go out of business

I’ll pass that along to GE, Boeing, DuPont and Verizon.

Tell us, oh MBA (alleged), how cost-effective is it to build, staff and equip new facilities to replace perfectly-functional facilities that already exist?

I've spent the last two hours listening to Ella Watson-Stryker speak, which makes reading SN's selfishness, arrogance and dishonesty all the more nauseating.

Ann -- I know. When the Attorney General of Louisiana, FCOL, couldn't find any grounds to charge Planned Parenthood, you know someone's house was built on sand.

To ann #155:

“The only thing defunding would accomplish would be to force states to raise taxes in order to meet their obligations. Because there would be just as many women on Medicaid as there were before.”

I don’t see why any additional taxes would need to be raised.
No change to Medicaid monies, just can’t use them at Planned Parenthood.
I’d bet those Medicaid patients would find alternative, non-PP clinics quickly (http://getyourcare.org/).

“The other 25% is Title X money, none of which funds abortion to begin with.”

Title X covers “family planning” services. Of course, it has the fine print footnote “By statute, Title X funds are not used to pay for abortions.”
But I imagine the funds could pay for just about everything surrounding and enabling the abortion (e.g. office space, utilities, instruments, training of personnel, disposal of deceased).

“Planned Parenthood would continue providing abortions as usual.”
I suppose so. And at about $2,000 per.
Not cheap, but probably less than you’d pay a hit man.

No change to Medicaid monies, just can’t use them at Planned Parenthood.

Why not?

I don’t see why any additional taxes would need to be raised.
No change to Medicaid monies, just can’t use them at Planned Parenthood.
I’d bet those Medicaid patients would find alternative, non-PP clinics quickly

Again, not exactly an advertisement for that Ivy League MBA program.

Yes, actually, cutting $375 million in Medicaid funding would be a change to Medicaid funding.

And no, existing clinics could not easily perform millions of services for patients they're not staffed, equipped, or prepared to accommodate.

So don't make a habit out of betting large sums.

Title X covers “family planning” services. Of course, it has the fine print footnote “By statute, Title X funds are not used to pay for abortions.”

That's because none of that money is used to pay for abortions.

But I imagine the funds could pay for just about everything surrounding and enabling the abortion (e.g. office space, utilities, instruments, training of personnel, disposal of deceased).

No. They would be spent on family planning services, as outlined by Title X.

That would just (once again) be you imagining a way out of your responsibility to be minimally informed.

“Planned Parenthood would continue providing abortions as usual.”
I suppose so. And at about $2,000 per.
Not cheap, but probably less than you’d pay a hit man.

Except that the cost is $390 to $1090 or less, the part about how you'd be doing nothing but mindlessly getting your hate on without preventing a single abortion is correct.

Thank you for conceding that defunding Planned Parenthood would just be an idiotic, pointless act of destruction that harmed innocent people for no good reason.

I have no idea how much it costs to take out a hit on someone. But I doubt there's a standard rate.

To shay #163:

Me: “If a supposedly private organization requires federal funding to survive, it should go out of business.”

You: “I’ll pass that along to GE, Boeing, DuPont and Verizon.”

No need to. There’s a substantive difference between the government purchasing something from an organization and the government funding an organization. As I explained on another blog recently:
“You apparently can’t see the differences between
1) Doing something yourself (e.g. building fighter jets with your own engineers and manufacturing plants; making massive mounds of paper for your endless laws and regulations with your own forests and paper mills; fashioning paper clips with your own mines and steel mills.), where, if you fail, you go out of business.

2) Paying other people, who have greater expertise and efficiency, to build fighter jets or make paper or fashion paper clips, etc., where, if the other people fail, they go out of business, and you look for other more reliable suppliers.

3) The above do-it-yourself operation or one-to-one/arms-length deal is replaced by a third-party (i.e. government) blob of other people’s money (i.e. taxpayers’ taxes) to keep the one party in business (e.g. Planned Parenthood) and the second party happy (e.g. the patients getting freebies).

You’re a 3) kind of guy.”

SN does not understand the difference between government subsidies and government purchases.

What alleged Ivy League school awarded him/her an alleged business degree?

SN said "But I imagine the funds could pay for just about everything surrounding and enabling the abortion (e.g. office space, utilities, instruments, training of personnel, disposal of deceased)."

In case anyone wondered, SN has just demonstrated beyond doubt the fact that it knows NOTHING of governmental accounting. All overhead costs are allocated to the activity when federal funds are involved. If 1% of an organizations activities are abortions then 1% of the rent, 1% of the electrical bill, 1% of the receptionist's salary, 1% of the director's salary, and so on ad infinitum is paid with non-federal funds.

The above is an overview suitable for those, like SN, with limited literacy skills.

More details here regarding basic rules: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2014-title2-vol1/CFR-2014-title2-v…, and

here, for the rules regarding medical costs: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2011-title45-vol1/CFR-2011-title45…

It is not unusual for a cost allocation plan between a funding agency and a fund recipient to be so comprehensive that the random number generator used to determine which records are audited is specified and mathematically validated to ensure that patient records are truly randomly selected.

To ann #167:

“Yes, actually, cutting $375 million in Medicaid funding would be a change to Medicaid funding.”

You don’t need an MBA to know that no change in Medicaid funding would be required. The $375 million in Medicaid funding (and $125 million Title X funding) would still be expended, just not at PP facilities.
.....................
“And no, existing clinics could not easily perform millions of services for patients they’re not staffed, equipped, or prepared to accommodate.”

No, I think the 13,000 other clinics could probably pick up the load from the 600 PP clinics:
http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/17/planned-parenthood-loses-government-f…

And we could do some more out-of-the-box thinking.
Get wild! Even the craziest ideas are fair game.
For example:
-PP could stop doing abortions and so keep those many needy Medicaid patients and stay in business.
-The abortion-less PP might transform the former abortion facilities/resources into something it doesn’t currently have – like mammogram facilities.
-More and more people could refrain from sex outside of marriage and so reduce the incidence of STDs and PP’s need to treat them.
-What else?
.....................
Me: "But I imagine the funds could pay for just about everything surrounding and enabling the abortion (e.g. office space, utilities, instruments, training of personnel, disposal of deceased)."

You: “No. They would be spent on family planning services, as outlined by Title X.”

Oh, absolutely. And money’s not fungible.
..................
You: “Planned Parenthood would continue providing abortions as usual.”
Me: “I suppose so. And at about $2,000 per. Not cheap, but probably less than you’d pay a hit man.”
You: “Except that the cost [per PP abortion] is $390 to $1090 or less …”

Perhaps the $390-$1090 is the PP advertised “price”, but not the actual related cost or funding. My $2,000 was just some quick math: ~$645 million in PP abortion revenues divided by ~300,000 abortions.
..............
“Thank you for conceding that defunding Planned Parenthood would just be an idiotic, pointless act of destruction that harmed innocent people for no good reason.”

I’d normally say “You’re welcome”, but I won’t, because I made no such concession.
.....................
“I have no idea how much it costs to take out a hit on someone. But I doubt there’s a standard rate.”

Really? I thought you might have done some research on that recently.
Whatever the standard rate is, they might charge you more for me. Because I can shoot back. Go NRA!

To Opus #170:

“In case anyone wondered, SN has just demonstrated beyond doubt the fact that it knows NOTHING of governmental accounting. All overhead costs are allocated to the…”

That may be true.
It also may be true that I’ve forgotten more accounting than you’ll ever know, as my bachelors was in Accounting and in my early days I worked in accounting, even as a CPA in the health care/health care reimbursement field.

But a couple things I do remember:
-Figures don’t lie but liars can figure.
-Accounting, especially governmental accounting, is never wrong. Example: “GAO has designated Medicare as a high-risk program, in part because the program's size and complexity make it vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse… More broadly, in fiscal year 2013, CMS estimated that improper payments—some of which may be fraudulent—were almost $50 billion.” http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-712T

Why did SN stop working in accounting?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMOmB1q8W4Y

Next time, when you post, ask yourself, “Am I committing blasphemy revealing too much when I write this?”

For example,

However, at a minimum, that Holly O’Donnell has said otherwise.
If Holly lied, she should be appropriately punished, to the full extent of the law.

What immediately stands out about this utterance is that it literally makes no sense: there are no criminal penalties whatever for lying in random propaganda videos.

My immediate reaction was "Oh, G-d, he's got the hots for her." But this didn't really come together until I ran across the retracted RH Reality Check item.

You’d be OK with some kind of court process with discovery and cross-examination and testifying under oath – of O’Donnell AND the person or people she alleges were doing the live harvest – wouldn’t you?
I would.

I suspect that there's no shortage whatever of '70s Eurotrash films that S.N. could choose from here as exemplars of his fantasy, but like everything else that might present a stress to the Shіt Noggin, it's not going to happen.

It also may be true that I’ve forgotten more accounting than you’ll ever know, as my bachelors was in Accounting and in my early days I worked in accounting, even as a CPA in the health care/health care reimbursement field.

Heh. The failed-interview blob-speech is a nice touch.

My poor father was perplexed for some time over the fact that there was, in fact, no way in which I could "minor in accounting." This isn't a slight against accountants per se – I know a very colorful one, against whom I have an unbroken arm-wrestling record (JP has documentary evidence) – but the already stupid babbling about, e.g., "fine tuning" of the cosmological constant has just taken a death blow.

Now, it's not entirely clear whether the CPA part came before or after S.N.'s shelling out for a terminal "Ivy League"* master's degree for the sake of résumé padding,** but whatever. Given S.N.'s frequent issues with a Cheneyeqsue*** cheese steak**** in his pants, the obvious target seems to be Wharton.

Perhaps he could regale the commentariat with reminiscences of the high points of the curriculum. After all, the "'No Fly'/'Do Not Call' list” has already been assigned to the wearing of delicious, fantasy ball gags.

* It should be kept in mind that the term refers to college sports.
** I've TA'd folks doing the same thing in computer science. Based on the graduates of the program that I've run into, that whole asymptotic-notation thing might as well have come with a guaranteed expiration date.
*** And I do mean -esque.
**** Whip, of course.

^ The boldface should have begun and ended with "after"; in retrospect, the omission of the '/' in </b> might be an improvement.

Shay and Ann, it has long been my view (based on direct experience of people holding it) that MBA stands for "Master of Bugger All" and acts as a pretty good marker for those who do not understand and cannot evaluate evidence and rely instead on assertion (see also pretty much any management "qualification" - I read a lot of assignments a colleague submitted as part of a "management degree" and they were utter rubbish, yet this person was awarded a good degree).

SN: "the elementary principle of the fungibility of money"

I think I see why you are not in accounting any more: You ran out of petards. . .

No, I think the 13,000 other clinics could probably pick up the load from the 600 PP clinics:

That MBA was truly worthless.

And we could do some more out-of-the-box thinking.

I don't think it's possible to be more of an inside-the-box thinker than you are. You literally don't appear to have a single non-prefab thought., or any capacity for original thinking whatsoever. You just swallow whatever bucket of sh*t Breitburp ladles out.

Get wild! Even the craziest ideas are fair game.
For example:
– PP could stop doing abortions and so keep those many needy Medicaid patients and stay in business.
– The abortion-less PP might transform the former abortion facilities/resources into something it doesn’t currently have – like mammogram facilities.

^^That, for example. Diagnostic imaging is routinely done at either specialty clinics or hospitals. By everybody. Every time you repeat it as if it were meaningful, you prove your inability to think at even the level of basic reality-based observation.

– More and more people could refrain from sex outside of marriage and so reduce the incidence of STDs and PP’s need to treat them.
– What else?

Thank you for conceding that none of this is actually about the fantasy criminal fetal organ trade and that all of it is about your wish to control the sex lives of other people.

Really? I thought you might have done some research on that recently.
Whatever the standard rate is, they might charge you more for me. Because I can shoot back. Go NRA!

Don't flatter yourself, you loser.

I want you to live. I just don't want to be exposed to your hateful, destructive stupidity.

Owing to which, I'm done here.

" More and more people could refrain from sex outside of marriage"

I think that probably sums it up entirely: he wants to dictate how others should behave because of his belief in his own moral superiority.

See, do you keep gun in your hand with your finger on the trigger, pointed at the nearest person at all times? Do you always stand with your back to a wall? Do you never sleep? If the answer to any of those is "no", then you may not always be able to shoot back.

Had a spare wasteable coffee break again, luckily the dishonest creep has slunk back after its ignoble retreat. Apologies about the thread jumping, but the source material keeps smearing itself into multiple places.

"We don't want your bigotry and idiotic opinioning here." says the former member of the audience, looking hopefully for the bus, but in vain.
"Oh, silly you", says See Noevo, "it was all an act - I'm not at all like you describe!"
"So that whole debacle was an act?"
"Indeed." See Noevo nods."I'm one of the few really decent guys, actually." See Noevo says, picking off imaginary dust from his collar.

(incredulous silence)

"Really?" says the former audience member. "So what you really think of gays?"
"Poor misguided souls, I'm afraid, but I have nothing personally against-"
"Misguided how?"
"Off the narrow road, and towards what I can only imagine is eternal damnation."
"'Decent', sure..."
"You're trying to trick me!" See Noevo screams suddenly. "I can spot a trap! You're no doubt some sort of commie atheist!"
"You're off the rails once again, I voted republican."
"You lie! No real republican would question my values! I bet you even dislike Trump!"
"I do, but that's nothing to do with the party..."
"Bah!" See Noevo exclaims. "Lies, all lies! Like evolution!"
"So how much of your 'act' wasn't just you spewing nonsense?"
"You're just ignorant!" See Noevo shouts, pointing at the people on the bus stop. "I used to be like you, believing in evolution, but I studied! I did! And got cured!"
"Studied? You?"
"Indeed. With my accounting degree from a super-uber highest top-tier ivy league school I easily deciphered their lies. The more I read about it the more obvious the idiocy of it became." See Noevo says, smugly.
"Care to give an example?"
"Darwinists think sunburn turns into eyes!" See Noevo literally jumps up as it shouts this. It does a little victory jig. "See how silly?"
"Yes. Yes I do see." say the people on the bus stop, in unison.

(still silence)

"What?" asks See Noevo, "No thanks for enlightening you foolish ingrates?"
"No." answer the spectators. "Can we just wait for the bus in peace?"
"You're evading! You're scared to engage in real debate! I win!"
"What debate?" asks the former member of the audience. "You're just spewing your f-"
"Any debate!" See Noevo insists.
"You're not debating, you're just shouting opinions in public."
"And there it is! I win! You couldn't make one argument without lying about me!"

(crickets)

"And all you'd do anyways is use words incorrectly, like say agency when I know you obviously meant government agencies alone, because you obviously lack my super-high advanced specialist ivy league not-to-mention so very expensive it must have been excellent and you lot could never afford such an education, uh, education. So you can't win. Zero for twenty already!" See raves, spittle flying every which way.

(crickets)

"And you socialists are ruining the country, not just this debate! Funding those serial killers at Planned Parenthood, resisting my accurate Christian values like stoning people I don't like for saying stuff I disagree with, or hating me when I celebrate nine-year-old pregnancy successs stories! You just mindlessly repeat what you've read somewhere and fawn that hidious muslim race-traitor spawn Bee Hussein Obama!" See Noevo is frothing at the mouth.

(crickets)

"I hope the government would shut down! Then you'd see how effective the Gee Ough Pee really is and how they're much better than any so-called democrats! Then you'd see!"

(crickets)

"Be awed by my reasoning!" See Noevo screams, out of breath, eyes nearly bulging out of their sockets. "I'm better than all of you!"

(crickets)

"You do realize none of us cares about your spew of verbal effluence?" says the former member of the audience, finally.

Except ignore the part about the thread jumping. That's what I get for opening multiple tabs and using a tiny tablet.

...and gaist wins an Internet!

– More and more people could refrain from sex outside of marriage and so reduce the incidence of STDs and PP’s need to treat them.

If you think married people don't need PP's services, including STD treatments and abortions, you are for some surprise.

"to refrain from sex outside marriage"? Good luck with that*. It didn't work that well for King David. He got his comeuppance, but the damage was done. If even god's chosen fall to the temptation...

* I strongly disapprove of cheating people and other relationship betrayals. That being said, syphilis is a nasty disease**, so as a microbiologist I'm all for limiting its spread by all means available. Dito for other STDs.
** it's also a baby killer, leading to fetus malformations or even miscarriage. I would have thought the pro-life crowd would be all for stopping it.

Murmur -- I tend to agree. I got my MBA from the University of Illinois for two reasons -- one, I figured two years in an academic setting would allow sufficient decompression time for someone fresh out of the military and leery about plunging into the work force right away (I still have colleagues gripe that I'm a little too USMC), and two, someone else paid for it.

The US has this lovely program called the GI Bill. I'm sure SN disapproves; it's a free ride to a college degree for those who qualify. I mean, practically welfare.

Helianthus, married people shouldn't need birth control. Women are supposed to stay home and have lots and lots and lots of babies, regardless of the couple's ability to provide the necessary emotional and financial support.

And those affordable cancer screenings for low-income women? Why, since the ACA was passed, ob/gyn's have been falling all over themselves to open offices in the poorer parts of town.

@ shay

married people shouldn’t need birth control.

Oh, I know.

I just wanted to inject the little fact that transmission of STDs and unwanted pregnancies is not just the province of these godless, live-in-the-sin liberal people in extended singlehood, both historically and nowadays.

A decade ago, an article in Le Monde described the results of the thesis of a French/Moroccan student. It was a social study of the profile of French prostitutes' customers.
Contrary to the cliché of the young celibate man, the typical customer is married, in his 30-50, and have children. Quite often, he is on the road for business reasons.
All things being equals, I doubt it's much different in the US.

Bizarre:

http://www.newsflow24.com/meet-ben-carsons-medical-coalition-dv96

Whatever the standard rate is, they might charge you more for me. Because I can shoot back. Go NRA!

It's not often that one sees such a superfluous announcement of a whiny, golfing tough guy's having a three-inch barrel in his pants.

Bizarre:
What language is that?

Helianthus, it's not just SN -- I've yet to see an anti-PP.anti-abortion/anti-contraception rant that doesn't boil down to they're sinners and must suffer the consequences.

Go NRA

It never ceases to amaze me the number of civilians who think that a handgun and eight hours of instruction turns someone into Dead-eye Dick, the Two-Gun Terror of the Plains.

Bizarre:

What language is that?

It appears to be a novel approach to avoiding plagiarism. They registrant is nominally in Hungary, but I'm not sure how seriously to take "Janos Nagy."

I justify this post for several reasons:

-This blog article and at least the initial comments were about Ben Carson and doctors not being scientists.
-The Surgeon General of the United States, Vivek Murthy MD, seems to believe gun control is an issue his agency should have control over or at least have a say in. (One particular tweet of his:“Tired of politicians playing politics w/guns, putting lives at risk b/c they’re scared of [National Rifle Association]. Guns are a health care issue.”
-Dr. Ben Carson has dipped his toe into one of the hot stories of the day – the Oregon school mass murderer who singled out Christians for his slaughter – by holding an “I am a Christian” sign.
-Regarding the hot “health” topic of gun control, I have three comments “awaiting moderation” over on Greg Laden’s Blog for “What YOU can do about gun violence”. The first two have been in his review loop for several hours. All my posts on Laden’s blogs are put into that ‘pending’ mode, but at least in the last month they usually get posted. (A while back, for a month or two none of my posts got through. Lately though, it appeared my banning had ended.). So, in case my three comments don’t get posted on Laden’s blog, I’ll post them here:

1)
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
To Jesse #16:
“You want to protect yourself? Fine, use bo (it can be had around the house if you own a mop) or a machete. Carry a knife. I happen to like sais. The targeting is easier, and at close range it’s faster, and you can’t accidentally kill yourself with them. (Well, I suppose you could, but it would be hard to do).”

That might be fine when the attacker is using a bo or a machete or a knife or a sais. But what if the attacker is shooting?

OR what if he looks better with his sword than you are with yours?

I’d side with Indy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YyBtMxZgQs
…………..
2)
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
The NRO article on the “Australian Model”:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425021/australia-gun-control-obam…
…………………….
I might *briefly* consider giving up my guns,
as soon as the criminals, crazies and the evil no longer have guns.
But then, we’d still have this government.

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century
criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
………………
3)
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

I read today that the Congressional Research Service reported that the number of privately owned firearms in America went from 192 million in 1994 to 310 million in 2009, and that homicides involving firearms dropped from 6.6 per 100,000 in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2000 to 3.2 per 100,000 in 2011.

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that trolls gotta troll.

Sn, everyone has comments go to moderation at Greg's when they repeatedly post links. You've been told that before, so implying you are being singled out is simply mote of your bs.

Your nro article should be blocked - it's a load of horse crap. But again, partly for your course.

Shay: yes, an actual review of data shows that, unless you include movies, a brave gun owner stopping a crime is vainishigly rare. It's amusing that sn has referred to the community college campus in Oregon as a "gun free zone" when, in fact, several students who had weapons on them have said they were on campus but we're smart enough to know that had they shown up the swat team would have had no way to know they weren't helping the shooter.

"“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”"

sn, like so many other tea baggers, you can't even get an attribution correct. That is not Jefferson's quote, he was repeating something from Cesare Beccaria's "Essay on Crimes and Punishments.". The greater context where Jefferson used it was not, as you would imply, that restrictions against guns are not constitutional, it was a discussion of how such laws would be enforced.

Since firearms-related homicides/suicides are one of the leading causes of death in Americans aged 15-24, why wouldn't the surgeon general be concerned?

(6,500 young Americans died from gunshot wounds in 2000, per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “WISQARS: Fatal Injury Data, 2010).

So, in case my three comments don’t get posted on Laden’s blog, I’ll post them here

Yah, you've done this before. It's pathetic display of your juvenile need for instant gratification in addition to being an utterly moronic attempt at further threadjacking, since the people you're replying to aren't even here.

^ "a pathetic display"

'Tis truly heartwarming to see SN, our itinerant monk, wander through in search of his posterior, which hath been handed unto him so many times that it is worn to a veritable nubbin.

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick! See Noevo just go get laid already but do human kind a favour and wear a condom.

"Tell Jesse he obviously haven't thought things through, I mean, what if they come at you with guns!" See Noevo tells, to the gathered crowd.
"What?"
"Who's Jesse?" asks the crowd.
"They're trying to silence me! Me! So you tell him Indiana Jones was right shooting the swordman!" See Noevo is hyperventilating.
"He's finally lost it..."
"Is that some code?"
"It's speaking in tongues" says the crowd.
"How about you calm down, and shut up for a change." says a former member of the audience, patting See Noevo on the shoulder. "I'm sure they pick up your monke-"
"Don't touch me! I'm armed!" See shrieks, and moves to pull a revolver from the front of his pants, but the bulky gun gets stuck on his belt buckle.
Everybody moves away from the fumbling See, who finally gets the gun free and waves it about. "Don't be shocked, I have to" he reasons, "I'm an important man, friend to the Pope and all that, I have to be prepared to defend myself against atheists..."
"Just put the gun down, okay..." says someone, as calmly as possible.
"They no doubt have put hits on me, those godless bastards. Hits! On me! Can you imagine, a world without See Noevo in it! I can't, so it must be really awful!"
"Easy there, just point it away, all right, nobody's going to hurt you..."
"You lie! You're all criminals or crazies or evil or government employees! You're dangerous!" See hisses.
"You're the one waving the gun around!" someone points out.
"We don't even know any Jesse!" points another.

See Noevo@196:

I justify this post for several reasons:

p.s. You forgot:

– I am a giant sucking rectal wound in major need of attention.

Hey, a least you're on a medical blog – I guess that's close enough.

From GOP's Case Against Planned Parenthood Collapses: Jason Chaffetz Admits He Uncovered No Wrongdoing:

“Did I look at the finances and have a hearing specifically as to the revenue portion and how they spend? Yes. Was there any wrongdoing? I didn’t find any,” Huffington Post’s Jennifery Bendery reports the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman admitted during yet another hearing on Thursday.

(Not that it will make any difference. Carly Fiorina saw an imaginary video that was kinda similar to one of who-knows-what that somebody later posted on the internet, after all. That's what really counts.)

All Doctor's I know of, Ben Carson included, believe in that species change over time and that natural selection can play a role in that. As such, they understand that germs develop resistance to antibiotics. What millions of doctors reject, is the idea of a species evolving into another species. Academic scientists are afraid to admit their doubts because they will lose their jobs.

Darwin's theory is simply not supported by the fossil record

@Roger C D'Aquin:

Darwin’s theory is simply not supported by the fossil record

Homo Naledi would seem to disprove you.

Darwin’s theory is simply not supported by the fossil record

Ah, the "missing link" fallacy.
Whenever paleontologists find a new fossil to insert into the chain, creationists wail about the gaps between this new fossil and its two neighbors. A variation on Zeno' paradox.

What millions of doctors reject, is the idea of a species evolving into another species.

And yet, the London underground has its own species of mosquito.

@Helianthus:

And yet, the London underground has its own species of mosquito.

Ruddy great big things they are too.

All Doctor’s I know of, Ben Carson included, believe in that species change over time and that natural selection can play a role in that. As such, they understand that germs develop resistance to antibiotics. What millions of doctors reject, is the idea of a species evolving into another species. Academic scientists are afraid to admit their doubts because they will lose their jobs.

Darwin’s theory is simply not supported by the fossil record

First of all, not only is the theory of evolution quite well-supported by the fossil record, it has proved to have significant predictive power for the fossil record, e.g. Tiktaalik -- so on that score you are simply wrong.

Second of all, you do not seem to realize all the implications of what probably seems to you like a minor admission. You acknowledge that species can change over time. But, you say, there is some limit. Let us refer to this as "the species boundary". Species can change over time, but only up to the species boundary; when they encounter the species boundary, the process of change... what? Does it just stop dead? Does it rebound, as if off a wall? Do individuals sometimes in fact cross over that species boundary, only to find that without exception they have paid the ultimate price for their transgression-by-birth, inevitably being sterile or mateless or hopelessly unfit for the process of living?

The reason I have to ask is that actual scientific evidence doesn't support the idea that such "species boundaries" actually exist -- much less the mechanisms to enforce them that would have to exist. If you acknowledge that species can change over time, congratulations, you are right on at least that much. If you want to assert, however, that these "species boundaries" exist which keep species from evolving into other species, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for their existence.

I recall Orson Scott Card commenting that if every living thing had died rignt on top of its parents and been perfectly fossilized, there would still be people saying "but where are the transitional forms?".

Indeed, O Feldspathic One, there is a whole set of debates to be had around the concept of speciation, its limitations and validity - just get a group of taxonomists in a room with some palaeontologists.

On a more prosaic level I can remember doing a botanical survey of an Irish island, crawling around fields with a hand lens, a copy of Clapham, Tutin and Warburg's excursion flora and a monograph on the Dactylorhiza orchids of western Ireland and finding Dactylorhiza specimens showing features belonging to 4 apparently separate species. Little sods those orchids!

BTW, the Nation of Islam–led CDC protest is only eight days away!

Carson, a neurosurgeon who waffled on creationism and vaccines, the alleged educated neurosurgeon, thinks he's a aqualified, presidential candidate ? What a sick statement about the best country in the world USA ? This is a joke, right?
The country that went to the moon six times has people running for the presidency who doubt the utility of vaccines and believe in delusional concepts of creationism, and think they it can deal with the Middel East? We will be eaten alive. We get what we deserve... The end has never been closer. A senator of immigrant parents who's elected to the senate and has the worst senate voting record of any of his peers. He should be turned out of office. He said it doesn't matter because the president will veto anything. He should not be a US Senator. And president? What is it he does not get? Why does the public not think this is relevant?

You also need to remember that science was not a requirement for medical school pre-1977 (the start of MCAT's). Even after that, it took a while before medical schools started considering science as integral to a medical education. Carson got in with a degree in 1970's psychology.... Even today, most science folks will state that psychology is not a science (including myself and I was going to be one until I took 4 classes and realized it was 99% BS).

In clinical research, the road to hell is paved with good intentions

oracknows — Mon, 26 Aug 2013 07:50:00 +0000

In clinical research, the road to hell is paved with good intentions

I've written a lot about Stanislaw Burzynski and what I consider to be his unethical use and abuse of institutional review boards and clinical trials. Before that, I used to regularly write about Mark and David Geier and their unethical use and abuse of IRBs and clinical trials. In both cases, I lamented how they could use their own IRBs stacked with their own cronies to rubberstamp scientifically and ethically dubious studies. Mark and David Geier got away with it for years. Stanislaw Burzynski got away with it for decades and, apparently, is still getting away with it to some extent. (His IRB is chaired by an old Baylor crony of his from the 1970s, and he has been cited for numerous problems with his IRBs.) I'd like to contrast how their unethical research, in which the Geiers subjected autistic children to chemical castration with Lupron to decrease testosterone levels and allegedly make mercury easier to chelate (to them mercury was bound by testosterone, something that doesn't happen under physiological conditions but requires organic solvents) and Stanislaw Burzynski administered an unproven cancer chemotherapy (antineoplastons) to hundreds of patients over the years and charged them for it, compares to a recent case in the news.

The case has been mentioned by PZ Myers. It happened at t involves the same sort of tumors that Stanislaw Burzynski claims to be able to cure, namely brain tumors. It happened at the University of California Davis (UC Davis) and involved two very prominent neurosurgeons there, a former head of the department Dr. J. Paul Muizelaar and Dr. Rudolph J. Schrot, who were found to have violated university's faculty code of conduct with their experimental work. When you read this part of the story, you'll shiver. At least, I did:

The procedure in question involved three patients described in documents only as Patients 1, 2 and 3 – two middle-aged women and one man who had a common enemy: glioblastoma.
For anyone unlucky enough to be diagnosed with the highly malignant brain tumor, the prognosis is dismal. Median survival is less than 15 months.

Muizelaar and Schrot called their novel approach "probiotic intracranial therapy," or the introduction of live bowel bacteria, Enterobacter aerogenes, directly into their patients' brains or bone flaps. The doctors theorized that an infection might stimulate the patients' immune systems and prolong their lives.

The first patient lived about 5 1/2 weeks. The second survived another year, an outcome that buoyed the doctors and seemed to bolster their theory, they said.

The institutional trouble began in March 2011, when a newly diagnosed third patient developed sepsis, became unresponsive and died two weeks after being deliberately infected. The university's first internal investigation soon followed.

As a cancer scientist and surgeon myself, my first thought here was: Who on earth thought this was a good idea? Let me put it this way. What Muizelaar and Schrot were doing was intentionally causing bacterial meningitis. In cancer patients! You know, patients whose immune systems are often compromised to begin with! To be honest, on the surface, Burzynski's antineoplastons have more biological plausibility than this. Thirty years ago, I could say that they were at least drugs and therefore might have had some activity against cancer.

The concept that inducing an inflammatory reaction might help "prime" the immune system to counter cancer is not a new idea. In general, however, it's not a good idea to use bacteria that could cause potentially life-threatening infections. The CNS is generally viewed to be an immune "privileged" site, meaning that the immune system doesn't function the same way there as it does in the rest of the body. Immune privilege was first observed when it was noted that tissue grafts that would be rapidly rejected if grafted to the skin or other sites would survive a long time when grafted into the CNS. The original thought was that this meant the CNS was somehow cut off from the immune system by the blood-brain barrier, its lack of draining lymphatics, and the apparent inability of cells known as microglia to function as immune cells. However, recently this concept has been reevaluated in light of new data that show that the CNS is neither isolated nor passive in its interactions with the immune system, but that doesn't change the observation that the immune system functions somewhat differently in the CNS. In any case, gut bacteria are in general not expected to be in the CNS, and bacterial meningitis can be really nasty. It's also not that difficult to induce meningitis. Remember the outbreak of fungal meningitis from contaminated steroids injections last year?

Apparently, Muizelaar based his idea on an apparent observation in among neurosurgeons that postoperative infection was associated with better survival in patients with glioblastoma. However, the data supporting this particular association is, to put it kindly, mighty thin, a retrospective study. What Muizelaar apparently did was to place an enteric (gut) bacteria, Enterobacter aerogenes, into the open wound and bone flap after surgery in order to produce a wound infection. E. aerogenes tends not to be pathogenic, except in patients who have compromised immunity, such as the elderly, infants, and, yes, cancer patients.

It's instructive to read some of the PDFs included with the article, such as the report of the UC Davis investigation of Dr. Muizelaar and of Dr. Schrot. It reveals a bit of the complexity of doing investigations like this and, more importantly, why Drs. Muizelaar and Schrot went too far and how they gamed the system. He started with a consultation to the Bioethics Consultation Committee, which, after a lengthy debate, concludes that the practice "may be seen as consistent with the customs and practices of medicine." However, the committee thought that the procedure required more oversight than it could provide, and suggested that the protocol should be reviewed by the IRB. So Dr. Schrot submitted a full application to the IRB in which he admitted that further preclinical work was needed but argued that in this patient the benefit/risk ratio was favorable. On what evidence? Who knows? I don't have the IRB application. Dr. Schrot also discussed the procedure with the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA and was told that "animal studies will be necessary prior to entering into the clinic with your proposed therapy." In addition, he was told that "these animal studies must show not only safety, but also establish a reasonable proof of concept in order for this investigational therapy to be introduced into patients." In other words, the FDA told them to do the preliminary work first.

In the meantime, Drs. Muizelaar and Schrot submitted an NIH grant application for the animal studies. It was not well received by the study section, which characterized it as having "low translational impact with seriously flawed methodology and statistical analysis." The summary statement concluded, "There is absolutely no feasibility evidence in support of this project" and comments that it has a "low translational impact since it is very unlikely that any IRB or the FDA will allow the introduction of Enterobacter aerogenes directly into patients."

Here's where things get interesting. The FDA had told Dr. Muizelaar that he and Dr. Schrot could proceed with their "innovative treatment" if the bacteria were available locally. No doubt this was because the FDA is a federal agency and doesn't have jurisdiction if everything happens within one state. (It's the same issue with Stanislaw Burzynski, actually.) If it was not available locally and had to go through the investigational new drug (IND) process, then more animal work was required, as the CBER stated. It turns out that a graduate student had some Enterobacter aerogenes from ATCC, and that's what was used on these patients.

What follows then is wrangling between Dr. Muizelaar and the university. Dr. Muizelaar went to the Chief Medical Officer Al Siefkin and told him that the IRB had told Dr. Schot that the proposed procedure wouldn't be considered research. In any case, both gave the impression that they were "shopping" for approval, and, although probably not lying, being a bit selective in what they told various parties involved in the approval process. As the news report notes:

Among the university's findings, detailed in reports, email correspondence, interviews and regulatory documents:

A former top administrator said he believed the doctors went "shopping for approval" and were "doing all they could to get around" the formal approval process. A physician who served on the research oversight board said the surgeons seemed to be "gaming" the system to bypass any institutional rejection or skepticism of their plans.

Muizelaar and Schrot did not complete a study on rats before they began treating the three human patients, despite an FDA directive in 2008 that "animal studies will be necessary prior to entering into the clinic with your proposed therapy," according to an email to Schrot from an FDA official. When asked by a compliance investigator why animal trials were not done first, Schrot allegedly responded that such testing would take "10 years … his entire career," one internal review states. The investigator found Schrot's "eagerness to proceed" to be concerning and his actions "reckless."

One university investigator questioned whether the doctors ever would have been able to get federal approval of their concept. According to one report, Schrot's grant application to the National Institutes of Health to study the bacterial treatment was rejected, with NIH commenting in 2009 that "(t)his is a very poorly developed scientific proposal that lacks feasibility." The NIH thought it unlikely that university or federal regulators would allow the introduction of live bacteria directly into patients, the report states.

Ultimately, the procedures were done on three patients. Particularly disturbing is the consent forms that were drawn up, which basically said that there was no evidence that this would work but that the surgeons wanted to do it anyway. While technically that is accurate, one has to wonder how much the patients might have felt coercion and how free they felt to say no. After all, they all had horrible diseases with a median survival of less than 15 months expected. As this editorial points out, patients also weren't told everything:

Despite the absence of any FDA approval or IRB review, the neurosurgeons proposed their treatment, to Terri Bradley. The consent form she and her daughter signed appears straightforward. It made clear that the infection the surgeons were deliberately introducing into Bradley's brain "may be totally ineffective." It then laid out the many serious risks, including "further neurological deterioration … paralysis, coma or death." The women were told the procedure did not have FDA approval.
Faced with the alternatives presented and the near certainty of death, not surprisingly, the Bradleys signed.

Here's what the Bradleys weren't told. They were not told that the FDA hadn't just failed to approve the procedure their physicians were pushing, federal officials had told the doctors specifically not to perform the procedure until they had conducted animal studies. The Bradleys were not told that the doctors had bypassed the university's IRB process or that the IRB had previously told the doctors not to perform their "experimental" procedures on human patients.

In other words, the "informed consent" provided was every bit as much misinformed consent as what antivaccinationists advocate.

The end result was one patient living less than six weeks, another surviving two weeks, and the second patient, the "success story" living over a year. However, the family of that patient, Terri Bradley, didn't view it as a "success." Indeed, Mrs. Bradley required at least one operation to "clean out" her infected head wound and directly administer antibiotics. Indeed, her daughters report that the infected wound had begun to smell bad. True, this patient did apparently have some tumor shrinkage. As I read about the tumor shrinkage, thoughts of Stanislaw Burzynski came to mind, as did the observation that three patients are too few to say anything and that one sees longer-than-expected survival in cancer patients with homeopathy (i.e., treatment with nothing but water). In any case, despite the doctors' thinking that Ms. Bradley had benefited, she did not:

"Patient 2 did not experience significant functional benefit," investigators concluded, "and upon her death … recurrences of the tumors and chronic infection of the brain were identified."

Shockingly, even after this almost certainly treatment-related death, Drs. Muizelaar and Schrott convened an ad hoc ethics committee and presented them with a proposal to proceed with five additional patients. According to this report, the ad hoc committee concurred with the proposal and recommended continuing clinical activities with the understanding that they would develop an IRB-approved protocol as soon as possible.

In the end, this case demonstrates just how much oversight is needed on human subjects research and just how disturbing what "brave maverick doctors" like Stanislaw Burzynski, Mark Geier, and, yes, Drs. Muizelaar and Schrot do can be. The problem, of course, is that the line between research and trying something "innovative" (or truly innovative without the scare quotes) is not always clear, nor is the line between research and making a "last ditch" effort to save a patient's life. It also speaks to the inherent conflict between the desire of a doctor to save lives and the need to do rigorous research in order to determine whether what the doctor does actually does save lives. As a physician, it's very easy to develop a tunnel vision and believe that your latest idea is something that will work, that will save lives, if only those unimaginative clods would see what you see. Also, in the service of the goal of saving lives, it becomes progressively easier to justify cutting ethical corners, as Drs. Muizelaar and Schrot appear to have done. It's very easy to start to view the system designed to protect human subjects as obstacles to be overcome rather than the patients' advocate.

You know how they say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions? I can't think of a better example in medicine than a case like this.

oracknows Mon, 08/26/2013 - 03:50

Tags

cancer

Clinical trials

Enterobacter aerogenes

University of California Davis

cancer

Clinical trials

Lights, genes, action

ddobbs — Wed, 26 May 2010 11:27:37 +0000

Lights, genes, action

Two or three years ago, Emory neurologistÂ Helen Mayberg, whose experiments using deep-brain stimulation for depression I check in on now and then,Â told me that Karl Deisseroth's work using light to fiddle with brain circuits had huge potential both as a replacement for DBS and for much else. As Lizzie Buchen ably reports in Nature, that potential is now being realized.

This is a very slick tool that seems almost too far out to actually work. It lets you use light to turn brain circuits on and off at will, and with great precision. It's not simple to construct. But once constructed, it works simply. And because it can isolate tightly defined circuits and turn them on and off, it has huge potential both as a research tool (Hm; what doesÂ this circuit do?) and as what amounts to a reversible ablation tool. DBS is reversible â a huge asset if things go awry, and a great way to test for placebo effect â but you can't target it as precisely as you can optogenetics and it inflicts a greater intrusion into skull and brain.ï»¿

Using a hybrid of genetics, virology and optics, the techniques involved enable researchers to instantaneously activate or silence specific groups of neurons within circuits with a precision that electrophysiology and other standard methods do not allow. Systems neuroscientists have longed for such an advance, which allows them their first real opportunity to pick apart the labyrinthine jumble of cell types in a circuit and test what each one does. "It has revolutionized my approach to science," says Antonello Bonci, a neurophysiologist at the UCSF Ernest Gallo Clinic and Research Center in Emeryville who began using the technique in 2007. "It can clarify unequivocally the role of specific classes of cells, and solve controversies that have been going on for many, many years." Among the clarifications sought is the precise function of 'place' cells, hippocampal neurons that fire only when an animal finds itself in a specific location; another is the function of complex activity patterns observed when an animal is paying attention or executing a movement.ï»¿

"God's gift to neurophysiologists," MIT's Robert Desimone calls it. You can get the rest at Nature, where they've recently made all news items, and news features like this one, open access.

ddobbs Wed, 05/26/2010 - 07:27

Tags

Brains and minds

Genetics & genomics (incl behav genetics)

medicine

deep brain stimulation

Neurosurgical patients get closer to God

neurophilosophy — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:58:15 +0000

Neurosurgical patients get closer to God

REMOVAL of specific parts of the brain can induce increases in a personality trait which predisposes people to spirituality, according to a new clinical study by Italian researchers. The new research, published earlier this month in the journal Neuron, provides evidence that some brain structures are associated with spiritual thinking and feelings, and hints at individual differences that might make some people more prone than others to spirituality.

Cosimo Urgesi of the University of Udine and his colleagues combined pre- and post-surgical personality assessments with advanced lesion mapping techniques to correlate changes in self-transcendence with brain structures in a total of 88 patients with brain tumours of different types and severity. 24 of the patients were being treated for high-grade glioma, which arises from astrocytes and is malignant; 24 had low-grade, or benign glioma; 20 were having a second operation to treat highly aggressive recurrent glioma; and 20 had meningioma, which arises in the membranes enveloping the brain but does not affect the brain itself.

Within each of these four groups, approximately half of the patients had tumours located toward the front of the brain in the frontal and temporal lobes, while in the rest the tumours were further back, around the junction between the occipital, temporal and parietal lobes. During formal interviews conducted prior to the surgery, they asked each of the patients about aspects of their religion-related behaviour and experiences. Some of the questions were designed to measure three different aspects of self-transcendency: creative self-forgetfulness, or the ability to "lose one's self" in the moment; transpersonal identification, or the extent to which one feels connected to other people and to the natural world; and spiritual acceptance, or belief in a supernatural power.

Comparing the interview results of the four groups of patients together, the researchers found that more patients with posterior than anterior lesions judged themselves to be religious, and that these patients also obtained higher self-transcendence scores. When the results of each group were analysed separately, it was found that those patients with the most aggressive of the four types of tumour in posterior regions - high-grade gliomas and recurrent gliomas - were the most likely to describe themselves as religious. The recurrent glioma patients, all of whom had undergone surgery several months earlier, reported mystical experiences (such as experiencing the presence of God, or having visions during prayer) more frequently than those with anterior tumours, and also had the highest self-transcendence scores prior to being operated on the second time.

This relationship between the location of the tumour and the patients' reports of changes in spirituality was also corroborated after the surgery. Following removal of the tumours, significant increases in self-transcendence scores were observed in those patients who had tumours removed from the posterior regions of the brain, but not from those whose tumours were further towards the front of the brain. Specifically, this increase was associated with surgical removal of two distinct regions of the brain: the left inferior parietal lobule and the right angular gyrus (above).

By contrast, a small reduction in self-transcendence was observed in those patients who had tumours removed from anterior regions of the brain. No change was observed in the meningioma patients, but they served as a useful control group. Meningiomas can be surgically removed through a hole in the skull (craniotomy) while leaving the brain tissue intact. The fact that none of these patients experienced significant changes in self-transcendence following the surgery rules out the possibility that the changes observed in the other patients occurred as a result of the craniotomies performed on them.

The increased self-transcendence in patients with posterior tumours was observed just several days after removal of the cancerous tissue. This suggests that the changes reported by the patients occured because the structures which were removed had a specific role, and not because the brain slowly adapts to their removal. Furthermore, the observation that the group of patients with recurrent gliomas in posterior regions had high self-transcendence scores prior to having their tumours a second time suggests that the changes are not only rapid but also long-lasting.

It is well documented that posterior regions of the parietal lobe are involved in various aspects of bodily self-awareness, including the perception of one's body in relation to its surroundings. Damage to the left posterior parietal cortex, for example, causes deficits in awareness of the spatial relationships between different body parts; lesions in the junction of the temporal and parietal lobes in the right hemisphere are associated with delusions in which patients deny owning their limbs; and damage to the left and right temporo-parietal junction can cause the illusion that the self is located within the extrapersonal space surrounding the body and out-of-body experiences, respectively.

The authors describe their findings within this context. Ablation of tissue near the temporo-parietal junction, especially in the inferior parietal lobe, causes a reduced sense of bodily awareness, so that the boundary between self and non-self become blurred. This detachment from the body increases the patients' propensity for mystical experiences. Supporting this conclusion, earlier work has shown that the mystical experiences of Tibetan Buddhist monks and Carmelite nuns are associated with altered parietal lobe activity.

One major drawback of the study is that it is based entirely on the patients' own reports of self-transcendence. The results would have been more rigorous if based on an objective measure of the phenomenon. Furthermore, self-transcendence is a vague concept which means different things to different people. The authors' definition of it is therefore somewhat narrow, as there is more to this trait than the three aspects measured by them. It is also unlikely that a trait such as self-transcendence can be localized to just two regions of the brain. Likewise, spirituality is an extremely complex phenomenon of which self-transcendence is but one aspect.

Nevertheless, the finding that the feeling of self-transcendence can be modulated by specific brain lesions provides some insights into the biological roots of spirituality, and Urgesi is now planning to investigate whether changes in self-transcendence can be induced by perturbing parietal lobe activity with an experimental technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Related:

Urgesi, C., et al. (2010). The Spiritual Brain: Selective Cortical Lesions Modulate Human Self-Transcendence. Neuron 65: 309-319. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.01.026.

Beauregard, M. & Paquette, V. (2006). Neural correlates of a mystical experience in Carmelite nuns. Neurosci. Lett. 405: 186-190. [PDF]

Blanke, O. & Mohr, C. (2005). Out-of-body experience, heautoscopy, and autoscopic hallucination of neurological origin Implications for neurocognitive mechanisms of corporeal awareness and self consciousness. Brain Res. Rev. 50: 184-199. [PDF]

neurophilosophy Sat, 02/27/2010 - 09:58

Tags

well It is even better for the patients to lean on God , they should not forget that without god, life would not exists and if they only learn to trust god they'll surely be cured. . .

I wonder if these physical brain findings could be combined with information about alterations in religious beliefs apparently induced by anti-psychotic drugs? At the psychiatric unit where I used to work as a researcher sometimes there were Christian preachers brought in during highly agitated states. They had delusions that they were the messiah or saint, that the devil was sitting on their shoulder tempting them, or that some great religious truth had just been revealed and they must take over a TV station to inform everyone etc. When treated with chlorpromazine, they gradually lost their delusions, but some also lost ALL their beliefs and "callings" to preach. The psychiatrists used to half-jokingly report that they had to titrate the dose of antipsychotics so that these patients retained enough of their religious zeal to maintain their job or relationships with their church communities! Obviously there are functional and neurochemical influences in there, as well as inhibitory and excitatory pathways that allow "thoughts" to be shunted around so that some become more "spiritual". Intriguing. How about looking at some depressed or apathetic patients who never find anything remotely inspiring as comparisons?

I find this fascinating. Even more so because I know someone who I think has been affected this way, given her personality changes after certain events.

A related question, which I don't know if you can answer: Is it possible for certain (localised, relatively confined) regions of the brain to be damaged by seizures?

@Murfomurf: You're talking about delusions of grandeur and/ or persecution, which are common symptoms of schizophrenia. It's not surprising that they disappear with anti-psychotics, but it is very interesting that these drugs can cause a loss of religious belief; I've never heard that before.

@Luna_the_cat: Yes, so-called 'partial' seizures can be localized to specific parts of the brain. Temporal lobe epilepsy is also associated with religious experiences. See this paper about sudden religious conversion in temporal lobe epileptics, and also my post about Dostoyevsy's epilepsy.

@ Murfomurf: it is also possible that the powerful neuroleptic reduced patients' motivation so seriously that they lost all calling to religion. You know, chlorpromazine is one of the worst "chemical restraints", so it is possible that pretty much total apathy made it impossible for a priest to carry out their job. Just my thoughts. I don't know whether there is any research on the effect of such drugs on brain circuits supposed in spiritual beliefs.

Even before I became psychotic, I was open to the spiritual world. But when I became psychotic, my interaction with the spiritual world increased dramatically. After my hospitalization, when I was blasted full of meds, the connection with God and the spiritual world was permanently severed. Although I want to breathe life back into it, I can't do it. I can't even pray. Now I just go around "dead" to the spiritual world, but at least my psychotic episode is gone.

A small correction. I've had 3 craniotomies, most recently Feb 9 of this year, and I do not have any kind of meningiomas. I have glioblastoma multiforme stage 4. My cancer is in the anterior region of the brain, but I'm not sure it's fair to say that we can use meningiomas as a control. That stands to reason. The method of removal should not affect the essential fact that invasive surgeries in the posterior regions of the brain lead to heightened, I'll call it spirituality, while less invasive surgeries in the anterior regions of the brain, where mine is, do not.

My view is that the brain is a constituent of consciousness rather than its originating agent. Man, in his "creation" is vested with characteristics giving potential along diverse plains of expression. Spirituality is one of those plains.

I am a non-scientists, so my thoughts are to be viewed from a philosophical view to an appreciable extent. However, there's tangible evidence in my view of there being a transcendent reality. Out of body, astral travel, near death, remote viewing, etc. give a sense of experience that are not attributable to materiality. I'll leave my thoughts here for now. I just found this site and will probably return to participate in its range of topics.

yeah, and the more gray matter you scoop out, the more religious they get.

Dr Michael Persinger, at the Laurentian University in Canada, some years ago was able to induce hallucinations of a religious nature, using electrodes placed on the heads of subjects immersed in sensory deprivation tanks.

Mo, you may like to check out my latest blog where I discuss this studies' aspect of Self-Transcendence in some detail: What is Self-Transcendence?

One study is hardly enough to convince me that a belief in God is simply due to some kind of mental deficiency. I think it's more likely that people who are suffering from cancer that they have been told will likely be terminal are prone to begin pondering questions about God and what happens after death. I see no proof of causation.

Bob-I don't think it's as simple as saying that it's a result of the fact that someone is suffering from cancer. Someone very close to me has had 5 brain surgeries over the past 20ish years, NONE to remove cancerous tumors - thankfully they were all benign and recovery in all cases was amazing. After the most recent surgery there has been a very noticeable increase in this person's spirituality. It didn't just appear out of nowhere, there was a definite foundation prior to the surgery. This person was already a Christian and had a fairly solid relationship with Christ; but since the surgery less than 2 years ago...I guess I would say the 1st & 2nd floors have been built on that foundation and work on the roof is steadily progressing. Not that it's a bad thing, because I don't necessarily think it is, but this has definitely got me pondering the "what if's".....

This article and topic are, for obvious reasons, very interesting to me. I will definitely be doing more research on this topic.

Douglas - I agree. Man trying to "learn" more about what he is, what is around him and what he is meant to do in life are all questions people try to answer daily. Unfortunately, people are limited to the physical realm/reality and have limited knowledge due to this. Man can only see as far as his science can allow him. I mean, people used to believe the earth was flat; Man has come a long way since those days. I believe that God has instilled in us ways in which we can communicate, sense, and perceive the spiritual realm. How else could Adam have "walked" with God in the Garden of Eden? Man is just learning about what, how, and where this takes place due to in his limited scientific abilities. If anything this research only proves that there IS a mechanism designed into man that creates a gateway to the spiritual realm and ultimately God.

Please don't rule out the fact that we may be obstructed in our views of the true reality by these portions of the brain. In Christianity, we belieive that when you make a commitment to God and accept and turn your life over to him, he changes you. This change is ongoing through out your life. However, a major change takes place at the moment of acceptence. Prehaps this is the proof of such a change. I would like to see a wider study of devotely religous people and not just subjects with tumors.

It think it is important remember that a single experiment like Urgesi et al.'s underdetermines any number of compatible metaphysical interpretations thereof. All this experiment "says" in an of itself is that, for some people, the experience of spirituality is, to a certain extent, correlated with physiological changes in the brain.

You got your Persinger-types (and, I gather, most of this blog's followers) who favor a reductive interpretation. For them, this is further evidence that spirituality is (I think the term used was) "rooted" in the brain.

And then you have your Beauregard-types (cited above for his work on meditating Carmalite nuns) who think that spirituality, and consciousness more generally, is merely "mediated" by the brain in something like the way a TV's signal is mediated by, but not rooted in, the TV's receiver.

Both philosophical standpoints are consistent with the data. On both accounts one's spiritual "receptivity" should be differentially affected by damage to specific areas of the brain. Thus, you need to look at the broader pattern of neuroscientific and psychological data before you can decide between the reductive and non-reductive standpoints. Furthermore, many of the considerations that would favor one interpretation over the other will not be empirical at all. The decision will rest instead on broader philosophical considerations about the nature of explanation and the appropriate criteria for theory choice.

tldr: In sum, it is rather too early to conclude that the brain is wholly responsible for our experience of spirituality.

So let us speculate on something.

1.) Assume that these results do *actually* show that spirituality or belief of the person can be affected by this specific region of the brain. (This is an assumption because you never know what experiences someone has, it is all subjective).

So this would seem, in some way, that someone who is an atheist would become a theist because of this operation, since you could increase the effects. Also, you could decrease their spirituality from being a theist to an atheist. What does this get us put pointing out that we can make you believe what you (or we) want on the issue.