Carol:
> >If people on this list could only make statements for which they had
> >proof, the list would quickly cease to exist.

Kirt:
> I disagree. There is plenty of peer-reviewed research and plenty of
> anecdotal evidence to have plenty of discussion that isn't simply
> repeating out of date dogma.

Carol:
I agree with that.  It seems our disagreement is a semantic one.
The distinction between proof and support, for me, is all-important.
In my experience, the word "proof" is only used for evidence which
is absolutely indisputable and for which no other explanation can be
found.  Anything less is support.

Kirt:
> There is also plenty of experiencial info to share that requires
> no "proof".

Carol:
Absolutely.  I think that sharing of such info is what lists like
this one are best for.

> >Even if everyone on this list were to support every single statement
> >with all sorts of references to books and scientific papers, would
> >we really be much better off?  Especially with all the sloppy and/or
> >unethical science being done out there, a published opinion isn't
> >necessarily better than an unpublished one.

Kirt:
> The scientific method is still the yardstick by which to measure
> so-called facts.

Carol:
True, but there are plenty of horrid studies being published in
respected journals, studies which make a shambles of the scientific
method and get away with it.  (A very popular trend these days is to
do drug studies without control groups, for example.)

Kirt:
> The "proof" I am asking of Alan is more to invite him to realize and
> admit that his "facts" are not facts. Hopefully asking for proof helps him
> realize this so that he can either stop pushing NH dogma as fact or at
> least admit he has no scientific support for his claims.

Carol:
Your motives are good, I just don't think it was the best way to go
about getting the results you wanted.  But I guess Alan is the one
to ask about that...

> >Perhaps it would help if we could put together, along with the FAQ,
> >an FRD (Frequently Referenced Documents) containing a recommended
> >reading list from each list member who cares to submit one.

Kirt:
> Many of these books are simply unedited unscrutinized ego-trips by
> alternative health "gurus"...

Carol:
Wouldn't it be better to let list members judge the reading material
for themselves and write reviews of individual works rather than to
make blanket criticisms?

Kirt:
> A reading list is fine as far as it goes but it doesn't address the central
> issue, at least to me, of mistaking dogma for fact. Indeed, I'd venture to
> say that most books on such a list could be studied as examples of such.

Carol:
But who is to say what is fact?  Many of the folks on this list
probably subscribe to all sorts of alternative notions that are
vilified in the mainstream media every day.  And yet, from the same
mainstream media, we constantly hear pronouncements that contradict
those that were reported by them as fact only days before. Acceptance
of something as fact by "experts" is no guarantee of its validity.