This sounds better argued, though I'm not willing to buy into the science/medicine-can-do-no-wrong logic. The argument by adjective [1] continues though ("false" statements, "warped" logic, "falsely" claims, besides "tarnish"). Gilbert, I appreciate your approach of being critical of the field you are part of. We all need it, and no point in being fundamentalist about our (secular) ideologies and beliefs. FN
[1] http://logicwizard.blogspot.com/2007/07/argument-by-adjective.html On 21 April 2010 22:42, Santosh Helekar <chimbel...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Noronha has mischaracterized my post in his response appended below. > So in making false statements about what I have written in it, > by his own warped logic, Noronha has attempted to tarnish me, > the author of my post. > My comments were directed at Huffington Post and the article > published in it. The term "full-fledged dishonest pseudoscientific > operation" refers to Huffington Post, not to the motives of this specific > author Dana Ullman, as Noronha falsely claims. The term "silly > diatribe" refers to the contents of the article, not to the author or > his motives. The words "publicist" and "salesman" accurately... Gilbert Lawrence to goanet How Scientific is Modern Medicine Really? The analysis and conclusions may shock you Read the following link, if you want to be shocked and disappointed. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/how-scientific-is-modern_b_543158.html