last Friday (it was also the 13th) went there to fish here at GWUP.WATCH Blog Editor Lars Fischer and three deadly sins, a science journalist . Lars Fischer had participated together with fellow bloggers from the strict dogmatic skeptics scene in a campaign against the University of Magdeburg, while scientific sources, and selectively misquoted. Style questions were first Friday (agitation) in the foreground, so today is about the logic of the argument. Because Fabian Seyfried , colleague and comrade by Lars Fischer on Twitter asked to speak to him here a few lines are devoted.
A pamphlet by Lars Fischer (fish blog)
"Now homeopathy has already been repeatedly reviewed scientific detail, with clear results. This should be the subject of eating for a university. But if it is obviously not. " These are the words of Lars Fischer. In an action challenging the University of Magdeburg pamphlet Fischer brought his great anger at the announcement by DZVhÄ University and master's degree homeopathy expressed. H.Blog Editor Claus Fritzsche again took the emotional outbursts as an opportunity to undergo Lars Fischer's presentation relish a Munchausen test. Lo and behold, it turned out that Lars Fischer current research, homeopathy had shown selective and false. Motto: big mouth and nothing behind it ...
experts on the state of homeopathy research
PD Dr. Klaus Linde of the Centre for naturopathic research at the TU Munich and the German Cochrane Centre and Prof. Dr. Claudia M. Witt of the Institute of Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité write in Chapter 13 Scientific Foundations and Research the March 2008 timetable published Homeopathy :
"Currently, over 300 controlled studies on the efficacy of homeopathy published, although less than a third of them in journals with a referee system (Luedtke 2005). From the third, only the smaller proportion in conventional journals were published, the greater appeared in magazines, specializing in science and research in complementary medicine. In addition, many studies are only as abstracts in conference reports of complementary medicine research conferences before (Luedtke 2005). Placebo-controlled clinical studies Homöoapthie were conducted only for a selected range of diagnoses (eg, allergic rhinitis, migraine). The recent systematic reviews that summarize the results of the placebo-controlled trials (Kleijnen 1997, Linde 1997, Shang 2005), show no consistent results, so the question of the superiority of homeopathic medicines over placebo has not been well established. "
(This quote is in H. Blog supplemented by other statements. Anyone interested in the details, which should read the entire article .)
Lars Fischer quotes selectively and incorrectly
As result of his Munchausen tests notes Claus Fritzsche:
"leaving aside the fact that the portrayal of Lars Fischer by large gaps in knowledge, lack of technical competence and emotional involvement is marked, so he makes in his commentary" homeopathy at the University of Magdeburg, "following errors that are classified in a scientific context, rather dubious:
first Lars Fischer cited selective and incomplete. Who on the work of Shang et al. 2005 points (probably without being able to judge them at all) to refer to the need also to the review by Kleijnen 1997, Linde 1997and Lüdtke / Rutten 2008th
second Probably in ignorance of the facts cited Lars Fischer also wrong. Lüdtke / Rutten in 2008 to gross errors of the craft work of Shang et al. 2005 reference, which led to THE LANCET issuing publisher Elsevier to publish the following press release "New evidence for Homeopathy" . By Lars Fischer claimed, however, did not show clear results are not there. "
The reaction of Lars Fischer
is exciting now, as Lars Fischer responds to criticism of his Magdeburg article. Is he one of the arguments in detail? He countered with new facts? He has PD Dr. Klaus Linde and Prof. Claudia Witt by mistake? Not at all. In the comment section of his blog, he responds Fritzsche with the following personal attacks (skip reaction?):
"Still peddling? Where we grade on the subject of selective quoting are: What actually is the selection of my tweets in the post came about? Advanced mental confusion, as usual? As a reminder. You are the one who is known to delete critical comments (and even their own because they are an embarrassment to you) "
On a substantive discussion can be Lars Fischer, a precaution not. Fritzsche writes toward the end of his Munchausen-tests:
"In a second comment, I said in the fish blog of Lars Fischer, that my above passage" Lars Fischer quotes selectively and wrong "and there above arguments also are valid when I Web2.0-fire would be king. This second comment was deleted by Lars Fischer. his rough and aggressive Tone (including to other discussion participants) I interpret as confirming my assumption that this is about science and journalism distant motives. "
understanding problems of Fabian Seyfried
Fabian Seyfried is like Lars Fischer freelance science journalist, accompanied Mr. Fish blog on Twitter friendly. In a Tweet he dares the attempt of a polemical review:
No question, a human reaction. enough for a sound argument in detail the expertise of Fabian Seyfried not. Polemical comments are as a good alternative (skip reaction?). They demonstrate solidarity, superiority or "air sovereignty pubescent. A short polemical comment specifically protects against an active engagement with substantive arguments. In the present case, the polemical commentary by Fabian Seyfried but also demonstrated his understanding of problems and their intellectual level.
Quote Fabian Seyfried:
"Fish Blog @ Exactly. That one indeed can not understand logically how entanglement working, so it is not needed to understand homeopathy. "
Fabian Seyfried here refers to a statement that although a completely different wording and a different meaning added.
Quote Claus Fritzsche:
"It is epistemological and philosophy of science is not permitted, by a theoretical model (homeopathic high potencies do not contain atoms of the original substance) on an empirical phenomenon (hence they can not contribute) to close. Would it be permissible, then there should be no physical phenomenon of the quantum entanglement. Behavior, for example, entangled photons over a distance of 144 kilometers, as if it would be a system so this is a clear violation of our causal deterministic scientific world view. Because twin-photons in practical experiments but have taken no account of our ideas had to plausibility, physics - from phenomenon to close on the model - its theory adapt to the reality and create special rules for the sub-atomic space. The same applies to homeopathy. Here too, the phenomenon may only be closed to the model. "
here is no question of it, that quantum physics is not understood, and ergo, the homeopathy are not understood. If language makes sense, then we are talking about is the fact that the is inadmissible conclusion of a theoretical model on a practical phenomenon epistemological and philosophy of science.
In other words: what is observed in experiments on scientific phenomena can result in the formation of a theoretical model can be used. The reverse, however, is epistemologically not allowed. The earth is therefore not a disk, because theoretical ideas of the Middle Ages this so called. Isaac Newton's laws of mechanics are not in the subatomic space, because the confirmed our macroscopic world, this law shall require. What matters is solely the experimentally confirmed phenomenon.
This logic seemed to be so demanding that she Fabian Seyfried overwhelmed intellectually. For a Science Journalist of the Year 2009, there should be Basics .
.
About the Association GWUP eV:
ass Watch: wiki entry "GWUP"
.
