tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post912212128717917701..comments2024-01-25T13:46:11.967-06:00Comments on The Bronze Blog: Doggerel #171: "You're Not an Expert, You Can't Comment!"Ryan Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14750814560493466382noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-34921459985534113212008-12-04T08:11:00.000-06:002008-12-04T08:11:00.000-06:00This one was particularly funny, and painful, when...This one was particularly funny, and painful, when it was hurled at critics of the Bush administration in general, and the Iraq War in particular.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02052684196866992031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-74637757593135780472008-12-04T03:01:00.000-06:002008-12-04T03:01:00.000-06:00But if you're a Homeopath, you've been pre-screene...<I>But if you're a Homeopath, you've been pre-screened for that type of logic, so they're safe to allow you to express your opinion.</I><BR/><BR/>Not always. One of the chaps on the UK Skeptics board took, and passed, a Homeopathy course and thought it great fun to when they insisted he couldn't comment because he wasn't trained. "Well actually..."<BR/><BR/>What can also useful is the same rebuttal, many of the people that try and argue the point aren't trained either ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-52108503453025546702008-12-03T19:23:00.000-06:002008-12-03T19:23:00.000-06:00Heh, that was a fast one. Anyways, this one has al...Heh, that was a fast one. Anyways, this one has always annoyed me, because it was brought up by woos all the time on Wikipedia. For instance, on Homeopathy-related articles, they'd claim that only the opinions of trained Homeopaths were valid sources, however flawed their logic might be. I'd counter that in fact chemists and biologists were more appropriate, as they actually had relevant scientific training - not simply coming up with canards to rationalize why Homeopathy wasn't bunk.<BR/><BR/>The thing is, you don't need to be a trained Homeopath to know that a particular substance likely has no active ingredient, and that by our current understanding of science such a substance couldn't have any physiological effect. But if you're a Homeopath, you've been pre-screened for that type of logic, so they're safe to allow you to express your opinion.<BR/><BR/>Of course, any type of quack can use this Doggerel, however ridiculous their claim is:<BR/><BR/>"If you aren't a chiropractor you can't criticize chiropractic!"<BR/><BR/>"If you aren't a bloodletter you can't criticize bloodletters!"<BR/><BR/>"If you aren't a quack you can't criticize quacks!"<BR/><BR/>Etc.Infophilehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.com