rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Unfortunately the response pretty much confirms that this is a borderline religious belief. He uses the same argument to discredit something he doesn't believe in while using it as evidence for the thing he does. The underlying issue here being: believe. That's all it is and it is dogmatic and irrational.I'm surprised that the author has responded to comments a number of times. Actually I quite appreciate it - seems like a much more civil fellow than the PACE clan. -
I personally find it instructive that 'yes it is, and a lot of other people think so, too', is the uniform response repeatedly produced by someone who is society's supposedly greatest expert in a particular topic. I guess here we already knew that that's where things are, but it's interesting to experience first-hand.
His most pressing argument seems to be that his assumptions fit, which they always do because they are always vague and created specifically to fit with predetermined conclusions. The whole point of science is not to be mislead by cherry-picking things that confirm beliefs while excluding things that falsify them.
While accusing others of doing the same. Marvelous example of Dunning-Kruger as well. Which as a medical sociologist is just as impressive as psychiatrists with weird beliefs about illness arguing the same about a disease. No wonder he co-authored something with Wessely, two peas in an ideological pod.