Must have skipped over that line.

“…that does not mean they have zero legitimate points on their side. I think a good way forward is to try to disconnect their legitimate points from their insane remedies, and try to find a reasonable common ground in the middle.”

I agree, but perhaps not with “in the middle.” We should take the legitimate points made regardless of their origins, but that may or may not take us to the middle, but it will usually be somewhere in between.

But I also want to avoid a false dichotomy. Just because the Repubilcans are nutty, and are taking ridiculous positions like being against critical thinking and challenging authority, that does not mean they have zero legitimate points on their side. I think a good way forward is to try to disconnect their legitimate points from their insane remedies, and try to find a reasonable common ground in the middle.

But mostly I just advocate for the applications of reasonable scientific standards within the existing regulatory framework:
- don’t force insurance companies to pay for pseudoscience
- don’t fund worthless research into fashionable nonsense
- don’t allow fraudulent claims to be made on health products
- allow the normal mechanisms to enforce the standard of care without carving out exceptions for well-connected charlatans
- tie health care professional licensure to real science-based standards. Don’t license quacks under the delusion that this will regulate them.

I get that you want this blog to be as apolitical as possible, but I can’t help but notice the false balance created with the wording of this post. I agree that “both sides” have their problems when science meets ideology, or when a group has motivated values and perspectives separate from facts, but it seems pretty clear that (at least in this country) the conservative states have the most problems with education itself. If a political group has a problem with “challenging the student’s fixed beliefs”… then that group has a problem with education itself. Challenging fixed beliefs is required for learning to take place, and that is education.

I just don’t understand what the alternative would be… determine which beliefs are fixed, then make those off-limits? ‘Education’ then turns into telling people what they don’t know, unless they don’t want to know

Here’s a thought. If the government did not publish and promote the reality that smoking causes cancer and leads to numerous other health issues, would the majority of people even know it? And if they didn’t know – how would they be able to make a distinction between poor actions and good actions?

I don’t advocate that we eliminate choices like CAM. But why is it bad that people are
a. Fully aware of the scientific merit (or lack thereof) of their choice.
b. skilled in researching and evaluating their various choices.
c. That the information necessary to research and evaluate those choices is open and available.

In my opinion, when A, B and C happen, then someone can recognize that it’s a bad choice.

None of those things will happen in non-regulated world. Because human nature is what it is.

People are not rational by nature. It is an exercise of will be rational. For example, we buy things because of what the represent to us. If a person is sick, they will buy from the snake oil salesman because he is selling hope. It doesn’t matter what is in the snake oil, people are buying hope. If it kills people, they will rationalize it and still buy the hope.

There is no elimination of snake oil salesmen in a fully unregulated environment. There is only a proliferation of them.

You have a rather idealistic view, without considering that every step taken by the human race toward more evolved civilization came because governments regulated it.

That said, I never see you or other prominent skeptics spell out what exactly you would like to see happen to the quacks promoting their latest snake oil. You talk about stronger regulations for the supplement industry(which I agree with), and keeping all quackery/CAM out of medicine(agreed), but what kind of punishments would there be for those who cross the line?

What would become of Gary Null?

Or Dr Young, who promotes his “PH miracle diet” to cure cancer?

Dr Mercola?

Dr Weil?

Uhhh…isn’t that kinda creating a “special status for homosexual behavior”?

With free pink triangle for every member.

When people naturally pay for their poor actions, such as with smoking and cancer

Unfortunately linking smoking and cancer is difficult because there is a delay on effects and not everyone will get cancer. That’s the problem with feedback systems. They take time, and the foolish are rarely punished.

I want to see how the Republican states think they’ll survive once they ban all abortions, evolution teachers, gays, blacks, immigrants, criminals, poor people, and atheists. They’ll be left with zombies

The middle ages lasted a long time. Also, when your job is to move a handle up and down at a production line and thinking gets in the way of that job then zombies will make excellent workers.

You are all over the place.
If you are not prepared to stay on topic, you are a waste of everyone’s time.
Likewise if you keep ignoring responses to your posts.