The Late Late Show

Myksyk

Keep an eye on the LLS this evening (Part 2) for a debate on alternative medicine. Paul O'Donoghue of the ISS and a Consultant Oncologist will be on the panel taking the skeptical position.

carl_

Thanks for the heads up. Was worth watching but I was dissapointed how little time they spent on it. That and Pat Kenny is a bit thick /

pH

A good segment, but too short. Pity that Paul never really got his challenge in at the end, not that any of these folks would accept it anyways.

Overall the most effective way of getting the point across in that form of debate appears to be stating exactly what these therapists are saying works, in such a way as it is obvious that it is nonsense.

In the context of a studio debate like that, what is the best way to deal with obvious lies? - take the homeopath who was claiming many scientific studies supporting the efficacy of homeopathy.

With the general public as an audience and little time to respond what is the best way of countering that? Humour? Ridicule? Call her a liar?

Myksyk

I agree that she was bluffing or grossly overstating the amount/quality/standard of the research. I think you could only ask her to place the references on the FICTA site so that they could be examined and properly addressed if ever referenced again.

The Reiki practitioner deflected the challenge by essentially lying about Reiki. It IS true that one of the core features of reiki is a putative 'sensing' and 'manipulation' of an energy field. In this case, if making a similar challenge in the future, I suspect all one could do is try to preempt the deflection by asking them to agree that one of the key defining features is this manipulation and then make the challenge.

I thought John Crown was very good. He has an authority and manner which allow him to be more fortright in his condemnation while still coming across as likable!

Myksyk

pH wrote:

Overall the most effective way of getting the point across in that form of debate appears to be stating exactly what these therapists are saying works, in such a way as it is obvious that it is nonsense.

I spoke with Paul this evening and he said that was what he planned to do ... i.e. if someone started talking about Homeopathy say what exactly what their claims are and why they are 'extraordinary' and so on for ayurvedic, reiki etc. However, as it ran, they was little opportunity to do this. You literally will have 10-20 seconds to make a point before Kenny shuts you down and moves things on.

pH

Myksyk wrote:

I agree that she was bluffing or grossly overstating the amount/quality/standard of the research. I think you could only ask her to place the references on the FICTA site so that they could be examined and properly addressed if ever referenced again.

Yes, but 99% of the audience will never check the web site. If you ask that she 'puts them up on the site' and she responds 'Yes certainly' it's a double whammy, strengthening the claims, in the context of LLS viewers.

The Reiki practitioner deflected the challenge by essentially lying about Reiki. It IS true that one of the core features of reiki is a putative 'sensing' and 'manipulation' of an energy field. In this case, if making a similar challenge in the future, I suspect all one could do is try to preempt the deflection by asking them to agree that one of the key defining features is this manipulation and then make the challenge.

Given the JREF experience, the only people who respond to challenges seen to be the total nutjobs. No one making a living in these fields will ever accept.

I thought John Crown was very good. He has an authority and manner which allow him to be more fortright in his condemnation while still coming across as likable!

I agree, emotion is what is required to sway the general public on this type of show. There is a place for debating placebos, scientific method, double blind studies etc - but a 20 min segment on the LLS is not it. I've had this converstation with Paul, my view is that the skeptic has to drop science to be emotional and passionate. I agree John Crown was excellent, his passion both for what he does as a doctor and his disgust at what these people are doing was evident and compelling.

I spoke with Paul this evening and he said that was what he planned to do ... i.e. if someone started talking about Homeopathy say what exactly what their claims are and why they are 'extraordinary' and so on for ayurvedic, reiki etc. However, as it ran, they was little opportunity to do this. You literally will have 10-20 seconds to make a point before Kenny shuts you down and moves things on.

Hit rebuttal of the cranium/spinal fluid nonsense was spot on. Basicaly just state what they claim - It falls apart under the wieght of it's own idiocy.

Syth

I think Paul O'Donoghue was fantastic. He came up with some great rebuttals. My favorite was:

Paul O'Donoghue wrote:

So because some doctors had a bad bedside manner 20 years ago, we should throw out decades of scientific research and believe that there are these magical energy fields flowing through us

pH is correct, this sort of rhetoric is what is needed sometimes.

Myksyk

It was John Crown who said that I think Syth...

lostexpectation

caught the second half of this,

now i do have _serious_ doubts about reiki and all that stuff but i am interested in complimentary therapies but the guy in the first seat was totally over the top on making poncey faces while others in the panel talked, he was doing I can't believe these people are saying this faces but, if I'd been there i'd told him to cop on for being so rude ! PK should have given him a slap for it)

Neither he nor PK would acknowledge the differences between the dangerous scam artists and the others at the show... or fully accept that they would not tell anyone to stop conventional therapy for cancer ( not that that would legitamise the people's own claims ).

he might has well stuck his finger to his head and made a loop and winked at pat...

didn't do himself any favours acting like that

pH

now i do have _serious_ doubts about reiki and all that stuff but i am interested in complimentary therapies but the guy in the first seat was totally over the top on making poncey faces while others in the panel talked, he was doing I can't believe these people are saying this faces but, if I'd been there i'd told him to cop on for being so rude ! PK should have given him a slap for it)

If these people were offering "Penis enlargement" or other silly self improvement stuff then his rudeness would be unjustified.

But these people are offering cures and remedies to ill people.

They are preying on the weak and ill, they are making money from the suffering of the sick, offering false hopes, wasting time and in some cases deflecting their 'patients' from doctors who can help them.

When people do despicable things sometimes rudeness is justified to show the proper moral outrage felt.

And yes these people seem sincere on the LLS, but as PK said, ring them up, tell them you have breast cancer, and they'll all take your money without batting an eyelid. I cannot think of a nastier way to make money ...

I accept that a small percentage of these 'Alternative therapists' are sincere, but it doesn't matter if they are sincere. If I am a child pornographer and I sincerely believe I'm not doing anything wrong - It makes no difference, the actions are still reprehensible and evil, my state of mind is irrelevent to the harm I do, sincere child pornographers should be treated no different or receive less moral outrage. You could argue that they are worse, in some way they are unreformable as they cannot see the wrong they are doing.

Myksyk

I don't accept this was rudeness at all. He was certainly letting his frustration, bemusement and anger slip through some body language but he WAS frustrated, bemused and angry. There is nothing wrong with this at all. You seem to be insinuating that he was 'havin' a laugh' ... engaging in a little 'nudge, nudge, wink wink, ain't they crackers' way ... he wasn't. When people have serious concerns about issues then they can hardly be expected to sit there unmoved. Look at the emotions demonstrated by the discussion on immigration/racism later in the show ... most would have no problem with the indignation shown by Fintan O'Toole. If I strongly disagree with someone and believe that what they are saying is not just nonsense but ill-informed, mis-informing and dangerous nonsense then I would also be up there shaking my head too. It's time people were a little more angry and frustrated at the baseless claims made by these charlatans ... sincere or otherwise.

davros

I missed the program but I notice it is repeated tonight on RTE1 at 00:10.

davros

I've now seen it. I thought the alternative medicine practitioners came off very poorly. They didn't get to make any specific healing claims, sounding, at best, like wafflers, at worst, like fruitcakes.

Top job by the skeptics on the panel. Every point they made hit home. The most telling admission from the other side (from a representative of the Irish Society of Homeopaths) was that they give MMR "vaccines" to children though they know they don't work. No more proof is needed that homeopathy is far from harmless. Can we press the Dept. of Health on this particular issue?

ChelleMcD

Hello. I was wondering if anyone would be able to help. I am trying to find out who appeared on The Late Late Show on the 27th December 2003. There was a particular act (name unknown) im interested in watching again. If anyone has any idea how i would get hold of a copy i would very much appreciate your help.

Chelle

davros

Hi Chelle,

I think you would have more luck asking your question on the TV forum:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=485