NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48365

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 7.5 KB | 154 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!cs.yale.edu!rtnmr.chem.yale.edu!rescorla
From: [e-mail] (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 05:14:53 GMT
Lines: 141

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>   (Eric Rescorla) writes: >
>>> is Mr. Overpeck.

>>Yes, and I was pointing out that a similar lack of distinction obtains
>>between use and nonuse. And that what we are concerned about is
>>dysfunctional behavior, not use, nonuse, or abuse.
>It most cases, dysfunctional behavior cannot be correctly assessed
>or treated without understanding and influencing relevant environ-
>mental and social contributors.  Besides, to the extent that abuse
>is self-destructive behavior, it indicates dysfunction.
Perhaps, perhaps not.
In any case, you have yet to demonstrate that drug use is in any
way contributory towards dysfunctional behavior. I note again that
correlation is not causation, and since you have failed even
to show correlation, you clearly cannot infer causation.

>>> At any rate,
>>>given your lack of real-life experience with such problems, you
>>>might be well advised to obtain some before questioning my under-
>>>standing of the issue.
>>How impressive. Argumentum ad hominem and argument by authority
>>in the same sentence. Two fallacies in one. Try using the scientific
>>method. Post some data.
>Unnecessary, though it exists.
It should be easy to show that it exists if it in fact does. Perhaps
you will do so. But browsing ahead, I see you will not.

>  Before going into private practice,
>one of the psychologists I work with was the director of the Addic-
>tions Services division of our local mental health center.  He has
>a fairly impressive library of relevant reference material which I
>was browsing through last night.  But I see no value in posting any
>of it.  Inevitably, the controls would be deemed inadequate or the
>conclusions misinterpreted.  The only solid research would likely
>consist of those studies (if one could find them) that support your
>personal agenda.  But since nothing that I read seemed to do that,
>they're all undoubtedly flawed.
How insulting. A slur on my scientific integrity. If I cared about
your opinion, I might even be offended. This looks to me just like
the standard technique used by creationists on talk.origins, Bill.
Claiming that data exists and then refusing to post it...strikes me
as quite unconvincing as a form of argument. I refer you to the
words of John C. Baez in sci.physics:
 Nonetheless it is a tradition on usenet to back up
 ones statements when it is requested to do so.  This is crucial because
 all usenet is is a bunch of invisible people chatting, many of whom have
 never heard of each other, so that argument by authority is worthless.
 If one knows articles that say X, but are not in a position to argue for
 X oneself, it's best not to assert "X" but simply to say "I read X in
 such-and-such place but I am not competent to evaluate this article."

Unsupported statements carry little weight with me, Bill.

>>I'm being lectured about credibility by a guy who can't even show
>>controlled studies that:
>>1) Therapy is useful.
>There are numerous controlled studies that demonstrate the effec-
>piveness of Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, et al, so you're really
>beating a dead horse in saying this.
I see. Is that what you are practicing? Do you maintain that your
form of therapy is effective?

>>2) Drugs induce irresponsible behavior.
>
>My argument is that over time, artificially induced mood states
>modify the individual's experience of normal affect. In changing
>that baseline, non-medicated mood states come to be perceived as
>"depression" or "anxiety".  Dependence is achieved, however slowly.
Sounds like bullshit to me. Do you have studies that back this up?
Funny, I didn't think so. I'm uninterested in your professional opinion.
Present some data or get off the pot.

>Risking that process can be considered irresponsible, hence regu-
>lar drug use can be considered irresponsible.
I fail to see why this is unique to drugs. I am much happier when
I am having sex than when I am not. I fail to see how that is
any less an artificially induced mood state. Compare also the
phenomenon known as "runners high" which is notably a chemically
induced state. I know for a fact that I feel much better on days
when I run than on days when I do not. Seems to me like I'm
risking dependency and that therefore my running is irresonsible
behavior. I know I've told people many times "I can't do X, I've
got to go running" which I believe is quite analogous to "I can't
do X cause I'm wasted."

> In terms of drugs
>inducing irresponsible behavior, some obviously *do* insofar as
>they work to impair judgement and lessen inhibitions.
Provided that one specifically arranges a state in which irresponsible
behavior is difficult(e.g. passing off car keys) it is far from
clear that even such drugs as do lower inhibitions induce a net
effect of irresponsibility.

>>And yet is simultaneously maintaining that both therapy is useful
>>and that drugs should be banned to prevent dysfunctional behavior.
>>How entertaining.
>Certainly no more so than your naivete, Eric.  Hopefully, as you
>get older you'll also become less egocentric.
More ad hominem.

> If we all lived in
>a social vacuum, regulating what people put into their bodies would
>be a moot effort.  In the real world, though, other people are too
>often victimized by drug abusers, and even recreational users.  If
>that weren't an inevitable consequence, you'd have no real argument
>from me about legalization.
Damnit, you're begging the question again. The fact is that you
haven't shown that people are victimized any more frequently by
drug users than by non-users, much less that it's a causative factor,
much less that it's an "inevitable consequence." Since your argument
here assumes this to be true, and you have not shown this to be the
case, your argument has no logical foundation.

>>And you seem to be uninterested in letting people live they way
>>they choose, preferring to impose your own factually unsubstantiated
>>theories about the way they should live upon them.
>If people choose to behave in ways that hurt the people around them,
>they're no longer engaging in "private behavior".
I'm sure I hurt my friends when I told them I'd rather program than
talk to them. Should I be forbidden to program.

I note once again that your entire argument rests upon the
proposition that drug user induces irresponsible behavior. Since
you have repeatedly failed to substantiate this premise, your
entire argument is logically bogus. Your hand-waving about how
I wouldn't accept any data you put forward is a poor excuse for
actually putting forward any data, and seeing as you have yet to
put forward any, I fail to see on what grounds you draw the
conclusion that I would dismiss it were you to present some.

-Ekr



--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              [e-mail]
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 [e-mail](preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."