by Burgess » Sat May 03, 2008 7:32 am
Organizations devoted to watching specific organizations (such as a government agency that has power over our lives) or a particular situation (such as discrimination against black Christians by the City government of London) definitely have value. Their specialized focus can bring problems to our attention, if their methods are objective. ("Objective" means all conclusions are drawn logically from facts of reality.)
While pointing out the negative is helpful, far more helpful is pointing out the positive. Whenever I encounter a "watch" organization, I ask myself what positive they offer as an alternative.
In this case, my question to Quack Watch is: What health program do you recommend for people in general and for me in particular?
If they have no answer, then I wonder why they have not applied their supposed critical skills to the main problem in their field? Do they not have confidence in their own methods? Or are they reductionist, that is, have they become so focused on minute individual issues that they don't believe an overall program is even possible and that instead one must treat every issue in isolation?
If their knowledge and techniques do not lead them to a positive, integrated approach to the main problem in their field, then I generally lose interest.
QuackWatch may have value in alerting readers to potential problems for some claims made by supposed healthcare specialists, but I would not select or reject a health program from their comments alone.
When I first encountered the McDougall Program, I did exam Quack Watch for its comments. I was not impressed. (At that time, the site did not even have a coherent, objective definition of "quack," though it does have a plausible one now.) What I saw was indeed reductionist, a focus on individual pieces with little or no understanding of the McDougall Program as a whole.
Last edited by Burgess on Sat May 03, 2008 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.