Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: To Daniel

Expand Messages
  • Daniel Hindes
    Diana: Good morning Daniel, I ve no more time to reply to the same points over and over again. Daniel: Would you consider replying to different points then? Or
    Message 1 of 15 , Jan 27, 2004
      Good morning Daniel, I've no more time to reply to the same points
      over and over again.
      Would you consider replying to different points then? Or perhaps actually
      reading what I take so much time to write for you?
      The person making the claims needs to show the studies supporting the
      claims. There's lots of things there *isn't* evidence for and we
      don't go around asking each other for evidence there is no
      evidence. :)
      My point exactly. However, YOU have made the initial claim, not I. I have
      not called Steiner's pedagogy "science". Rather, YOU called it
      "unscientific". Now when I ask you to prove your claim, you cannot. But
      somehow that is my problem?
      Furthermore you're asking me to find you research supporting the
      need to *stop* an abusive practice. Ethical considerations generally
      prohibit such research, except retrospectively. I don't know if
      there are studies of long-term effects of forced switching; I'll try
      to research this.
      I am asking you to put up or shut up. It appears I will get neither. This
      may be a bit blunt, but some people can acknowledge when their statements
      have overstepped their ability to substantiate them. Others can't, which I
      find a pity.
      The "left hemisphere" and the "right hemisphere" of the brain are
      not the etheric and astral bodies, Daniel.
      First, if you would attempt to read carefully, you would find that I said no
      such thing. And second, I must ask you when you became an expert on etheric
      and astral bodies.
      The study you copied suggests "improving the literacy environment,"
      and does not suggest a benefit to forced switching of laterality. In
      fact it doesn't even mention the possibility of switching
      laterality. It treats laterality as a given of the "environment."
      Perhaps you read "environment" in a social sense - as in the child's
      caretakers, who might force a change - but it refers to the
      neurological "environment," i.e. the dominance of one or other
      For the third time, my logic is as follows:
      1. Study shows that brain characteristics influence cognitive development,
      specifically reading ability.
      2. Environment influences brain development (not stated in study)
      3. Environmental influences can incluede which hand is used to write
      4. Ergo, which hand to write with could influence brain development
      5. If brain development influences cognitive development, then which hand a
      child writes with could influence brain development.
      6. Ergo, which hand a child writes with could influence cognitive
      If you feel that there is a flaw in this logic, please, let's discuss that.
      I am perfectly aware that the study in no way directly addresses laterality.
      Settled issues are sometimes reopened in science, of course. If this
      some day happens, I assure you I'll be happy to discuss these new
      studies with you.
      I'm sorry, I missed something. What issue is it that is is "settled" by
      science that you would be happy to discuss with me? It is certainly not the
      issue of the influence of handedness on cognitive development, one that I
      would suggest hasn't even been opend by science.
      Just a note, not planning to reply to another post asserting that I
      am dishonest, got these opinions from Peter Staudenmaier or Dan
      Dugan, whether I am interested in the quotes or actually read the
      quotes, or informing me that I have strong feelings about switching
      left-handers. No shit Sherlock! I so appreciate the great trouble
      and time you've taken with the subject, Daniel.
      So this is how it is when you can't win an argument on facts or logic. And
      the critics accuse the Anthroposophists of being close-minded?
      P.S. The suggestion that this is never done without the parents'
      consent is belied by many reports from Waldorf parents.
      Earlier you said that you agreed that the current practice of informing
      parents seemed to be the more common one. Do you have new information that
      caused you to change your mind? If so, please share it.
      One more point - you wrote about anthroposophical doctors (MD's) -
      sarcastically -
      Quoting Daniel:
      >Oh, but they are anthroposophists, so their opinion is not to be
      That is correct. Trust is to be earned. If they feel
      their "indications" are above the scrutiny of their peers outside
      anthroposophy, that may be why their opinions are not even
      acknowledged outside of anthroposophy.
      Now here you are again fighting a straw man. I was being scrupulous in
      differentiating case studies from double-blind placebo-controled
      "scientific" (in the narrowest sense) studies. I stated that the first
      existed, but the second did not. From this you somehow managed to accuse the
      entire field of anthroposophically extended medicine of not WANTING any
      scrutiny. I know for a fact that on the contrary, they are dying to have
      these things studied in proper depth. Now if you have the aproximately $2
      million dollars that a properly sized double-blind placebo-controled study
      on the efficacy of curative eurhythmy would cost and feel that this would be
      a good place to spend it, I can put you in touch with some people to work
      with on this. And if you know anyone at the NIH, preferably in the
      department responsible for funding studies into alternative medicine,
      perhaps they can arrange a grant. The issue hasn't been studied because no
      one has the funds, not because the anthroposophically MD's don't want the
      exposure. But you, with almost no knowledge of the field at all, somehow
      feel yourself qualified to pass judgement on the intentions of dozens of
      individuals whom you have never met. A true trait of a first class mind.

      Diana: About eurythmy:
      (Mis)quoting Daniel:
      >I am not aware of any [evidence] one way or the other.
      If there is no evidence of it one way or another, an MD who
      prescribes it is a quack.
      Nice twist on my words. I said that ther wasn't any scientific evidence
      (meaning in the placebo-controlled, double blind sense). Of the other,
      non-scientific evidence, called "case studies" there are volumes. I was
      being precice in differentiating the two types. Much medicine is based on
      case studies. Because of the prohibitive costs, many areas are not on
      double-blind placebo-controled studies. If this is your criteria, most
      practicing doctors are "quacks."
      Glad to see you have closed your mind and stooped to dirty tricks of
      misquotation for cheap points. How very Staudenmaier.

      Daniel Hindes
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.