Eric Brand and Divisiveness, now peer review

[Guest guest]

I have received a number of private emails and it seems that I am still

offending people, so I've decided to stop posting about JR unless something

comes up that deserves a response. Obviously this topic pushes buttons for some

people, and admittedly I have made some comments that probably are a bit

offensive for those inclined to take them personally.

 

To be honest, I think that the strong feelings that I and many other TCM folks

have come from years of repressed anger due to the constant stream of

derogatory, condescending, and ill-informed comments that the some people in the

Five Element community launch against " TCM " (whatever that is). Not saying that

anyone here does this, but I think it is a widespread problem that a few bad

apples in the Five Element community divide our field with baseless

generalizations and dogma that has virtually no evidence to support it. I call

a spade a spade and suddenly the thread is named " Eric Brand and the

Divisiveness of the Profession. "

 

All I was trying to do was to give just a brief, passing hint at the concept of

peer review. Peer review is a normal thing in most disciplines. TCM has been

deeply alienated and maligned by JR's rather extreme opinions, so it is

understandable that we want to examine the evidence base behind JR's claims.

 

I know that people get very attached to their teachers and they get very

defensive when the academic integrity of their teacher's work comes under fire.

But it is normal to subject someone's academic work to peer review, no one would

publish something in Scientific American without expecting that the community

would examine their evidence base. I apologize if anyone took my comments about

JR personally, and I acknowledge that I was wrong to make such sweeping

statements in a few instances.

 

Trust me, I know what it feels like to get defensive about having a teacher's

work get subjected to critical analysis. My teacher Nigel Wiseman is one of the

most commonly insulted people in the entire field, and often the comments stem

from much less evidence than we've seen JR subjected to here. But Nigel's work

should be subjected to peer review. He comes from a normal academic discipline

where peer review is expected, his methods were based on standing up to peer

review. I have people requesting that I stop posting about JR, so I will, but

in principle I don't think his published work should be immune to peer review.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

Thanks for your comments Eric.

Your contributions have been read with interest by many, I'm sure, and

are the kind of airing the profession needs.

If not here, where? If not now, when?

Any counter-comments are received as interesting in their own right as

well.

This is how we learn to read, learn to study, learn to think, learn to

learn... and learn to give.

 

Xie xie and gesundheit.

ann

 

 

On Aug 28, 2009, at 12:46 AM, smilinglotus wrote:

 

> I have received a number of private emails and it seems that I am

> still offending people, so I've decided to stop posting about JR

> unless something comes up that deserves a response. Obviously this

> topic pushes buttons for some people, and admittedly I have made

> some comments that probably are a bit offensive for those inclined

> to take them personally.

>

> To be honest, I think that the strong feelings that I and many other

> TCM folks have come from years of repressed anger due to the

> constant stream of derogatory, condescending, and ill-informed

> comments that the some people in the Five Element community launch

> against " TCM " (whatever that is). Not saying that anyone here does

> this, but I think it is a widespread problem that a few bad apples

> in the Five Element community divide our field with baseless

> generalizations and dogma that has virtually no evidence to support

> it. I call a spade a spade and suddenly the thread is named " Eric

> Brand and the Divisiveness of the Profession. "

>

> All I was trying to do was to give just a brief, passing hint at the

> concept of peer review. Peer review is a normal thing in most

> disciplines. TCM has been deeply alienated and maligned by JR's

> rather extreme opinions, so it is understandable that we want to

> examine the evidence base behind JR's claims.

>

> I know that people get very attached to their teachers and they get

> very defensive when the academic integrity of their teacher's work

> comes under fire. But it is normal to subject someone's academic

> work to peer review, no one would publish something in Scientific

> American without expecting that the community would examine their

> evidence base. I apologize if anyone took my comments about JR

> personally, and I acknowledge that I was wrong to make such sweeping

> statements in a few instances.

>

> Trust me, I know what it feels like to get defensive about having a

> teacher's work get subjected to critical analysis. My teacher Nigel

> Wiseman is one of the most commonly insulted people in the entire

> field, and often the comments stem from much less evidence than

> we've seen JR subjected to here. But Nigel's work should be

> subjected to peer review. He comes from a normal academic discipline

> where peer review is expected, his methods were based on standing up

> to peer review. I have people requesting that I stop posting about

> JR, so I will, but in principle I don't think his published work

> should be immune to peer review.

>

> Eric

>

>

>