I am not advocating that colon cleansing works. I am asking, politely, if you indeed have a real citation related to a study on this specific subject, please. (Incidentally, Snopes has no such article, and Quackwatch relates only to specific companies’ claims). If you don’t, then you haven’t convinced me that it’s quackery. I realize this is a controversial ideological line to tow, but if you don’t show me evidence of something one way or another, then I will not form a belief about it.
And no, this conversation really has nothing to do with colon cleansing; it has to do with the nature of knowledge. I know that people who pride themselves on their scientific minds will lambaste this attitude as being naive, giving unwanted credence to con artists, and a drain on scientific resources. Nevertheless, in my book, having a rigid default opinion on something because it is the status quo perspective, without the benefit of a specific inquiry into it, is just as dumb because it introduces confirmation bias, which I think is a very serious problem.
So according to this paragraph, I should not listen to certain people because they are ‘quacks.’ And they are ‘quacks’ because you state that whoever argues a position contradictory to the mainstream medical community is a “quack” and therefore not worthy of being heard, which is circular reasoning. The medical community have their own biases, their own internal politics, and powers structures. I have a number of very accomplished doctors in my family, and many of them tell me that there is a very strong disincentive for doctors to go against the grain of established medical theory, even if they have something important to contribute or if they have uncovered something worthy of widespread attention. For this reason, dumb theories like those of Freud go uncontested for years, and to this day form a basis for a lot of modern psychoanalytical theory. Of course, it doesn’t mean that every time someone argues a contradictory opinion it’s correct, but still, it’s a bit bothersome that someone would have to stake their career on it to bring up unusual observations. True, I’m not sure if it could work any other way, but it does make me wonder about what kind of theories have been shot down without being given a fair shake.
Anyway, I am not a conspiracy theorist, but you have to be critical about the psychological, political, and financial makeup of any organization that does research or advocates any particular position on anything. Maybe that means we can’t have certainty of knowledge most of the time, which I know is probably disappointing.
Fair enough. I can respect that you did research, and I am willing to hear someone out about their research, and what they’ve uncovered. But I don’t know you and I don’t know anything about you. Saying you’ve “done research” on its own doesn’t really mean much to me. Political think-tanks do research. It doesn’t mean that they don’t twist, omit, or otherwise ignore facts that run counter to what they are trying to prove, what they already “know.” And what about their sources? Could those authors have also suffered from the same problem? And besides, plenty of people write books about stuff they have researched extensively; should this mean, then, that every well-researched book on a single topic shares the exact same opinions? Of course not. I bet I can find a pair of people who have written multiple books on colon cleansing and who have completely contradictory opinions on the subject.
In summary, my point is that I believe we have to be cautious when we talk about “knowledge” in such confidence. I believe that we can have strong suspicions, but absolute knowledge? That’s tough. It’s hard to know what you can and can’t trust unless you not only do the research on the subject, but also on the background and paper trails of the people and organizations who have conducted the research.
I do not disagree completely with your point (and in fact, I often play your shrill ‘advocate of scientific theory’ role on a number of what you would call “quack” message boards), but I believe we should on a personal level, strike a balance between being hard-nosed investigators needing proof from traditional sources like research journals and being open to listening to information that may come from non-traditional sources.