I expect any statement made to science professionals to be treated with courtesy and an open mind.
Name calling isn't a part of the scientific method to my understanding. Your first example of irony, in that you accuse me of a temper tantrum and yet you're the one calling names and making insults in every sentence.
Your opinion of my character is not relevant, and as I expect you are aware, attacking the person is a well known logical fallacy. A moderator should be aware of that, but it appears you are not.
Argumentum ad hominem, look into it.
Strawman again, I never said they should cease giving advise, or that that advice once given should be ignored, I simply said their is a conflict of interest in the giving of that advise by people who would profit most were that advise to be faulty.
Noting an obvious conflicting interest is not suggestion of a conspiracy. Further, as explained in detail in the debate you linked too, the mechanic analogy fails to relate, for a variety of reasons. Such as self repair potential, true competition, pain, obfuscation, oligopoly, instant feedback, motive to deceive, pay, and social pressures.
Also unrelated, changing oil, and diet and exercise are cliché in their ubiquity. I don't need third party expert review to determine that changing the oil and controlling my diet are good ideas. When a dentist recommends a tooth paste however, I have to take his word for it unless I'm prepared to pay for an independent clinical study.
Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial.
Irony again in that you just stated that denial of your contention is as absurd as a belief in mind control satellites.
That's not a refutation, its an argumentum ad verecundiam.
http://patientsville.com/symptoms/tooth-loss.htm
"Dude" if it happens partially by accident it is strongly indicated the it can be done completely with effort. Many things which were thought impossible have come to pass. Retroviral gene therapy alone opens the door to potential total control of the mouth with a pill.
Ad Hominem, again. Just because I may not understand, doesn't mean the readers won't. I suspect your attack is merely a smoke screen for your own ignorance.
No, it's not a joke.
If no sedation (IV sedation, nitrous oxide) is used, then between $150-250 at a general dentist office. If you go to an oral surgeon, it will cost $350-500. Sedation can add $100-300 to the cost.
Is this really what passes for debate in your social circle? You seem unable to defend your assertions without attacking personally.
What you experience is anecdotal evidence, and thus does not constitute a representative sample. That's why we do studies rather than simply asking a random involved person.
Further you can't present your speculation of what other dentists may see or think. Does the concept of evidence as opposed to hearsay escape your understanding?
That's like saying there is only one cause of death but there are "a number of influencing variables" such as war, cancer, and cars.
I realize the result is the same, destruction of enamel, but to say there is only one cause is shocking coming from a man who claims to be a DDS.
Let's say I had an oral fixation and a tongue piercing and I was constantly chewing on it, is that seriously the same as being born with weak enamel, and is that in turn the same as being a soda addict?
It's called an analogy, they are useful, and you should look into them. My point was that I can't brush away a cavity or brush a tooth out, or brush a crown on.
Actually it is, my neighbor has significantly more money than me and doesn't mind me sharing because I'm very low impact.
Nothing is "occurring" in my argument. Nor did I claim anything was occurring in reality, I simply stated the possibility that one can accept the consequences of one's own actions and inactions, and still find fault with a system.
In my case however since you seem so interested in me personally, I am an example of it occuring.
I never claimed to have a mastery of dentistry, and the claim that I have to have one to detect an obvious fiscal conflict of interest is absurd. Would I be justified in claiming that you needed a degree in economics to refute my claim since it is financial in nature? Of course not.
Not yet.
teeth63a
Strawman.
I couldn't find a single example of truly independent third party review. but I'll admit I only looked for about 20 minutes, after all the burden of proof isn't mine. Clinician's Report by the way is hardly independent, they accept donations and they test dental products.
Ad Hominem again. Simply stating that I am ignorant is no more an argument than me saying "you're wrong."
Uhh, no, in fact I mention those facts as support for my contention.
Thus you've made my argument for me. Once again, for the cheap seats, I am simply saying the conflict exists. That you and Bill automatically assume that I am saying all dentists are sadistic thieves, speak more to your self image than my assertions.
-=To the rest of you.=-
I'm not going to debate this entire board all at the same time. I'm on debate.com if one of you has the nerve to try me on neutral territory.
I know I've not convinced any of you.
On a personal note, your collective behavior disgusts me. I've debated professionals from every field I've had interest in from fundamentalist religious leaders, to particle physicists and mathematicians, and never have I encountered a more scornful, insulting or childish group in a setting of claimed professionalism.
Bible thumpers, skin heads, PETA fanatics, neo conservatives, etc have all shown themselves to be more courteous and professional in their defenses of their beliefs.
Armorshell, can I put my sword away now? This is utterly without point. These people have WAY too much vested interest to even remotely consider the truth let alone admit it publicly.
(Trident)
