A good and entertaining rationalization but unfortunately not confirmed by any study done with anything resembling rigorous discipline. Worse, studies debunking the copper-arthritis connection are legion. Studies supporting the notion seem to be non-existent.
Science is constantly changing in what they determine through studies. So adamently accepting what is shown in studies now, doesn't mean that they will be the same 20 yrs from now.
Granted I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying that studies change and you also have to look at each study individually and how they all approached their method of research.
The vast majority of cures from the lunatic fringe can be dismissed a priori.
Actually, logically they cannot be. What you are committing is what is called an ad hominem fallacy. If they are wrong, then you have to show that they are wrong because of reason(s) x, y, and z. You can't just say that they are wrong because they are extremists or on the lunatic fringe.
If what they say is truly wrong, you should be able to show reasons for that. Tedious and time consuming yes, but if they give "reasons" about what they say then you have to counter them with your own "reasons".
Anything that requires mysterious 'energies' coursing along equally mysterious conduits can be dismissed out of hand.
Granted I don't believe in that stuff, but logically once again, you have to state reasons as to why that is so, not just dismiss it totally without giving reasons. However, remember that fire was once considered a mysterious energy as well as lightening. Sometimes what my seem like mysteries to us now, may not be later on.
For instance not quite as arcane mind you as mysterious energies, but there was a manual for the Cavalry about nutritional and fitness requirements for their horses. It mainly had anecdotal evidence like they did "A", observed "B" so therefore, "A" caused "B". Really weak evidence like that or they got information from Indian Shaman. They compiled the aforementioned manual. Oldtimers still use it, most educated owners use it, but they don't realize it. It took about 150 yrs and with regard to the last publication of "Nutrient Requirements of Horses" in 2006 or 2007 about 90% of what was in that manual was proven to be true. Now that book uses scientific equations and terminology, but the technology took that long to be able to show what horse healers and shaman were doing back then with no scientific proof was correct.
I'm not saying that will be the case with regard to this stuff, but the point is, don't dismiss outright and as new evidence comes in be open to re-evaluate.
Other endeavors that contradict things known to be true can also be discarded there on the midden heap of inanity.
It was known to be true that the earth was the center of the universe and that it was also flat at one time. Imagine if anything that contradicted that was automatically thrown out?
This is why science doesn't not accept things as facts, but as theories, because it is constantly changing. Science and scientific studies are all about questions and finding answers. What we know today, but actually be considered wrong 20 yrs from know because we are relying on people's interpretations of the facts, those things change as the situation changes. They don't become laws until there has been copious amounts of research into every known variable. There might actually have to wait until the technology or knowledge changes to allow for research that might finally debunk what was considered to be a law too.
The rest of the preposterous hypotheses put forth daily may require actual scholarship and testing in order to debunk them. So far this has been 100% effective. It serves to separate modes of treatment that actually work from the vast majority of the lunacy that does not.
All this stuff requires analysis to debunk it. That's the thing. What happens if something is missed just because a researcher thought the idea was an an act of lunacy? It might seem like a waste of time, but cutting corners can be pretty bad.
So you subscribe to the concept of legitimacy through longevity, eh? If something has been around long enough then there must be something to it?
Also known as the fallacy of tradition. However, don't commit the converse of that as well. Just because it's been around 2400 yrs doesn't mean that it's wrong and needs to go. I'm not saying that you are, I'm just saying that the converse is just as illogical.
If that be the case then you must also subscribe to astrological nonsense, the ability to divine the future, and a host of other absurd wastes of time. After all, they've been around since Thrag of the hill people first burned his finger in a fire.
One doesn't necessarily follow the other.
Once again, I want to make it clear that I'm not saying that I disagree with you, my problems are with your logical structure of everything.
There is no ability to logically dismiss things outright no matter how lunatic you might think they are. You might miss something that may slightly change your rigid view(not to their viewpoint mind you) to something that is probably just a little different.
If people give reasons why they think something, then you have to give reasons back as to why you think they are wrong or have things slightly off. That's the biggest complaint that I have is that you are so willing to quickly dismiss things. My first BS degree was in animal science(emphasis in equine) and you do not just dismiss things flat out. You note it and you investigate.
