What utter nonsense. If someone presented you with a homeopathic dropper [1] saying it would cure cancer vs a new gold nanoparticle experimental therapy [2], "no one" would be able to tell the difference?

While the new treatment may turn out to have issues (no one was suggesting experiments were risk free), to imply it's indistinguishable from quackery, is false.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

[2] http://bjr.birjournals.org/content/85/1010/101.full.pdf

I tend to dislike elitist thinking (or though I'm still guilty of it at times), not for moral reasons, but simply because empiricism, in my admittedly subjective opinion, is routinely lauded over common sense in nerdy communities (HN, slashdot, SO etc), and is often a form of bias. Having a bias doesn't mean one is wrong necessarily, but it can be problematic too, especially if one lacks cognizance of said bias.

For example, my gf is the furthest thing from a computer scientist, but is routinely more observant socially and can spot bullshitting better than I in certain contexts (among other superior cognitive skills).

However in the past I've tried to pick too many battles in one post, and that makes it difficult for someone to upvote, as they may agree with some, or one point, but not another and creates a mixed cognitive dissonance. Hence I didn't want to launch into a large foray of intellectual elitism.

Hence the aim was, for the most part was to try to leave epistemological disputes (how do we know what we know, who knows what etc, do all groups have equally justified beliefs?), out of the debate and focus on the regulatory side of things and empowering the individual to be allowed follow their own life and death decisions.

That said, perhaps I could have left the opening paragraph off altogether in retrospect.