Stand By

Mr Gibson writes : ‘I stand by absolutely every point I made and feel deeply flattered that Peter Hitchens is sufficiently irked by the comments of a random and largely powerless individual such as myself (who does not have the platform of regular media invitations in which to push my viewpoints and then moan that everyone is just biased against me) to earn such a personalised ticking off in his court.’

Mr Gibson should realise that I did not select his original comments because of their powerful logic, their compelling eloquence or their illuminating and unexpected display of factual knowledge. Rather the reverse.  If he is flattered, as he says he is,  then he may be in the same position as the comedian who appeared at the old Glasgow Empire and mistook the howls of derision for laughter at his jokes.  Would it be more unkind to leave him with his misapprehension, or to tell him the truth?
                                                                     
What I am irked by is not the strength of his argument (it isn’t an argument and has no strength) . I am irked by the poor quality of his arguing technique, his unwillingness to engage with the case that I offer, the ‘unresponsiveness’ for which I so often have to upbraid hostile contributors here. Does he really think I mind a good strong well-argued challenge? On the contrary, I much prefer that to praise, and I prefer it immensely to his approach. I have yet to see a single one of my critics answer the following conundrum :’ How can it be right to prescribe powerful, objective drugs with undoubted physical, chemical and biochemical effects, for a complaint for which there is no objective physical, chemical or biochemical, or biological diagnosis?'

Further, what is the evidence that these drugs actually treat the complaint for which they are prescribed a) any better than a placebo and b) by treating the complaint rather than by numbing the senses of the patient?

Mr Gibson says with pride that he ‘stands by’ every point he made. What were these points? He appeared simply to be telling me that he, Mr Gibson, thinks I am wrong. Well and good. Perhaps I am. But usually the next step in such an argument is to explain why I am wrong. No such explanation was offered, except the fact that Herr Professor Doktor Doktor Gibson, MD,  BSc, PhD and bar (is that enough qualifications for it to be certain he is right?) thinks I am wrong, plus a wholly made-up and wrong summary of my opinions and an ad hominem reflection against me (I have put it on the mantelpiece with all the others).  I have also challenged him to justify this, but he hasn’t so much as tried to do so, let alone succeeded.

He can stand by his points until it gets dark and starts to snow, for what I care. But what I asked him to do was to back his position (and his attack on me) with specific facts ,and with logic. If he won’t do that (and I rather suspect he won’t because he can’t), I am not sure that he has anything to stand by. By the way, I wish I knew what these 'regular' media invitations are,  that he says I get. They appear to me to be rather irregular, especially compared with the regular presenter's slots which seem to go to some of my left-wing Fleet Street coevals, but perhaps he has detected a pattern invisible to me. Which reminds me of a lunch I once had with the new DG of the BBC, George Entwistle, a story for another time....