quote:
Unlike politics, in science, it matters whether or not your ideas work.
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
Treating HIV with homeopathy?
Thu, 2007-12-06 15:04
#52
Le T
Thu, 2007-12-06 15:11
#53
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[b]I'm not at all at odds with you here. While I think scientific theories are pretty robust, I would totally agree that hypothesis are much more open to question, and some undoubtedly are more likely to be truer than others.So how do you discern them?[/b]
If the subject is too advanced, delegate your opinion to the experts.
Global warming is a good example. Very few of you have derived the equations that govern climatology, very few of you have read real scientific papers, and very few of you understand the link between infra red spectroscopy and the quantum theory of molecular transitions. Yet you're all willing to respect the models of these experts, because that's the best you can do. And it's a good judgment, because it's usually the right way to go.
I took a course on General Relativity (the modern theory of gravity). The very first things the teacher told us is how Newton was wrong, and why we believe Einstein's reformulation is wrong. The conclusions can be reached with simple thought experiments.
And simple thought experiments can help you understand why homeopathy is nonesense.
Thu, 2007-12-06 15:15
#54
quote:
Originally posted by Le Tйlйspectateur:
[b]I don't understand what you are trying to say.[/b]
Trust in science is deserved because science works. Your computer works, your car, modelling of the planets, elevators, air conditioning, antibiotics, et cetera. The functionality of your computer is independent of culture and politics. Its state is functional. If a space alien with completely different politics from any of us were to push the power button, it would turn on.
It is the politics of human beings which must adapt to the laws of nature, as it cannot happen the other way around.
In politics, it is much harder to measure, usually impossible, whether or not your ideas work. You can never prove that socialism is better than capitalism the way you can prove that chemistry trumps alchemy. There is a manifest objectivity which constrains the role of politics.
Thu, 2007-12-06 15:17
#55
Makwa
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]That's why all people of conscience have a duty to speak out against such obscenities masquerading under "alternative" labels.[/b]
This is where I think you take the point too far. While I would never spurn any contemporary medical treatment recommended by either my family doctor or my psychiatrist, with all consideration of side effect risk, I would also never reject a treatment recommended by a traditional Aboriginal healer (typically misidentified as 'medicine' people). I see no conflict between western medicince based on the European scientific tradition, and the medicine of my elders. In fact, some scientific treatments have found their origins in Aboriginal medicine.
What 'scientific' treatments can never supply however, is the 'spiritual' element, which is always considered to be a necessary part of Aboriginal healing.
It is held as a teaching among Aboriginal healers that medicines that have been 'distilled' or developed from traditional herbs or roots must necessarily lose much of their potency without the accompanying prayer and purification. No reputable Aboriginal healer that I am aware of would merely dispense medicine via an indifferent package like a pharmacist.
Whether or not some dismiss this as a placebo effect, I remain convinced that spiritual faith is a central part of healing.
Thu, 2007-12-06 15:18
#56
Makwa
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]The functionality of your computer is independent of culture and politics.[/b]
Hah. Spread that canard around at the next Linux convention, and see what happens. (tee hee)
Thu, 2007-12-06 16:33
#57
quote:
I see no conflict between western medicince based on the European scientific tradition, and the medicine of my elders.
Yes.
quote:
In fact, some scientific treatments have found their origins in Aboriginal medicine.
Yes.
quote:
What 'scientific' treatments can never supply however, is the 'spiritual' element, which is always considered to be a necessary part of Aboriginal healing.
Also a yes, though I would argue (perhaps unnecessarily) that in some treatments, no spirituality is involved. Like surgery, for instance.
A misconception I see in this thread and some previous ones is that debunking "alternative" medicine somehow extrapolates to an attack on all culturally-based medical practices. Like Trevor said upthread, quoting Dawkins, if it works, it's not alternative.
Edited to add: Hey! Did anybody else notice there's an ad for "homeopathy medicine" below the bottom of this thread?
[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: Sineed ]
Thu, 2007-12-06 16:38
#58
quote:
Originally posted by Le Tйlйspectateur:
[b]Unionist, you seem to be enforcing an even stronger binary than the one I originally pointed out.Don't you think that your opinion is a little ethnocentric? Even colonial?
[/b]
Can you not see that homeopathy is [b]profitting[/b] from anti-establishment politics by mystifying its customers, rejecting science and playing dress-up with seductive concepts like "natural" and "holistic" healing?
It is a billion-dollar industry, brought to you by such "anti-colonial" companies as Apex Energetics, Boiron, Dolisos, Nelson/Bach, Standard Homeopathics, Boericke, and Tafel.
At least the pharmaceutical industry has some products which arent sugar-water.
Homeopathy is as Western as McDonalds and Burger King!
Thu, 2007-12-06 19:01
#59
500_Apples
quote:
And simple thought experiments can help you understand why homeopathy is nonesense.
Could you elaborate?
Thu, 2007-12-06 20:08
#60
quote:
If the subject is too advanced, delegate your opinion to the experts.
That's just an appeal to authority or blind faith in designated "experts" That is pretty dangerous logic that has resulted in some seriously negative outcomes.
How do you determine who is a legitimate "expert"?
quote:
Trust in science is deserved because science works. Your computer works, your car, modelling of the planets, elevators, air conditioning, antibiotics, et cetera.
Not all science works, probably historically the majority of what is done as science is either wrong or irrelevant. One still needs to determine what is good, relevant and even safe. Take your example of antibiotics, they work to a point but can result in dangerous outcomes in terms of mutant strains of bacteria. There are often scientific or techinical solutions that can result in further problems.
Thu, 2007-12-06 20:12
#61
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]Not all science works, probably historically the majority of what is done as science is either wrong or irrelevant. One still needs to determine what is good, relevant and even safe. Take your example of antibiotics, they work to a point but can result in dangerous outcomes in terms of mutant strains of bacteria. There are often scientific or techinical solutions that can result in further problems.[/b]
Absolutely correct. But it would be irresponsible to conclude that scientific [i]method[/i] is undecided, subjective, culturally relative, up for grabs.
While science involves errors and problems and harm and destruction, at least it differs from homeopathy, which is false and intellectually insulting and has failed every extant trial and is nonsense through and through.
Thu, 2007-12-06 20:21
#62
quote:
Like Trevor said upthread, quoting Dawkins, if it works, it's not alternative.
If and how something works is often culturally determined.
Psychoneuroleptic drugs don't "work" beyond acting as a powerful sedative, that reduces emotional, physiological and cognitive response. They don't correct an imbalance in dopamine because no such imbalance has ever been empirically demonstrated. They do not treat an underlying biological mechanism because no such mechanism can be observed. Long term use of these substances have however shown to cause neurological impairment. This is certainly not healing but it maintains scientific legitimacy somehow. People in countries in where there western psychiatry does not reign supreme actually have better outcomes in terms of recovery from what is refered to as psychotic breaks. The responses to those in severe psycic crisis is often spiritual work that western science would claim to be bunk.
Thu, 2007-12-06 20:29
#63
Just returning to the thread topic, does anyone here see merit in treating HIV with homeopathy?
Thu, 2007-12-06 21:37
#64
Not just yet, sorry.
quote:
I'm not talking about value systems. I'm talking about science.
Unionist, it's very telling that you don't see the irony or contradiction in this statement.
It's exactly this kind of blindness that makes people's reverence of science so harmful, so misguided. I find it amusing that those who ridicule religion are apparently unable to see their own fanatical adherence to science as any kind of problem. Much like the religious zealots they deride, they see science as "the truth".
Thu, 2007-12-06 21:50
#65
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by jas:
[b]I find it amusing that those who ridicule religion are apparently unable to see their own fanatical adherence to science as any kind of problem. Much like the religious zealots they deride, they see science as "the truth".[/b]
What a better alternative than science? It's the rational analysis of physical phenomena.
Thu, 2007-12-06 21:58
#66
Sven
I figure if someone want to treat [i][b]their own[/i][/b] HIV (or other grave illness) with homeopathy, or prayer, or whatever, have at it. But, it would be unconscionable to try to convince others to do the same thing.
[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]
Fri, 2007-12-07 00:35
#67
I would have a tendency to agree with you Sven, although I worry that too many people assume that if an alternative medicine didn't work or was harmful regulations would remove it from the market.
For instance many people feel that it is too easy to get a new drug on the market and maybe it is but comparing it to the ease of alternatives medicines is night and day. The new drug has go through animal testing, then clinical trials, it must demonstrate positive health benefits and document any adverse effects in those trials, they must determine any potential adverse effects from interactions with other drugs or foods. It needs to prove itself before it is marketed and it must be shown that when it is produced it will meet standards for quality, quantity and constitution. Then once it marketed it must come with a summary of information about it and any potential side effects. Physicians still must report any adverse reactions from the drug and its approval may be withdrawn at any time. All of those built in safeties are good things, but none of those safeties exist to protect the consumer from alternative medicines or supplements.
Ephedra on the other hand didn't have any testing for safety or efficacy when it appeared on shelves, didn't require any explanation of possible adverse effects or interactions with drugs or foods, wasn't required to describe active ingredients on any labels, manufacturers were not required to maintain any records of those adverse effects, it was found to have a huge variance of active ingedients (about a factor of 50x) showing poor quality control, and it was allowed to make completely unsubstantiated claims. The FDA had to demonstrate that it came with an unreasonable risk to have it banned in the US and I think that took them 7 years. I am sure that a whole lot of people thought that because you could buy it in any healthfood store that it couldn't have harmful effects. Had ephedra been properly regulated and its quality ensured it probably would have been safe or at least much safer, but the industry is dead set against any regulations.
[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]
Fri, 2007-12-07 02:03
#68
quote:
Whether or not some dismiss this as a placebo effect, I remain convinced that spiritual faith is a central part of healing.
I find it interesting that the placebo effect was in fact nailed down as something very real by the scientific method. And I'd add that that science does not abhor or deny the spiritual. In fact it's quite the opposite.
I remember back some time ago to an article in the Skeptical Inquirer about a "ritual" that native people in the sub arctic used to employ. What seemed like pure superstition on the face, turned out to be sublime logic under closer scrutiny.
quote:
Much like the religious zealots they deride, they see science as "the truth".
Actually, I believe most people who hold to the scientific method and scepticism know that there are very few "truths". Maybe none outside the realm of mathematical science.
What we are fanatical about is determining what works and what doesn't, what is more likely to be "true", and what isn't.
Fri, 2007-12-07 03:57
#69
Le T
quote:
What we are fanatical about is determining what works and what doesn't, what is more likely to be "true", and what isn't.
But this is done by looking only at the material world. Maybe you are missing something?
Fri, 2007-12-07 07:25
#70
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]Not all science works, probably historically the majority of what is done as science is either wrong or irrelevant. One still needs to determine what is good, relevant and even safe. Take your example of antibiotics, they work to a point but can result in dangerous outcomes in terms of mutant strains of bacteria. There are often scientific or techinical solutions that can result in further problems.[/b]
Historically, most established science works very well. Science as we know it really only begings with Tycho Brahe, Rene Descartes, et cetera.
So - why would anyone on babble take global warming seriously, if almost none of you can derive any basic equations or underlying physical assumptions of climatology? Because the argument from authority is valid in this case. Occam's razor, et cetera. It's a fair principle that works fairly well.
Fri, 2007-12-07 07:31
#71
quote:
Originally posted by Le Tйlйspectateur:
[b]But this is done by looking only at the material world. Maybe you are missing something?[/b]
I wonder if you support the teaching of creationism in school?
Also, are you pro-choice? It's hard to justify a prochoice position once you accept that the existence of a spiritual world, and thus of "souls", cannot be dismissed as irrelevent to policy. I'm an agnostic now, but back when I was a teenager and believed in the existence of a soul, I was pro-life.
If you start from the perspective that all views are equal, and that evidence from the real world doesn't matter, then it often becomes impossible to make a moral decision.
Fri, 2007-12-07 07:34
#72
quote:
Originally posted by Bubbles:
[b]500_ApplesCould you elaborate?[/b]
Say a chemical has healing powers. This could be because bacteria or viruses find it toxic, or because it stimulates the immune system. How is diluting it to the point there's a few molecules left going to help? Hint, it's not. A molecule of mercury won't kill you. Dosage counts.
The other perspective, that a water molecule remembers what it was attached to and shares its properties... It assumes that particles are like people, rather than being elementary particles. Ridiculously anthropic. The reason it's invalid to assume such spectacular complexity is because if such amazing effects were already there, we would have detected them a long, long time ago.
Fri, 2007-12-07 08:52
#73
quote:
Historically, most established science works very well. Science as we know it really only begings with Tycho Brahe, Rene Descartes, et cetera.
Your statements continue to be both vague and based in circular logic.
What is established and who determines that?
WHat do you mean by works? Are you saying that basic science is irrelevant until it can find an application?
It's worth noting that most of the conclusions and assumptions Descarte made have been empirically demonstrated as false.
You still haven't explained how one determines who is an expert and who is not.
Are you saying science is only to be accpeted when it is accepted by the majority of experts?
Any emerging theory or paradigm will begin as a challenge to common assumptions within the field. Does that make it bad science. Thomas Kuhn of course argues that science operates within the confines of an accepted paradigm until there is a shift. Very few people doing a scientific discipline challenge the assumptions of the paradigm within which they are operating. I think psychiatry and economics are great examples of this.
quote:
So - why would anyone on babble take global warming seriously, if almost none of you can derive any basic equations or underlying physical assumptions of climatology? Because the argument from authority is valid in this case. Occam's razor, et cetera. It's a fair principle that works fairly well.
I actually did do a basic university course in climatology and I don't think the basic principles are all that difficult for anyone to understand. I think the basic principles of many sciences are not beyond the comprehesion of the average person. What I think is unfortunate is that very few people are taught the basic operations and methods of science, even more unfortunate is that people are unaware of the philosophical assumptions that underly scientific practice. In general I think your position is based on a great deal of elitism of which their is no shortage of in the Academy.
I am not sure your clear yourself on what you are proposing but I don't really think blind faith in scientific authority is a desirable or useful approach.
The interesting thing is that without actually stating it you are saying that the true base of science should be faith.
Fri, 2007-12-07 09:17
#74
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]I actually did do a basic university course in climatology and I don't think the basic principles are all that difficult for anyone to understand.[/b]
Did you derive that carbon dioxide has non-negligible opacity in the infra red using molecular physics?
Did you measure it in a laboratory?
Or did you take it on "faith"?
Did you go out and measure carbon dioxide emmissions yourself, or do you accept the measurements coming from the authorities? Do you take ~300 ppm on faith?
You took all those things on faith, on authority, trusting the authorities. And that was necessary, otherwise you'd still be on chapter 1.
***
Of course science is based on faith. Uniformitarianism, and a belief that processes can be explained by rational rules. It's got no intrinsic epistemological validity. It has an extrinsic one. And that is that it works. Neptune was predicted from applying classical gravity to Uranus. Fiber optics cables succeed in transmitting signals. And the list goes on.
quote:
Are you saying that basic science is irrelevant until it can find an application?
???
No. Sometimes applications take a long, long time to show up, but if interesting things manifest themselves in your work, you should pursue it and see what happens.
[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
Fri, 2007-12-07 10:05
#75
quote:
Originally posted by jas:
[b]I find it amusing that those who ridicule religion are apparently unable to see their own fanatical adherence to science as any kind of problem. Much like the religious zealots they deride, they see science as "the truth".[/b]
The "truth"? Tommy has spoken well to this point.
Religious zealots harass, bully, and kill others in the the name of the "truth".
Scientific zealots constantly modify their understanding of reality, as more nuanced evidence comes in, as technology allows more refined measurement, and as new theories are developed to account for those observations.
Then they build flying machines and bridges and surgical and diagnostic devices which save lives, increase longevity, reduce drudgery, and the rest.
Science stands for life. Religious zealotry promises only life after death. And it's always ready to murder you if you don't agree.
Before homeopathy kills any HIV sufferers, people of conscience should stand up and condemn these con artists anywhere they gather and anywhere they seek to hawk their indulgences.
[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
Fri, 2007-12-07 10:45
#76
Makwa
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Then they build flying machines and bridges and surgical and diagnostic devices which save lives, increase longevity, reduce drudgery, and the rest.Science stands for life. Religious zealotry promises only life after death. And it's always ready to murder you if you don't agree.
[/b]
Goodness me, unionist. Way to go waaay off the topic and get totally worked up. Whatever would my ancesters have done, sitting around all that time on the plains, waiting for some Eropean fur traders to come along and start increasing longevity and reducing drudgery.
Science = life. Everything else is either zealtry = {death / life} or something else.
Nobody is disputing medical advances and the value that can be had in alleviating human suffering. Why is the fact than many millions of people around the world have affinity for some kind of spiritual belief drive so many people into appoplectic fits? Sure, people should not be hoodwinked into believing in treatments that have no objective proof, while simultaniously denying demonstrable medical benefits, but this doesn't mean we have to declare an all out war against all non-rational faith systems.
Fri, 2007-12-07 11:06
#77
quote:
Originally posted by Makwa:
[b]Goodness me, unionist. Way to go waaay off the topic and get totally worked up. Whatever would my ancesters have done, sitting around all that time on the plains, waiting for some Eropean fur traders to come along and start increasing longevity and reducing drudgery.[/b]
Makwa, this is not about you and your ancestors. I have nothing but respect and admiration for Indigenous peoples and their traditions. They have been robbed of their land and heritage, and it is the duty of progressive people to do whatever you tell us to help make that right.
But my opinions about science vs. religion are mine. They have nothing to do with your ancestors. And they represent a distinct small minority opinion among my ancestors as well. I am entitled to them, and I will not change them - until someone shows me evidence to make them change. Until then, I personally consider all religious beliefs about physical reality to be bullshit, which harms not only the mind, but (as in the case of giving flower water to HIV victims) kills people.
[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
Fri, 2007-12-07 11:10
#78
Well western culture darned well should invent things to reduce drudgery, having done so much to create drudgery, at least for the lower orders.
Anyway, yeah, the old religion/spirituality vs: science thing. Just on the off chance we don't settle this age old debate once and for all in this thread, let me go back to the OP.
Despite my misgivings about homeopathy as applied to HIV, I see what are described as alternate, or spiritual approaches as useful. Personally, I'm among the biggest hard science reductionist empiricist types around, (although on a personal level I'm trying to soften those edges a bit) but I could not do my job competently, esp working in a multi cultural environment if I didn't keep my mind open to alternative world views.
I meet my clients within their own context, and do not ask them to meet me in mine. We talk, I try to understand, and good treatment or interventions turn out to include the ones the client is going to feel good about. This includes acknowledging the clients spiritual self.
I should say I've had very good experience with Ayurvedic medicine as an adjunct to other treatments. There are a lot of alternate approaches which emphasise a regard for balance in life which I might do well to adopt myself.
[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: oldgoat ]
Fri, 2007-12-07 11:40
#79
Beaver ponds move me spiritually. I am awe struck by what I know of it, and wonderstruck by what I know I don't know of it.
There is only one pure spirituality, and that is the spirituality of [i]knowing[/i]. All else is cheap imitation sold by smarmy salesmen in back alleys.
quote:
Scientific zealots constantly modify their understanding of reality, as more nuanced evidence comes in, as technology allows more refined measurement, and as new theories are developed to account for those observations.
Unionist illustrates the most key and important point about science and the scientific method ( which is just an organized way of thinking) in that of all ways of looking at the world, only science has a self correcting mechanism.
quote:
But this is done by looking only at the material world. Maybe you are missing something?
Evidently not.
quote:
Because the argument from authority is valid in this case.
The "argument from authority" is not necessarily a fallacious one, as you point out 500 Apples. It becomes fallacious when we take the word of an expert who is expounding outside his field of expertise, or believe something based on it's age, for example.
Fri, 2007-12-07 12:02
#80
quote:
Unionist illustrates the most key and important point about science and the scientific method (which is just an organized way of thinking) in that of all ways of looking at the world, only science has a self correcting mechanism.
I think that true scientists probably are this way. Babblers touting the scientific method as supreme vehicle to all knowledge, however, are not this way. And unfortunately, the way science and scientific results are communicated in our society, the way our entire social, political and economic ways of being are now almost exclusively based on a logical positivist take on reality, that self-reflection and self-adjustment in light of aberrant facts, in light of phenomena that can't be explained within the scientific model does not occur, so anything that doesn't conform to results predicted by a scientific framework becomes "invalid". Not the method itself, the facts that don't fit the method. This, in my opinion, is not good science, and it's not a good way to approach our reality.
We've had these discussions before, of course.
Fri, 2007-12-07 15:07
#81
To get back O/T: I graduated and started practicing pharmacy at the height of the AIDS epidemic in the 80s. People were dying horrible deaths, and all we could do was make them as comfortable as possible.
I visited an HIV ward in a Toronto hospital, and it was filled with young men, emaciated, dying. The doctors let me go on rounds with them and we visited a young guy, thirtyish, who had the AIDS cancer, Kaposi's sarcoma, and it had spread to his lungs. He sat slumped while the doctors talked over him. As we left the room, I was the last to depart, and I heard him whisper snidely, "Tell me something I don't already know." When I got outside the room, the doctors turned and asked what the patient had said to me. When I told them, one doctor rolled his eyes and said, "You know what would be the kindest thing? If I would go into these guys' rooms and say, 'It's a miracle! I've got the cure for AIDS right here.' And I would fill up a syringe with 100 mg of morphine, and inject them with it."
But thanks to antiretroviral therapy, doctors are no longer reduced to fantasizing about mercy-killing their patients as the most significant and compassionate thing they could do for them. When I last went to an HIV conference, they were saying they were now thinking that people with HIV may live normal lifespans.
But there was homeopathy back then. So if it did work, it would have, no? Out of desperation, people were trying everything.
Fri, 2007-12-07 17:21
#82
TemporalHominid
quote:
Originally posted by Le Tйlйspectateur:
[b]But this is done by looking only at the material world. Maybe you are missing something?[/b]
and what else would we be observing but the material world? If I can not observe something immaterial, does it matter if it is there or not?
If this 'something' is not observable how can I be missing something?
Fri, 2007-12-07 19:25
#83
500_Apples'
quote:
Say a chemical has healing powers. This could be because bacteria or viruses find it toxic, or because it stimulates the immune system. How is diluting it to the point there's a few molecules left going to help? Hint, it's not. A molecule of mercury won't kill you. Dosage counts.
But does this reliance on science based chemicals and treatments to keep desease at bay not ultimately lead us into an unsustainable quack-mire? Soon we will need hundreds of specialists who each micro-manage a bit of our bodies well being. Do you realy want to go in that direction?
I like the idea behind Homeopathy. In that life seems to have evolved in water and still is mostly water. Water seems such creative medium, in that it can bring so many substanses together and interact with each other.
Fri, 2007-12-07 21:57
#84
quote:
and what else would we be observing but the material world? If I can not observe something immaterial, does it matter if it is there or not?If this 'something' is not observable how can I be missing something?
Let's try starting with consiousness it is neither observable by an independent observer nor is it material even though it is the product of neurobiology.
Fri, 2007-12-07 22:09
#85
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]Let's try starting with consiousness it is neither observable by an independent observer nor is it material even though it is the product of neurobiology.[/b]
You're confused.
Conciousness is not "not observable", it's just "not explained".
This is very different from homeopathy, which fails tests and and relies on assumptions which are contradicted by known results.
Fri, 2007-12-07 22:10
#86
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific zealots constantly modify their understanding of reality, as more nuanced evidence comes in, as technology allows more refined measurement, and as new theories are developed to account for those observations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Unionist illustrates the most key and important point about science and the scientific method ( which is just an organized way of thinking) in that of all ways of looking at the world, only science has a self correcting mechanism.
A distinction needs to be made between how science is supposed to be done and how it actually carried out, the myth vs. the reality. In doing science scientist often start with preconceived assumptions and seek to confirm them. Scientist will often reject observations that do not fit the theory. My father was an agricultural researcher at a University and spent most of his time in the field and the lab, he was not a professor but he was the one who was in charge of carrying out the day to day research. He often complained that the Profs. would reject data and observations that did not fit the theories they were promoting. It is not that rare that data is massaged and at other time outright falsified,people seem to forget that scientists and researchers are human and are prone to all the foibles and errors of the rest of us. It isn't even accurate to speak of science in such monolithic terms, relying only on robust research as an example of the validity of all scientific endeavour is of course unscientific. Many of the claims here have little to do with the production of scientific knowledge and have more to do with the construction of a grand scientific narrative.
quote:
The "argument from authority" is not necessarily a fallacious one, as you point out 500 Apples. It becomes fallacious when we take the word of an expert who is expounding outside his field of expertise, or believe something based on it's age, for example.
Just accepting the argument of authority still does not resolve the difficulty in how you define an expert or a legitimate authority, it does not distinquish good from bad scientific work.
Fri, 2007-12-07 22:12
#87
quote:
You're confused.Conciousness is not "not observable", it's just "not explained".
I'm confused o.k. so enlighten me, please explain how consiousness is observed rather than experienced?
Fri, 2007-12-07 22:16
#88
quote:
Originally posted by Bubbles:
[b]500_Apples'But does this reliance on science based chemicals and treatments to keep desease at bay not ultimately lead us into an unsustainable quack-mire? Soon we will need hundreds of specialists who each micro-manage a bit of our bodies well being. Do you realy want to go in that direction?
I like the idea behind Homeopathy. In that life seems to have evolved in water and still is mostly water. Water seems such creative medium, in that it can bring so many substanses together and interact with each other.[/b]
Bubbles,
It matters not whether or not the idea seems elegant. What matters is whether or not the idea is true. I realize that's the scientific take on things but what else? Giving honey to people with schizophrenia sounds elegant too, but that too would likely not work.
On that note though, all people, no matter how sick, should drink several glasses of clean water a day, regardless of homeopathy.
You're right that we're moving to a situation where there are a lot of specialists. Doctors for the ears, for teeth, for the heart, for the brain, for the lungs... et cetera. I'm not sure what the problem. Nature is complex and we have no choice but to adapt. I can only think of specialization as a means of adapation, but if you can think of something better your name will be in the history books at the same level as the highest philosophers.
[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
Fri, 2007-12-07 22:19
#89
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]I'm confused o.k. so enlighten me, please explain how consiousness is observed rather than experienced?[/b]
I don't grasp your dichotomy. I say it's both observed and experienced.
Fri, 2007-12-07 22:26
#90
TemporalHominid
This would require a whole other thread to explore [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]Let's try starting with consiousness it is neither observable by an independent observer nor is it material even though it is the product of neurobiology.[/b]
Philosophy has a role to play in this case because it could lead to new discoveries.
Provisionally, no, consciousness is not observable by an independent observer. I say provisionally because there is some research using PET scans which monitor radioactive isotopes of oxygen injected into consenting subjects. They attempt to map the parts of the brains that process information, language organise it and use information to solve problems and to communicate ideas.
I can't recall if there are other ways (tools) being used in an attempt to observe consciousness. Also, I can't recall if more data is needed at this time, but I think it will still needs to be peer reviewed for some time yet (assuming there is enough robust data.)
It's been a while since I have read some Stephen Pinker, and I might scare up some of his articles and books again.
[url=http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/books/index.html]http://pinker.wjh.harvard...
[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]
Fri, 2007-12-07 22:37
#91
quote:
Provisionally, no, consciousness in not observable by an independent observer. I say provisionally because there is some research using PET scans which monitor radioactive isotopes of oxygen injected into consenting subjects. They attempt to map the parts of the brains that process information, language organise it and use information to solve problems and to communicate ideas.
I can't recall if there are other ways (tools) being used. Also, I can't recall if more data is needed at this time, but I think it will still needs to be peer reviewed for some time yet (assuming there is enough robust data.)
You are talking about the biological correlates of consiousness not consiousness. Besides since I have a graduate degree in psychology including studies in cognitive science and neuropsychology, than you should trust my expertise or do I need the 80's rockstar do of Pinker to get some respect around here.
Fri, 2007-12-07 22:48
#92
TemporalHominid
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]....Besides since I have a graduate degree in psychology including studies in cognitive science and neuropsychology, than you should trust my expertise or do I need the 80's rockstar do of Pinker to get some respect around here.[/b]
I am not following you.
I do not believe your argument re: authority / expertise ,above, involved me. Are you confusing me with someone else? I don't recall being disrepectful to you or your perspectives re: cog. sci or neuropsychology. I was under the impression we were having a dialogue.
Do you have links available to your peer reviewed papers N.R.KISSED? Then I can make a judgement for myself if I should trust your expertise.
Fri, 2007-12-07 22:59
#93
I remember reading once that medieval doctors would prescribe their patients walnuts, if the patients had an ailment of the brain. It made sense: a walnut, after all, kind of looks like a brain. I wonder if they prescribed sausages for ailments of the ....
Oh, never mind.
Sat, 2007-12-08 03:44
#94
quote:
I think that true scientists probably are this way. Babblers touting the scientific method as supreme vehicle to all knowledge, however, are not this way.
I would agree. I would even agree if the charge was leveled specifically against me. It is perhaps most difficult, and therefore most imperative to first be sceptical with one's self, and with the things one [i]wants[/i] to believe. But scientists, and others, are human, so this approach isn't always as rigorous as it should be. In my case, Michelle and Unionist, and at times Oldgoat, are not shy to plop me in the face with the message board equivalent of a bladder, and there are others too.
And, I appreciate it-- if not initially, then a few seconds later. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Where science goes wrong is when fellow experts in a field do not perform the same function for their colleagues, through peer review and through the duplication of their work to check to see if the results are substantially the same.
But these are human failings, and not failings in the method.
The more people we have in the general public who understand this, the more scientists feet will be held to the fire, and there would also be a little less wiggle room for those who want to prey upon the desperately ill, to bring this back to the original focus of the thread.
Sat, 2007-12-08 04:01
#95
quote:
He often complained that the Profs. would reject data and observations that did not fit the theories they were promoting. It is not that rare that data is massaged and at other time outright falsified,
I seem to recall reading somewhere, some time ago, that no one has ever been able to duplicate the research of Gregor Mendel-- at least not to the point in getting as perfect a set of data as he got.
I've done scads of data collection at work. Very tedious data collection. There are all kinds of ways for things to go askew. Even when I reviewed my own anomalous data, and even when the engineer who wanted the study done reviewed them, sometimes the data was ignored for the time being. At the end of the day though, the parts were put up on test. If they passed, then the anomalous data was just a bit of weirdness. If they didn't pass test, then the data served as a starting point for problem solving.
Sat, 2007-12-08 04:10
#96
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]He often complained that the Profs. would reject data and observations that did not fit the theories they were promoting. It is not that rare that data is massaged and at other time outright falsified,people seem to forget that scientists and researchers are human and are prone to all the foibles and errors of the rest of us. [/b]
Then the phenomena and/or tests would not be reproducible, the conclusions would not be peer-verifiable, and the research would be flushed down the toilet - barring, of course, a worldwide conspiracy to ignore inconveniently true data.
As between science and anti-scientific theories (such as religion or homeopathy), it is the latter which rely for their survival on conspiracies of wilful blindness to received observation and experience.
Science, by contrast, thrives when received truths are challenged and refuted.
It was not their fellow scientists who burned Giordano Bruno at the stake or bullied Galileo into silence.
Sat, 2007-12-08 06:18
#97
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]You are talking about the biological correlates of consiousness not consiousness. Besides since I have a graduate degree in psychology including studies in cognitive science and neuropsychology, than you should trust my expertise or do I need the 80's rockstar do of Pinker to get some respect around here.[/b]
If two people are going to give me health advice, one is a artist or a chemist and the other is a physician (the "expert"), I'm going to give more credibility to what the physician says.
That does not mean that I'm going to take the physician's advice as absolute truth. Rather, the physician's advice is simply given more weight due to her expertise. If I have cancer and talk to five different and independent oncologists and they all give me the same advice, I'm going to be highly confident of what they are telling me.
If, on the other hand, a religious person, a spiritual person, or a "natural medicine" person tells me, based on their religious, spiritual or "natural medicine" expertise, to do XYZ to enhance my physical health because it is his "belief" that it will have a positive impact on my physical health, I'm going to go "Uh-huh." But, I'm not necessarily going to discount it entirely, depending on how plausible his claim is. For example, I can believe that prayer or breathing exercises or what-have-you can help reduce stress and that that can have a positive impact on physical health. That is plausible to me. If one of those folks tells me that an herb will cure my HIV or my brain cancer, I'm not even going to listen to them. The probability of them being correct is about as close to being zero--without actually being zero--as one can be.
But, again, if an individual wants to take an herb or engage in some other "natural remedy" to cure their HIV or brain cancer, by all means, have at it. It's your body.
Sat, 2007-12-08 08:04
#98
quote:
Then the phenomena and/or tests would not be reproducible, the conclusions would not be peer-verifiable, and the research would be flushed down the toilet - barring, of course, a worldwide conspiracy to ignore inconveniently true data.
Peer review is often held up on babble as some magical process the reality however is much different. There is a great deal of politics and ideology that come into play, papers are often turned down for ideological rather than scientific reasons. Even the best intentioned peer review is impacted by the time constraints that academics face, the process of review is far from rigorous. It is also sometimes imossible to distinquish an expertly fudged paper from one that is genuine. In psychiatry it has become common practice for pharmaceutical companies to write articles and have psychiatrists sign there name to them, even though the practice has been exposed it still goes on frequently. A great deal of research is also accepted despite the fact that no one has ever even tried to replicate it. It is not uncommon to hear of researhers entire carears have been built on fraudulent date, these are only the extremes and those that are caught.
My point is that is does scientific enquiry no favours to overstate it's accuracy or overstate it's ability to produce knowledge. We can utilize any tool more effectively if we are aware of both strengths and shortcomings.
As for HIV and homeompathy I certainly wouldn't bet on it over retroviral drugs and I really doubt many people would. Until we observe even the slightest trend of this occuring than I would doubt such fears would be empirically validated.
Sat, 2007-12-08 08:44
#99
Le T
quote:
But these are human failings, and not failings in the method.
So a method developed by humans, in an effort to understand the world from a human perspective, has as its major failing, humans? And this is not a "failing in the method"?
quote:
Provisionally, no, consciousness is not observable by an independent observer. I say provisionally because there is some research using PET scans which monitor radioactive isotopes of oxygen injected into consenting subjects. They attempt to map the parts of the brains that process information, language organise it and use information to solve problems and to communicate ideas.
I can't recall if there are other ways (tools) being used in an attempt to observe consciousness. Also, I can't recall if more data is needed at this time, but I think it will still needs to be peer reviewed for some time yet (assuming there is enough robust data.)
This is kind of unscientific because it's based on the untested, unverifiable causal relationship between the physical body and consciousness. It takes on blind faith the assumption that the body causes consciousness and not the other way around (or any other way for that matter).
Sat, 2007-12-08 12:16
#100
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]Peer review is often held up on babble as some magical process the reality however is much different.[/b]
I didn't say "peer review". I said "peer-verifiable". Your reply was non-responsive.
Sun, 2007-12-09 04:47
#101
quote:
In psychiatry it has become common practice for pharmaceutical companies to write articles and have psychiatrists sign there name to them, even though the practice has been exposed it still goes on frequently.
That touches on another subject, that being the damage done when professional degrees are accepted as "get out of jail free cards".
That kind of fraud is as dangerous as people selling fraudulent cures for serious diseases.
But, until there are serious consequences for such things, it will continue.