Hard News: Miracles just rate better, okay?
510 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 21 Newer→ Last
-
OTOH, I couldn't achieve that kind of comfort with someone waving a crystal over me.
My visit with a (very respected) Wellington homeopathic doctor with Lucia was an hour long and sent my blood pressure soaring.
-
And that's sort of the crux of the argument. It doesn't matter how old something is or what the Tibetans thought about it or whether it's from the Amazon or baked up in a lab. That's mostly a sidetrack. The question is: if alternative treatments are so great, why is it that despite fairly massive amounts of money being poured into testing by places like the NIH, there has never been clear-cut evidence of a direct, better-than-placebo effect?
Lucy, you will have to be specific as to which field you mean by "alternative". I grew up in a country where therapies such acupuncture and marijuana are used in mainstream allopathic medicine. They are not touted as cures, but are considered a useful part of integrative medicine. If you live in France, aromatherapy is part of mainstream, allopathic medicine. "Alternative" is a pretty broad term.
Much of what has been found by ethnobotanists does indeed have valuable pharmaceutical properties. I have been searching the internet for the ethnobotanists Keir mentioned (Hobsbaum and Ranger) but could not find any reference to them, let alone anything they have published.
The ethnobotanists I've read have written in great detail by the complexity and specificity of the plants used by various indigenous tribes in the Amazon Basin. And many pharmaceutical companies are following the ethnobotanists footsteps, trying to find plants with useful applications that can be developed into drugs.
Canada's medical system is much less divided into "western" and "alternative" and quite a few resources are devoted to what is called "integrative" medicine. One of my friends who used to be a paediatric oncologist trained again as a psychotherapist and has for many years done "guided imagery" with paediatric cancer patients. They imagine their immune cells as warriors fighting the bad guys... and she works in BC's biggest, most established cancer treatment centre. She is neither laughed at nor dismissed, though I can't imagine her work would be much respected here.
The irony of my involvement in this argument is that I would be soundly in the western scientific camp for most discussions. I'm not really a fan of "alternative" medicine at all. I wouldn't consider homeopathy, have never been to a chiropractor or osteopath, don't know much about herbalists. I am interested in the history of science and medicine, and I'm interested in other cultures. I have been quite surprised at how dismissive NZers are of Chinese orthodoxy - as Canada is very Chinese this is not common in my country.
-
My visit with a (very respected) Wellington homeopathic doctor with Lucia was an hour long and sent my blood pressure soaring.
We went to the late Bruce Barwell, classical homeopath, two or three times with one of the kids. Even then, I wasn't buying it as any more than magical theatre, but I did, I think, regard him as more-likely-to-heal than yer average suburban naturopath.
-
The question is: if alternative treatments are so great, why is it that despite fairly massive amounts of money being poured into testing by places like the NIH, there has never been clear-cut evidence of a direct, better-than-placebo effect?
I agree Lucy. If we substitute homeopathy for "alternative treatments" would that be more acceptable to those who argue against you?
I thought homeopathy had been pretty much 100% discredited. How can something work if there are no active ingredients? As for GPs, I've always found mine sympathetic. I could always book a longer appointment if I wanted a more thorough hearing. It would probably be cheaper than an "alternative" practitioner.
I feel that patients should demand information, do their own research and know what treatments and drugs involve. I think I am more likely to get a sensible answer from a doctor rather than a herbalist etc. If I am not happy with my doctor's diagnosis I can ask for a second opinion.
I'm always distressed when I see shelves of homoeopathic remedies in a pharmacy because - well - I thought pharmacists would be more scientific. My husband asked for a spray for nasal congestion and was sold a very expensive homeopathic inhaler by the pharmacy assistant. It didn't work. He didn't realise what it was when he bought it.
-
I'm always distressed when I see shelves of homoeopathic remedies in a pharmacy because - well - I thought pharmacists would be more scientific. My husband asked for a spray for nasal congestion and was sold a very expensive homeopathic inhaler by the pharmacy assistant. It didn't work. He didn't realise what it was when he bought it.
The weird thing is, even by the lights of homeopathy, that shouldn't work. Having someone grab a spray off the shelf and take it to the till is hardly taking account of the whole person.
-
Much of what has been found by ethnobotanists does indeed have valuable pharmaceutical properties.
I think I remember expressing my hearty support for this earlier in the thread. My problem is basically arguments from authority and/or age for these things, rather than actually testing them out or - and this is the crucial bit - accepting negative results from those tests.
Lucy, you will have to be specific as to which field you mean by "alternative". I grew up in a country where therapies such acupuncture and marijuana are used in mainstream allopathic medicine.
Marijuana has fairly well-known biochemical effects...the "mainstream" issue is due to recreational use, not questions of efficacy or effect.
"Alternative" is, as you say, a tricky beast to define. I would say, broadly, it's anything that is promoted on the basis of, as mentioned above, "tradition" or "naturalness" (and especially anything involving "energy fields") rather than proven efficacy, and, specifically, anything that is promoted on these bases in spite of a broad lack of evidence that any asserted efficacy is not just the placebo effect. And, of course, anything that promotes itself as, specifically, alternative - in the sense of "in opposition to".
But it's fuzzy, and given the usefulness of the placebo effect in dealing with humans, there are good arguments for some integration. I just ask that it be *honest* integration. Because anything else opens the door to the quacks and the frauds and the real tragedies. Alternative medicine, however you choose to define it, is an extremely lucrative industry. Of course, so is mainstream medicine (however you define that.) But there's often a great deal of portrayal of Evil Money-making Big Pharma vs. the Nice Natural Good-doers, and the reality is...much more complex.
-
Hobsbawm and Ranger were (historians) co-responsible for The Invention of Tradition which looked at a collection of western `immemorial traditions' and found out that a great many of them weren't in fact; I should assume based on the fact that people are the same everywhere it's roughly the same everywhere. (yes dodgy extrapolation yes western-centric yes,)
Isn't the history of particle physics based on insights that are followed sometimes a great deal later (if at all) by actual empirical data, and does it not in fact remind us constantly of the ultimate limits of empiricism?
No. It really really really isn't. Michelson Morley. Yes insights followed by confirmation but also insights followed by proof that they were utterly wrong.
-
Yes insights followed by confirmation but also insights followed by proof that they were utterly wrong.
And that refutes my point how exactly?
-
Because in fact particle physics was not characterised by insights followed by confirmation at all; it was characterised by insights followed by both confirmation and disproof.
And I can't see how this suggests the limits of empiricism.
(Well, actually, not confirmation because you know, science never really confirms theories, merely fails to deny them, and especially with particle physics that's something to bear in mind.)
Unless you mean to contrast to a science that develops purely based on theories drawn from pre-existing data, which seems really rather a strange idea to me (and of course as any AI type will tell, just asking for trouble.)
-
Because in fact particle physics was not characterised by insights followed by confirmation at all; it was characterised by insights followed by both confirmation and disproof.
Well, duh! Otherwise it'd be enough to postulate the existence of a particle for it to exist. Have you been reading too much Greg Egan?
And I can't see how this suggests the limits of empiricism.
If Heisenberg doesn't suggest there are limits to what can be observed, than I don't know what does.
-
The weird thing is, even by the lights of homeopathy, that shouldn't work. Having someone grab a spray off the shelf and take it to the till is hardly taking account of the whole person.
What do you think of pharmacies having shelves of homoeopathic remedies then?
And even if the "whole" person is considered, how can the watery substance have any effect at all - unless the ailment is psychosomatic?
Wouldn't it be more honest for homoeopathy specialists to set themselves up as counsellors if listening is all they're really doing?
And my husband got a big growling. Don't tell me that's why it didn't work!!
-
If Heisenberg doesn't suggest there are limits to what can be observed, than I don't know what does.
We are only starting to explore the limits of what can be observed, as this amazing image suggests.
I'm a strong physical determinist, but would hate to suggest that we'll ever understand the world completely. We certainly don't at the moment. All of which is to say that science (which is a method, not a set of facts*) works best when it is humble.
*This distinction is very important, and cannot be stated enough.
-
What do you think of pharmacies having shelves of homoeopathic remedies then?
Especially ridiculous.
And even if the "whole" person is considered, how can the watery substance have any effect at all - unless the ailment is psychosomatic?
As has been noted several times in this thread, an ailment doesn't have to be psychosomatic to be psychologically influenced.
-
If Heisenberg doesn't suggest there are limits to what can be observed, than I don't know what does.
You don't need Heisenberg for that; one can imagine a perfectly happy empiricist who admits that one can't observe things that happen infinitely far away in an infinitely large universe,
And she wouldn't see that as a limit to empiricism but merely as something of a limit to the universe, which it would be nonsense to try and `go beyond'; Heisenberg is rather mean to realism, not necessarily empiricism.
-
You don't need Heisenberg for that; one can imagine a perfectly happy empiricist who admits that one can't observe things that happen infinitely far away in an infinitely large universe
Sure, but Heisenberg says there's a precise limit in what you can see in yourself, or the ground you sit on. The implications are rather different.
-
Not really: one is limited to one's instruments, and there are quite possibly fundamental limits on one's instruments, but that's not really a deep problem for the empiricist: here are things we can know, and the rest is metaphysics.
-
Sorry to threadjack but can I just note the sad news that the the missing toddler has been found down a drain, just as the medium on Breakfast suggested the other day? A suggestion which caused such outrage. I wonder if there was any behind the scenes work between her and the police to locate this place?
-
You didn't have to be a medium to guess that -- I suggested the same to my partner days ago. Does that make me psychic?
If I were a copper, I'd be looking for kid-sized holes around the place and I wouldn't need a TV fraud to tell me.
Honestly Hilary, are you just trying to wind us up?
-
Linley Boniface said it all in the the last sentence of this article today:
-
But Feynman's point was the same as mine: sometimes a brilliant insight precedes empirical data.
A lot of the time. Einstein was apparently in no doubt as to the outcome of many of his theories many years in advance of any ability to actually collect the empirical data, convinced by the mathematics alone. Naturally the experiments convinced everyone else, and that is really their place. Data as a source of inspiration is nowhere near as useful as many people think. I tend to agree with Popper that the 'Bold Claim' is where it's at. The claim that comes after the evidence is hardly scientific at all. It's just a summary of data. The claim that comes before the data, and leads to astonishing discoveries, that is the claim that seems to have hooked into some real truth about the universe.
It would have been quite possible for Ptolemaic physics to compete with Copernican, given enough epicycles - Copernicus used circles in all his calculations himself, and was no more accurate in predicting planetary movements. But his repositioning of the earths position in the model led to theoretical ramifications that could be explored - for example, a heliocentric model suggested that the planets closer to the sun should go through phases, rather like the moon. With the advent of the telescope, these phases could be clearly seen on Venus. There's something pretty convincing about a discovery like that.
How can you tell if it's a brilliant insight without empirical data?
By collecting the data, obviously. But you don't have to do that first . Sometimes it goes that way, but sometimes it doesn't.
Isn't the history of particle physics based on insights that are followed sometimes a great deal later (if at all) by actual empirical data, and does it not in fact remind us constantly of the ultimate limits of empiricism?
Every kind of physics has such a history. Newtonian physics was responsible for the discovery of Neptune, as it the presence of an unseen planet might account for some irregularities in the orbit of Uranus. They did the maths, looked hard for it, and hey presto, look, there's a big planet no one even knew was there before.
(Well, actually, not confirmation because you know, science never really confirms theories, merely fails to deny them, and especially with particle physics that's something to bear in mind.)
Well it seems to work that way in physics anyway...not so sure it's like that in every field that could be called scientific...
Unless you mean to contrast to a science that develops purely based on theories drawn from pre-existing data, which seems really rather a strange idea to me (and of course as any AI type will tell, just asking for trouble.)
Yup, for sure, that's my type. I use AI to block spam, and the data used to block it is out of date within a few days. An even better example would be in finance, in which technical analysis of trends is not certainly a better method than understanding 'fundamentals' of value. Both have their place in predicting price movements.
Not really: one is limited to one's instruments, and there are quite possibly fundamental limits on one's instruments, but that's not really a deep problem for the empiricist: here are things we can know, and the rest is metaphysics.
I tend to agree with Keir here, but it's a semantic discussion about what the word 'empiricist' means. My understanding was that they pretty much were defined by their opposite, rationalists, in that they believed knowledge of the world came 'from without' rather than 'from within'. They did not agree with Descartes that you could understand the world merely by thinking about it, no matter how logical you are.
But some readings of the term have it that it means 'Only believing in what can be observed'. Which is an extreme form, maybe. Some, like Locke, discounted any 'innate ideas', although it is not entirely clear whether he meant that we had no innate ideas, or whether he was only saying that innateness was no guarantee of truth.
But either way, he was never saying that there is no world but what we can observe. He was only saying that it was the only world we could know about . I think this is fairly consistent amongst empiricists, although logical positivists would seem to be trying to legislate against all discussion of the unobservable.
So I don't think empiricism is refuted by Heisenberg. But empiricism is a long and twisting tradition, and pinning it down as a complete doctrine is probably misunderstanding it almost entirely.
So many schools of philosophy lay claim to science (not just empiricism - rather old fashioned as it is). So many practitioners do too. Many have convincing arguments. Many have little more than dogma. Some make incredible discoveries, yet others dedicate themselves to denying every discovery ever made. I tend to admire the first kind, but see the necessity for the second kind. Science is a deeply political process, like all of human thought and endeavor. It is not a completely systematized practice, it is not mathematically provable. It is full of dispute, and has undergone revolution after revolution. We could be wrong about nearly everything. I like to think that we are simply becoming less wrong. If we are every completely right about everything, we will never know it for sure. The future could, as Hume (noted Empiricist though he was) pointed out, not resemble the past, without any logical inconsistency at all. In that respect it is our modern religion - to speak of it with reverence is commonplace, to understand it almost impossible, to refute it unthinkable. It is powerful beyond all comprehension because it is us, it's what we do as humans, at least half of the time. The rest of the time we're trying to work out what we want from science, and why we want it, and what's wrong with just getting a nice back rub instead.
-
And as important - some may say more so - for the understanding of science I heartily recommend this little piece.
It's a good piece. It's extremely hard to ignore the words of a great scientist when it comes to science, and when he fails completely to define the term, it makes you wonder if it is definable. Certainly he characterizes science, at least as it came to him, and that kind of anecdotal evidence is extremely compelling, unscientific though it is.
I do find his utter refusal to even know about philosophy of science a bit limiting, though. Someone so brilliant could surely have contributed at least a little to it.
-
Paul Feyerabend had some interesting views on science's place in society . I rate Against Method as in the top 5 most influential books on my own thinking.
-
He correctly referred me to my GP when he realised my incipient kidney stone problem, despite its presentation as a bad back strain, wasn't a musculoskeletal issue. We're not exactly talking about some doctor-hating purveyor of woo.
As is often, with alternative treatment practitioners.If the condition warrants alternative views, I have found the acupuncturist, deep tissue massage therapist I use, will recommend I check with the GP as well as his suspicions. The western blood tests seems particularly beneficial for him also, and possibly because blood flow is an important balancing act for the body, with his treatments. If for example a test says cholestral is high he will use the information (along with his herbal knowledge and it aint bats wings or bile) to reduce it. His respect for western medicine is without judgement just as a friend's scientific trials for Diabetes understands that herbs can be beneficial in a cup of tea. At least, I have no judgement on one over the other before I (via my skeptical brain) am prepared to try once, to experience it myself. I admit to needing different types of help, some in the form of tablets, some via massage, some acupuncture, some osteo, and some just plain ol' common sense. Guess what? The combination is working!I have friends who think that a lot of shit has hit my fan but whatever floats your boat will surely be the right cure.How about they all just get along without dismissing others as being inferior.
Right, I'll just get my coat.:) -
You didn't have to be a medium to guess that -- I suggested the same to my partner days ago. Does that make me psychic?
Given the most common cause of death for wandering toddlers, it's pretty damn hard *not* to guess that a drain or stream would be involved.
I believe one of the most common psychic "insights" in this sort of case is that the body will be found near water - because, one has to assume, it's pretty difficult for bodies not to be found near water unless they're in a desert.
-
The area had been thoroughly searched already and according to the Dompost today they re-searched on a 'hunch'. The DP is also making the same link with Deb Webber's comments last week.
What I am asking is was there any behind the scenes work involving the medium and if so, was the information useful. Just interested.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.