Hard News: Miracles just rate better, okay?
510 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 16 17 18 19 20 21 Newer→ Last
-
For example, he thought that negative opinions about astrology and the effectivity of rain dances were not justified by scientific research, and dismissed the predominantly negative attitudes of scientists towards such phenomena as elitist or racist
...astrology. Astrology.
-
If Deb had said anything to anyone at the time (on the 6th) she could hardly change her tune the next morning.
It's alright. I'm officially over it.
-
Just to bring things back to about page 5 of these posts....and to finish. Found this Ben Goldacre article in a recent Bad Science piece in the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/03/bad-science-verdict-drug-trials
-
I must defend Rain Dances.
They work on two levels:
1/Doing something is better than doing nothing & this is a party with a purpose. You can let your frustrations out in dance and beating a drum.
2/That drum and stomping on hard dry earth might assist/cause the clouds to compact together and actually start raining.
I'm still wrapped with the 'discovery' that all molecules vibrate. In my world view science is catching up with the Maori world view that all things have a life force or mauri. Where there is movement there must be a life force.
A huge misinturpretation on my behalf, sure, but I still see a relativeness in these two different world views. -
Giovanni:
Actually, I've seen plenty of 'psychics' do their thing for free, or for a modest expense reimbursment. Many of them appear to be in it for the attention and validation, and I suspect may genuinely be convinced of being gifted. I wouldn't judge the whole category on the few who do it to turn a buck.
IMHE 'psychics' - people who provide information which they couldn't have obtained by any readily explicable means - are real enough. Whatever 'gift' they possess, though, doesn't seem to provide anything particularly useful, such as tsunami prediction, winning racehorses or, despite the best efforts of TVNZ's hype machine, crime solving.
Those I've encountered have been, apart from some rather superficial affectations, very ordinary people. When they do 'see' or sense something genuine, they usually misinterpret its significance. While I wish there was some objective method of investigating how such 'powers' work, as there appears to be little immediate benefit from harnessing these things, the debate over whether or not they exist doesn't strike me as important.
From stories I've heard from old people, and from the somewhat paranoid behaviour of a couple of older 'practitioners' I met years ago, there appear to have once been laws in force to protect people from their own supposed folly in seeking the services of 'fortune tellers'. Does anyone know if these were repealed, or have they simply fallen into disuse?
-
Gee that was some thread already.
Perhaps it hasn't been expressed clearly enough already:
Placebo effect is a positive result. It requires belief. If you successfully destroy the credibility of "quackery" you remove a potentially useful placebo.
On other bits:
Cranial osteopathy for reflux seems to have observed support from many more than just Russell.
Having an osteopath who has a good understanding of the musculo skeletal structure of the body check you out and advise you how to sit/stand/walk and start the ball rolling with a little relaxation is quite likely to be effective, and worth paying for.
My familial experience is that diet and mild eczema are closely linked.
-
...astrology. Astrology.
Nah, I wouldn't be prepared to say that western dismissal of non-western astrology wasn't basically racist; after all western anthropology etc did dismiss correct ideas for racist reasons, therefore on the basis that the reasons for incorrect and correct ideas are essentially similar, I wouldn't be surprised to say that western views on non-western astrology aren't on one level racist.
(& again for western astrology where i shall let elitism equal racism, also of course one can't attack Feyerabend's arguments by simple ad hominems. One can disagree with F but his ideas do need to be engaged with.)
-
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2964992/Come-clean-over-Asian-woman-police-told
Back to the "othering" of races ... I think the Asian community leaders have a right to demand some sort of clarification here.
-
I wouldn't be surprised to say that western views on non-western astrology aren't on one level racist.
Fair enough, there's no rule against both those things being true. But the thing is that scientific inquiry has ruled out astrology being true in a very comprehensive manner; you can't ignore that. If you're going to pick a belief that has been the subject of unfair prejudice, pick something a little less obviously wrong.
-
I watched a court case during Auckland's cook-street market heydays . He, the tripped out hairy dude, had been charged with reading taro-cards, in public. His lawyer was Colin Amery. Colin had the case shifted to the high court. The charges were subsequently dropped, I understood.
What a great story Steven. Interestingly enough, Colin Amery also claimed psychic powers, and made a pretty accurate and detailed prediction of the allocation of seats in the 1978 election. Although the feat gave him a certain amount of media cred, particularly with NZ Truth, he was never able to repeat it.
-
Steve Parks, I was wondering when you were going to show up, that Feyerabend reference was mostly for you - I thought you'd disagree.
Re: Astrology and racism - I not sure if Feyerabend was saying Astrology particularly had been a victim of racism. He spoke of many 'alternative' beliefs, and I think he was making his 'racist' attack on different things, like the dismissal of rain dances. But then again, maybe it was a coded reference to an earlier prevalence of 'paranormal' practices amongst Gypsies in Europe. There might be a case to answer there, at least in reference to earlier refutations of the paranormal.
As for his actual point behind, I don't think he is particularly defending these beliefs, or saying that they are true. It's more a case of saying that they haven't been proved wrong anywhere nearly as conclusively as cheerleaders of scientific orthodoxy might like us to believe, and there is still a chance of significant discoveries from them.
For starters, that which is not mainstream science is a colossal amount of beliefs and practices. A complete and systematic review of all of them is seriously a pretty big ask. But it seems that many cheerleaders would like us to think that not only has such a review been done, but that it was also 100% conclusive.
Secondly, within any particular practice that we might want to put a box around (lets choose chiropractors for instance), it's not like there is some small set of doctrines that one could call the 'core principles', the rejection of which would reject the entire business. Chiropractors train for many years, learning hundreds of techniques. The individuals often then go on and combine what they have learned from that particular training with ideas from many other disciplines. By the end of it, you have a massive collection of individuals only loosely connected by some training that may have formed only a small part of their professional lives. To refute 'chiropraction' in general doesn't seem like a particularly straightforward matter at all.
This is why Lakatos refined the idea of scientific refutation from Poppers initial system, taking into account the idea that science is not a simple collection of propositions, but a process undertaken by entire 'research programs', which collect loosely around an idea or collection of them (the negative heuristics, he calls them IIRC), but have many competing ideas within the framework, and the refutation of these is entirely possible without any damage to the reputation of the program. Indeed that task is the business of the program. The negative heuristics can't be refuted at all, in his framework, and the perceived value of program as a whole will be dictated by the amount of 'discoveries' it is making. If it is not making any, and is spending most of its time defending the negative heuristics, it is said to be 'degenerating'. But not false - that has no place in his system - although degenerating is certainly a negative connotation.
Feyerabend's views must be seen in the context of an answer to Lakatos. That was his intention when he wrote Against Method but Lakatos died before they were able to work on the intended work which was to begin with Lakatos' theories and end with Feyerabend's response.
He perceived that even though Lakatos theory was a massive improvement on Popper, it was still ultimately trying to do the same thing, to allow certain ideas to seize power (quite literally) over humanity. The meta-research-program which could be called 'orthodox science' is thus again only one such program, and competes side-by-side with many rivals. These rivals would probably be called 'degenerating' by Lakatos, but Feyerabend believed that such a label only served a rhetorical purpose of making life harder for the other programs, forming a self-fulfilling prophecy of the supremacy of the orthodox. Of course the orthodox is the most reputable, the most powerful, the most wealthy, and the most successful - that is almost true by definition of the word 'orthodox'. But that is not an argument for the suppression of the unorthodox. If you step outside of the religion of science, and look at the history of other ideas, you usually see that the massive ascendancy of one orthodox idea to total control is extremely unhealthy in the long run for humanity, and it was for that reason that Feyerabend believed in the 'separation of science and state'.
Interesting ideas. I wouldn't say I agree with all of them, but I agree with many of the sub-points. I think orthodox science is extremely arrogant in a way that serves no good purpose except for the perpetuation of it's own colossal power. I think that no idea is too crazy to be explored, indeed my favourite inventor of all time is Edison, who was famous not only for his colossal output of amazing inventions but also his totally whack beliefs, including numerous dalliances with the occult. I think racism (and sexism and all sorts of other prejudice) may play a huge part in our mental construction of science. I think scientific method is understood in only an extremely superficial way even by towering geniuses in the field of science - perhaps this is a psychological necessity, but it surely not an institutional necessitiy, nor should their ignorance form the basis of political decisions about the direction of humanity with respect to inquiry into the unknown.Are these postmodern views? That I don't know - I never studied postmodernism in too much detail.
-
Ben, that gets the "most educational and stimulating comment in thread" award from me.
-
Ben Wilson - I had eczema for just over a quarter of a century. Nothing topical (including various cortisone ointments) was truly effective, but swimming the sea helped.
*mental effect* When I was 10, the lastest dermatologist I was taken to said to my mother, "It'll probably go away in her late 20s."
I dont know what he was thinking of- but my last bout of eczema occurred when I was 30.I'm 62, and the miserymaker has never come back.
The only life change I had made by then was - I had stopped eating red meat (because I'd been in an abbattoir and hated what I learned.)
Eczema was not called 'nervous eczema' for nothing methinks. But small kids who scratch themselves raw - even infected areas- only understand an overwhelming itch - as do, indeed, more rational adults.
All best with getting rid of the cursed thing.
-
All best with getting rid of the cursed thing.
Hey Ben, have you tried (ok, ok, I like plants,right?) Aloe Vera gel. Get a plant and use the gel/flesh inside the stems. I use it often after a session in the garden, whereby my plants thank me with hundreds of scratches and it soothes and heals quickly. If nothing else, it could help alleviate the irritation.Many gels on the market contain additives that can give Aloe a bad rep so I recommend the actual plant. I'd go as far to say, it wont hurt and it's not expensive. :)
-
Ah, yes, thanks for that Ben.
I didn't catch the first third or so of the thread so apology if the Niels Bohr anecdote has been brought up already. Here it is, as told by Slavoj Zizek just yesterday on Democracy Now! :
You know Niels Bohr, Copenhagen, quantum physics guy. You know, once he was visited in his country house by a friend who saw above the entrance a horseshoe, you know, in Europe, the superstitious item allegedly preventing evil spirits to enter the house. And the friend, also a scientist, asked him, “But listen, do you really believe in this?” Niels Bohr said, “Of course not. I’m not an idiot. I’m a scientist.” Then the friend asked him, “But why do you have it there?” You know what Niels Borh answered? He said, “I don’t believe in it, but I have it there, horseshoe, because I was told that it works even if you don’t believe in it.”
-
The final word, one would think, on the mystery Asian woman:
The mysterious Asian woman seen with Aisling Symes was mentally unwell and has a history of trying to lure children into cars with lollies.
The Herald has learned the woman was from the Philippines, had a dog and fitted the general description given by the 9-year-old who saw her approach the toddler just after 5pm last Monday week.
The woman was identified as police profiled "persons of concern" living near Longburn Rd in Henderson, where Aisling went missing.
-
Beat me to it, Russell. Certainly understandable why the police were playing their cards rather close to their chest with that one; trying to avoid the very reaction which has been so under discussion in this thread.
It also explains how things went from "mystery Asian woman" to "possibility of abduction" in a very short space of time. Nothing whatsoever to do with veiled racism, and everything to do with information developed during the investigation but withheld from the media.
-
Ste(ph|v)en (Judd|Crawford) & Gio: I'm glad you appreciated. Gio, I feel pretty sure after reading your thesis that you might appreciate Against Method . My question about whether it is postmodern was mostly directed at you. It opened my eyes, whatever label one puts on it.
Islander
All best with getting rid of the cursed thing.
Thanks. I think the sea water idea isn't as crazy as it might sound - although part of that might also be because one tends to be mostly naked when they swim, in the sun, and UV can help with eczema a lot. Possibly also the mental effects of swimming plays a part, it is highly refreshing, cooling and invigorating. Cheers for the reminder, mental note, must get me to the beach more.
One good outcome of my eczema - my son also suffers from it, but I've had it so long my doctor considers me an expert, and gave me a huge tub of low strength steroids at very low cost, under the understanding that I would use every other trick I knew in preference to it. I have only used a tiny fraction of it - following the advice that I found so hard to follow as a child myself, I moisturize him every day, and it has come under excellent control, and his skin is really quite beautiful. But this could just be luck (or bad luck in my own case).
Sofie
Hey Ben, have you tried (ok, ok, I like plants,right?) Aloe Vera gel.
Not as yet - despite arguing against Peter Ashby here, I've been following his advice all my life and trusting only orthodox medical advice. But I'm ready to branch out now, since the current treatment I have does have the awful potential side-effect of cancer. But it is also very effective, and has freed me from total steroid dependence.
I have tried to grow Aloe, but it just won't take. What conditions do you grow yours under? I like gardening too.
-
Oh Ben, where do I begin. Firstly Aloe love the sun. Need watering regularly but don't want to be damp, so an area the roots can dry out is preferable or they may rot. E.g. the black plague has just hit one of my Excelsors whilst I was in the UK so I will behead it and let it dry out then repot with a rooting compound and I think it will come back.
Secondly, bear in mind slugs and snails love them too so for your medicinal needs I would suggest a potted plant that could look beautiful indoors as well as beneficial. I have many (no exaggeration on dozens) of species of Aloe and any of them are good to try. I'll take a cutting and see what I can do for you. Give me a wee bit of time. I'll get onto it ,but, I have Aloe arborescens in bulk that is a rather large plant and you could try that immediately. send me mail if you are interested. -
Thanks Sofie, check your inbox or junk filter.
-
Whilst carefully considering whether I have time to write the short essay necessary to address the cool piece that Ben wrote I had the WTF moment of the year.
I get a phone call from a couple who want to test their intervention behaviour change method .....they employ the power of mindwaves to re-set behaviour ?
I will now get back to writing a research proposal...bruhahahahah
-
Russell, Matthew: indeed it does seem that the police made the best compromise they could, I agree.
OTOH, I like Editing The Herald's take on the reporting thereof.
-
Thanks Sofie, check your inbox or junk filter.
You too.
-
OTOH, I like Editing The Herald's take on the reporting thereof.
ETH: making reading the Herald feel slightly less like beating your head against a brick wall since 2009.
-
I thought you'd disagree.
Not necessarily with everything, I must say. In fact, I’ll have to read more on Feyerabend to come to any more solid conclusions on his views. I’ll add Against Method to my increasingly long list of books I must read.
Re: Astrology and racism - I not sure if Feyerabend was saying Astrology particularly had been a victim of racism. He spoke of many 'alternative' beliefs, and I think he was making his 'racist' attack on different things, like the dismissal of rain dances.
I’ll certainly bow to your greater knowledge of Fayerabend’s writing and theories, but the article you linked to makes it pretty clear astrology, as well as rain dances, were examples of practices that he considered scientists dismissed because of racism or elitism or both. (I grant I’m taking a wiki article at face value, but hey, it was your link.) The part I strongly disagreed with is: “he thought that negative opinions about astrology and the effectivity of rain dances were not justified by scientific research, and dismissed the predominantly negative attitudes of scientists towards such phenomena as elitist or racist.” There are plenty of good reasons scientists have to be fairly dismissive of astrology, say, so that it is a stretch to assume the predominant one is elitism or some other irrational prejudice. Now, that summary of his views may be flawed, and if so it may be that I don’t disagree quite so strongly, but as I said, I took the wiki article at its word. I’m withholding final judgement till I’ve read more.
As for his actual point behind, I don't think he is particularly defending these beliefs, or saying that they are true. It's more a case of saying that they haven't been proved wrong anywhere nearly as conclusively as cheerleaders of scientific orthodoxy might like us to believe, and there is still a chance of significant discoveries from them.
It’s difficult for science to conclusively prove something wrong, by its very nature. It’s a bit like proving God doesn’t exist, or conclusively proving leprechauns do not exist. How many folk tales, myths and traditional practices should scientists take seriously because they haven’t been absolutely, conclusively disproven?
For starters, that which is not mainstream science is a colossal amount of beliefs and practices. A complete and systematic review of all of them is seriously a pretty big ask. But it seems that many cheerleaders would like us to think that not only has such a review been done, but that it was also 100% conclusive.
Who are these cheerleaders? I’d disagree with them if they are saying we can be certain that every single practice and belief not currently considered part of mainstream science must be bunkum. But I don’t think most scientists think this way either.
...you usually see that the massive ascendancy of one orthodox idea to total control is extremely unhealthy in the long run for humanity, and it was for that reason that Feyerabend believed in the 'separation of science and state’.
Interesting ideas. I wouldn't say I agree with all of them, but I agree with many of the sub-points.This was may reaction even to just the summary. Like I said, I’d need to read more - the devils in the details, as they say.
I think orthodox science is extremely arrogant in a way that serves no good purpose except for the perpetuation of it's own colossal power.
See, I don’t, by and large. The Feyerabend point on that article went “[science is] obsessed with its own mythology, and as making claims to truth well beyond its actual capacity.”
If we must consider science an ideology and compare it to other ideologies (such as religion), I think science is a relatively humble enterprise. Religion makes a lot more claims to truth well beyond its actual capacity. As for its “colossal power”, what is it that any US politician needs to say they believe in if they are to have a realistic chance of being elected in most states, and certainly for president? Do they have to make clear they have great faith in science? Nope... it’s God and the Bible.I think scientific method is understood in only an extremely superficial way even by towering geniuses in the field of science - perhaps this is a psychological necessity, but it surely not an institutional necessitiy, nor should their ignorance form the basis of political decisions about the direction of humanity with respect to inquiry into the unknown.
This is why you have some sympathy with Feyerabend’s desire to increase the influence of the lay person over the direction of science? He apparently thinks: “... science should also be subjected to democratic control: not only should the subjects that are investigated by scientists be determined by popular election, scientific assumptions and conclusions should also be supervised by committees of lay people.”
You agree with this?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.