1066familyman
Radio User
- Jan 15, 2008
- 15,235
Here we go. Another arrogant Scientist that thinks Science alone has a monopoly on facts. As though Science exists in some sort of cultural vacuum
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Help] Is Boolean searching of the forums possible?
- Thread starter Papak
- Start date
Here we go. Another arrogant Scientist that thinks Science alone has a monopoly on facts. As though Science exists in some sort of cultural vacuum
darkwolf666
Well-known member
Can we have a Pringles and popcorn emoji, please?
Here we go. Another arrogant Scientist that thinks Science alone has a monopoly on facts. As though Science exists in some sort of cultural vacuum
It has a complete monopoly on scientific facts, by definition.
If it's 'alternative facts' you want, fill your boots.
Of course there are more things that are uncertain than there are scientific facts (although there are rather a lot of scientific facts). To find answers we can either use the scientific method (raise hypothesis and test them to destruction) or we can make the answers up, using our religious or cultural beliefs. Again, take your pick and fill your boots.
But don't confuse certainty with arrogance. If you'd rather subscribe to a belief system that incorporates homeopathy etc., again fill your boots. I will certainly not do that.
The thing about science is that with the method, once an idea is shown to be wrong, it is abandoned. This is the exact opposite of religion and 'alternative' medicine where adherents carry on believing even when the outcome is not what is predicted, and the results of fair tests are ignored.
In religion, if you pray every day and your prayers are never answered this is regarded by practitioners as an excellent test of faith that makes them believe even more. Imagine taking that doctrime to medicine, and giving you kid a homeopathic every day for their cancer, and when the kid dies you say 'see that was a test of my belief which proves that homeopathy works'. Imagine that. It happens....
(If that was a wind-up - you got me
)
It has a complete monopoly on scientific facts, by definition.
If it's 'alternative facts' you want, fill your boots.
Of course there are more things that are uncertain than there are scientific facts (although there are rather a lot of scientific facts). To find answers we can either use the scientific method (raise hypothesis and test them to destruction) or we can make the answers up, using our religious or cultural beliefs. Again, take your pick and fill your boots.
But don't confuse certainty with arrogance. If you'd rather subscribe to a belief system that incorporates homeopathy etc., again fill your boots. I will certainly not do that.
The thing about science is that with the method, once an idea is shown to be wrong, it is abandoned. This is the exact opposite of religion and 'alternative' medicine where adherents carry on believing even when the outcome is not what is predicted, and the results of fair tests are ignored.
In religion, if you pray every day and your prayers are never answered this is regarded by practitioners as an excellent test of faith that makes them believe even more. Imagine taking that doctrime to medicine, and giving you kid a homeopathic every day for their cancer, and when the kid dies you say 'see that was a test of my belief which proves that homeopathy works'. Imagine that. It happens....
(If that was a wind-up - you got me
You need to calm down. Try some essential oils
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
It has a complete monopoly on scientific facts, by definition.
If it's 'alternative facts' you want, fill your boots.
Of course there are more things that are uncertain than there are scientific facts (although there are rather a lot of scientific facts). To find answers we can either use the scientific method (raise hypothesis and test them to destruction) or we can make the answers up, using our religious or cultural beliefs. Again, take your pick and fill your boots.
But don't confuse certainty with arrogance. If you'd rather subscribe to a belief system that incorporates homeopathy etc., again fill your boots. I will certainly not do that.
The thing about science is that with the method, once an idea is shown to be wrong, it is abandoned. This is the exact opposite of religion and 'alternative' medicine where adherents carry on believing even when the outcome is not what is predicted, and the results of fair tests are ignored.
In religion, if you pray every day and your prayers are never answered this is regarded by practitioners as an excellent test of faith that makes them believe even more. Imagine taking that doctrime to medicine, and giving you kid a homeopathic every day for their cancer, and when the kid dies you say 'see that was a test of my belief which proves that homeopathy works'. Imagine that. It happens....
(If that was a wind-up - you got me
I once got a blob of deep heat on my scrotum and that cured me of any sexual desire for nearly a month. I'm not sure what that was an alternative for, but it worked.
Stato
Well-known member
- Dec 21, 2011
- 7,375
You need to calm down. Try some essential oils
I've always wondered: Which oils are essential? Butter, bacon fat, WD40?
There's some Googlewhack fun for those making Boolean searches of NSC.
el punal
Well-known member
It has a complete monopoly on scientific facts, by definition.
If it's 'alternative facts' you want, fill your boots.
Of course there are more things that are uncertain than there are scientific facts (although there are rather a lot of scientific facts). To find answers we can either use the scientific method (raise hypothesis and test them to destruction) or we can make the answers up, using our religious or cultural beliefs. Again, take your pick and fill your boots.
But don't confuse certainty with arrogance. If you'd rather subscribe to a belief system that incorporates homeopathy etc., again fill your boots. I will certainly not do that.
The thing about science is that with the method, once an idea is shown to be wrong, it is abandoned. This is the exact opposite of religion and 'alternative' medicine where adherents carry on believing even when the outcome is not what is predicted, and the results of fair tests are ignored.
In religion, if you pray every day and your prayers are never answered this is regarded by practitioners as an excellent test of faith that makes them believe even more. Imagine taking that doctrime to medicine, and giving you kid a homeopathic every day for their cancer, and when the kid dies you say 'see that was a test of my belief which proves that homeopathy works'. Imagine that. It happens....
(If that was a wind-up - you got me
Out of interest do you believe acupuncture works. The belief is it triggers the bodies own pain killing.
1066familyman
Radio User
- Jan 15, 2008
- 15,235
dadams2k11
ID10T Error
This is brilliant.
Nah, **** that thousands of years old Far East shit.
West knows best
You can get it on the NHS
The placebo effect is not a very effective or valid explanation (nor was any of the mumbo jumbo stuff you deride involved) for the life-saving effect of homeopathic treatment on a dying eigteen month old child. There are facts and more facts in this world - some of which some people don't like, or even sneer at, but they remain as facts all the same, even if there is no explanation which fits within the limits of what they believe.
One belief - there are all sorts of theories around it, none of which seem to be proven one way or the other. It's worked for me a few times (when other treatments have failed)
Doesn't work without essential oils or incense burning and a CD of Whale music playing in the background though. Fact.
Like I said, and then what? Perhaps I should have said 'So what?' Does 'com.so AND what' help you at all?
Ringing of little bells and general humming helps as well.
Stato
Well-known member
- Dec 21, 2011
- 7,375
The power of the placebo effect is often extremely underestimated and not well understood. It can be an incredibly effective treatment. People often associate it just with doctors mollifying patients who had nothing wrong with them, but its far greater than that and can massively help the brain and therefore the body to fight genuine illness. There seems to be more acceptance these days that there are strong links between mental and physical health and I remember reading about the power of the effect in Ben Goldacre's 'Bad Science'. Weirdly, trials have even proven that telling physicians that they are prescribing drugs rather than placebos can further increase the benefits. Goldacre is absolutely no fan of the pseudo-science of homeopathy, but he does discuss in his book the huge benefits that can be gained from ensuring that patients are made to feel cared for, valued and listened to. Treat the person as well as the condition and any treatment can prove to be far more effective, something that alternative therapies often have the time and resources to do far better than the NHS does.
Please point me to the article that shows that the homeopathic intervention effected the cure. My guess is it is in the same publication that reported that touching a piece of the true cross can cure blindness.
I suspect that you don't understand the meaning if scientific proof. I can assure you that there is no evidence in the scientific literature that a homeopathic 'treatment' has ever caused a cure. Of anything. Ever.
If you are ill, take a medicine or a placebo, and get better, this proves nothing. Not even if you had previously tried ten conventional medicines, all of which normally have a high probability of effectiveness, and all of which failed (which almost certainly isn't the case in your anecdote).
If I want to test a hypothesis I conduct a randomized blinded experiment, with sufficient repeats to give sufficient statistical power. Reproducibility is necessary to establish a property. n=1 is not an experiment. I have been doing research for long enough to know the difference between proof and wishful thinking. I would add that most of my research has disproven hypotheses. It is very hard to prove anything. You need multiple cross-referenced experiments. And then if you think the idea is correct you design more experiments to attempt to debunk the idea. Only when you repeatedly fail to disprove the hypothesis do you start arguing the idea is probably correct. Sciemce is a hard brutal exacting enterprise. We don't pull rabbits out of hats or generate suprising remarkable cures (that only work for true believers).
Show me a medical intervention (whether a drug or a homeopathic thing) that has a demonstrable greater liklihood of obtaining a good therapeutic outcome than a placebo in a group of patients, I will take note. Someone taking something and getting better is no indication of anything, let alone a proof.
Correct. And add in the 'power of the white coat'.
Yes, that's a brilliant post. The subject of 'mind over matter' is very interesting, and I would always advocate adopting a positive attitude because it may be helpful. I tried acupuncure myself once, and imagine that my shoulder pain improved. I still required physiotherapy though, and it was the latter that cured me. Would I try acupuncture again? Sure.*
Thus, even a homoepathic intervention may be useful if the patient believes it to be useful, even though the intervention has no intrinsic value. This is likey to obtain greater success for certain types of condition. What people don't appreciate is that it isn't the intervention that effected the cure. It is the whole transaction between the shamen (the homeopathic practitioner) and the believer.
Perhaps I should apologise to [MENTION=12935]GT49er[/MENTION] and others who believe in homeopathy or god and the power of prayer. If the associated placebo effect does them some good then it seems mean spirited to deny it.
The problem is that once you realize that the intervention has no intrinsic value then its effects will be lost. Without the belief then the placebo effect won't work.
As an athiest scientist I could perhaps be pitied because, for me, there can be no unrealistic hope. However....I accept the power of mind over matter. I don't need a placebo, all I need is positivity, and if there is any gain to be had from the placebo effect in any condition I may have, I will obtain that benefit from trusting the medics, expecting whatever they to to work, and by believing the outcome will be good (this is the only time I engage with the 'b' word).
I suppose I would prefer to live in a rational world where others thought like me, but we are a long way from that. In the meantime, sure, drink you infinite dilutions and pray if you believe it may help. But please don't impose that belief structure on others, and never deny a child or loved one a conventional medicine because you think the alternative will work better.
*Despite being a scientist I like the idea of hope triumphing expecatation. I've been an Albion supporter for 53 year, FFS! But I really can't bring myself to pray for points
Personal experience; no articles; no publications. Very close up and very personal experience. As an intelligent 10 year old child with no re-conceptions I witnessed at painfully close quarters what happened. Probably I did say prayers for my litte brother - so if you prefer prayers as the only possible explanation over homeopathy, go with it, whatever.
You 'guess' I'm afraid, comes across as a rather spiteful bit of sneering. There was no publication, or bringing sight to the blind or whatever, or any such bollocks. Not even close. I was there, you weren't. The facts obviously don't fit with your beliefs. Well, I can live with that. Up to you whether you do or not.
Last edited: