General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEither you believe in the scientific method or you don't
However, I think liberals like to think they can have it both ways. When convenient we can mock the religious right for not believing in evolution, when inconvenient we can blame big pharma for not being able to demonstrate that some vibrating water is not curing disease.
I don't think the word 'woo' is helpful, I personally think 'scientific evidence has shown this does not work' should be what we say. However, I find it really annoying when liberals decide on the one hand evolution is real on the other hand 'vaccinations are a big-pharma conspiracy' and 'homeopathy will cure my sickness'.
Medical science requires rigor and proof. This proof has to show, that if we ran the same experiment an infinite number of times, the treatment would still be effective over the placebo. When something does not pass this rigor, we should accept it, instead of blaming science.
And if you don't believe in this process, how are you different from a "earth is 6000 years old " person?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
arcane1
(38,613 posts)If I only had a dollar for every person I know who will happily mock Christianity for this or that belief, but who has some oftentimes MORE absurd belief that they accept without question.
If a Georgia pastor prays for rain, he's a delusional fool, but if some Native American tribe does what is essentially the same thing, they are Communing with Nature.
I think a lot of it has to do with how "western" and/or "modern" the topic in question is. There seems to be a tendency on the left to distrust anything that could be defined using either of those terms.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)When people say "it's just a theory" they usually mean they think scientists just have these ideas and other scientists automatically believes them.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)to hear people say 'it's just a theory'
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)They think that scientific findings ares simply dogma that is in opposition to creationist dogma, and one just picks which one is more appealing or useful in castigating one's opponents.
nxylas
(6,440 posts)As if believing in the truth of thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed papers is exactly the same thing as taking the Book of Genesis more literally in 2014 than I suspect its original audience did in the Bronze Age.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)who commented that he really hated the whole idea that native americans were "living in harmony" with nature. They were living in competition with their environment, same as every other living organism. I really agree with that: it's kind of the definition of life, so to "live in harmony" is to almost suggest that something is not living.
I kind of feel like the same applies to a lot of mystical new-age people. They come up with these ideas that are purely faith-based, then laugh at Christians and people of other religions. I kind of group all of it in parallel with people who believe in alien abductions.
Now, it also seems likely that religions, including the named ones, new age, and alien abduction offer some psychological benefits. Unfortunately the belief systems also prevent people from accepting ideas that are contrary to their system regardless of which particular system they believe in.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)subject of the Werner Herzog documentary "Grizzly Man"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_Man
Ex Lurker
(3,813 posts)that they didn't wipe out species or seriously degrade their habitat was due to relatively small populations and lack of technology. But they did have an effect. Fire was a major tool. Example: In the west, regular prairie fires which kept woody plants down and allowed bison to flourish. The horizon to horizon herds of bison seen by European explorers were not a natural occurrence, but a result of human intervention.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)When populations are low, this isn't too much of a problem. However, with 7 billion of us, even a very mildly harmful thing can do a lot of damage. The whole harmony thing seems to be a projection of people's ideas of utopia.
alp227
(32,025 posts)"If a Georgia pastor prays for rain, he's a delusional fool, but if some Native American tribe does what is essentially the same thing, they are Communing with Nature."
Well, replace "Georgia pastor" with "Gov. Rick Perry" then you have a stronger case. If Ben Nighthorse Campbell (one of the few Native Americans in Congress) ever prayed for rain on the Senate floor, send me the C-SPAN video or whatever.
As an atheist & rationalist I reject ANY "praying for rain" crap.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)And that's mainly due to a hazy memory of a Mark Morford column 
KatyMan
(4,191 posts)as many others have said before in various ways, scientific method doesn't care if you believe in it or not, it's still reality!
Big Blue Marble
(5,088 posts)It is not reality. How many times have you seen information gained through method later
overturned by new knowledge. We have no idea what "reality is." We only have constantly
shifting approximations.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Scientific knowledge is never absolutely correct, but it is always getting better.
Big Blue Marble
(5,088 posts)That is the brilliance of scientific method used correctly.
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)That understanding is up for constant review, however.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)whether we have discovered it/figured it out or not.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)"How many times have you seen information gained through method later
overturned by new knowledge."
If the knowledge was gained through the scientific method in the first place, pretty damn rarely. I think the word you're looking for is "updated" or "refined" or "improved upon". Not "overturned".
Big Blue Marble
(5,088 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)
yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)call it overturned if you want.
updated maybe, sometimes refined, improved upon is a bit nebulous as you need to define quality.
The scientific method itself requires conclusions to be questioned and they ARE often disproved, and often supported.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Ok then, let's just see about that.
Keeping in mind we're talking about *knowledge* gained... which the method itself requires to have been confirmed through multiple independent reproductions of findings... not some preliminary test result that indicates a *possible* finding failing to be confirmed....
Name 3 instances of knowledge gained through the scientific method that was later outright overturned or disproved. If this is something that happens often whipping out 3 examples should be easy.
Note: I think there almost certainly are at least 3 examples... but I also think you're going to have to scour your brain and Google to come up with 3 legitimate ones and recognize my point in the process
yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)Here's a number instances, and as you correctly stated, there are many more.
Now these instances are theories and systems that have replaced previous theories.
These are big ones, of course. Everyday science being so incremental and iterative, outside one's field, one is not normally aware of all the experiments and conclusions shown to be invalid. One is only aware of the slow march forward.
I am leaving it up to the student to discover what theories were overturned, disproved or replaced by those listed below.
relativistic physics and general relativity
electron cloud model of the atom
plate tectonics
quantum mechanics
epigenetics
The big bang
African origin of the human species theory
thermodynamics and the theory of heat
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)I'm on my way to bed so I'll just knock off the first on your list for now. I will gladly return to the subject and work through the rest tomorrow if you still feel it's necessary after stopping to think through the items you posted.
What theories were overturned, disproved, or replaced by relativity?
None.
I'm sure the answer you were going for there was classical Newtonian physics, but you'd be dead wrong. Because classical Newtonian physics was when it was formulated, remained when Einstein was doing his work, and continues TO THIS DAY, to be a perfectly acceptably accurate model of the motion of almost any body in the universe that is of completely acceptable utility for most applications.
The fact that Relativity IMPROVED UPON (you read my first reply right?) that understanding to fill in some gaps in it that applied at, for instance, speeds approaching c... does not alter that. To this very day children in schools are being taught classical equations of physics and for very good reason.... because to this very day they remain accurate ENOUGH for most purposes. They. Are. Not. Wrong. They just have certain limitations that Einstein addressed.
Relativity is more accurate, because like most scientific advances it was an improvement upon... expansion of... .refinement of... existing scientific understandings of the universe. What it did not do was suddenly completely overturn all previous understandings of physics and show them to be wrong. Because, as I already tried to point out to you... that almost *never* happens with anything that science has enough corroborating data on to consider to be verified knowledge in the first place. It can happen once in a rare, rare, while... but that's it.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Plate tectonics: Again, a knowledge refinement. Not something that tossed all previous understanding out the window as incorrect. Before that they had continental drift... which had the basic fact that things were moving around correct but got the mechanism not quite right.
Quantum mechanics: EXTENDED our understanding of how matter and energy behaved to properly account for it at very very very small scales. But our previous models remain perfectly accurate at the larger scales for which they were originally formulated. Seeing a trend yet?
Epigenetics: Didn't exactly declare DNA replication and mutation wasn't happening after all, now did it? Didn't. Overturn. Previous. Findings. Just expanded upon them. Refined them. Made them more accurate and more comprehensive.
The Big Bang Historical progression of cosmology...
---Pre-Scientific: A bunch of random nonsense based on god and astronomy... generally placing the earth at the center of the universe.
---Early Scientific: (Copernicus)... ummm, no... I think at the very least the earth appears to go around the sun, and the earth is rotating and that's why the stars move... (more accurate)
--Still Early Scientific (Galileo)... and hey, in addition to it looking like Copernicus is right about the whole 'earth isn't the center of the universe' thing there's all these surface features on the moon... and it looks like other planets have moons too... (more accurate)
--Still Early Scientific, but moving along (Newton)... and hey, IN ADDITION to it looking like Galileo is right about all that, it looks like the motion of all these bodies rotating around the sun follows some pretty predictable trajectories described by these equations, that also seem to be the same ones governing the motion of everyday stuff right here on earth... (more accurate)
--Early modern scientific (Various),... and it turns out that our solar system isn't even the center of our galaxy! (more accurate) ---> and it turns out the galaxy is a LOT bigger than we were thinking! (more accurate) ---> And it turns out there's a whole bunch of other galaxies and they're *ridiculously* far away! (more accurate) ---> And holy crap, they're all moving away form each other! This is all expanding! (MORE ACCURATE)..... Hey, if we plot this back we can reach a point where everything is kind of occupying the same space! (MORE ACCURATE)
See what I'm getting at here yet? Every scientific advance is not the throwing out of the previous available knowledge. it is, almost ALWAYS, an expansion upon it. It is incredibly rare for a new finding to result in previously tested and verified findings being completely thrown away. What it does is jettisons small parts of those previous models that didn't get it quite right while mostly retaining the broad outlines that *were* basically right... and then building on them.
Need to go do actual work. Can polish this off later if you really still need that to happen.
yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)because techniques can be useful, does not necessarily make the underlying science correct.
Many would be and were happy going through their lives using an earth centric model. An orbiting sun worked for them.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)As all the information in my posts should have made perfectly clear. When we talk about kids learning classical physics equations in school right up to the present day we are not talking about tech and engineering. We're talking about the knowledge science has generated.
When we talk about the progression of cosmological models through history we are not talking about tech and engineering. We are talking about the knowledge science has generated.
Etc.
KatyMan
(4,191 posts)n/t
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I would add that even when correctly-conducted science has yet to rule out some claimed beneficial effect, the matter remains undecided. There has to be a positive demonstration of efficacy. The maxim that the burden of proof lies with the positive assumption is nowhere more important than in (philosophy of) science).
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)eomer
(3,845 posts)There is a preference for the simplest explanation. Occam's razor is really just a preference. It doesn't tell us that the simplest explanation is most likely. (How would it know?) It says that we like the simplest explanation best and will give it up only if it can be disproved. Then we move on to whatever the new simplest explanation is that hasn't been disproved.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)That proper understanding being that the "simplest" explanation really means "the explanation with the least improbable assumptions".
eomer
(3,845 posts)Prior to certain experiments you would have said that "the least improbable assumptions" were that space is strictly Cartesian. But how does that make sense after experiments prove it wrong? How was something that is totally wrong "the least improbable"? Sorry but this common understanding of Occam's is not correct - it does not have anything to do with choosing something because it is more probable. We choose it only because we prefer the simplest explanation not yet disproved.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Counting for instance. That would be a way.
If you only have to make one assumption about an unknown quantity for theory number 1 to work, and 15 assumptions about unknown quantities to make theory number 2 work then theory number 1 is simpler. Objectively.
Statistics would be another way. If you have to make an assumption that some previously unobserved behavior is present in order to make theory number 1 work and the math says there's a 10% chance you're right... and theory number 2 also has to make only one assumption but the math says there's a 0.01% chance you're right, theory 1 is simpler. Objectively.
Etc.
eomer
(3,845 posts)If we can stick with simplicity and put probability aside then I agree with what you're saying up to a point. But simplicity isn't as, um... simple, as you make it. There can be cases where fewer entities require more complicated formulas and simpler formulas require more entities. In other words it isn't always obvious which solution is simpler.
Here's much more on that:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/
But if we stick to saying that we choose the simplest hypothesis, however that's determined, then I'm happy to concede that it can sometimes be objective, is not always subjective. But we never know which explanation is more probable.
"There can be cases where fewer entities require more complicated formulas and simpler formulas require more entities."
Which is why I didn't say anything about "number of entities". If we were to consider the lowest number of entities to be simplest then "God did it" would be the Occam's razor preference as the answer for every single question in the universe. One entity that explains all possible questions and observations! How much simpler does it get?
But "God did it" entails some MASSIVELY improbable assumptions that involve the violation of all kinds of natural physical laws that are never observed to be violated thus making the proposal that they can be violated at the whimsy of some super being in order to make the explanation work one of the most ridiculously improbable, and thus least "simple", explanations for anything.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)And I would say it's not so much "scientific evidence has shown this does not work", but that the scientific work hasn't been done with a lot of treatments - they're unproven treatments.
I've spent my entire 30 year career in clinical research; mostly developing HIV and other infectious diseases medications. While I do recognize that there are positive anecdotal stories of untested treatments from people who use them, there is no evidence, nothing that proves they work - the mechanism of action is not known.
People need to remember that science doesn't lie; and is always eager to be proven wrong.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)more often than not. We want tea and ginger to work as well penicillin. The fact that it doesn't is just that, a fact.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)That's just the thing....there's a misconception that scientists are set in their ways (so to speak) and narrow-minded....they are not. It's those who 'believe' in alternatives to medicine who are narrow-minded (certainly no progressive).
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)Most famously, Einstein refused to accept quantum mechanics and, specifically, that some events were truly random. In that case, he wanted to believe in a deterministic universe and said, if things were truly random, he would prefer to to a cobbler than a physicist.
Thing is, even scientists have their own model of the world and consequently, beliefs on how things should be. The scientific method should provide a small correction factor to help us get around those beliefs.
cab67
(2,993 posts)Science is a collective effort. Consensus is built around a body of peer-reviewed literature. The opinions of "great men" might carry great weight, but if someone is wrong, he or she is wrong. People held Einstein, Darwin, and Newton in seriously high esteem during their lifetimes, but their mistaken views on (respectively) quantum mechanics, inheritance, and alchemy were called "mistaken" (or worse) regardless.
I think of peer review the way Winston Churchill viewed democracy - it's the worst possible means of quality control in the sciences, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time. In spite of its weaknesses - prominent people sometimes do exert more influence than they should, arguments running against the consensus sometimes do have a harder time of getting published, and biases (sometimes verging on sexism and racism) can arise, especially when reviews are not double-blind - it works. I say this having been an author, editor, and reviewer. Moreover, given the huge number of journals out there, it's a LOT easier to publish bad science than to suppress good work.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Well, scientists are human beings, so....duh!
Who said it was incorruptible?
And science never claims to "know everything" as it is often accused of doing.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)by Corporate America, therefore any scientific refutation of one's preferred alternative medicine is a priori intended to deceive us.
cf. creationist's belief that science has been co-opted by the socialist/unamerican/gay fifth column.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)I'd be interested in hearing an expanded explanation of your thought. How is "science" protected from misuse by profit seeking entities with huge resources like (to name just three examples) the fossil fuel industry, the tobacco industry, or the nuclear industry?
A good place to start might be to share your view of just what "science"means to the lay public.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)It is probably impossible to misuse the scientific method apart from misapplying it, in which case the misapplication should result in failure.
Corporations do not misuse science so much as they misuse technology, which is the practical application of scientific knowledge. The scientific method employed to understand the nature of botanical genetics is not a "misuse" of science. Monsanto taking that knowledge and then engineering seeds so that the plants produced are sterile, and forcing that seed stock on third world farmers, is indeed misuse of the technology.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)It can be misinterpreted and manipulated, but that's why peer review is so important. It's impossible to reproduce results of a flawed experiment.
Science is neutral; the knowledge gleaned from it can be used to help or hurt our world.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)Peer review can also be extremely ineffective. Try Googling "peer review" "problems" and you will see a flood of criticisms from the scientific literature and the medical community. It was eye opening to me. Here are a couple of links that I found.
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/12/problem-peer-review-scientific-publishing.html
http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.full
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Fallible humans, of course, are the ones who implement the process, so of course the results will not be perfect.
However, there is no better way of finding explanations for observed phenomena.
yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)stretched, warped, and misrepresented, but Science, the scientific method cannot be misused.
It doesn't work if misused.
"Science" knows nothing.
"Science" is a process for humans to gain knowledge.
The use of that knowledge can be misused.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)And it can produce faulty data and incorrect conclusions. It's a human activity and can therefore be impacted by human weaknesses. It is not a machine.
It's the best system that we have, but it's not infallible. I expect that over time it will be refined and improved, as it has been in the past, but nothing human will ever be perfect.
yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)researcher to repeat the experiment or create another to either support of falsify the conclusion. Poorly done research doesn't hold up as well, as long as there is interest, of course, in the conclusions.
My hypothesis is that we are agreeing.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Take lansoprozole. It says that clinical trials have shown it to be effective, but for some people, as many as 4% - it causes other problems.
It's not a very good treatment for people who end up with these problems
"symptoms of a low magnesium blood level (such as unusually fast/slow/irregular heartbeat, persistent muscle spasms, seizures).
This medication may rarely cause a severe intestinal condition (Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea) due to a type of bacteria ..."
http://www.rxlist.com/prevacid-side-effects-drug-center.htm
You take medicine and you are taking some chances. The odds are in your favor, but that's not consolation if you end up on the losing end.
In fact, for me, my doctor prescribed something else, and I read the side effects of THAT and decided against it in favor of the lanso, which I had taken before.
I am still taking it at only half the strength that he suggested, but for me that dosage is not contraindicated.
Another thing I have experience with is honey, taken for allergies. Perhaps it has been clinically tested. Well, I tested it for myself and it seems somewhat effective. Is there any harm in trying it?
As for your last statements. Science is a human activity. As such, those engaging in science certainly CAN lie, and like almost all other humans, they will not be eager to be proven wrong. Further, withing the scientific realm where research takes place there are positions of power.
Way back when I was a young graduate student I contemplated writing a paper called "Kiss noise". What it would do is document how almost every paper published in an academic journal sucked up to the editor of that journal by quoting his book.
I didn't follow through because it seemed like a research project which would only produce enemies. Imagine if I had written the paper and documented my theory, citing chapter and verse. Do you think that editor would have published it?
I had just gotten done submitting a paper to a "student paper contest". One that was supposed to have TWO winners. Yet in the end, it only had one, one which I feel probably did a whole lot of sucking up, and was otherwise pretty derivative (admittedly though I never got to read it, only saw the title and am guessing at the contents. I concede it is possible it was a really awesome paper, but kinda wish I could find out one way or another, even now, 24 years later.)
My own paper was more critical. I kinda wonder if the 2nd prize was not awarded because of a hung jury. That some judges thought my paper should win, and some were set against it and they compromised by only giving one award. Otherwise, what happened to the 2nd award?
Big Blue Marble
(5,088 posts)Scientific method is a process that if followed correctly is able
to significantly advance our knowledge of the natural world
leading to amazing technologies and benefits to humans.
It can also be misused, falsified, and corrupted by the humans
who use it improperly for gain or with bias.
What it is not, is a belief that which implies it is to be taken on faith.
Do read: "Against-Method' by Paul Feyerbrand.
[link:http://www.amazon.com/Against-Method-Paul-Feyerabend/dp/1844674428|
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)without sounding immensely douchey. My other word choice was 'understand'
Big Blue Marble
(5,088 posts)We, as a culture, do "believe" that properly followed scientific method will yield
deeper and deeper truths. For the last centuries, we have seen the amazing amounts
of knowledge yielded by this approach. Thus we have come to "have faith in the
process."
Yet, we are at risk of falling into scientism, when we forget method is process.
And part of that process, is to question and test the results until we build a level
of confidence not certainty in the results of the research.
And remember that even within our lifetimes, we have seen repeated examples of
the validity of scientific research being completely overturned by new research
done with new eyes. It is a fact that the scientific method has never been
able to completely eliminate the bias of the researchers, culture, and false
assumptions.
Good scientists remain humble in the present of the most current knowledge.
When arrogance and certainty creep in (normal human emotions) it is no longer
good science or reliable knowledge.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Should be an OP itself.
Big Blue Marble
(5,088 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)that there is no evidence to show it does work
science is always open to being corrected, however, multiple homeopathy trials have come to show that homeopathy is not an effective treatment beyond a placebo effect.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)So the foundation of science is an agreement that knowledge can be acquired through the application of reason to observations of the real world, as opposed to acquiring knowledge through intuition, faith, belief, emotional certainty, deduction from first principles, etc.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)How about "trust".
I don't "believe" in science. I trust it.
Locrian
(4,522 posts)I resist the tendency to worship at anything even if it is supposed to be the end all of objectivity and reason, especially with the 'flaws' inherent in its human implementation.
I look at books like "Tao of Physics" and "Dancing Wu Li Masters" and it's not as cut and dried as people like to think.
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)posters were saying that he was wrong (I agree with that) but then went on to cite the reason was because the BLM was following through on a valid court order. OK, so that makes sense, authorities enforcing a valid court order is good in this case.
However, change the scenario to a valid court order foreclosing on someone's house and of course, DU has absolutely no problem rallying around those that protest and try to stop the authorities from enforcing THAT valid court order.
Another example. How many times have you read something like "ACA is the law of the land, deal with it" here on DU? But the same posters have no problem with the administration not following the law of the land as it pertains to other matters (immigration enforcement is the easiest example)
I am not saying that either of these is not a valid thing to believe, but rather the seeming disconnect of the underlying principles based on the political desires of the outcome.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)which totally did not exist when dubya was the president
A HERETIC I AM
(24,369 posts):::::mmmmsssmmmzeemmseemmmsmmmmsmmnnneesssneesmmsnemsmms.::urp:
sorry, pardon) mummmmummumssssysmmmmsyyyysyyss,,,,,mmmmmblblrlbllrlblrlr..
OK....Yup.
Think I got it.
This person - right here....Du'er "kelly1mm"
[font color="red" size="12" face="face"]FUCKING NAILED IT![/font]
It's tough being a Liberal. We hate the fact that there are unemployed people but think nothing of putting truckers out of work when we insist on more containers on trains.
Ad nauseum, etc.,
I'm so confuserized!
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)and decreasing the volume of goods shipped via truck: shipping a given amount of material via trucks releases more pollutants (including carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere than the same amount shipped via train.
It's not a case of liberal hypocrisy, it's a case of taking action that will prove more beneficial in the long run than short-term employment gains.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,369 posts)
whew. that took a bit out of me!
Ahem.
Sorry...I think you might have thought you were speaking to a fucking neophyte or something!
Because...I might be a dumbass, but I am not a TOTAL dumbass!
So....let me ask you a question;
Are you in favor of more jobs for working Americans? (I'll presume you would say yes)
Do you realize that every single container and trailer on a train means a driver isn't moving that cargo, meaning LESS jobs?
(I'll presume you would say yes) Are you aware that a single train can carry more than 500 tractor trailer driver loads and be operated by a mere 2 men?
Do you see a conundrum there?
(I'll presume you'll say wharble garble)
It's OK...like I have said before, it's tough to be a liberal.
BTW, I'm all for TOFC/COFC freight. I just want every driver out there, regardless of length of haul to be paid by the hour and to have a Union Card.
But that ain't gonna happen because you (and most other Americans) don't like trucks on the road, despite the fact that you like lettuce for less than $3/a head.
SO FUCK THE TRUCKERS! YAY!
arcane1
(38,613 posts)And when they reach their destination hub, a truck will be there waiting to pick them up.
We could create more jobs by mandating that every truck be reduced to half its capacity, thereby needing twice as many of them to do the work.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,369 posts)That's not how it works in the real world.
Look..I'm not an idiot, OK? I've been involved in the transportation industry for the vast majority of my adult life. I worked on container ports starting in the late 1970's and I understand how goods on this planet are moved from factory to port to destination to consignee. Please don't feign to teach me.
Response to A HERETIC I AM (Reply #123)
arcane1 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Clearly, you are unwilling or simply incapable of having a meaningful discussion.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,369 posts)Never mind.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--fewer and fewer people produce more and more stuff. This means fuck the people no longer needed to make stuff. Which is why we should keep putting more and more non-violent offenders in jail, subsidze the health insurance industry, etc. Those things all create jobs. Doing something uselsess or harmful? No problem. Or maybe, given that 3D printing is going fo unleash another tsunami of change, we should just start rethinking the nature of work.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)any more than you can say trying to get rid of fossil fuels is saying 'fuck the people who work in oil and coal jobs!'.
The world isn't binary. If we switch from fossil fuels to renewables, other jobs will exist in those industries.
And there's plenty of work that needs done - it's just that the private sector won't do it because it doesn't create monetary profit, just social good. Which is why the government needs to be creating jobs in the public sector.
I'd rather find work that needs to be done that creates less pollution, than create more pollution simply to keep people in those specific jobs.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,369 posts)and being serious.
Most of what I wrote above is being facetious.
And FWIW, I am a truck driver and have made my living in that capacity for most of the last 27 years.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I'm not always good at spotting when people are being sarcastic or otherwise 'tweaking' how they're speaking.
I have nothing against truck drivers per se (and I am very careful not to simply pull over in front of one in traffic, since I understand momentum...). I think we have competing sets of problems. On the one hand, we're polluting the planet, and causing ourselves all sorts of current and future problems as a result. On the other, we live in a largely capitalist society that does say 'fuck you' to people who can't find ways to let the capitalists exploit them. Ie, do what work they want you to do, at a pay scale that allows them to siphon off value you create to hand over to people who don't work, but do have money.
One way or another, we've got to figure out ways to solve both problems at the same time. Pollute far less, AND allow people to keep themselves fed, sheltered, clothed, educated...
And, of course, that's why I think we need to become more socialistic as a nation.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)And apparently like every other trucker in the USA, cannot do anything else. Nothing at all. 
I used to paste up type for mechanicals for printing. I cut out the copy, waxed the back of it and pasted it down to a piece of railroad board using a t-square to align it and keep it straight.
But when computers made that job obsolete, I curled up in a ball and died.
Oh wait.... no I didn't. I did something else!
A HERETIC I AM
(24,369 posts)And it involves......
Me just laughing at you and moving on, because modern science has yet to invent the device that can measure how small the fuck is I give about what you think of me.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I'm crushed!
alp227
(32,025 posts)Can't equate his situation with the average person getting foreclosed, for many reasons.
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)is there not? So, IF (big IF there) you make an argument saying that authorities enforcing a valid court order should not be interfered with in the Bundy case BECAUSE THERE IS A VALID COURT ORDER (nothing about the merits) then the same would have to apply in the foreclosure case.
I am taking about the forest, you seem to be talking about the trees. Underlying principles have to be consistent (even if inconvenient) politically. I
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)is that, while there may be a court order, there is serious dispute as to its validity...given the fact that after the crash the banks often do not know who actually owns the note, and simply proceed with fraudulent documents.
I am all in favor of rule of law, and obeying court orders, but when someone cheated to get it in the first place that changes the whole situation. Doesn't it?
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)if 1)the order is signed by a Judge, 2) that judge has jurisdictional authority (for example, a MD judge cannot order something to take place in TX), and 3) the court issuing the order has subject matter jurisdiction (for example a lower level court, like small claims court may not have the power to do 'X', but the judge signed an order to do 'X').
What you are saying is that the merits of the case should be taken into account (which I would agree with if the argument was not about the validity of the court order). But I was specifically referencing the 'valid court order' argument.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)saying that property Y is foreclosed on and that possession goes to Bank Biggie Big, is that court order a valid court order? If not, what makes it invalid?
alarimer
(16,245 posts)We'll never get away from it.
We can catch ourselves sometimes in that situation, but it's hard to be completely consistent all the time.
This is the one case where "both sides do it" is appropriate. Not everyone all the time, but in general.
Ex Lurker
(3,813 posts)the same freepers who were wanting to round up the OWS protestors and ship them off to gulags are ready to take up arms and defend Bundy's patch of sunblasted desert.
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)You get to live with what the scientific method shows works. Period.
It's utterly astounding to see liberals engaging in the same conspiracy nonsense that creationists get roundly mocked for.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Surely, you realized that...? K&R
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts) closeupready
(29,503 posts) La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)vortex of hell.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)So, while I share your antipathy for this juvenile banter, rest assured, it's unique to the juveniles here on DU. 
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)And it's juvenile, and smarmy, and try using it on a news show without provoking giggles, lol.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Google "woo pseudoscience" and look for yourself. I looked through ten pages of results and didn't find a single DU link.
You're just plain wrong.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)even if he was not correct.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)it's not an issue I'm going to get upset about - I just sort of disregard most people here who use it, as it strikes me as being - as I said - juvenile, i.e., like when you were in grammar school and one group of children teased another group of children. I know it's not a matter that can be reduced to such a simple example, as some forms of folk medicine/therapy which are referred to here as 'woo' can be harmful or even deadly (as opposed to simply 'other'), but (and again, I think we are overthinking this for many of DU's active members on 'woo' threads, who communicate primarily in smilies and lolcat images) at least even when you and I disagree, we explain ourselves, agree to disagree, and move on as friends.
So anyway, here I go again, pissing people off, lol, so I'll bow out of this discussion here. Have a good one.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)While in grad school.
Logical
(22,457 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Just one example:
xocet
(3,871 posts)that the graphic has most of the time-dependent Schroedinger equation below the term woo!
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Both Sixty Symbols(Mostly Physics) and Periodic Videos(Mostly Chemistry). Its a cool university, and they blow shit up all the time.
xocet
(3,871 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)You realize this has been conclusively demonstrated to be false, right?
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)"Woo" is a word commonly used in the worldwide community of skeptics.
Response to Nevernose (Reply #75)
closeupready This message was self-deleted by its author.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Woo is bad science. It's anti-vaccine. It's homeopathy. It's trying to sound like science when you don't have any evidence to back it up. If you don't like the word "woo", maybe try suggesting another collective term for crap science. It might just catch on.
PasadenaTrudy
(3,998 posts)It is used other places for sure. Friends and I have been using the term for years now.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)I hated it then, hate it now
closeupready
(29,503 posts) Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)It's like fingernails scratching a blackboard to me.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)As well as many other atheists.
closeupready
(29,503 posts) 
gollygee
(22,336 posts)woo [woo] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to seek the favor, affection, or love of, especially with a view to marriage. Synonyms: court, pursue, chase.
2.
to seek to win: to woo fame. Synonyms: cultivate.
3.
to invite (consequences, whether good or bad) by one's own action; court: to woo one's own destruction.
4.
to seek to persuade (a person, group, etc.), as to do something; solicit; importune. Synonyms: petition, sue, address, entreat; butter up.
verb (used without object)
5.
to seek the affection or love of someone, usually a woman; court: He was reminded of his youth when he went wooing.
6.
to solicit favor or approval; entreat: Further attempts to woo proved useless.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)We are not the only ones who laugh at people who believe in ridiculous drivel.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Moving on...
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And there's really nothing wrong with it.
Archae
(46,328 posts)Because it describes perfectly the mindset of those who believe in it.
Twirl your finger around the side of your head and say "Woo..."
Alcohol and water with a few mega-diluted ingredients to "cure EMF."
Poking needles into parts of the body to "restore energy flow."
(That IS the theory behind acupuncture)
Cracking the spine to do likewise.
(That is the theory behind chiropractic)
Eat some guy's stew recipe to cure type II diabetes without medicines.
(Pandora has that ad)
And so on...
singlehandedly taking on the hoards of woo mongers. 
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)This whole "let's not use the term 'woo' anymore" campaign is one of the more bizarre distractions I've seen at DU.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)One does not need a belief in the scientific method. The scientific method works regardless of one's belief in it.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)but you may personally believe it does not work. (like, i could theoretically believe that water is not wet, even if it is). my other word choice was 'understand' but that sounded even more douchey
A HERETIC I AM
(24,369 posts)One could say "Belief doesn't enter into it."
As in " it isn't that I lack a 'belief' in a god or gods, rather I KNOW the concept to be a mythical construct and therefore intellectually primitive, and as such not worthy of my time."
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)à votre santé
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)But with the people who say they employ it.
Example would include companies/groups who pay for a study and publish scientific results that are generally biased (ie, cherry picking the information).
One could also note that just because something is proven correct today does not mean that it is completely correct since it only encompasses what we know and what we have the technology to test today.
I would also blame science reporting in general. I still remember the whole Mylar thing and other items through the years where it seems every year or so a new paper comes out saying the old one was false. So while something may be true now based on some tests done it does not really mean it is completely true.
The whole vaccines and autism thing is a big example - and while they don't cause it some do have some sucky side effects, which is why some parents choose to wait until kids are older and can communicate better (ie, let a parent/dr know if the shot has caused any ill effects).
You are right, the method is solid. The results and their interpretation aren't always though. And that is where I see the discord come in to play over things.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)It's funny you mention vaccines, as this is a famous example of a skewed scientific paper that was peer-reviewed, retracted, and cost the doctor doing the "research" his medical license. That paper would be the one that attempted to claim the MMR vaccine causes autism.
It's a self-correcting process.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)You don't know it's false until it is reviewed. And if someone else is doing the reviewing how soon do they get the reviewing done?
I get you - and I agree it is a great method and have no problem with it or having things peer reviewed. But like physics what appears to be true in all cases may not be and as we get better testing abilities we learn that sometimes what we thought we knew and was right doesn't always work the way we thought.
It is all subject to change as we get better. We learn more, grow, put aside things we think we knew and progress.
Outside of the core process is reporting and politics though. We often hear something smooth like 'scientists today say' which doesn't always mean a lot and does not mean things are indeed as those scientists say they are. So x causes cancer in mice, it is reported on, people get freaked out, and so on (again see Alar scare, which I wrote as mylar in last post).
My comments were related to how a good method, and it is, interacts with society. Again, going to vaccines, they can cause adverse reactions in a few people. Overall they are safe, but not always. When people say simply 'that is woo, they are perfectly safe!' it is simply not true. Even the cdc recognizes problems can occur with them and that doesn't even get into manufacturing processes and recalls (see recent issues with them in China).
Over blowing it and using the few to scare the many is not good either (though we see it with other things, like guns where less than one percent of people who own them harm others with them, or Muslims where the rw takes how a few act and apply it to many and generate fear).
Once more - yes, the process is sound. But it does not address it's application to society, how things are reported or discussed, and often we hear one or two lines of something which doesn't really tell the whole story.
Now we just need a 'reporting method' to match it
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)"This study suggests that there may be a correlation between x and y" becomes "Danger! X causes y!" People should (but often don't) be aware that just because something seems science-y doesn't make it science. I've seen a large amount of the people yelling "science!" when attacking the woo, but then decide to ignore critical thinking and evidence with sciency misinformation (often times falling back on credentialism as well).
I'm all for fighting the woo, but replacing it with science-y woo is just as bad, in my opinion.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Or, what you said.
100% of axe murderers have brains, yet having a brain does not cause one to become an axe murderer.
Not only is an better understanding of the scientific method needed, but also logic and statistics. (Both things I think need to be in middle to high school curricula.)
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)He has only three basic arguments, which he uses to refute EVERYTHING:
1. Excluded middle.
2. Straw man.
3. Russell's Teapot (in that he argues there IS such a teapot out in space and it's our job to disprove it)
Yes! Please teach the basics of logic in high school!
TheManInTheMac
(985 posts)otherwise its woo.
libodem
(19,288 posts)[img]
[/img]
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)the same objections that i am getting with the word belief
understand would really have been the better word.
libodem
(19,288 posts)I thought the graphic was appropriate for the discussion. I can delete if it is that offensive to you.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts) libodem
(19,288 posts) 
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Science is reading the signs that nature shows you.
When using science, you read what is happening and then you deduct why what you are reading is happening.
You theorize, using signs, that what you see happening is happening because of other signs which add up to describing what you are seeing.
But not one scientist can yet fully and completely describe how an acorn turns into an oak tree. All we know is that the acorn is generated, it then organizes dirt and water to increase, and then it all ends and returns to dirt and water. What makes the acorn do all that? That is power we do not grok.
Our science is never complete, and will never be perfect.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)which is what is alternative medicine. guesswork.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)What once was alternative is now mainstream.
To deny that any alternatives work is being anti-science.
It is a denial of the scientific method. It is entering into a field where one disbelieves in the idea that applied science can't find any alternatives to what is presently believed to be the end all and be all.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)i am saying just because it sounds good to you, doesn't mean its an effective treatment.
if science has not investigated a treatment, sure there is a possibility that it works. however, if repeatedly science has shown that it does not offer anything more than a placebo effect, it does not work.
science requires a burden of proof. medicine especially requires a high burden of proof.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Before there was all this expensive medicine, how did life continue?
There is more to life and healing and medicines than we will ever know. That's what the science says.
Once upon a time, man could not reach the moon, is what the established science claimed, eh?
Science can reach some level of conclusion, but the scientific method demands, even at an approved conclusion, more reading and thinking.
Anyone can stop anywhere they want in the process. But the next person that comes along may begin again, picking up where the other stopped.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Life expectancy was EXTREMELY short before a lot of these medicines.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Of course your definition of extremely short is one you only believe.
But a witch doctor to whom a baby was taken might have read the sign that the baby was sick because it was dehydrated. So the witch doctor gave the baby some water and the baby survived and prospered.
That's one way medical science began.
Did you know the first mainstream doctors were carpenters? Yep. Because the medical science of the day, back then; cut the arm off. Well, who had a saw? A carpenter. So they took the ill person to the carpenter. Now carpenters, in the whole being rather smart fellows, began to think... hmmmm, maybe I don't need to cut an arm off? Maybe all we need to do is try this herb. So they did try an alternative, and they then read the signs of what the herb did. Did it seem to work? Why, yes it did!
There and then began medical science. We've come a long way, but we are not at the end yet. But... in the end, we all die. No. Matter. What.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)100 years ago? 200 years ago? And even more?
I know it's WikiPedia, but it was a quick and easy graph to grab for you. The figures here are true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Human_life_expectancy_patterns
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)One reason we tend to survive longer now is we recognize that peeing in our drinking water, and reading the signs of that pollution, and quit drinking pee enriched water, has lead to a great decrease in human health problems.
It's kinda funny.... we don't believe a little bit of this or that will make us feel better, but we do believe a little this or that will make you sick.
Both, however, are true. There are some things in minute amounts that may or may not make you feel one way or the other. Science - the reading of the signs - tells us that.
Now we know to stay away from pollution. 100 years ago, people did not even know what pollution meant. We've come a long way.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Yes, there are those outside the average (above AND below). And as you age, and stay healthy, your life expectancy went up.
The graph doesn't say that in the Neolithic era, everyone died at 20. But the AVERAGE LE was 20.
It was SCIENCE (agriculture, sanitation, et al) that gave us a longer LE.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Yes, the science of staying away from pollutants made a big difference.
Then came the science that said: if we are polluted from that, take this and this will overcome the pollutant's effects.
The best science is very basic: Beware.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Why do you insist on arguing this? What we consider "common sense" these days was not quite common in days before.
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_super/10/100432/3039632-bro+do+you+even+science_.png
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)It works.
It wasn't science that identified the pollutants, tho. It was a person using the scientific method to do the identification and discrimination.
It is an interesting theory that native fish can identify a polluted stream and move themselves away from the pollutant. Do the fish use science to do that? Or memory encoded in their being? Hmmm....
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Dogs can sense fear in a human being, but a human cannot detect the same fear.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)For example, we have no encoded genetic "memory" that fire is hot and painful, but the withdrawal reflex causes someone touching a hot stove to remove their hand involuntarily.
Memory of the pain from the stove is then encoded.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)was formerly skewed by high infant mortality?
For example, the mis-characterization of "we are living 6 8 10 yrs. longer than people did when Social Security was implemented" is disproven when, instead of looking at "average LE" we look at average lifespan after 65?
arcane1
(38,613 posts)And once we invented agriculture, we survived with rickets and ill health, but we kept having babies that lived long enough to have more.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Without medicine people buried a lot of babies and children.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)That's how recent it was that kids died all the time. Less than 100 years.
I have seen such cemeteries and it chills me to see that.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)All five of her kids lived to adulthood and four of them to ripe old ages. Amazing the difference that medicine made, antibiotics, safe childbirth practices and vaccinations especially.
pffshht
(79 posts)>But not one scientist can yet fully and completely describe how an acorn turns into an oak tree. All we know is that...
...Sounds like something a creationist would say.
I assume you do not have a doctorate in developmental botany. So maybe that's all you know. But you don't even know how much the people who know the most about what you're talking about, know. Don't make the mistake of assuming that something is beyond scientific understanding because you have not personally studied enough science to understand it.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)No one has yet understood what is in that acorn that tells the acorn this is what the acorn shall do.
Yes, the acorn has creative power. Same as you. Surely you would not say you can not create. Therefore you know you create. So you believe in creation.
The acorn is generated via another acorn going thru the circle of life, it then begins its own path on that circle, increases, creates other acorns, then the acorn making tree dies, turns to dirt, and feeds other acorns and other life.
We know all that, the science clearly describes the process. What we don't know is how that acorn knows its way to making more acorns. There is a power there that no one can yet read.
valerief
(53,235 posts)That's what the NRA teabaggers tell me, anyway.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)shall do."
Yes we do, DNA, in particular there are quite a few genes that we know tell and acorn what to do, we don't know all the details of all the traits yet, but genetics itself has been known as a mechanism since the late 19th century.
Did you think this was some unfathomable mystery?
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)It has to do with memory. Implanted in that DNA is a memory. How it got there and where it comes from, we know not. We can go in and alter the memory, but we can't make a clump of dirt become a tree, which is what an acorn does.
In modern computers we know where the memory comes from and design what it does. But not that in an acorn. It is a mystery.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)To be more verbose, DNA's "memory" is encoded in the molecules of nucleotides, aww, to hell with it, I'm not typing this stuff out from memory, here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA
If you don't like reading, here's a video series from a biologist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3EED4C1D684D3ADF
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)We know where the memory resides.
The question is: what wrote the memory and how did it get written?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)on the subject, so it must be an unfathomable mystery to everyone. The fact is that most of this stuff is high school biology level to entry level college course stuff. Very basic in the outlines.
First off, its not memory, to think of it that way is somewhat inaccurate, its information, and in general, it is written by a combination of its environment and the carrying over of old information to the newest generation, of traits that survived through natural selection. This is an overly broad overview.
Are you asking these questions to actually learn this stuff, or are you asking because you are hoping to stump us and reinforce some preconceived notion you have?
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)You have shown you know a little bit about this matter and the rest is still a mystery. Why you get upset because you don't know it all is also a mystery.
The information passed on through the genetics in an acorn is memory. If it were not based on memory of the past, it would not become an oak, it would be something else, duh! Probably just turn back into dirt, as some do, because the environment or the memory was not quite right.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Do you think acorns spontaneous generate? It seems to me like you don't know, or better yet, refuse to know how life actually works. I would recommend the video series I linked to above, if you actually want to know how life works, it starts from the basics of chemistry and carbon all the way to ecosystems. If you are going to binge on it, better make a whole day of it though. I don't recommend that though, break it up into 2 hour increments a day.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)And it's so simple you have to point to a video?
We can read the signs along the way of how an acorn is generated, how it becomes a seed, how, if it lands in just the right place, it can grow for two hundred years and create, yes, create, many more seed acorns for many more trees.
It is that creativity and what energizes that creativity that remains a mystery. Man can't replicate that whole process. If we did, we'd do it. We can not make an acorn. But an acorn can.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)You are creating questions with no answers because the questions themselves are nonsensical. You also seem to be inserting conscious agency into a process that doesn't require it, nor has any evidence for it.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)LOL
xocet
(3,871 posts)Are you indicating that you don't think that evolution has the means to explain your "acorn" statements?
Gene Stowe, July 23, 201
Jeanne Romero-Severson, associate professor of biological sciences at the University of Notre Dame, and her collaborators, are tracking the evolution of the live oaks of eastern North America, seeking to understand how the trees adapted to climate change during glacial periods.
When the ice advanced, the oaks retreated. When the ice retreated the oaks advanced, spreading from tropical to temperate zones, up from Central America and Mexico into the Piedmont Carolinas. The researchers expect the study of live oak migrations and phylogeny will provide clues to the success of the oaks that range up into northern Ontario in Canada.
Oaks originated in southeast Asia before the continents split and migrated both east and west, but North America has far more species than other regions. Researchers have long suspected that repeated climate challenges might have led to this diversity. Previous studies have shown that the live oaks that live in Mexico cannot survive the Carolina winters. This shows that there are genetic differences between the southern live oaks and their northern descendants.
“In Mexico, live oaks do not experience repeated cycles of freezing and thawing,” Romero-Severson says. “Are the live oak species that now live further north different species because of this cold tolerance? What about the live oak species that span the tropical-temperate divide? It is logical to assume there is a genetic basis for the ability to survive in those cold temperatures. With four groups of researchers working together, we can tease out how it was that oaks were able to adapt to the climate as they moved north. What were the genetic changes they underwent?”
http://news.nd.edu/news/32154-research-into-oaks-helps-us-understand-climate-change/
Also, what exactly do you mean by "memory"?
It seems that you are making an analogy that is inappropriate unless you believe further that DNA has the neural circuitry to form memories. So, you should replace "memory" by a term that is more appropriate if you want to continue your imprecisely framed argument.
Lastly, the "clump-of-dirt-to-tree" transformation that you tout is so incompletely stated as to be pure BS. Notable amongst the many, many things that are omitted, you are leaving out the stored energy that is present in the acorn and the energy that is gathered on the way to becoming a tree that can produce further acorns.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)We read some of the signs that energy can accomplish in life.
But we don't know where that energy originates or what makes it energetic.
The many things the energy does and can do is the mystery.
Indeed, without energy, evolution is impossible.
xocet
(3,871 posts)So, it appears that your username in full is RobertEarlGreyTea and that you are trolling this thread.
Happy trolling.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Yes, that acorn has an energy in it that sits and waits for just the right time.
Then it taps into the memory encoded in its DNA and together a tree is born. Or maybe not. Sometimes all the things that have to come together to make a tree does not happen and the acorn goes to dirt. Such is the way of the world.
pffshht
(79 posts)This just proves to me that you're an unrepentant woo-enthusiast; because you're doing the same thing with the terms "creation" and "creative power" you always see done by pseudoscientists with (for example) the terms "toxins" and "energy." Confusing reproduction with creativity, and talking about them in such an ambiguous way as to rob them of all meaning in order to make your point.
Both an acorn and myself can "create" complex proteins from simple carbohydrates and chemical energy.
I can "create" an original oil painting or computer program, a plant cannot.
I'm not talking about what you and I understand about the life cycle of an oak tree. I'm talking about what the people who wrote
a paper like this understand about it
There is a geneticist somewhere who could explain exactly what in the acorn tells it what to do and how, but that explanation wouldn't make any sense to you without having first read many more documents like that.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)You seem to be trying to convince yourself you know the secrets of life: How it begins and what drives it. You're on the right track. Most people don't even try.
I admit that I know not what and how an acorn does its thing. And not one scientist can tell us why it does what it does. They can read the signs and track the process, but until someone can take a clump of dirt and make an oak tree from that clump, the acorn is king.
Humans are not that smart, yet. Yes, there it is, the acorn is smart. How it got to be smart is the mystery. How you got to be smart is also a mystery. Life is a mystery. That's why some people came up with the God concept. There's something happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)As a scientific matter (leaving aside philosophy, which is about words, not acorns) what is it we don't know about
The genetic material of the acorn does, in the context of an evolved mechanism whereby steps coded in the genetic material are expressed as a series of chemical incidents.
The process itself is beyond complex, featuring an astonishing number of steps and interactions, and each of those dependent on the physics and chemistry of each thing involved.
No human being could sit down a write out a usable recipe for a tree. Nor could a tree. Nor could a god, in all likelihood.
But evolution could and did.
There is no deep mystery to why the process works (chemistry) or how it came to be (evolution).
There is a ton of detail we lack, but we have the broad outline down just fine, which is why the philosophical challenge is ironic. We do know enough to handle the big questions.
Now specific questions, that's different. Which atomic arrangement in the DNA directs enzyme sequence x to do y in cases where the preceding step encountered z and so forth. We don't have a detailed knowledge of every step of even the simplest biological process, or detailed knowledge of every step in the evolution of the thing.
But we know the how and why.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Read up on the evolutionary history of plants. Germination is not a mystery, nor is natural selection.
xocet
(3,871 posts)n/t
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Taking medicine AS PRESCRIBED is a leading cause of death.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)So anywhere between four and seven decades of medical knowledge ago.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)The Journal of the American Medical Association Adverse Drug Reactions May Cause Over 100,000 Deaths Among Hospitalized Patients Each Year.
I've posted this fact over and over and over again. Yet some DU'ers simply will not admit the facts of the matter.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)leading cause of death, not THE leading cause of death in the United States.
In addition, I don't understand what your argument is. Should we just go back to chewing on berries and living to be 45 if we are lucky?
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 14, 2014, 11:00 PM - Edit history (1)
A lot of people taking drugs in hospitals are going to die either way.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)We don't have 'perfect knowledge'. We come up with rules on when to prescribe and how high a dosage based on statistical results from prior usage. We come up with 'contraindications for use' based on the same sort of empirical evidence.
Human bodies are complex systems, and not every body is capable of responding in the same way to the same drugs, often because of things we've done in our lives that have damaged various organs, sometimes because of the expression of differing bits of genetic makeup.
But we do the best we can, and we continue to collect data on those who suffer adverse reactions to see if there are commonalities that can point to contraindications we might not have previously identified.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)and it was still the standard recommendation.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I've seen you make it, multiple times.
IronLionZion
(45,447 posts)because things like medicine can have elements of science and art and faith. That's why medicine is not so simple or discreet, and is so controversial with many differing strong opinions. You can't just look up the symptoms to diagnose the disease, then look up the treatment and cure it. There are many many many possible variations of an illness, and the same thing with treatment. Homeopathy, traditional chinese medicine, and other herbal treatments can and do supplement scientific treatments all the time.
One can follow a health diet and exercise, and undergo acupuncture and herbal medicine, and go for surgery and use an inhaler. They are not mutually exclusive.
My $0.02
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)i am not talking about diagnoses. I am talking about effective or ineffective treatments. those two things are separate things.
the science behind treatments and the practice of medicine are not the exact same thing.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)trials. Even then laboratories are used because the reason laboratories exist is so we can institute controls and consistency to testing, otherwise any results derived are useless.
IronLionZion
(45,447 posts)the science of treatments is often try something and see if it works. If not, try something else until you find something that works or the patient dies. A treatment for one person may not work for someone else with the exact same illness.
An example of what I am talking about: 2 people have the exact same cancer. One gets chemo and believes she is definitely going to die and dies. The other gets chemo and reiki and believes that she is meant to live, and lives. I know real human beings who should have died long ago, including someone who contracted HIV about 20 years ago when it used to be a death sentence.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Your example of chemo was spot-on. Some people get sick, some don't. Some are healed, some aren't. The nurses and docs were absolutely adamant that everyone's reaction was individual which is why they were so vigilant during the administration of the drug when my husband went through it.
I own horses and I see it daily in the summer with fly spray. Some fly sprays work on some horses and some never work. Its trial and error until you find the spray that works with a particular horses' body chemistry.
I never discount any treatment anymore. If it works for that particular person, regardless of how whacky I might think it is, then it works.
Have you ever heard of Dr. Bernie Siegel? He's a Yale surgeon who wrote Love, Medicine and Miracles. He found that patients who re-directed their lives into doing what they LOVED to do despite their cancer, lived longer - against all scientific evidence. Absolute "woo". Yet the facts remain....
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)The fact that person #2 lived probably had nothing to do with the reiki.
One of the best places to try and sort out what is woo and what isn't is the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, run by the National Institutes of Health. (nccam.nih.gov)
Go look the given therapy topic, and you get a summary of the science, possible dangers, and a listing of relevant papers of studies of the therapy.
To quote from the reiki page:
Although some small studies suggest that Reiki may help with symptoms related to these conditions, others have not found Reiki to be helpful. There is a lack of high-quality research to definitively evaluate Reiki’s effectiveness for any health-related purpose.
As happens fairly often, if a given therapy doesn't show any real useful signs that it works, not a lot of people want to waste their time doing further studies. And the smaller the study set, the more likely your results are statistically meaningless. So when the small studies come back 'helpful', and larger studies come back 'not', chances are that reality is 'not', although, of course, you want to examine the methodology, the study population chosen, and similar variables that went in to the individual studies.
IronLionZion
(45,447 posts)Sometimes I choose an "all of the above" strategy. Now there are studies that have shown surprising results with mental thoughts and attitudes. Like the person who believes they will get better, will often get better. They've done studies with placebos, even with placebo surgery where they cut someone open and do nothing.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I've said as much in other 'woo' diaries. In nursing school, we were taught that if people want to 'add on' other therapies, to not discourage them as long as said therapies were not 'replacements', and we didn't know of any specific harm the therapies might engender.
Anything that works for a specific person even in merely reducing their anxieties and fears is, overall, a good thing. A reduction in anxiety and fear creates less strain on the body and mind, which is always a desirable outcome.
Cha
(297,254 posts)Nevernose
(13,081 posts)It's immature and condescending, and I'm more guilty than most if using the word in a dismissive manner.
In the future, I will try and use "pseudoscience" or, at the very least, "quackery."
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts) La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)
cally
(21,594 posts)and only works if funding is available and generally if the compound can then be marketed and sold for a substantial profit to cover the long process. Then who funds the process often influences the results. Many food compounds are not tested due to this. It is not science I'm questioning, but the current pharmaceutical profit system.
I vividly remember the discussions in my science classes with Professors lecturing us on compounds that many years later were proven untrue. I don't take "science" as gospel because of the funding mechanism behind it.
One example is the current understanding of high cholesterol based on the Framingham study. Much public policy is based on these results but many are starting to question the implications from that study. What I suspect you would call woo, has much basis in science but is the beginning of the investigation into what causes high cholesterol and the implications. I'm interested in new theories and the skepticism of group science think.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)if they could demonstrate that it worked?
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)that have .00001% of any actual herb or extract in them, they would in a HEARTBEAT!
Most people would be surprised to know that big pharma owns a LOT of the vitamin and herb companies (Solgar comes to mind).
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)seem to think that alternative "medicine" is run by charities. Especially considering the expense of a lot of that crap.
cally
(21,594 posts)use homeopathy as a catchall for all non Western medicine. I don't. Although I am willing to use some compounds that have preliminary studies showing promising results. That is not the same as endorsing all homeopathy.
As so called alternative medicine, I use turmeric as an anti-inflammatory. I use ginger when nauseous. Both work well for me. I also have tried arnica for pain relief (recommended by my Doctor one time) and have had pain relief on my feet. All of that I suspect is considered woo by many on DU.
Have you ever looked closely at the financials for pharmaceutical firms. I have. The costs of proving a medicine works are very expensive and takes years. I remember reading their explanations about why they would not pursue a specific compound any further even though the first stage testing was promising. They didn't believe they could patent it.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)Not that I think homeopathy works, other than possibly being able to harness the placebo effect in some people, but even if it did work, you can't patent most of what is sold as homeopathic remedies, and even if you overcharge, someone else can undersell you.
Hell, we have a hard enough time getting pharma companies to manufacture staple medications that are off patent.
naturallyselected
(84 posts)When I see someone here say, "I have used homeopathy and it worked for me" and suggest it is evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy, it reminds me of the climate change deniers who look outside their window and say, "It's snowing, so there can't be global warming".
Both are nothing but anecdotal evidence, and both deserve to be debunked.
You're right - you can't have it both ways. I work with scientists, and once shared an office with someone who believed she could cure a bladder infection with a homeopathic remedy from her naturopath. We talk about the cognitive dissonance of conservatives, but maybe it is more of a human universal than we want to admit.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)You use "vaccinations are a big-pharma conspiracy" and "medical science requires rigor and proof" but you fail to incorporate the existence of the profit motive and its corrupting influence.
Let's take a different tack and think about "big oil" or "big tobacco". I don't think there is a question in anyone's mind that both of these industries lie about and distort the science in order to make profits. To think that the pharmaceutical industry is someone immune to that same influence is naive in the extreme. The biggest constraint on their actions isn't ethics, it is the facts that 1) unlike oil, when they do harm it is more directly traceable to the agent and 2) unlike tobacco they have the ability to pursue profits with beneficial products.
However, the pharma industry still suffers from incentives to play fast and loose. For example, the moneys at stake are huge; investments are made that don't pan out; and careers are often on the line. These and other perverse incentives are more than enough to give reason for looking at the drug industry with a great deal of skepticism. And that could quite conceivably include instances of regulatory capture where unneeded or marginally effective treatments are supported by some sort of government policy.
Just to be clear - I do not in any way accept that any of the present programs involving vaccinations are corrupt, harmful or anything but beneficial. I'm just addressing the weakness in the way your argument is framed.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Once again, the dirty frickin' hippies were right.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)I firmly believe in the pure scientific method. But when the fruits of science are marketed by profit seeking entities protected by a corporate state, the results of scientific study are often deliberately contaminated by misinformation.
Also, in the academic, scientific community, egotistical individuals are often more driven by gaining fame and recognition among their peers than they are with the accuracy of their work.
I trust science in its pure form, but don't trust it when (purported) scientifically produced information can be deliberately skewed for profit.
I've been using herbs for healing for four decades; I know that certain herbs are effective in treating specific, properly diagnosed conditions.
I used cannabis alone or in combination with other herbs to effectively successfully treat certain conditions beginning more than 30 yrs ago. I experimented with growing cannabis plants to see if I could produce hybrid plants that produced inherent varieties of cannabinoids and/or other elements that could be tested through repeated proven effectiveness in controlled trials to the greatest extent to which I was capable.
I believe that I had developed a hybrid strain (which I discovered to be effective through "luck" that had remarkable healing, results when used in conjunction with other herbs already indicated for specific conditions, and this herbal preparation was possibly even a compound that had strong symptom relief, anti-bacterial, and even anti-viral, properties, as indicated through several trials. As far as I could tell, this healing property was produced only in the cannabinoid structure and/or other elements or combined elements in the flowers of only one plant, which was a highly hybridized cross of cannabis indica, cannabis sativa, and cannabis ruderalis. I practiced controlled pollination of all my females, so I had far more than enough viable seeds from this specific plant to possibly continue this strain with apparent superior medicinal properties.
However, at that time Reagan was in the WH, an aggressive drug war was in progress, and any suspected healing properties of cannabis were determined to be woo by order of the PTB. I could not very well go to "experts" as some wild eyed dark skinned hippie lesbian freak and say "Yo! Dudes! Check it out, man, pot can cure the common cold!" Think of all the negative ramifications for me of doing something like that personally. Like jail, derision, and possible assassination by pharmaceutical companies or other corporations involved in the health care industry (after they got my product, seeds, and extremely detailed notes, of course).
I was pretty excited, ya know? And although I had not conducted nearly enough study of this compound to prove anything, the results had been 100% positive, remarkably so, at this point. It's difficult to assemble an infected group of subjects to test herbal compounds that contain illegal psychoactive substances. However, I did manage to find enough subjects in my family, and among friends in our "alternative" community, who were willing to try this organic herbal medicine to lead me to believe that positive results were strongly indicated through trial. But very rapid and highly positive results in only eight respective cases of infection, with no placebo subjects, is encouraging, but nowhere near enough to make any claim of consistent efficacy.
And then, the helicopters flew over while I was not at home, and the cops confiscated all of my plants, seeds, and notes.
Never, ever, put all your seeds in one basket.
I got off without conviction, because, apparently, the evidence somehow disappeared. I suspect that either there was no valid warrant, and/or that the evidence went up in smoke...some of it very, very, slowly, a little bit at a time.
And I have been too afraid of prison to ever consider growing cannabis again since then.
A long, bizarre story, I know; but the point is, politically controlled science for profit all too often makes false, and/or destructive, claims for profit, to the detriment of humankind and our mother earth.
From the 1930s to the 1950s, ‘doctors’ once lit up the pages of cigarette advertisements.
dead_head
(81 posts)I hate thefact people are starting to use woooo to make fun of the beliefs they don't like.
You guys think in a binary mode.
Either I beleive what you believe and the scientist are like the pope and can't do no wrong or either I got a tin foil hat and I believe that Jesus rode with dinosaurs.
Please explain me why you types are always going after the psychics, homoepaths and little guys (that very may be charlatans) but NEVER against big pharma?
I challenged so many self aggrandising ¨skeptics¨ and they always back out when I ask them why they don't call out the bankster or big pharma.
The most honest answer I got is that the guy had a personnal beef against homoepathy and it makes him laugh.
As well before using woooo that James Randy coined. Please take a look at his statements on drug addicts.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)And you won't see much love for drug companies on DU.
You can use the scientific method to improve knowledge and quality of life, or you can use it to create more powerful atomic bombs. It's a tool.
dead_head
(81 posts)My point is that in my experience the people that call out wooo and promote a certain type of science are acting like the defenders of the poor victims of woooo. BUT they never attack the big guys.
I never heard any of the skeptics guys being skeptic of big pharma.
I have a few in my friends and the way they are acting makes me angry.
I once asked a question about it to one of them and right away, he assumed that I was somehow anti-science. Wich I'm totally not.
It's not about classifying people into ¨pro science¨ and ¨anti science¨
I asked him why is he always posting on facebook stories about debunking homeophaty and the people that are anti vaccine but not about those kind of stories;
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/tamiflu-s-effectiveness-in-cutting-hospitalizations-questioned-1.2604783
I mean, if you are against things that claim to be scientific you must go all the way no?
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Personally, I go on a case by case basis, and I have zero trust in industry
dead_head
(81 posts)because he's ¨tired¨ of talking about it.
He said that sometimes big pharma own the companies that promote homeophaty. Wich confirms that the problem is the industry and the profit driven system. Not a ¨anti-science¨ movement.
He said as well that he saw a bad situation with somebody close to him with homeophaty and the very concept of it makes him laugh so he likes laughing at them.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Bingo
And scientist don't exist in a vacuum where the realities of society don't affect them.
yuiyoshida
(41,831 posts)a problem with ultra religious thinking, to the point of trying to establish in higher learning centers their religious beliefs... that the earth was only 6,000 years old and that the Noah's Ark Story was a fact. This is the same stuff Galileo went though while trying to explain the Universe, and still today some people believe the Earth is the center of the Universe, the Sun revolves around the Earth and some where above the white fluffy clouds is Heaven.
I don't think this was ever supposed to happen.. but it did.
onager
(9,356 posts)Thanks for the OP, I mostly agree with it. Except for my personal belief that "woo" can be a very useful term. Descriptive AND short!
Anyway, on the Internetz some time ago, I read about a homeopathic medicine whose manufacturers proudly announced they would do controlled, double-blind testing of their product. With the implication that this should shut up the skeptics for good.
The double-blind test was a miserable failure. So naturally they changed the product and continued to test, right?
Not exactly. On their web site they announced: "We've suspended double-blind testing because that procedure will not work with our product."
Er...no, the double-blind testing is working just fine. But guess what isn't...
arcane1
(38,613 posts) La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)
Atman
(31,464 posts) 
Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)In those instances, my choice is - do nothing - or devour everything I can find and make the best decision based on the limited knowledge available.
My 24 year old daughter has a rare disease - chronic, progressive, and linked to 5 cancers I can name off the top of my head. Her current risk for one of them is approaching 50%. 6/100,000 people have this disease. There's not a lot of money going into research for a cure - because there aren't enough people living with this disease to make it profitable. There is currently no medically approved treatment.
A couple of the things we are (or have) used:
On the less scientific end - Omega fatty acids. A doctor with the same disease and a biological scientist (and me, to a lesser extent) have been spending a lot of time in microbiology texts, looking at how the omega fatty acids regulate gene expression (the disease is a genetically linked disease) - and looking at how that gene expression meshes with the disease - and there is solid theoretical basis for its use.
One the more scientific end - off label use of an FDA approved medication. A small cluster of people with this disease showed a very strong correlation between the medication and remission (the correlation was 100% for children without cirrhosis at the time treatment began). The remission has lasted at least 2 decades for the early participants - in a disease which is often most aggressive in children and for which the median time from diagnosis to transplant for adults - at the time the long term patients started the medication - was 10 years. The last time I spoke with the physician who discovered the correlation, all who were able to stay on the medication are still in remission (it is outrageously expensive, even though a cheap version exists for a different mode of administration which can be compounded for a fraction of the cost, and there is a fair amount of non-pediatric physician resistance to using it). The group was too small to come close to causation (around 20 individuals) - really just a collection of case studies. Several have done repeated trials of withdrawing from the drug, coming out of remission, starting the drug again, and going back into remission.
Would I like much larger studies - absolutely. Are they likely to occur before my daughter is too sick for it to matter? Not a chance.
So, rather than do nothing, we evaluate the options based on everything we can find out. What are the side effects? Does she have to give a recognized treatment up to try either of these (or other options we have also explored)? What is the cost? Is there a solid theoretical (or at least articulable) basis for how it works? Then we make a decision - knowing that there will never be proof for the options we have. Heck, the only medical option which people thought was a given was withdrawn within 4 months of her diagnosis because further studies showed it harmful - at least at the recommended level.
Insisting on rigid scientific proof ("if we ran the same experiment an infinite number of times, the treatment would still be effective over the placebo. When something does not pass this rigor, we should accept it, instead of blaming science." is nice, in theory. But it is not reality - even when we move out of the rare disease category my daughter is in. In one study, 96% of pediatric patients in a major metropolitan ICU received off label treatment; around 21% of office based prescriptions were off label, and 31% of pychiatric drugs were also prescribed off label according to a 2006 study 73% of those off-label uses had little to no scientific support. "Off label" means - very specifically - it has not met the standards you suggest medical science demands for the use to which it is being put.
If even the medical science you revere does not demand that rigor, why are you demanding it when the source is a non-traditional one?
I am not suggesting that anyone should just take anything willy-nilly. I recommend the process we use - but - make no mistake - it does not meet the rigor you are demanding. But neither does a very large percentage of what most people trust implicitly - and assume is scientifically supported because it is prescribed by someone with MD behind their name.
The reality is that there is a vast gray area between things for which there is no support (no correlation, no plausible theory, the compound involved has not been tested for safety, no studies done) and things for which there is absolute support (your standard). In between - including a very large percentage of what most people call traditional medicine - similar standards of deliberated measured review, based on the best evidence available - is about the best we can hope for.
Bottom line - I do want the same standards applied across the board. I just don't agree with most of the "woo" chasers about what all falls in the category of needing very careful no-scientific evaluation, because I know too much to naively accept a prescription from a doctor without verifying the basis for its use even if the doctor does not (as most don't) tell me I am using it in an off-label manner.
G_j
(40,367 posts)thank you for sharing.
Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)Thanks.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)It only makes sense that a drug/medicine/treatment may be effective for one person and not effective for ten others. Does that mean the one person who gets relief must necessarily be labelled a dupe for using or trying a treatment - that may or may not be labelled as "woo" by the DU experts ?
Its crazy.
Great post. Thank you
Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)is that there are multiple diseases presenting with close enough symptoms that they are all called the same thing.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 14, 2014, 11:14 PM - Edit history (1)
"Medicine" isn't a hard science imho. Its an "art". The pharmacology of her body pre and post-transplant was an eye-opener. Besides the fact that a "simple" medical procedure basically killed her body... we just do NOT have all the answers and to dismiss treatments that are offering relief as "woo" is closed-minded imho.
Oh, and my sister is a MS RN and agrees. Furthermore, she's the director of mental health for a major CA county, married to a psychiatrist. So about as "science" based as a person can get yet even she refuses to dismiss outliers that work.
Good luck with your daughter. I think of the two of you often.
Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)After I was his first surgical failure at an operation he does ~100 times a year (and he's in his 50s), and I asked him to predict whether I would ultimately need a third surgery to fix the other side - "As I am sure you must have figured already, you have a number of issues that make you unique compared with others I have treated" - followed by a conversation we have had many times about medicine being as much art as it is science.
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)Should be an OP
Every time my Dear Mom went to the Doctor she came home with another pill- and another bill. Her "Doctor" didn't want to be questioned about it either.
And it's not like Pharma can be trusted.
Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)BuddhaGirl
(3,607 posts)Thanks for sharing!
Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)1. if no medical cure is available and you want to grab at potential cures that have not been established, that is perfectly normal. No where did i say that one could not or should not do that. h
I have supported the FDA fast channeling drugs that we are not altogether sure about, in cases when no other alternative is possible (think HIV in 1990). Again, not against this and no where does my post say so. so long as patients have informed consent that the process may not work, and all the risks are not known, sometimes this needs to happen.
However, i do not think responsible doctors should give drugs that have shown multiple times that they are ineffective. Whether or not these drugs are from western pharmacology or chinese herbs or indian ayurveda.
2. I do not revere medical science as practiced by doctors. I believe in the scientific process. Which when weighing the efficacy of a medicine/treatment has a clear process. When people talk about homeopathic cures and ayurvedic cures, which have failed double blind tests a million times, i think they do not either understand science or believe in the scientific process.
medicine in practice and scientific theory are not the same thing. doctors are merely practitioners, they are not responsible for proving or disproving the efficacy of a treatment. doctors are not scientists.
Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)what you conflated into a false binary system (either you believe in medical science or you don't). It is virtually impossible to obtain care for for anything other than the most mundane trivial condition - even in the most traditional, conservative medical setting based exclusively or even primarily on medical care which has been proven by scientific methods.
Yet the implication of your thread (and all the other anti-woo threads) is that that is how western medicine approaches medical care - and all other stuff should be rejected - until it follows the same standards medical science does. And, coincidentally, you chose to illustrate the other stuff exclusively with things recently called "woo" but not examples such as the routine off-label use of FDA approved drugs.
That binary system is just not a reality based view of medical science.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Anecdote, I know, worthless, but I've yet to see this differ...
I have sciatica, with labs that show a slipped disk. My surgeon tells me we could do surgery, but most people with my condition get better in six months. He says I could try PT, though the evidence base for that is the same as doing nothing. I'm a "do it" guy, so I go to PT, and the PT tells me we can try, A, B, and C, though they might not help. The evidence is lacking.
I talk to an acupuncturist, and he tells to me they're going to do A, B, and C and it WILL make me a different person. This is why quackery sucks. The real professions understand the data, and they understand that they don't know what they don't know. The pseudoscientists pretend to know what they don't know, and that's BS.
Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)I have very few care providers with an MD or a DO after their name who start out with that level of honesty (including self-honesty) about medical uncertainties. They all get to that place - or they don't remain my doctors. But it is not where they start.
If your concern is how your care provider dealsl with uncertainties, why insist on characterizing them by profession. Just choose (or train - as I do most of the time) your care providers to treat you as an active member of the care team with who they have regular, honest, discussions about your treatment - including whether, and to what extent, it is supported by evidence.
My beef is that precisely that - the lines are drawn by categories of practice and treated with different expectations. You expect your traditional medical doctor to rely on evidence based medicine. You expect your acupuncturist not to. There are likely some differences in how much of their care for you is evidence based - but likely FAR less than you realize. And - I expect you hear a lot of certainties from your care providers with an MD or DO after their name that just dont' even register because, frankly, we expect that even when it is not warranted and most of them are inclined to speak that way. Yet your reaction when your acupuncturist speaks the same way is to call them a pseudoscientist - most likely without bothering to check either out as to the detail..
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Think about that. You know it's true.
Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)I demand honesty from my providers - more than most traditional doctors provide to their patients - and likely more than 99% of the public demands from their care providers. I have been known to walk into the office of a doctor who is a relatively new provider with an inch and a half pile of paper to make my point when he initially refuses to have an honest discussion with me about what condition he believes my daughter has, and what her prognosis is. I have refused treatment while hospitalized because the doctors were spouting off with absolute certainty something which they could not know (I turned out to be right -which I could only establish by refusing treatment). I have designed successful treatment plans for my own uncommon condition in conjunction with my physicians (and with their blessing). I diagnosed the rare disease my daughter had - which her physician finally confirmed by running a test just to get me off his back. And I have fired two doctors for being a combination of lazy, stupid, and intellectually dishonest. I don't have the medical bandwidth or patience to maintain a relationship with a doctor who is unwilling to be honest with me about everything related to the care of anyone in my family. So you are way off the mark.
My point is that a large number of doctors with MD and DO after their names are not honest with their patients. I know that because I have had way too many interactions with both doctors - and patients treated by those doctors. I know what they have told me, andd what they haven't. I know what they have told others and what they haven't. The vast majority of people interacting with anyone with an MD or DO after their name assumes that they are being provided with evidence based medication - and have no clue, for example, when the drug they have been prescribed falls in the off label use category (20% of the time (across the board) and upwards of 95% of the time for certain drugs). For the most, part, their doctors don't offer the information - and they don't know to ask.
Yet when a care provider without an MD or DO after their name acts in the exact same manner, you call him a pseudo-scientist.
Neither one should be behaving in that manner - but this thread (and all the other similar ones) start from the assumption that the former is being honest - and the latter is not.
My point is that the line being drawn between kinds of medicine/providers is artificial. The same standard of evaluation should be applied to every care provider and every treatment - rather than throwing the stuff provided by MDs and DOs in the presumed evidence based category - and the stuff provided by everyone else in the pseudo-science category.
And, as to this thread, the evaluation of care can't be "proven by medical science" or not, because there is far more that we don't know (but we have to treat anyway) than what we do know. The best care for anything out of the ordinary is likely to be non (or low) - evidence based care arrived at with the best noodling the care team (ideally including the patient) can come up using a plan of attack similar to what I outlined in my initial post in this thread.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Tom Ripley
(4,945 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)When a science-backed therapy is touted for years only to be discovered to be completely ineffective or worse, to have a negative impact. This brings about a certain cynicism in the public about the veracity of the science in question.
here is an abstract of a paper on the subject, with my bolding of important points:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3238324/
Medical reversal occurs when a new clinical trial — superior to predecessors by virtue of better controls, design, size, or endpoints — contradicts current clinical practice. In recent years, we have witnessed several instances of medical reversal. Famous examples include the class 1C anti-arrhythmics post-myocardial infarction (contradicted by the CAST trial) or routine stenting for stable coronary disease (contradicted by the COURAGE trial). In this paper, we explore the phenomenon of medical reversal. The causes and consequences are discussed. Conflicts of interest among researchers and an unyielding faith in basic science are explored as root causes of reversal. Reversal harms patients who undergo the contradicted therapy during the years it was in favor and those patients who undergo the therapy in the lag time before a change in medical practice. Most importantly, it creates a loss of faith in the medical system by physicians and patients. The solution to reversal is upfront, randomized clinical trials for new clinical practices and a systematic method to evaluate practices already in existence.
..........................................................
A medical practice falls out of favor not by being surpassed, but when we discover that it did not work all along, either failing to achieve its intended goal or carrying harms that outweighed the benefits. Although this phenomenon should be rare in the age of evidence-based medicine, it is ubiquitous. Common use of avandia [3], ezetimibe [4], atenolol [5], hormone replacement therapy [6], and the class 1C antiarrhythmic agents [7] all stopped when trials showed they were either ineffective or harmful. Reversal not only affects medications. Previously accepted indications for surgical and medical procedures also have been abandoned. In 2009, stenting for renal artery stenosis was shown to be ineffective for many patients by the Angioplasty and Stenting for Renal Artery Lesions (ASTRAL) trial [8], and in 2007, the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) [9] trial found no benefit to support percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (versus optimal medical therapy) in most patients with stable coronary artery disease. In these cases, reversal does not mean that for every indication and purpose the therapy in question was shown not to work, but simply that it was contradicted for key indications.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Medical therapies are technologies, the application of scientific knowledge. If they are based on incomplete studies, or incorrect conclusions, then problems will arise. In the case of pharmaceuticals this is most often the result of cost-cutting, whereby insufficient clinical trials are conducted in favor of moving the product to market in order to meet quarterly earnings projections.
The scientific method itself is sound. The people using it are flawed to varying degrees, and can make mistakes.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Those most expert at science, and presented as such, have been clearly wrong and misleading in a number of areas of scientific investigation. Non-woo wrong.
The public distrusts the high experts of science.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)were "clearly wrong" and "misleading?"
I can't assess the validity of your claim without concrete examples.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)as that affects this all.
I quoted some in the abstract excerpt from the National Institute of Health in my first reply.
Another article:
http://sciencelife.uchospitals.edu/2011/07/19/reversals-of-fortune-and-misfortune/
Salt is bad for you. According to a 2010 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, lowering dietary salt intake by 3 grams per day could “reduce the annual number of deaths from any cause by 44,000 to 92,000.”
Or maybe not. A 2011 meta-analysis of seven clinical studies of salt reduction, published this week in the American Journal of Hypertension, found “no strong evidence that salt reduction reduced all-cause mortality.” One of the seven studies showed that a low-sodium diet was associated with an increase in the risk of death for certain patients.
Now, how long has the American public been beaten over the head with the idea that salt is really, really bad for you? Just an example.
Now, back to the article.
So Cifu and colleague Vinay Prasad, a former Pritzker student and now internal medicine resident at Northwestern, turned to the leading American medical publication, the New England Journal of Medicine. They focused on the 124 articles that appeared in 2009 involving investigation of a new medical practice or a practice already in adoption. Of those 124 articles, 16 could be characterized as a reversal. So 13 percent, one out of eight, contradicted an emerging or accepted medical practice.
The reversals included medical therapies such as tight control of blood sugars for patients in an intensive care unit, invasive procedures such as efforts to reopen clogged arteries for patients with chronic total artery occlusion, and predictive tests such as randomized prostate cancer screening.
One resounding reversal involved back-to-back studies in the August 6, 2009, issue that took a close look at vertebroplasty, a treatment for pain caused by compression fractures of the spine, a common problem for older women. The procedure, which had been widely used for more than a decade, involved injecting bone cement through a small hole in the back into a fractured vertebra. “We spent billions of dollars on this,” Cifu said. Several small early studies implied good results, but there had never been a blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trial.
and so on and so on.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)The fault lies not with the scientific method, but with some of it's practitioners.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)leading to widespread scientific illiteracy.
I marvel at how many people don't know basic scientific concepts. One of my friends who graduated with higher honors than I from university actually thought that a lunar eclipse was caused by another planet passing between the moon and the Earth. I learned about eclipses in the third grade - how can someone earn a Bachelor of Science degree and not know such a basic fact?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)and know or care little about things outside that specialty. I've met, more than once, Ivy league graduates I considered uneducated in just general knowledge of things.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)with a "universal" education. They have been turned into degree-mills.
My specialty was geochemical thermodynamics, but I managed to also learn about Native American literature, history, the german language and political science.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)and now have a graduate degree in business, and a teaching certification.
Many fine arts majors can barely talk. I grew up in a family that read constantly, though, and I am curious about many things. I cannot relate to the incurious, but it is more the norm than the exception.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)For the most part, undergraduate students were painfully mercenary and actually bristled at the notion of possibly learning something outside their perceived needs. They were horribly short-sighted, petulant and self-entitled. It almost makes me glad I didn't get a job in academia.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)I'm not sure you do either. Drug/device/biologic development is far from perfect, but if we want to be able to cure and treat diseases, disorders, injuries, etc., a certain amount of risk is inherent. Clinical studies are intended to show that the benefit outweighs the risk, but not all 'studies' are created equal.
Clinical evidence includes lit review icase series, meta-analysis, retrospective study, observational study, and finally a randomized controlled study. The level of risk determines the type of study (or studies) needed to support the hypothesis. Drug studies always require randomized controlled tirlals, but it's impossible to know everything before approval.
Ongoing clinical research and adverse event reporting of approved drugs, devices and biologics are why we sometimes have reversals. And that's a GOOD thing.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)I cite a science article from the National Institute of Health about the problem of medical reversals.
You apparently disagree with that.
My point, which you didn't get, is that such medical reversals create distrust in the public toward medical science. This and another article I posted from another science publication consider this a difficulty. It is, because most American citizens, like myself, are not scientists, and rely on the expertise of those that are. It is a problem when such expertise is not trustworthy.
Hence, woo.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Of course, alt med pseudoscience fans stick to their guns no matter what. They do not learn. They do not make alterations to their worthless treatments via evidence.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... that has resulted in a record number of pharmaceutical drugs having to be recalled because they kill people, well no count me out.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)You're conflating science and ethics/economics.
Though if you have a better method for determining how things work, feel free to tell us. Otherwise that statement is no better than creationists who say evolution is responsible for the Holocaust.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... in today's world, there is no separating "science" from "ethics/economics".
You wonder why so many people don't believe climate science, there is your reason. It is all corrupted, and anyone paying any attention at all get it.
If there is any possibility of the outcome of any "scientific" study having any kind of economic impact, it's probably bullshit. Deal with it.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)You're confusing the scientific method with ethics and economics.
The scientific method as a tool for examining and explaining how things work is the best we have and is responsible for every advancement in technology, medicine, and the social sciences since the Age of Enlightenment.
Ethical problems arise when studies are bought and paid for by corporations. Economic problems arise when pharmaceutical companies cut corners to make a profit.
None of that is the fault of the scientific method. This anti-science bullshit is getting downright sickening.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... I just don't believe it is applied very often any more, on anything where there is a vested economic interest in the answer.
This is why modern drug trials are an epic fail, with drug recalls due to serious side effects being at an all time high.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)You are attacking the wrong thing (the scientific method) when what you describe is the result of corporate profit motive.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The culprit is cost-cutting measures that resulted in the marketing of the pharmaceuticals before sufficient clinical trials could be completed.
The method is sound. Failing to use it properly is the problem here.
progressoid
(49,991 posts)Here's another problem
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)However, that does not mean that I uncritically accept anything that happens to come out of the scientific community or get published in a scientific journal. The fact is that there are flaws in the way in which the scientific method is carried out, and this is magnified, in medical science, by the influence of money and conflicts of interest.
Yeah, there's lots of unscientific crap out there, but some of it is coming from within the scientific community itself. I believe in approaching everything with a degree of scepticism, and I certainly can't fault people who are sceptical of big pharma.
Some people see the world in terms of absolutes and others see some degree of nuance and uncertainty. Real science takes uncertainty as a given. Absolute certainty belongs to the realm of religion.
dead_head
(81 posts)That's why I don't like this new attitude I see everywhere that basicly claims loudly;
EITHER you accept science and never question it, or your with the flat earthers.
There's something fishy behind this attitude.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Science is not dogma. It is a process for finding answers to questions about the universe. While one may question the conclusions drawn from application of the process, the process itself is sound.
Indeed, questioning the conclusions is an integral part of the scientific process.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)They take the nature of the scientific method (which is based on applying 'doubt' to all knowledge) and pervert the purpose of that doubt.
In science the doubt forms the basis for eliminating false beliefs.
In antiscience campaigns doubt forms the basis for creating false beliefs.
Those who are fighting against the overt lies propagated by the fossil fuel industry are literally working to save our species; and time is running out.
How would you suggest they deal with the attitudes and belief structures that are being exploited by the Koch brothers and their ilk in order to continue waging their profit-driven war against humanity?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The essence of a vibrant scientific community is constant questioning of assumptions. If one researcher publishes results supporting a given conclusion, dozens of other researchers immediately begin trying to tear that conclusion down. If they are successful, then new lines of investigation appear. If they fail, then maybe that first guy was onto something...
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)I was speaking more about a certain vocal DU faction rather than about actual scientists.
For some of them, in their attempts to promote science, they end up mischaracterizing, and ultimately doing a disservice to it.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Science involves the pursuit of truth, with the acknowledgement that we will never get there but must keep going.
Neil Degrasse Tyson described science as an infinite journey toward truth, which I think is reasonable.
Dorian Gray
(13,496 posts)believe that vaccines are important and that every family (barring medical issues) should vaccinate their children.
I don't like when things are referred to as "woo." Especially when they lump homeopathic medicine (which I believe to be BS) with herbal remedies (some of which have been tested and found effective... some of which have not) and diet/nutrition.
We need to treat our bodies holistically. (The WHOLE body) Medicine/mind/body/nutrition/etc. are all interrelated. When I eat well, I feel better. No doctor will deny that. I don't think I'm going to cure cancer by eating a diet high in garlic. But eating lots of garlic has nutritional benefits more so than a diet high in cake.
I really do wish that people would research homeopathy. If it has enough ingredients to actually do something, it isn't homeopathic.
randr
(12,412 posts)Employing a "placebo effect" to your research and then throwing out the results of half your data is not "scientific".
Neither is "New Age" mysticism.
Hippocrates had it right from the begining--Physician heal thyself.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)randr
(12,412 posts)University Research centers are funded by big pharma.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)has been steadily cut back in favor of encouraging universities to engage in "partnership" with the private sector. Basically, public universities are becoming R&D facilities for corporations.
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)appear to be pretty smug. Well into the 1960s, the great majority of geo-physical scientists
were totally dismissive of plate techtonics.
How many scientists know much about the history of science?
How many have read Thomas Kuhn on scientific paradigms?
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)i also hold, that if you mock people who believe in absurdities as a 6000 year old earth, but you think homeopathy works, your logic lacks coherence
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Before the 1950s and 1960s, there was just insufficient collected evidence that supported continental drift. It wasn't until advances in paleomagnetism, seismic imaging, and a better understanding of the ocean floor that the evidence began to turn in favor of plate tectonics.
So, given the evidence and technology available beforehand, geologists were absolutely within their right to dismiss plate tectonics. They weren't "wrong", just working with the best evidence they had available.
Which is how science works, and why hindsight is a terrible way to look at scientific development.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)"Dr Maxwell, This new RX drug will cure your patients psoriasis better than brand X! And here's your regional sales representative Barbie in her stunning short dress and 8" heels to explain how!"
Belief in Pharma is wholly and entirely dependent on trust and faith in the FDA. Absent that, you absolutely would be sold actual snake oil. Sadly I haven't seen many reasons to trust the FDA to any greater extent than the SEC or any other organization dedicated to regulating the commerce of billionaires.
Do I trust my doctor? Mostly, but when I see Barbie leave his office dragging her sample cart, I always make a point to ask him what the alternative drugs are.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)There are a lot of homeopathy cures I don't believe in. There are a couple I do. Sometimes the science simply is behind and it can take time to catch up to what the people already know. Do you think people waited for science to tell them that marijuana is a medicine? No. They didn't. Yes, it is important to run the scientific method to either prove or disprove things, but that does not mean the current scientific theories are all correct(even Newton was wrong a time or two) and it certainly doesn't mean you have the right to be condescending to people who think differently than you do.
Atman
(31,464 posts)There are NO homeopathic "cures," unless you seriously believe water cures illnesses. There really is no discussion about this. Homeopathy is (for the one hundredth time) NOT "natural medicine." Is is water. Until you understand what homeopathy actually is, you might want to watch where you're pointing that finger claiming "self righteous and condescending."
Kermitt Gribble
(1,855 posts)Using this terminology allows the religious wackos to argue science vs religion, evolution vs creationism, etc.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)anti-vaccination is delusion on both sides of the isle.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...he would also admit that at the subatomic level we can have it both ways. Or for that matter, any way one wants. Because even our observations of reality ''here,'' in the macro-level, alters outcomes in the subatomic world, ''there.''
- And since our ''heres'' are made up of a plethora of subatomic ''theres'' -- well, you make the call. And so will I.
K&R
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)It indulges in "quantum mysticism" and is pretty much an outstanding example of pseudoscience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F
And from here: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/may/16/g2.science
Simon Singh has a PhD in particle physics from Cambridge University. He is also the author of The Code Book and Big Bang, and reviews What the Bleep Do We Know!? for Front Row on BBC Radio 4, Thursday, 7.30pm. Joao Migueijo
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)The double-slit experiment, if you're familiar with it, stands on its own.
- Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)and electron beam microanalysis. Very familiar with Young's experiment.
I just wanted to caution others about how "What the Bleep Do We Know" is very, very misleading in its treatment of quantum theory.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Yikes.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)But unfortunately in the pharma / medical field too much science is practiced only for the furtherance of profit...after all, if there is no money in it, who will fund expensive tests to prove or disprove the efficacy of an alternative treatment?
I don't "blame science" for this state of affairs--I find that construction absurd--but I do blame the profit motive for narrowing the focus of scientific inquiry.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Prove them.
idendoit
(505 posts)No liberal of my acquaintance professes to anything you named. Whether or not you believe in scientific method matters not, it believes in you. In other words, it is the reality of what can be known and cannot be plausibly denied.
JEFF9K
(1,935 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Or those which can not be proved or disproved by it??
You are generalizing and putting everything under one umbrella.
Fail.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Those are irrelevant. If it can be tested through methodological naturalism, then it's not ultimately worth our time.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)who have finite resources they can't waste on things that can't be tested through methodological naturalism in the first place.
Every dollar or minute wasted on something like qi or faith healing is a dollar or minute not spent on cancer or AIDS research.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Scientific Method should be administered to all treatments who have some sort of alleged success.
We should aim to better the health and find cures for people. Not follow the stock of pharmaceutical companies.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)It's downplayed because the actual concoctions haven't shown consistent, demonstrated efficacy, and the "success" of the treatment is usually attributed to something else.
All pseudoscience pushers love the conspiracy card.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Why are you single it out??
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)My question again, why are you singling out homeopathy??
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)And just for the record, if the efficacy of a treatment can be replicated by any sugar pill Big Pharma can fart out in a week, then it's not much of a unique treatment.
This is called grasping at straws. And looking only for confirmatory evidence.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)I can't say what I think of your post.
But you get the idea.
Have a nice life
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Tikki
(14,557 posts)There is a name for people who like to fool themselves.
Tikki.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Do you realize that so many theories labeled "woo" have not being analyzed due to financial politics?
Yikes..
Tikki
(14,557 posts)Tikki
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Research treatments so far, are only being tested on those without any other hope.
Tikki
(14,557 posts)from alternative treatments.
How is it that these crazy treatments can even exist when the removal of stones or the organ is
so easy and a proven relief and yet people die from this disease because of fear and those who prey upon that fear.
This is just one example.
Tikki
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)And proved or disproved just like everything else.
Do you agree with that?
People die all the time when undergoing traditional treatments. And the few who refused them and go only alternative are silly, imho. But it's their body and their choice.
My question is , why are nor alternative treatment going scientific studies , just like all the others?? The only answer is MONEY!! Big Pharma can't podsibily lose billions of dollars if a natural cure is scientifically proven to work.
.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I've got false dichotomy, "scientifically proven", and conspiracy. Need appeal to authority and confirmation bias for woo bingo.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)A noble quest.
One warning from History:
If ANYONE says they've arrived at Certainty, run. Screaming.
THAT is what gave us Fukushima.
