|
Post by sankari on Feb 13, 2013 13:38:37 GMT
Well, like I said before, you're probably right both of you, but you haven't said anything that convinces me yet. Perhaps you could tell me what this infamous premise is please. (I could look it up, but I'm interested in what you say it is.) Here you go: ( Source).
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Feb 13, 2013 13:42:51 GMT
To add another example to UnkleE's list - beta blockers (drugs which slow the heart down and limit its ability to contract effectively) are the last thing that you would want to give to a patient with chronic heart failure - the premise (ie. understanding physiology) indicates that they would only make the problem worse. In reality, beta-blockers actually prolong the life of stable CCF patients, and are widely recommended and prescribed. Course, no-one would have known that unless somebody went beyond the premise and actually looked at experimental trial data. Don't get too carried away with beta blockers yet.In any case, this is not an equivalent example. You need to look at the premise behind prescribing beta blockers to heart disease patients, not at the premise behind the chemical function of beta blockers themselves. The premise behind prescribing beta blockers to heart disease patients is not at all counter-intuitive.
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Feb 13, 2013 17:20:50 GMT
The premise behind prescribing beta blockers to heart disease patients is not at all counter-intuitive Anything that is counter-intuitive is not worthy of investigation? It still strikes me that dismissing homeopathy (without reading any research - which indeed tends to rubbish homeopathy) is an illustration of the kind of confirmation-bias that Will Storr highlights in his apparently well-received book (praised in both The Telegraph and now The Guardian): www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/feb/13/heretics-adventures-will-storr-reviewThe Heretics: Adventures with the Enemies of Science by Will Storr – review Bertrand Russell's essay "On the Value of Scepticism" was published 85 years ago this year. Its opening lines are as relevant today as they were then: "I wish to propose a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." His proposal was "wildly paradoxical" because Russell understood that most of us do not use reason to form our beliefs. Most of what we believe is formed instead by an eclectic brew of formative influences, emotional hunches and selective concentration on evidence that supports our own prejudices. We are all victims of this "confirmation bias", but most of us like to think we'd have the good grace to change our minds if faced with incontrovertible evidence.At a "sceptics" conference he [Storr] questions some self-righteous individuals with a passionate hatred of homeopathy, only to discover that none of them has read the research that they refer to."Interesting that homeopathy is still nevertheless available on the NHS in the UK.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 14, 2013 0:38:11 GMT
Sankari, thanks for the reference, but I don't think you have outlined "the premise" of homeopathy but rather some of its explanations. And I hardly think Rational Wiki is a good source. Since I know literally zero about homeopathy, I did a quick search too, and found a few more neutral sources - e.g. Wikipedia and Better Health Channel. From that, I think the basic premise of homeopathy might be as in Wikipedia: "Homeopathy i/ˌhoʊmiˈɒpəθi/ (also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy; from the Greek hómoios- ὅμοιος- "like-" + páthos πάθος "suffering") is a system of alternative medicine originated in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann, based on his doctrine of similia similibus curentur ("like cures like"), according to which a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure similar symptoms in sick people."I don't think that premise is any more unbelievable a priori than quantum entanglement, and I don't see any reason to reject it a priori. It requires an assessment of the evidence. So I did a little checking of stuff on the web (like this report of medical criticisms in The Age) and checked with someone I found who had used homeopathy (which I wasn't aware of before). The medical world is against homeopathy because they believe the evidence shows it is no better than a placebo. But one of the conclusions I have come to is that the medical world is very hidebound and protective of its position. I have never been very sick, so I have found modern medicine to be very helpful in my life, but that isn't the case for many people. One person I know had a serious medical problem and the Australian medical system (one of the best in the world I believe) couldn't help him. He went to a mass of specialists and because his problem crossed a bunch of very different disciplines, none of them could help him, or even begin to help him. It was incredibly frustrating. In the end, he resorted to alternative medicine. A chinese herbalist gave him much more helpful diagnosis and advice than any of the recognised specialists. A holistic dentist was able to help with a significant part of the problem, and along the way drew in other disciplines of physiotherapy and herbalism, which included some elements of naturopathy and homeopathy. He too is doubtful of the truth of the explanations given by homeopathic advocates, but he said that it was hard to separate out what is herbalism, what is naturopathy and what is homeopathy. Further he said, a treatment might work even if the explanation is a complete misunderstanding. Nevertheless, he no longer uses it. Let me give an example from a field I know something about - management of rivers and catchments. It is quite clear that extensive clearing, especially along river banks, and over-grazing, have been very destructive to the natural environment in eastern Australia. One outcome is the gradual loss of productivity of farmlands, which often leads to farmers having to invest in more and more pesticides and fertilisers, which are costly and harmful in their own way. But there is a growing movement of farmers using more "natural" methods to increase productivity - allowing a wider variety of native plants into their grazing paddocks, changing the way water runs off, using short-rotation grazing to manage grass growth optimally, etc. The traditional farmers and even the agricultural experts from the Government Agriculture Departments often scorn these approaches, saying they are unproven, but it is almost certain that many of them really do work. A while back, a friend of mine, an expert geomorphologist was asked to assess the practices of a farmer in the Hunter Valley who had gained political prominence , and who used novel ways to divert the water in his creek to apparently change the way the groundwater moved and keep his land much wetter. My friend commented later that the guy's practices were geomorphologically and hydrologically good, but his explanations were quite spurious. It may be that there is some truth in homeopathy, perhaps totally misunderstood by its exponents. It may be that it is all total crap. I don't know. But what I do conclude is this. I think rejecting things a priori is dangerous, and I'd rather remain agnostic until I get some evidence. At the moment the evidence is against homeopathy being true. But I don't fully trust the medical testing until it shows itself to be more open-minded. I can't imagine ever using homoeopathy myself, but I have appreciated the opportunity to learn something I didn't know before, and, who knows, if I got desperate enough, and established medical science couldn't help me, who knows what I'd try? Best wishes.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Feb 14, 2013 2:50:09 GMT
Anything that is counter-intuitive is not worthy of investigation? No, that's not what he said. That's not what he said either. The point made was that once the premise is known, homeopathy can be dismissed because the premise contradicts a vast body of existing scientific knowledge. You don't need to conduct repeated trials of homeopathy in order to know it's junk science.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Feb 14, 2013 3:03:50 GMT
Sankari, thanks for the reference, but I don't think you have outlined "the premise" of homeopathy but rather some of its explanations. On contrary, the very first sentence identifies a key premise of homeopathy; 'Water memory is one of the concepts central to modern (i.e., post-Avogadro) homeopathy'. Why not? While Wikipedia is a good source, the 'Better Health Channel' is an alternative medicine advocate, and biased in favour of homeopathy. It is not a neutral source. That is part of the premise; you haven't cited the 'water memory' part, or the 'dilution' part. You also didn't quote the next sentence; 'Scientific research has found homeopathic remedies ineffective and their postulated mechanisms of action implausible'. The part in bold is exactly the point Sankari is making. Later again in the article, ' Several of the key concepts of homeopathy conflict with fundamental concepts of physics and chemistry'. This is what you need to address, but you haven't addressed it. As I have said twice, this has nothing to do with what is more believable or less believable. As I have already pointed out, no one is suggesting rejecting it a priori. That is a misrepresentation. The 'medical world' is against homeopathy because it is based on a false premise, it encourages belief in pseudo-science and skepticism of established empirically based medical treatments, it is unregulated, it is unethical because it makes false medical claims, its practitioners and supporters regularly misrepresent science and empirically established medical treatments, and it has resulted in unnecessary harm and deaths which could have been avoided. That's enough to be getting on with. Ok I stopped reading here; you're already entrenched on this subject.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 14, 2013 5:56:50 GMT
On contrary, the very first sentence identifies a key premise of homeopathy; 'Water memory is one of the concepts central to modern (i.e., post-Avogadro) homeopathy'. It might be an important part of the teaching, but it isn't part of the definition as far as I can see. Homeopathy could be right and have one mistaken idea (water memory), but we are discussing whether it is wrong overall. Because I was asking what the main premise was, not what a strong critic says it is. Well then what are we discussing? Sankari said several times: "Once you know and understand the premise of homeopathy, you know why it's false." I am saying we need not just that knowledge of the premise, but we need evidence. Do you agree that not rejecting something a priori means investigating it? Then you are agreeing with me, and appear to be disagreeing with Sankari. Or have I misunderstood you? I wonder why you say this, because it is quite wrong. I have never ever thought about this topic before now. I have no reason to think homeopathy is true, but I have good reason to say that we should base our views on evidence, not simple rejection because we think an idea sounds wacky. It is a pity you didn't interact further with what I wrote, because I make the point that an idea can work even if the explanation given is quite mistaken. This is another reason why examination of evidence is important. So to summarise. I don't think we should reject ideas just because they sound silly, because there might be something in them even if the expression is mistaken. Rather we should withhold judgment until we see if there is any evidence supporting the idea. Of course we cannot investigate every idea that we come across, but if we decide something isn't worth investigating, we shouldn't make strong statements about it that sound like we know, because we don't know. Rather, we should simply say "That idea doesn't sound right, but I've never investigated if it has any truth." or "That concept is built on premises that are unscientific so I haven't investigated it further."You have given me no reason to depart from those principles, and in fact good reason to feel they are more important than ever. I'm sorry to be pesky about this, but I think the principle of evidence is important.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Feb 14, 2013 6:55:46 GMT
I think rejecting things a priori is dangerous, and I'd rather remain agnostic until I get some evidence. At the moment the evidence is against homeopathy being true. But I don't fully trust the medical testing until it shows itself to be more open-minded. I can't imagine ever using homoeopathy myself, but I have appreciated the opportunity to learn something I didn't know before, and, who knows, if I got desperate enough, and established medical science couldn't help me, who knows what I'd try? Surely you don't think rejecting beliefs a priori is dangerous in all cases? Just checking the level of generality you intend. But consider this, the supposed cure is so dilute that there is good reason for scientists to doubt whether there are any effective doses left, and homoeopaths have to resort to ad hoc left-over effects in the water. Now if someone were to be convicted for poisoning with such doses, would you consider that an acceptable verdict? rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christrationalwiki.org/wiki/Godrationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gapsrationalwiki.org/wiki/Middle_AgesOn these subjects, it's as biased as Conservapedia. Edit: happy birthday, btw.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Feb 14, 2013 16:05:03 GMT
The premise behind prescribing beta blockers to heart disease patients is not at all counter-intuitive Anything that is counter-intuitive is not worthy of investigation? No, and I did not say this in the first place. No it's not. You don't need to read 'research' in order to know that homeopathy is fraudulent. All you need to know is the premise. If I tell you about my perpetual motion machine which provides unlimited free energy via cold fusion, you would be right to dismiss the claim — without reading any research into 'perpetual-motion-cold-fusion-energy' machines — on the grounds that the premise of my claim is demonstrably invalid. BTW, there's a reason why research tends to rubbish homeopathy: because it doesn't bloody work. A more appropriate word is 'disgusting.'
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Feb 14, 2013 16:20:23 GMT
Sankari, thanks for the reference, but I don't think you have outlined "the premise" of homeopathy but rather some of its explanations. Yes I did. Please read again. It's a good source of rational information. If you don't like it I can provide the exact same information from any number of alternative sources. No skin off my nose. Not true (as Fort has noted) but even if it was, that's a pretty damn good reason don't you think? You later affirm that 'the evidence is against homeopathy being true', so it seems to me that the medical world is right to reject it. If by this you mean 'strongly resistant to pseudo-scientific and potentially dangerous bunkum masquerading as legitimate medicine', I agree. Modern medical science is the most successful medical science in human history. That's worth protecting! Modern medicine is notorious for its inability to cure imaginary illnesses in people with a pathological need to believe there is something chronically wrong with them. What was this 'serious medical problem'? Huzzah, the placebo effect is still working. Great news. Now he can save money with sugar pills instead of buying massively over-priced 'natural medicine' which is mysteriously more expensive than conventional medicine. So do I, which is why I don't. That's usually a hint. Huh? 'Open-minded'? What does that even mean in the context of medical testing? Should we be more 'open-minded' about the affects of nicotine? Should we be more 'open-minded' about alleged cancer 'cures' consisting of colonic irrigation and massive vitamin regimes? And why stop at medical testing? Should we be more 'open-minded' about gravity? About the speed of sound? About ? If medical science can't help you, magic water sure as hell won't.
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Feb 14, 2013 19:26:00 GMT
In this exclusive interview for Foyles, Will (Storr) talks about why irrational beliefs should never be dismissed as stupid, why Skeptics aren't rational either www.foyles.co.uk/will-storr The passage you refer to involves my asking a series of attendees at a 'Skeptic' conference, which was culminating in a protest against homeopathy, if they'd read any studies that tested homeopathy. How had they become so incensed by the idea of homeopathy that they wanted to strike out against it in this way? Did they arrive at their conclusions through a deep and even handed examination of the scientific data? None of those I spoke with had. But that's not to dismiss their conclusions at all. I think they're absolutely right about the efficacy of homeopathy. But, in that chapter, some important nuance comes into play. I'm also looking at my own beliefs, and how they're affecting my reporting. Why do I feel hostile to these Skeptics? Why did I prefer the company of the homeopath I'd met who believed that sugar pills cured her cancer? I'm biased too, and my biases have little or nothing to do with data or scientific studies. My walking around demanding to know if people had read studies was rather passive aggressive and arguably unfair, and that's one of the reasons I included it in the book. The Heretics is as much an account of my potentially faulty reasoning as it is of anyone else's. But what I don't believe is that the Skeptics that I met are any more rational than me. They don't have some special claim to be 'free thinkers', or some sort of magic inoculation against dogma and ideology. They read books that reinforce their prior beliefs, and believe what's in them. That's not to say the books are wrong, just that they're behaving much like everyone else.Some people find his point impossible to grasp? They can't accept that they are no more objective than anyone else?
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Feb 14, 2013 21:00:30 GMT
What Storr says here is perfectly valid:
I agree with this.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 14, 2013 22:51:41 GMT
Surely you don't think rejecting beliefs a priori is dangerous in all cases? Just checking the level of generality you intend. I think the principle is generally true, but to be applied thoughtfully and practically in each situation. There are heaps of things which would be considered "fringe" and which I know little about - UFOs, SETI, alternative medicines, ghosts, scientology, etc. My natural inclination would be to be somewhat sceptical about all of these. But some things that were once considered "fringe" are now much more accepted (examples might be, perhaps, acupuncture, the use of hypnosis in medical treatment, the multiverse, some of the sustainable farming practices I mentioned previously, etc) so it is also wise to be a little circumspect about our judgments. Prior to this discussion, I had heard the word homeopathy but had no idea what it was. So I was interested to find out a little about it. It turns out it is not just a set of ideas which may be right or wrong, but a set of treatments which may work or may not. The two things are separate.The ideas could be dead wrong and the treatments might still work.In such a case, it is insufficient to critique the ideas, one has to test the treatments as well. And the testing has to be fair, not biased. So those are the general principles I would apply. And because of the possibility that something may be wrongly described but still work, it requires more than just understanding the premise, it requires testing. I am surprised anyone would contest that. Surely the verdict would depend on the evidence? Which is what I have been saying. Thanks for asking.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 14, 2013 23:13:11 GMT
If medical science can't help you, magic water sure as hell won't. Sankari, your last post seems to have gotten into serious "mythbuster mode", but has unfortunately strayed right away from the point. (You'll be pleased to know I resisted the temptation to say mythed the point!) I don't actually care about homeopathy, I care about the subject of this thread. So let's recap. 1. Sandwiches started this thread named "Not even hiding their bias" with these words: "We've reached a new low folks: people who haven't even READ the book they despise, write reviews condemning the book and it's ideas.....and admit these two facts proudly."2. In support of his point about reading/investigating before passing judgment, he subsequently added a quote from an article: "Unconscious bias lurks in us all, Michael Deacon learns from The Heretics by Will Storr, a funny, personal and richly vivid book.
Even if they aren’t, he’s interested to see if there are ways in which rationalists are wrong. He attends a conference of self-proclaimed “Sceptics” and is irked by their complacency. Many attendees tell him there’s “no evidence for homoeopathy”. He asks them what studies of homoeopathy they’ve read. The answer, time and again, is none."3. You replied to this with: "You don't need to read a study of homoeopathy to know that tap water isn't medicine." Later you said: "You don't need to investigate homeopathy to know it's nonsense, because as soon as you understand the premise you realise it cannot possibly work."It is those statements I am contesting, not the truth or otherwise of homeopathy. The discussion has been helpful to me because I have learnt something through it, but let's now cut to the chase. Here is the view I have been gradually working out. (i) Where, as is the case with homeopathy, an alleged treatment has both conceptual ideas and practical treatments, it is possible that the ideas may be wrong and yet the treatments still work. (I draw your attention to the farmer who proposed solutions to water management that were exactly like this.) (ii) Therefore, both the ideas and the treatments need to be examined before one can pass judgment. (iii) One can test ideas by comparing them to other established ideas, but one can only test treatments by collecting evidence. (iv) Therefore it is both wrong and dangerous to say "You don't need to investigate homeopathy to know it's nonsense, because as soon as you understand the premise you realise it cannot possibly work.", because this only deals with the ideas, not with the practical treatment. Now would you disagree with those four propositions? If so, where? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Feb 15, 2013 0:09:04 GMT
WHO started this thread, unklee?
|
|