Forums > Social Discussion > Science Vs Nature
Login/Join to ParticipateBRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
Right....during my time here on HoP I have noticed many conflicting veiws. (most based around religion
) but was wondering, Many here seem to have a scientific background / belief system (please lets not descend into a disscussion on belief) and others a more alternative thought process.
I was looking at some threads and visualised 2 groups disscussing. in the blue corner, a group of (for sake of a better word) hippies, and in the red corner, a group of (for sake of a better word) scientists.
I was wondering about peoples thoughts on modern medicine verses alternative therapies.
Can reflexology alieviate asthma. or are inhalers the best cure?
Whats the best way to fix a bad back?
seconds out round 1.
Right....during my time here on HoP I have noticed many conflicting veiws. (most based around religion
) but was wondering, Many here seem to have a scientific background / belief system (please lets not descend into a disscussion on belief) and others a more alternative thought process. I was looking at some threads and visualised 2 groups disscussing. in the blue corner, a group of (for sake of a better word) hippies, and in the red corner, a group of (for sake of a better word) scientists.
I was wondering about peoples thoughts on modern medicine verses alternative therapies.
Can reflexology alieviate asthma. or are inhalers the best cure?
Whats the best way to fix a bad back?
seconds out round 1.
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
SILVER Member
addict
449 posts
Location: Australia
addict
449 posts
Location: Australia
Posted:
haha here we go
haha here we go
BRONZE Member
I wear yellow on monday
551 posts
Location: Farnham Ahoy, United Kingdom
I wear yellow on monday
551 posts
Location: Farnham Ahoy, United Kingdom
Posted:
Reflexology is great, but my asthma was the same after as it was before.
I think a mix of the too.
I could really get into this discussion, but im not in the sodding mood today. Humph
Reflexology is great, but my asthma was the same after as it was before.
I think a mix of the too.
I could really get into this discussion, but im not in the sodding mood today. Humph
You'll find me on the dance floor
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Written by: PsyRush
haha here we go
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
psyrush: do you think that physical events can have non-physical causes?
psyrush: do you think that physical events can have non-physical causes?
ture na sig
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
I do.....all human physical events start with a mental cause.
Written by: quiet
psyrush: do you think that physical events can have non-physical causes?
I do.....all human physical events start with a mental cause.
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
This is so going to go off-topic
How about taking it over to this highly relevant new thread-
[Old link]
EDITED_BY: onewheeldave (1127412493)
This is so going to go off-topic
How about taking it over to this highly relevant new thread-
[Old link]
EDITED_BY: onewheeldave (1127412493)
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
for onewheel dave
Now, did anyone see the hatchet job on that australian faith healer woman on (uk) tv last night. BBC2 i think.
i was feeling a little more open-minded than my usual opinionated scientific self when i started watching it.
The heavy-handed and over-personal direction of the program made me even more sympathetic toward this woman who was using pseudoscience and near-hypnotherapy to actually make people feel better.
Then came the part where she persuaded a seriously ill (and seriously gullible) gentleman not to seek conventional treatment.
He died, but only after she had accepted over £15,000 in payment from him for her bogus bullshit "treatments" administered by telephone.
what a
It's now reinforced my negative feelings toward alternative therapy quite nicely.
for onewheel dave Now, did anyone see the hatchet job on that australian faith healer woman on (uk) tv last night. BBC2 i think.
i was feeling a little more open-minded than my usual opinionated scientific self when i started watching it.
The heavy-handed and over-personal direction of the program made me even more sympathetic toward this woman who was using pseudoscience and near-hypnotherapy to actually make people feel better.
Then came the part where she persuaded a seriously ill (and seriously gullible) gentleman not to seek conventional treatment.
He died, but only after she had accepted over £15,000 in payment from him for her bogus bullshit "treatments" administered by telephone.
what a
It's now reinforced my negative feelings toward alternative therapy quite nicely.
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I saw that- it was pretty disturbing.
I couldn't decide whether the healer was a con-woman, or if she seriously believed that she could heal in that way- some of the terms she use and descriptions of the process reminded me of stuff schizophrenics have written about their experiences.
It was sad to see that so many people had such absolute faith in her, that many of them were extremely ill and vulnerable, and that they were handing over thousands of pounds.
I don't though, agree that this colours all alterantive therapies. Just as in orthodox medicine, there will always be malpractice (though I do acknowledge that in orthodox medicine there are at least procedures to bar those guilty of it).
I saw that- it was pretty disturbing.
I couldn't decide whether the healer was a con-woman, or if she seriously believed that she could heal in that way- some of the terms she use and descriptions of the process reminded me of stuff schizophrenics have written about their experiences.
It was sad to see that so many people had such absolute faith in her, that many of them were extremely ill and vulnerable, and that they were handing over thousands of pounds.
I don't though, agree that this colours all alterantive therapies. Just as in orthodox medicine, there will always be malpractice (though I do acknowledge that in orthodox medicine there are at least procedures to bar those guilty of it).
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Posted:
(completely off-topic, but in the absence of a onewheeldave intro thread it will have to do)
Dave,
Just wanted to say hello and because some of your posts of late have been even more dry and amusing than usual and have made me smile.
Thanks
Clare x
(completely off-topic, but in the absence of a onewheeldave intro thread it will have to do)
Dave,
Just wanted to say hello and
because some of your posts of late have been even more dry and amusing than usual and have made me smile.Thanks
Clare x
Getting to the other side 
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
I think that nicely sums up why I do the things I do to put a stop to quackery and bullshit at every corner. This is a battle with people's lives at stake.
Science vs. Nature
Interesting choice with this threads name. Last I checked science was the study of nature and the other 'corner' was about corrupting it to what they want to be the truth.
Written by: simian
Then came the part where she persuaded a seriously ill (and seriously gullible) gentleman not to seek conventional treatment.
He died, but only after she had accepted over £15,000 in payment from him for her bogus bullshit "treatments" administered by telephone.
I think that nicely sums up why I do the things I do to put a stop to quackery and bullshit at every corner. This is a battle with people's lives at stake.
Science vs. Nature
Interesting choice with this threads name. Last I checked science was the study of nature and the other 'corner' was about corrupting it to what they want to be the truth.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
SILVER Member
fluffy mess
197 posts
Location: Brighton, United Kingdom
fluffy mess
197 posts
Location: Brighton, United Kingdom
Posted:
I'll be honest,I've only skimmed over what has already been said in this thread.I believe the body has the ability to heal it self if it works as one with the mind. I do take conventional medicines to cure ailments and belive that they work too. I accept the possibility that if I was able to properly harness the power of my mind, I could heal myself, although I dont think that is an option for me personally as I'm not trying to develop my mind in this way. But I do know that I have been able to manifest ailments in my own body that were then detected by scientific methodes which then means that they were then 'real'.I didnt self-diagnose myself, I did manifest,of this I'm 100% sure on.(so I'm running between the two corners here)
I'll be honest,I've only skimmed over what has already been said in this thread.I believe the body has the ability to heal it self if it works as one with the mind. I do take conventional medicines to cure ailments and belive that they work too. I accept the possibility that if I was able to properly harness the power of my mind, I could heal myself, although I dont think that is an option for me personally as I'm not trying to develop my mind in this way. But I do know that I have been able to manifest ailments in my own body that were then detected by scientific methodes which then means that they were then 'real'.I didnt self-diagnose myself, I did manifest,of this I'm 100% sure on.(so I'm running between the two corners here)
"I want to know if you can see beauty even when it's not pretty, every day,and if you can source your own life from its presence.." - Oriah Mountain Dreamer
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
geez will people stop picking on the name of the thread I've already apologised once (never judge a book by it's cover)
I wanted to see peoples opinions and it's panning out nicely
geez will people stop picking on the name of the thread I've already apologised once
(never judge a book by it's cover) I wanted to see peoples opinions and it's panning out nicely
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Could you elaborate on one or two of these ailments you've manifested?
Written by: blu_valley
But I do know that I have been able to manifest ailments in my own body that were then detected by scientific methodes which then means that they were then 'real'.I didnt self-diagnose myself, I did manifest,of this I'm 100% sure on.(so I'm running between the two corners here)
Could you elaborate on one or two of these ailments you've manifested?
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
fluffy mess
197 posts
Location: Brighton, United Kingdom
fluffy mess
197 posts
Location: Brighton, United Kingdom
Posted:
It hasn’t happened often, and with reasonably small things.It goes along the basis of, you see someone else scratch an itch, or you talk about an itch and suddenly you start itching and scratching. But one of the major ones is an ailment I’m not quite confidant disclosing on a public board. But let me try and give you an example based on the general idea
The story:
A woman who endured a lot of sickness while she was growing up and had to grow up very fast. Having every woman who was close to her being sick and then dying slowly and painfully when she was young. She then goes off to live a life in which she is a bit of a hypochondriac and believes that there are all sorts of things wrong with her, because this is what she associates with from her childhood.
She keeps going to the doctor believing that there is something seriously wrong with her, finding after many tests that she is fine, but still not believing it. She becomes obsessed with a particular illness. After a few more visits to the doctor, she is no longer turned away and told that she is fine, but sent to a specialist. It is found that she has developed an ailment very close to that which she was so previously obsessed with. This is not a genetically inherited sickness and very uncommon in young women, yet it is very real, and very life threatening, with an added twist, that is uncommon throughout the world. It was caught very early, so it had not been developing while this woman was convinced she was ill for the pre-ceding few years. The symptoms were unlike those usually associated with the illness.
I believe this ailment was manifested because of the way this woman grew up. That because of her obsessing she ‘willed’ it into existence.
In the same way I suppose, the ailment can be ‘un-manifested’, and in many ways it has been. As death should have happened a long time ago because of a refusal to accept a lot of the common treatments, there is still life, and a woman who feels quite healthy, despite still harbouring this sickness in its uncommon and warped state.
Once again, this is just what I believe happens. I have done it myself and I have seen others do it.
EDITED_BY: blu_valley (1131973877)
It hasn’t happened often, and with reasonably small things.It goes along the basis of, you see someone else scratch an itch, or you talk about an itch and suddenly you start itching and scratching. But one of the major ones is an ailment I’m not quite confidant disclosing on a public board. But let me try and give you an example based on the general idea
The story:
A woman who endured a lot of sickness while she was growing up and had to grow up very fast. Having every woman who was close to her being sick and then dying slowly and painfully when she was young. She then goes off to live a life in which she is a bit of a hypochondriac and believes that there are all sorts of things wrong with her, because this is what she associates with from her childhood.
She keeps going to the doctor believing that there is something seriously wrong with her, finding after many tests that she is fine, but still not believing it. She becomes obsessed with a particular illness. After a few more visits to the doctor, she is no longer turned away and told that she is fine, but sent to a specialist. It is found that she has developed an ailment very close to that which she was so previously obsessed with. This is not a genetically inherited sickness and very uncommon in young women, yet it is very real, and very life threatening, with an added twist, that is uncommon throughout the world. It was caught very early, so it had not been developing while this woman was convinced she was ill for the pre-ceding few years. The symptoms were unlike those usually associated with the illness.
I believe this ailment was manifested because of the way this woman grew up. That because of her obsessing she ‘willed’ it into existence.
In the same way I suppose, the ailment can be ‘un-manifested’, and in many ways it has been. As death should have happened a long time ago because of a refusal to accept a lot of the common treatments, there is still life, and a woman who feels quite healthy, despite still harbouring this sickness in its uncommon and warped state.
Once again, this is just what I believe happens. I have done it myself and I have seen others do it.
EDITED_BY: blu_valley (1131973877)
"I want to know if you can see beauty even when it's not pretty, every day,and if you can source your own life from its presence.." - Oriah Mountain Dreamer
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
I think you're being a bit harsh (again) Jeff
Alternative therapies such as osteopathy and massage are actually really helpful for things ranging from slipped discs (GP's advice spend three weeks in bed... osteopath sorted it out in an hour) to stress and depression.
That doesn't mean they should replace conventional medicene (if you get stabbed go to hospital... crystals wont help), but there are plenty of ways in which certain forms of alternative therapy are beneficial. Yes there are people peddling rubbish and ruining peoples lives with bs... but theres also alot of people who've really help people lives.
I think you're being a bit harsh (again) Jeff
Alternative therapies such as osteopathy and massage are actually really helpful for things ranging from slipped discs (GP's advice spend three weeks in bed... osteopath sorted it out in an hour) to stress and depression.
That doesn't mean they should replace conventional medicene (if you get stabbed go to hospital... crystals wont help), but there are plenty of ways in which certain forms of alternative therapy are beneficial. Yes there are people peddling rubbish and ruining peoples lives with bs... but theres also alot of people who've really help people lives.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
GOLD Member
addict
434 posts
Location: UK
addict
434 posts
Location: UK
Posted:
Quite simply it shouldnt be a question of science vs nature at all. Nature and medicine (science) have gone hand in hand for centuries. Many of the traditional remedies, such as chewing on willow bark for pain relief, have real sceintific benefit (aspirin is derived from a chemical found in willow bark and is the single most widely used pain killer in the world even now). Aspirin (Acetylsalicylic acid) is not alone there are many other plant derived drugs in use and more being developed all the time (opiates such as morphine, codeine and other derivatives are also all plant derived as someone mentioned before). Furthermore natural chemicals can be used as experimental tools to develop new drugs. Perhaps some of the most useful of these have been various venoms from the natural world. These have the benefit of (generally) having very high affinity for the receptors they work at to exert their effects so scientists can manipulate these to help understand what these receptors do and what disease states they are important in.
As for my opinion on "alternative" therapies, I have mixed feelings, clearly some of these have some benefit to the patients that use them. They exist on the fringes of what is currently understood and it is our ignorance in understanding how they work that results in scepticism. I think we have to be cautious in not disregarding such treatments simply because we do not understand them. On the other hand when you have two choices of treatment, both of which have had past success, one is a drug, whose mechanism is understood and the other is an alternative therapy whose mechanism is not understood, i would wholeheartedly recommend the former. This is not to say that its the better treatment necessarily only that at our current level of understanding it is the logical choice. (Spoken like a true scientist). Hope this all makes sense to people not in the business as it were, i tried to keep it as simple as i could without oversimplifying it.
On another note, hi everybody, im new to these forums
Motley
EDITED_BY: Motley (1128860247)
Quite simply it shouldnt be a question of science vs nature at all. Nature and medicine (science) have gone hand in hand for centuries. Many of the traditional remedies, such as chewing on willow bark for pain relief, have real sceintific benefit (aspirin is derived from a chemical found in willow bark and is the single most widely used pain killer in the world even now). Aspirin (Acetylsalicylic acid) is not alone there are many other plant derived drugs in use and more being developed all the time (opiates such as morphine, codeine and other derivatives are also all plant derived as someone mentioned before). Furthermore natural chemicals can be used as experimental tools to develop new drugs. Perhaps some of the most useful of these have been various venoms from the natural world. These have the benefit of (generally) having very high affinity for the receptors they work at to exert their effects so scientists can manipulate these to help understand what these receptors do and what disease states they are important in.
As for my opinion on "alternative" therapies, I have mixed feelings, clearly some of these have some benefit to the patients that use them. They exist on the fringes of what is currently understood and it is our ignorance in understanding how they work that results in scepticism. I think we have to be cautious in not disregarding such treatments simply because we do not understand them. On the other hand when you have two choices of treatment, both of which have had past success, one is a drug, whose mechanism is understood and the other is an alternative therapy whose mechanism is not understood, i would wholeheartedly recommend the former. This is not to say that its the better treatment necessarily only that at our current level of understanding it is the logical choice. (Spoken like a true scientist
). Hope this all makes sense to people not in the business as it were, i tried to keep it as simple as i could without oversimplifying it.On another note, hi everybody, im new to these forums
Motley
EDITED_BY: Motley (1128860247)
SILVER Member
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
757 posts
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
757 posts
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
Posted:
https://www.bash.org/?492775
Hee hee hee
https://www.bash.org/?492775
Hee hee hee
Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.
GOLD Member
Clique Infiltrator, Cunning Linguist and Master Debator
4,219 posts
Location: Edinburgh burgh burrrrrr, United Kingdom
Clique Infiltrator, Cunning Linguist and Master Debator
4,219 posts
Location: Edinburgh burgh burrrrrr, United Kingdom
Posted:
If i was a doctor i'd wear flowers in my hair
if i was a hippy i'd carry a stethoscope and a bottle of asprin at all times.
oh i voted to use a lil bit of both 
If i was a doctor i'd wear flowers in my hair
if i was a hippy i'd carry a stethoscope and a bottle of asprin at all times.
oh i voted to use a lil bit of both
Always use "so's your face" and "only on Tuesdays" in as many conversations possible
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
6,942 posts
Location: London, UK
Carpal \'Tunnel
6,942 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
id use actual medicine to cure me and alternative stuff to hopefully speed up the process
one thing i cant stand is people who will blindly put their faith in miracle cures
even if they are 'scientific'
oh that and the number of times ive seen cure for cancer on newspaper front covers....
its normally a better treatment for one form of cancer....
id use actual medicine to cure me and alternative stuff to hopefully speed up the process
one thing i cant stand is people who will blindly put their faith in miracle cures
even if they are 'scientific'
oh that and the number of times ive seen cure for cancer on newspaper front covers....
its normally a better treatment for one form of cancer....
back
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Sadly that would be unhygienic, exposing immunocompromised patients to a host of oppertunistic diseases.
edit: They might allow it anyway. Hospital hygeine is sadly lacking.
EDITED_BY: jeff(fake) (1128944622)
Written by: TinklePants
If i was a doctor i'd wear flowers in my hair
Sadly that would be unhygienic, exposing immunocompromised patients to a host of oppertunistic diseases.
edit: They might allow it anyway. Hospital hygeine is sadly lacking.
EDITED_BY: jeff(fake) (1128944622)
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
is this still going on *chortles* have to agree with you there jeff.
is this still going on *chortles* have to agree with you there jeff. A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
SILVER Member
veteran
1,286 posts
Location: My House, United Kingdom
veteran
1,286 posts
Location: My House, United Kingdom
Posted:
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned placebos until now
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned placebos until now
Proudly Owned By The BMVC
Are You Sniffing My Mitten?
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Reading the entire thread may diminish your surprise level; placebos have been mentioned on several occasions
Reading the entire thread may diminish your surprise level; placebos have been mentioned on several occasions
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
I'm bumping this thread up on Birgits request to avoid cluttering up that nice mr. Hanz's thread.
It is very true that people bodies are different. Some folks have allergies to things like penicillin and so on. Other folks just have a better immune system than others. However this variation isn't magical and is clearly seen and is well understood. There is almost certainly variation which isn't understood yet but it is clear that the kind you are proposing, that some people have a medical response to -say- homeopathy whilst other do not, simply doesn't exist. Such a thing would be clearly demonstratable to the rest of the medical world who would be forced to accept it.
This is simply an excuse for the failure of psuedoscientific procedures of any kind. You forget that you can make a test which looks at only one factor: Does it have any effect greater than a placebo?. There are medicines in use today which science has absolutely no idea how they work. It can however be shown that they do work. Many traditional chinese medicines can be shown to work with proper scientific tests, so why can't the psuedoscientic ones (even those that originated in the west) give anything other than a null result?
Just nit-picking now, but they way you feel about my points will have no effect on whether they are right or not. Rational inquiry is the only route to objective truth.
I'm bumping this thread up on Birgits request to avoid cluttering up that nice mr. Hanz's thread.
Written by: Suibom
Just out of curiousity.. if a medicine, regardless of it's classification, helps one person, but harms another... would you call that medicine that works, or b*llocks??
My body is not the same as yours, my bodies reaction to outside influences is not the same as yours, my bodies ability to heal itself is not the same as yours. To clump things into black and white is part of the problem.
It is very true that people bodies are different. Some folks have allergies to things like penicillin and so on. Other folks just have a better immune system than others. However this variation isn't magical and is clearly seen and is well understood. There is almost certainly variation which isn't understood yet but it is clear that the kind you are proposing, that some people have a medical response to -say- homeopathy whilst other do not, simply doesn't exist. Such a thing would be clearly demonstratable to the rest of the medical world who would be forced to accept it.
Written by: Suibom
double blind randomized tests do not take into account the processes that should go into healing. There are synergies involved that mainstream testing has a very hard time resolving into a simple category. There are things about body, mind, plant and healing that stringent science cannot comprehend at this point.
This is simply an excuse for the failure of psuedoscientific procedures of any kind. You forget that you can make a test which looks at only one factor: Does it have any effect greater than a placebo?. There are medicines in use today which science has absolutely no idea how they work. It can however be shown that they do work. Many traditional chinese medicines can be shown to work with proper scientific tests, so why can't the psuedoscientic ones (even those that originated in the west) give anything other than a null result?
Written by: Suibom
I understand your points, and do not necessarily disagree with them. But they feel far too lopsided to me.
Just nit-picking now, but they way you feel about my points will have no effect on whether they are right or not. Rational inquiry is the only route to objective truth.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
'Science: the politicization of the sciences through epistemology in order to render ordinary political life impotent through the threat of an incontestable nature' Latour 2004:10
Thus Science itself is culturally constructed, presenting its own subjective ontology, that of rationality, objectivity and fixed uncontestable truths. This ontological paradigm serves an ideological function in preventing scepticism in dominant societal structures.
Perhaps the two most obvious examples of this politicised funtion of Science are Pharmacutical corporations and the US energy/climate change policies. Despite widespread concerns (often stemming from scientific investigation) Science is used to legitimize the position of certain social groups, ie Science is deployed for a political purpose.
Thus statements from scientists claiming that
'Rational inquiry is the only route to objective truth.'
merely present the authors socially conditioned subjective ontology. While rational and critical discussion may provide consensus, this consensus will always be informed by human subjectivities.
'Science: the politicization of the sciences through epistemology in order to render ordinary political life impotent through the threat of an incontestable nature' Latour 2004:10
Thus Science itself is culturally constructed, presenting its own subjective ontology, that of rationality, objectivity and fixed uncontestable truths. This ontological paradigm serves an ideological function in preventing scepticism in dominant societal structures.
Perhaps the two most obvious examples of this politicised funtion of Science are Pharmacutical corporations and the US energy/climate change policies. Despite widespread concerns (often stemming from scientific investigation) Science is used to legitimize the position of certain social groups, ie Science is deployed for a political purpose.
Thus statements from scientists claiming that
'Rational inquiry is the only route to objective truth.'
merely present the authors socially conditioned subjective ontology. While rational and critical discussion may provide consensus, this consensus will always be informed by human subjectivities.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
Sorry dream, but uncontestable truths are NOT science. If they were, science would never develop, because every new discovery disproves or adds to an existing theory, which is not a truth, but a hypothesis.
And anything can be politicised, it doesn't make science bad that it's used by pharma companies and tobacco giants - does it make laws a bad thing if they're used to justify Guantanamo? Or is it the people that use/abuse them that are to blame?
Sorry dream, but uncontestable truths are NOT science. If they were, science would never develop, because every new discovery disproves or adds to an existing theory, which is not a truth, but a hypothesis.
And anything can be politicised, it doesn't make science bad that it's used by pharma companies and tobacco giants - does it make laws a bad thing if they're used to justify Guantanamo? Or is it the people that use/abuse them that are to blame?
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Science is nothing more than a method. It's not a set of facts, it's not a philosophy, it's just a method.
And it's a damned good one, too.
1) Ask a specific question (Is the toaster not working because it's unplugged?)
2) Formulate a hypothesis (The toaster is not working because it's unplugged)
3) Design a way to answer (If I 1. find that the toaster is unplugged and 2. find that if I plug it in, it works, then the toaster was not working because it was unplugged).
4) Perform the experiment (I plugged in the toaster. Now it works.)
5) Interpret the results (The toaster was not working because it was unplugged.)
The example is not trivial. It is EXACTLY how science works.
1) Question: Are glycoproteins important in the migration of cells across the superior colliculus in neurodevelopment?
2) Hypothesis: glycoproteins ARE important in the migration of cells across the superior colliculus in neurodevelopment.
3) Experimental design: If glycoproteins are important in the migration of cells across the superior colliculus in neurodevelopment, then if I treat one set of isolated superior colliculi with an enzyme that cleaves O-glycosyl linkages (and thus destroys glycoproteins) and another set with nothing, neurons will not migrate across the group of superior colliculi treated with enzymes.
4) Execution: I treated the experimental group with the O-glycosylase enzyme and the neurons did not migrate across those superior colliculi.
5) Answer/Interpretation: glycoproteins are important in the migration of neurons across the superior colliculus in neurodevelopment.
That's science. The method is simple, elegant, and anyone who tries to trash it by saying "you can't account for mind-body issues" doesn't understand the method. Because it *DOES* account for *EVERYTHING,* by randomization. Even things that are not known.
Example: Suppose that 10% of humans are colonized by invisible aliens called Cholesteroids. These evil aliens, unbeknownst to scientists, like to play around by preventing stating class drugs from reaching their target proteins (HMG Co-A reductase) and thus make them completely ineffective at lowering cholesterol.
So a randomized controlled double-blind study is done on atorvastatin (LIPITOR). Because of randomization, 10% of people in each of the groups (and the groups are quite large) will be colonized with Cholesteroids. The cholesteroids will not change the outcome of the study because an equal number of subjects in both groups are colonized.
Neat, huh?
Science is nothing more than a method. It's not a set of facts, it's not a philosophy, it's just a method.
And it's a damned good one, too.
1) Ask a specific question (Is the toaster not working because it's unplugged?)
2) Formulate a hypothesis (The toaster is not working because it's unplugged)
3) Design a way to answer (If I 1. find that the toaster is unplugged and 2. find that if I plug it in, it works, then the toaster was not working because it was unplugged).
4) Perform the experiment (I plugged in the toaster. Now it works.)
5) Interpret the results (The toaster was not working because it was unplugged.)
The example is not trivial. It is EXACTLY how science works.
1) Question: Are glycoproteins important in the migration of cells across the superior colliculus in neurodevelopment?
2) Hypothesis: glycoproteins ARE important in the migration of cells across the superior colliculus in neurodevelopment.
3) Experimental design: If glycoproteins are important in the migration of cells across the superior colliculus in neurodevelopment, then if I treat one set of isolated superior colliculi with an enzyme that cleaves O-glycosyl linkages (and thus destroys glycoproteins) and another set with nothing, neurons will not migrate across the group of superior colliculi treated with enzymes.
4) Execution: I treated the experimental group with the O-glycosylase enzyme and the neurons did not migrate across those superior colliculi.
5) Answer/Interpretation: glycoproteins are important in the migration of neurons across the superior colliculus in neurodevelopment.
That's science. The method is simple, elegant, and anyone who tries to trash it by saying "you can't account for mind-body issues" doesn't understand the method. Because it *DOES* account for *EVERYTHING,* by randomization. Even things that are not known.
Example: Suppose that 10% of humans are colonized by invisible aliens called Cholesteroids. These evil aliens, unbeknownst to scientists, like to play around by preventing stating class drugs from reaching their target proteins (HMG Co-A reductase) and thus make them completely ineffective at lowering cholesterol.
So a randomized controlled double-blind study is done on atorvastatin (LIPITOR). Because of randomization, 10% of people in each of the groups (and the groups are quite large) will be colonized with Cholesteroids. The cholesteroids will not change the outcome of the study because an equal number of subjects in both groups are colonized.
Neat, huh?
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
'anything can be politicised'
all knowledge presented by humans is necessarily politicised by the subjectivity of those presenting it and the societal influences upon them (funding, lifestyle, ideology etc). hence my problem with scientific knowledge being presented as objective truth.
'it doesn't make science bad that it's used by pharma companies and tobacco giants'
the sciences, like nature is not good or bad. that sort of dualism just doesn't apply. The way that Science (human represention of knowledge gained from the sciences) is used will be 'good' or 'bad' by your description only dependent on the way people use it. At the moment its both.
But presentation of Science as rational and objective truth denies that Science can and is used in a subjective way by social elements to advance certain ideological positions.
'anything can be politicised'
all knowledge presented by humans is necessarily politicised by the subjectivity of those presenting it and the societal influences upon them (funding, lifestyle, ideology etc). hence my problem with scientific knowledge being presented as objective truth.
'it doesn't make science bad that it's used by pharma companies and tobacco giants'
the sciences, like nature is not good or bad. that sort of dualism just doesn't apply. The way that Science (human represention of knowledge gained from the sciences) is used will be 'good' or 'bad' by your description only dependent on the way people use it. At the moment its both.
But presentation of Science as rational and objective truth denies that Science can and is used in a subjective way by social elements to advance certain ideological positions.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
Doc...
your method is basically spot on, and its an approach which is applicable to most aspects of life (hence subjects in the humanities, such as sociology ending in logy, from the Greek word logos, meaning the science of)... However, it hinges on the final stage being interpretation.
Human interpretation and subsequent representation is not objective. That doesn't imply that interpretation cannot be useful (on the contrary its very useful), only that it does not produce objective truth, merely subjective and unfixed hypotheses.
Latour's book (which I quoted) calls for a differentiation between the method by which the study of 'the sciences' creates knowledge (which you describe, and which does not created fixed objective truths, but alterable hypothesis based on interpretation of data) and 'Science' (the representation of knowledge gained through 'the sciences,') which is commonly presented, as in this thread as
'the only route to objective truth.'
Thus preventing discussion of the subjectivities which govern the human interpreation present in 'Science'.
Doc...
your method is basically spot on, and its an approach which is applicable to most aspects of life (hence subjects in the humanities, such as sociology ending in logy, from the Greek word logos, meaning the science of)... However, it hinges on the final stage being interpretation.
Human interpretation and subsequent representation is not objective. That doesn't imply that interpretation cannot be useful (on the contrary its very useful), only that it does not produce objective truth, merely subjective and unfixed hypotheses.
Latour's book (which I quoted) calls for a differentiation between the method by which the study of 'the sciences' creates knowledge (which you describe, and which does not created fixed objective truths, but alterable hypothesis based on interpretation of data) and 'Science' (the representation of knowledge gained through 'the sciences,') which is commonly presented, as in this thread as
'the only route to objective truth.'
Thus preventing discussion of the subjectivities which govern the human interpreation present in 'Science'.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Scientific method is excellent.
It can't establish truth (ie, establish that something is defintily, 100% true); but is very good at eliminating false hypotheses.
By clearing away what is false, it leaves what is increasingly likely to be true.
As a method, it can't be faulted. However, there are things to bear in mind when it comes to the issues being addressed on this thread.
Infallible as scientific method is, the same is not necessarily true of those entrusted to apply it- some studies are flawed, and produce false results, because the scientists (generally unintentionally) did not follow correct procedures.
Perhaps more relevant, where medicine/alternative medicine is concerned, is whether scientists bother apply scientific method.
Much of modern medical research carries substantial financial reward for companies who perform research into drugs etc.
Whereas the financial benefits of research into, say, establishing whether simple mind-based techniques can improve health, are not so evident.
Another factor (bear in mind that none of what I'm saying here is a critisism of either scientific technique, or modern medicine) is that what many who are into alternative lifestyles call 'health' is not necessarily what modern medical science calls 'health'.
This is perhaps most evident in the case of someone who recieves chemo/radio therapy and organ removal/surgery for a cancer, and lives for a few years afterwards with the need for daily drugs.
Whereas an 'alternative' individual, may prefer to take their chances without such treatment, because they see a life reliant on such drugs as being, in their view, unhealthy- and they would be prepared to die, rather than take that way.
For example, I respect, and use (occasionally), orthodox medicine, yet my world view is, in substantial part- alternative.
If I was diagnosed with a brain tumour, and was told that brain surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy etc, were necessary to save my life: I would refuse.
For me, that kind of invasive treatment is not an option.
Regardless of whether or not I sought out 'alternatives' (and, to be honest, it's not something I'd put a lot of energy into, knowing how much quackery is out there), i would not undergo having my head opened, being irradiated etc.
I wouldn't be refusing because I think it will increase my chances of survival (although, at the back of my mind, the possibility, or maybe better to say, hope; would be there)- but simply because I would be unwilling to undergo that level of treatment.
But if, for example, i was diagnosed with an easily treatable skin cancer, that could be simply surgically removed- that's something i would be happy to undergo.
Scientific method is excellent.
It can't establish truth (ie, establish that something is defintily, 100% true); but is very good at eliminating false hypotheses.
By clearing away what is false, it leaves what is increasingly likely to be true.
As a method, it can't be faulted. However, there are things to bear in mind when it comes to the issues being addressed on this thread.
Infallible as scientific method is, the same is not necessarily true of those entrusted to apply it- some studies are flawed, and produce false results, because the scientists (generally unintentionally) did not follow correct procedures.
Perhaps more relevant, where medicine/alternative medicine is concerned, is whether scientists bother apply scientific method.
Much of modern medical research carries substantial financial reward for companies who perform research into drugs etc.
Whereas the financial benefits of research into, say, establishing whether simple mind-based techniques can improve health, are not so evident.
Another factor (bear in mind that none of what I'm saying here is a critisism of either scientific technique, or modern medicine) is that what many who are into alternative lifestyles call 'health' is not necessarily what modern medical science calls 'health'.
This is perhaps most evident in the case of someone who recieves chemo/radio therapy and organ removal/surgery for a cancer, and lives for a few years afterwards with the need for daily drugs.
Whereas an 'alternative' individual, may prefer to take their chances without such treatment, because they see a life reliant on such drugs as being, in their view, unhealthy- and they would be prepared to die, rather than take that way.
For example, I respect, and use (occasionally), orthodox medicine, yet my world view is, in substantial part- alternative.
If I was diagnosed with a brain tumour, and was told that brain surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy etc, were necessary to save my life: I would refuse.
For me, that kind of invasive treatment is not an option.
Regardless of whether or not I sought out 'alternatives' (and, to be honest, it's not something I'd put a lot of energy into, knowing how much quackery is out there), i would not undergo having my head opened, being irradiated etc.
I wouldn't be refusing because I think it will increase my chances of survival (although, at the back of my mind, the possibility, or maybe better to say, hope; would be there)- but simply because I would be unwilling to undergo that level of treatment.
But if, for example, i was diagnosed with an easily treatable skin cancer, that could be simply surgically removed- that's something i would be happy to undergo.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [science v * nature] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > Science Vs Nature [113 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com