'Homeophobia' must not be tolerated by canttakesky

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

'Homeophobia' must not be tolerated

POSTED BY: CANTTAKESKY
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:13
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2307
PAGE 2 of 2

Sunday, December 23, 2007 11:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This is, indeed very much like "cold fusion".

Yes, it is, isn't it? Food for thought.

While I am posting, I just want to say something in my defense. As far as I am concerned, Rue is a troll. If anyone really cares to follow the arguments in this thread, one will see that there was no paper switching or misrepresentation or any such thing. Just because he accuses doesn't mean it's true. I quoted from the link Rue provided for Roy's paper. When he said meta-analysis showed no effect beyond placebo, I found him a paper that had different findings. That's it.

(Signy, you know Rue in real life. Does he have an evil troll twin that comes out once in a while and spits paranoid nastiness at people he has chosen to hate? Never mind, don't answer that.)

I hate to have to stoop to defending myself from a troll, but I know no one is gonna take the time to actually read through all that technicality and nastiness. So here it is: I didn't lie, I didn't switch papers, I didn't misrepresent anything. You guys know me. You know I don't do that.

I don't even necessarily support Roy's arguments. My physical chemist husband didn't read the paper, but from my summaries he thought it was very flawed.

But whether Roy is right or not, it doesn't matter. Maybe he didn't figure out how succussions cause water to become "potentized." However, I am glad he is open-minded enough to try to imagine it. Isn't that what science is about? Exploring possibilities that could explain anomalies, instead of simply dismissing something as categorically impossible?

I don't even care if anyone uses homeopathy or not. Not trying to make converts. Just wanted to start a thread that was interesting to me.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 23, 2007 6:00 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Poor CTS

Snark, misrepresentations, red-herrings, and lies ... and you've been 'nothing but civil' while I've been the troll.

Poor baby.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 23, 2007 6:09 PM

MAL4PREZ

CTS, I think I'm actually more on Rue's side of the debate, but, as often happens, I'm shocked by how she (I think she) turned this thread into something personal and insulting and accusatory. You have my sympathies. You don't deserve that, not at all.

But I don't think Rue is a troll. I think, from past experience, that she's overly defensive and can't debate without being hostile and mounting an attack at a petty and rather pathetic level. Really, I'd like to see her write an actual rebuttal to a scientific paper in the tone she uses here - oh, wait, that wouldn't happen, because the editors of any real journal would throw her rants in the garbage and stick to reasoned, dispassionate arguments.

Rue:

Quote:
And again I need to point out that CTS has managed to portray me as some anti-alternative medical Nazi.

No, that was all your own doing. Go back and read your posts, dear. What would you think of you?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 23, 2007 9:01 PM

FREDGIBLET

Mal, I agree completely.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 24, 2007 2:21 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
But I don't think Rue is a troll. I think, from past experience, that she's overly defensive]

Well, Rue is not a regular troll. But I think he has an evil troll twin....

Mal4Prez and FredG, thank you for comments. I tend to be sensitive to certain types of accusations (such as fraud). Rue knows this and likes to push those buttons. It is reassuring to me that you guys are smarter than to believe accusations just because someone says so.

BTW, Rue is a "he." Signy knows him in real life, and he has corroborated Rue's claim to be a guy.

My husband says that Roy's arguments don't hold water. (Hehe) That's ok. I still use homeopathy for me and my family (and friends who ask me) because they work. I don't much care if it is a placebo effect. If you had a way to get the placebo effect on command, wouldn't you use it?

Finally, I just want to say that I absolutely don't have a problem with anyone disagreeing with me on this debate, or any debate. I am a divergent thinker; I like opposing points of view. I learn from them. That's why I come here.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 24, 2007 3:46 AM

CITIZEN

I've never heard of this water memory thing, or how it relates to homeopathy. My understanding of homeopathy has always been more natural remidies, the aforementioned aloe vera plant for burns (I've never really tried westernised medicine burn treatments, but the Aloe Vera worked a treat, it was like it never happened a few minutes after application). I've taken Arsen-Alba (containing arsenic) for sore throats and so on.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 24, 2007 4:44 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Aloe Vera worked a treat, it was like it never happened a few minutes after application). I've taken Arsen-Alba (containing arsenic) for sore throats and so on.

Aloe Vera is a naturopathic treatment, not homeopathic. Naturopathy uses herbal and natural resources to help the body *fight* ailments. But I'm glad it helps!

Homeopathy takes herbal and natural resources, dilutes them in water until there isn't enough solute to be bioactive, then administers the solution to *cause* symptoms. For example, Arsen-Alba is made of arsenic diluted to negligible amounts. If given to a healthy person, arsenic actually causes sore throats (among other things). What Hahnemann found was that if arsenic is given to people with sore throats, it somehow motivates or triggers the body to cure itself. It works (in theory) by the principle of "Like cures like" (wherefore the name). By causing the same symptoms the body is already experiencing, the body swings itself back into homeostasis.

I use whatever works, sometimes naturopathic, sometimes homeopathic, and sometimes Benadryl. But for chronic "incurable" conditions, I use homeopathy.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 24, 2007 5:35 AM

CITIZEN

Ok, but the homeopathic remidies I've taken weren't solvents, they were pills. You weren't even supposed to take them with water. Though I thought Arsenic had medicinal properties, it's just it's been mostly superceeded by less toxic substances?

Does this water memory thing show real divergence from the placebo effect?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 24, 2007 6:44 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS: The articles that you cite about "water memory" wobble back and forth between whether succussion or vigorous shaking are necessary or not. It seems that even the backers of this particular theory can't agree on what it is. And is there a proposed mechanism for "like cures like"? There seems to be precious little data OR theory behind homeopathy.

I know you choose to disregard lack of theoretical foundation in favor of your personal belief/ observation that it "works for you and your family". My own opinion is that 80% of everything goes away on its own, with or without homeopathy, and you're prolly seeing the placebo effect. I'm not sure that you will be able to tell when homeopathy is NOT working and take appropriate steps for your children. I think that's Rue's deepest concern, which I share.

But in any case I think Rue's posts are overboard.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 24, 2007 8:19 AM

MAL4PREZ

Whoa. Rue's a boy? When did that happen? Does he intentionally try to pass as female here, because I was SO sure...

Anyhow, I just had a short visit to wikipedia. I didn't realize the homeopathy was all about the diluted stuff - I thought it included any kind of "non-medical" cure, like herbals and magnets and such. So there's something I learned!

CTS - again, I don't see any scientific results showing that it works, but I figure but every new discovery is doubted, and scientists don't know everything. As long as folks using homeopathy don't ignore other treatment options - like religious nuts who let their kids die rather than get an operation - I have no problem with it.

That's about as helpful as I can be. I don't have the mental powers to read through all this stuff with dilution and shaking, etc. I'm on vacation LOL!

Merry Christmas all... Even Mr. Rue!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 24, 2007 9:41 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS: The articles that you cite about "water memory" wobble back and forth between whether succussion or vigorous shaking are necessary or not. It seems that even the backers of this particular theory can't agree on what it is.

Well, this one backer (Roy) can't decide what it is. Either that or we are misunderstanding his paper (which I must admit, is a bit over my head). I'm sending a copy of the paper to my husband so he can explain it to me, but he won't get a chance to read it til later.

Quote:
And is there a proposed mechanism for "like cures like"? There seems to be precious little data OR theory behind homeopathy.

There is plenty of empirical data. In fact, homeopathy is the most evidence-based medicine I've seen. All remedies are tested on human subjects (using both test remedies and placebos), who meticulously write down what symptoms the remedies cause. These tests are called provings. Then the remedies are tested in persons who have similar symptoms to see if they work. Then volumes upon volumes are written about patterns of symptoms based on these empirical observations. And volumes and volumes are written on the philosophical underpinnings (theory) of these patterns. I have just begun to study this and am overwhelmed with the amount of information.

Now very little of this empirical data meets the rigors of scientific research. For example, in provings, they usually have only one placebo subject for every 6 subjects receiving the real thing. But it still provides a lot of empirical data, upon which remedies are prescribed. It is adequate for its purposes, but I would very much like to see more systematic controls. I realize good science is hard to come by in human subjects, but if it can be done in any medical field, I believe it is homeopathy (extremely low risk of side effects).

Quote:
you're prolly seeing the placebo effect.

And as I keep saying, if this system allows me to summon the placebo effect at will, what's wrong with it? My kid is eating most foods and growing without hardly any symptoms. I haven't had a gallbladder attack in over 15 months. My friend's urinary tract infection disappeared after 2 doses and hasn't come back. Who cares if it is placebo or not, right? (I think doctors pooh-pooh placebo, an all natural cure with no side effects, because they can't make any money off of it.)

My daughter and son both had pleurisy 2 weeks ago. My son didn't get any homeopathic treatment (we were out of town), and my daughter did. My son's lasted about 24 hours, my daughter 12 hours. My son's attacks lasted 30-40 minutes. My daughter's lasted about 1 minute--cut abruptly short whenever I gave her a dose of remedy. True, they both recovered on their own after a day, but she was in a lot less pain than he was.

Quote:
I'm not sure that you will be able to tell when homeopathy is NOT working and take appropriate steps for your children.

Well, I use the same standards as everyone else. If I take the remedy, and nothing happens, it isn't working. That's happened plenty of times. Sometimes I needed to make the remedy stronger. Sometimes I needed to change remedies. And sometimes, I needed to switch to Tylenol.

C'mon Sig. Give me some credit.

Happy holidays. And thanks for never bashing me on the head, even if you felt like it.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 24, 2007 9:52 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Does this water memory thing show real divergence from the placebo effect?

By most standards, no. There is very, very little good science showing a consistent effect. Most of the research find no effects above placebo. However, there is a severe funding and publication bias against homeopathy, so some of the lack of evidence isn't from lack of effect.

However anecdotally, we have a lot of documentation of cures when the right remedy is used. It is just hard to find the right one. The remedies that are close can provide improvement, even significant improvement, but won't cure.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 25, 2007 6:11 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Link to original paper here
http://www.rustumroy.com/Roy_Structure%20of%20Water.pdf
What I find weakens the argument is the disregard for the effect on so-called structured water due to the biological system it encounters. If ppm solutions can display structures, how much more of an effect on water will the biological system have ? Sorry, but without that explanation, it comes down to voodoo. Supposedly the homeopathic voodoo of a small sample is far stronger than the much larger and far more concentrated biological voodoo it encounters.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Fingers crossed for your son - me too. (Weird, that's another old ritual ...)

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

You're right about succussion - my mistake. But since it is serial dilution that's been shown to produce small amounts of water structure - not succussion - perhaps serial dilution is the more relevant process.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:uX8YRxJeQ8gJ:en.wikipedia.org/wik
i/Homeopathy+ Succussion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
"However, a recent meta-analysis comparing homeopathic clinical trials with those of conventional medicines has shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo." I realize GIGO but I've come to appreciate the power of meta-analysis in finding trends.

Another thing that was pointed out here is that homeopathy has been tried on animals (with poor results). Duh to me. If you're going to try to rule out the placebo effect double-blind studies on animals is the way to go.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

CTS: "It would be VERY easy to make a placebo." Since homeopathy works by creating very dilute solutions, it would be hard to get an 'uncontaminated' one. That's what I was referring to. So maybe the process would be to control the contamination. (B/c my work involves measuring and creating ppb and pptrillion solutions, I have concrete experience in how tough it is to make a 'blank'.)

***************************************************************
In any case, at this point it still comes down to voodoo. Without those extensive double blind animal studies, and looking at existing meta-analysis, the trend is showing a placebo effect. The proposed mode of action (dilution according to Rustum Roy) doesn't match up with the practice, and it's also self-contradicted by internal biology. This god appears to me to be a minor one and not worthy of much tribute.

Nah.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

CTS: "For example, how did the Universe start? Someone could say, I'm sorry, but without that explanation, the entire theory of evolution is just voodoo."

This is like saying just b/c we don't know how nuclear materials 'decide' to decay we can't understand how an IC engine works.

In other words, one has nothing to do with the other.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Just looking for logic in the argument and finding it .... gone.

But to get to your example, it still doesn't hold up, even as amended. B/c while there is no evidence to date for 'how' life happened, there's all sorts of evidence for 'how' evolution did.

In the specific instance of homeopathy, there is very little evidence 'that' it works at all, from independent double-blind controlled studies. I don't dismiss anecdotal evidence, but I've seen a lot more anecdotal evidence for standard medicine than for homeopathy, which still puts standard medicine ahead in the race.

In addition, the ability of water to form subtle structures which may be potentially considered supportive, hasn't been shown to occur where it needs to occur - in the body. B/c the mechanism purported for dilute solutions will also act within the body for things like ATP, ADP, NAD and NADP and their 'H' forms etc - all those separate unique little molecules that each exist in ppm levels in the body.

Degranulation follows a well known biological activity curve for enzymatically or hormonally active substances. At very low levels they have the highest per unit activity, whereas at higher levels they have a biological feedback mechanism that cuts off activity.

OVERALL - and I hope you read to the end - I put homeopathy in the 'undecided' category. I would certainly try it for whatever good effect it might have (even if placebo), or if nothing else worked - I'll even try prayer in those cases. But I wouldn't rely solely on it in a serious situation.

***************************************************************
Consider me a shifty-eyed pagan - making the sign of the cross with one hand and warding off the evil eye with the other. I'll throw in with whatever local god seems to be holding sway at the moment. Or if needs be, I'll tribute as many as I can.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

It would be interesting to try homeopathy the way you suggested. I would address one detail thus-wise - since 'placebos' seem to be very hard to make in homeopathy, I would suggest subjects be given a non-related homeopathic solution.

There is succussion going on in the body all the time. At the place where ATP is made, for example, the concentrations are quite high. Progressive dilution takes place over space - away from the source. Overall concentrations are quite low.

I'm glad about your son. I will admit to reservations b/c the story is not yet over. Not to be a wet blanket but I've had to learn in my own family to have to wait years - even decades - for the fallout.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

FredG

I think I get your point. The problem with - I don't know - let's call it 'ancient medicine' and the new stuff 'modern medicine' - the problem with 'ancient medicine' is that people died in large numbers. Along comes a plague, or individual pneumonia, or diabetes, and people fell like stones. And then a lot of ancient medicine was herbal and ritual, not homeopathy. Homeopathy as a separate entity has a modern origin.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Sigh, CTS haven't we been through this before with the polio vaccine ? Where you deliberately find the weak and unsupported studies and skip past the good ones ? Just b/c you 'like' them better ?

Here is the one you avoided posting ...

BACKGROUND: Homoeopathy is widely used, but specific effects of homoeopathic remedies seem implausible. Bias in the conduct and reporting of trials is a possible explanation for positive findings of trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. We analysed trials of homoeopathy and conventional medicine and estimated treatment effects in trials least likely to be affected by bias. METHODS: Placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy were identified by a comprehensive literature search, which covered 19 electronic databases, reference lists of relevant papers, and contacts with experts. Trials in conventional medicine matched to homoeopathy trials for disorder and type of outcome were randomly selected from the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (issue 1, 2003). Data were extracted in duplicate and outcomes coded so that odds ratios below 1 indicated benefit. Trials described as double-blind, with adequate randomisation, were assumed to be of higher methodological quality. Bias effects were examined in funnel plots and meta-regression models. FINDINGS: 110 homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials were analysed. The median study size was 65 participants (range ten to 1573). 21 homoeopathy trials (19%) and nine (8%) conventional-medicine trials were of higher quality. In both groups, smaller trials and those of lower quality showed more beneficial treatment effects than larger and higher-quality trials. When the analysis was restricted to large trials of higher quality, the odds ratio was 0.88 (95% CI 0.65-1.19) for homoeopathy (eight trials) and 0.58 (0.39-0.85) for conventional medicine (six trials). INTERPRETATION: Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.

***************************************************************
At this point you're pissing me off. I hate people who lie and mislead.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

The following is bolded for those not interested in long posts with lots of facts in them. Consider it an executive summary:

Try to find a personal attack or rant on my part until here "At this point you're pissing me off. I hate people who lie and mislead."
CTS poor baby, is only here to talk about something interesting until it's about negative or equivocal facts, or the things that are unknown. And she's never rude - except for snark, lies, and misleading posts.
When people try to mislead other people about this kind of stuff it pisses me off b/c it's DANGEROUS.
Sure, if you want to experiment with your own life and death - go ahead. It's your right. But to assume some kind of false authority or knowledge to do so - that goes beyond the pale.
You know what my biggest fear is ? That CTS's son is already brain damaged for lack of nutrition. That CTS's daughter has already figured out where the bread is buttered - and that's to play into mom's self appointed voodoo priestess role.
But that's not an area I addressed. Because that WOULD have been trollish.
ALL I ADDRESSED WERE THE THINGS CTS ACTUALLY POSTED. At length and in detail - not just the questionable and highly selected sources, or the facts in those sources which were covered over, but the logic of the arguments which was faulty, and the questionable tactics of false leads and lies.

If THAT make me a troll I'm more than happy to be one.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 25, 2007 10:30 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The articles that you cite about "water memory" wobble back and forth between whether succussion or vigorous shaking are necessary or not.

It was just one article, the one by Rustum Roy--the topic of this post. My husband finally reviewed it, and he said, yes, it does wobble back and forth. (This would explain why Rue is so insistent that water structure changes result from serial dilutions only and do not require succussions, even though I repeated told him that they do.) This is what my husband (the physical chemist) said.

He said it sounds like the incoherent ramblings of an extremely senile scientist--probably with some level of Alzheimer's would be his guess. There are parts of the paper that demonstrate expert knowledge in glass and ceramics, but it is all strung together incoherently with the structure of water. (What has glass got to do with water structure? By Roy's account in some parts of the paper, water structure changes simply from touching glass!) Roy uses a lot of technical terms incorrectly, such as talking about an instrument to analyze water, when it only analyzes solids. Sometimes Roy just speaks complete nonsense, such as making a distinction between H2O and OH2 (huh?). My husband said Star Trek technobabble has more scientific integrity than this paper. He said he doesn't say that to make fun of Roy, because the man is obviously seriously ill. Roy's former competence as a scientist can be seen in the parts that do make sense, but the man must be 90 years old (60 teaching at Penn State) and has just lost it.

Then he said, "Make sure you don't use this paper to support homeopathy, cause it will only hurt homeopathy's credibility."

Oops. Too late.

I only posted the Guardian article cause I found it interesting. Moral of the story, always read the original paper.

Anyway, uh... disregard everything Roy said. My apologies to the board.

For the record: according to both homeopathic theory and practice, succussions are what distinguish an ultradiluted homeopathic solution from contaminated water. Succussions are required to make a homeopathic remedy. All other ultradilutions, without succussions, are not considered by homeopaths to be remedies or capable of bioactivity.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 25, 2007 11:03 PM

CHRISISALL

Peeps! Play nice!

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 25, 2007 11:41 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Peeps! Play nice!

I promise I will never fight with Rue ever again.

--------------------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 6:18 AM

CANTTAKESKY

I just posted my husband's review of Roy's paper on my homeopathy discussion list. The response was to the effect that he/we must be ignorant of homeopathy principles, he/we must be pro-establishment and closed minded, and this poor review is reflective of our poor view of homeopathy.

This is interesting to me, because I find the same reaction when I criticize bad science used to "prove" vaccine injuries in the anti-vaccination community. I must do so because I am steeped in the establishment and ignorant of vaccine dangers.

I just had to share that here because you guys know how steeped in the establishment I am. Hee hee.

Nobody wants me at his/her lunch table, it seems. Is this because of my positions, or is it because I'm an ass? (Some people need not answer this question.)

--------------------------
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session."
-- Judge Gideon J. Tucker, 1866.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 7:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

It's because you're driven by something other than repeatable impersonal observation, which is a self-reinforcing belief in a particular mode of treatment.

Did you every hear about the superstitious pigeons? They were trained into it through a system of random rewards. Let's say hungry pigeon "A" was circling counterclockwise when several tasty food pellets drop out of a chute. So pigeon A goes on to circle counterclocwise more often, and more pellets drop out. Now pigeon A now spends nearly all the time circling counterclockwise, and in the midst of this circling stops to peck at the cage and... Viola! More food! So now pigeon A spends an inordinate amount of time circling and pecking while food randomly drops out of the chute. After a particularly long interval w/o food pigeon A forgets its little ritual momentarily and flaps its wings and... HEY! MORE FOOD! So now it goes back to cirlcing, pecking, and flapping its wings...

Here's the point.

Animals... and that includes people... learn best through somehwat inconsistent reward. Dopamine is that little "rush" that you get when you discover something.... A way to get food, or the solution to a tough math equation. Once it becomes routine then dopamine stops being released. (Recall that dopamine is the "addiction" neurotransmitter.) So dopamine is important to the learning process. The problem is, it can be triggered by phantom patterns.... random acts that don't mean anything. That's why people get hooked on gambling. And if you've come to associate a particular belief with dopamine, which is very rewarding, then you'll want to protect that belief. So the next reward is to develop ways to defend that belief, and as you discover ways to defend that belief you're rewarded again.

That's how people... even whole societies... can develop ultimately painful and self-destructive delusions, such as sacrificing children to the rain gods.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 7:29 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Nobody likes to have their core beliefs questioned.

Believe me, I feel ya - since I get flamed by leftwingnuts just as often as rightwingnuts, mostly for poking holes in their bubbles.

Thing is, evidence or no, past a certain point, that's peoples Faith you are messing with, and if you've even gone toe to toe with a pack of radical fundamentalist christians in the deep south, you know just how dangerous a thing that can be.
(I was on-site for the second exchange of gunfire at LL coven in Florida down in 1990, just so you know.)

So yes, you're gonna get flamed by folks unable to challenge their own preconceptions, ain't no avoiding that, and when it comes to the issue of alternative medicine versus big pharma, operating on common sense and logic isn't gonna get you far, cause on the one end you got folk who somehow still trust "evidence" from the folks who gave us Excitotoxins, Thaliomide, Gardasil, Thimerosal and numerous other poisons packaged and advertised as miracle cures.. how anyone would trust em at this point is beyond me.

And yet on the other end you have tons of obfuscation, no proper studies cause the first group blocks it at every chance to protect their profits, lack of investment because of absurd risks caused by overlegislation, an abundance of snake oil salesmen shovelling faery tales, and little empirical evidence that doesn't come from risking your own health to get it.

And most especially, neither side ever wants to admit a screwup, or having placed their Faith in those unworthy of it, and so the closer you get to that maybe becoming an issue, the more rabid they get about it.

That goes for other issues too, mind, not just this one, and is why, past a certain point, I just don't bother discussin it cause it'll just piss em off and won't accomplish nothin.

When you start pokin holes in the Faith of a "True Believer" on EITHER side of this, CTS, the flamethrowers are gonna come out, cause at the very root of it, this has jack shit to do with evidence, and everything to do with Faith.

It's like showing a husband video of his wife cheatin on him.. he's not gonna thank you for it, he's gonna HATE you for it, if not actually blame you and call the tape a fake.

It's the same principle all around, you see ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 7:52 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Frem, you're a wise wise man. At least what you are describing makes a lot of sense to me. Thank you.

I was thinking something very similar. It feels like I am talking to fundies, on both sides. (I was excommunicated by Xtian evangelicals in the deep south, so I got a feel for it too.)

(And I know, this doesn't mean I'm *not* an ass.

)

--------------------------
"I've noticed that the press tends to be quite accurate, except when they're writing on a subject I know something about."
-- Keith F. Lynch

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 7:59 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It's because you're driven by something other than repeatable impersonal observation, which is a self-reinforcing belief in a particular mode of treatment.

People don't want to eat lunch with me because *I* am driven to confirm my own biases? I can understand that this is why *you* don't want me at your lunch table. However, if this is true, those with the same biases as mine would want me at *their* lunch table, right? But they don't.

I am the first to admit that I have confirmation bias (the tendency to look for evidence that supports my biases). Hell, this thread is proof of it. But if I remember my psychology correctly, everyone has confirmation bias. How come, then, I am the only one without lunch table buddies?

BTW, the pigeon superstition thing happened with the Vietnamese and cargo planes. They built shrines to cargo planes and engaged in rituals that they happened to be doing before the first food got dropped from the sky. It is kind of funny.

--------------------------
"So tell me, just how long have you had this feeling that no one is watching you?"
-- Christopher Locke, Entropy Gradient Reversals

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 8:15 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Kinda like the "cargo cults" of the Pacific Islands.

But hey, I don't mind being your lunch buddy if you don't mind me! Just tell me when my claws are too far out. Sometimes I just need a swat on the nose.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 10:27 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Yeah, cargo cults. That is what I meant.

And thanks for being willing to eat lunch with me.

--------------------------
"The POP3 server service depends on the SMTP server service, which failed to start because of the following error: The operation completed successfully."
-- Windows NT Server v3.51

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:43 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Well, yer always welcome at the OKASA* table with me, Jack, and whomever else is currently sitting with us for the moment, I'm sure you'll fit riiiight in.

-Frem

*"Obnoxious Kool-Aid Spitting Assholes"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:59 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
*"Obnoxious Kool-Aid Spitting Assholes"

OOoooohh, yeah. That's me!

--------------------------
A conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking.
-- Arthur Bloch

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:13 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Hey Sig, I think you'd like this article on Cargo Cult Science, a talk given by Richard Feynman to Cal Tech graduates. I love it.

http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html

It is about superstition, confirmation bias, and scientific integrity.

--------------------------
At first there was nothing. Then God said 'Let there be light!' Then there was still nothing. But you could see it.
-- Source unknown

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE