Misunderstanding Empiricism

Let me ask you this.What do you feel I don't understand about empiricism that you feel I should understand about empiricism?

It isn't so much that you misunderstand empiricism as that you don't accept how different the confidence levels are between its application in anecdotal experience versus scientific method. It's sort of like timing an hour by counting seconds in your head versus using a highly precise chronometer, and in many cases it's far worse.Dr. McGarey probably used empiricism in his case studies (in other words, I'm not accusing him of making things up), but our suspicion is that he did not use the scientific method. But we'd have to have the appendix, and then if there's enough information we could determine whether he did or did not.Richard Feynman said that the easiest person to fool is yourself. It is the scientist's motto and the foundation for success for all charlatan's and flim-flam artists. The scientific method is the way we determine as best as we possibly can the true nature of the real world. One reason that it's so successful at doing this is that the replication requirement turns science into a collective enterprise. While one or a few scientists can fool themselves into accepting something about reality that isn't true, the likelihood of this happening diminishes dramatically as the pool of participating scientists expands, because in wide diversity there are no common biases and proclivities, and it is unlikely in the extreme that they could all be fooled identically while studying the same natural phenomenon.Because science is tentative, because our methods are not perfect, no suspected phenomenon can ever be categorically ruled out. Science will never be able to categorically demonstrate that natural phenomena like ESP and UFOs and Bigfoot do not exist, or that there are no health benefits from magnetic bracelets and therapeutic touch and homeopathy, not because these things actually exist or actually work, but because it's never possible scientifically to rule anything out. You've been here long enough to see Dawkin's invisible flying spaghetti monster mentioned, probably several times, and it's extremely instructive to note that science cannot categorically demonstrate that this monster does not exist. The same is true of pink fire-breathing dragons. All science can say is that the current evidence does not support the existence of such phenomena. But it can say this with great confidence.One of the characteristics of a pseudoscience is that it stays at the same state of progress for years and years, decades even. Here are some examples from science and pseudo-science:

• Computers: Babbage's computing machine, WW-II computing machines, Eniac, IBM/360, Intel 8080, Pentium.
  ​
• ESP: no progress
  ​
• Astronomy: Galileo's telescope, Lick Observatory, Mount Palomar, Hubble.
  ​
• UFOs: no progress
  ​
• Space exploration: balloons, Sputnik, Telstar, Mercury missions, Apollo moon landing, space shuttle, space station.
  ​
• Bigfoot: no progress
  ​
• Medicine: early surgery, germ theory of disease, anesthesia, vaccines, antibiotics, modern surgery, joint replacements, organ transplants.
  ​
• Faith healers: no progress
  ​
• Straight chiropractic (subluxation theory): no progress

Because of the lack of progress in the pseudosciences, "research" from decades ago is as "relevant" today as it was then, and one of the common qualities observed from advocates of pseudoscience is citing very old "research".Advocates of those like Edgar Cayce and William McGarey are apparently unable to distinguish between the scientific application of empirical methods of study and anecdotal observations. This quality is widely shared among the general population, and it is why it is so easy for con-artists and flim-flam men to fleece the public.Concerning medications, some have a relatively instant and obvious impact, such as headache medications, and so personal experience plays a big role in deciding whether to use them. In most cases, they either work for you or they don't. Scientific studies of such medications add value by determining safety, proper dosage levels, side-effects, long-term impact and drug interaction issues.But many medications do not have a relatively instant and obvious impact. What is the effect of mega-doses of vitamin C? Anecdotal evidence is when you take it for a year, then try to remember whether you had greater or fewer colds the previous year. Or perhaps you kept track of all your colds so you know whether the number of colds you had went up or down. But that's just you. And it's just for one year. Maybe there were more cold viruses in the environment in one of those years. Maybe a vacation destination was a factor. Maybe the visit of a relative with their young children was a factor. And I'm only touching the tip of the iceberg here with the factors that have to be corrected for.Scientific studies enumerate all the various factors and provide corrections for them (or I should say, the better the study, the better job of this it does). Anecdotal stories in books or at web sites can't even come close, not even remotely. There's no comparison. Science raises empiricism to a high art, and that's why it is so superior to anything else.--Percy

quote:

---

It isn't so much that you misunderstand empiricism as that you don't accept how different the confidence levels are between its application in anecdotal experience versus scientific method.

---

I do understand the difference in the level of confidence and accept the difference. The scientific method works well with things that can be measured.McGarey used whatever method MDs use in clinical diagnosis. The information in Message 120 came from the appendix. That's all there really is. Right now there is no scientific study concerning castor oil packs. So that level of confidence is not available. (From what I've seen so far they don't know what to measure.)In the absence of conclusive scientific studies, the individual has to rely on what is available and glean what they can from what science does know.

We've never talked about things that can't be measured in this discussion. What we've talked about is the inadvisability of drawing conclusions from anecdotal data. The anecdotal data derives from observations that are subjective and inexact, in other words, of things that can absolutely be "measured", to use your term, but that have been measured very poorly. I can only give the same answer I've given to this many times already, along with the same qualifier.The answer hasn't changed. When anecdotal or poor evidence is all that's available and a decision has to be made now, then that's what you go with.The qualifier I've always added hasn't changed, either. Personal experience is highly subjective and unreliable. If you apply a castor oil pack to your sprained ankle and in a couple days it feels better, how do you know how the ankle would have felt without the castor oil pack? The answer is, you don't have any idea to how your ankle would have responded. You've learned nothing.So if you then proceed to tell a friend with a sprained ankle that castor oil packs worked for you, you're giving them useless information, because in reality you know nothing about the efficacy of castor oil packs.The title of this thread shouldn't be "Misunderstanding Empiricism" but "Misusing Empiricism," because that's what people are doing when they reach conclusions based upon the incredibly poor evidence presented in books by people like Cayce or McGarey or based upon websites of shared anecdotal experiences.Any particular weird belief you want to hold, there are books and websites out there that will provide empirical "evidence" to support you in your belief. Believe the world is flat? There's books and websites for that. Believe the US brought down its own buildings on 9/11? For that, too.! Believe the Apollo moon landing never took place? That, too! Believe in UFO's? Sure! Pyramidology? Yep. ESP? Of course! Elves and leprechauns? You bet! Existence of Bigfoot? Natch! A 6000 year old earth? That, too!You're also ignoring the "guilt by association" claim. We all like to be fair and not judge until all the evidence has been scrutinized, but there is far more nonsense out there then could ever be scientifically examined. People should take an "I'm from Missouri" approach and be skeptical until the evidence demonstrates the true nature of the phenomenon. This is the approach of science, the approach that has the only record of continuous success.The question to be asked about anything purported phenomenon of the real world is always the same: what is the quality of the evidence. Science has raised the answering of such questions to a high art.--Percy

quote:

---

In the absence of conclusive scientific studies, the individual has to rely on what is available and glean what they can from what science does know.

---

The chemists and biologists told you in the Castor Oil thread that they couldn't see how the castor oil could be getting into the blood stream through the skin, that the McGarey studies appeared to be of poor quality, and that the increased T-cell counts reported could have been just from the heat or low-level ricin poisoning.This is what the scientists here have told you they know about castor oil packs.How have you incorporated this information into your individual experience?It appears to me that you haven't incorporated this scientific information into your individual experience at all.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

On a national or group level we agree. On an individual level we agree somewhat.I had to do some research and found that guilt by association is a logical fallacy as are some of the authority arguments presented.I don't see a foolproof method for the individual.

quote:

---

It appears to me that you haven't incorporated this scientific information into your individual experience at all.

---

Fascinating! What evidence leads you to that conclusion?

There is no positive evidence to support the idea that you have incorporated the facts and conclusions provided to you in that thread, since you have indicated that you still consider McGarey's work to be in any way useful.For example, how have you incorporated this message from Coragyps? You never replied to him there: Or this one from Meddle, that you also didn't reply to:

Right, but empiricism is a logical fallacy too, as is argument from fallacy.Crazy, I know.

Of course it's a fallacy. I didn't say that "guilt by association" should lead to automatic rejection. I said you should take an "I'm from Missouri" approach, treating all claims skeptically pending valid scientific evidence, but that "guilt by association" can tell you a lot about where best to direct limited time to serious examination of claims.But I was making an extremely valid point, one you don't want to miss. I said, "We all like to be fair and not judge until all the evidence has been scrutinized, but there is far more nonsense out there then could ever be scientifically examined." So let's say someone has cancer and their doctor, a cancer specialist, says they need chemo right away before it spreads, while a website that also promotes prophecy and ESP says that they should begin a regimen of laetrile and vitamin B17. Which approach deserves to be treated more skeptically? If you don't find the answer simple and obvious, then this brings us back to your bullshit detector again. What authority arguments? If you're referring to my Message 154 that you're replying to, there were no authority arguments.So just to make things clear, I didn't argue that guilt by association automatically makes something false. I argued that it tells you where best to direct your skepticism. And I didn't make any arguments from authority.So now addressing your other extremely brief comments: You're just repeating your position without engaging the discussion again. Was my example of using a castor oil pack for a sprained ankle invalid? Misapplied? Misdirected? What? If you're not going to engage the discussion, PD, but just repeat your position, then please stop posting.--Percy

Yes

Replies like this are really unconstructive. Please stop posting if this is to be your approach to discussion.--Percy

quote:

---

So just to make things clear, I didn't argue that guilt by association automatically makes something false. I argued that it tells you where best to direct your skepticism. And I didn't make any arguments from authority.

---

The authority one had nothing to do with your argument, just conceding that it is also one that popped up in the overall battle.Good to know that you're not saying that guilt by association automatically makes his work false.

quote:

---

You're just repeating your position without engaging the discussion again. Was my example of using a castor oil pack for a sprained ankle invalid? Misapplied? Misdirected? What? If you're not going to engage the discussion, PD, but just repeat your position, then please stop posting.

---

IMO, you're assuming the individual doesn't know how long it takes for their own sprain to heal. The R.I.C.E. method is the typical approach, but ice is advised for a short period of time (20 minutes). If the individual had no other sprain to compare the situation with, then yes I agree they can't tell if the pack did any better than the R.I.C.E. method.What exactly do you want from me Percy?
What exactly is the discussion I'm supposed to be engaging in?I've already agreed on a group and national level, so nothing left to discuss.
I've already agreed that personal experience is only hard evidence for the individual.
Now I've agreed that an individual with no prior injury experience before using a castor oil pack on an injury can't say whether the pack made a difference.What exactly do you want me to agree with?As far as my response to nator, I've made it quite clear that my personal choices are not up for discussion. If I don't provide an answer then she continues to hound. Now she can't say I haven't answered her.

quote:

---

Yes

---

PD, I didn't ask any yes or no questions in my previous post.I noted that the fact that you still think that McGarey's work is useful indicates to me that you haven't incorporated what Meddle and Coragyps told you in the Castor Oil thread.I asked you how you had incorporated what they told you into your individual experience.Based upon how you are continuing to argue in this thread, you haven't incorporated any of it.Look, if all you are going to do every time your claims about castor oil packs, or any healthcare stuff, are questioned is refuse to answer because it is "personal", then you should really stop making claims at all. Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Geez, thanks PD. And in return may I say that it's good to know that you don't abuse your children. Now we're even, since we've both expressed relief about things the other never said. This is a red herring argument, but so misguided I've got to address it. Have you never sprained anything more than once? Do you somehow believe that every sprain of a joint involves the same ligaments to the same degree and damages the joint capsule to the same degree? Every sprain is different.Follow a basketball team for a few seasons, because basketball is a sport where ankle sprains are endemic. You'll quickly learn how varied the recovery from a sprained ankle can be.So you're absolutely wrong, the individual in no way can know how long it would take a sprain to heal. You have to take ankle sprains on a day-to-day basis. Yes, you can tell a mild sprain from a severe one, but the timetable will still vary.Beyond that, there's the question of how one determines when a sprain is fully healed. A farmer who sprains his ankle in the winter might think it's fully healed after a week because it feels pretty good as he tends to minor chores, but had it been spring and he went out and tried to walk his fences he might discover it wasn't as healed as he thought.In other words, recovery time from a sprain is not only highly varied, it is also highly subjective if an individual is deciding for himself when it is healed. There really can't be any doubt about this. Except that it often isn't hard evidence, as I've just demonstrated. By my count, this is the fourth time you've claimed something like this in this thread alone. You seem to have some odd belief that only overtly expressed opinions are allowed to be addressed, while the opinions inherent in arguments are off-limits. Everyone who debates here is defending their personal opinions. If you don't want to do that, don't participate.The very arguments you're making indicate that you either reject or don't understand the arguments that Nator mentioned. If you don't want to address this apparent contradiction in your position then stop posting, but please, no more one-word responses. Do what you did in this post, quote something somebody said and respond to it.--Percy