Misunderstanding Empiricism

quote:

---

the scientific consensus would be skewed by the public policy

---

Can you please demonstrate how a scientific consensus is skewed by public policy?

quote:

---

What gets you to the top in science is having a big theory and getting results. Nobody's impressed by someone who just goes around falsifying theories.

---

Actually, careers in science are made precisely when long-held paragigms are overturned.That's often what a "big theory" is, you know; an idea that stomps all over the theories that came before it.

quote:

---

That's just the way it is. And if you combine a big ego with a wrong theory, you can find that research in a field can get skewed for years.

---

Examples, please.(hint-aren't you forgetting replication in peer-review?)

No it's not .I'm not sure how you'd determine the truth here, but the provisional nature of our knowledge of the world has been a constant feature of empiricist philosophy since at least Locke. So doesn't that make it a property of empiricism? The philosophical underpinning of science (including the notions of tentativity and falsifiability) derive from these empiricist philosophers, especially Mill in The System of Logic.So isn't it more properly considered a property of empiricism generally, than of science?

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

You've shown me that it should or could work given what you found on at least two of the active ingredients, but you haven't shown me that Midol does work.BTW, the pubmed links didn't show your findings.

The response to the BSE epidemic here was skewed by a need not to panic people into avoiding beef (and so destroying the domestic beef market). The scientific consensus remained more conservative than it might otherwise have done because it was politic for it to do so.I don't have any problem with that. Science exists in the world. It makes compromises in the short-term like everybody else. It's only in the long term that science comes into its own. Yes, I know. That's why I said 'big' theory.By the phrase: what I really meant was: If you've worked in academia you must have seen some of this, surely? It makes all the honest academics steaming mad that the one who gets all the attention and all the praise is the one with the big mouth and the hide like a rhinoceros. They always get caught out eventually, of course, but they can last a surprisingly long time.If you've done any cutting edge work, you'll know that it's possible to bamboozle people for quite a while because no one is an expert and everyone is a bit over-excited because it's all new.I know you're going to ask for examples, but I'm afraid it would be considered libel, and we have pretty draconian libel laws here. (Hows that for a get-out clause ).

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

I was unable to confirm that your historical account of empiricism is correct. Check out "empiricism" and "John Locke" at Wikipedia.The modern definition of science is that it is empirical, tentative, replicable. Whatever roots concepts like tentativity might have had in historical empiricism, and that I was unable to verify, that isn't the way we view empiricism today. We don't say that science is tentative because it is empirical. Rather, we say science is empirical and tentative, separate concepts.I don't see this as an issue worth much discussion time, though. We both view science as tentative, and if you prefer to see the origins of tentativity in empiricism, go ahead.--Percy

quote:

---

You've shown me that it should or could work given what you found on at least two of the active ingredients, but you haven't shown me that Midol does work.

---

I don't understand what your objections are, PD.If I've shown you that the active ingredients in Midol work as intended, then why are you balking at the idea that Midol works?At any rate, even if you are able to explain a valid objection, showing that two out of three active ingredients are effective for the symptoms they are intended to relive is far, far more positive evidence of efficacy than anything you were able to show for any of the dozens of conditions and symptoms castor oil packs are supposedly good for.Remember, according to several "natural cure" websites I visited, castor oil packs are supposed to be effective against things like epilepsy, toxemia, appendicitis, and cirrhosis of the liver!Epilepsy!AbE: I've just found out that although castor oil has been used as folk medicine for a long time, the most recent popularization of them is due to a number of psychic readings that Edgar Cayce gave on health and healing.Edgar Cayce!!I've also just e-mailed a Naturopath about the claims she makes on her website. Here's the text of my e-mail: Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The response to the BSE epidemic here was skewed by a need not to panic people into avoiding beef (and so destroying the domestic beef market). The scientific consensus remained more conservative than it might otherwise have done because it was politic for it to do so.

---

Well, was that the scientists or the politicians fault?

quote:

---

Nobody's impressed by someone who just goes around falsifying their own theories.

---

A good scientist tries to do this in every publication, actually.

quote:

---

If you've worked in academia you must have seen some of this, surely? It makes all the honest academics steaming mad that the one who gets all the attention and all the praise is the one with the big mouth and the hide like a rhinoceros. They always get caught out eventually, of course, but they can last a surprisingly long time.

---

I dunno. There's plenty of opposition to lots of big name people all the time. And I still don't get how, when replication is such an important part of building scientific consensus, that a "big mouth" can be anything more than that unless their peers are able to replicate their work. No single study or group of studies from a single lab is going to be influential at all unless other scientists are able to both replicate the findings and springboard from those findings into related aread of research.

quote:

---

If you've done any cutting edge work, you'll know that it's possible to bamboozle people for quite a while because no one is an expert and everyone is a bit over-excited because it's all new.

---

Well, no, I don't think that's really how it works at all.Look what happened to the cold fusion guys. Lots of international attention, but then, when nobody was able to replicate their work......nothing.Please don't confuse the attention paid certain scientists by the popular media as some sort of indication of how other scientists view those media darlings' work.Science is naturally conservative in the rate of acceptance of new ideas, and replication of findings by peers is a big reason why.And are you suggesting that a "big mouth" scientist is actually lying to his peers and everyone else? That's what "bamboozle" means, right? That's a very serious accusation to make of a scientist, you know. Furthermore, you've also implicated all of the other scientists who have reviewed that one's work for publication, collaborated with him, or been a graduate student or post doc working in his lab. All of them have to either be really terrible scientists whom are unable to see the fraud going on, or they must all be in on the fraud.Is this really what you intend to accuse scientists of?

quote:

---

I know you're going to ask for examples, but I'm afraid it would be considered libel, and we have pretty draconian libel laws here. (Hows that for a get-out clause

---

If you say so. Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I don't understand what your objections are, PD.
If I've shown you that the active ingredients in Midol work as intended, then why are you balking at the idea that Midol works?

---

No objections just observation.You've shown me that two of the active ingredients when tested separately on people have been shown to do what they are supposed to do. They work.So going with that information, Midol should work. But you haven't shown me that all the ingredients together as Midol do what they are supposed to do.From the castor oil thread: So from what you've shown me Midol should work, but does it work?
How does one show that it does work?Am I correct in assuming that in an acetaminophen test, women in pain are given the drug or placebo and then asked if the pain has been relieved?

quote:

---

But you haven't shown me that all the ingredients together as Midol do what they are supposed to do.

---

Actually, yes I did for acetaminophen and caffeine, although I apologize that my links to my search results on pubmed didn't work. This study shows exactly that.

quote:

---

So from what you've shown me Midol should work, but does it work?
How does one show that it does work?

---

Early forms of Acetaminophen/Paracetamol have been studied as far back as the late 1800's, and a purified form has been marketed in a similar way as it is today for about 50 years. It has been studied extensively. We understand a great deal about what it does in the body, its interactions, side effects, etc. The wiki is a good page. I'l direct you to the references at the bottom of the page, and also to the "Mechanism of Action" section of the text.Given this 5 decades of study, can you give me any good, reasonable explanation for why you are finding it difficult to accept that Midol works better than placebo at relieving cramps?

quote:

---

Am I correct in assuming that in an acetaminophen test, women in pain are given the drug or placebo and then asked if the pain has been relieved?

---

Yes, roughly. The evaluation of pain is pretty structured in trials so as to get the most accurate results possible. The acetaminophen relived pain better than placebo.Now, can you provide anything regarding the effectiveness of castor oil packs that's even close to anything I've given you for midol?Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Hi PD,I've been hoping for an answer to this question that Nator posed back in Message 35: From where I sit your behavior appears absolutely perverse in the extreme. You're requiring links to studies and explanations of those studies and then re-explanations of those studies and then studies showing that ingredients in combination work, and it never seems enough, you just go on demanding more and more.Yet a naturopath tells you something and that's good enough for you all by itself.How about a little consistency and balance?--Percy

Thank you.

quote:

---

(Although, as Percy and Nator have pointed out, the same scepticism also needs to be applied to snake-oil salesmen.)

---

Although Percy doesn't believe it I do understand that.I don't hold the position that science can't be trusted. It surprises me that that is what they see. I enjoy science actually. I find experiments fascinating. Unfortunately I didn't feel they wanted to actually discuss the science, but wanted the opposition to quietly accept the supposed consensus regardless of the practical issues.Between public affairs and secretarial, my skills have put me in high level areas of government and business and privy to info that doesn't get written down or made available to the public. That's why I said I understand why decisions are what they are at the national and corporate levels.If they want people to avoid the snake-oil salesmen, then they need to provide the tools to help them see the science and not the politics or hype. If the snake-oil salesman is misrepresenting a scientific study, then show how he is doing that and why his conclusions are wrong.Implying that all who stray from the traditional are quacks, doesn't show anyone anything and isn't looking at the science. I really wanted them to get down to the science.Unfortunately a debate isn't a place to discuss possibilities. It's pick a side and hang on. In some of these I've hung on to try and get a better answer, but to no avail.Since I've worked in sales, public affairs, and recruiting; I know how to make a sows ear look like a silk purse.I do appreciate your explanation of how science works in the real world.

No one has said that something is quackery because it isn't part of mainstream medicine. That would be like saying criminals are criminals because they're in jail, and that certainly isn't the way it works. You're leading with the conclusion and leaving out the rationale.Medical approaches do not become accepted as safe and effective simply because they're part of mainstream medicine. Rather, they're judged safe and effective because scientific studies have demonstrated these qualities, and these positive qualities cause them to be accepted as part of mainstream medicine.Quackery isn't quackery because it's rejected by mainstream medicine. Rather, it's quackery because it isn't supported by scientific studies of safety and effectiveness that would have allowed it to become accepted by mainstream medicine, assuming the studies had positive outcomes. Nator is trying to cite scientific studies for you, and you can still say this? If you want to have scientific discussions then ask some scientific questions instead of making accusations of bias and malfeasance.I do see a bit of a problem with Nator's links: Nator: Half your links in Message 58 and your link in Message 69 do not work. This means you haven't provided references to any studies at all, just prescription info pages. Please, PD, several of us have spent lots of time working to craft as effective explanations as we can for you. Let's have none of this LindaLou/Faith style "poor me, I'm treated so unfairly" stuff. Just using myself as an example, I've repeated the explanation that begins this message many times now to you, yet you can still imply that we're jumping to the conclusion that anything that isn't traditional medicine is quackery, when it is actually the lack of scientific support that makes something quackery. And this skill is unique to mainstream medicine and is completely absent from naturopathy? Which isn't regulated by the FDA and doesn't have laws and regulations governing claims?It is invalid to project bias and malfeasance only onto the side you disagree with. People are people everywhere. When you begin making the same demands of naturopathy that you do of mainstream medicine then your own rather extreme bias won't be so evident.--Percy

I've just finished reading Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, so you'll just have to take my word for it . I agree. I'm sure we've both got better things to do.

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

Thanks. I understand your frustration. That's why I opened this thread - to get some of these issues into the open.

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

quote:

---

Given this 5 decades of study, can you give me any good, reasonable explanation for why you are finding it difficult to accept that Midol works better than placebo at relieving cramps?

---

Why do you persist in creating a negative position for me?In Message 49 you stated: What I asked for in the OP of that thread, and you never actually provided, was to be shown that castor oil packs worked.In Message 50 I asked that you show me how it is done. In your first response the links didn't work, so I only had what you wrote to respond to. What I saw was that by using what we do know about two of the ingredients we could extrapolate that Midol should work. I didn't disagree with that.Now you have provided a study that shows that acetaminophen and caffeine "work". So again, from the studies done on two of the ingredients we can extrapolate that Midol should work. I don't disagree with that either.So extrapolation is an acceptable means of showing that something works, correct?Now tell me whether scientists test all plants, seeds, etc. for medicinal potential or do they focus on those that according to human use supposedly have medicinal properties, see if they do what is claimed, and then try to figure out how it works and find the active ingredient, etc.To answer your questions, I have to know what is acceptable. So far what I've provided has been deemed unacceptable.