Doesn't work vs can not work, should studies be needed to evaluate medical woo?

[ponderingturtle]

I have been thinking and noticing that many doctors seem to depend on studies showing that does not happen, instead of looking at the physics or chemistry showing that the effect can not happen.

Now I can see the value of properly conducted studies to test the interpretations of physics and chemistry. But why do you need to study something like that with homeopathy? If homeopathy works all of chemistry is wrong, and if all of chemistry is wrong than the physics behind chemistry is wrong. If that is wrong, then this computer should not work.

So can I use computers as evidence that homeopathy can not work?

The problem with studies is that the evidence used can so easily be poorly collected and biased that you get ideas that might be partially credible but wrong getting out there and then have a real problem getting rid of them, see vaccines and autism.

This struck me with the recent way various people evaluated the recent studies on brain cancer and cell phones. But it certainly applies to homeopathy as well.

I see the value in testing things that are unlikely to be correct, but why do things that have well established physics that if the new idea is correct they would rewrite most well established science, and likely mean that many observed effects like computers are impossible?

[fls]

I have been pondering the same thing. The answer may be that we've been surprised in the past and we don't want to miss out?

I personally think that we'd be better served by waiting for the sorts of information that separates those ideas with merit from the unwashed masses - i.e. something that isn't easily explained by the effects of wishful thinking, chance and fraud. There was a good article at Science Based Medicine about the problems with attempting to study frankly silly ideas.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=42

Linda

[Careyp74]

I think the public, who is best served with the information, is not going to trust an evaluation of the science behind something without a study to go with it. There are still some things we don't fully understand, as a whole, and should be tested instead of dismissed.

After reading the link that fls provided, I would ammend the above to just include tests and studies of ideas that are widely accepted without prior testing. That would include homeopathy and acupuncture, but draw the line just short of crystals and magnets being used medicinally.

[fls]

I think the public, who is best served with the information, is not going to trust an evaluation of the science behind something without a study to go with it. There are still some things we don't fully understand, as a whole, and should be tested instead of dismissed.

After reading the link that fls provided, I would ammend the above to just include tests and studies of ideas that are widely accepted without prior testing. That would include homeopathy and acupuncture, but draw the line just short of crystals and magnets being used medicinally.

But we understand homeopathy. The results are easily explained by wishful thinking, and a smattering of chance and fraud. And the link I provided (as well as an explanation I provided here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2138130#post2138130) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2139625#post2139625)) shows why studying these things only serves to confuse - we will get positives, all of them will be false, but try convincing anyone who is scientifically naive of that.

Linda

[ponderingturtle]

But we understand homeopathy. The results are easily explained by wishful thinking, and a smattering of chance and fraud. And the link I provided (as well as an explanation I provided here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2138130#post2138130) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2139625#post2139625)) shows why studying these things only serves to confuse - we will get positives, all of them will be false, but try convincing anyone who is scientifically naive of that.

Linda

Exactly. I am not suggesting that woo shouldn't be studied, it is just the woo that contradicts major portions of physics and chemistry. There might even be some value in studying those. It is basing the explanations of why people shouldn't believe this on such studies, especialy when such studies are not of high quality yet.

[Bikewer]

The Science Based Medicine blog has taken this to task as well. There's a well-written criticizm of a government-funded study of an absolutely quack "cancer cure" involving diet, coffee enemas and other silliness.

I imagine there's more than a little politics involved; desperate constituents haranguing their representatives to look into this or that miracle cure..

[ponderingturtle]

The Science Based Medicine blog has taken this to task as well. There's a well-written criticizm of a government-funded study of an absolutely quack "cancer cure" involving diet, coffee enemas and other silliness.

I imagine there's more than a little politics involved; desperate constituents haranguing their representatives to look into this or that miracle cure..

But you see it also did not argue against cellphones causing cancer based on the fact that they can't. They never touched on how low the energy of the invidual photons are, how that means that they can not cause chemistry to happen.

So the blog seems mixed.

[fls]

Who is it that we are talking about? Who is asking for studies on ideas that should be dismissed on the basis of what we already know?

Linda

[ponderingturtle]

Who is it that we are talking about? Who is asking for studies on ideas that should be dismissed on the basis of what we already know?

Linda

Steve Novella

link (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=84)

It does seem to think that there is a possibility that cell phones could cause cancer.

[Careyp74]

But we understand homeopathy. The results are easily explained by wishful thinking, and a smattering of chance and fraud. And the link I provided (as well as an explanation I provided here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2138130#post2138130) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2139625#post2139625)) shows why studying these things only serves to confuse - we will get positives, all of them will be false, but try convincing anyone who is scientifically naive of that.

Linda

OK, don't test it. Won't harm the homeopathic industry that is profiting off of the general public's idiocy. The same general public you have said already understands homeopathy, but still buys the products.

[fls]

OK, don't test it. Won't harm the homeopathic industry that is profiting off of the general public's idiocy. The same general public you have said already understands homeopathy, but still buys the products.

I'm sorry. I wasn't clear.

I didn't mean to say the general public already understands homeopathy. I was referring to physicians working within a culture of evidence-based medicine.

Since we already have sufficient research to demonstrate that homeopathy provides no specific effect, yet the industry still profits and the public still buys the products, I'm not sure what the point of doing additional research would be. It seems to me that the problem is that people are misinformed. Without addressing that issue, I don't know that it makes any difference to add to the bulk of the information that they are misinformed about.

I think Ponderingturtle is on to something. Asking for additional studies plays in to the false idea that the knowledge we already have is insufficient. I don't think that it is necessary to rely on people external to the relevant field of research to direct the course of scientific investigation (although I'm sure I will be forced to concede some exceptions for specific circumstances :)).

Linda

[ponderingturtle]

OK, don't test it. Won't harm the homeopathic industry that is profiting off of the general public's idiocy. The same general public you have said already understands homeopathy, but still buys the products.

What you seem to fail to grasp is that for homeopathy to be effective chemistry has to be wrong.

That is something people would notice.

[luchog]

What you seem to fail to grasp is that for homeopathy to be effective chemistry has to be wrong.

That is something people would notice.
It is an unfortunate fact that the majority of people simply do not have a sufficient education in the sciences to make that conclusion a viable one in their eyes. To them, magic and science are almost interchangeable, because they don't really understand how either one works.

Purveyors of medical woo depend on this fact to sell their nonsense. The charlatans use a load of made up jargon, but explained in terms of simplistic analogies, making people think they actually understand it. Because they supposedly understand it, they are more comfortable with it than with science they don't understand anything about. Plus, the complicated science they don't understand is often "bad" (pollution, nuclear weapons, etc.); while simple things they do understand, or think they understand, are by contrast "good".

Or the quacks use bunch of complete gibberish sprinkled with commonly known but poorly understood scientific terminology; thus making their quackery sound legitimately scientific in the mind of the ignorant. The person is familiar with the language, but doesn't know what it means; so he automatically associates something that he doesn't understand and doesn't know if it works, with something else he doesn't understand, but knows it works.

So no, unfortunately, people don't notice that kind of thing. That's why woo sells so well.

[blutoski]

Since we already have sufficient research to demonstrate that homeopathy provides no specific effect, yet the industry still profits and the public still buys the products, I'm not sure what the point of doing additional research would be. It seems to me that the problem is that people are misinformed. Without addressing that issue, I don't know that it makes any difference to add to the bulk of the information that they are misinformed about.

Yes, two things about this:

1. To paraphrase Dr. Novella: "X was proven ineffective long ago. But really... since when has that small detail stopped a quack?"

2. "more research required" is the big complaint about DSHEA: over a decade of administering this money pit, and every piece of research has concluded that "more studies are required". It has dawned on many people that the purpose of DSHEA is not to determine whether any specific CAM modalities work or not - the purpose is to funnel taxpayer dollars into the pockets of CAM advocates. I would be quite happy if the occasional piece of research came out of this directorship to prove that something that was thought to be fru-fru actually worked. That would be progress.

[fls]

It is an unfortunate fact that the majority of people simply do not have a sufficient education in the sciences to make that conclusion a viable one in their eyes. To them, magic and science are almost interchangeable, because they don't really understand how either one works.

Exactly.

Linda

[fls]

2. "more research required" is the big complaint about DSHEA: over a decade of administering this money pit, and every piece of research has concluded that "more studies are required". It has dawned on many people that the purpose of DSHEA is not to determine whether any specific CAM modalities work or not - the purpose is to funnel taxpayer dollars into the pockets of CAM advocates. I would be quite happy if the occasional piece of research came out of this directorship to prove that something that was thought to be fru-fru actually worked. That would be progress.

Yup. It turned out to be worse than I expected. I figured that CAM advocates should have occasionally got it right. I have now come to the conclusion that anything they happened to get right was already funnelled into medicine (like willow bark) a long time ago. How else to explain the fairly dismal results?

Linda

[ponderingturtle]

It is an unfortunate fact that the majority of people simply do not have a sufficient education in the sciences to make that conclusion a viable one in their eyes. To them, magic and science are almost interchangeable, because they don't really understand how either one works.


But if you are debunking homeopathy, is it better to explain various studies where it didn't work, or explain basic chemistry and show why it can not work?

[blutoski]

But if you are debunking homeopathy, is it better to explain various studies where it didn't work, or explain basic chemistry and show why it can not work?

Why are we forced to make a choice?

"From what we know of chemistry, there's no way it could work... and behold, that's what the literature shows."

[Aitch]

Maybe I'm being a bit naive here, but why not:

1. Define homeopathic remedies as drugs.
2. Thus make ithem covered by laws concerning safety, efficacy, testing etc.
3. Not allow the product to be sold until the producers have done tests to the level that drug companies have to. They make profits of millions per year, they can afford to pay for it.
4. When they fail the tests, they can't be marketed.

Job done?

[JJM]

{snip} 2. "more research required" is the big complaint about DSHEA: over a decade of administering this money pit, and every piece of research has concluded that "more studies are required". It has dawned on many people that the purpose of DSHEA is not to determine whether any specific CAM modalities work or not - the purpose is to funnel taxpayer dollars into the pockets of CAM advocates. I would be quite happy if the occasional piece of research came out of this directorship to prove that something that was thought to be fru-fru actually worked. That would be progress.You mean NCCAM, not DSHEA; but, in a sense they are related- they are both Congressional gaffs.

A problem with research on quackery, and the reason Congress had to establish NCCAM to pay for it, is that the ideas cannot compete with real research proposals. Regular proposals have to establish the plausibility of an idea, the feasibility of the research, and the competence of the investigator(s) to carry it out. CAM proposals cannot meet those requirements; primarily, basic science does not support CAM. Woo's are not suggesting novel applications for basic discoveries.


Maybe I'm being a bit naive here, but why not:

1. Define homeopathic remedies as drugs.
2. Thus make ithem covered by laws concerning safety, efficacy, testing etc.
3. Not allow the product to be sold until the producers have done tests to the level that drug companies have to. They make profits of millions per year, they can afford to pay for it.
4. When they fail the tests, they can't be marketed.

Job done?That's a legal problem, homeopathy was defined by Congress: http://www.homeowatch.org/history/reghx.html so it is immune from investigation unless Congress rescinds that law. Basically, a powerful Senator (Royal Copeland) was a homeopath and had it legally recognized. In recent years, a powerful Senator (Tom Harkin) and a Representative (Dan Burton) believe in quackery. They, and Sen. Orren Hatch, promoted DSHEA to prevent the FDA from regulating "dietary supplements" as drugs. The problem is not lack of regulation, it is misguided regulation. Quacks have much to lose from proper regulation, and they have a lot of money to campaign against it; whereas, there isn't any profit in preventing quackery.

[JJM]

{snip} "From what we know of chemistry, there's no way it could work... and behold, that's what the literature shows."First off, the general public labors under the mistaken impression that they can evaluate such statements. Then the woos show up with their counter "evidence" and the public has to choose. My neighbor, who is perpetually "broke" paid extra to have her car's tires filled with pure nitrogen because "they hold the pressure better." I tried to do her a favor and explain why that was wrong, she didn't believe me. I asked if she forgot that I taught introductory chemistry (including gas laws), she said some people disagree with me ...

A blogger once challenged his audience to cite one quack idea that has fallen out of use (sorry, I cannot find that thread). We had a little trouble defining terms, especially since a lot of "medicine" prior to the twentieth century was quackery. In the end, nobody could come up with quackery that had been so discredited that it was no longer available, somewhere.

Quacks, and their adherents, are stuck to their beliefs.

[fuelair]

First off, the general public labors under the mistaken impression that they can evaluate such statements. Then the woos show up with their counter "evidence" and the public has to choose. My neighbor, who is perpetually "broke" paid extra to have her car's tires filled with pure nitrogen because "they hold the pressure better." I tried to do her a favor and explain why that was wrong, she didn't believe me. I asked if she forgot that I taught introductory chemistry (including gas laws), she said some people disagree with me ...

A blogger once challenged his audience to cite one quack idea that has fallen out of use (sorry, I cannot find that thread). We had a little trouble defining terms, especially since a lot of "medicine" prior to the twentieth century was quackery. In the end, nobody could come up with quackery that had been so discredited that it was no longer available, somewhere.

Quacks, and their adherents, are stuck to their beliefs.
So let them meet Darwin.

[blutoski]

First off, the general public labors under the mistaken impression that they can evaluate such statements. Then the woos show up with their counter "evidence" and the public has to choose. My neighbor, who is perpetually "broke" paid extra to have her car's tires filled with pure nitrogen because "they hold the pressure better." I tried to do her a favor and explain why that was wrong, she didn't believe me. I asked if she forgot that I taught introductory chemistry (including gas laws), she said some people disagree with me ...

A blogger once challenged his audience to cite one quack idea that has fallen out of use (sorry, I cannot find that thread). We had a little trouble defining terms, especially since a lot of "medicine" prior to the twentieth century was quackery. In the end, nobody could come up with quackery that had been so discredited that it was no longer available, somewhere.

Quacks, and their adherents, are stuck to their beliefs.

Agreed. My post was merely responding to the unnecessary choice beween telling the consumer it can't work versus telling them it doesn't work. Both approaches are futile, but I didn't understand why the poster was assuming we could only use one argument.

[blutoski]

You mean NCCAM, not DSHEA; but, in a sense they are related- they are both Congressional gaffs.

Right, sorry. Not that it's an excuse, but I'm Canadian.

[ponderingturtle]

Why are we forced to make a choice?

"From what we know of chemistry, there's no way it could work... and behold, that's what the literature shows."

That can be done. It just struck me from responces to the claim that there was some effect on brain cancer from cellphones that everything seemed to be looking at the studies, and not at the physics.

[JJM]

Agreed. My post was merely responding to the unnecessary choice beween telling the consumer it can't work versus telling them it doesn't work. Both approaches are futile, but I didn't understand why the poster was assuming we could only use one argument.I understand.

Right, sorry. Not that it's an excuse, but I'm Canadian.Not to worry, some of my best friends (at least one, anyway) are Canadian, eh.

[blutoski]

That can be done. It just struck me from responces to the claim that there was some effect on brain cancer from cellphones that everything seemed to be looking at the studies, and not at the physics.

That's different than homeopathy, though, since biological systems are so complex that environmental interactions of this sort could still remain possible. I personally think that harm from such exposure is "plausible", but unsupported. Whereas homeopathy is "implausible" and also unsupported.

If there were a demonstrated effect, the next step would be to see if it can be manipulated, which will lead to ideas about mechanism. But the proposed mechanism has to follow from the findings rather than be pulled entirely out of one's ass.

This is what Susan Blackmore meant with regard to psi research moving toward a "new psi research" - the data supports the claim that there is an 'effect'. The explanation, however, is almost certainly within the realm of human psychology, rather than undocumented eforces. My personal opinion is that this is the field of study uniquely relevant to skepticism.

By the same token, we do see that homeopathic remedies produce 'results': classic placebos. The investigation of the psychology mechanism of action that underlies placebos such as homeopathic remedies is itself worth pursuing, even though the improvements are rarely clinically relevant. Start with the studies and hypothesize mechanisms from the results.

[ponderingturtle]

That's different than homeopathy, though, since biological systems are so complex that environmental interactions of this sort could still remain possible. I personally think that harm from such exposure is "plausible", but unsupported. Whereas homeopathy is "implausible" and also unsupported.

That is where you are wrong

A photon from a cellphone antena has about 3.5x10-6 eV. That is about one tenthousanth the ammount of energy to elicit chemical reactions.


A visible photon is ofcourse a million times more energetic, that is why you have film that is photo sensitive but there is no radio sensitive film.

[Almo]

That is where you are wrong

A photon from a cellphone antena has about 3.5x10-6 eV. That is about one tenthousanth the ammount of energy to elicit chemical reactions.


A visible photon is ofcourse a million times more energetic, that is why you have film that is photo sensitive but there is no radio sensitive film.

I thought we had no radio-sensitive film since it would all be exposed already. ;)

[blutoski]

That is where you are wrong

A photon from a cellphone antena has about 3.5x10-6 eV. That is about one tenthousanth the ammount of energy to elicit chemical reactions.

A visible photon is ofcourse a million times more energetic, that is why you have film that is photo sensitive but there is no radio sensitive film.

My claim was about prior plausibility, not about antennas and photons.

This is what I'm talking about: you're talking mechanism first, not results first, which is an error for something as complex as body-environment interactions. First we need to see if people who use cellphones have an elevated incidence of brain cancer (evidence is currently mixed). Next step is to see if it's coincidental or causal (my guess is that it's coincidental via selection bias). If it's causal, manipulating the conditions will provide insight to the mechanics (heat from the battery? emf from the mircroelectronics? evaporating carcinogens from the plastic case?). We're not at that stage yet, and may never get past the first question of whether there's really an effect.

[blutoski]

That is where you are wrong

A photon from a cellphone antena has about 3.5x10-6 eV. That is about one tenthousanth the ammount of energy to elicit chemical reactions.

A visible photon is ofcourse a million times more energetic, that is why you have film that is photo sensitive but there is no radio sensitive film.

My claim was about prior plausibility, not about antennas and photons.

Prior plausibility is a judgement call. Case in point is that the relationship between cancer and cellphones may not be about photons, so you've done what I advised against: talking mechanism for an otherwise testable generalized effect claim.

This is sort of tangential to the thread on Kelvin where he looks like a total bonehead today.

As I said above: prior plausibility is a judgement call, and reasonable people can disagree on quite a few examples because by definition, we're dealing with speculation.

[ponderingturtle]

My claim was about prior plausibility, not about antennas and photons.

This is what I'm talking about: you're talking mechanism first, not results first, which is an error for something as complex as body-environment interactions. First we need to see if people who use cellphones have an elevated incidence of brain cancer (evidence is currently mixed). Next step is to see if it's coincidental or causal (my guess is that it's coincidental via selection bias). If it's causal, manipulating the conditions will provide insight to the mechanics (heat from the battery? emf from the mircroelectronics? evaporating carcinogens from the plastic case?). We're not at that stage yet, and may never get past the first question of whether there's really an effect.

The claim is EMF and radiation. This is ridiculus.

[ponderingturtle]

My claim was about prior plausibility, not about antennas and photons.

Prior plausibility is a judgement call. Case in point is that the relationship between cancer and cellphones may not be about photons, so you've done what I advised against: talking mechanism for an otherwise testable generalized effect claim.

This is sort of tangential to the thread on Kelvin where he looks like a total bonehead today.

The difference is that generaly those are statements about what engineering is possible, or that we don't there are forces we don't know.

The first is not really relevant, as this is not an engineering problem. As for new forces? That is rather like things start to fall up(studies might not be conclusive on if things fall up or down)

As I said above: prior plausibility is a judgement call, and reasonable people can disagree on quite a few examples because by definition, we're dealing with speculation.

The thing is that true for things that are possible, if not plausible. Herbal medicines fit into that camp. Cell Phones causing cancer, and homeopathy do not.

Or you are causing cancer with out causing a single chemical change, but that would seem to go against incredible amounts of biology.

That is my point, it is not like herbal medicine, where it is possible that there could be the effect claimed. This is just like homeopathy. Computers work so cellphones can't cause cancer and homeopathy doesn't work.

[ponderingturtle]

My claim was about prior plausibility, not about antennas and photons.


Or wait are you claiming that you are ignoreing all physics and biology? If that is the case why are you rejecting homeopathy at that stage?

[blauregen]

Now I can see the value of properly conducted studies to test the interpretations of physics and chemistry. But why do you need to study something like that with homeopathy? If homeopathy works all of chemistry is wrong, and if all of chemistry is wrong than the physics behind chemistry is wrong. If that is wrong, then this computer should not work.

So can I use computers as evidence that homeopathy can not work?


In my opinion not. Chemistry and physics could be wrong. A theory is nothing more than a model to explain and hopefully predict phenomena. It doesn't represent any kind of fundamental truth. The behavior of visible light for example can be explained by two widely contradictory models for a wide range of phenomena. One treats it as a particle stream and ist has predictive power. One treats it as waves, and it has predictive power too.

So far homeopathy, psychics, ufos and similar areas of belief did not produce evidence of phenomena, we could not explain otherwise, and so we can use the current models as isomorph to whatever really is there. But to repeat the most trivial statement of general semantics, the map is not the territory. It is still merely a map.

Should significant evidence of working homeopathy or psi show up, we have to work out a theory which can explain the new phenomena AND the old phenomena, and it may well be as different to our current models, as relativistic physics was to newtonian physics (which ist strictly spoken wrong for certain fringe areas, but quite reliable for everyday use).

Discarding an observed phenomenon based on it contradicting current scientific models, would let us miss out on possible new revelations. Doubting the account of the observation based on tests and an inability to reproduce the claimed observation wouldn't.

[ponderingturtle]

In my opinion not. Chemistry and physics could be wrong. A theory is nothing more than a model to explain and hopefully predict phenomena. It doesn't represent any kind of fundamental truth. The behavior of visible light for example can be explained by two widely contradictory models for a wide range of phenomena. One treats it as a particle stream and ist has predictive power. One treats it as waves, and it has predictive power too.

Those are not contradictory. It is just that the interactions that they can have has more than one macroscopic analogy.

So far homeopathy, psychics, ufos and similar areas of belief did not produce evidence of phenomena, we could not explain otherwise, and so we can use the current models as isomorph to whatever really is there. But to repeat the most trivial statement of general semantics, the map is not the territory. It is still merely a map.

So you really think that there is new physics in the interactions of atoms and RF radiation, that is going to be discovered because of this?

Should significant evidence of working homeopathy or psi show up, we have to work out a theory which can explain the new phenomena AND the old phenomena, and it may well be as different to our current models, as relativistic physics was to newtonian physics (which ist strictly spoken wrong for certain fringe areas, but quite reliable for everyday use).

The thing is that newtonian physics is a aproximation of relativistic physics, so in replaceing it, it just took one term that was thought not to vary and showed that in extreme conditions it does vary.

So you are suggesting that dillutions of 10^200 are somewhere that new physics will turn up?

The thing you are not grasping is that these are very very well tested and understood enviroments. It is rather like saying we need to test if when droped rocks will fall up.

Discarding an observed phenomenon based on it contradicting current scientific models, would let us miss out on possible new revelations. Doubting the account of the observation based on tests and an inability to reproduce the claimed observation wouldn't.

The thing is that there have not been any observed phenomenon in these situations, even in the cases like herbal medicine where it is possible that they can do something.

So you are arguing that we really need to test if stuff will suddenly fall up becuase that would cause all kinds of safety problems with cars?

[blutoski]

The claim is EMF and radiation. This is ridiculus.

I wouldn't call it ridiculous: EMF is capable of causing cancer. The mechanism has plenty of prior plausibility as far as I'm concerned.

The debate is around whether the handsets produce emf in sufficient intensity or quality to produce an increased risk of cancer. I think there's too many variables involved, so a debunking is difficult from the mechanism direction. In this circumstance, I think we have to examine the research and go from there.

[blutoski]

Or wait are you claiming that you are ignoreing all physics and biology? If that is the case why are you rejecting homeopathy at that stage?

I'm not sure I was: I actually started by saying that it's very hard to reject claims based on mechanism's prior probability. I do treat homeopathy's prior probability as weaker for the following reason:

At this point, homeopathy's claim is pretty obviously magical - that a sample of the matrix' properties are altered by the intention of the preparer.

This is how they rationalize the salespitch there are beneficial effects, but no detrimental effects: that the matrix absorbs good intentions of the preparer.

This is not a mechanism that has precedence in any way, whereas emf causing cancer is documented.

[ponderingturtle]

I wouldn't call it ridiculous: EMF is capable of causing cancer. The mechanism has plenty of prior plausibility as far as I'm concerned.

The debate is around whether the handsets produce emf in sufficient intensity or quality to produce an increased risk of cancer. I think there's too many variables involved, so a debunking is difficult from the mechanism direction. In this circumstance, I think we have to examine the research and go from there.

Why is the RF radiation causing cancer plausible and homeopathy isn't?

It seems like it is that you understand why homeopathy is impossible but don't quite understand why FR radiation causing chemical reactions is impossible(well asside from heating effects)

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not sure I was: I actually started by saying that it's very hard to reject claims based on mechanism's prior probability. I do treat homeopathy's prior probability as weaker for the following reason:

So basically if someone proposed homeopathy now you would think it worthy of research then?

At this point, homeopathy's claim is pretty obviously magical - that a sample of the matrix' properties are altered by the intention of the preparer.

This seems to be a way to reject well designed studies showing it doesn't work.

It does not speak at all to the fundamental issue of is homeopathy so ridiculous that it can be discounted with out testing.

This is how they rationalize the salespitch there are beneficial effects, but no detrimental effects: that the matrix absorbs good intentions of the preparer.

This is not a mechanism that has precedence in any way, whereas emf causing cancer is documented.

EMF causing cancer is not exactly correct either, it is highly energetic photons that cause cancer not simple fields.(MRI's are not a cancer risk, CT scans are because CT scans use x Rays and that is ionizing radiation)

This seems to be like you are treating any thing using the idea that some form of radiation exists to claim it is harmful because it is radiation.

Homeopathy is more ridiculous to the average layperson when they explain its details, but that is because people are used to the idea that the more you take of a real drug the stronger the effects are. The nature of the amount of energy individual photons have is not something that the general public understands as well.

This would seem then a good way to teach the physics involved and why it doesn't matter how strong the signal is, if it is 33 cm it will not cause chemical reactions other than possibly heating the sample

[blutoski]

Why is the RF radiation causing cancer plausible and homeopathy isn't?

I'm sort of repeating myself now: the key word there is 'plausible' - rf does cause cancer, although it's unlikely in this case based on reasonable assumptions - whereas the currently proposed mechanism for homeopathy is pretty magical thinking and has no precedent.



It seems like it is that you understand why homeopathy is impossible but don't quite understand why FR radiation causing chemical reactions is impossible(well asside from heating effects)

I think you've captured the distinction, yes. It's no small observation that thermal effects are both predicted and measured in vivo, and we're dealing with calculations about how much heating, which is a very different than proposing a magical mechanism.






So basically if someone proposed homeopathy now you would think it worthy of research then?

No: homeopathy has actually become less and less plausible over time as its explanatory framework has shifted from pseudoscience to magic.




This seems to be a way to reject well designed studies showing it doesn't work.

No, I would argue that the studies are the starting point. I don't know how you'd come to this conclusion, so I'm missing some of your reasoning steps here.



It does not speak at all to the fundamental issue of is homeopathy so ridiculous that it can be discounted with out testing.

Again, I think I've lost context. "It"?




EMF causing cancer is not exactly correct either, it is highly energetic photons that cause cancer not simple fields.(MRI's are not a cancer risk, CT scans are because CT scans use x Rays and that is ionizing radiation)

This seems to be like you are treating any thing using the idea that some form of radiation exists to claim it is harmful because it is radiation.

Mm. Not really... I'm saying that in the universe of prior probability, some things are more credible than others and I do consider homeopathy's magical mechanism of action for healing to be weaker than the cellphone freaks' radiation mechanism of action for brain cancer.




Homeopathy is more ridiculous to the average layperson when they explain its details, but that is because people are used to the idea that the more you take of a real drug the stronger the effects are.

That's sort of iffy. The original ideas that founded homeopathy were related to vaccination and hormesis. Homeopathy is a weak analogue to these, but at the time there was a higher level of plausibility. Vaccination 'worked' by exposing the patient to a mild version of something that produces similar symptoms (specifically, giving somebody a small amount of vaccinia virus instead of smallpox virus, because it's similar and causes similar syptoms - lead to law of similars and law of dilution).

But over the years, a lot of magical thinking has developed, and it's less a pseudoscience today than it is more a new age religion.




The nature of the amount of energy individual photons have is not something that the general public understands as well.

This would seem then a good way to teach the physics involved and why it doesn't matter how strong the signal is, if it is 33 cm it will not cause chemical reactions other than possibly heating the sample

Granted, but at least the currently proposed mechanism of action for cellphone-cancer link is speaking to the confirmed heating effect. I'm sure it's wrong, but in terms of wackiness, it's whole orders of magnitude away from homeopathy. An analogous homeopathic-like mechanism for cellphone-cancer link would be that cellphones cause cancer because the guys running the cellphone factory want their users to get sick, so the cellphones 'remember' the intention.

[blauregen]

So you really think that there is new physics in the interactions of atoms and RF radiation, that is going to be discovered because of this?


I really wouldn't rule out the possibility of the world being more tricky than it is currently understood.


The thing is that newtonian physics is a aproximation of relativistic physics, so in replaceing it, it just took one term that was thought not to vary and showed that in extreme conditions it does vary.


And I cannot rule out that under yet unusual conditions relativistic physics is merely a approximation of a more inclusive therory.


So you are suggesting that dillutions of 10^200 are somewhere that new physics will turn up?


No, especially for homeopathy i think we now have enough controlled tests and reviews that we can safely discard the claimed phenomena as misinterpretation or the results of methodical errors. As a matter of principle though ......


So you are arguing that we really need to test if stuff will suddenly fall up becuase that would cause all kinds of safety problems with cars?

... if it is widely claimed that certain phenomena exist, we owe it to our own scrutiny to test the hypothesis and to try to reproduce the claimed phenomena. If a lot of people claim that rocks suddenly fall up, we have to investigate. Either we cannot reproduce upward falling rocks under the proposed conditions, then we are in the clear. Or we can reproduce upward falling rocks, in which case we should take a look at our current working model and see why it didn't predict upward falling rocks.

It was widely claimed that homeopathic remedies are effective and there was a hypothesis about their working principle. The hypothesis was tested and falsified beyond reasonable doubt, so our current understanding still seems to model reality sufficiently.

However, to tie this back to the initial post, before it was tested either the proposed hypothesis or our current understanding could have been wrong. From this you have to discard it on the ground of no observable phenomena, not on the ground of it not fitting into our current understanding.

[blutoski]

However, to tie this back to the initial post, before it was tested either the proposed hypothesis or our current understanding could have been wrong. From this you have to discard it on the ground of no observable phenomena, not on the ground of it not fitting into our current understanding.

There are exceptions of course: you can sometimes dismiss claims by demonstrating that there is an interntal contradiction, rather than a contradiction with established facts.

Galileo's dismissal of heavier masses falling faster than lighter ones, for example, was accomplished by thought experiment alone.

There's also the problem of resource allocation, which is where Ockham's Razor comes in. There is an infinite number of crackpot ideas out there, and while the responsibility lies on the claimant, there is the nagging feeling that the conservative critic is also making a claim that the established framework's historicity makes the new proposal impossible merits defending.

Sometimes you do have to take a bird's eye view of the claim and work from the plausibility side. Specifically, if it appears that there are too many pieces of supporting evidence to ever dismiss, and if the evidence doesn't actually lend itself to a mechanism.

This is Kurtz' primary criticism of psi: the researchers keep churning out these bric-a-brac experimental results but there's no connection to mechanism to even discuss, and debunking an experiment just means they remove one from the inventory. Yet, no progress is made... this can be explained by stepping back and positing that the experiments are nowhere near as informative as comparing mechanisms. The skeptic would suggest self-deception.

[luchog]

But if you are debunking homeopathy, is it better to explain various studies where it didn't work, or explain basic chemistry and show why it can not work?
It really depends on who you're talking to. The problem with the latter is that it often requires far too much time and education, for people who really aren't interested in being educated.

I was chatting with a friend shortly after What the Bleep Do We Know came out, and she was questioning my criticism of their gross misuse of quantum mechanics. I tried to explain why it was wrong, and found that she was understanding nothing I was saying. I had to keep explaining simpler and simpler concepts, because she had almost no knowledge of even the most basic principles of physics and the physical sciences in general. In the end, it was simply not possible to explain to her why it was all BS, because she lacked even the most fundamental frame of reference.

For the vast majority of people, you'd need to provide the sort of education that would normally take about a year at university in order to demonstrate why it can't work, as opposed to pointing out a few studies that show even to the scientifically ignorant that it in fact doesn't work.

[ponderingturtle]

I'm sort of repeating myself now: the key word there is 'plausible' - rf does cause cancer, although it's unlikely in this case based on reasonable assumptions - whereas the currently proposed mechanism for homeopathy is pretty magical thinking and has no precedent.


Wrong, RF does not cause cancer. EM radiation can cause cancer, but not in the Radio Frequency wavelengths.

I am not trying to insult you, but you really do seem to be using terms you don't really understand.


I think you've captured the distinction, yes. It's no small observation that thermal effects are both predicted and measured in vivo, and we're dealing with calculations about how much heating, which is a very different than proposing a magical mechanism.

So now hot baths cause cancer? Touching hot things causes cancer?

You can feel heat pretty well, and no one notices any heating from a cellphone. So a hot pad it a bigger risk of heat related issues.



No, I would argue that the studies are the starting point. I don't know how you'd come to this conclusion, so I'm missing some of your reasoning steps here.

Look when you believe in something and a well designed experiment fails you need an explanation, that is why skeptics ruin dowsing for example.




Mm. Not really... I'm saying that in the universe of prior probability, some things are more credible than others and I do consider homeopathy's magical mechanism of action for healing to be weaker than the cellphone freaks' radiation mechanism of action for brain cancer.

And I am saying that they are pretty equal, both require very well established science to be thrown out.



That's sort of iffy. The original ideas that founded homeopathy were related to vaccination and hormesis. Homeopathy is a weak analogue to these, but at the time there was a higher level of plausibility. Vaccination 'worked' by exposing the patient to a mild version of something that produces similar symptoms (specifically, giving somebody a small amount of vaccinia virus instead of smallpox virus, because it's similar and causes similar syptoms - lead to law of similars and law of dilution).

I will grant that, because the science that shows that homeopathy was not developed then.


Granted, but at least the currently proposed mechanism of action for cellphone-cancer link is speaking to the confirmed heating effect. I'm sure it's wrong, but in terms of wackiness, it's whole orders of magnitude away from homeopathy. An analogous homeopathic-like mechanism for cellphone-cancer link would be that cellphones cause cancer because the guys running the cellphone factory want their users to get sick, so the cellphones 'remember' the intention.

And if heating causes cancer there are all kinds of major risks like hot coffee that would entirely out shine a cellphone in terms of risk increase.

[ponderingturtle]

I really wouldn't rule out the possibility of the world being more tricky than it is currently understood.

I am not

And I cannot rule out that under yet unusual conditions relativistic physics is merely a approximation of a more inclusive therory.

It likely is, what ever a GUT turns out to be correct.

But the area where we know that it holds is the area concerned about for these predictions.



No, especially for homeopathy i think we now have enough controlled tests and reviews that we can safely discard the claimed phenomena as misinterpretation or the results of methodical errors. As a matter of principle though ......

SO the fact that it makes as much sense as things falling up doesn't enter into your reasoning at all?



However, to tie this back to the initial post, before it was tested either the proposed hypothesis or our current understanding could have been wrong. From this you have to discard it on the ground of no observable phenomena, not on the ground of it not fitting into our current understanding.

Why are you reject it becuase of negative tests? But refuse to reject it when previous tests show that the whole idea is ridiculus?

It seems that you can never stop testing, because ignoring all your previous tests, makes as much sense as ignoring all the tests that support chemistry and physics?

[ponderingturtle]

It really depends on who you're talking to. The problem with the latter is that it often requires far too much time and education, for people who really aren't interested in being educated.

I was chatting with a friend shortly after What the Bleep Do We Know came out, and she was questioning my criticism of their gross misuse of quantum mechanics. I tried to explain why it was wrong, and found that she was understanding nothing I was saying. I had to keep explaining simpler and simpler concepts, because she had almost no knowledge of even the most basic principles of physics and the physical sciences in general. In the end, it was simply not possible to explain to her why it was all BS, because she lacked even the most fundamental frame of reference.

For the vast majority of people, you'd need to provide the sort of education that would normally take about a year at university in order to demonstrate why it can't work, as opposed to pointing out a few studies that show even to the scientifically ignorant that it in fact doesn't work.

The problem is that this doesn't really solve anything, becuase you have so many bad studies showing that they do work. So you have to explain why some studies are more valuable than others.

There is no way out of education.

[blutoski]

There is no way out of education.

I know some students who feel that way. :)

I think maybe you meant that there was no way to reduce widespread beliefs in these pseudoscientific ideas, except for education.

The problem is that the data says you're wrong. That's why I started that other thread asking people to explain why we keep saying we need to teach science education and/or critical thinking, when studies show it does not protect people from pseudo-science.

I'm very willing to review any data offered, and want to change my mind on this.

[blutoski]

Wrong, RF does not cause cancer. EM radiation can cause cancer, but not in the Radio Frequency wavelengths.

I am not trying to insult you, but you really do seem to be using terms you don't really understand.

It's more that I'm writing these responses during a boring meeting at work.



So now hot baths cause cancer? Touching hot things causes cancer?

You can feel heat pretty well, and no one notices any heating from a cellphone. So a hot pad it a bigger risk of heat related issues.

And I am saying that they are pretty equal, both require very well established science to be thrown out.

Again, that's why prior plausibility is a gradient. I did a thesis about how retrotransposons and retroviruses relate, and when the conclusion was accepted, "well established science had to be thrown out." Despite this expected consequence, I think my thesis had a lot of prior plausibility. There's a difference between updating our knowledge about what kind or intensity or what particular quality of em emissions can cause cancer under what circumstances versus accepting that a maker's intention can be captured in an object, which is magic.

If you're not getting this, I don't see any point in continuing.



And if heating causes cancer there are all kinds of major risks like hot coffee that would entirely out shine a cellphone in terms of risk increase.

Depends on the qualitative aspects. My wife points out that some of the worst toxins are relatively harmless in large doses because the body has reflexes to move out of the way, vomits it out, forms a cyst or scars quickly (acids, for example). Small doses over time are what kill you in these examples. Sometimes there are just too many variables and life's full of surprises.

[blauregen]

SO the fact that it makes as much sense as things falling up doesn't enter into your reasoning at all?


From an economic point of view it does. For a lot of paranormal claims, be it psi, homeopathy or abducting aliens the available evidence is in my opinion too weak to support intense research. It could be justified by widespread belief and possible harm coming from it, which incidentally seems written on the banners of the sceptics movement. But that's more testing für educational purposes. After all, the negative tests could have had methodical errors too.


Why are you reject it becuase of negative tests? But refuse to reject it when previous tests show that the whole idea is ridiculus?


Because the premises for the conclusion that it makes no sense could be wrong. In the 17th century for example a widespread premise in the then scientific community was that aside from your usual celestial bodies ( sun, planets, moons ) the solar system is empty or filled with some kind of ether. With this premise rocks falling from the sky did make no sense at all, because there are no rocks in the sky and eye witness accounts were mostly regarded as hallucinations or fairy tales.

It didn't help that rocks falling from the sky are pretty rare, and that hardly any reputable scientist observed them.

When in 1790 and 1794 several hundred people witnessed rocks falling from the sky, this became a little difficult to maintain and because the solar system was still assumed to be widely empty, interresting theories about particles condensing during a thunderstorm or birds hit by lightning developed.

'Doesn't make sense' is only a valid statement in a given axiomatic context. 'No observable phenomenon' doesn't suffer from this restriction. There still may be something, but since we can't observe either the thing itself nor any effects on observable phenomena it doesn't matter.

[ponderingturtle]

I know some students who feel that way. :)

I think maybe you meant that there was no way to reduce widespread beliefs in these pseudoscientific ideas, except for education.

My point was useing studies does instead of teaching the science just changes the nature of what you are educating the public in. For studies to be convincing they need to understand statistics and the problem of how bad studies do not produce meaningful results.

As this is something that is useful to possible and impossible claims, it might be a more useful avenue of education than why science says homeopathy or RF radiation causing cancer is silly.

The problem is that the data says you're wrong. That's why I started that other thread asking people to explain why we keep saying we need to teach science education and/or critical thinking, when studies show it does not protect people from pseudo-science.

I'm very willing to review any data offered, and want to change my mind on this.

How well various methods work is not why I started this thread though, I was wondering about why the approach was chosen in these cases. That would not seem to be against any particular method of refuting these claims but the futility of refuting these claims.

[ponderingturtle]

Again, that's why prior plausibility is a gradient. I did a thesis about how retrotransposons and retroviruses relate, and when the conclusion was accepted, "well established science had to be thrown out." Despite this expected consequence, I think my thesis had a lot of prior plausibility. There's a difference between updating our knowledge about what kind or intensity or what particular quality of em emissions can cause cancer under what circumstances versus accepting that a maker's intention can be captured in an object, which is magic.

If you're not getting this, I don't see any point in continuing.

How well established? Are we talking on the level of the testing of the photo electric effect and the like?

What fundamental ways in which matter and energy interact where changed?


Depends on the qualitative aspects. My wife points out that some of the worst toxins are relatively harmless in large doses because the body has reflexes to move out of the way, vomits it out, forms a cyst or scars quickly (acids, for example). Small doses over time are what kill you in these examples. Sometimes there are just too many variables and life's full of surprises.

Yes, that is why herbal medicines can not be rejected out of hand as impossible. That is very different than needing to posit fundamentally new ways in which matter and energy can interact.

[ponderingturtle]

Because the premises for the conclusion that it makes no sense could be wrong. In the 17th century for example a widespread premise in the then scientific community was that aside from your usual celestial bodies ( sun, planets, moons ) the solar system is empty or filled with some kind of ether. With this premise rocks falling from the sky did make no sense at all, because there are no rocks in the sky and eye witness accounts were mostly regarded as hallucinations or fairy tales.

The thing is that the Ether hypothosis was not really well supported, in the way that the photoelectric effect is well supported.

It was thought of because light was thought of as a wave, and waves need some material to travel in.

In part the photoelectric effect proving that light comes in descreate quantized parts shows that the assumptions that underpinned the ether hypothosis was wrong.