PDA

View Full Version : presiding over the demise of ....


bvw12
6th June 2004, 02:17 PM
I was talking to a neighbor awhile ago – he happens to be a research scientist – and I mentioned how frustrated I was with always having to fill the water trays on the radiators, because the water kept evaporating so fast. He said he’d heard people had that problem – though he never experienced it himself, as he had central heating – but it sounded like a goofy notion, so he set up an experiment and observed trays of water, and found that they never evaporated. I was astonished, and said that was ridiculous.

‘no,’ he said, ‘not really – I run into this sort of thing all the time: there are lots of anecdotal stories about this thing or that thing, but when you set up a rigorous scientific study to see what’s going on, in turns out that nobody can ever demonstrate the process.’

‘this is stupid,’ I said. ‘What do you mean, the water never evaporates?’

‘just what I said,’ he said.

‘maybe you didn’t wait long enough,’ I said.

‘what is long enough?’ he replied.

‘well that depends,’ I said, ‘on how much water you start out with, how much water is exposed on the surface, the temperature in the room, the moisture already in the air ….’

‘hold on!’ my friend demanded. ‘just give me a straight answer without all this hedging: what is “long enough.” That was you’re statement, that I had to wait ‘long enough,’ now just tell me how long that is, give me a definite number, something that will work every time.’

‘this is ridiculous,’ I said, ‘i’m not wasting any more time on this with you – you know, everyone knows evaporation occurs, so why bother talking about it.’

‘you may be convinced it occurs, but you have to be able to show it,’ my friend responded. ‘in my trials, btw, I’ve even gone out of my way to be extra fair to you guys, for example, just to be sure no water spills out of your trays, I’ve covered your trays and sealed them against leaks.’

‘hmmm?’ I said, eyebrows araising a bit.

‘that’s right. And I left the placebo controlled group of trays uncovered, which should certainly give you the advantage.’

‘ummm,’ I said, ‘in that situation, I’d actually be surprised if evaporation even performed as well as placebo!’

my friend laughed uproariously. ‘you just don’t understand placebo, do you?’ he asked sarcastically.

‘on the contrary,’ I responded, ‘you don’t seem to understand evaporation.’

‘doesn’t matter,’ he said with an air of finality. ‘I don’t need to understand something to be able to measure it.’

And he walked away, enshrouded with an aura of triumph.

meanwhile, i finished cleaning up my golf clubs. i had a match against tiger woods set up, and i was really quite confident i'd beat him: a 30 stroke handicap for me, and a 10 pound lead weight attached to each of his hands. he was verum, i was placebo, and the bookies were voting for me! :p

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

You know, you guys are in the unenviable position of presiding over the greatest debacle in the history of modern science. Although I wouldn’t want to be the goat, as you guys are, at least you’re contributing the basis for an important new understanding in scientific experimental research: that it is not merely reliability with which we should be concerned, but also credibility. Both are required, before heuristic value can be attributed to your outcomes. Your discipline is more exacting than you realize.

Prester John
6th June 2004, 02:33 PM
Hello friend bach, thats told the skeptics what for, i'm glad we have such a strong intellect as you on our side, your mangling of language will confuse them to pieces. I understand you are not actually a homeopath. I on the other hand am a homeopath in the UK, perhaps you are interested in one of my chemical analogue homeopathic remedies ?

In the meantime perhaps you can bend your genius and help me formulate answer to the questions on this thread.....

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40064

Together Brother.

Eos of the Eons
6th June 2004, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by bvw12

You know, you guys are in the unenviable position of presiding over the greatest debacle in the history of modern science. Although I wouldn’t want to be the goat, as you guys are, at least you’re contributing the basis for an important new understanding in scientific experimental research: that it is not merely reliability with which we should be concerned, but also credibility. Both are required, before heuristic value can be attributed to your outcomes. Your discipline is more exacting than you realize.

What debacle? No research scientist would claim he set up an experiment where the water didn't evaporate unless the containers the water was in were completely sealed. Your analogy really sucks.

I know some "researchers" like viera scheibner who has a phd in geology-she calls herself "doctor" and also has read up on naturopathy a bit. Her research is the least scientific I have ever seen.

I'm guessing the research scientist in your scenario was a homeopath? That's the only type of researcher I know that could be so self deluded as to not recognize when a container is devoid of the original substance.

edited to spell researchers correctly.

Zep
6th June 2004, 08:20 PM
Yep, sure. Us scientists are all headed down the gurgler. We're toast and just not credible in the face of stories like this. Nothing can stand in the way of a good anecdote. Nothing at all. Not even reality. It's the most powerful scientific tool there is. Why, even Kent Hovind (www.drdino.com) uses anecdotes and he's so incedibly scientific and credible, so it MUST be true!

Oh, before you go on, bvw12, could you please answer a question for me? Should be easy enough for you.

There is anecdotal evidence of a specific phenomenon that has been seen and believed by billions of people over tens of thousands of years, right up to today. Would this enormous weight and currency of this anecdotal evidence make this phenomenon true for you too?

Badly Shaved Monkey
7th June 2004, 12:56 AM
Well done Bach. Two posts: one containing an impressive strawman and the other a classic avoidance of dealing with the questions you cannot answer.

I'll bet you can't go back to the 'Questions' thread and actually answer them.

p.s. Do you recognise one of the Sig lines?

Rolfe
7th June 2004, 04:21 AM
Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
What debacle? No research scientist would claim he set up an experiment where the water didn't evaporate unless the containers the water was in were completely sealed. .... Ah, Eos, unless you've been following Bach's (hey, Bach, didn't you mean "BWV"?) impenetrable logic on H'pathy, you've no idea what's in store for you here!

Bach believes homoeopathic remedies have a very striking curative effect. He has repeatedly stated that he cannot, even as a thought experiment or a hypothesis, even contemplate the possibility that this is not so. He is therefore faced with a bit of a quandary - why does this striking effect not show up in clinical trials? Well, it's obvious. Given that we have stated our basic premise, that the effects of the remedies are real, the problem must be with the clinical trial.

He has killed squillions of innocent electrons on H'pathy declaring that the placebo-controlled trial is a flawed process. He has likened it to trying to measure time with a ruler. When the fallacy of that was pointed out to him, he changed it to trying to measure distance with a yardstick with 37 divisions. When BSM pointed out to him that you'd still get perfectly precise and repeatable (if inaccurate) figures from that, it became a yardstick with 37 uneven divisions, then one that has 37 uneven divisions that move around all the time.

He likes these analogies, and preens himself for having found in them the killer argument, but he can't even begin to explain in what way the analogies even begin to be applicable to the process he's criticising.

Bach is a hard-core believer, whom no facts will sway. He also has a very high opinion of his own meagre intellectual abilities, and a very low opinion of the many PhDs and other experienced scientists who have tried to debate with him. I anticipate an amusing exchange, but I don't imagine anything constructive will come of it.

Rolfe.

ktesibios
7th June 2004, 09:13 PM
A question from an ignorant layman:

Why is it that when controlled trials are used in situations involving measurable doses of real substances, they've racked up a long (here I'm thinking of, say, Pasteur's 19th-century test of immunizing animals against anthrax) track record of clearly sorting "works" from "don't work" and "works better" from "don't work as well", but become "flawed" and inconclusive when applied to magic water? How the @#$% can a method know whether to hide or reveal reality?

Zombified
7th June 2004, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by Rolfe
He has likened it to trying to measure time with a ruler.As of 1983, the meter was defined as the distance light goes in 1/299792458th of a second, so in fact, you measure distance with a stopwatch, but if your ruler is calibrated, you can measure time with it working backwards.

1 second is, of course, the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation of the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of cesium 133. :D

Eos of the Eons
7th June 2004, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by Rolfe
Ah, Eos, unless you've been following Bach's (hey, Bach, didn't you mean "BWV"?) impenetrable logic on H'pathy, you've no idea what's in store for you here!
Given that we have stated our basic premise, that the effects of the remedies are real, the problem must be with the clinical trial.

Rolfe.

I get ya!! Kinda sounded like the sort, given that disgraceful little story posted.

Zep
7th June 2004, 11:39 PM
OK, bach or bvw12 or whatever your name is. Don't run away - you have some explaining to do.

At the risk of self-aggrandisement, here's my own question to you from above. Care to answer it?

Thank you
zep
Originally posted by Zep
Oh, before you go on, bvw12, could you please answer a question for me? Should be easy enough for you.

There is anecdotal evidence of a specific phenomenon that has been seen and believed by billions of people over tens of thousands of years, right up to today. Would this enormous weight and currency of this anecdotal evidence make this phenomenon true for you too?