At the heart of my crusade...

athon · 8th September 2003, 04:13 AM

A bit dramatic, I know.

But at the heart of my own personal passion for the world to become critical in its view of pseudo-science is not a wish for people to abandon exploring the possibilities of the 'absurd'. I would shout just as loud if we were to ban testing homeopathy, or to ignore naturopathy. If scientists were to shun any notion of acupuncture, or if there were laws preventing researchers from investigating the potential magnets could play in affecting biological mechanisms, I would be just as vocal as I am now.

At the heart of my crusade is for the world to not so much as neglect the mystical and the paranormal, but to not establish it as reliable science without due evidence. Advocates for homeopathy claim it can indeed influence a person's immune system. All well and good, but how does it do this? What does it effect, how does it accomplish it, what drugs does it contradict, enchance or change? Can you overdose on it? Does age play a role?

These questions might be asked of any 'alternative' health science.

As for remote viewing - if it is unreliable, why rely on it?

Many, many so-called 'new' sciences, based on old mysticisms, may indeed be based on real science. But why should we treat them as solid fact, using them as if they are, when they are not?

The quest for understanding, for objective truth, should never be abandoned. But until those foundations are made strong through the use of science, society should not dare to build its walls upon it.

Athon

(maybe I shouldn't have another coffee...)

SquishyDave · 8th September 2003, 07:48 PM

You make a good point, everyone I know thinks I dismiss all the newagey stuff, while I do dimsiss the small amount that has been disproved, (what constitutes disproof for me isn't always universal) almost all of it just needs to be looked at properly. I need to try to change how I talk so I sound more like what you said.

Yahzi · 8th September 2003, 08:09 PM

The heart of my crusade is to get people to acknowledge that being rational is a good idea. Not sometimes, like Tuesdays, or when you are balancing your checkbook: all the time.

Zep · 8th September 2003, 09:04 PM

I agree pretty much absolutely.

However there comes a time when it becomes clear that SOME theories no longer apply, that SOME substances simply do not do what is claimed for them, and that SOME people do not possess the "powers" they claim they have, etc.

Hence the question: How long and how many times do we need to test something before we agree it does not meet its claims?

For example, I would have be more than willing to allow that there will be "wonder drugs" coming from studies into "native medicine plants" that we have not seen yet. And that it is possible that some plants previously considered innocuous may yield new and useful drugs. But claims of levitation, or bending spoons by mind-power, and so on, are becoming more and more silly and irrelevant as times goes by.

SquishyDave · 8th September 2003, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zep
For example, I would have be more than willing to allow that there will be "wonder drugs" coming from studies into "native medicine plants" that we have not seen yet. And that it is possible that some plants previously considered innocuous may yield new and useful drugs. But claims of levitation, or bending spoons by mind-power, and so on, are becoming more and more silly and irrelevant as times goes by.

Thats pretty much exactly what I meant too. That being said I won't take herbal medicine without something to go on in the way of eficacy tests and possible side effects listed, and this sometimes comes across as "I think it will never work", not "I am just uncomfortable at sticking unknown junk in my body, but thanks for the offer".

athon · 8th September 2003, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zep
I agree pretty much absolutely.

However there comes a time when it becomes clear that SOME theories no longer apply, that SOME substances simply do not do what is claimed for them, and that SOME people do not possess the "powers" they claim they have, etc.

True, but there is a danger within this that abandoning a concept for good could be throwing away potentially good information. If a notion is kept alive, even by rehashing the same old ideas that have shown nothing before - and probably will again - perhaps one day it might be seen in a unique light with new technology, that might give something new.

Yes time and money might have been 'wasted'. But for what it's worth, I don't see it as a waste really.

If somebody wants to experiment with homeopathy for the millionth time, let them. If they want to use homeopathy, stop them.

Athon

8th September 2003, 04:13 AM	#1
athon Kowalski Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: gone Posts: 9,286	At the heart of my crusade... A bit dramatic, I know. But at the heart of my own personal passion for the world to become critical in its view of pseudo-science is not a wish for people to abandon exploring the possibilities of the 'absurd'. I would shout just as loud if we were to ban testing homeopathy, or to ignore naturopathy. If scientists were to shun any notion of acupuncture, or if there were laws preventing researchers from investigating the potential magnets could play in affecting biological mechanisms, I would be just as vocal as I am now. At the heart of my crusade is for the world to not so much as neglect the mystical and the paranormal, but to not establish it as reliable science without due evidence. Advocates for homeopathy claim it can indeed influence a person's immune system. All well and good, but how does it do this? What does it effect, how does it accomplish it, what drugs does it contradict, enchance or change? Can you overdose on it? Does age play a role? These questions might be asked of any 'alternative' health science. As for remote viewing - if it is unreliable, why rely on it? Many, many so-called 'new' sciences, based on old mysticisms, may indeed be based on real science. But why should we treat them as solid fact, using them as if they are, when they are not? The quest for understanding, for objective truth, should never be abandoned. But until those foundations are made strong through the use of science, society should not dare to build its walls upon it. Athon (maybe I shouldn't have another coffee...)

8th September 2003, 07:48 PM	#2
SquishyDave Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2003 Location: Canberra Posts: 1,644	You make a good point, everyone I know thinks I dismiss all the newagey stuff, while I do dimsiss the small amount that has been disproved, (what constitutes disproof for me isn't always universal) almost all of it just needs to be looked at properly. I need to try to change how I talk so I sound more like what you said.
	__________________ Squishy doesn't irritate the hell out of me. - Quester_X

8th September 2003, 08:09 PM	#3
Yahzi Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: AZ Posts: 2,672	The heart of my crusade is to get people to acknowledge that being rational is a good idea. Not sometimes, like Tuesdays, or when you are balancing your checkbook: all the time.
	__________________ ID lives in a cardboard refrigerator box and throws rocks through the windows of evolution's unfinished mansion. ---Beleth Buy my book! www.WorldOfPrime.com

8th September 2003, 09:04 PM	#4
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985	I agree pretty much absolutely. However there comes a time when it becomes clear that SOME theories no longer apply, that SOME substances simply do not do what is claimed for them, and that SOME people do not possess the "powers" they claim they have, etc. Hence the question: How long and how many times do we need to test something before we agree it does not meet its claims? For example, I would have be more than willing to allow that there will be "wonder drugs" coming from studies into "native medicine plants" that we have not seen yet. And that it is possible that some plants previously considered innocuous may yield new and useful drugs. But claims of levitation, or bending spoons by mind-power, and so on, are becoming more and more silly and irrelevant as times goes by.
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985

8th September 2003, 10:01 PM	#5
SquishyDave Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2003 Location: Canberra Posts: 1,644	Quote: Originally posted by Zep For example, I would have be more than willing to allow that there will be "wonder drugs" coming from studies into "native medicine plants" that we have not seen yet. And that it is possible that some plants previously considered innocuous may yield new and useful drugs. But claims of levitation, or bending spoons by mind-power, and so on, are becoming more and more silly and irrelevant as times goes by. Thats pretty much exactly what I meant too. That being said I won't take herbal medicine without something to go on in the way of eficacy tests and possible side effects listed, and this sometimes comes across as "I think it will never work", not "I am just uncomfortable at sticking unknown junk in my body, but thanks for the offer".
	__________________ Squishy doesn't irritate the hell out of me. - Quester_X

8th September 2003, 11:22 PM	#6
athon Kowalski Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: gone Posts: 9,286	Quote: Originally posted by Zep I agree pretty much absolutely. However there comes a time when it becomes clear that SOME theories no longer apply, that SOME substances simply do not do what is claimed for them, and that SOME people do not possess the "powers" they claim they have, etc. True, but there is a danger within this that abandoning a concept for good could be throwing away potentially good information. If a notion is kept alive, even by rehashing the same old ideas that have shown nothing before - and probably will again - perhaps one day it might be seen in a unique light with new technology, that might give something new. Yes time and money might have been 'wasted'. But for what it's worth, I don't see it as a waste really. If somebody wants to experiment with homeopathy for the millionth time, let them. If they want to use homeopathy, stop them. Athon