A dialogue on acupuncture

[Asolepius]

According to your logic, nothing you said should be accepted, because it is anecdotal. Until proper scientific testing and research on your ideas has been published, and peer reviewed, checked for bias, and the studies replicated and reviewed, nothing you said can be considered at all.

In fact, we can't even be sure you exist. There is no evidence. Just because words appear here, there is no evidence anyone wrote them. This screen and these words might be an illusion. If science and skeptics don't approve something, it isn't real.

So don't trust what you experience, only in authorities who know better than you. This is the path to wisdom.

Now that's a bit silly. Anecdotal evidence can be useful, but only as a signpost to the need for controlled studies. The medical journals carry lots of case reports, which usually conclude with a call for proper research. You need to understand the difference between indicative and definitive evidence.

 

[ponderingturtle]

According to your logic, nothing you said should be accepted, because it is anecdotal. Until proper scientific testing and research on your ideas has been published, and peer reviewed, checked for bias, and the studies replicated and reviewed, nothing you said can be considered at all.

Yes. Because it is so easy for people to fool themselves or others when no effect or even a harmful effect from the thing took place. Anecdote might show what is worth looking into. But it is not evidence, or how much enzyte and other Natural Male Enhancement should be purchased? There is plenty of anecdote that says they work.

And why haven't you drilled a hole in your head? Trepanation is the best way to improve inteligence by increaseing blood flow to the brain. People have done it at home with a power drill. Why don't you try it?

In fact, we can't even be sure you exist. There is no evidence. Just because words appear here, there is no evidence anyone wrote them. This screen and these words might be an illusion. If science and skeptics don't approve something, it isn't real.

If you want to fly out here and meet me I will be happy to meet you.

So don't trust what you experience, only in authorities who know better than you. This is the path to wisdom.

No it is the path to knowledge, because you can not possibly run all the proper tests to determine the effect of everything for your self.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Now that's a bit silly. Anecdotal evidence can be useful, but only as a signpost to the need for controlled studies. The medical journals carry lots of case reports, which usually conclude with a call for proper research. You need to understand the difference between indicative and definitive evidence.

But how will we get him to be like Dr. Bart Huges and get him into self Trepanation?

 

[robinson]

Hello Asolepius

Now that's a bit silly. Anecdotal evidence can be useful, but only as a signpost to the need for controlled studies. The medical journals carry lots of case reports, which usually conclude with a call for proper research. You need to understand the difference between indicative and definitive evidence.

It was meant to sound silly.

I had a conversation a lot like this, in real life, with a very intelligent and logical person. A retired MIT graduate, with a lifetime of hard science and research under the belt, yadda yadda yadda.

When we got to practical matters, his mind seemed to lock up, and he got emotional and angry, because logic and science breaks down at the practical level of human being.

I watched an illogical treatment for a headache the other day, one I didn't know about, and it was obvious it worked. The person suffering I know well, and this person can't fake anything, muich less headache relief in about 5 minutes. (no, it wasn't drugs silly).

I figured out the science behind it in a flash, but before I saw it done, I didn't believe it. It would be insanity to claim it didn't work. But it would also be illogical to claim it works for everybody, or any headache. But a true scientist can learn from observing. Its not anecdotal if I observe something, and devise a theory from observing.

That is science. And it also science to devise a way to either show this method is valid, or to explain how it works. Science does both, all the time. Now I'm not defending acupuncture with this logic, I am observing something I see here at the JREF a lot. The tendency to discount observation and experience of other skeptics.

It seems to be a human trait, one I posses as well.

As to the headache treatment, (it would be considered woo by some), it was taught by a College, the person doing it had a license to do it, and clearly had done it before. It was obvious it worked. It was science, not placebo, yet my observation counts for nothing to the fool who doesn't understand how the world works.

Pax humana

 

[robinson]

I open to learning. What do you define as indicative evidence?

 

[Asolepius]

When we got to practical matters, his mind seemed to lock up, and he got emotional and angry, because logic and science breaks down at the practical level of human being.

What do you mean? If logic and science break down as you say, scientists would have a hard time with daily life. That doesn't mean that scientists can't be emotional or appreciate art etc, but logical analysis is central to intelligent life.

I watched an illogical treatment for a headache the other day, one I didn't know about, and it was obvious it worked. The person suffering I know well, and this person can't fake anything, muich less headache relief in about 5 minutes. (no, it wasn't drugs silly).

I figured out the science behind it in a flash, but before I saw it done, I didn't believe it. It would be insanity to claim it didn't work. But it would also be illogical to claim it works for everybody, or any headache. But a true scientist can learn from observing. Its not anecdotal if I observe something, and devise a theory from observing.

Very interesting. If the treatment was illogical, how did you figure out the science in a flash? By inspiration? Guesswork? Has anyone else figured it out? Sorry, but your observation is anecdotal, unless you want to redefine the term. A theory is something else, which has to be tested. Has anyone tested this treatment?

That is science. And it also science to devise a way to either show this method is valid, or to explain how it works. Science does both, all the time. Now I'm not defending acupuncture with this logic, I am observing something I see here at the JREF a lot. The tendency to discount observation and experience of other skeptics.

I think you misunderstand. I am not dismissing out of hand someone's observation, but I am saying that it can't be used to generalise. OK so the headache treatment `worked'. Can you put your hand on your heart and say that nothing else could possibly have been responsible for the effect? Presumably you have heard of post hoc ergo propter hoc? What if the patient's cerebral artery went into slight spasm and was relieved because of biofeedback resulting from the expectation of improvement? Would you know about that?

As to the headache treatment, (it would be considered woo by some), it was taught by a College, the person doing it had a license to do it, and clearly had done it before. It was obvious it worked. It was science, not placebo, yet my observation counts for nothing to the fool who doesn't understand how the world works.

Well I'm sorry to be a wet blanket, but we already have universities awarding degrees in subjects which are blatantly pseudoscience so I'm not a bit impressed with `licences'. What you observed was not science unless it was subjected to the scientific method, which means testing a hypothesis. So how does the world work? Anyone who thinks they know that in its entirety is the fool. Science doesn't know everything, simply because it's the process of finding out - the difference between content and method.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Hello Asolepius



It was meant to sound silly.

I had a conversation a lot like this, in real life, with a very intelligent and logical person. A retired MIT graduate, with a lifetime of hard science and research under the belt, yadda yadda yadda.

When we got to practical matters, his mind seemed to lock up, and he got emotional and angry, because logic and science breaks down at the practical level of human being.

I watched an illogical treatment for a headache the other day, one I didn't know about, and it was obvious it worked. The person suffering I know well, and this person can't fake anything, muich less headache relief in about 5 minutes. (no, it wasn't drugs silly).

Behold the power of suggestion. How often to you go to faith healers? They have much the same results. You can get that even from the ones who are known frauds

I figured out the science behind it in a flash, but before I saw it done, I didn't believe it. It would be insanity to claim it didn't work. But it would also be illogical to claim it works for everybody, or any headache. But a true scientist can learn from observing. Its not anecdotal if I observe something, and devise a theory from observing.

No it wouldn't. They got relief but the source of the relief is indetermined.

 

[Yahzi]

A retired MIT graduate, with a lifetime of hard science and research under the belt, yadda yadda yadda.

When we got to practical matters, his mind seemed to lock up, and he got emotional and angry, because logic and science breaks down at the practical level of human being.

First you dismiss his life-time of experience and education with "yadda yadda yadda." Then you complain he got angry when talking to you about subjects you almost certainly knew nothing about, yet refused to credit his life-time of experience and education on.

Perhaps logic and science don't break down at the practical level of human being. Perhaps logical, scientific people just don't have much patience for rambling air-heads.

I watched an illogical treatment for a headache the other day, one I didn't know about, and it was obvious it worked. The person suffering I know well, and this person can't fake anything, muich less headache relief in about 5 minutes.

And you know some other factor wasn't responsible... how?

The point of a controlled experiment is to remove all the other possible factors. The point of an ancedote - or any one piece of evidence - is that you know something happened, but you don't necessarily know why.

I figured out the science behind it in a flash, but before I saw it done, I didn't believe it.

Ya, that science stuff is easy. Who needs a life-time of hard science research and an education? You can just do science intuitively. I can't imagine why anybody who had spent their life doing science the hard way would find this to be annoying, aggravating, or positively insulting. Can you?

It would be insanity to claim it didn't work.

It would be insanity to suggest that your single observation had not adequately controlled for every possible factor, thus isolating the quack cure as the only possible cause?

But a true scientist can learn from observing. Its not anecdotal if I observe something, and devise a theory from observing.

Again, you just don't understand controls. You don't understand that many, many different factors can affect a result, and that the goal of scientific research is to isolate those factors so you can prove which one is the cause.

You don't understand complexity. You think it's as easy as pouring two chemicals into a test tube and viola! Science! You are apparently so unacquainted with the world that you don't understand how minor factors can combine into major effects behind your back.

You don't understand. And you're not willing to try to understand. And yet you are surprised when professional scientists treat you like an annoying idiot.

 

[robinson]

What do you mean? If logic and science break down as you say, scientists would have a hard time with daily life. That doesn't mean that scientists can't be emotional or appreciate art etc, but logical analysis is central to intelligent life.

Note the post following yours by Yahzi:

You don't understand. And you're not willing to try to understand. And yet you are surprised when professional scientists treat you like an annoying idiot.

Doesn't that sound emotional and irrational? Of course we don't know the emotional state of the author, just the words. If we insisted on scientific research and logic for every conversation or thought, all communication might break down. At a practical level, we don't insist on proof, double blind experiments and peer review before we use things, or do stuff. That would be absurd. It is also not required for many things that are used. If you hold some pseudo-skeptic scientist to their own standards, they often get pissed off. Because they are being asked to do what they insist other must do, to satisfy them.

Doctors get really angry when you point out the lack of double blind experiments and testing for some things they do to people. Especially if it is a procedure that makes them a pile of money. (quick reality check, a double-bypass was billed at $74,536.30, you can't make this stuff up).
Any evidence that a double-bypass is the only option? That it works? Double blind experiments with sham surgery, years of testing, yadda yadda yadda? Of course not. Try running that crap about it could be something else that made the patient feel better, that the surgery isn't safe, its expensive, it hasn't been tested, try accusing them of quackery. See how that logic and science stuff works on a heart surgeon. Same is true for some other procedures and treatments.

And it is real obvious when you experience it happening. A skeptic doesn't just buy what somebody is selling. They want to know stuff, check things out, a skeptic, IMNSHO, doesn't accept everything, doesn't make snap decisions, a skeptic questions stuff. Especially if it is going to bankrupt them.

Or it could be dangerous.

An example of logic not being used, in regards to my MIT story, was when we talked about politics, money, war, and medicine. Any hint that things might not be the way they are painted by ABC News was greeted with an emotional response, not logic, science and the desire to investigate reality. It happens all the time. Even if clear evidence is provided, some people are so attached to their idea of what is real, and that they have a firm hold on it, that they can't stomach any conflicting reports. The history of science is rich with examples.

Some seem to have made "Science" into Dogma, and act like zealots when challenged. Not anyone here of course, but some people.

They turn to personal attacks, rude commentary, joking and even insults when confronted with their lack of understanding, or the simple fact that they don't know everything.


Speaking of, I have no idea what you meant earlier. What do you define as indicative evidence?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Doctors get really angry when you point out the lack of double blind experiments and testing for some things they do to people. Especially if it is a procedure that makes them a pile of money. (quick reality check, a double-bypass was billed at $74,536.30, you can't make this stuff up).
Any evidence that a double-bypass is the only option? That it works? Double blind experiments with sham surgery, years of testing, yadda yadda yadda? Of course not. Try running that crap about it could be something else that made the patient feel better, that the surgery isn't safe, its expensive, it hasn't been tested, try accusing them of quackery. See how that logic and science stuff works on a heart surgeon. Same is true for some other procedures and treatments.

There are other ways to test things with out double blind testing, they are not as good, but good enough for somethings. For example things that can be easily measured dirrectly and don't depend on human reporting, and are not effected by human mood, will have less bias, and so less need of double blind tests

Why have you still refused to drill that hole in your head? I found doctors who recomended it after all. It gives you a permenant high.

And it is real obvious when you experience it happening. A skeptic doesn't just buy what somebody is selling. They want to know stuff, check things out, a skeptic, IMNSHO, doesn't accept everything, doesn't make snap decisions, a skeptic questions stuff. Especially if it is going to bankrupt them.

So you believe in alien abductions, because they are obvious to the people they are happening to as well.

 

[robinson]

Off topic drift occuring ...

Very interesting. If the treatment was illogical, how did you figure out the science in a flash? By inspiration? Guesswork? Has anyone else figured it out?

I said it sounded illogical. Watching it, and seeing the results, led to a scientific understanding of how it worked. It was the same thing before I watched a feather and a lead weight fall in a vacuum. It seemed illogical that a feather would fall as fast. After I saw it, it was easy to figure out the science behind it, to accept the facts. No need for a double blind experiment. See? Some things are easy to figure out, just by watching.

Sorry, but your observation is anecdotal, unless you want to redefine the term. A theory is something else, which has to be tested. Has anyone tested this treatment?

No, my observation was scientific. The theory is easy to test, and of course the treatment has been tested. Just like a balloon angioplasty or rotational atherectomy has been tested. Same method in fact.

I think you misunderstand. I am not dismissing out of hand someone's observation, but I am saying that it can't be used to generalise. OK so the headache treatment `worked'. Can you put your hand on your heart and say that nothing else could possibly have been responsible for the effect? Presumably you have heard of post hoc ergo propter hoc? What if the patient's cerebral artery went into slight spasm and was relieved because of biofeedback resulting from the expectation of improvement? Would you know about that?

I said before, "But it would also be illogical to claim it works for everybody, or any headache." Of course you can't know all the other factors, especially the placebo effect in a matter like this. It could have been Orgone/Prana/Chi/whatever flowing or a Cosmic Energy transfer, but I doubt it. It was a pure physical treatment, using physics and science. Based on experience and knowledge.

Well I'm sorry to be a wet blanket, but we already have universities awarding degrees in subjects which are blatantly pseudoscience so I'm not a bit impressed with `licences'. What you observed was not science unless it was subjected to the scientific method, which means testing a hypothesis. So how does the world work? Anyone who thinks they know that in its entirety is the fool. Science doesn't know everything, simply because it's the process of finding out - the difference between content and method.

See? That is just what I was trying to get at. "What you observed was not science unless it was subjected to the scientific method, which means testing a hypothesis."

Nobody who understands how the world works believes that crap. Science is not limited to testing a hypothesis. That is dumb.

Observing the heavens doesn't require that. Scientist do stuff like observing. They even send rockets out into space and stuff.

To label and identify a new beetle doesn't require that. Discovering new species is science, they even have scientific names for stuff.

To describe the effect of 92GHz radiation on benzene rings doesn't require that. The discovery of X-rays didn't involve a hypothesis, it required observation and testing.

Theoretical explanation of phenomena doesn't require that. Many people advance science without ever doing a test at all.

That is all part of science. Lots of advances and stuff don't involve anything more than trying something to see if it works.

 

[robinson]

The point of an ancedote[sic] - or any one piece of evidence - is that you know something happened, but you don't necessarily know why.

Well, that isn't true of course. The problem, and this is to bring the topic back to acupuncture, is that human beings are not understood like other things we are used to dealing with.

I thought of an experience from my youth, and it will serve to explain. Trying to remove an oil filter, I was getting frustrated. It was too hard to undo with my hand, and the strap device made for this task, (to enable friction enough to unscrew it) wasn't working either.

It was stuck. A mechanic took it off in seconds. I watched how he did it, and never had a problem with oil filters again. It was simple. elegant, and worked.

He stuck a screwdriver through it, and used the leverage gained by that to break it free. Only an idiot would say it didn't work. Only a moron couldn't grasp the scientific principle behind this. And it would be dumb to say you can't know based on this one observation, that sticking a screwdriver in that oil filter will enable you to get it off.

It would also be dumb to think this would work on every other car. But some dumbass trying to tell me I can't know something worked, based on observation and scientific thinking, is just dumb.

"Dude, you can't, like know, that it was the screwdriver man. You need to do test and eliminate all the other factors. What if the filter like saw the screwdriver and let go? What if it was something else that caused it to loosen? The impact of driving it through could have done it, how can you know all the other factors? What if it was a sham screwdriver instead? Or a different brand? You have to do test, have a hypothesis and stuff. Otherwise it isn't scientific."

WTF? Are you some kind of moron or what?

 

[PixyMisa]

"There are no stupid questions, only stupid people" Mr. Garrison, South Park

Hey! He can't say that! I said that!

 

[ponderingturtle]

Hey! He can't say that! I said that!

And I attribute it.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yeah, but he stole it from me!!

Or just maybe Matt and Trey came up with it independently. I don't think I got it from South Park; I've only ever seen a few episodes.

Sorry, I'll stop derailing your thread now.

 

[robinson]

No stupid questions, only ...

And why haven't you drilled a hole in your head?

 

[robinson]

Yeah, but he stole it from me!!

Did you post it on chat one time? That is the earliest known incident, predating South Park.

 

[PixyMisa]

Did you post it on chat one time? That is the earliest known incident, predating South Park.

Given how common the original phrase is, I'd be very surprised if it hasn't been independently invented a thousand times. I just didn't know that one of those times was on South Park. I've seen a number of variants, such as "There are no stupid questions, but there sure are a lot of inquisitive idiots.", but I think this is the purest expression of the idea.

 

[robinson]

I still don't know if it was said on South Park. We only have anecdotal evidence so far.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So why don't you believe in the obvious benifits of trepanation?