13 things that don't make sense

[geni]

Have there been any attempts to replicate it other than Randi's?

A couple once by the BBc and once by a US network.

 

[SpaceFluffer]

Typical sensationalist New Scientist article littered with irrelevant information...

The section on Dark Matter was particularly painful - modifying Newtonian dynamics gets a shout, even though a very small number of astrophysicists are proponents of the idea. It also has problems reconciling other observations with the theory that are conveniently left out of the article. Oh yeah, and maybe they could have mentioned SDSS, WMAP and the host of experiments who's results support the cold dark matter hypothesis. But that's a silly idea - why would they do that and possibly sell fewer copies of the magazine?

 

[geni]

I just love how all the "worship at the altar of science" types at Jref, when confronted with "difficult" data, resort to namecalling and other such diversions.

These are great:

FOR more than a decade, physicists in Japan have been seeing cosmic rays that should not exist.

Another source of cosmic rays would not exactly be earth shattering (well unless it got tooo close).

Ennis might not be happy with the homeopaths' claims, but she admits that an effect cannot be ruled out.

You appear to have missed quite a lot of the stuiff posted on this forum

The trouble was, nobody could explain what this "dark matter" was. And they still can't. Although researchers have made many suggestions about what kind of particles might make up dark matter, there is no consensus. It's an embarrassing hole in our understanding.

Not really. Our thoeries work fine whatever it turns out to be.

FOUR years ago, a particle accelerator in France detected six particles that should not exist.

In fact, physicists are so completely at a loss that some have resorted to linking this mystery with other inexplicable phenomena.

Or it could just be chance

IT IS one of the most famous, and most embarrassing, problems in physics. In 1998, astronomers discovered that the universe is expanding at ever faster speeds. It's an effect still searching for a cause - until then, everyone thought the universe's expansion was slowing down after the big bang. "Theorists are still floundering around, looking for a sensible explanation," says cosmologist Katherine Freese of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Pretty easy to explain just give the comilogical constant a non zero value.

 

[clarsct]

By the same token, one could say of the experiment done with Randi to replicate the results: "Of COURSE they found nothing, Randi had a vested interest in not giving the $1,000,000 away".

You're basically arguing that the results of the experiment are not valid based on a current association (and by extrapolation a "vested interest") of one of the primary researchers. But according to the article, prior to doing these experiments, she was adamantly against the idea of homopathy. I don't know whether the article is incorrect or whether the association came after her experiment was conducted, but it doesn't really matter. Just as Randi's vested interest doesn't matter. If the experiment was well constructed and conducted properly, then the results are valid and truly inexplicable.

Beth

Randi has put that money in third party hands, as he has said many times. And, as noted earlier, Mr. Randi does not conduct the experiment, but helps design it in such a way that "flummery" will not work, a field he is more than qualified in. A conscientious researcher will take steps to ensure that they, themselves do not corrupt the data. The study of a researcher who is working for the drug company is considered less valid unless they had an impartial party oversee certain aspects. Consciously or unconsiously, a researcher can skew the results if they already have an opinion on the matter. It seems to me, that based on one study that she conducted, our researcher here has jumped over to supporting, and being supported by, quackery. I find this to be highly suspect. It seems to me that she may have had an opinion beforehand, it's just a better story if she didn't. It sells better, too. I apologize, I am fairly new and will work on expressing myself better.

 

[Beth]

Randi has put that money in third party hands, as he has said many times. And, as noted earlier, Mr. Randi does not conduct the experiment, but helps design it in such a way that "flummery" will not work, a field he is more than qualified in.

One of the things that occurred to me when I read the about Randi conducting one of the homeopathy experiments was his insistence on taping the envelope containing the randomization code to the ceiling. (I can't remember which one now.) This is a very typical magician's trick to divert attention whilst switching envelopes and Randi is a very accomplished magician. Now, I don't think he did, but my point is that he has a vested interest in the outcome (motive) and the means and opportunity to change it to his preference. Thus, his presence during the experiment due to his "vested interest" casts no less doubt on the outcome than does Ennis' "vested interest". Neither is of any significance as long the experiment was designed and conducted properly. I understand about the issue of bias, but the randomization of the experimental units combined with the blinding of which is which during the evaluation process prevent bias from affecting the results. That cannot be the explanation for Ennis's original results.

Beth

 

[JamesM]

Need we say more? Of COURSE she found something, she has a vested interest in doing so.

I hardly think being on an editorial board is going to be enough to discount her experiments, or a large swathe of results in all scientific areas are going to have to be thrown out.

But really, what is all this about Ennis being "the scourge of homeopathy" and having "railed against its claims"? I'd never heard of her until the Inflamm Res papers.

I note that NS appears not to have spoken to her, relying entirely on quotes from the original paper. A very rum do.

 

[LucyR]

I just love how all the "worship at the altar of science" types at Jref, when confronted with "difficult" data, resort to namecalling and other such diversions.

Garbage.

Besides the Hasselhoff joke was funny.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Ennis is a pharmacologist. Has anyone duplicated the results of her experiment? I've tried to find other things on her, and nowhere is she "railing against homeopathy". I wonder where that claim came from?

There's absolutely no evidence at all to say that there is any difference between the solution that started off as pure water and the solution that started off with the histamine.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathytrans.shtml

Hmm, so the results couldn't be replicated...yet people still harp on them? I don't get it. Ennis has failed, and yet people still point to the flawed original study? Sheesh.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Besides the Hasselhoff joke was funny.

Bless your heart.

N/A

 

[Art Vandelay]

Is no one going to mention that Ennis's results are the opposite of what homeopathy would predict?

 

[Beth]

Ennis is a pharmacologist. Has anyone duplicated the results of her experiment? I've tried to find other things on her, and nowhere is she "railing against homeopathy". I wonder where that claim came from?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathytrans.shtml

Hmm, so the results couldn't be replicated...yet people still harp on them? I don't get it. Ennis has failed, and yet people still point to the flawed original study? Sheesh.

The results weren't replicated in that attempt but that doesn't mean the original results were flawed. Have you looked at the original study? What flaws did you find in it?

 

[bpesta22]

The results weren't replicated in that attempt but that doesn't mean the original results were flawed. Have you looked at the original study? What flaws did you find in it?

You're all hasselhoffismists / antihasselhoffs.

What's next, suggesting we attend our own schools?

So much hate

 

[Kilted_Canuck]

Is no one going to mention that Ennis's results are the opposite of what homeopathy would predict?

I noticed that in her study, she used an antihistamine (a drug that causes the effect wanted, not the symtoms), while homeopathy uses an 'active ingredient' that causes the symptoms, in hopes that it will cause the effect.


So yeah, she doesn't prove traditional homeopathy, it just was a fluke that may lend a wee bit of evidence that its possible to dilute things and maybe get the same effect...maybe.

 

[Tez]

Typical sensationalist New Scientist article littered with irrelevant information...

The section on Dark Matter was particularly painful - modifying Newtonian dynamics gets a shout, even though a very small number of astrophysicists are proponents of the idea. It also has problems reconciling other observations with the theory that are conveniently left out of the article.

This point would have been completely valid a year ago, it is a little less so these days.

In particular, there has been an interesting proposal by Bekenstein, that is compatible with our current tests of GR (of which is a generalization) and is also compatible with MOND:

http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0412/0412652.pdf

http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0403/0403694.pdf

Bekenstein is not particularly fringe, and the people who work in GR who told me to look at those papers (its not actually my field, though I dabble a bit) are certainly mainstream cosmologists...

 

[Capsid]

The results weren't replicated in that attempt but that doesn't mean the original results were flawed. Have you looked at the original study? What flaws did you find in it?

I found some flaws in it when it was discussed in this thread

 

[Beth]

I found some flaws in it when it was discussed in this thread

Thanks, although your comments were about the only ones worth reading in that thread. It's curious, but with anomolous positive results, why have the researchers done no follow-up studies? Seems like the problems you mentioned wouldn't be hard to correct.

Beth

 

[Capsid]

Thanks, although your comments were about the only ones worth reading in that thread. It's curious, but with anomolous positive results, why have the researchers done no follow-up studies? Seems like the problems you mentioned wouldn't be hard to correct.

Beth

I would imagine that Boiron, the French homoeopathy institute sponsor ,have not come up with the funds to continue the work.

 

[Pyrts]

I'm not sure where the writer came up with that list, but it's either a few years old or the author didn't do much reading of current papers. The "kuiper cliff" has actually been much discussed since 1999, with Neptune and orbital resonances being at least a major part of the explaination.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

The results weren't replicated in that attempt but that doesn't mean the original results were flawed. Have you looked at the original study? What flaws did you find in it?

Gee, I find it ironic that they WON'T allow anybody to go over the original study. Maybe it's because it is seriously flawed?


Convince them to allow me the access that all other have been denied, and then I'll get back to you.

In the mean time I will be quite convinced that the fact that the results of the original study CANNOT be replicated DOES conclusively means that the original study is worthless.

 

[clarsct]

Well, Eos, there IS that aspect.......

Replication is a hallmark of true science. Constantly parading out one anomolous study is a hallmark of pseudo-science.