Can Science Measure Sensations?

[drkitten]

To measure anything scientifically in exact science, verbal measurements should not be there. If can be there than, homeopathic remedies should be accepted as scientific on verbal reports of parients experiancing those remedies.

This may or may not be true, depending upon how the verbal reports are collected. A standard method of studying pain management, for example, is to tabulate the number of patients reporting (e.g.) "poor," "fair", "good" or "excellent" pain relief under a variety of treatments.

If we find that of a given sample, 20% of the patients in group A report "excellent" pain relief, while 80% of those in group B do, then we can conclude that regime B works better to treat pain. If we also find that 21% (or even 19%) of patients on placebo report "excellent" pain relief, we can conclude that treatment regime B is effective (better than placebo), while regime A is not, and should not be given.

It would not be legitimate to collect the statements of the 20% who cited "excellent" pain relief under regime A and to present them as case studies supporting the effectiveness of regime A. That's simple, outright, and fraudulent misrepresentation.

 

[Kumar]

This may or may not be true, depending upon how the verbal reports are collected. A standard method of studying pain management, for example, is to tabulate the number of patients reporting (e.g.) "poor," "fair", "good" or "excellent" pain relief under a variety of treatments.

If we find that of a given sample, 20% of the patients in group A report "excellent" pain relief, while 80% of those in group B do, then we can conclude that regime B works better to treat pain. If we also find that 21% (or even 19%) of patients on placebo report "excellent" pain relief, we can conclude that treatment regime B is effective (better than placebo), while regime A is not, and should not be given.

It would not be legitimate to collect the statements of the 20% who cited "excellent" pain relief under regime A and to present them as case studies supporting the effectiveness of regime A. That's simple, outright, and fraudulent misrepresentation.

How you judge & decide whether it is just a palliative/misunderstood effect or real effect on verbal reports?

 

[MRC_Hans]

How you judge & decide whether it is just a palliative/misunderstood effect or real effect on verbal reports?

And this comes from somebody who bases his ENTIRE belief system on "mass experiences" .

Hans

 

[Kumar]

And this comes from somebody who bases his ENTIRE belief system on "mass experiences" .

Hans

No, I am taliking about your style. I just noted/felt that, you don't base on verbal reports.

 

[Mercutio]

How you judge & decide whether it is just a palliative/misunderstood effect or real effect on verbal reports?

By structuring the verbal reports, and (much more importantly) by ensuring that the reporting is double-blind. We could ask for degree of pain, say, on a 10 point scale, or a 100 point scale, or a simple better/worse dichotomy, or even ask an open-ended question and code their responses later (with blind raters). As long as neither the patients nor the attending physicians (or whoever is taking the ratings) knows what condition (active/placebo) the patient is in, we can compare as new drkitten says above.

If the patient knows which condition he or she is in, the test is invalid. If the person giving the pill knows which are active, which are placebo, the test is invalid. If the person taking the data knows what condition the patient is in, the test is invalid. I could be really paranoid and suggest that the person running the statistics should also be blind to conditions, and it would not be such a bad idea. Lastly, of course, the primary researcher, in writing it all up, must be honest. But of course, we would never see anybody fraudulently misrepresent their data....after all, they are engaged in a search for the truth...

 

[Kumar]

By structuring the verbal reports, and (much more importantly) by ensuring that the reporting is double-blind...

Will it not still be more scientific or really scientific, if these can be done by non-vebal measurements OR by a comblnation of both verbal & non-verbal? Many alt. systems esp. so thought as energy based, claims effect via nervous system. Whether any or some of these researched on non-vebal basis?

 

[Mercutio]

Will it not still be more scientific or really scientific, if these can be done by non-vebal measurements OR by a comblnation of both verbal & non-verbal? Many alt. systems esp. so thought as energy based, claims effect via nervous system. Whether any or some of these researched on non-vebal basis?

Actually, it would not be any more (or less) scientific at all. The methodology used would be a function of the operationalization of the dependent variable, nothing more. The key point is blinding to conditions.

That said, although different operational definitions would not necessarily be "more scientific", some may be more appropriate or more sensitive than others. That is a completely different issue. We do want a measure that actually does vary with the effect of the independent variable, if indeed there is an effect. This is where your search runs into trouble, Kumar. If homeopathic remedies are so effective that effects can be seen easily in anecdotal accounts, then they are more than effective enough to be easily seen in controlled studies. The fact that you are looking for increasingly more subtle hypothetical measures of effect is an indication that the anecdotal accounts are not at all the result of the effectiveness of treatment, but rather of expectation, placebo, and poor experimental design.

Either the effect is strong enough to be responsible for the anecdotal accounts, in which case it is strong enough to be seen in experiments, or else it is not strong enough to be seen in experiments, in which case it was not really the cause of any effects seen in anecdotal accounts. There really is no middle ground. The controlled observation of a double-blind study reduces the "noise" that our perceptual biases add to our observations, and can make even very subtle effects more clear; if an effect is real, it will be seen more clearly in an experiment than in casual observation. There is no reason to suspect that something can be seen more clearly in anecdotes than in systematic observation...except bias.

 

[MRC_Hans]

No, I am taliking about your style. I just noted/felt that, you don't base on verbal reports.

Not if I have something better. Of course we sometimes have to rely on verbal reports, but then we must be careful to minimize the subjectivity. Some ways to do this, as already mentioned, are blinding, and limited choice answers. Another is trick questions and control questions.


And, before you start on that tack:
No, anecdotical accounts about homeopathy do not equal verbal reports. A survey where all patients were asked to fill out formal questionaires might be.

Hans

 

[Rolfe]

Either the effect is strong enough to be responsible for the anecdotal accounts, in which case it is strong enough to be seen in experiments, or else it is not strong enough to be seen in experiments, in which case it was not really the cause of any effects seen in anecdotal accounts.

I just wanted to highlight this. Flashing red lights would be good, too....

Rolfe.

 

[Mercutio]

 

[Kumar]

That said, although different operational definitions would not necessarily be "more scientific", some may be more appropriate or more sensitive than others.

Mercutio,

Thanks. I think homeopathic remedies also somewhat present similar picture as you mentioned above, when tried to measure in DB or other studies. Homeopathic community do not come forward in view of possibilities of getting variable verbal reports, since every individual is considered differant in presenting 'senstive homeopathic effects'. Whatever effects are told in verbal reports, those are considered as placebo, self healing or otherwise, because these do not show adverse/toxic effects--which probably be immediately measurable & real effects can be sensitive, minute or energetic. Anyway, pls tell me, how our body system perform various activities esp. functional activities(not structural & stable)? Is it basically by energy/force absorbed from our exposures & released by chemical reactions, by ionic movements or otherwise? I just want to know the prime/basic reason to our body's functional activities is, whether energies, atomic/ionic/elemental, or molecular structures?

Suppose, it is by differant energies/forces, can we still measure everything scientifically by DB studies or on verbal reports?

Still, I am more surprised on that homeopathic remedies & other so called as energy healing systems as spritual effects, Reiki etc., looks to me not tested & measured by operational definitions or non verbal reports.

 

[materia3]

Yes science can measure sensations depending on your definition of "measure."

See:

http://www.emedicine.com/neuro/topic640.htm

http://www.emedicine.com/neuro/topic222.htm

 

[drkitten]

Thanks. I think homeopathic remedies also somewhat present similar picture as you mentioned above, when tried to measure in DB or other studies.

No, they don't, beause no one in the homeopathic community tries double-blind comparison studies.

Homeopathic community do not come forward in view of possibilities of getting variable verbal reports, since every individual is considered differant in presenting 'senstive homeopathic effects'.

... which absolutely excludes the possibility of a meaningful evaluation of treatment effectiveness.

But notice that this is a flaw in the homeopathic community -- it would be very easy to simply ask people "do you feel healthy today" (on a ten point scale), and to compare whether people recieving the correct "magic water" feel better than people receiveing placebo.

Homeopaths, however, simply don't do this. And when "real" scientists do do something like this, the results are uniformly negative. The magic water has no effect over and above placebo.

Still, I am more surprised on that homeopathic remedies & other so called as energy healing systems as spritual effects, Reiki etc., looks to me not tested & measured by operational definitions or non verbal reports.

The reason is very simple. The practitioners systematically refuse to be tested by any method whatsoever, because every time they are tested, they fail. The problem lies not in the testing protocol, but in the very subject of homeopathy.

Homeopathy simply does not work, and no amount of legitimate testing will establish a a falsehood (by definition).

 

[Kumar]

No, they don't, beause no one in the homeopathic community tries double-blind comparison studies.


... which absolutely excludes the possibility of a meaningful evaluation of treatment effectiveness.

But notice that this is a flaw in the homeopathic community -- it would be very easy to simply ask people "do you feel healthy today" (on a ten point scale), and to compare whether people recieving the correct "magic water" feel better than people receiveing placebo.

Homeopaths, however, simply don't do this. And when "real" scientists do do something like this, the results are uniformly negative. The magic water has no effect over and above placebo.



The reason is very simple. The practitioners systematically refuse to be tested by any method whatsoever, because every time they are tested, they fail. The problem lies not in the testing protocol, but in the very subject of homeopathy.

Homeopathy simply does not work, and no amount of legitimate testing will establish a a falsehood (by definition). [/B]

I don't see any reason, why DB comparison by operational definitions or non verbal reports of effects on/via nervous system can be refused by homeopaths. Anyway, science people can also do that without involving any homeopath. Protocols can be simple. Give real remedy & blank remedy to two person with some presenting symptoms of that remedy. Measure the difference in effects on nervous system by non-vebal report or instrumental definitions--or just measure some differences. Is it not practical?

 

[Kumar]

Yes science can measure sensations depending on your definition of "measure."

See:

http://www.emedicine.com/neuro/topic640.htm

http://www.emedicine.com/neuro/topic222.htm

Thanks, but then, why science has not yet measured effects of so called energy healing systems on/via nervous system? If measured, pls provide me some links.

 

[drkitten]

I don't see any reason, why DB comparison by operational definitions or non verbal reports of effects on/via nervous system can be refused by homeopaths.

For approximately the same reason that Sylvia refuses to take the JREF Challenge. Homeopaths don't take the challenge because they are afraid to be proven fraudulent.

Anyway, science people can also do that without involving any homeopath. Protocols can be simple. Give real remedy & blank remedy to two person with some presenting symptoms of that remedy. Measure the difference in effects on nervous system by non-vebal report or instrumental definitions--or just measure some differences. Is it not practical?

Practical, although rather unethical. But the homeopaths claim this isn't a fair test because (in theory) each remedy must be tailored to the person -- just because two people present the same symptoms does not mean they should have the same treatment. (In practice, homeopaths are much less strict about this than they claim they should be.)

But studies like this have been done. And no (statistical) differences have been found.

Homeopathy doesn't work. It has been tested and found not to work.

 

[drkitten]

Thanks, but then, why science has not yet measured effects of so called energy healing systems.

It has. For example, Reiki (sometimes aka therapeutic touch) is one of the more common, widely-known, and widely studied "energy healing systems."

From "Effect of Reiki treatments on functional recovery in patients in poststroke rehabilitation: a pilot study", by Shiflett SC, Nayak S, Bid C, Miles P, Agostinelli S. (J Altern Complement Med. 2002 Dec;8(6):755-63):

RESULTS: No effects of Reiki were found on the FIM or CES-D, although typical effects as a result of age, gender, and time in rehabilitation were detected. Blinded practitioners (sham or reiki) were unable to determine which category they were in. Sham Reiki practitioners reported greater frequency of feeling heat in the hands compared to Reiki practitioners. There was no reported difference between the sham and the real Reiki practitioners in their ability to feel energy flowing through their hands. [...] CONCLUSION: Reiki did not have any clinically useful effect on stroke recovery in subacute hospitalized patients receiving standard-of-care rehabilitation therapy.

From "Therapeutic touch for healing acute wounds," by O'Mathuna DP, Ashford RL (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(4):CD002766).

MAIN RESULTS: Four trials in people with experimental wounds were eligible for inclusion. The effect of TT on wound healing in these studies was variable. Two of the studies (n = 44 & 24) demonstrated a significant effect of TT. However the results of the two other trials favoured the control group (n = 15 & 38), one of these trials demonstrated a significant effect in favour of the control group. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence that TT promotes healing of acute wounds.

From "Therapeutic touch in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome," by Blankfield RP, Sulzmann C, Fradley LG, Tapolyai AA, Zyzanski SJ (J Am Board Fam Pract. 2001 Sep-Oct;14(5):335-42)

RESULTS: Twenty-one participants completed the study. Changes in median motor nerve distal latencies, pain scores, and relaxation scores did not differ between participants in the TT group and participants in the sham treatment group, either immediately after each treatment session or cumulatively. Immediately after each treatment session, however, there were improvements from baseline among all the outcome variables in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this small study, TT was no better than placebo in influencing median motor nerve distal latencies, pain scores, and relaxation scores.

et cetera, et cetera.

Bottom line. "Energy healing systems" have been tested, and don't work.

 

[Kumar]

new drkitten,

It is still not absolute rejection of reiki effects. Just look at more confusions;

This trial compared pain, quality of life, and analgesic use in a sample of patients with cancer pain (n=24) who received either standard opioid management plus rest (Arm A) or standard opioid management plus Reiki (Arm B). Participants either rested for 1.5 hr on Days 1 and 4 or received two Reiki treatments (Days 1 and 4) one hour after their first afternoon analgesic dose. Visual analogue scale (VAS) pain ratings, blood pressure, heart rate, and respirations were obtained before and after each treatment/rest period. Analgesic use and VAS pain scores were reported for 7 days. Quality of life was assessed on Days 1 and 7. Participants in Arm B experienced improved pain control on Days 1 and 4 following treatment, compared to Arm A, and improved quality of life, but no overall reduction in opioid use. Future research will determine the extent to which the benefits attributed to Reiki in this study may have been due to touch.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14585550

Reiki: a complementary therapy for life.

Bullock M.

Hospice of the Valley, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.

Tom was diagnosed with a very aggressive cancer and received only palliative radiation and medication. At the time of diagnosis, his symptoms suggested that he had a very limited life expectancy. With the Reiki and his intent, he was able to achieve his goal of long-term stability with freedom from immobilizing pain and swelling. Tom's comfort and quality of life improved dramatically, and he is living well with his cancer. Reiki has been associated with dramatic results for many patients. The importance of the patient's intent during Reiki treatments cannot be overemphasized. Some general trends seen with Reiki include: periods of stabilization in which there is time to enjoy the last days of one's life; a peaceful and calm passing if death is imminent; and relief from pain, anxiety, dyspnea and edema. Reiki is a valuable complement in supporting patients in their end-of-life journey, enhancing the quality of their remaining days.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9069762&dopt=Abstract

CONCLUSIONS : These findings suggest both biochemical and physiological changes in the direction of relaxation. The salivary IgA findings warrant further study to explore the effects of human TT and humeral immune function.
PMID: 11251731 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://home.deds.nl/~reiki/onderzoek.html

I think you can find many more at; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed

 

[Darat]

Just to address the question in the title, I started this thread http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54672 which I think is quite relevant.

 

[jj]

Kumar, get back to us after you read "Speech and Hearing in Communication" by Harvey Fletcher, edited by Jont B. Allen, ISBN 1-56396-393-0

Pay particular attention to pages 188 and 189, wherein sensation is measured, repeatably and verifiably.