Can/should we Skeptics in Modern Science?

[Kumar]

Give us a clue. How about yes/no questions? My turn: Is it a human language?

Yes.

Mojo,

I asked Throg.

 

[Mojo]

Over to you, Throg.

 

[Kumar]

You are welcome. It seems to me that neutrality is a necessary corollory of scepticism (at least prior to obtaining reliable evidence to contraindicate a neutral position). As far as I can see there is no rational way for a sceptic to become a believer. Given sufficient evidence, a sceptic can provisionally accept that a proposition is likely to be true and may adopt the pragmatic position that he should behave as if it is true.Thus I accept that the best evidence suggests that the world is spheroidal, that I am a human being with the associated mental and physical needs. I conduct my life as if I absolutely knew these things since I have no rational alternative basis on which to proceed and the consequences for me should the world, in fact, be as it seems and I acted as if it were not, would be dire. Nevertheless, I am quite conscious of the fact that the world and I may be quite other than we appear to be. Should there come a point where the evidence that my perceptions of the world are false I will accept that everything I have taken for granted my entire life is wrong and attempt to adapt to the world as it is evinced to be. I do not and cannot conceive of ever believing in anything I merely have provisional beliefs based on the evidence.

OK, pls tell me, when you take a modern medicine, do you believe in it or remain doubtful/skeptic about it?




Since there is no absolute knowledge, the best we can do is act in a rational manner based on the best understanding of the world available to us. I do not think it is really an objection to the practice of science or medicine that no scientist or doctor has perfect knowledge. All we can expect is that doctors and scientist use those methods which are most likely to be effective according to to the best understanding available at the time. Neither doctors nor scientists are gods but since we do not have gods available to us to perform their duties they are the best we can get.

In this sense, will it not be better to first try non-toxic or self healing techniques in case of non serious/non emergency type of diseases --to avoid unnecessary adversities & chances of mistakes along with the treatments?

Certainly, mistakes will happen both because of the limitations of individual practitioners and of our current state of knowledge. What we must do is meticulously analyse the potential risks involved, the potential benefits involved and the probabilities of each. It is far from perfect but it is the best we can do and far better than doing nothing, as even a cursory examination of the progression of modern science and medicine shows. You have a point that chemical medicines can do more harm than alternative systems when mistakes are made but failure to take advantage of chemical medicines when they are indicated is at least equally harmful while the benefits when chemical medicines are used correctly far outweight those offered by alternative systems based on the evidence. Analysis of the risks/benefits of "conventional" modern medicine vs alernative therapies conviningly favours modern medicine. Absolutely they can matter so it comes down to analysing risks/benefits again and modern medicine and science still seem to win.


But in few routine diseases & which can be cured by self healings/placebo, if we compare risk/benefit ratio, what we will get?


I do not insist in the slightest. I merely point out the reason why it might be relevant. If you are willing to make the extra effort to make yourself understood (and to understand those of us who are fortunate enough to be using our own familiar language) then I applaud you for the effort.

You can take it as somewhat near to Hindi.



No argument, mistakes can and will happen in both conventional science/medicine and alternative systems. So far as I can see, reliance on alternative systems seems to be a mistake in itself since the evidence seems to show that such systems are generally ineffective (the only "alternative" therapy I can currently think of for which there has been significant favourable evidence is acupuncture but please correct me if I am wrong) such that it is really irrelevant whether or not they are safer in terms of what happens when mistakes are made. The justification for side/adverse or toxic effects in modern medicines is that the benefits outweigh the costs.

Frankly, every system has its own claims which are also supported by mass people's experiances & observations. So those claims can't be denied, in view of scientific tests & studies do not confirm it. There can also be possibilities of some miss, weakness & pendings in science, as yet. We can just say, mass existing, but couldn't yet be proved/known in exact science but should not straightaway reject it till it become clear or end in itself if fake in mass public.

 

[Throg]

Over to you, Throg.

If Kumar doesn't want to reveal his language I will not press him to do so. Similarly, I will not reveal the size of my penis on this forum no matter how many times I am asked. Rational, open-minded thinkers should not draw adverse conclusions from either refusal. : |

 

[Kumar]

If Kumar doesn't want to reveal his language I will not press him to do so. Similarly, I will not reveal the size of my penis on this forum no matter how many times I am asked. Rational, open-minded thinkers should not draw adverse conclusions from either refusal. : |

Thanks. You are impressing me a lot. As I already indicated to you because you asked properly, there was nothing serious/secret in telling it. It as well inicative in many of my posts. But it looked absolutely illogical to me-- their undue insistance & persistance, with so many undue remarks, without any meaningful sense. So I just carried on....Undue contradictions, just spoiled so many threads.

 

[Throg]

OK, pls tell me, when you take a modern medicine, do you believe in it or remain doubtful/skeptic about it?

I remain doubtful/skeptical. In terms of the placebo effect that somewhat reduces the chances of the medicine being effective but, if the medicine does not rely entirely on the placebo effect (in which case is it really medicine?) then it should be effective nonetheless.

In this sense, will it not be better to first try non-toxic or self healing techniques in case of non serious/non emergency type of diseases --to avoid unnecessary adversities & chances of mistakes along with the treatments?

I'm quite loathe to take medicine if I can avoid it anyway. When it becomes clear that a minor illness will not clear-up on it's own I will consult a doctor. If medicine is prescribed, I will immediately research the possible side-effects (ok, I'll read the notes included with the medicine and do a quick search of the internet for information of the medicine). Research permitting, I take my medicine and see what happens. I have never had an adverse reaction to any medicine I have taken but if I did, I would immediately go back to the doctor.

I would not try any of the non-toxic or self-healing techniques (unless you include wrapping up warm and getting lots of sleep) for the simple reason that the research shows that the only real effect to be had is the placebo effect. Given my scepticism, the placebo effect is unlikely to be of use to me. Sure, the risk of adverse side-effects is very low with most of these techniques (other than the risk of loss of time and money) but since there is no apparent reason to expect any benefit from them that strikes me as irrelevant. If you can point me to any information which you feel would pass my tests of scepticism, I would be delighted to reconsider.

But in few routine diseases & which can be cured by self healings/placebo, if we compare risk/benefit ratio, what we will get?

We would have to look at the evidence for the individual diseases (again, if you can point me to information which you feel would be likely to sway me, given my scepticism, I will be delighted to give it a look - time permitting) but in general the risk/benefit ratio favours modern medicine especially where lack of credulity is likely to count against any placebo effect.

You can take it as somewhat near to Hindi

Thankyou. I will try to learn what I can of Hindi syntax.

Frankly, every system has its own claims which are also supported by mass people's experiances & observations. So those claims can't be denied, in view of scientific tests & studies do not confirm it.

The manner in which these experiences occured and observations were made is extremely important. Human perception has some huge flaws in terms of gathering reliable evidence. So far, scientific method is the best means of compensating for those flaws that I have come across. As a very broad generalisation, I would take it to be the case that if scientific tests and studies repeatedly fail to confirm a phenomenon we can provisionally deny the existence of that phenomenon just as we would provisionally accept the existence of that phenomenon were the converse true.

There can also be possibilities of some miss, weakness & pendings in science, as yet. We can just say, mass existing, but couldn't yet be proved/known in exact science but should not straightaway reject it till it become clear or end in itself if fake in mass public.

I think that what you are expressing here is, in principle, not too different from my own position that knowledge is provisional. I think we differ in the level of confidence we require in order to treat a theory as knowledge for practical purposes. To my way of thinking, there are an infinite number of potential ideas and theories. Given this, one could not possibly give time to all of them thus I require logical consistency and a high level of evidence before I will treat a theory as (provisional) knowledge. Generally speaking, I would be even less inclined to take experimental drugs than I would be to take a homeopathic treatment, for example.

 

[Dancing David]

Kumar, Hiya!

It seems that i can sort two basic themes in your posts.

1. Should we remain sceptical of modern science/medicine?

2. Is it possible that the sceptical approach does not address the ways in which alternative therapies are useful?

To the first, it is essential that any one recieving medical treatment be knowledable of that treatment, one should undertsand the doctor's assesment and diagnosis, and the rationale behind the prescribed treatment. One should also know what the potentail adverse effects of any treatment might be. Then as treatment progresses the consumer maty make informed choice as to wether the treatment is beneficial ot ineffective, also as to wther the treatment has enough benefit to outwiegh any adverse effects.

Onto science, the results of modern science are acsessible to the average person, anyone can study the basis and history of modern theories and then make educated research into the lierature. And absolutely one must maintain the strctest level of scepticism and doubt with regards to the quality of research. Only after replication and consensus can something be siad to be part of modern science.

Even then it is just a human algorith for the unknowable.

2. As to the possible benfits of alternative therapies , uh it is possible that something could be so complex that it would take an extended time and many people to understand the phenomena. However I would not use this as an excuse to do away with scepticism and the scientific method.

There are three possibilities for any treatment:

a. A treatment may be beneficial to a person, or not beneficial to a person. This can be established through careful recording of all conditions and research. Then the potential benefit can be understood for different populations, a chance for beneficial treatment may be derived.

b. A treatment may be harmful to a person and by the above method a chance of harmful effects may be derived.

c. A treatment may be niether beneficial or harmful to the individual but provide them with a pallitive or supportive effect. So while the treatment might not meet the standard of benefit or harm it may give the person some comfort.

 

[DangerousBeliefs]

 

[Kumar]

]I remain doubtful/skeptical. In terms of the placebo effect that somewhat reduces the chances of the medicine being effective but, if the medicine does not rely entirely on the placebo effect (in which case is it really medicine?) then it should be effective nonetheless.

I'm quite loathe to take medicine if I can avoid it anyway. When it becomes clear that a minor illness will not clear-up on it's own I will consult a doctor. If medicine is prescribed, I will immediately research the possible side-effects (ok, I'll read the notes included with the medicine and do a quick search of the internet for information of the medicine). Research permitting, I take my medicine and see what happens. I have never had an adverse reaction to any medicine I have taken but if I did, I would immediately go back to the doctor.

I think, this is perfect approach, you can follow it may be you are known to this field. I also do like that & could get substancial benefits to me & others.(just look at antacids which may be a common mistake. MOM & Aluminium hydroide, one is for constipated person other for clear motion type & wrong prescription may mean somewhat like opposite). But what about common & illitrate men?

I would not try any of the non-toxic or self-healing techniques (unless you include wrapping up warm and getting lots of sleep) for the simple reason that the research shows that the only real effect to be had is the placebo effect. Given my scepticism, the placebo effect is unlikely to be of use to me. Sure, the risk of adverse side-effects is very low with most of these techniques (other than the risk of loss of time and money) but since there is no apparent reason to expect any benefit from them that strikes me as irrelevant. If you can point me to any information which you feel would pass my tests of scepticism, I would be delighted to reconsider.

It is correct to say, in view of that you are following science & scepticism. No doubt, one has to accept most other alt. healings on some faith or belief basis, without solid scientific evidances. It can also result in some 'unclear & uncertain benefits & losses'.

It may also be dependent on how big & competent authorities with many means, give importance to any system & how people accept & prefer any therapy. It may also be more difficult & may also require more means, to make any other alt. therapy on equivalent stutus to modern. So why to do all these, when modern-easily provable is available, can be a consideration. But if we want to avoid adverse effects & some adversities-we may have to go very deep in other therapies & standardize these in more disciplined way. .

We would have to look at the evidence for the individual diseases (again, if you can point me to information which you feel would be likely to sway me, given my scepticism, I will be delighted to give it a look - time permitting) but in general the risk/benefit ratio favours modern medicine especially where lack of credulity is likely to count against any placebo effect.

Again, faith, belief, mass observations & practical experiances may only be the basis. Few substances can still be reversed in both --evidance and practical experiance based. Risk/benefit ratio can just on adverse effecs consideration. Btw, should we not give weightage to both these on making this Risk/benefit ratio esp. in non emergencies?

The manner in which these experiences occured and observations were made is extremely important. Human perception has some huge flaws in terms of gathering reliable evidence. So far, scientific method is the best means of compensating for those flaws that I have come across. As a very broad generalisation, I would take it to be the case that if scientific tests and studies repeatedly fail to confirm a phenomenon we can provisionally deny the existence of that phenomenon just as we would provisionally accept the existence of that phenomenon were the converse true.

You are right, if we accept scientific evidances as only & preferable basis. But many substances still fail/reversed on practical experiances & on time testing in common public, inspite all advanced tests & studies. So both can be important considerations.

I think that what you are expressing here is, in principle, not too different from my own position that knowledge is provisional. I think we differ in the level of confidence we require in order to treat a theory as knowledge for practical purposes. To my way of thinking, there are an infinite number of potential ideas and theories. Given this, one could not possibly give time to all of them thus I require logical consistency and a high level of evidence before I will treat a theory as (provisional) knowledge. Generally speaking, I would be even less inclined to take experimental drugs than I would be to take a homeopathic treatment, for example. [/B]

Yes. All these can deped on inividual's personal preferances & experiances.

 

[Kumar]

Kumar, Hiya!

It seems that i can sort two basic themes in your posts.

1. Should we remain sceptical of modern science/medicine?

2. Is it possible that the sceptical approach does not address the ways in which alternative therapies are useful?

I think, 2nd one is not clearly translated. Anyway, it also made much sense.

To the first, it is essential that any one recieving medical treatment be knowledable of that treatment, one should undertsand the doctor's assesment and diagnosis, and the rationale behind the prescribed treatment. One should also know what the potentail adverse effects of any treatment might be. Then as treatment progresses the consumer maty make informed choice as to wether the treatment is beneficial ot ineffective, also as to wther the treatment has enough benefit to outwiegh any adverse effects.

Onto science, the results of modern science are acsessible to the average person, anyone can study the basis and history of modern theories and then make educated research into the lierature. And absolutely one must maintain the strctest level of scepticism and doubt with regards to the quality of research. Only after replication and consensus can something be siad to be part of modern science.

Even then it is just a human algorith for the unknowable.

Yes, it should be the right approach, considering the risks involved esp. in less serious & with no emergencies type cases. But, can common individals do all these homeworks? Most probably, most people may find harm/benefit assesment, at end of treatments or at end of their health/life.

2. As to the possible benfits of alternative therapies , uh it is possible that something could be so complex that it would take an extended time and many people to understand the phenomena. However I would not use this as an excuse to do away with scepticism and the scientific method.

There are three possibilities for any treatment:

a. A treatment may be beneficial to a person, or not beneficial to a person. This can be established through careful recording of all conditions and research. Then the potential benefit can be understood for different populations, a chance for beneficial treatment may be derived.

b. A treatment may be harmful to a person and by the above method a chance of harmful effects may be derived.

c. A treatment may be niether beneficial or harmful to the individual but provide them with a pallitive or supportive effect. So while the treatment might not meet the standard of benefit or harm it may give the person some comfort.

As of now, much of the alt.systems can be belief/faith based with personal experiances & observations. It survive on 'least adversities involved' basis. Whereas, modern system is based on scientifically defined evidances, continuing process of practical experiances & time testings, with some or many side, adverse & toxic effects, possibilities. It can be personal choice & preferance, what & which one chooses. Risks & benefits are involved in both. To a common person, I think type of disease, emergencies involved etc., can be the important deciding factors.

 

[Zep]

Throg, I like your practice essays. Nice neat paragraphs, good spelling, coherent thoughts, etc. I think you will do well in class this year!

 

[Throg]

Throg, I like your practice essays. Nice neat paragraphs, good spelling, coherent thoughts, etc. I think you will do well in class this year!

I always did well in class , thanks but it's been a good ten years since I got my degree so I'm really done practicing. Did you have a point, or just a problem with coherent thought?

 

[Zep]

I always did well in class , thanks but it's been a good ten years since I got my degree so I'm really done practicing. Did you have a point, or just a problem with coherent thought?

No, no problem at all. You, however, have not met all of Kumar yet, I fear. So I fear your literary skills will be all but wasted. He is, as we say in the trade here, an A-grade, tuberculin-free, unrestructured, revisionist, card-carrying troll.

 

[Throg]

No, no problem at all. You, however, have not met all of Kumar yet, I fear. So I fear your literary skills will be all but wasted. He is, as we say in the trade here, an A-grade, tuberculin-free, unrestructured, revisionist, card-carrying troll.

Actually, I've read through a lot of Kumar's posts and I understand why you might consider him a troll. It is one possible interpretation. The other possible interpretation is that he is someone with a different philosophical, social and liguistic background to me which presents certain communication difficulties for us.

If the former is the case then, so what? It's still an intellectual work-out for me and maybe we can learn something even from trolls (if only at an anthropological level).

If the latter is the case then, perhaps with a little extra effort, we can learn something from each other. If not, I still get my work-out. Where's the downside.

Incidentally, as you probably gathered, my first impression of you was that you were a troll. See how we can all make mistakes?

 

[Kumar]

Zep, Try to understand, now. Throg could understand me, really right. Although homeopathic looks unscientific as yet, even to me (therefore digging so deep), but practical experiances do not make me & other using it, fully convinced, that it is just a placebo effect. I know when its science will be known, it may go out of hands of homeopathic community, but in real sense, it can also be a great benefit to humanity in terms of costs & adversities.

My true wish & goal is that;

"Science of potencies esp. TRS, could be known AND, modern system & TRS in systematic & diciplined manner, works together for the true service to humanity"

I am trying very hard for this, you are also welcomed & solicited. Just don't misunderstand me that, I am an enemy of modern system/s & advocate of TRS/homeopathy. I respect goods of all knowledges (even bads also, in some deep understandings).

Good wishes for that.

 

[Jocce]

Although homeopathic looks unscientific as yet, even to me (therefore digging so deep), but practical experiances do not make me & other using it, fully convinced, that it is just a placebo effect.

Practical experiences under controlled circumstances are ignored by you and everyone else who believes in Homeopathy. Ignoring those results (that show Homeopathy to be a big fake) doesn't make it more of a cure.

 

[Donks]

Actually, I've read through a lot of Kumar's posts and I understand why you might consider him a troll. It is one possible interpretation. The other possible interpretation is that he is someone with a different philosophical, social and liguistic background to me which presents certain communication difficulties for us.

If the former is the case then, so what? It's still an intellectual work-out for me and maybe we can learn something even from trolls (if only at an anthropological level).

If the latter is the case then, perhaps with a little extra effort, we can learn something from each other. If not, I still get my work-out. Where's the downside.

Incidentally, as you probably gathered, my first impression of you was that you were a troll. See how we can all make mistakes?

You're not the only one to have that viewpoint, at least at first. It is my experience that Kumar wears people down. People like Rolfe, ThirdTwin, Goshawk, geni, etc. used to seriously reply to Kumar. He wore them down, now seldom do they reply to him.
You'll notice that Kumar will take a few words out of what you reply and use them, sometimes in completely new ways. But you'll also notice that he never taks any of the ideas you give him. He already has his ideas set in stone, he's just looking for a way to confirm them.

 

[Kumar]

Practical experiences under controlled circumstances are ignored by you and everyone else who believes in Homeopathy. Ignoring those results (that show Homeopathy to be a big fake) doesn't make it more of a cure.

Can't controlled circumstances be wrogly interpreted/calculated? We may notice lot of adversities inspite of all controlled evidances, on practical experiances & time testings. Is it not correct? Suppose you take sunlight just for fraction of second, can you measure it--as measurable effect, inspite you know about Vit.D. Some minute but long term progressive effects may not be easily measurable eg; colour therapies effects, but we can't ignore colour's WLs with their energies, do interact with us.

 

[Throg]

You're not the only one to have that viewpoint, at least at first. It is my experience that Kumar wears people down. People like Rolfe, ThirdTwin, Goshawk, geni, etc. used to seriously reply to Kumar. He wore them down, now seldom do they reply to him.
You'll notice that Kumar will take a few words out of what you reply and use them, sometimes in completely new ways. But you'll also notice that he never taks any of the ideas you give him. He already has his ideas set in stone, he's just looking for a way to confirm them.

I understand your point but so far I have not observed this to be the case in my current discussion with Kumar. Besides, I always kind of admired Don Quixote.

 

[Donks]

I understand your point but so far I have not observed this to be the case in my current discussion with Kumar. Besides, I always kind of admired Don Quixote.

OK then, welcome to windmil-fighting capital of the Internet Out of my thousand posts, probably 700-800 have gone into fighting this particular windmill.