Can/should we Skeptics in Modern Science?

[Kumar]

Out of my thousand posts, probably 700-800 have gone into fighting this particular windmill.

Which I always requested/asked/insited to avoid...means 'this & that' type of talks.

 

[Throg]

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 like to guess exactly where the "common" man's abilities lie in terms of being able to rationally evaluate evidence but I accept your point that there are going to be people who lack the critical faculties to evaluate such evidence. I do not have a solution to this on an individual basis. On a societal scale, those of us who do possess suficient critical faculties can try to ensure that our governments employ proper methods of evaluation and control of medicines on their behalf.

It is, of course, just as important that alternative therapies are evaluated just as rigorously as modern medicines and the "common man" is just as disadvantaged with respect to selecting safe and effective alternative therapies (insofar as their are any - I'm still only aware of acupuncture) as modern medicines.

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'

This is where the problem lies with alternative therapies, from my point of view. In practical terms, what is the difference between 'unclear & uncertain benefits & losses' and 'no benefits & losses according to the evidence'?

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's really not a great argument in favour of alternative therapies to say that no big and competent authorites have found them to be effective. You might argue that large-scale trials could overturn the negative results of small-scale trials with respect to alternative therapies but the problem is this: even the richest countries in the world have limited resources and have to chose where to spend them; it makes logical sense to preferentially apply limited resources to large-scale trials of treatments which have shown positive results and which have support in terms of established scientific theory and a logical mechanism. To adopt a generally policy of testing and re-testing every putative remedy regardless of negative results in small-scale trial and lack of logic to explain why the remedy might work would drastically reduce the amount of money available to be spent developing those remedies with the best chance of helping people. Is there a possibility that we will miss out on some obscure remedies this way? Yes, it's possible but it's the lesser of evils. The alternative would likely hurt more people through lack of funding for conventional therapies than would ever be helped through the discovery of efficacy in therapies mistakenly identified as worthless in small-scale studies.

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?

Absolutely. I should have made it clearer: risk/benefit analysis means analysing the probability of and seriousness of adverse effects and the probability and efficacy of beneficial effects.

 

[Throg]

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.

Thanks. I'll let you know when I've fallen off my horse one too many times.

 

[flume]

I have to say that it's Kumar himself who reminds me of Don Quixote.

 

[Kumar]

I would not like to guess exactly where the "common" man's abilities lie in terms of being able to rationally evaluate evidence but I accept your point that there are going to be people who lack the critical faculties to evaluate such evidence. I do not have a solution to this on an individual basis. On a societal scale, those of us who do possess suficient critical faculties can try to ensure that our governments employ proper methods of evaluation and control of medicines on their behalf.

It is, of course, just as important that alternative therapies are evaluated just as rigorously as modern medicines and the "common man" is just as disadvantaged with respect to selecting safe and effective alternative therapies (insofar as their are any - I'm still only aware of acupuncture) as modern medicines.

It's really not a great argument in favour of alternative therapies to say that no big and competent authorites have found them to be effective. You might argue that large-scale trials could overturn the negative results of small-scale trials with respect to alternative therapies but the problem is this: even the richest countries in the world have limited resources and have to chose where to spend them; it makes logical sense to preferentially apply limited resources to large-scale trials of treatments which have shown positive results and which have support in terms of established scientific theory and a logical mechanism. To adopt a generally policy of testing and re-testing every putative remedy regardless of negative results in small-scale trial and lack of logic to explain why the remedy might work would drastically reduce the amount of money available to be spent developing those remedies with the best chance of helping people. Is there a possibility that we will miss out on some obscure remedies this way? Yes, it's possible but it's the lesser of evils. The alternative would likely hurt more people through lack of funding for conventional therapies than would ever be helped through the discovery of efficacy in therapies mistakenly identified as worthless in small-scale studies.

Absolutely. I should have made it clearer: risk/benefit analysis means analysing the probability of and seriousness of adverse effects and the probability and efficacy of beneficial effects.

Thanks, your above reply has made position of both modern & alternative systems, crystal clear. It is good & justified that future possibilities are not absolutely denied by you.

This is where the problem lies with alternative therapies, from my point of view. In practical terms, what is the difference between 'unclear & uncertain benefits & losses' and 'no benefits & losses according to the evidence'?

'Unclear & uncertain benefits & losses' may mean that effects are noted/found but these may not be systematic observable effects. Whereas, 'no benefits & losses according to the evidence' can mean--no effects are ever noted/found.

 

[Throg]

Thanks, your above reply has made position of both modern & alternative systems, crystal clear. It is good & justified that future possibilities are not absolutely denied by you.



'Unclear & uncertain benefits & losses' may mean that effects are noted/found but these may not be systematic observable effects. Whereas, 'no benefits & losses according to the evidence' can mean--no effects are ever noted/found.

If benefits and losses are not systematically observable how can one ever come to the conclusion that they are likely to be caused by theraputic method one supposed to cause them rather than from extraneous factors for which one has not controlled?

 

[Kumar]

If benefits and losses are not systematically observable how can one ever come to the conclusion that they are likely to be caused by theraputic method one supposed to cause them rather than from extraneous factors for which one has not controlled?

Yes, that is a problem & main reason to confusions in these systems.

 

[drkitten]

Yes, that is a problem & main reason to confusions in these systems.

Hey, I have a suggestion for how to resolve this confusion!

Why don't we take a position of presumptive skepticism towards these "unclear and uncertain benefits and losses" until and unless someone can find a way to making the benefits and losses more clear. Or, at least until someone can find a way of reliably distinguishing the "unclear and uncertain benefits and losses" from those expected by the random processes of mere chance?

That way we can be confident that any proposed therapeutic method really does have the effects that its proponents claim!

I'm liking this idea!

 

[Throg]

Hey, I have a suggestion for how to resolve this confusion!

Why don't we take a position of presumptive skepticism towards these "unclear and uncertain benefits and losses" until and unless someone can find a way to making the benefits and losses more clear. Or, at least until someone can find a way of reliably distinguishing the "unclear and uncertain benefits and losses" from those expected by the random processes of mere chance?

That way we can be confident that any proposed therapeutic method really does have the effects that its proponents claim!

I'm liking this idea!

It's so crazy it just might work!

 

[MRC_Hans]

Throg, one advice from a very seasoned "Kumar interactor": Unless you absolutely love to read your own writing (like me), try to make your posts as short as possible. As you have already noticed, Kumar's command of English leaves some to be desired (speaking as a non-native English speaker, myself), and first of all, he will have real difficulties reading your long and eloquently crafted posts. Secondly, his track record unfortunately indicates that he does not make too much of an effort on long texts of any kind. Instead he appears to skim them, scavenging whatever bits suit his purpose.

I am also one who hasn't given up entirely on Kumar yet. There have been slight (and, unfortunately, fleeting) glimpses of changing positions. So I suppose he is still a mountain to climb.

I gather from your writing style, and from your information about your age that you are not another Trog (sans h), from your country, whom I knew on the internet long ago.

Hans

 

[Kumar]

Throg, one advice from a very seasoned "Kumar interactor":

He, himself is well capable & may not take advices unless personally experiances. He may not want to lean on slippery slopes.

..... that he does not make too much of an effort on long texts of any kind. Instead he appears to skim them, scavenging whatever bits suit his purpose.

Are you telling qualities or defects of me?

I am also one who hasn't given up entirely on Kumar yet. There have been slight (and, unfortunately, fleeting) glimpses of changing positions.

That is a BIG THOUGHT.

So I suppose he is still a mountain to climb.

No, I want to remain on plains, why to climb than crash, fall or step down. One can't live more, high on mountains.

I gather from your writing style, and from your information about your age that you are not another Trog (sans h), from your country, whom I knew on the internet long ago.

That is yours private language.

 

[Throg]

Throg, one advice from a very seasoned "Kumar interactor": Unless you absolutely love to read your own writing (like me), try to make your posts as short as possible. As you have already noticed, Kumar's command of English leaves some to be desired (speaking as a non-native English speaker, myself), and first of all, he will have real difficulties reading your long and eloquently crafted posts.

I understand your point but I would kind of feel like I wasn't speaking in my own voice if I simplified my use of English (thanks for saying "eloqently crafted" rather than "verbose and florid"). I would prefer to trust that Kumar will ask for clarification if I put things in a way that is unclear.

I gather from your writing style, and from your information about your age that you are not another Trog (sans h), from your country, whom I knew on the internet long ago

No, this is the first internet forum in which I have ever posted and "Throg" has nothing to do with Trog. I once misheard the word frog in the title of an episode of "Ripping Yarns" as Throg. I just like the sound of it and I though it had a pleasing lack of meaning attached to it.

 

[Throg]

He, himself is well capable & may not take advices unless personally experiances

Actually, I'm always open to advice. One of the great advantages of language is that we don't have to rely purely on first-hand experience (imagine how little any of us could hope to learn if that was the only way we could learn.)

No, I want to remain on plains, why to climb than crash, fall or step down. One can't live more, high on mountains

I remember reading a book on Yogic mysticism in which it was suggested that we should view the path to enlightenment as climbing a mountain with no peak. We never reach the top but, with a little effort, we always progress. I always rather liked that image.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I understand your point but I would kind of feel like I wasn't speaking in my own voice if I simplified my use of English (thanks for saying "eloqently crafted" rather than "verbose and florid").

Mmm, I have been accused of irony at times. Still....

I would prefer to trust that Kumar will ask for clarification if I put things in a way that is unclear.

You will know when he totally misinterprets what you wrote (not that THAT takes a complex post ).

No, this is the first internet forum in which I have ever posted and "Throg" has nothing to do with Trog. I once misheard the word frog in the title of an episode of "Ripping Yarns" as Throg. I just like the sound of it and I though it had a pleasing lack of meaning attached to it.

Well, that Trog was short for Thomas Rogers (as I found out), so including the h would not be surprising. Nevertheless, unless being a distinct case of a split personality, you are definitely not him, heheh. Your first forum? Wellcome! Not a bad place to start, except, you will never get away.

Actually, I'm always open to advice. One of the great advantages of language is that we don't have to rely purely on first-hand experience (imagine how little any of us could hope to learn if that was the only way we could learn.)

So right you are.

I remember reading a book on Yogic mysticism in which it was suggested that we should view the path to enlightenment as climbing a mountain with no peak. We never reach the top but, with a little effort, we always progress. I always rather liked that image.

In that case, you will love debating with Kumar .

Hans

 

[Throg]

Your first forum? Wellcome! Not a bad place to start, except, you will never get away

I've noticed.

I remember reading a book on Yogic mysticism in which it was suggested that we should view the path to enlightenment as climbing a mountain with no peak. We never reach the top but, with a little effort, we always progress. I always rather liked that image

In that case, you will love debating with Kumar

I doff my cap to thee.

 

[rppa]

No, this is the first internet forum in which I have ever posted and "Throg" has nothing to do with Trog. I once misheard the word frog in the title of an episode of "Ripping Yarns" as Throg. I just like the sound of it and I though it had a pleasing lack of meaning attached to it.

Oh, darn.

And here I thought I was going to be able to ask you the answer to a lifelong quest: How the heck did the Throg's Neck Bridge in New York get its name, what the heck is a Throg and do they have necks?

 

[Kumar]

I remember reading a book on Yogic mysticism in which it was suggested that we should view the path to enlightenment as climbing a mountain with no peak. We never reach the top but, with a little effort, we always progress. I always rather liked that image.

It can be both right & wrong. Why you want to climb a mountain? Either to reach on peak or just tracking. To reach on peak is a goal--a destiny or a purpose. Just tracking may be alike trolling--no goal--no destiny or no purpose. How can you think of climbing without goal or purpose. It may be thought in modern sense, where nothing is previously thought & taken as 'can't persist or "absolute", but I think, without an ultimate purpose/goal & direction in mind--all you can, just troll or wonder aimlessly or just for tracking. Why we want to go onto the mountains? Can we live/stay there for long? Is it just an adventure, entertainment, tracking or trolling?

I am not sure but Yogic mentionings may be related to "to attain salvation", where mountains(materials things), miught have shown as can have no peak.

Sorry, if I am wrong.

 

[Throg]

It can be both right & wrong. Why you want to climb a mountain? Either to reach on peak or just tracking. To reach on peak is a goal--a destiny or a purpose. Just tracking may be alike trolling--no goal--no destiny or no purpose. How can you think of climbing without goal or purpose. It may be thought in modern sense, where nothing is previously thought & taken as 'can't persist or "absolute", but I think, without an ultimate purpose/goal & direction in mind--all you can, just troll or wonder aimlessly or just for tracking. Why we want to go onto the mountains? Can we live/stay there for long? Is it just an adventure, entertainment, tracking or trolling?

I am not sure but Yogic mentionings may be related to "to attain salvation", where mountains(materials things), miught have shown as can have no peak.
Sorry, if I am wrong.

There is no concept of salvation in the Yogic mysticism represented in the book to which I refer. Enlightenment is viewed as it's own reward and while one can never attain perfect enlightenment it is rewarding to achieve ever greater enlightenment. As a sceptic, I equate this with attaining ever greater though always imperfect knowledge and understanding. No destiny is implied and a one of the main points of the journey is the journey itself. In mountain-climbing terms, you climb the mountain "because it's there".

 

[Rolfe]

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.

I was looking at some old Kumar threads the other day, and it was really quite embarrassing the way I assured him I understood how sincere he was, and bust a gut trying to explain simple concepts of biochemistry in terms I thought he might understand. Still, we all make mistakes.

I still find myself admiring the sheer singleminded bloodymindedness of it all. This must be the most prolonged no-slip-up troll in the entire history of the Internet. (To be fair, my suspicion isn't that Kumar was a troll from the get-go, just that he has long since realised the utter bankruptcy of his position and has for some time now simply been winding us up by seeing how long he can keep playing this particular stuck record.)

His utter imperviousness to acquiring ordinary English usage is another hallmark of the wind-up. He repeated something several posts back which he has said several times before. It's a fairly sensible statement to the effect that perhaps, if one is suffering form a mild, self-limiting ailment, it might be better to avoid taking any drugs at all, and so avoid any chance of suffering from side-effects. However, can Kumar state it like that? No chance. It's all about "adversities" and "least adversities" and the rest of his perpetual gobbledegook. If he hasn't figured out by now what the accepted terms are for what he's trying to talk about, there's no hope.

I think he's actually too self-centred to notice that his vocabulary isn't the words other people use, and change accordingly. He just uses the words he's decided to use, and the rest of us can go figure.

Well, I've had enough.

Rolfe.

 

[Kumar]

I was looking at some old Kumar threads the other day, and it was really quite embarrassing the way I assured him I understood how sincere he was, ..

No, Kumar really does believe that the things he dreams up are great insights. 26/50 votes i.e. 52.00%.

Is Kumar winding us up?

People belived in this. They do really understand me well. Thanks, it has raised my confidance in others. I think, I also voted for this in the begning. You see, how accurate are my calculations. Btw,what you had desired to get & voted for?