Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Misunderstanding Empiricism
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 166 of 185 (433429)
11-11-2007 10:49 PM


Javaman,
Thanks again for starting this thread, sorry I made a mess of it. I appreciate the effort.
Since there apparently isn't a graceful way to put an end to my portion of this discussion, I'm officially removing myself from this discussion.
Thanks all, it has been an eye opener.

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by JavaMan, posted 11-16-2007 7:36 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 167 of 185 (434535)
11-16-2007 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by purpledawn
11-11-2007 10:49 PM


Javaman,
Thanks again for starting this thread, sorry I made a mess of it. I appreciate the effort.
No problem. Sorry I couldn't be more help.

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by purpledawn, posted 11-11-2007 10:49 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 168 of 185 (434540)
11-16-2007 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JavaMan
10-26-2007 8:48 AM


Summary
As this thread seems to have run out of steam, I'll provide a summary of my position.
The main thread of my argument is as follows:
1. Scientific knowledge is acquired by inductive reasoning from prior experience, and, therefore, like all inductive knowledge, is fallible. A scientific model can be falsified by a single instance of counter evidence.
2. We have confidence in scientific knowledge, not because the scientific method provides a special route to truth, but because:
(a) it insists on rigorous testing of a model, by varying the conditions under which we make observations, thereby increasing our confidence that there's no counter evidence waiting to take us by surprise;
(b) it insists on taking counter evidence seriously, even requiring a complete overhaul of the model where necessary.
3. Our confidence in a particualar field is therefore dependent on the following factors:
(a) The complexity of the domain. The more complex the domain, the more difficult it is to ensure that you have excluded all the relevant counter evidence.
(b) How easy it is to adjust the conditions under which we make our observations. If you can't do fine-grained experiments, e.g. for ethical reasons, or because the phenomena being studied are too remote or too rare, then again you can't be as confident that you've excluded the counter evidence.
(c) Whether other factors (such as politics or money) constrain the freedom to change models.
4. Based on these criteria we can arrange scientific fields in order of 'hardness', where 'hardness' is a measure of the confidence we have in the scientific knowledge claimed by a field. A rough-and-ready table of scientific 'hardness' might look like this:
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Cosmology
Medicine
Experimental psychology
Social sciences
5. Whenever we make a judgement we are limited by our personal experience. Even if we know about the scientific consensus in a particular field, that isn't immediate knowledge to us - we have to make a judgement about it. As far as I can see, there are three options we can take in such circumstances:
(a) Trust the scientific consensus without question;
(b) Distrust it without question
(c) Use our previous experience (and our knowledge about the 'hardness' of the scientific field) to make a smart judgement about the consensus.
6. If you look at my league table of 'hardness', you will see that Medicine comes fairly low down in the rankings. I believe its position there is justified because:
(a) Health is a much more complex domain than human biology;
(b) The freedom to experiment is often limited for ethical reasons, in just those areas where you want fine-grained understanding;
(c) Medicine (and particularly medical advice) is often influenced by non-scientific factors such as politics, availability of new technology and drugs, and even the simple need to give advice when there's no compelling scientifc evidence to support the advice.
7. In addition to having a lowly position in the 'hardness' table, the medical establishment has a record of giving out poor advice, and contradicting itself from decade to decade. I've already given an example (in a previous post) of incorrect advice during the BSE crisis in the UK. Now I'm going to provide two more examples:
(a) Two weeks ago the UK medical establishment reversed its advice on eating of peanuts during pregnancy. Since 1998 pregant women have been advised not to eat peanuts, and to avoid feeding peanuts to children until they're 3 years old. Unfortunately, recent research has shown that, rather than reducing the number of peanut allergies as intended, this advice has actually caused an increase in allergies;
(b) The percentage of children breast-fed in the UK is very small (< 50%) compared to figures in most continental countries (in Scandinavia rates tend to be > 90%). The cause of this anomaly can be traced back to advice given in the late 50s/early 60s that discouraged women from breast feeding, and encouraged them to use artificial milk instead (artificial milk was a sexy new technology at the time). Although the medical advice has since been reversed, it is proving hard to overturn 30-40 years of custom.
8. For myself (and I guess for Purpledawn too) such examples provide a reason to be cautious when assessing new medical advice. Percy and Nator, on the other hand, seem to be of the view that knowledge is either science or not-science, and if it's science, then it's to be trusted, regardless of the 'hardness' of the scientific field or our previous experience of pronouncements in that field.
Note that I am approaching this subject as a 'hard' scientist, or at least someone trained in the hard sciences. From my perspective, medical science isn't very rigorous. Compared to 'hard' sciences like physics or chemistry, medical advice can often seem like woo-woo. (The two examples I've given here should make it clear how close to woo-woo medical science can sometimes be).
Peroration (not aimed at Percy or Nator )
My aim here isn't to attack science but to defend it from over-zealous advocates who, like crusading fundamentalists, seem to believe that empiricism and science provide a route to certain truth, a more successful alternative to religion.
But nothing provides us with certain truth about the world. Nothing. That's the lesson of empiricism, that our only route to knowledge is this flawed, fallible, everyday process of observation and induction. And that, oddly, paradoxically, it is only when we understand this fact that we begin to have a chance to acquire real knowledge about the world.
Edited by JavaMan, : typo
Edited by JavaMan, : No reason given.
Edited by JavaMan, : Edited to clarify the focus of the final two paragraphs

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JavaMan, posted 10-26-2007 8:48 AM JavaMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Percy, posted 11-16-2007 8:57 AM JavaMan has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 169 of 185 (434543)
11-16-2007 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by JavaMan
11-16-2007 8:22 AM


Re: Summary
JavaMan writes:
8. For myself (and I guess for Purpledawn too) such examples provide a reason to be cautious when assessing new medical advice. Percy and Nator, on the other hand, seem to be of the view that knowledge is either science or not-science, and if it's science, then it's to be trusted, regardless of the 'hardness' of the scientific field or our previous experience of pronouncements in that field.
Note that I am approaching this subject as a 'hard' scientist, or at least someone trained in the hard sciences. From my perspective, medical science isn't very rigorous. Compared to 'hard' sciences like physics or chemistry, medical advice can often seem like woo-woo. (The two examples I've given here should make it clear how close to woo-woo medical science can sometimes be).
My aim here isn't to attack science but to defend it from over-zealous advocates who, like crusading fundamentalists, seem to believe that empiricism and science provide a route to certain truth, a more successful alternative to religion.
But nothing provides us with certain truth about the world. Nothing. That's the lesson of empiricism, that our only route to knowledge is this flawed, fallible, everyday process of observation and induction. And that, oddly, paradoxically, it is only when we understand this fact that we begin to have a chance to acquire real knowledge about the world.
Thank you for this detailed misstatement of my position.
The issue is and always has been the gross error of granting equal validity to conclusions arrived at through scientific study versus those arrived at through anecdotal and/or casual observations. Both approaches employ empiricism, but experience has demonstrated over and over and over again that scientific approaches lead to increased knowledge and progress, while anecdotal approaches remain mired in the same misunderstandings for decades, even centuries.
PurpleDawn, and also LindaLou, just cannot believe that people getting together and sharing their experiences with one another do not often lead to valid and useful conclusions, that in fact the opposite is the case, they most often lead to wrong conclusions. Were this not the case then the world would not have had to await the development of scientific approaches before the rate of progress exploded.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by JavaMan, posted 11-16-2007 8:22 AM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by JavaMan, posted 11-16-2007 9:21 AM Percy has replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 170 of 185 (434544)
11-16-2007 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Percy
11-16-2007 8:57 AM


Re: Summary
The final two paragraphs weren't aimed at you or Nator. Sorry, if that's the impression I've given.
It's only the sentence you were named in that's intended to represent your position.

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Percy, posted 11-16-2007 8:57 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 11-16-2007 10:10 AM JavaMan has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 171 of 185 (434551)
11-16-2007 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by JavaMan
11-16-2007 9:21 AM


Re: Summary
JavaMan writes:
It's only the sentence you were named in that's intended to represent your position.
None of the portion I quoted represents my position, especially the paragraph where you specifically mentioned my name. That paragraph said:
8. For myself (and I guess for Purpledawn too) such examples provide a reason to be cautious when assessing new medical advice. Percy and Nator, on the other hand, seem to be of the view that knowledge is either science or not-science, and if it's science, then it's to be trusted, regardless of the 'hardness' of the scientific field or our previous experience of pronouncements in that field.
Once again (this is verbatim from my previous message):
Thank you for this detailed misstatement of my position.
The issue is and always has been the gross error of granting equal validity to conclusions arrived at through scientific study versus those arrived at through anecdotal and/or casual observations. Both approaches employ empiricism, but experience has demonstrated over and over and over again that scientific approaches lead to increased knowledge and progress, while anecdotal approaches remain mired in the same misunderstandings for decades, even centuries.
PurpleDawn, and also LindaLou, just cannot believe that people getting together and sharing their experiences with one another do not often lead to valid and useful conclusions, that in fact the opposite is the case, they most often lead to wrong conclusions. Were this not the case then the world would not have had to await the development of scientific approaches before the rate of progress exploded.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by JavaMan, posted 11-16-2007 9:21 AM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by JavaMan, posted 11-16-2007 10:42 AM Percy has replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 172 of 185 (434559)
11-16-2007 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Percy
11-16-2007 10:10 AM


Re: Summary
Percy writes:
None of the portion I quoted represents my position, especially the paragraph where you specifically mentioned my name. That paragraph said:
JavaMan writes:
8. For myself (and I guess for Purpledawn too) such examples provide a reason to be cautious when assessing new medical advice. Percy and Nator, on the other hand, seem to be of the view that knowledge is either science or not-science, and if it's science, then it's to be trusted, regardless of the 'hardness' of the scientific field or our previous experience of pronouncements in that field.
I'm sorry if you think this misrepresents your position. However, it's the only explanation I can think of for paragraphs like these in Message 33:
Percy writes:
I think this issue has been addressed at least several times, and the answer hasn't changed. The average layperson who insists on making his own assessments of complex scientific evidence but has no background or familiarity with science has one of two choices. He can embark upon a lengthy period of study that will probably be filled with many missteps and misunderstandings if he doesn't have some scientific aptitude (and he probably doesn't, else he'd already be familiar with science because he had found he was good at it while still in school), or he can wing it and become terribly confused.
Percy writes:
I know you find what appear to you to be different legitimate opinions as indicating uncertainty, and I know that this is very common among laypeople. Sites like this one want to help as much as possible to alleviate the confusion. But don't assume that just because you can't find your way through the maze of information that the experts don't have any good answers, because that's definitely not the case for the issues we've been discussing.

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 11-16-2007 10:10 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Percy, posted 11-16-2007 2:47 PM JavaMan has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 173 of 185 (434610)
11-16-2007 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by JavaMan
11-16-2007 10:42 AM


Re: Summary
JavaMan writes:
I'm sorry if you think this misrepresents your position. However, it's the only explanation I can think of for paragraphs like these in Message 33:
That's very odd that it's the only explanation you can think of, because I just provided the proper explanation, and the context was the same back in Message 33. PurpleDawn was in essence saying that she was justified in giving greater weight to the anecdotal evidence she understands than to the scientific evidence she doesn't understand. I was telling her in Message 33 that those who have no aptitude for science but insist on attempting to understand the science anyway have set themselves a very tough task. PurpleDawn's mistake was to conclude that just because she doesn't understand the science that she's therefore free to disregard it and go by the anecdotal evidence she understands. By giving the greater weight to the worst approaches, anecdotal approaches, she's bound to reach erroneous conclusions. And this is born out by the evidence of her views, being against vaccines, for example, and citing as evidence the websites of psychics.
Anyway, here's the problem in a nutshell. You said this:
JavaMan writes:
Percy and Nator, on the other hand, seem to be of the view that knowledge is either science or not-science, and if it's science, then it's to be trusted, regardless of the 'hardness' of the scientific field or our previous experience of pronouncements in that field.
I definitely never said anything like this, it doesn't reflect what I believe, and I politely request that you stop repeating this mischaracterization of my views. If you want to explore my views with me that's one thing, but if you just want to repeatedly declare misrepresentations of my views that's quite another. I know what I believe, and telling me that I believe things I definitely do not is just absurd. Your Message 1 began with a number of misunderstandings of what had been said in the other thread, but there's no reason to seek symmetry and end with them, too.
As long as we're on the topic of your misunderstandings, I may as well mention another:
JavaMan in Message 168 writes:
1. Scientific knowledge is acquired by inductive reasoning from prior experience, and, therefore, like all inductive knowledge, is fallible. A scientific model can be falsified by a single instance of counter evidence.
Science includes the requirement of replication. A scientific model accepted after a period of replication of the experiments/observations supporting it would never be considered falsified by "a single instance of counter evidence." If, for example, a human fossil were found in the Permian, then a) the tests verifying this would have to be replicated; and b) more instances would have to be identified. The mountains and mountains of scientific research that support theories that hold this to be impossible could not be overturned by a single piece of evidence, no matter how inexplicable.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by JavaMan, posted 11-16-2007 10:42 AM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by JavaMan, posted 11-16-2007 4:08 PM Percy has replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 174 of 185 (434630)
11-16-2007 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Percy
11-16-2007 2:47 PM


Re: Summary
I definitely never said anything like this, it doesn't reflect what I believe, and I politely request that you stop repeating this mischaracterization of my views. If you want to explore my views with me that's one thing, but if you just want to repeatedly declare misrepresentations of my views that's quite another. I know what I believe, and telling me that I believe things I definitely do not is just absurd.
Don't you think the tone of this sounds rather familiar? Maybe you should read back over some of Purpledawn's complaints .
Didn't I tell you early in the thread that you were mischaracterizing my views? Hasn't Purpledawn told you repeatedly that you've been mischaracterizing her views? In those cases, didn't you think that your interpretation was correct, despite what we told you? So what's the difference here?
All I've done is explained what your view in this thread seems to imply to me. I'm sure it isn't what you believe you're saying, but it seems that way to me, and probably to Purpledawn as well.
Now we've got that out of the way, I'll try in my next post to explore what you really believe .
Science includes the requirement of replication. A scientific model accepted after a period of replication of the experiments/observations supporting it would never be considered falsified by "a single instance of counter evidence." If, for example, a human fossil were found in the Permian, then a) the tests verifying this would have to be replicated; and b) more instances would have to be identified. The mountains and mountains of scientific research that support theories that hold this to be impossible could not be overturned by a single piece of evidence, no matter how inexplicable.
That's just detail, Percy. The principle still stands: it doesn't matter how much evidence a model has going for it, a single counter instance, e.g. firm evidence of humans existing in the Permian, falsifies the model. Then you have to change the model so that it covers all the positive evidence you've accrued so far, plus the new evidence that falsified the old model.

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Percy, posted 11-16-2007 2:47 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Percy, posted 11-16-2007 4:55 PM JavaMan has replied
 Message 176 by Percy, posted 11-17-2007 8:15 AM JavaMan has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 175 of 185 (434632)
11-16-2007 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by JavaMan
11-16-2007 4:08 PM


Re: Summary
JavaMan writes:
Didn't I tell you early in the thread that you were mischaracterizing my views?
Uh, no. We disagreed about whether tentativity had its origins in empiricism.
Hasn't Purpledawn told you repeatedly that you've been mischaracterizing her views?
Yes, but she was dissembling. You seem to be letting the distress she obviously felt imbue her position with a consistency and validity it did not have. I remind you again, she cited psychic websites to support her position. What more need be said about her bias toward quack sources and against scientific sources? One moment she'd be saying, "I am not more skeptical about scientific sources than I am of naturopathic sources," then the next moment she'd be saying, "I think if studies were done they'd support the naturopathic position, and by the way, aren't scientific studies biased by their source of funding?" (I'm paraphrasing, of course)
In those cases, didn't you think that your interpretation was correct, despite what we told you?
What do you mean by "we"? PurpleDawn was alone. Your prior participation in this thread ended at Message 98, more than two weeks ago. You gave PurpleDawn the impression that she was somewhere near the right track and then left her on her own.
All I've done is explained what your view in this thread seems to imply to me. I'm sure it isn't what you believe you're saying...
Good luck finding someplace where I said or implied that "knowledge is either science or not-science", or that only scientific knowledge can be trusted.
What I am saying and have been saying all along is that anecdotal approaches to gathering knowledge are far inferior to scientific ones, and that in any area appropriate for scientific study the scientific approach will yield far better answers a vast majority of the time. Both anecdotal and scientific approaches employ empiricism, but science raises empiricism to a fine art.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by JavaMan, posted 11-16-2007 4:08 PM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by JavaMan, posted 11-17-2007 3:25 PM Percy has replied
 Message 183 by JavaMan, posted 11-18-2007 1:29 AM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 176 of 185 (434769)
11-17-2007 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by JavaMan
11-16-2007 4:08 PM


Re: Summary
Hi JavaMan,
I originally intended to reply to the last paragraph of your post but didn't have time, so I'm getting to it this morning:
JavaMan writes:
Science includes the requirement of replication. A scientific model accepted after a period of replication of the experiments/observations supporting it would never be considered falsified by "a single instance of counter evidence." If, for example, a human fossil were found in the Permian, then a) the tests verifying this would have to be replicated; and b) more instances would have to be identified. The mountains and mountains of scientific research that support theories that hold this to be impossible could not be overturned by a single piece of evidence, no matter how inexplicable.
That's just detail, Percy. The principle still stands: it doesn't matter how much evidence a model has going for it, a single counter instance, e.g. firm evidence of humans existing in the Permian, falsifies the model. Then you have to change the model so that it covers all the positive evidence you've accrued so far, plus the new evidence that falsified the old model.
I understand what you're saying in principle. You and I can agree on the principle while disagreeing on how best to express it, but PurpleDawn and LindaLou have only a cloudy notion of this principle, and so when you say that it takes just a "a single instance of counter evidence" to overturn a theory, PurpleDawn looks at McGarey's 92 cases and LindaLou looks at her scads of anecdotal data and they then conclude that there's plenty enough evidence to indicate that castor oil packs work or to overturn any studies indicating that vaccines and antidepressants are safe.
Obviously there is something wrong with PurpleDawn's and LindaLou's understanding of the scientific process, because when they attempt to think scientifically they arrive at conclusions that are often contrary to very strong scientific evidence.
It is my position that PurpleDawn and LindaLou do not understand that as much as science is a way of looking at the world, it is also a set of methods for studying the world. These methods raise empiricism to a high art, and evidence gathered in this manner is far superior to the less formal more anecdotal approaches favored by PD and LL. My objection has been to their giving equal weight, indeed ever greater weight, to anecdotal evidence over scientific evidence, and I think it explains their tendency to arrive at erroneous conclusions.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by JavaMan, posted 11-16-2007 4:08 PM JavaMan has not replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 177 of 185 (434835)
11-17-2007 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Percy
11-16-2007 4:55 PM


Re: Summary
What do you mean by "we"? PurpleDawn was alone. Your prior participation in this thread ended at Message 98, more than two weeks ago.
Yes. Unfortunately, much as I'd like to spend more time here debating, I have a job to do, and two small children to look after. I have to keep forcing myself to stay away from the site so I don't get sacked, or taken to court for neglect .
The "we" wasn't intended to suggest that we were working as a team - it was just referring back to the separate complaints of mischaracterization mentioned in the previous paragraph.
Good luck finding someplace where I said or implied that "knowledge is either science or not-science", or that only scientific knowledge can be trusted.
What I am saying and have been saying all along is that anecdotal approaches to gathering knowledge are far inferior to scientific ones, and that in any area appropriate for scientific study the scientific approach will yield far better answers a vast majority of the time. Both anecdotal and scientific approaches employ empiricism, but science raises empiricism to a fine art.
The issue is very simple. Can you envisage any circumstance in which you would ignore the scientific consensus because you didn't trust it? If you answer, yes, than I accept that my description of your position was a misrepresentation.
I understand what you're saying in principle. You and I can agree on the principle while disagreeing on how best to express it, but PurpleDawn and LindaLou have only a cloudy notion of this principle, and so when you say that it takes just a "a single instance of counter evidence" to overturn a theory, PurpleDawn looks at McGarey's 92 cases and LindaLou looks at her scads of anecdotal data and they then conclude that there's plenty enough evidence to indicate that castor oil packs work or to overturn any studies indicating that vaccines and antidepressants are safe.
I know what you're saying. It is sometimes difficult to know how to pitch a line without misleading people. This thread was actually aimed at a couple of posters in a previous thread who made the two claims I mentioned in the opening post. I wanted them to understand the irony of using the term "empiricism" to decry knowledge based on personal experience.
I've encouraged Purpledawn because I believe that her intuition about medical science is right and that she's correct to question it. I wouldn't necessarily agree with all her judgements, but then, who's perfect?

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Percy, posted 11-16-2007 4:55 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Percy, posted 11-17-2007 4:01 PM JavaMan has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 178 of 185 (434839)
11-17-2007 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by JavaMan
11-17-2007 3:25 PM


Re: Summary
JavaMan writes:
The issue is very simple. Can you envisage any circumstance in which you would ignore the scientific consensus because you didn't trust it? If you answer, yes, than I accept that my description of your position was a misrepresentation.
Your question is couched in somewhat absolute terms. How about if you instead asked if I might ever be skeptical of the scientific consensus. In that case the answer is yes, of course.
But I've been taking a comparative stance, and in the context of recent discussions it would be better to ask is if I might ever be more skeptical of the scientific consensus than I am of anecdotal evidence, and the answer is no, and that's because I understand just how poor anecdotal evidence is. As I said a few posts ago, if this were not the case then it wouldn't have taken the advent of the scientific method for scientific progress to explode.
I've encouraged Purpledawn because I believe that her intuition about medical science is right and that she's correct to question it.
I'm not objecting to her questioning medical science. I'm objecting to her giving greater weight to quacks than to science. She's directing her primary energies at questioning science while giving quacks a free ride. It isn't a question of judgement but of sheer perversity.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by JavaMan, posted 11-17-2007 3:25 PM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Buzsaw, posted 11-17-2007 4:40 PM Percy has replied
 Message 184 by JavaMan, posted 11-18-2007 1:33 AM Percy has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 179 of 185 (434842)
11-17-2007 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Percy
11-17-2007 4:01 PM


Re: Summary
Percy writes:
I'm not objecting to her questioning medical science. I'm objecting to her giving greater weight to quacks than to science. She's directing her primary energies at questioning science while giving quacks a free ride. It isn't a question of judgement but of sheer perversity.
I understand you to think wholistic is quakery. If I have that right, I assure you that like conventional medicine there is some quakery but if you listen to the science oriented ones as I do, there is a whole lot more genuine science in it than in the conventional method and as well, a whole lot more evidence that treating wholistically leaves the patient more healthy than treating via the conventional method. Deborah Ray, Dr Whitaker and a number of others talk science daily relative to the products and practices which they advocate. Dr Whitaker did not build the largest naturopath wellness facility in the US on quakery. He being a former conventional MD integrates using mostly naturopath methodology and consistently saves basket cases which the conventionalists have left for hopeless or dead.
Saturating the body with products which are not natural to the body or fit for introduction into the diet is not good science. Ever so often it begins with one or two drugs and as the side effects of those kick in others are prescribed and as the siede effects multiply it's not long before ten or more drugs are on the daily list leaving the patient a miserable wreck. The rapid advance of the science of naturopath is mushrooming and being used in Europe, Mexico and other nations where it is tolerated. Obviously you are not aware of the extent of the science in it all but we who are following and applying it daily are apprised on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Percy, posted 11-17-2007 4:01 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 11-17-2007 4:53 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 181 by nator, posted 11-17-2007 7:30 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 180 of 185 (434843)
11-17-2007 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Buzsaw
11-17-2007 4:40 PM


Re: Summary
This thread's about empiricsim.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Buzsaw, posted 11-17-2007 4:40 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024