quote:

---

Doctors and health charities have expressed concern about a conference which will examine the role of homeopathy in treating HIV.

The event includes discussion of what have been described as "healing remedies" for HIV and AIDS.

One of the speakers believes that the treatment, involving flower essences, can be used to halt the AIDS epidemic.

---

When homeopaths stay away from serious illness, they harm only the intelligence.

This looks far more dangerous.

quote:

---

...untapped HIV market.

---

Wow, that has such a disgusting ring to it.

I don't understand how homeopathic medicine can be used to treat a disease that is defined and diagnosed by the Dominant model.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:

Isn't it kind of like shoving the square peg into the round hole?

---

quote:

---

Gambian President Yahya Jammeh claims he can cure HIV, Aids and asthma, using charisma, magic, herbs, and charms. "The cure is a day's treatment," he says, "asthma, five minutes."

---

Having said that, I do respect certain non-western therapies, and in my work have seen them used as an effective adjunct to the western approach.

[ 01 December 2007: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

But in using them, I was careful to eliminate, as best I could on my own, other factors that could have lead to an erroneous conclusion that this stuff "works". And, in the case of broad leaf plantain, I'm not convinced something that works so well and so quickly might not have side effects we are unaware of due to lack of real scientific inquiry.

But then, if we subject alternative treatments or therapies to a double blind study, doesn't that them make them part of the "western approach" ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
But then, if we subject alternative treatments or therapies to a double blind study, doesn't that them make them part of the "western approach" ?

---

Also, empowering the immune system and allowing the body to heal itself is the best treatment there is.

As I have stated here before, Linus Pauling, while head of the WHO, spoke with health care professionals at UVIC, back in the 80's, whereby he levelled the accusation that health care professionals who use treaments that shut down the immune system, are actually complicit in that persons demise. Meaning treatments such as chemo therapy and radiation, while in some cases prolong the person's life, do nothing more than forestall death a quicker, whereas a fully empowered immune system gets rid of certain types of disease permanently.

Nanaimo's, now long time mayor, had cancer in the late 80's and was given 6 months, at tops to live, even with chemo. He decided to go to the Gerson clinic and treat it by their means, which is homeopathy and empowering the immune system. He still lives and is mayor today.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
It seems people seem to forget, or not even realize, that in many, many cases, big pharma's drugs come from a derivative of something that has been used by indingenous peoples for centuries as a treatment

---

quote:

---

No, generally speaking, it makes them false. That's why they're not studied that way.

---

He he. There is no vermouth in our sense of humour, is there?

Uninterestingly enough, this months issues of "Skeptic" and the "Skeptical Inquirer" are devoted to issues of alternative medicine and therapies. I purchased them last night at Chapters, for three dollars more (combined) than they are sold in the United States of Amnesia. But that's another subject.

"Skeptic" includes an article on the scientific disputes concerning the origins of AIDS, but neither addresses the issue of alternative therapies for HIV-AIDS.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
The body has no capacity whatsoever to heal itself.

---

2.8 million HIV-infected bodies worldwide didn't manage to heal themselves in 2005. Access to meds might have helped.

I believe in science (sorry if that sounds politically incorrect). Science doesn't mean labs. It means proof. It really abhors anecdotes. It explains the world and saves lives.

[ 02 December 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

Basically, we call this the placebo effect. I like homeopathy for diverting healthy people with minor ailments away from the overworked medical system so that we can focus on the people who are really sick.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
....used by indingenous peoples for centuries as a treatment, .

---

Yes, but this is not homeopathy.

This is called 'trial and error', and evidence based reasoning, which can be observed and passed on generation to generation.

This process applies to mushrooms, berries, etc.
This is rudimentary scientific inquiry, which all cultures and societies engage in. Humans are curious, and imbibe and then observe the outcomes of their behaviours.
This process led up to current scientific process. It was a work in process for millions of years. Evidence based reasoning is nothing new.

Animal even engage in a rudimentary process like this to some extent, but we wouldn't call what animals do homeopathy (or medical science for that matter, heh ).
Parents (human or otherwise) pass on info to their offspring to pursue or ignore certain berries or mushrooms depending on 1st hand experiences, or what they learned from their parents.

Homeopathy does not use evidence based reasoning.

Romanticising a culture, any culture for any agenda, seems intellectually dishonest to me.

Give credit where credit is due (discovery and ingenuity), but let's consider putting a moratorium on promoting urban myths and stereotypes to advance agendas that are based on magical thinking at the expense of indigenous people or people of any heritage.

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

And yet, those who defend this system so vociferously feel somehow qualified to ridicule, to villify, to publicly lobby against the efforts and explorations of others in the field of health care. Others who, contrary to what a confused and/or jealous? medical profession would have us believe, probably care more about true human health than their so-called scientific peers.

Although I cannot speak for homeopathy myself, to suggest that homeopathy is attempting to exploit the AIDS epidemic and somehow "cash in" (like, WHAT ??) by developing a homeopathic approach is, to me, ludicrous at best, and incredibly hypocritical, offensive, and deeply misinformed at worst.

Yeah, like AIDS is such a cash cow. Homeopaths are going to blackmail governments into buying their flower essences en masse.

I found out that, apart from fees to students, the School recieved large grants from the homeopathic medicine industry.

Then, in the classroom, the students were taught to prescribe those medicines to people coming seeking cures.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
... apart from fees to students, the School recieved large grants from the homeopathic medicine industry.

Then, in the classroom, the students were taught to prescribe those medicines to people coming seeking cures.

---

LOL. Say it isn't so!

quote:

---

And yet, the horrors of disease we face globally never seem to change.

---

Ah yes, nothing like wealthy westerners trashing the modern medicine which has allowed them to grow up completely ignorant of the devastation caused by childhood disease both in the past in currently in poorer countries. The good old days when a couple children from most families died before reaching adulthood and the chances of losing a parent at a young age for a couple times higher.

quote:

---

Maybe the kinds of diseases change, maybe these days it's cancer and AIDS rather than plague, but mortality rates stay constant, relatively.

---

If you mean that everyone will eventually die, then you are right. Otherwise you have no idea what you are talking about. In the US the mortality rate in 2004 was 8.2 per 1000. In 1900 it was 17.2/1000. Even when adjusted for age the results are still strikingly NOT constant. Children were more than 10 times less likely to die than children in 1900. For adults aged 24 – 65 the death rate fell in half. And for elderly aged 65 – 74 the death rate fell even more from 7% per year to less than 2% per year. And that is in the US where child mortality is still very high compared to other western countries (for instance child mortality in the UK has fallen 28 fold) and many don’t have health insurance.

quote:

---

It appears that we have just as much disease in the global human population as we ever have - first world and third world alike.

---

You are being deceived.

quote:

---

And yet, those who defend this system so vociferously feel somehow qualified to ridicule, to villify, to publicly lobby against the efforts and explorations of others in the field of health care.

---

Bull shit. Alternative Medicines have lobbied long and hard to ensure that they are regulation free. I think that they should be subject to the exact same regulations as the rest of the health care industry and then the 95% of it that is a scam would disappear.

quote:

---

Others who, contrary to what a confused and/or jealous? medical profession would have us believe, probably care more about true human health than their so-called scientific peers.

---

The alternative medicine industry has long screamed that there was/is a conspiracy against it perpetrated by the AMA. Truth is the AMA for the most part completely ignores alternative medicine with the exception of when someone does a study about an alternative medicine. Seeing as alternative medicine prefers to rely on outrageous claims and anecdotal evidence you won't see a proper study from them. Luckily we do have the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine which has been doing real studies for years (spending well over $100 million a year) and so far they have basically come up with nothing. There are a couple other organizations that do the same and have come up with similar results - a well funded organization in Switzerland - I can't remember the name.

I have researched alternative medicine for a couple years and I agree with Richard Dawkins who defines alternative medicine as a "...set of practices which cannot be tested, refuse to be tested, or consistently fail tests. If a healing technique is demonstrated to have curative properties in properly controlled double-blind trials, it ceases to be alternative. It simply...becomes medicine." He also states that "There is no alternative medicine. There is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn't work."

quote:

---

Although I cannot speak for homeopathy myself, to suggest that homeopathy is attempting to exploit the AIDS epidemic and somehow "cash in" (like, WHAT ??) by developing a homeopathic approach is, to me, ludicrous at best, and incredibly hypocritical, offensive, and deeply misinformed at worst.

---

I would suggest that you research homeopathy then.

quote:

---

Yeah, like AIDS is such a cash cow. Homeopaths are going to blackmail governments into buying their flower essences en masse.

---

Homeopathic treatment is generally not covered, so they are not blackmailing governments they are praying on desperate patients for money. Much like telvangelists pray on elderly people.

quote:

---

Who are the "fat cats" in the homeopathic industry ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:

Who are the "fat cats" in the homeopathic industry ?

---

There are today's closing numbers for the Boiron Corporation, researcher and maker of homeopathic "treatments". They apparently do veterinary medicine now too, in addition to people.

In case you want to check how your stock is doing, the ticker code is BOI.PA

quote:

---

And yet, those who defend this system so vociferously feel somehow qualified to ridicule, to villify, to publicly lobby against the efforts and explorations of others in the field of health care.

---

I don't know a damned thing about homeopathy but I can tell you that there are many different traditions of healing in the world that have existed long before the men burned the witches and built the hospitals and universities.

Do we want to have a talk about homeopathy and HIV or do people just want to assert that Western medicine is supreme to anything that exists as a matter of principle?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
So why is it that one tradition of medicine is called medicine and every other tradition of medicine is lumped in as "alternative medicine"?

---

Why is it that people assume that modern medicine is traditional western medicine? It is not. I would encourage you to read a history of medicine. Modern medicine rejected almost all traditional western and european medicine so it clearly can't be traditional western or european medicine. Modern medicine also rejected most of all other traditional medicines. It accepted what worked and rejected what didn't from all traditions and cultures.

Homeopathy by the way IS traditional European medicine, as was bloodletting, drinking goats urine and tons of other ridiculously inane ideas. All three of those don't work, but if I was rank them in terms of effectiveness it would go:

1) blood letting, many europeans accumulate iron in their blood (hemochromatosis) so blood letting can be used for that, although there is no benefit in using the traditional techniques as modern techniques are better and there are alternatives.

2) drinking goat urine, can't see any medical benefit but at least you might be make some money through bets at parties.

1,000,000) homeopathy

quote:

---

Don't judge what you don't know.

---

Don't assume that those judging homeopathy don't know.

[ 05 December 2007: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

[ 05 December 2007: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

[ 05 December 2007: Message edited by: Bubbles ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
So why is it that one tradition of medicine is called medicine and every other tradition of medicine is lumped in as "alternative medicine"?

---

That's an excellent question which I've often puzzled over. I think it's largely a result of amateurs and/or frauds seeking to lend legitimacy to their endeavours.

The term "alternative medicine" is as illegitimate as "alternative chemistry", "alternative physics", or "alternative civil engineering".

In all legitimate scientific fields, there are rival theories seeking to explain natural (or social) phenomena at given times and places. This is a dynamic situation, as theories are confirmed, refuted, amended, discarded. But all these theories coexist under the aegis of the same discipline. Why? Because all are subject to the scientific method. All stand or fall by the same criteria of observation, trial, confirmability, reproducibility, peer review, etc.

Homeopathy should be welcomed into the world of medicine (not "alternative" medicine, which to me means "alternative to medicine"), for as long as it takes to demonstrate its explicative and therapeutic efficacity. Then, 15 minutes later, having failed every test known to humanity, it will be discarded.

Don't you think that your opinion is a little ethnocentric? Even colonial?

For somthing to be "true" it must pass a standardized test developed by a hyper-materialist, hyper-rationalist tradition of science which has significant hegemonic power?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:
Not only am I qualified to evaluate, discredit and ridicule homeopathy and some other "alternative" treatments, I feel obligated to do so, to protect my patients from being scammed.

---

Don't phuck with babble's pharmacist! (We should make you a t-shirt.)

quote:

---

For somthing to be "true" it must pass a standardized test developed by a hyper-materialist, hyper-rationalist tradition of science which has significant hegemonic power?

---

Maybe a thought experiment?

quote:

---

If we line up an Asian person, a person from Africa, along with an Australian aboriginal, a North American aboriginal and an European together on a plank, three feet off the surface of the moon, and then removed that plank, which one would touch the surface of the moon first? Or would they all touch at the same time? Or would the results depend on the ethnicity of the observer?

---

Oh I see prior to the theory of gravity things didn't fall to the ground.

A scientific theory is a description of an event that it occurs it is not the event. A theory such as gravity may accurately describe and predict events that does not mean all theories have the same accuracy or the general accuracy of scientific explanation can be determined by only referencing the most accurate descriptions and predictions.

The point that telespectateur is making I believe is that it is pure cultural imperialism to dismiss the healing systems of other cultures that are based in worldviews and cosmologies those of us in the west do not share or understand.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
You completely missed my point.

---

I reread your post and, to me at least, your point is: Modern medicine is western or European traditional medicine. Concerning that point you are wrong. Let me know what I missed.

quote:

---

Don't you think that your opinion is a little ethnocentric? Even colonial?

---

People seem to have no problem understanding that there would be no benefit to us here in Canada if we dismissed evidence in favor of Christian superstitions and religious beliefs, although teaching creationism in our science classrooms would be entertaining. Yet many people seem to think that there is a benefit to other cultures if they dismiss evidence in favor of superstitions and religious beliefs?

I am not overly fond of your view as it dismisses the significant past, present and future contributions to medicine and science by almost all cultures. This Persian muslim is widely considered the world’s first true scientist and the founder of the scientific method several centuries before it was ever accepted in europe:

Ibn Al-haytham: First Scientist

I wonder if people will finally stop throwing out the ethnocentric card when China and India surpass the west in scientific and medical research?

[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
Don't you think that your opinion is a little ethnocentric? Even colonial?

---

No.

Is there a serious disagreement among serious people about how scientific theories should be tested and confirmed?

Not that I'm aware.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
The point that telespectateur is making I believe is that it is pure cultural imperialism to dismiss the healing systems of other cultures that are based in worldviews and cosmologies those of us in the west do not share or understand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

Oh I see prior to the theory of gravity things didn't fall to the ground.

---

Oh my, methinks your ethnocentric hegemonic cultural predilections are showing. In my faith-based belief system, many things, far from falling to the ground, fly directly to heaven, where they nestle in the heavenly aura and reside by the right hand of the Almighty - who Alone is capable of curing whooping cough.

Please respect my cultural beliefs and reconsider your attachment to the 16th century British colonial theory of so-called "gravity".

[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Why? We dismissed the healing systems from our own culture which were based on religious views with no evidence (meaning almost all of them). I highly doubt that you accuse people from other cultures of dismissing christian faith healers because they do not share and understand the same worldview as Pat Robertson.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

There is a difference dismissing ideas that are part of our own culture and we have some experience and knowledge of and world views we have no clue about.

---

Perfect. My parents are from Central Europe, and I learned German from them as a child. Does that qualify me to dismiss homeopathy (invented by Hahnemann) as a bad dream born of binge drinking?

I have no knowledge or criticism of Indigenous, Chinese, or Indian traditional theories and practices of healing. I opened this thread only to warn people that the homeopathic hucksters are getting ready to endanger as many lives as they can of HIV victims by peddling their magic water.

[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Please respect my cultural beliefs and reconsider your attachment to the 16th British colonial theory of so-called "gravity".

---

You can continue your mockery if you wish but you miss the point, whether Newton proposed a theory of gravity or not we would still fall if we stepped off a cliff, the explication of a theory does not make is so. Newton did not create the actions he described or observed. A description of the world is something we construct it is not independent of us even if the universe is. Gravity is also a robust theory that does not mean all scientific theories share that degree of robustness.

[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

You can continue your mockery if you wish ...

---

quote:

---

Gravity is also a robust theory that does not all scientific theories share that degree of robustness.

---

....how do you know?

[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

quote:

---

I have no knowledge or criticism of Indigenous, Chinese, or Indian traditional theories and practices of healing. I opened this thread only to warn people that the homeopathic hucksters are getting ready to endanger as many lives as they can of HIV victims by peddling their magic water.

---

quote:

---

Personally, I'm only dismissing homeopathy - a european concoction.

Any problem with that??

---

Not at all. I have very little knowledge of homeopathy. I would feel unprepared to discuss its effectiveness. As I said, don't judge what you don't know.

I never framed so-called "western medicine" as the traditional medicine of Europe. I actually traced it back to its inception when "the men burned the witches and built the hospitals and universities".

I called this a tradition of medicine, as in one of many.

As I'm sure most of you know, scientific method didn't play a large part in so-called "western medicine" until the 1800's or so.

The idea that "science" is somehow pure and free of values is so ridicules. "Science" is a political activity.

I put science in quotes because, like "medicine", what you are really talking about when you say "science" or "medicine" is dominant science and dominant medicine.

quote:

---

Whew, thanks, that's a relief - because at this stage of life, I'd have a hard time stopping even if you insisted.

---

quote:

---

how do you know?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

Fine with me knock yourself out. Although I doubt there are legions of people out there who would actually put such faith in homeopathy and if they did I suppose it would still be there choice. If the ministry of health was making such claims i would be concerned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:

The idea that "science" is somehow pure and free of values is so ridicules. "Science" is a political activity.

---

quote:

---

Unlike politics, in science, it matters whether or not your ideas work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
I'm not at all at odds with you here. While I think scientific theories are pretty robust, I would totally agree that hypothesis are much more open to question, and some undoubtedly are more likely to be truer than others.

So how do you discern them?

---

If the subject is too advanced, delegate your opinion to the experts.

Global warming is a good example. Very few of you have derived the equations that govern climatology, very few of you have read real scientific papers, and very few of you understand the link between infra red spectroscopy and the quantum theory of molecular transitions. Yet you're all willing to respect the models of these experts, because that's the best you can do. And it's a good judgment, because it's usually the right way to go.

I took a course on General Relativity (the modern theory of gravity). The very first things the teacher told us is how Newton was wrong, and why we believe Einstein's reformulation is wrong. The conclusions can be reached with simple thought experiments.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

---

Trust in science is deserved because science works. Your computer works, your car, modelling of the planets, elevators, air conditioning, antibiotics, et cetera. The functionality of your computer is independent of culture and politics. Its state is functional. If a space alien with completely different politics from any of us were to push the power button, it would turn on.

It is the politics of human beings which must adapt to the laws of nature, as it cannot happen the other way around.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
That's why all people of conscience have a duty to speak out against such obscenities masquerading under "alternative" labels.

---

What 'scientific' treatments can never supply however, is the 'spiritual' element, which is always considered to be a necessary part of Aboriginal healing.

It is held as a teaching among Aboriginal healers that medicines that have been 'distilled' or developed from traditional herbs or roots must necessarily lose much of their potency without the accompanying prayer and purification. No reputable Aboriginal healer that I am aware of would merely dispense medicine via an indifferent package like a pharmacist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
The functionality of your computer is independent of culture and politics.

---

quote:

---

I see no conflict between western medicince based on the European scientific tradition, and the medicine of my elders.

---

quote:

---

In fact, some scientific treatments have found their origins in Aboriginal medicine.

---

quote:

---

What 'scientific' treatments can never supply however, is the 'spiritual' element, which is always considered to be a necessary part of Aboriginal healing.

---

A misconception I see in this thread and some previous ones is that debunking "alternative" medicine somehow extrapolates to an attack on all culturally-based medical practices. Like Trevor said upthread, quoting Dawkins, if it works, it's not alternative.

Edited to add: Hey! Did anybody else notice there's an ad for "homeopathy medicine" below the bottom of this thread?

[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: Sineed ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
Unionist, you seem to be enforcing an even stronger binary than the one I originally pointed out.

Don't you think that your opinion is a little ethnocentric? Even colonial?

---

Can you not see that homeopathy is profitting from anti-establishment politics by mystifying its customers, rejecting science and playing dress-up with seductive concepts like "natural" and "holistic" healing?

It is a billion-dollar industry, brought to you by such "anti-colonial" companies as Apex Energetics, Boiron, Dolisos, Nelson/Bach, Standard Homeopathics, Boericke, and Tafel.
At least the pharmaceutical industry has some products which arent sugar-water.

quote:

---

And simple thought experiments can help you understand why homeopathy is nonesense.

---

quote:

---

If the subject is too advanced, delegate your opinion to the experts.

---

That's just an appeal to authority or blind faith in designated "experts" That is pretty dangerous logic that has resulted in some seriously negative outcomes.

How do you determine who is a legitimate "expert"?

quote:

---

Trust in science is deserved because science works. Your computer works, your car, modelling of the planets, elevators, air conditioning, antibiotics, et cetera.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

Not all science works, probably historically the majority of what is done as science is either wrong or irrelevant. One still needs to determine what is good, relevant and even safe. Take your example of antibiotics, they work to a point but can result in dangerous outcomes in terms of mutant strains of bacteria. There are often scientific or techinical solutions that can result in further problems.

---

Absolutely correct. But it would be irresponsible to conclude that scientific method is undecided, subjective, culturally relative, up for grabs.

quote:

---

Like Trevor said upthread, quoting Dawkins, if it works, it's not alternative.

---

If and how something works is often culturally determined.

quote:

---

I'm not talking about value systems. I'm talking about science.

---

Unionist, it's very telling that you don't see the irony or contradiction in this statement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
I find it amusing that those who ridicule religion are apparently unable to see their own fanatical adherence to science as any kind of problem. Much like the religious zealots they deride, they see science as "the truth".

---

[ 06 December 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]

For instance many people feel that it is too easy to get a new drug on the market and maybe it is but comparing it to the ease of alternatives medicines is night and day. The new drug has go through animal testing, then clinical trials, it must demonstrate positive health benefits and document any adverse effects in those trials, they must determine any potential adverse effects from interactions with other drugs or foods. It needs to prove itself before it is marketed and it must be shown that when it is produced it will meet standards for quality, quantity and constitution. Then once it marketed it must come with a summary of information about it and any potential side effects. Physicians still must report any adverse reactions from the drug and its approval may be withdrawn at any time. All of those built in safeties are good things, but none of those safeties exist to protect the consumer from alternative medicines or supplements.

Ephedra on the other hand didn't have any testing for safety or efficacy when it appeared on shelves, didn't require any explanation of possible adverse effects or interactions with drugs or foods, wasn't required to describe active ingredients on any labels, manufacturers were not required to maintain any records of those adverse effects, it was found to have a huge variance of active ingedients (about a factor of 50x) showing poor quality control, and it was allowed to make completely unsubstantiated claims. The FDA had to demonstrate that it came with an unreasonable risk to have it banned in the US and I think that took them 7 years. I am sure that a whole lot of people thought that because you could buy it in any healthfood store that it couldn't have harmful effects. Had ephedra been properly regulated and its quality ensured it probably would have been safe or at least much safer, but the industry is dead set against any regulations.

[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

quote:

---

Whether or not some dismiss this as a placebo effect, I remain convinced that spiritual faith is a central part of healing.

---

I find it interesting that the placebo effect was in fact nailed down as something very real by the scientific method. And I'd add that that science does not abhor or deny the spiritual. In fact it's quite the opposite.

I remember back some time ago to an article in the Skeptical Inquirer about a "ritual" that native people in the sub arctic used to employ. What seemed like pure superstition on the face, turned out to be sublime logic under closer scrutiny.

quote:

---

Much like the religious zealots they deride, they see science as "the truth".

---

quote:

---

What we are fanatical about is determining what works and what doesn't, what is more likely to be "true", and what isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

Not all science works, probably historically the majority of what is done as science is either wrong or irrelevant. One still needs to determine what is good, relevant and even safe. Take your example of antibiotics, they work to a point but can result in dangerous outcomes in terms of mutant strains of bacteria. There are often scientific or techinical solutions that can result in further problems.

---

Historically, most established science works very well. Science as we know it really only begings with Tycho Brahe, Rene Descartes, et cetera.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:

But this is done by looking only at the material world. Maybe you are missing something?

---

I wonder if you support the teaching of creationism in school?

Also, are you pro-choice? It's hard to justify a prochoice position once you accept that the existence of a spiritual world, and thus of "souls", cannot be dismissed as irrelevent to policy. I'm an agnostic now, but back when I was a teenager and believed in the existence of a soul, I was pro-life.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bubbles:
500_Apples

Could you elaborate?

---

Say a chemical has healing powers. This could be because bacteria or viruses find it toxic, or because it stimulates the immune system. How is diluting it to the point there's a few molecules left going to help? Hint, it's not. A molecule of mercury won't kill you. Dosage counts.

quote:

---

Historically, most established science works very well. Science as we know it really only begings with Tycho Brahe, Rene Descartes, et cetera.

---

Your statements continue to be both vague and based in circular logic.

What is established and who determines that?

WHat do you mean by works? Are you saying that basic science is irrelevant until it can find an application?

It's worth noting that most of the conclusions and assumptions Descarte made have been empirically demonstrated as false.

You still haven't explained how one determines who is an expert and who is not.

Are you saying science is only to be accpeted when it is accepted by the majority of experts?

Any emerging theory or paradigm will begin as a challenge to common assumptions within the field. Does that make it bad science. Thomas Kuhn of course argues that science operates within the confines of an accepted paradigm until there is a shift. Very few people doing a scientific discipline challenge the assumptions of the paradigm within which they are operating. I think psychiatry and economics are great examples of this.

quote:

---

So - why would anyone on babble take global warming seriously, if almost none of you can derive any basic equations or underlying physical assumptions of climatology? Because the argument from authority is valid in this case. Occam's razor, et cetera. It's a fair principle that works fairly well.

---

I actually did do a basic university course in climatology and I don't think the basic principles are all that difficult for anyone to understand. I think the basic principles of many sciences are not beyond the comprehesion of the average person. What I think is unfortunate is that very few people are taught the basic operations and methods of science, even more unfortunate is that people are unaware of the philosophical assumptions that underly scientific practice. In general I think your position is based on a great deal of elitism of which their is no shortage of in the Academy.

I am not sure your clear yourself on what you are proposing but I don't really think blind faith in scientific authority is a desirable or useful approach.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

I actually did do a basic university course in climatology and I don't think the basic principles are all that difficult for anyone to understand.

---

Did you derive that carbon dioxide has non-negligible opacity in the infra red using molecular physics?

Did you measure it in a laboratory?

Or did you take it on "faith"?

Did you go out and measure carbon dioxide emmissions yourself, or do you accept the measurements coming from the authorities? Do you take ~300 ppm on faith?

You took all those things on faith, on authority, trusting the authorities. And that was necessary, otherwise you'd still be on chapter 1.

***

Of course science is based on faith. Uniformitarianism, and a belief that processes can be explained by rational rules. It's got no intrinsic epistemological validity. It has an extrinsic one. And that is that it works. Neptune was predicted from applying classical gravity to Uranus. Fiber optics cables succeed in transmitting signals. And the list goes on.

quote:

---

Are you saying that basic science is irrelevant until it can find an application?

---

???

No. Sometimes applications take a long, long time to show up, but if interesting things manifest themselves in your work, you should pursue it and see what happens.

[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
I find it amusing that those who ridicule religion are apparently unable to see their own fanatical adherence to science as any kind of problem. Much like the religious zealots they deride, they see science as "the truth".

---

The "truth"? Tommy has spoken well to this point.

Religious zealots harass, bully, and kill others in the the name of the "truth".

Scientific zealots constantly modify their understanding of reality, as more nuanced evidence comes in, as technology allows more refined measurement, and as new theories are developed to account for those observations.

Then they build flying machines and bridges and surgical and diagnostic devices which save lives, increase longevity, reduce drudgery, and the rest.

Science stands for life. Religious zealotry promises only life after death. And it's always ready to murder you if you don't agree.

Before homeopathy kills any HIV sufferers, people of conscience should stand up and condemn these con artists anywhere they gather and anywhere they seek to hawk their indulgences.

[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Then they build flying machines and bridges and surgical and diagnostic devices which save lives, increase longevity, reduce drudgery, and the rest.

Science stands for life. Religious zealotry promises only life after death. And it's always ready to murder you if you don't agree.

---

Science = life. Everything else is either zealtry = {death / life} or something else.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
Goodness me, unionist. Way to go waaay off the topic and get totally worked up. Whatever would my ancesters have done, sitting around all that time on the plains, waiting for some Eropean fur traders to come along and start increasing longevity and reducing drudgery.

---

Makwa, this is not about you and your ancestors. I have nothing but respect and admiration for Indigenous peoples and their traditions. They have been robbed of their land and heritage, and it is the duty of progressive people to do whatever you tell us to help make that right.

But my opinions about science vs. religion are mine. They have nothing to do with your ancestors. And they represent a distinct small minority opinion among my ancestors as well. I am entitled to them, and I will not change them - until someone shows me evidence to make them change. Until then, I personally consider all religious beliefs about physical reality to be bullshit, which harms not only the mind, but (as in the case of giving flower water to HIV victims) kills people.

[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

Anyway, yeah, the old religion/spirituality vs: science thing. Just on the off chance we don't settle this age old debate once and for all in this thread, let me go back to the OP.

Despite my misgivings about homeopathy as applied to HIV, I see what are described as alternate, or spiritual approaches as useful. Personally, I'm among the biggest hard science reductionist empiricist types around, (although on a personal level I'm trying to soften those edges a bit) but I could not do my job competently, esp working in a multi cultural environment if I didn't keep my mind open to alternative world views.

I meet my clients within their own context, and do not ask them to meet me in mine. We talk, I try to understand, and good treatment or interventions turn out to include the ones the client is going to feel good about. This includes acknowledging the clients spiritual self.

I should say I've had very good experience with Ayurvedic medicine as an adjunct to other treatments. There are a lot of alternate approaches which emphasise a regard for balance in life which I might do well to adopt myself.

[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

There is only one pure spirituality, and that is the spirituality of knowing. All else is cheap imitation sold by smarmy salesmen in back alleys.

quote:

---

Scientific zealots constantly modify their understanding of reality, as more nuanced evidence comes in, as technology allows more refined measurement, and as new theories are developed to account for those observations.

---

Unionist illustrates the most key and important point about science and the scientific method ( which is just an organized way of thinking) in that of all ways of looking at the world, only science has a self correcting mechanism.

quote:

---

But this is done by looking only at the material world. Maybe you are missing something?

---

Evidently not.

quote:

---

Because the argument from authority is valid in this case.

---

quote:

---

Unionist illustrates the most key and important point about science and the scientific method (which is just an organized way of thinking) in that of all ways of looking at the world, only science has a self correcting mechanism.

---

I think that true scientists probably are this way. Babblers touting the scientific method as supreme vehicle to all knowledge, however, are not this way. And unfortunately, the way science and scientific results are communicated in our society, the way our entire social, political and economic ways of being are now almost exclusively based on a logical positivist take on reality, that self-reflection and self-adjustment in light of aberrant facts, in light of phenomena that can't be explained within the scientific model does not occur, so anything that doesn't conform to results predicted by a scientific framework becomes "invalid". Not the method itself, the facts that don't fit the method. This, in my opinion, is not good science, and it's not a good way to approach our reality.

I visited an HIV ward in a Toronto hospital, and it was filled with young men, emaciated, dying. The doctors let me go on rounds with them and we visited a young guy, thirtyish, who had the AIDS cancer, Kaposi's sarcoma, and it had spread to his lungs. He sat slumped while the doctors talked over him. As we left the room, I was the last to depart, and I heard him whisper snidely, "Tell me something I don't already know." When I got outside the room, the doctors turned and asked what the patient had said to me. When I told them, one doctor rolled his eyes and said, "You know what would be the kindest thing? If I would go into these guys' rooms and say, 'It's a miracle! I've got the cure for AIDS right here.' And I would fill up a syringe with 100 mg of morphine, and inject them with it."

But thanks to antiretroviral therapy, doctors are no longer reduced to fantasizing about mercy-killing their patients as the most significant and compassionate thing they could do for them. When I last went to an HIV conference, they were saying they were now thinking that people with HIV may live normal lifespans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:

But this is done by looking only at the material world. Maybe you are missing something?

---

and what else would we be observing but the material world? If I can not observe something immaterial, does it matter if it is there or not?

quote:

---

Say a chemical has healing powers. This could be because bacteria or viruses find it toxic, or because it stimulates the immune system. How is diluting it to the point there's a few molecules left going to help? Hint, it's not. A molecule of mercury won't kill you. Dosage counts.

---

But does this reliance on science based chemicals and treatments to keep desease at bay not ultimately lead us into an unsustainable quack-mire? Soon we will need hundreds of specialists who each micro-manage a bit of our bodies well being. Do you realy want to go in that direction?

quote:

---

and what else would we be observing but the material world? If I can not observe something immaterial, does it matter if it is there or not?

If this 'something' is not observable how can I be missing something?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

Let's try starting with consiousness it is neither observable by an independent observer nor is it material even though it is the product of neurobiology.

---

You're confused.

Conciousness is not "not observable", it's just "not explained".

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific zealots constantly modify their understanding of reality, as more nuanced evidence comes in, as technology allows more refined measurement, and as new theories are developed to account for those observations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unionist illustrates the most key and important point about science and the scientific method ( which is just an organized way of thinking) in that of all ways of looking at the world, only science has a self correcting mechanism.

---

A distinction needs to be made between how science is supposed to be done and how it actually carried out, the myth vs. the reality. In doing science scientist often start with preconceived assumptions and seek to confirm them. Scientist will often reject observations that do not fit the theory. My father was an agricultural researcher at a University and spent most of his time in the field and the lab, he was not a professor but he was the one who was in charge of carrying out the day to day research. He often complained that the Profs. would reject data and observations that did not fit the theories they were promoting. It is not that rare that data is massaged and at other time outright falsified,people seem to forget that scientists and researchers are human and are prone to all the foibles and errors of the rest of us. It isn't even accurate to speak of science in such monolithic terms, relying only on robust research as an example of the validity of all scientific endeavour is of course unscientific. Many of the claims here have little to do with the production of scientific knowledge and have more to do with the construction of a grand scientific narrative.

quote:

---

The "argument from authority" is not necessarily a fallacious one, as you point out 500 Apples. It becomes fallacious when we take the word of an expert who is expounding outside his field of expertise, or believe something based on it's age, for example.

---

quote:

---

You're confused.

Conciousness is not "not observable", it's just "not explained".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bubbles:
500_Apples'

But does this reliance on science based chemicals and treatments to keep desease at bay not ultimately lead us into an unsustainable quack-mire? Soon we will need hundreds of specialists who each micro-manage a bit of our bodies well being. Do you realy want to go in that direction?

I like the idea behind Homeopathy. In that life seems to have evolved in water and still is mostly water. Water seems such creative medium, in that it can bring so many substanses together and interact with each other.

---

Bubbles,

It matters not whether or not the idea seems elegant. What matters is whether or not the idea is true. I realize that's the scientific take on things but what else? Giving honey to people with schizophrenia sounds elegant too, but that too would likely not work.

On that note though, all people, no matter how sick, should drink several glasses of clean water a day, regardless of homeopathy.

You're right that we're moving to a situation where there are a lot of specialists. Doctors for the ears, for teeth, for the heart, for the brain, for the lungs... et cetera. I'm not sure what the problem. Nature is complex and we have no choice but to adapt. I can only think of specialization as a means of adapation, but if you can think of something better your name will be in the history books at the same level as the highest philosophers.

[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

I'm confused o.k. so enlighten me, please explain how consiousness is observed rather than experienced?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

Let's try starting with consiousness it is neither observable by an independent observer nor is it material even though it is the product of neurobiology.

---

Philosophy has a role to play in this case because it could lead to new discoveries.

Provisionally, no, consciousness is not observable by an independent observer. I say provisionally because there is some research using PET scans which monitor radioactive isotopes of oxygen injected into consenting subjects. They attempt to map the parts of the brains that process information, language organise it and use information to solve problems and to communicate ideas.
I can't recall if there are other ways (tools) being used in an attempt to observe consciousness. Also, I can't recall if more data is needed at this time, but I think it will still needs to be peer reviewed for some time yet (assuming there is enough robust data.)

It's been a while since I have read some Stephen Pinker, and I might scare up some of his articles and books again.

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/books/index.html

[ 07 December 2007: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

quote:

---

Provisionally, no, consciousness in not observable by an independent observer. I say provisionally because there is some research using PET scans which monitor radioactive isotopes of oxygen injected into consenting subjects. They attempt to map the parts of the brains that process information, language organise it and use information to solve problems and to communicate ideas.
I can't recall if there are other ways (tools) being used. Also, I can't recall if more data is needed at this time, but I think it will still needs to be peer reviewed for some time yet (assuming there is enough robust data.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

....Besides since I have a graduate degree in psychology including studies in cognitive science and neuropsychology, than you should trust my expertise or do I need the 80's rockstar do of Pinker to get some respect around here.

---

I am not following you.
I do not believe your argument re: authority / expertise ,above, involved me. Are you confusing me with someone else? I don't recall being disrepectful to you or your perspectives re: cog. sci or neuropsychology. I was under the impression we were having a dialogue.

quote:

---

I think that true scientists probably are this way. Babblers touting the scientific method as supreme vehicle to all knowledge, however, are not this way.

---

I would agree. I would even agree if the charge was leveled specifically against me. It is perhaps most difficult, and therefore most imperative to first be sceptical with one's self, and with the things one wants to believe. But scientists, and others, are human, so this approach isn't always as rigorous as it should be. In my case, Michelle and Unionist, and at times Oldgoat, are not shy to plop me in the face with the message board equivalent of a bladder, and there are others too.

And, I appreciate it-- if not initially, then a few seconds later.

Where science goes wrong is when fellow experts in a field do not perform the same function for their colleagues, through peer review and through the duplication of their work to check to see if the results are substantially the same.

But these are human failings, and not failings in the method.

quote:

---

He often complained that the Profs. would reject data and observations that did not fit the theories they were promoting. It is not that rare that data is massaged and at other time outright falsified,

---

I seem to recall reading somewhere, some time ago, that no one has ever been able to duplicate the research of Gregor Mendel-- at least not to the point in getting as perfect a set of data as he got.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
He often complained that the Profs. would reject data and observations that did not fit the theories they were promoting. It is not that rare that data is massaged and at other time outright falsified,people seem to forget that scientists and researchers are human and are prone to all the foibles and errors of the rest of us.

---

Then the phenomena and/or tests would not be reproducible, the conclusions would not be peer-verifiable, and the research would be flushed down the toilet - barring, of course, a worldwide conspiracy to ignore inconveniently true data.

As between science and anti-scientific theories (such as religion or homeopathy), it is the latter which rely for their survival on conspiracies of wilful blindness to received observation and experience.

Science, by contrast, thrives when received truths are challenged and refuted.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
You are talking about the biological correlates of consiousness not consiousness. Besides since I have a graduate degree in psychology including studies in cognitive science and neuropsychology, than you should trust my expertise or do I need the 80's rockstar do of Pinker to get some respect around here.

---

If two people are going to give me health advice, one is a artist or a chemist and the other is a physician (the "expert"), I'm going to give more credibility to what the physician says.

That does not mean that I'm going to take the physician's advice as absolute truth. Rather, the physician's advice is simply given more weight due to her expertise. If I have cancer and talk to five different and independent oncologists and they all give me the same advice, I'm going to be highly confident of what they are telling me.

If, on the other hand, a religious person, a spiritual person, or a "natural medicine" person tells me, based on their religious, spiritual or "natural medicine" expertise, to do XYZ to enhance my physical health because it is his "belief" that it will have a positive impact on my physical health, I'm going to go "Uh-huh." But, I'm not necessarily going to discount it entirely, depending on how plausible his claim is. For example, I can believe that prayer or breathing exercises or what-have-you can help reduce stress and that that can have a positive impact on physical health. That is plausible to me. If one of those folks tells me that an herb will cure my HIV or my brain cancer, I'm not even going to listen to them. The probability of them being correct is about as close to being zero--without actually being zero--as one can be.

quote:

---

Then the phenomena and/or tests would not be reproducible, the conclusions would not be peer-verifiable, and the research would be flushed down the toilet - barring, of course, a worldwide conspiracy to ignore inconveniently true data.

---

Peer review is often held up on babble as some magical process the reality however is much different. There is a great deal of politics and ideology that come into play, papers are often turned down for ideological rather than scientific reasons. Even the best intentioned peer review is impacted by the time constraints that academics face, the process of review is far from rigorous. It is also sometimes imossible to distinquish an expertly fudged paper from one that is genuine. In psychiatry it has become common practice for pharmaceutical companies to write articles and have psychiatrists sign there name to them, even though the practice has been exposed it still goes on frequently. A great deal of research is also accepted despite the fact that no one has ever even tried to replicate it. It is not uncommon to hear of researhers entire carears have been built on fraudulent date, these are only the extremes and those that are caught.

My point is that is does scientific enquiry no favours to overstate it's accuracy or overstate it's ability to produce knowledge. We can utilize any tool more effectively if we are aware of both strengths and shortcomings.

quote:

---

But these are human failings, and not failings in the method.

---

So a method developed by humans, in an effort to understand the world from a human perspective, has as its major failing, humans? And this is not a "failing in the method"?

quote:

---

Provisionally, no, consciousness is not observable by an independent observer. I say provisionally because there is some research using PET scans which monitor radioactive isotopes of oxygen injected into consenting subjects. They attempt to map the parts of the brains that process information, language organise it and use information to solve problems and to communicate ideas.
I can't recall if there are other ways (tools) being used in an attempt to observe consciousness. Also, I can't recall if more data is needed at this time, but I think it will still needs to be peer reviewed for some time yet (assuming there is enough robust data.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

Peer review is often held up on babble as some magical process the reality however is much different.

---

quote:

---

In psychiatry it has become common practice for pharmaceutical companies to write articles and have psychiatrists sign there name to them, even though the practice has been exposed it still goes on frequently.

---

That touches on another subject, that being the damage done when professional degrees are accepted as "get out of jail free cards".

That kind of fraud is as dangerous as people selling fraudulent cures for serious diseases.

quote:

---

It matters not whether or not the idea seems elegant. What matters is whether or not the idea is true. I realize that's the scientific take on things but what else? Giving honey to people with schizophrenia sounds elegant too, but that too would likely not work.

On that note though, all people, no matter how sick, should drink several glasses of clean water a day, regardless of homeopathy.

You're right that we're moving to a situation where there are a lot of specialists. Doctors for the ears, for teeth, for the heart, for the brain, for the lungs... et cetera. I'm not sure what the problem. Nature is complex and we have no choice but to adapt. I can only think of specialization as a means of adapation, but if you can think of something better your name will be in the history books at the same level as the highest philosophers.

---

500_Apples

I have no problem with science as a way of understanding our environment. My biggest beef with science is in its use to alter our living space, applied science. There seems to be no elegant way to project the long term consequences of its application. And we seem to get into ever more problems on account of failing to project the consequences of all this appleid science. Things are just cascading more and more out of control as a result.

The biggest employer in the town near where I live is health care, with education probably being a close second. And both have trouble keeping up with the increased need for specialisation. To me that suggests an unsustainable situation.

The so called western science, is a mythical system that is based on Faith in itself and politics.

The countless number of people that are dying from the "so called" safe prescription, that their DR have provided them is appalling. But i guess its ok, since they did not die from so called "quacks". Try if you can look someone who just lost a loved one in the eye, while you tell them how amazing and superior the religion of science is. "Quakery" is "quackery" regardless of how many degrees the person providing the faith healing (which is how we would accurately describe Most of western Medicine) is.

You can checkout this link to a Topic I started on the Myth of the safety of Pharmaceuticals and western-medicine.