Re: [hackers-il] The "Science can't explain this" fallacy
- On 7/3/06, Nadav Har'El <nyh@...> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2006, Arik Baratz wrote about "Re: [hackers-il] The "Science can't explain this" fallacy":Personally if it works and it's a placebo I don't need any of it, it's
> > So? What's your point? Penicillin is better than placebo. So are the
> > other cures you mentioned.
> Indeed. And "better than placebo" is the only thing that matters what it
> comes to quacks selling you stuff. Why should I buy 100 shekel "medicine"
> when a 1 shekel "medicine" will work just as well (both will be placebos)?
an indication that the problem can be taken care of by other means.
> Who said nobody did this test? Maybe the manufacturer did it, and didn'tWell, more likely than not the mfg didn't do the tests.
> like the results. Maybe the manufacturer didn't want to do the test, because
> he knew that he just invented this remedy (e.g., "let's take juice from some
> fruits I have here on the table, and sell this as a cure to XYZ") and there
> is no way in the world that the test will show it to work?
And that's my point. It sells without doing the tests, BECAUSE
scientists don't do these tests. Since scientists don't do these tests
all the quacks can sell it without doing tests because people are used
to the fact that alt. medicine doesn't go through tests and it is
effective to some degree, so they just buy it without the tests.
Perhaps if enough people use something someone will take it seriously
enough to test it. Echinacea is widely used today, and I've seen some
research about it, some of it claims that it's entirely ineffective.
That's a good start, when you have contrary opinions.
> And even if nobody tried to test it, it doesn't give this product temporaryWhy would they test it? What incentive do they have to test it? People
> validity. It just proves the seller is a quack, as all decent sellers (not
> just in the field medicine) make sure that their product works before selling
buy it anyway.
> > Conspiracy theorists will say the large corporates don't want theseI don't like your analogy to software. Software either works or
> > things to be tested because they don't make money from unpatented
> > mixtures of herbs.
> That's like saying that any mathematical theorem is true, it's just that
> the large universities conspired to call only the math theorems they invent
> Most people don't care about the corporate's wishes. See, for example, free
> software. People use it because it actually works - even if the large
> corporates might wish that it never existed because they don't make money
> from it.
doesn't or is buggy to greater or lesser extent. You either can
complete a task with some software or you can't. A math theorem can be
verified by another mathematician. Medicine tests are subjective and
you need a large body of statistical data to show a trend. If I give
you the herb and you heal yourself with it, you can't claim anything
except that, for you, it worked.
> > Oh, do be skeptical, and work to disprove what is claimed, but do theYou left the incentive to prove it outside this equasion.
> > work and don't just ignore it.
> The burden of proof is the other way around. The more outlandish your
> results are, the harder *you* should work to convince others that you're
> right. If your result is surprising *and* nobody can understand your
> reasoning, don't be surprised if nobody believes you.
> The problem is that it's much easier to invent false theorems, than correctWell, if there's anecdotal evidence that doing some mental exercise 3
> ones. Scientists don't - and shouldn't - spend their time discrediting all
> the possible false theorems, but rather finding correct ones.
times a day cures cancer, I think it's worth a glance. How do you find
correct ones? Go back to the scientific process I described. The part
of it where you have to be creative, where you have to think up
something that has no basis so you can test it - you don't know it's
correct until you verified it.
> > I can't explain it rationally, except that I think scientists just shyBut they don't need to because again they have no incentive.
> > away from these topics, believing them in the realm of religion or
> > new-age or whatnot.
> I think you are confusing "scientists" with "scientific method". Ok, then
> "scientists" - such as tenured professors and employees of billion dollar
> drug companies - shy away from such research. Ok. But who cares? Whoever
> does care about these subjects - such as the people who actually run such
> workshops (for example) - can do the research themselves, using the scientific
> Why can't they say "1,000 people graduated from my workshop in the last 10Nope. It has to be reproducible and has to be reproduced. Remember cold fusion?
> years; Let's see if the percent of them that got sick is smaller than that
> in the general population"? They can. And if they want to convince me that
> there's any truth to their method, this is what they need to do.
And regarding the workshop, that's just bad statistics, because there
might be something in common to the people who go to the workshop;
they chose to go there and they weren't selected in random, you did
not isolate the random variable you're testing, no control group, no
double-blind test. It proves nothing. It is, still, anecdotal
evidence. Very good one at that.