The Limitations of Science

Science is a method for acquiring knowledge that helps us to understand our world and everything in it. That method involves the accumulation of data, followed by statistical and other methods to interpret the data.

By writing an article on the limitations of science, I in no way mean to impugn that method, which has been essential to much of humanity’s progress since the beginning of human civilization. I have worked as a scientist for over 30 years – nearly all my adult life – and I have great respect for the previous accomplishments and future potential of science.

Probably all human beings have a strong tendency – some much more than others, conservatives much more than liberals – to think in terms of black and white, when shades of grey would be much more appropriate. This tendency is fueled by the fact that it is much easier to think in black and white terms than to think in shades of grey. With regard to science, at one extreme there are those who hold it to be infallible and that it always provides the correct answer; at the other extreme are those who, as pointed out in a recent post, believe that science is akin to a dogmatic faith based religion or that most scientists are shills whose main interest is to defend the status quo. The truth is somewhere in between those two extremes.


“Flawed” science and the limitations of experimental and observational science

So many times I have read newspaper articles in which a scientific study was criticized as being “flawed” – as if “flawed” is a black and white concept that means that the study’s conclusions are wrong if the study was “flawed” and right if the study was not “flawed”. The fact of the matter is that almost all scientific studies are flawed in some way, just as almost all human beings are flawed in some way. The question should not be whether or not a scientific study is “flawed”. Rather, the questions should be: “in what way was it flawed?; how much it was flawed?; and how are the answers to those questions likely to affect the stated conclusions?”

There are two types of scientific studies – experimental and observational. You have probably heard that experimental studies are superior to observational studies. That is true to some extent, but it is by no means absolutely true. Observational studies are those where the scientist collects data from observations of events that occur in the real world without any interventions from the scientist. Experimental studies are those where the scientist not only observes the data but influences it by means of experimental intervention. Experimental and observational studies each have their own strengths and weaknesses.

The problem with observational studies is that there are so many things in the real world that can influence outcomes (especially when studying something as complex as human behavior) that it is nearly impossible to account for them all in any single scientific study or to fully and accurately interpret their effects. For example, suppose a scientist wants to study the effects of air pollution on crime rate. It may be relatively easy to accumulate data on crime rate and air pollution and conduct statistical tests to show whether or not they are associated. But showing that they are associated is not sufficient. One must also consider the possibility that any one of numerous other variables, such as income, education, or any number of environmental factors may have been responsible for the apparent association of air pollution with crime.

Experimental studies largely get around that problem by randomly assigning an experimental intervention (for example, such as a drug for the treatment of an illness) to one group and comparing it with a “control group” that didn’t get the intervention, while taking care to ensure that other variables that might have an effect on the outcome are approximately equal in both groups. In that way one can ascertain the effect of the intervention on the outcome.

But experimental studies have their own types of problems. Consider scientific studies concerning global warming, for example. As far as I am aware, all studies on global warming are observational rather than experimental. One major reason for that is that it would be very dangerous and unethical to purposely try to create global warming for the sake of conducting a scientific experiment. But even if such an experiment was conducted, its interpretation would be problematic. What we really want to know about global warming is how it is produced in the real world – outside of the artificial circumstances of an experiment. A scientific experiment on global warming would give us very limited information on that important question.


Science as an art

Probably most non-scientists think of scientific methodology as a rigid and technical set of rules. But in point of fact, just as in art, insight plays an important role, both in the creation of scientific studies and in their interpretation.

The insight that is important to the creation of scientific studies may originate largely from other scientific studies, or it may instead originate solely from one’s personal life experiences and thoughts. One striking example of that is the story of how the chemical structure of benzene was identified largely through the inspiration of a dream. Although most scientific studies originate in a less dramatic fashion, the majority of scientific studies originate from one’s own life experiences and thoughts.

The interpretation of scientific studies, especially observational studies, is hardly ever simply a matter of merely following technical rules to come up with an answer. Rather, one must consider everything s/he knows about the subject and explore many different ways of interpreting the data, weighing the pros and cons of each, in order to best make sense of the data and arrive at a conclusion that is most consistent with it. Just as with the creation of scientific studies, appropriate interpretation of data usually requires one to consider it in the light of one’s intuition and personal experiences with the subject matter.


The problem of established paradigms – regarding the cause of obesity

A paradigm is a set of beliefs that provide a way of viewing reality with respect to a specific subject. Paradigms are useful in science to the extent that they can help in the visualization of reality. However, they can be harmful to the extent that they encourage inflexible or black and white thinking that is not sufficiently consistent with reality. Since scientists are human they sometimes have a tendency to adhere too much to certain paradigms.

When I was in medical school I was taught a very simple paradigm for the cause of obesity: It is caused by eating too many calories or too little physical activity or a combination of those two factors. End of story. It seems intuitive enough. We know that calories are converted into fat and that physical activity burns off calories. So the paradigm seemed obvious.

But I was suspicious of that paradigm because I knew people for whom it didn’t seem to apply. So I researched the medical literature on the subject and found out that the actual facts were very different from and more complicated than what the paradigm said.

The truth of the matter is that obesity is mostly genetically determined: Our hypothalamus acts as a thermostat to control our weight. People who are genetically programmed for obesity or for larger than normal body weight have a thermostat that is programmed at a high level. When they begin to lose weight, their thermostat does two things to bring their weight back up to the weight that they are programmed to: it increases their appetite in proportion to the amount of weight they lose; and it decreases their basal metabolic rate, which means that they burn off less calories than normal people both when they are at rest or when engaging in physical activity. Of course, it is possible that such people can, depending on how high their thermostat is set, and depending on how much will power they have, eat so little that they lose substantial amounts of weight anyhow. But that is extremely difficult, few obese people succeed at it, and those who do succeed usually don’t keep the weight off for very long. Of course my explanation also is an over-simplification of the facts. But it comes a lot closer to reality than did the standard paradigm.

I don’t know if most doctors still buy onto that paradigm. In any event, the question arises as to why doctors would buy into such a pattern when the medical literature on the subject clearly indicated that it wasn’t an accurate representation of reality. As I noted above, false paradigms are sometimes accepted because they seem to make sense and they are easy to believe. People – and even scientists – change their views of reality only with great difficulty. And since the paradigm was widely accepted by the medical profession, scientific articles that contradicted it were not likely to be published in the most widely read and prestigious medical journals, until more recently. But still, there was enough scientific evidence out there to make a clear case for anyone who was skeptical of the prevailing paradigm and who wanted to take the trouble to dig into it.


Intrusion of commercial interest – the effectiveness of acupuncture

The field of medicine is not only a science, but a business as well. Therefore, it shouldn’t be too surprising that business interests play at least some role in determining the prevailing paradigms among medical professionals.

Another paradigm that I was exposed to in medical school involved acupuncture. It was never mentioned in any of my classes until one day one of my fellow students asked about it in class. He was told simply that acupuncture was a quack science. End of story.

Like the obesity paradigm, I eventually became very suspicious of the idea that acupuncture is a quack science. I must admit that I never researched the subject as I did the cause of obesity. However, based on several conversations I had with people who practiced it, I came to believe that acupuncture is not at all a quack science.

My reasons are very simple. Those who told me it is a quack science never explained why they believed that. They simply implied that it is common knowledge that acupuncture is a quack science and that there is something wrong with anyone who believes differently. In contrast, those who have told me that it can be very effective for many different purposes have discussed with me a wide variety of literature that supports their views on that point.


Extra sensory perception (ESP)

ESP is a term that includes a wide range of phenomena that have in common the ability of a person to acquire information by means other than the known physical senses or the use of logic or experience. Many or most people, including many or most scientists, consider ESP to be something akin to magic – in other words, not a real phenomenon.

Nevertheless, I have long believed that ESP is a real phenomenon. Why? I believed in it not because of any scientific evidence I was aware of, but rather because of my profound awe regarding the human mind. And I did not consider my belief in ESP to be in the least bit anti-scientific. The lack of scientific proof that something exists does not by any means mean that it does not exist. The lack of scientific proof could just as well be explained by the fact that science has not looked very hard for it. Since I was aware of no scientific evidence either for or against ESP, in order to have an opinion on it I had to resort to something else. That’s not anti-scientific.

Then a few years ago I read a book that put forth a great deal of extremely convincing scientific evidence that many forms of ESP are indeed real. I don’t remember the name of the book, but here is some evidence on the subject.

Some may disparage the fact that controlled scientific experiments have shown small increases in the rates at which some people are able to ascertain the identify of playing cards that they have not seen at slightly higher rates than would be expected by chance. They might say, so what? What good can that do? What would be much more important would be to show whether people can divine really important things that have the potential to enhance or save lives. They have a good point – but only to a point, because they miss the larger point of these scientifically controlled studies. There may indeed be many people who are much more successful in using ESP powers under conditions that are really important than they are in using them under the conditions of a controlled scientific experiments. But the demonstration of such powers would require an observational study, which would present numerous difficulties if one assumes that the conditions under which ESP has dramatic uses occur very infrequently during the course of ordinary life. If that is the case the methodological difficulties could be enormous. I’m not saying it couldn’t be done – and maybe it has been done (I don’t know if it has). But my guess is that it would require a very large number of subjects, a great amount of time, and an ingenious study design.


Life of the soul after death

This is an issue that would seem almost impervious to scientific study. If the soul does continue to live after death, but it has no further interaction with the living or with the Earth, then it would indeed be completely impervious to scientific study. In order to acquire data the scientific investigator would have to die first. And then he couldn’t communicate the study results to the living. Unless…

Actually, many people have described what is sometimes referred to as “near death experiences”, where they claim that their soul travels to the afterlife and then comes back. I once talked to a fellow physician who claims to have herself experienced such an event. She was a friend of mine, and I found her account somewhat convincing. There are also several books that have been written on the subject, and I have read one of them, though it wasn’t included on this list. The book I read was written by a psychiatrist, and it seemed reasonably convincing to me. It was simply a recounting of many cases that the psychiatrist had witnessed first hand, along with his interpretations. Of course, there are other interpretations that one could put on those accounts.

But the most convincing single account of this phenomenon I ever read was from the autobiography of the psychiatrist, Carl Jung, who has sometimes been referred to as the father of psychiatry. A whole chapter, approximately one tenth of his whole autobiography, was devoted to a single incident in his life where he claims to have ascended to some heaven-like place, was told that a mistake had been made, and was sent back down to Earth, to his great disappointment. After returning to the hospital and regaining consciousness he tried to warn his doctor that his time was coming very soon. However, his doctor refused to discuss it with him and died a couple days later.

Anyhow, I believe in the permanent life of the soul after death. I don’t believe in it so strongly that I don’t have a normal fear and aversion to death. And it could be argued that I believe in it simply because I want to believe in it. I won’t argue that point.

The only point I want to make about this here is that I don’t consider my belief in this to be anti-scientific. Unlike the religious belief that the Earth is four thousand years old, for example (which my fundy nieces believe, which drives me crazy), the life of the human soul after death is something for which little or no scientific evidence exists either way. I can argue (and I do) that the near death experiences described above provide some evidence for it. Others can argue that the fact that a person expresses no emotion after he dies is evidence against it. But if the soul leaves the body after death, then the appearance of the body after death is almost irrelevant to this issue, it seems to me. Anyhow, my reasons for believing in it would make this post too long if I tried to explain it here. The only point I want to make here is that, since science doesn’t answer the question, people have to resort to other means to decide what they believe regarding this issue.


History as science and political science

I’ll finish this post by saying a few words about history as a type of science and about political science, since these subjects are most relevant to most DUers, and since I believe these subjects help make my point about the limitations of science.

History is usually not exactly regarded as a science, although it is often referred to as a “social science”. History and political science have in common with more traditional sciences the fact that they involve the gathering of data with the purpose of helping us to understand ourselves and our relationship to the world in which we live. They are different than the more traditional sciences primarily in that they pose some extremely difficult challenges in the interpretation of data. In that sense they have more in common with the other so-called “social sciences”, which present challenges in the interpretation of data mainly by virtue of the extremely complex nature of human thought and behavior.

I have often pointed out similarities between the Bush/Cheney government and Hitler’s Nazis because I believe that such comparisons are very instructive in demonstrating the dangers that we currently face. I have often been severely criticized for making such comparisons, though most DUers have agreed with me. Are such comparisons “scientific”? Well, yes and no. It’s almost impossible to utilize valid statistical analysis for such comparisons, because of limited data – though I feel certain that it could be done to some extent, with enough thought, time and effort. Naomi Wolf, in her new book “The End of America”, makes similar comparisons by referring to many Bush/Cheney policies as “historical echoes” (of the Nazi past). She notes such things as:

 a mob of young men dressed in identical shirts violently shutting down the Florida vote count in 2000
 FBI agents stopping peace activists at airports
 The promise that upon our invasion of a country that posed no risk to us we’d be greeted as liberators
 Speaking of our country as “the Homeland”
 The requirement that doctors provide confidential medical records to government agents upon request
 The extraordinary efforts of Bush and Cheney to create propaganda disguised as news
 The paying of informers to catch “terrorists”

She ends that discussion by saying:


We point to numerous similarities between what Bush and Cheney have done in comparison to what Hitler and his Nazis did. Critics of this line of reasoning point to the differences. Admittedly, there are differences. Which is more important, the similarities or the differences? There is no obvious and certain scientific way to answer that question. I – and many others – believe that the similarities are more important in this case. In the absence of statistical proof we use our intuition, our logic, our knowledge of history, and what we sometimes refer to as “common sense”. We can’t prove that the danger is comparable. And yet it seems to us that the similarities are so striking that one would be a fool not to recognize that our country is in a grave crisis that very well could mean the end of our country.

There just so happens to be a perfectly plausible scientific explanation for near-death experiences - one that doesn't involve postulating a soul or an afterlife. NDEs have actually been induced in controlled settings where the person was not actually at risk of dying, but rather the brain "thought" that there was some major trauma going on. What happened was people were placed into a centrifuge and then experienced high G forces. Blood, consequently, drained from the brain and began to pool in the feet and legs. Even though the person was not at risk of dying, many still experienced NDEs and out of body experiences. That would point to a biological, rather than mystical explanation.

Additional, one study of which I am aware seems to point to an issue in the arousal system as being implicated in NDEs. People who test positive to symptoms of Narcolepsy (a sleep disorder) are much more likely than controls to have experienced NDEs (read: statistical significance). It would seem that the simpler explanation is that there is a malfunction in the arousal system in response to trauma or perceived trauma as opposed to postulating eternal life and metaphysical souls.

the quality of NDEs evoked in those experiments is often fragmentary, and the contrived circumstances often make it hard to generalize to the much more intense and complete experiences documented by "natural" experiencers.

With that in mind, I wouldn't say that the experiments point to a biological explanation. They simply offer a *possible* basis for biological underpinnings. The results themselves don't make that explanation any more or less likely.

A: "God makes my arm move."

B: "We've done experiments. You can cause arm muscles to move by stimulating them with electricity."

A: "Well, that's not nearly as high-quality motion as what God causes. And the circumstances are contrived, and impossible to generalize. And that doesn't point to a biological explanation for my arm moving, that's just a possible basis for biological underpinnings."

On the subject to realize that "S"cience has yet to offer a plausible explanation for many of the NDE experiences. There are hundreds of cases compiled where people repeat information they couldn't have possibly known pre-NDE. (such as distant relatives names, etc..)

I remember one "S"cietists explanation of a specific NDE experience was "the machines must have been wrong" (A person was pronounced brain dead and was brought back after nearly 4 minutes and recounted, IN DETAIL, everything that went on the room while they were brain dead.. it turned the doctor into a believer who went on to write a book compiling similar stories, but when they appeared on a program together to "debate" the only explanation the "S"cientist could offer was "the equipment must have been broken"... it was quite laughable.

It refers to people who believe science is static and fail to learn the lessons of science from its own history.

With new methods of measurements always come discoveries that things once thought impossible are now not only possible but often beyond what they originally believed.

In the days before a thermometer, one might have thought it "magic" to turn that block of ice into water by just passing your hand over it.

There remain today so many things about our own body/mind connection that aren't fully understood. Sit down and play with a biofeedback machine sometime, it is a lot of fun to realize the amount of control you can have over your heart rate, body temperature, etc, by doing nothing more than thinking. Have your heard of stigmata? It is 100% REAL, caused by an incredible connection between mind and body wherein someone's mind can actually cause oozing wounds.

Or take "crop circles", which are generally dismissed as a hoax and 99.99% of them are; however, reports of a basic "circle" in a field date back 1000's of years and probably has a very simple, earth bound explanation that very few investigate because of the amount of fraud.

"S"cience is that which can dismisses everything without real explanation. When "S"cience can't explain something, "they must be lying" or "the machine must be broken" or "it must be a fake".

Real scientists realize that we probably only know a fraction of what there is to know and do not dismiss possibilities.

Have your heard of stigmata? It is 100% REAL, caused by an incredible connection between mind and body wherein someone's mind can actually cause oozing wounds.

Right...and...um...how does the mind do that?

"S"cience is that which can dismisses everything without real explanation. When "S"cience can't explain something, "they must be lying" or "the machine must be broken" or "it must be a fake".

A-ha! I knew there was a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method behind this "'S'cience" business. You see, the way science works is alternative hypotheses need to be ruled out. If it can be documented in a controlled setting that the machine is not broken or that it is not a fake, then those hypotheses can be ruled out. Once you rule out other possibilities, then you can begin to hone your investigation onto other, more likely hypothesis. Falsifiability is what science is all about.


Real scientists realize that we probably only know a fraction of what there is to know and do not dismiss possibilities.

No true scotsman fallacy, for one. Also, I don't think there are many scientists out there that assert we know pretty much everything (at least, no very good scientists - otherwise, why are they scientists to begin with?). I agree that one shouldn't dismiss possibilities, but when it comes to things that already have been studied then dismissing them out of hand is a good thing as there is only so much funding to go around and only so much time in a day. We'd get no where if we just continued studying, say, homeopathy or reflexology every day.

"Right...and...um...how does the mind do that?"

Great question. There have been several documentaries done on people who experience it, one by (I think) ABC news about 10 years ago where they recorded the entire experience from beginning to end. Amazing to watch. The person felt sick and depressed, had no access to knives or other cutting impliments and started bleeding from hands and feet... oozing wounds appeared, bled profusely and then completely healed to scars within hours. Cases have been well documented over the years. The placebo effect should tell you all you need to know about the mind/body connection and the possibilities within. Why can I personally increase my heart rate about 30-40 BPM just sitting in a chair and starting at a heart rate mointor?

Comparing "mind-inflicted wounds" with biofeedback is a non-sensical comparison. I can think of something frightening and raise my heart-rate fairly easily, but that doesn't mean, then, that I can create changes in the physical structure of my body with simply my mind. There is no known mechanism by which that can occur.

Moreover, cases of stigmata are investigated, and tend to be validated when investigated by the church (hardly a bastion of objectivity and scientific thought) and tend to be debunked when investigated by independent investigators...oh, I mean "'S'cientists.

And we are not talking about by "the church". There have been several documentaries on this subject.

And yes, you can change the "physical structure of your body with your mind". There can be dramatic physical manifestations of mental states, so to suggest there is no known mechanism is at best, untrue.

There can be dramatic physical manifestations of mental states, so to suggest there is no known mechanism is at best, untrue.

Oh? There is a known mechanism by which the mind can cause the skin to split open and bleed profusely? Please explain.

Also, there is no recorded case of stigmata prior to the 13th century - which is the time when the crucified Jesus became the symbol of Christianity. That should set of your BS detector.

And it has been documented. Go rent the documentaries on the subject.


What part of a BS detector should be going off? The fact that once the crucified Jesus became the symbol of Christianity, people with deep religious beliefs experienced psychosomatic wounds similar to those they believed suffered by their "savior"?

The "stigmata" is hardly the first story of "spontaneous" wounds in history.

And you are dodging me. So, I'll ask you again, please explain the mechanism by which the mind can cause skin lacerations (after all, you did see the documentaries so you should be able to at least give me a rudimentary understanding of how this is possible).

What part of a BS detector should be going off? The fact that once the crucified Jesus became the symbol of Christianity, people with deep religious beliefs experienced psychosomatic wounds similar to those they believed suffered by their "savior"?

It should set off your BS detector insofar as it being anything mystical or divine.

Again, I ask you to explain the mechanism by which the mind, and the mind alone, can cause skin lacerations.

There is the mechanism.

I didn't say it was mystical or divine.

On that line of reasoning, the mind can also cure cancer, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, and the common cold. You're going to have to do a bit better than that, I'm afraid.

It would be incredibly narrow-minded to think that it is not possible.

On what are you basing your belief that there is a >50% chance that the mind can cure diabetes?

of the Jesus freak Aunt who told me in my early teens that taking insulin showed G-d I had no faith in him and if I would pray and accept Jesus I would be cured.

Just as you and I also believe that people are born gay.

In the case of the "mind" curing the body, you need look no further to the placebo and nocebo effects to see a connection between mind and body.

You can then look at hundreds of cases of people who were supposed to die and didn't. The "spontaneous" remission or curing of a terminal condition that cannot be explained exists and while "S"cientists will dogmatically cling to the impossibility real scientists will acknowledge the lack of knowledge we currently have about our own bodies/minds and theorize the possibilities.

It represents two phenomena:
1. People ascribing spontaneous remissions (which occur at the same rate, treatment or no) to a particular treatment.
2. People convincing themselves they are getting better, due to a desire to see treatment work.

That is why double-blind testing is required for medical treatments. It is not an endorsement of any curative powers of placebos.

No possible reason for them. Just "spontaneous".

Reminds me so much of the epicircles and the complex explanations "S"cientists went through to try and cling to the belief that the sun revolved around the earth.

However, any explanation would have to take into account the fact that state of mind, prayer, placebo, treatment, and any number of things have no demonstrable effect on rate of sponteneous remission. If one could find a universal biological mechanism, as you suggest, that would easily win them a Nobel prize.

And not some "S"cientist.

that state of mind, prayer, and any number of other things have been repeatedly demonstrated to have no effect. Because they have done research aimed at disproving things, rather than research aimed at supporting things. That is how science works.

Some other person in this thread claimed that no one would make such a definitive statment and that if they did, they would be wrong. They asked me to search through google for them to find someone wrong-headed enough to make such a definitive statement, but rather than play their game, I just gave them the basic google searches which they refused to look through.

Thanks for making it so easy to prove my point.

You wanted something to prove To suggest that NO ONE is claiming to definitively know that there is no such things as ESP, UFOS, God, etc is completely untrue.

I am not saying there is definitively no such thing as ESP, UFOs, God, or anything of the sort. I am saying that prayer, positive thinking, and a number of other things have been repeatedly proven to have absolutely no effect on recovery rates.

Saying "Prayer does not have a statistically significant impact on recovery rates" is not the same as saying "God doesn't exist." Stop being so binary.

First you don't understand the use of double blind, then the definition of anecdotal and now the word certainty.

Very "S"cientific of you.

"I can with certainty state that thoughts and recovery rate have been repeatedly proven to have no correlation whatsoever" does not mean "I can with certainty state that God and ESP do not exist," no matter how unable you are to draw a distinction between them.

(I'm not the one referring to repeated broad statistical analyses as "anecdotal.")

I am not sure what would be more fun at this point, actually explaining how it is or having you try and explain how it is NOT...

hmmmm


Having you explain how it is not will be more fun.


So, great and wonderful "s"cientist, please explain how an interviewer asking someone about themselves and taking that testimony and only that testimony as PROOF of their condition is not anecdotal.

I await your response with the same grin with which I await all of the "proof" you have offered thus far.

The only thing they rely on testimony for in these studies is whether the individual has sex with men. Since they don't actually follow them around and watch who they fuck at night, it's easier to just ask. And really, they don't lie. In fact, they know they don't lie, because many studies have tested for physiological response to various forms of visual stimuli vs. reported homosexuality.

Explain where the "anecdotal" part comes in.

Here is a hint, "The only thing they rely on testimony for in these studies is whether the individual has sex with men."

It's delicious. You are such a perfect example of a "S"cientist.


You do realize, of course, that child molesters use the exact same "proof" to claim that their condition is entirely genetic.



The anecdotal part is that all that they can absolutely rely on is testimony from the individual.

The 1991 study into the size of the hypothalamus was preform after death, thus any evidence of "gay" was, likewise, only testimony, twice removed.

At the end of the day, the "evidence" in the studies you cite is purely anecdotal, as it relies on nothing more than testimony of the individuals and the interpretation of that testimony by a researching trying to prove a specific point.

What I find funny is your desire to connect two unrelated studies to try and prove your point. Still even more "S"cientific.

Thank you so much for proving my point so well. I couldn't have asked for a better lab rat.

but this one takes the cake. "The studies aren't valid because the person might not be really gay, despite numerous studies showing that self-reporting regarding homosexuality is accurate." Sheesh. Talk about a stretch--not to mention abuse of the word "anecdote."

Go hang out on some creationist/gay-denial boards.

The studies are NOT related, thus, you cannot relate them.

The studies you claim prove your point contain NOTHING but testimony, which, when reported IS hearsay, which IS anecdotal.

I am sorry you do not understand the definition of the word.

Now, for you little strawman. For the 3rd time I BELIEVE being gay is GENETIC for the same reason you BELIEVE it. The only difference is I am more honest about it being a belief and face the reality that science hasn't PROVEN it yet. However, unlike you, I don't need to try and wrap myself in a blanket of false scientific proof to form a belief.

"Just because repeated blind studies of physiological response to erotic stimuli demonstrate that self-reporting of homosexuality is accurate, that doesn't mean that self-reporting of homosexuality is accurate!"

Look, you picked a really bad analogy. You're getting hysterical trying to defend it. Admitting you spouted off about genetic basis of homosexuality without knowing jack shit about it doesn't mean you have to admit you're wrong about everything.

Thus the evidence remains anecdotal.

Sorry you were wrong.

I will pronounce my hope that someday you learn the difference between "proof" and "Milo_Bloom's unsubstantiated opinion," and take my leave of you.

I remain consistently amused by your ability to prove my points so well.

Having no laboratory (with huge amounts of Federal Funding) could stumble onto the concept of Vaccines after watching fewer than sixty milkmaids contract cowpox and thereafter be resistant to smallpox.

Today that notion would not even be looked into because it would be deemed "anecdotal"

But in the 1700's there was not such a muzzle on scientific observation.

So Edward Jenner comes up with the smallpox vaccine. Based on observation. Of less than 100 people.

Now flash forward to the twentieth century. At least five thousand parents witness their bright bubbly two year old undergo a series of vaccinations clled MMR and they watch the child go almost immediately from happy and outgoing, to screaming, whimpering, dulled out, non-responsive. These children later are diagnosed with autism.

All just within minutes or hours of the shot.

Their observations are deemed "Anecdotal."

And even the scientific efforts of Andrew Wakefield, British MD to show that the measles virus residing inside the gut of these children is the factor causing the autism, his scientific examination and research is deemed "anecdotal" although it is replicated by another doctor.

Both men testify in the American Congress to Senator Burton, who was heading a committee on government reform. Burton wanted testimony from these men because his own grandson was one of the children who had been a normal child until receiving the MMR. Neither scientist testify that children should not have vaccines, only that to avoid autism children should have all vaccines as single vaccinations, not combinations.

Pharmaceutical Industry is so enraged with Wakefield that he would even suggest that caution be utilized when administering vaccinations to small children that they deem him a pariah.

The original smallpox vaccine was utilized on adults. And the original smallpox vaccine wasNOT EVER given to children under the age of six months. Afetr all, newborns have a certain amount of immunity in their systems. But let's not be so scientific that we let science stand in the way of Corporate Profit.

"not looking into" and "looking into and dismissing as unsupported." The latter is occurring here, not the former.

By Edward jenner's OBSERVATIONS that today would be called anectodal.

Yet the scientific PROOF that was conducted by Two men of science in The United Kingdom was fraudulently denied and dismissed for the sake of Big Industry.

Just as Puzstai's research into the harmful GMO-enhanced leptin in potatoes ends up as dismissed. There were headlines screaming for months that Puzstai had no peer -reviewed studies of his findings. how the heck could he have those - the British government broke into this lab, stole his computer and data base out from under him etc. before he had even gone public. He was still finishing up the project. There is very little a scientist can do IMMEDIATELY after they suffer such a loss. If you pull my computer out from under me while I type this, is it fair to state I don't complete my sentences??

It took several years for Puzstai to be exonerated - and across the globe over one hundred scientists have shown that his thesis was true by creating peer reviewed studies of his work on potatoes and leptin.

Just as George Carlo's major study into the health risks of cell phone useage was dismissed and denied. Big Cell Phone Companies gave Carlo research monies amounting to 12 million dollars. When it became apparent that Carlo would not alter the findings that he made then he was dismissed and labelled senile.

Oh really. Refuse to let the system corrupt you, as Carlo did and overnight you go from a person whose reputation allows you to receive millions of dollars for research to a "senile doddering old" man.

Can't have people realizing that the EMF from phones causes brain tumors. (Ironically, the cell phone industry people in San Francisco used to tell activists that the cell phone towers do indeed cause tumors in the brain - but hey, they are not cancerous tumors, so what is the big deal? Then Industry realized that brain tumors are a big deal, and now the Industry folks don't reassure us activists with such nonsense.)

What gives? Are you on the payroll of Big Science?? BB?? Or maybe you don't read my posts all the way through.

Claiming, due to my support of the notion of an evidence base, that I am on the payroll of any of the following will make me think you are a paranoid loon:

1. Raytheon/GE
2. The DLC
3. HRC
4. Joe Biden
5. Big Pharma
6. The AMA
7. Big Science
8. Big Brother
9. Big Telecom
10. Absolutely anything else.

Sid

There are cases wherein a person is taking in only the most miniscule of amunts of liquid, for a long period of time. The doctor gives them a day or two.

They are waiting for an event. The return of a particular loved one to the bedside, or even the publication of a book that they wrote.

No one can understand how the body is surviving. A tablespoon of fluid in, less than that out. For days, then weeks.

Finally the hoped for event happens. And within three or four hours (if not sooner) the person dies.

Not only do you not have a basic grasp of scientific principles, you're too stubborn to see that your beliefs regarding what science is and what terminology means are at odds with the entire scientific community.

When you learn the definitions of them, please feel free to try again.

that Milo_Bloom thinks they don't know what anecdotal evidence is. :eyes:

When you learn the actual definitions, you are free to try again.

Perhaps tomorrow, you'll have learned another move. You're getting sharper by the day. Perhaps tomorrow you'll have exceeded the cutting edge of a bowling ball.

You always run away after proving yourself wrong.

Its predictable, but remains fun. My friends get endless amusement out of it.

I'm done with you for good. There will always be those who value their own whims of illogic above evidence bases.

Its so much easier to hide from those who know the actual definition of words.

take that kind of language very amiss.

in May. Her mother's birthday was July 3rd, and she told my sister and Granny had been "visiting" with her every night, and that they'd be together soon, that she would come for her on her birthday. The doctors said that she wouldn't live two days. She lasted until guess when? July 3rd. She died that morning at 6. She was getting maybe a teaspoon a day or so of fluid and no food at all.................

Yes, such remissions sometimes can't be explained. That doesn't mean it's okay to rush in and provide an explanation that isn't based on any sort of evidence, and then claim that it has to be the explanation. There could easily be unknown physiological reasons at play. Science is perfectly okay with saying "We don't know why that happens". I have a big problem with taking mind over body to such an extreme. If it were possible to the level you seem to think it is, there would likely be a lot more cases of spontaneous healing. The fact is they are actually quite rare. That is the reason I think it makes it highly unlikely, because I think there are few people who've ever suffered from a chronic disease that didn't wish with all they have that it would go away.

I have a real problem with the notion that people who have diseases like diabetes or cancer continue to have it simply because they haven't used their minds to get rid of it, or they didn't have the right attitude, or they didn't pray enough, or whatever else nonsense some may claim. The fact that there isn't an explanation for those rare cases doesn't greenlight any half baked theory out there. There probably is a lot to be learned by studying the cases of people who's cancer has disappeared on its own. I'd much rather give any time and resources I had to that than to simply sit back and say "Ah ha! The lack of any scientific explanation must mean that only explanation is mind-over-matter/prayer/positive attitude!"

It would seem to me that if we were at all capable of any sort of direct control over our physiological make up, we'd have a lot more super models running around, as well. Aging would be a thing of the past, because if the money the anti-aging industry draws in is any clue, people really, really don't want to grow old. It happens to every single one of us anyway, no matter how fervently we wished otherwise. We might be able to temporarily beat it back if we have enough resources, but so far no one person has managed to think their way to youth. I don't think anyone has managed to think their cancer or diabetes away, either. I mean, if we could wish our diabetes away, surely a few wrinkles and gray hair would be no challenge at all. Not to mention a few extra pounds. If all we had to do is use the power of our minds, those pounds could melt away! If our minds were capable of such things, there is precious little evidence of it. All of the sick, the old and the dying say otherwise.

Physical trainers still argue about what type of sit up is best to achieve certain results.

I also couldn't agree with this statement any more. "There probably is a lot to be learned by studying the cases of people who's cancer has disappeared on its own. I'd much rather give any time and resources I had to that than to simply sit back and say "Ah ha! The lack of any scientific explanation must mean that only explanation is mind-over-matter/prayer/positive attitude!"


My problem is when this possibility is DISMISSED. Due to my job and some people I know I get to meet lots of physicians, phd's, etc and I find it very interesting when I bring up these topics. MOST of them absolutely believe in some type of mind/body connection and think "positive attitude" is ESSENTIAL to the healing process. (see the nocebo effect). SOME even believe that the mind, if harness and trained, is capable of miraculous things, but they are a small %. On the other hand, SOME of them completely dismiss the possibility out of hand and it is with those that I have issue. It is ONLY those I paint with the big S for science. Just to complete the bell curve, there is one doctor I thought of as I was writing this (MD/PHD) who REFUSES to use any conventional medication at all. Anti-biotics don't exist in his world and he treats people with herbs, accupuncture, etc. I have as much issue with him as I do with the Big S people.

The best Doctor I ever personally visited was both an MD AND an accupuncturist and would derrive the best treatment based on obvservation and sometimes it would involve a little from column A and a little from column B.

Studying a phenomenon and concluding that there is no scientific evidence of its existence isn't a dismissal. It would be a dismissal to have never studied it in the first place. The fact that there are still ongoing serious studies of acupuncture and that some in the medical community are even giving it a nod hardly seems like a dismissal to me.

There is a big difference between "Positive attitude is essential" and "You can use your mind to cure your disease" I certainly don't think positive attitude hurts. Because stress can have a physical effect on your body, having a positive attitude can certainly keep the stress at bay, which could help with recovery. It sounds to me like that's what the doctors you talked to are saying, and that's nothing new or breakthrough there. But, that's not evidence that those who had their cancer disappear wished it away with positive thoughts/prayer/energy/attitude.

I never said it WAS evidence.

I also didn't say the medical community was dismissing accupuncture. However, I know some doctors who absolutely do and it is only to that % of people (and those on the other end who dismiss real evidence) I direct my comments.

There are millions of scientists and doctors, and some are bound to say ridiculous things at some point or another. They're also bound to be wrong at times. They're human. It's true of any profession. Pointing out incidences of this happening is not an indictment against science as a whole, nor do they increase the chances that extraordinary claims are true.

I LOVE science. Two of my closest friends in the world are scientists.

I DO, however, have a beef with religion. A big one. And, unfortunately, there is a small but signficant portion of the scientific community who treat science in the exact same way others treat religion.

Religion may be good in theory, as it gives some moral guidance, etc.. however, it has been hijacked by people claiming that their path is the ONLY path to answers.

The reality is that scientific theories and even accepted "facts" have been proven wrong in the past and will be proven wrong again in the future. "Peer reviewed" does not make something gospel and dismissing a study because of where it is published is as idiotic as blindly accepting one because of where it is published.

If you think a small but significant portion of the scientific community treats science as religion. It also seems you have one if you think that scientists and people who are interested in science think in general that peer review means gospel. Those are pretty straightforward beefs you've got going on there.

They are with those who do the things I mentioned.

There is a difference.

then what does it matter?

And it is with them, that I have a beef.

that the OP and others are claiming. There are posts in this very thread that are distorting the scientific method beyond recognition. It's nothing new. It's usually because a person has a vested interest in something. If science can't prove their claim, then the fault doesn't lie with their claim, it lies with science. This is usually followed by a diatribe that completely misunderstands science and how it works.

I wanted to address your statement that peer review isn't gospel that you made earlier. It isn't. It is a vital part of science because scientists are indeed human, and it's very possible that their own biases can affect the outcome of their experiment. Peer review doesn't ensure that the finding is true. It is insurance that the result isn't a result of a personal bias. If people claim that this means the finding is an absolute truth, they are misunderstanding the whole process. On the flip side, if someone's claim hasn't been reviewed by any peers, then there is no way anyone can be sure that their result isn't biased in any way. So, if someone makes an extraordinary claim that hasn't been verified, then people are absolutely right to come forward and say "Hey, where's the peer review?" It doesn't mean they think peer review is gospel. It means they know that the result in question can't be verified as a scientific claim.

I don't see the OP as a condemnation of science, but instead a condemnation of those that try to subvert science for their own ends.

The beginning of the post states, "By writing an article on the limitations of science, I in no way mean to impugn that method, which has been essential to much of humanity’s progress since the beginning of human civilization. I have worked as a scientist for over 30 years – nearly all my adult life – and I have great respect for the previous accomplishments and future potential of science."

What I took out of this post was a vast respect for science and its method, ESEPCIALLY its creativity and ability to think beyond the norm.

As for the "peer reviewed journal" issue. There is, in fact, a bias against studies in the para normal and most journals simply won't publish results and many peers won't review them as they do not wish to be marginalized by these studies.

Here is a triple blind study published in a peer-reviewed journal. http://veritas.arizona.edu/papers/Beischel%20EXPLORE%202007%20vol%203.pdf on the subject of mediumship.. just FYI if you are interested.

But it did seem to show a fundamental misunderstanding of science.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by subverting science. Do you mean they try to interpret the results incorrectly? Or use the results for nefarious purposes? Whatever you mean, I'm not sure that is a condemnation of science itself nor is it a flaw of science. Science is just a method. If the scientific method was used correctly, then the results are scientific.

It's possible there is a bias against those studies as you say. I would never argue that the scientific community as a whole doesn't have its biases. However, eventually those biases are overcome if the scientific evidence is there. If phenomena like ESP were scientifically reproducible, then over time the repeated positive results would show themselves in those journals. Otherwise there would have to be some conspiracy where a significant number of scientists were actively ignoring or even quashing valid scientific results. That's just too unlikely. I will read the link you've provided. If there is anything to it, and the results are duplicated by other scientists, then it will eventually gain notice despite that bias.

Against, I saw the simple distinction between science, which is the entity of which you speak and "S"cience the religion.

Anyone who isn't following the scientific method isn't a scientist.

The "scientific" method isn't perfect or even close and it can and has been used to prove things later discovered to be wrong and/or incorrect and/or didn't take into account variables not considered and/or unknown.

The scientific method has been used to both PROVE and DISPROVE global warming and the human intervention thereof. One of my friends is an atmopsheric scientists who will look you in the eye and pull out dozens of peer reviewed studies proving to his satisfaction that there is no definitive link between human activity and global warming. He will show a strong connection between the willingness of a scientist to prove global warming and the amount of money they are getting to study it. He believes he is being "pure" by not signing on. He explains that the atmosphere has too many variables to preform any type of actual scientific study proving a connection and that any study showing it is "flawed"

I choose to believe he is wrong and respect the opinions of the other scientists who studies found the opposite.

Both peer reviewed. Both used the "scientific method", both came to completely different conclusions.

You're right. More science! The fact that science doesn't just take its conclusions for granted and just say "This is what we found. The end" is the very thing that makes science superior to every other method. You're claiming that's a weakness. That's a strength! It's exactly why we can look at scientific conclusions with much greater confidence than conclusions drawn in any other way. I don't understand your claim that this is a weakness, and proof that science isn't perfect. Well, no one says it isn't perfect. It's just the best way to accurately draw conclusions.

Your second paragraph, if your friend is saying that, then he is lying. A recent study looked at the literature for the past 25 years and found not one paper questioning human contribution to global warming or the IPCC consensus. If your friend is saying otherwise, he isn't being honest with you.

Again, you are confusing the issue. The issue is not with science but those who take science as a religion. You keep getting that confused.

I do not, in the least, doubt the honesty of my friend. I do, however, question his result.

If I thought I could write a bunch of times on a piece of paper ala The Secret that I had my health and not be dying I would.

And if I clap my hands then Tink will be okay?

The fact that there are unexplained things in the world, from spontaneous remissions to ESP, is what drives science. Errrr, "S"cience.

You can't explain the unexplainable by stating, "I think it's X because I have 3 anecdotes that make it look that way!"

Hypothesize, experiment, repeat, conclude.

The fact that there are unexplained things in the world, from spontaneous remissions to ESP, is what drives science. Errrr, "S"cience.

I don't get the need to denounce science and proclaim that the fact science doesn't allow for the jumping to conclusions is some sort of limitation. Or the contention that science is some grand, faith based mass conspiracy to keep the truth from the people. It's maddening to read such things.

I grew up in a household heavily impacted by the fact that a huge semitrailer tractor hit my family's sedan while the truck was going 60 MPH.

My mother was a victim of whiplash. She was told by every specialist at the hospital and then inside the region where the hospital was located that she would NEVER walk again.

She asked for therapists to help her walk. They refused, explaining again the nature of her injury.

She demanded the therapists, at first politely, and then using language I never knew my mom to have.

They relented. Therapists came to her hospital room every day and worked with her. She persisted.

Within eighteen months she was walking. Okay it was a hobble. But it was indeed making it across the floor from one room to another under her own power, not even using a walker.

Within five years, you would have detected her injury only when she genuflected during Mass. She wobbled on her way down and she wobbled back up and she was slow at it.

Her doctor called her a miracle. And it made mom hard to live with: how can you complain about a cold or flu when your mom defied the doctors and nurses and learned to walk when paralized?

I don't know how many times I have heard of people who have heart disease who continue to live long past the time that their initial doctor stated they had six months or a year. Heart disease is another thing that SOME people can determine to "ignore" just as my mother "ignored" her paralysis.

I think some cancers are able to be healed that way. We know for instance, that some prostate cancer is slow moving and the other type is fast and aggressive. I would venture to guess that if you are diagnosed with a slow moving prostate cancer that the alternate therapies and a positive attitude might work.

I wouldn't stake a lot of faith in mental attitude when it comes to pancreatic cancer.

But talk to any surgeon and they will tell you that the will to live is a huge deciding factor in whether a person survives a surgery or not. They have seen it over and over again - someone who wants to live survives against harsh odds, whereas someone else slips away though the odds were in their favor.

My saying so doesn't demean what your family went through in any way, nor does it say that I don't believe you. It seems as though the doctors don't know why your mother was able to recover the way she did. There are a lot of stories like your mother. It is speculation to say that your mother's positive attitude is the reason. How can you know for sure that there isn't a similar case where a patient was absolutely despondent, and yet also made a full recovery despite the odds? There are studies going on right now trying to answer those questions. They haven't yet come up with a definitive answer on just how much of a direct connection there is between the mind and the body, but that doesn't make the claim that it's all mind over matter the truth. Because science won't just roll over and say "Hey, we don't know because nothing we've tested has so far proven it, but you're right! It's all mind over matter" doesn't mean it's flawed or limited. That's my point.

I would ask you to notice the area in which the poster asks why science has to be so black and white. Or why cetain elements of the science community and the public see cancer as black and white.

Let me give a further example of how much we need the grey. WE FRIGGIN' NEED THE GREY!!

Cigarettes were PROVEN scientifically to be carcinogenic in 1999. (It might have been 1997 or '98, but I don't have time to go through file cabinets to find the date) So about ten years ago, we had the proof that smoking cigs was linked to lung cancer.

But the Surgeon General of the USA took it upon himself to start embellishing the sides of cigarette packaging WAY BACK inthe 1960's with words to the effect that smoking cigarettes is bad for your health.

He did NOT have scientific proof. But he was concerned enough over the scientist he knew who were using Inductive Reasoning (Now called "anecdotal evidence")of various independent researchers and their "Anecdotal evidence" that something was happening to people who smoked.

And that something prompted the warnings.

Bear in mind - to prove that cigarettes cause lung cancer - it is not necessary to prove that they cause it in everyone. That is not the requirement. There is always someone's GranPa Martin who drinks a fifth of scotch evey day and goes through 3 packs of Marlboro's and lives to be 102.

So what would you say about this? In the 1960's, IT WAS NOT SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN that cigarettes affected the lungs in a detrimental way. But the Surgeon General knew enough to decide to put that warning out there. He hoped that warning would inspire some people to quit smoking.Given that it was not yet proven, it was rather a rather courageous action to undertake. WOuld it even be allowed today? I think perhaps not.

Many of us know that these anecdotal stories about positive attitude affecting physiology generate interest. They should. Maybe my mother's story is "anecdotal" to some scientists, but it certainly is not anecdotal to her or to anyone in the family. And I think that a real scientist would be curious about what went on in her case.

I am not asking that people give up chemo or radiation or quit taking their heart meds.

And I am not sure that we will ever PROVE SCIENTIFICALLY that any of this does any good.

But I am asking that we at least include on the packaging of disease diagnosis that these "human"
determinants might indeed determine some aspect of the patient's life. Norman Cousin's credits his living as being part of this modality of laughing, and feeling good. Art Buchwald extended his diagnosis of kidney failure within six months to several years.


In other words, allowing for a little "grey" area can have consequences. Perhaps for the better.

is the need to mix science with everything else. Science is a very specific thing. It isn't the arbiter of truth, and never has been. There is absolutely nothing wrong with you and your family believing that it was your mother's positive energy that pulled her through. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. It just isn't science. There are things that I feel and believe that I know aren't based in science. That doesn't make those things any less significant for me. I just don't feel the need to make it science. The problem with making these things science - incorporating the "gray", as you say - is that then no longer science. The very definition of science is the process that you object to. If a scientists tells you that they don't know what caused your mother's recovery, they aren't personally attacking you and denouncing your own beliefs and experiences. They're simply adhering to the scientific process. If they didn't, than it wouldn't be science.

But I am asking that we at least include on the packaging of disease diagnosis that these "human"
determinants might indeed determine some aspect of the patient's life. Norman Cousin's credits his living as being part of this modality of laughing, and feeling good. Art Buchwald extended his diagnosis of kidney failure within six months to several years.

And all I'm saying is science isn't wrong to state "We don't have the answers for why those things happen". I think it's wrong to insist that science jump to the same conclusion that you or any other individual or group as jumped to as to the explanation of those occurrences. If they haven't been able to successfully test and come to a conclusion, then I think it's best to let them continue with their research using the scientific method. There's nothing wrong with speculating what happened, or even drawing your own personal conclusions as to what you believed happened. But, the very reason science came about in the first place is the biases that we all have. Humans have been asking questions and trying to find the answers for many, many years, and our own biases influenced the results. Science is the best way we have to learn about the world around us without those biases influencing our conclusions. It isn't absolutely fool proof, but it's the best we have. If we start incorporating that "gray area", then we let in more of that bias, which is what kept us from learning so much before we had the scientific method.

But I beg to differ.

A person's mental attitude can actually be charted. Stressed out people have higher levels of cortisol. Fewer endorphins. Etc.

We are getting to the point that we can actually scientifically report on the physiologicl result of someone's emotions and mental attitude.

In twenty years there will be real hard science on this.

It just isn't there now.

There's already hard science on it. It's just people never want to thing of these things as 'physical'.

I'm just trying to make the point that anecdotal evidence alone isn't scientific proof, and if science were expanded to include such evidence it would effectively destroy science. This was in response to someone who seemed to be saying that such evidence should be allowed because their own personal experience proved it should be.

Said that an anecdotal incident was proof.

Never!

But strong enough evidence of a large enough data pool might be indicating a tendency of some situation to influence another and that should lead people in the scientific community to examine certain things.

And then perhaps certain notions that are held regarding body-mind state and the effects on health can be proven or disproven scientifically.

I read your posts and it does appear to me that you're saying anecdotal evidence has scientific significance. I apologize if I'm misreading that.

Of evidence that indicates a certain event causes something else, that that data base should be examined so that a scientific examination can determine the prove or lack of proof of the situation.

Liek I pointed out in the post about cigarettes and lung cancer, proof can be a long time coming.

Ya know, the word "anecdotal" did not even surface until Science became Industrialized and Corporatized.
As far as I am concerned, the whole concept that an event in real time and space is "anecdotal" is simply a way for the Corporate Science world to isempower a lay person.

Science is a process. It has never incorporated non-verifiable, non repeatable results. If it did, it wasn't science. Anecdotal evidence isn't verifiable or repeatable. It is subject to the biases, conscious or otherwise, of the people reporting it. It's the very reason science came into being. Science started happening when people stopped relying on anecdotal evidence, even if the word "anecdotal" wasn't actually used to describe that evidence. It's because they realized the biases existed, and they knew they had to come up with a system that eliminates those biases. Voila, science.

As to your fist point, anecdotal evidence certain can and does lead to scientific examination. But, they still use the scientific method, and that requires controlled tests that do not rely on the anecdotal evidence. No matter how many people make a personal claim, until it is verified and repeated through science, it remains unscientific. It doesn't mean they're wrong. It just hasn't been proved through science, yet.

I am saying that when enough of the same reports surface, as in the case of cigarette smokers and emphysema and lung cancer, that a data base can be created and then a scientific examination should be undertaken.

I'm well aware that science has studied what you're talking about, and has come to those conclusions. How does that change any of the points I made? They came to those conclusions through the scientific method. If we completely dismantled the scientific process, we probably never would have discovered those things you're mentioning. Science is a very specific thing. If a conclusion isn't reached through the scientific process, then it isn't science. That doesn't mean it's wrong, necessarily. It just isn't science. Muddying the definition to include any conclusion that anyone has come to through any method completely destroys science.

of cigarettes causing cancer, as opposed to what was known before then. The studies date way back to 1950:

You see, that's how these things work: you make a claim and then you assume the burden of proof. You then have to support your claim with reasons and evidence, in order to satisfy the burden of proof. You have thus far claimed that the mind can cause skin lacerations, and have offered a vague mind/body connection as your reason for that claim. In case you haven't noticed, that premise is insufficient.

There is a good deal about the brain that we do not know, but because we don't know everything that the brain can do doesn't mean we can then wildly speculate about what it might do and then think that those claims are valid. That's just completely asinine.

Then for your own hypothesis as to why it happens.

Wishful thinking doesn't mean you've proven anything, just so you know.

Which was all I was asked for and supplied, just so you know.

C'mon, you can't tell me you think a TV show is valid scientific evidence? Married ...with Children was a TV show, too. Your "I saw it on TV so it must be true!!" defense of this is more than a little bit sad.

The mind can cause the muscles of the arm and hand to impale the palm onto a spike, at which point bleeding ensues.

What do you think is happening when you cut yourself and it "heals"? That is the result of your subconscious mind re-building your body. We are all being created continuously by our minds.

Scientists who try to determine how the mind "emerges" from the physical body are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The body is a product of the mind, not vice versa.

What do you think is happening when you cut yourself and it "heals"? That is the result of your subconscious mind re-building your body. We are all being created continuously by our minds.

You're not serious, right?

can no longer be surprised by what is posted here, someone comes along to change my mind.

What do you think controls the healing process?

unless you want to argue that nature is a somebody.

Are you arguing that the brain controls gene expression, platelet aggregation, collagen synthesis, et al? Cell signaling occurs even in someone who is brain dead, if their autonomic functions are being maintained by machine.

I believe that the very deepest part of the subconscious mind is responsible for maintaining the physical form of the body. For me, the brain is our interface to the mind.

I don't have mastery over my mind?

Heh.

No, I'm serious. Why would you believe this?

I have done a lot of reading and thinking on this and related topics in recent years, and from this I have derived a set of ideas that work for me, without contradicting each other or anything else I believe in.

They're just my ideas. I would be interested in hearing your ideas too.

I guess that this was my question, or at least a corollary thereof, at the minimum. What reading did you do to arrive at the conclusions that you have? What led you to think that this prime-mover will/mind/soul exists? What is the method(s) by which it is able to effect these wide and sweeping physical manifestations? All processes in the universe are, when broken down to the bare essentials, the transfer and transmutation of energy in one form or another, thus the mind must, if it is a real entity, be subject to these same properties.

You are welcome to believe whatever you want. This subject is much too complex to discuss with a hostile questioner in a series of forum postings. I would give you a list of books, but I know you want it just to disparage the authors, so no thanks.

I am signing off on this discussion now. Too many other things to do! Thanks anyway.

He shared what he thinks and asked you how you arrived at what you think.

If that is considered "hostile" it really explains a lot about this entire thread.

My reasons for asking the questions are very simple and have nothing to do with hostility.

If you're going to take a view and since, as is apparent from your defense and redefense of it at every opportunity, this view is of some merit to you, regardless of how I feel personally about it, you should at least be able to answer a few simple questions.

This whole concept you've arrived at, while I am admittedly quite skeptical about it, is at least intriguing and I'd hoped you'd share some of your hard-won insights with me. At the barest minimum, perhaps if you've not the time or inclination to discuss it, could point me to some resources where I could at least make my own judgments about them in less of a knowledge vacuum.

This would be fair. While I'd understand your trepidations about a discussion (I presume your beliefs are far enough offbeat that you've encountered skepticism in the past about them), what is unfair is to presume an intellectual hostility where none exists.

Meaningless, meaningless words.

And all we have is residual self-image.

Isn't there a purple pill? You know, one where I can eat a steak and a baked potato and still know dystopia?

C'mon, Morpheus. Check your pockets again.

I think that pill is called Lipitor. :evilgrin:

"S"cience occurs when the scientists become the "priests" and purveyors over what is real and not real.... In many ways making the same fundamental mistakes as the "priests" do in thinking they have all the answers.

Every culture, especially those with delusions of grandeur, tend to make such pronouncements, not realizing that a thousand years from now (assuming we survive) our worldview will be seen as primitive and barbaric.

read it:

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

There are many more accounts on the main site.

Shocker that this pseudo-intellectual post appeals to you.
Please find this "explanation" and post it. You seem to think that your unsubstatiated posts with anadoctal evidence are valid points. They are not.
And btw...you think equipment can't be inaccurate either? You scream about the limitations of scientists but "laugh" when a scientist acknowledges the limits they and their equipment have but I do think that there are certain low level states that aren't accurately read sometimes. And its been PROVEN that people in comas can pick up information/remember information as well. In fact there are some really nice scientific hypothesis about near death experiences (random neural firings causing one to "see" white light, etc) that seem to get ignored a lot.

What I laugh at is that the only "explanation" that could be given for the experience was a broken machine. The "S"cientist when faced with an emergency room doctor retelling the story dismissed any other possible explanation and went straight to "broken machine", which is ultimately the claim of all "S"cientists. "They must be lying" "It must be fraud" "The machine is broken" "Random neural firings"... yes, the random neural firings caused someone to recount in detail what went on around them while they were brain dead. Those "random neural firings" also caused other people to "come back" with information not previously known to them about their family.

Just because there are qualitative differences but that, overall, the phenomenon is the same doesn't mean that a metaphysical explanation is just as likely as a biological one. Given that the experiences can be induced (and be quite convincing, at least to the people who have experienced them) in a controlled setting without the actual threat of death lends support to the notion of a biological brain reaction to perceived trauma.

Additionally, there is even evidence that points to a possible mechanism for NDEs as was pointed out in the study on Narcolepsy and NDEs.

using subjects who have actually nearly died? Similar descriptions of experiences do not mean equivalent experiences. Only someone who has experienced both the "real thing" and the "induced thing" could accurately comment on the similarities between the two experiences. Any descriptions of such experiences are, of course, subjective and are therefore difficult to approach through formal methods.

However, even if someone with both experiences claim they are identical in quality, that does not mean they are equivalent. Blindfold a man. Stimulate his nerves in a certain way, and he will experience the pain of being burned on the arm. Pour kerosene on his sleeve and light a match. He will have a nearly identical experience. Until he his blindfold is removed, of course. The fact that I can stimulate the brain to produce certain cognitive effects resembling NDE does nothing to confirm or reject the "immortal soul hypothesis".

Science is merely that body of knowledge developed through application of the scientific method. It requires a mighty philosophical leap to conclude that all experienced phenomena are approachable through that method.

It only concerns itself with what is disprovable and what is not.

Why "fortunately"? Just curious.

Science, being a body of knowledge and a practice, is not concerned with anything. Concern is a the expression of a human state of mind, called anxiety. Actually, science is but an offshoot of a broader field of study called Epistemology, or if you will "Theory of Knowledge".

** On edit**

You know those cursed touch pads they have on laptops? Ever have one of those freak out on ya? Well, mine just did resulting in a premature post. I shall continue ...

** On further edit **

So indeed, science is not at all "concerned" with a mighty philosophical leap. On the other hand, I being a human being, might well and properly be concerned with such an undertaking. Nor shall I attempt that without compelling logical argument, which thus far no writer nor speaker has been able to supply.

But you stated very well one essential thing ... science operates by disproving hypotheses through experiment. Those hypotheses that cannot be disproved are not approachable by the scientific method. A good example of that kind of thing is the so-called theory of Intelligent Design. The central hypothesis of this theory is a Divinity that guided the processes of creation. Since no conceivable experiment could be designed by which that hypothesis can be rejected, we conclude it is not properly a hypothesis at all. Rather, it is an axiom ... and the so-called theory can be seen to be damn near a tautology ... a structure which proclaims as a result the assumption that provided its starting point. Intelligent Design may very well be correct, but it cannot be considered a theory of science.

Science is, however, not about the truth. Science is about developing and evaluating useful hypotheses. Hypotheses are useful to the extent they allow you to make predictions as to the behavior of things when conditions are changed. The conditions one encounters or imposes actually dictate which formalism (theory) one chooses to apply. Consider the physics of a NASCAR race. The mechanics of Isaac Newton is quite useful in that it provides adequate predictions as to the motion of vehicles, etc. Newton's mechanics is less useful when considering the motion of subatomic particles accelerated through billions of electron volts.

Ultimately, then, science is about developing models which allow us to make predictions about the behavior of systems under a range of conditions. For example, if you are talking NASCAR speeds and automobile sizes, Newton's model is fine. If you are talking near light speeds of subatomic particles, other models are required.

The map, however, is not the territory. If I constrain myself to the consideration of maps amenable to the scientific system of navigation, my knowledge of the territory itself is likely to suffer.

I will leave you with the following well documented case of what some call faith healing. A man is informed by his doctor that he has a tumor the size of a softball and is advised to put his affairs in order. Radiological imaging is reviewed and discussed with the patient. The patient instead of running to his financial adviser drives to the reservation and visits a Sioux medicine man called Fools Crow. Fools Crow agrees to treat him. The patient drives back to his doctor and insists on being re-examined. Radiological imaging failed to reveal a tumor, or any evidence that a tumor ever existed.

Medically, scientifically, this case is considered an outlier, a "spontaneous remission". No one as yet has a hypothesis that would develop a prediction of this sort of outcome. The patient of course swears he was healed by the medicine man Fools Crow. How does one design an experiment to reject the patient's hypothesis? Is the patient's conjecture properly speaking a hypothesis at all? Or has the patient's life experience taken him over territory that cannot be described using the scientific method of mapping?

they also generally write of things that cannot be experimentally disproven--or, that is, things that are utterly useless to the actual pursuit of knowledge. When they write of things that actually can be tested, they are generally wrong.

The problem with a philosophical leap is that it is, as a leap, unsubstantiated by fact. As such, there is no place for it in science.

(Concerned. Definition: involved with.)

in philosophy.

Scientists, however, forgetting the foundations of the method of science itself, often insist on making such leaps themselves without thinking about it. But you posted your response (thanks to that cursed touch pad) before I had completed my post.

In terms of facts, I would say sometimes a fact is not drawn from a given conclusion. Just because a phenomena happens and no one seems to be able to draw a fact from it does not mean there are no facts to be drawn. Any scientist should know this. Because the atom could not be seen by a light microscope, not mean the atom is not in existence. When these events happen, a philosopher or dreamer must take over and form new ideas, outside of the current "mapping" of science, in which an observable can be observed. To quote Kepler: "...to know is to measure by a know measurable..." If we do not have such a device yet: make one. A scientist has an open mind and might even say nothing can be true if everything is imaginable.

after reading his theory of special relativity. 'Cep somehow you don't sound quite as bright as his nibs apparently was.

Comparison is invalid.

highest order; to a new paradigm. Mechanistic, Newtonian physics wasn't superseded, but scientific knowledge was taken to a new and deeper level.

Einstein's stated criterion for selecting his basic hypotheses was aesthetic! Beauty. Not zummit measurable under laboratory conditions. His words that not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted were directed at you DUers, among others, did you but know it.

He explained known phenomena in an extremely elegant, predicative, testable manner. The comparison to this thread is unwarranted, invalid, and borderline ignorant.

a lowly field of knowledge empirical science is, since you and you scientismificist pals are wont to labour under the risible misapprehension that empirical science is the ultimate paradigm of ALL knowledge. And with such arrogance!

The man who initiated this thread has more intelligence in his little finger than you mutts will ever have. It's you who came on here blathering about who knows what, completely unable to appreciate the wisdom of his words. And so quick to give us all the benefit of your two penn'orth! Get LOST!

using subjects who have actually nearly died? Similar descriptions of experiences do not mean equivalent experiences. Only someone who has experienced both the "real thing" and the "induced thing" could accurately comment on the similarities between the two experiences. Any descriptions of such experiences are, of course, subjective and are therefore difficult to approach through formal methods.

The descriptions of the experiences in both sets of subjects are remarkably similar. Your argument is something akin to "You and I both see this table, you say it is blue and I say it is teal - how can we know we are both viewing the same table?" In other words, it seems that line of reasoning borders on solipsism.

However, even if someone with both experiences claim they are identical in quality, that does not mean they are equivalent. Blindfold a man. Stimulate his nerves in a certain way, and he will experience the pain of being burned on the arm. Pour kerosene on his sleeve and light a match. He will have a nearly identical experience. Until he his blindfold is removed, of course. The fact that I can stimulate the brain to produce certain cognitive effects resembling NDE does nothing to confirm or reject the "immortal soul hypothesis".

No, because the "immortal soul hypothesis" is not falsifiable. So are "the tooth fairy lives in my apartment hypothesis" and the "jesus died for your sins" hypothesis. What these results do, though, is point to a biological process rather than a supernatural one that - when taken with everything else we know to be true about this world - makes a good deal more sense than the "immortal soul hypothesis".

Science is merely that body of knowledge developed through application of the scientific method. It requires a mighty philosophical leap to conclude that all experienced phenomena are approachable through that method.

Straw man. I never said that "all experienced phenomena are approachable through that method". Since we're on the subject, however, it also requires a might philosophical leap to assert that there are certain phenomena that can never be approached through the scientific method (not that you are asserting that, though).

You wrote:

"No, because the "immortal soul hypothesis" is not falsifiable. So are "the tooth fairy lives in my apartment hypothesis" and the "jesus died for your sins" hypothesis. What these results do, though, is point to a biological process rather than a supernatural one that - when taken with everything else we know to be true about this world - makes a good deal more sense than the "immortal soul hypothesis"

Hmmmm ... what we know to be true about this world may be less than you think.

However, as covered in an adjacent post, science ain't about truth. It is about models that allow one to make useful predictions of the behavior of systems under certain conditions.

My whole point is that there are statements which may well be true but which are not amenable to the test of experiment. Further, there are useful models which we know are not true (e.g. Newtonian mechanics) but that does not diminish their utility.

Look, dude, my degree is in physics and I have been chasing this stuff all my life. There are no "true" theories in the study of physics. Not one. Name me a theory and I will delineate a set of conditions under which it is useless. (It might take me a while, but it can be done.)

"You want the truth? You can't imagine the truth."

Neither, I suspect, can I.

Hmmmm ... what we know to be true about this world may be less than you think.

We may also all live in the Matrix. I may be asleep and this whole thing might just be a dream. There is no spoon.

However, as covered in an adjacent post, science ain't about truth. It is about models that allow one to make useful predictions of the behavior of systems under certain conditions.

And why are those predictions useful? Because the useful ones approximate reality. You could argue that there is some sort of ultimate truth out there, if you want to, but there's really no basis for that argument. The argument that science is the ultimate truth is equally silly, but rather science is a method that we've found to be the best at getting us as close to the reality of the situation as possible.

My whole point is that there are statements which may well be true but which are not amenable to the test of experiment. Further, there are useful models which we know are not true (e.g. Newtonian mechanics) but that does not diminish their utility.


Sure, there may be. That doesn't mean that there are, however. There may be a zombie in my apartment right now, but I don't think so for reasons X, Y, and Z. I don't think that there is anyone seriously asserting that science can discover everything about our existence, but I think it is equally foolish to assert that there are some things that are now and forever will be off-limits. For example, the charge is often made that science will never be able to understand morality - but with the recent discovery of "mirror neurons" a science of morality may be closer than such people think...

Throughout our history, there have always been charges that science can't do X, or science can't explain Y. Such people have, pretty much without failure, been proven wrong a few generations later. To assert that one knows what science can and cannot do is equally as arrogant as asserting that it can do everything.

Look, dude, my degree is in physics and I have been chasing this stuff all my life. There are no "true" theories in the study of physics. Not one. Name me a theory and I will delineate a set of conditions under which it is useless. (It might take me a while, but it can be done.)

As I said, there is no spoon.

"You want the truth? You can't imagine the truth."

Uh...I didn't write that.

mentioned here, "Throughout our history, there have always been charges that science can't do X, or science can't explain Y. Such people have, pretty much without failure, been proven wrong a few generations later.."

According to you all such people "pretty much without failure" have been proven wrong. Please provide detailed proof of that statement.

Newton supposing that some aspects of astronomy and orbits that he could not understand were attributed to the work of god. Then, a few years later, a French mathemician came along and figured out that, in fact, goddidn'tdoit. Similiar examples are seen in pretty much every discipline like medicine (e.g. the "sin" theory of disease that was overturned by science), biology (e.g. evolution overturning creationism), etc.

I'm not going to be responding to your posts anymore if all you want to do is waste my time. Have a nice day :hi:

Re: "You want the truth ..." I was making kindofa joke. But also a point.

And what is "there is no spoon" crap? The Matrix was a cool flick and all, but that comment does not address the point that there is no (as of now, anyway) "true" physics. Nice dodge, but a dodge nonetheless.

Look, you have made the bold assertion that science can explain all encountered phenomena and experiences. I dispute that. There may or may not be a zombie in your room ... not being you housekeeper I cannot testify. (Why would you keep a zombie in your room? Why would I care? Deal with your own zombie problem. :) ) Is the subject of Varkam's Zombie similar to the tale of Schroedinger's Cat? Does the wave function collapse into a zombie/no-zombie state only when we open the door to Varkam's appartment? (Perhaps the door to Trav's refrigerator would provide a higher probability of a collapse to the zombie state ... it's getting pretty bad in there.)

"Throughout our history, there have always been charges that science can't do X, or science can't explain Y. Such people have, pretty much without failure, been proven wrong a few generations later. To assert that one knows what science can and cannot do is equally as arrogant as asserting that it can do everything."

My arguments are based on what science IS not what it can DO. For example, my objection to the so-called theory of Intelligent Design is that there is no conceivable test by which its central hypothesis can be rejected. Therefore, while it may (or may not be) true, it is not a speculation amenable to the method of science, because that method operates on testable statements. I have been told by one of IDs proponents that just because we cannot conceive a test today does not mean we cannot conceive a test tomorrow ... a slight variation on your statement above. My position is "Fine. If tomorrow we have a test, then we can talk about it scientifically. Until then, we can't. And I got a hundred bucks that says tomorrow we will be in the same position."

Design an experiment to reject the statement that there is life after death. I don't believe you can. I got a hundred bucks that says you won't be able to tomorrow, either. There are those who would say that since there is no test of the statement, the question is not valid. I disagree with them ... I simply state it is not a valid question for scientific consideration, that life is replete with such, and to invalidate all that just because it is beyond the scope of the scientific method makes for a dull life.

If there is a "true" answer to questions of this sort, it is likely that truth is not very accessible to us.

But aren't the questions grand?

Here is what you wrote:

Hmmmm ... what we know to be true about this world may be less than you think.

It's an essentially meaningless statement. What we know to be true about this world may also be more than I think, or it may be less. So, near as I can tell, it was a non-response so I responded in kind.

Look, you have made the bold assertion that science can explain all encountered phenomena and experiences. I dispute that. There may or may not be a zombie in your room ... not being you housekeeper I cannot testify. (Why would you keep a zombie in your room? Why would I care? Deal with your own zombie problem. ) Is the subject of Varkam's Zombie similar to the tale of Schroedinger's Cat? Does the wave function collapse into a zombie/no-zombie state only when we open the door to Varkam's appartment? (Perhaps the door to Trav's refrigerator would provide a higher probability of a collapse to the zombie state ... it's getting pretty bad in there.)


Please quote where I have asserted that science can explain all encountered phenomena and experiences. ETA Here's a quote of mine from the previous post - I don't think that there is anyone seriously asserting that science can discover everything about our existence, but I think it is equally foolish to assert that there are some things that are now and forever will be off-limits.

As for the rest of that - I have no idea what you're talking about :D

My arguments are based on what science IS not what it can DO. For example, my objection to the so-called theory of Intelligent Design is that there is no conceivable test by which its central hypothesis can be rejected. Therefore, while it may (or may not be) true, it is not a speculation amenable to the method of science, because that method operates on testable statements. I have been told by one of IDs proponents that just because we cannot conceive a test today does not mean we cannot conceive a test tomorrow ... a slight variation on your statement above. My position is "Fine. If tomorrow we have a test, then we can talk about it scientifically. Until then, we can't. And I got a hundred bucks that says tomorrow we will be in the same position."


I think you're splitting semantic hairs in the "what science is / what science can do" dichotomy. As for the rest of that, I have no objection. That's my basic problem with ID, as well. I honestly have no idea what science will or will not be investigating a thousand years from now. I think it is unlikely that it will be studying ID or how many angels can dance of the head of a pin, given that there seem to be certain inherent problems with using physical methods to "study" metaphysical propositions - but I cannot be certain and simply claim that X is off-limits for good.

If there is a "true" answer to questions of this sort, it is likely that truth is not very accessible to us.

Maybe. Maybe not. Nonetheless, the burden of proof still lies with those making the claim.

First off, I agree, for the most part, with the bulk of what you've said in this thread. However, I'd like to take you up on your offer. Physics is something I'm very interested in, but know very little about. You say that there are conditions that would render any theory available now as useless. How about the big daddy, relativity? Once again, I know very little of physics. I know relativity states that energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared. I understand all the coefficients in this equation, but very little of how they relate to eachother (aside from a mathematical view, IE as energy increases, so must mass given the speed of light as a constant, but once again, I don't know what that really means). So, can you tell me circumstances under which E=MC^2 would be useless? I'd imagine it might be a complex explanation, but I'm interested if you have the time. Thanks in advance.

One thing that makes this subject especially difficult to interpret is that we don't have any clear definitions of what an actual "out of body" experience would look or feel like, as opposed to some experience based upon altered chemical composition of the brain.

One thing that I found very interesting about the cases I've read and heard about is that many people who have these experiences are left with a much calmer attitude towards death. That doesn't prove anything, but I find it very interesting.

What a waste

I don't need this discussion to point out parallels between Bush/Cheney and the Nazis, as I've done on many occasions before:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1454994

I was thrown off by how you ended by stating that it is a legitimate comparison. I mistook it for a conclusion

What I said in my last post to you is that it was not the purpose of my whole post to set the ground for a comparison of Bush and Cheney with Nazis. I can do that just fine without a long discussion about science, and I provided a link to my previous post to make that point.

The most recent research does not indicate that people are "genetically programmed" to be obese.

In fact there is very little evidence that we are "genetically programmed" to be anything. That is a model
of the genome based on computer code, and the genome is a much more interactive piece of work than a code. It has inputs
and outputs, and is much more dynamic than any code.

Furthermore, more recent research indicates that a sizable number of obese people *do* eat to much. Weight gain and maintenance are not attributable entirely or even mostly to biological set points. They are a factor, but the energy budget a person is operating on is much more important.

Are you familiar with the studies on identical twins who are brought up in different homes and yet correlate very strongly with regard to weight?

And of course obese people eat more than other people. As I said in the OP, part of the mechanism that causes them to eat too much is that as they lose weight their appetite increases disproportionately to what would be expected in a normal person.

I knew a doctor who had a great explanation of obesity and weight loss.

"Think of it like a bank account. It will go up if you put in more than you take out and it will go down if you take out more than you put in; however, everyone has a different interest rate."

That's the main point. The obese have much lower metabolism (basic metabolic rate) than other people.

Your analogy to the interest rates is a good one.

My sister recently managed to lose from 190 lbs to 135. In order to do it, she had to basically stop eating, and she began to exercise and hour and half every single morning plus she walked at night. While I salute her, I also know that there is no way she can maintain this. As soon as she stops the hour and half workouts everyday her weight will come back on - and she doesn't eat a lot.

She has very little metabolism.

It failed to take into account the fact that overweight people have lower metabolism than other people.

this absolutely fascinating article by a career ER physician:

www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=10&ItemID=4647

It makes more sense of the sudden upsurge in obesity in the UK - which the government has hastened to claim is not a result of the growing poverty in the country!

shot, I have osteo arthritis and have to use a walker/wheelchair at times. So this overboard exercise is not even possible if I wanted to do it. So I'll just be fat. I eat as healthy as I can. I battled cancer this year, so I'm lucky to be alive. I used to go the starve myself and exercise until I dropped routine many years ago in my youth but not anymore. :-)

Some may disparage the fact that controlled scientific experiments have shown small increases in the rates at which some people are able to ascertain the identify of playing cards that they have not seen at slightly higher rates than would be expected by chance.

Some have, yes. Most have not. By definition, 1 out of every 20 experiments will show a statistically valid aberration (with standard 95% certainty.) That means 1 out of every 40 experiments will show someone with statistically greater-than-chance psychic abilities. The people who show up as such are not able to replicate this feat.

And they were studies that were replicated enough times that there was extremely little likelihood that it could have been due to chance.

And not a parapsychology journal, a "scientific frontiers" journal, or any other pseudoscientific journal. There have been numerous "scientific proofs" of ESP that have been roundly debunked upon closer examination of methodology. I'd prefer Nature or Science, really. Proof positive of ESP would be the kind of groundbreaking stuff that would get you front page.

http://www.psy.gu.se/EJP/EJP1984Bauer.pdf

The book I referred to also noted numerous studies that appeared in peer reviewed journals, but I can't recall the name of it now. I'll try to find it in the morning.

Parapsychology is investigation into ESP, etc. It is considered a pseudoscience by 98% of the members of the National Academy of the Sciences. The journal is no more reputable than any of the ex-gay-conversion rags.

(McConnell, R.A., and Clark, T.K. (1991). "National Academy of Sciences' Opinion on Parapsychology" Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 85, 333-365.)

The studies that I've read on ESP used scientific methodology that was every bit as rigorous as scientific studies in more traditional areas of science. So, if they use similar methodology what basis could they have for calling it a "pseudoscience"?

The first, and most damning, is that there is no focus to the field. There is no clearly-defined subject matter, no replicable experiment demonstrating psi powers on demand, no underlying theories of psi effect, no interdisciplinary connections, nothing. It is an isolated island unconnected to the scientific world.

The second is that the methodology is often actually flawed upon closer examination; most studies showing psi effects have been discredited as due to sloppy methods, novice researchers, or outside effects. The third is that there is a long history of outright fraud in the "field;" the most groundbreaking studies have been found to be complete and total falsifications. The fourth is that the conclusions drawn are frequently invalid; it relies entirely on affirming the consequent. ("Hypothesis: this person is a psychic. Let's do an experiment. Something strange happened. It proves they're a psychic!" This is not the way real science works. Real science disproves or shuts up.)

And finally? Selection bias. Parapsychologists generally do not publish results showing no effect. For all we know, for every one paper they trumpet, they had to go through four hundred experiments showing nothing whatsoever, and will go another four hundred before they hit another one. If I roll a die one hundred times, and only show you the die when it hits a 6, you'll probably believe the die is loaded. Actual scientists publish everything. To a real scientist, a failure is more valid than a success. Success doesn't prove anything. Failure does.

I mean, this isn't just me here. Scientists do not believe parapsychology is a science.

Publishing bias: Don't tell me that there are any fields of science that don't suffer from publishing bias.

No focus to the field: What you're saying is that there are many differences of opinion on the underlying causes of psi phenomenon. There are a lot of things in medical science that are unexplained as well. Not being able to explain the underlying phenomenon does not qualify something as a pseudoscience.

Flawed methodology: That may be true, I don't know. The studies that I've read definitely did not suffer from flawed methodology relative to most other fields of science. The methodology was very rigorous.

History of fraud: Maybe that's true, I don't know. But you shouldn't necessarily discredit a whole field of science because some of its practitioners are frauds. If you did that, there would be no credible field of science.

Selection bias: Again, all fields of science suffer from selection bias to one degree or another. The important thing is that the methods of selection be laid out for the reader so that the reader can determine the extent to which selection bias may have invalidated the study. The studies that I read did that.

The idea that failure is more important that success. I find that to be a somewhat dogmatic statement that doesn't have much meaning. If one person in a 100 can be demonstrated to consistently exhibit various powers of ESP, that can prove that it is a real phenomenon. The fact that 99 out of 100 can't do it in no way means that the phenomenon doesn't exist.

Publishing bias? Eh, not really. To a small extent, perhaps.

No focus to the field? No, what I'm saying is that there is no focus to the field whatsoever. There is absolutely nothing anyone agrees upon, other than "weird shit happens maybe." There are no links to other sciences. Hell, we're not even trying to explain a known phenomenon, we're trying to prove an unlikely phenomenon exists. The closest analogue is Intelligent Design "science."

Fraud? Yeah, there have been instances of fraud in all science. But the difference is, the most convincing 'discoveries' in Parapsych have historically almost always the result of bad methodology or falsification. Frankly, its practitioners have cried wolf so often, nobody really believes them.

Finally, failure is indeed more important than success. The crucial test of any scientific experiment is not if it can prove something; it's if it can rule something out. And frankly, we've never found that 1 person in 100--that person who can still exhibit psi powers once a non-parapsychologist tests them. Why do you think we're going to?

Sure, real science has its foibles and flaws, just like any other human activity, but one of the hallmarks of a true science (as opposed to a pseudoscience) is that it advances in knowledge and understanding over time. Chemistry, physics, astronomy, biology, geology, medicine and many others have all been tremendously successful at that. Psi research has had over a century to do the same and has failed miserably. All that psi researchers can do, and all they have ever done, is make claims (many, if not most, of questionable validity) to have observed particular phenomenon, and they expect to be taken seriously simply because of that. Sorry, but after all this time, that's not enough.

Characteristic of the entire mindset is your statement that "Not being able to explain the underlying phenomenon does not qualify something as a pseudoscience." Well, yeah, after more than 100 years, it does. And not only the fact that they CAN'T explain how images, thoughts and energy can be transmitted from one brain to another over distance, but that they don't even TRY in any serious sense. Where are the theories (or even informed speculation) about how this happens? Where is the testing and refinement of those theories? Which theories have been discarded and which supported? Sure, there are many things still unexplained even in well-established fields of science, but the crucial difference is that hypotheses concerning these things are advanced, tested, argued and refined constantly in the scientific and popular literature. Serious scientists don't hide behind the dodge that you try to peddle. We leave that to IDers and other woo-woo artists.

Ask yourself what we understand and what we can do as a result of discoveries in physics or medicine that we didn't know or couldn't do 100 years ago. Then ask the same question about psi research. Then let us know what wisdom you've uncovered.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. In the opeing of my OP I said that science:

"has been essential to much of humanity’s progress since the beginning of human civilization. I have worked as a scientist for over 30 years – nearly all my adult life – and I have great respect for the previous accomplishments and future potential of science."

You make comparisons between psi research and physical sciences like physics and chemistry. Sure we know a lot more about physics and chemistry. The human brain is almost infinitely more complex than inanimate matter.

Do you believe that "real science" or any science has explained how physical processes are transmitted into human consciousness? Do you think that the field of psychology has come anywhere near as close as physics or chemistry to explaining the underlying basis of its subject matter?

was trying to elevate psi research and similar pursuits to the level of science when they don’t even come close. Simply accumulating a bunch of anomalous or (as yet) unexplained events (which is basically all psi researchers do) may be an interesting hobby, but it does not, in and of itself, constitute science. Even if every single event ever described in the history of psi research was real (a highly dubious claim to begin with), it still wouldn’t matter. A total lack of success at (and failing to even attempt) understanding and explanation of the phenomenon consign it to the realm of pseudoscience. And the argument that the brain is sooooooo complex is yet another red herring. Sure it is, but where in that complexity does the ability to transmit or receive energy outside the skull and convert it into thoughts lie? Real scientists already have a reasonably good understanding of the electromagnetic impulses and fields generated by the brain and they are far, far too weak to accomplish that. If you’re proposing that something else is possible, why haven’t psi researchers ever tried to measure it?

And no, the basis of consciousness is not well understood, but the important point is that there is a lot of work going on to TRY to understand it. Hypotheses are proposed, tested and debated all over the scientific literature in the field, which is the sign of a healthy, robust, TRUE science.

Still waiting for those links, btw. Is there not even ONE discussion on the whole internet among psi researchers about various theories of how psi phenomenon actually work?

It's called "The Conscious Universe -- The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomenon" by Dean Radin, Ph.D. It has a ton of references in it.

I mean, nobody would ever write a book to push an unscientific viewpoint while cherry-picking studies to "prove" something that actual scientists regard as a complete joke, right?

http://www.amazon.com/Creation-As-Science-Testable-evolution/dp/1576835782
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Was-Adam-Creation-Approach/dp/1576835774/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b/103-3625846-0418205
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Question-Scientific-Advances-Accuracy/dp/1576832309/ref=pd_sim_b_shvl_title_4/103-3625846-0418205
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/076790303X/ref=pd_cp_b_1/103-3625846-0418205?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-41&pf_rd_r=00W25ATP6FE3RXA1WP5T&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=317711001&pf_rd_i=1576832309
http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-American/dp/0029146739
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Race-Matters-Michael-Levin/dp/0965638359/ref=cm_lmf_tit_9_rdssss0/103-3625846-0418205

Every single book ever written is biased. That's the reason someone writes a book... to prove a point.

Here, the "S"cientist dismisses the book by proving that others books have bias.

A perfect example of "S"cience the religion.

My point is not that the book is wrong because it is a book. My point is that the existence of a book proves nothing in and of itself.

I do have free access to most scientific journals. It should be a minor thing for one who has a copy of the book to give me the relevant cites.

I have no interest in a book. A book is opinion. I want the studies the book is referencing. Telling me to "find them yourself" is an admission of failure.

Nor do I have any interest in reading it, since I am already satisfied with the subject matter.

However, you seem to have some questions that you want answered.

If you are that curious, you have been given the title of the book, the author and all the information you need to satify your curiosity.

Here is a further list of publications for your review

http://www.deanradin.com/NewWeb/activitiespubs.html

but I'll see what I can find in the actual journals hidden in there.

You see all "S"cientists won't read beyond their very narrow world. Nothing published in a parapsychology journal could possibly be scientific, not because of the study or methods used, but because of WHERE it is published.

The Journal of Scientific Exploration and several others admit on their web site they aren't peer reviewed, or are reviewed "at the editor's discretion." While any study in any of them might possibly be scientific, there's no way for anyone to know, because there's no oversight involved.

Have at it.

:eyes:

And they have all the references cited on the website - handy!

http://www.amazon.com/Conscious-Universe-Scientific-Psychic-Phenomena/dp/book-citations/0062515020/ref=sid_dp_av/002-2664381-9263204?ie=UTF8&citeType=citing#citing

I'm asking for peer-reviewed studies. I'm not really impressed with a link to "Paranormal Research (Paperback)." It doesn't mean that what's in the book is necessarily false, but until I see some studies, I have no reason to think it's any more valid than any of the creationist/racist books I linked above.

just to see in what context the author cites the Weekly World News (RIP).

Remember, Scientific journals get to choose what gets published within them and very few are going to be willing to publish a study in something like NDE's or ESP, no matter how rigorous the science is. Then the "S"cience people will claim that because it wasn't published in one of these journals, it must not be credible.

:eyes:

When all else fails, blame the mystery conspiracy.

Most scientific journals simply have a narrow range of subjects for what they accept for publishing.

Most scientific journals have very exacting criteria on what subject matter they publish. I have had many of my scientific manuscripts turned down without reading them, simply with the explanation "We don't publish on that subject". I'm not talking about scientific subjects that many would consider outside the realm of "real" science. Most of those articles I just submitted to another medical journal, which then published them.

one would have to believe in the ex-gay conversion rags, since there is, as of yet, no scientific proof of "gay" as a genetic component.

There are no "peer reviewed double blind studies" proving that being gay is a function of genetics, all we have is "anecdotal" evidence from people "claiming" to have a particular experience since they were children and some outlying statistical anomalies. http://www.buzzle.com/articles/is-being-gay-genetic.html

Believing that someone is born gay is no different than believing in ESP, as both are based some statistical anomalies and eye witness testimony.

According to "S"cience one would have to believe in the ex-gay conversion rags, since there is, as of yet, no scientific proof of "gay" as a genetic component.

:rofl:

Seems like someone missed the logic train. Just because it hasn't been conclusively proven that homosexuality is controlled genetically (an assertion which some might dispute BTW as a result of studies on genetically-altered fruit flies as well as biological differences in the brains of homosexuals such as an SCN) doesn't mean that the (or even an - to avoid the problem of a false dichotomy) alternative hypothesis is automatically true.

Likewise, just because there isn't evidence to support the existence of supernatural abilities doesn't mean that they don't exist. They might very well, and it might be that we haven't developed the appropriate methods by which to study them. However, if there is no evidence to support it then it would be foolish to assert it as Truth(Tm).

Therein lies the differecne between "S"cience and science.

The same people who claim to definitively KNOW that there is no such thing as ESP, NDE'S, UFOS, God, etc are often the exact same people who dismiss the concept of an "ex"-gay despite the fact that there is absolutely no definitive scientific, peer reviewed proof that gay is anything other than a lifestyle choice.

Here's the funny thing.

I know dozens of gay people and I BELIEVE they were born that way. Why? Because they told me convincing stories of their life as a child and how they always knew they were different.

But, what I want to know is how is that BELIEF any different than another person's BELIEF in a near death experience, ESP, UFOS or God for that matter.

You are in both scenarios basing a belief on invalid criteria. By happenstance, one belief is supported by evidence. The other is not.

has been observed in 1500 species, and rigorously documented in 500 of them, from primates to worms. It has been induced in flies. One can observe a large number of physiological differences--in structures developed from birth--between gay men and heterosexual men.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1887219
http://www.dafml.unito.it/anatomy/panzica/pubblicazioni/pdf/1995PanzicaJEI.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7955323&dopt=Abstract
http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=cache:TyRxqqUgOeoJ:www.statisticalconsulting.biz/site/papers/journal-articles/pa22.pdf+ (one of my favorites)

Proof? No. Evidence? Quite a bit.

The physiological differences do not occur every single time. In Science we believe that a scientific result can always be replicated, on demand, but every gay person does not express these identical characteristics.

Why would you subscribe to such "FLAWED" science? Identical "flawed" science to that used to prove the paranormal. Statistical out layers, scattered results, investigator bias. Your poor unscientific thing.

in any random population of heterosexuals and homosexuals. You gravely misunderstand the term 'replicated.'

And it is one of the things that the Skpetics of "born gay" point to all the time.

There are TONS of studies that show a "psychic" preforming to a large statistical significance... but these are often dismissed because the researcher is accused of cherry picking.

I've got the evidence. I've got the studies. You've got the right-wing nutballs and talk-show hosts.

(Your second statement has been proven both misleading and incorrect repeatedly in this thread. If you can't be bothered to read the posts you're replying to, I'm not going to repeat myself for you.)

You've got the same anecdotal evidence not accepted to prove the paranormal, which in this case, you attempt to use to prove your point.

Statistical aberrations and bias research is a "FLAWED" scientific study. The fact that you WANT to believe is fine, but it is no different.

to "list of words Milo_Bloom likes to use but does not completely understand."

Not surprising.

The same people who claim to definitively KNOW that there is no such thing as ESP, NDE'S, UFOS, God, etc are often the exact same people who dismiss the concept of an "ex"-gay despite the fact that there is absolutely no definitive scientific, peer reviewed proof that gay is anything other than a lifestyle choice.

No one is claiming to definitively know that there is no such thing as ESPs, NDEs, UFOs, God, etc. Rather, people are claiming that there is either no evidence to support the existence of them or that alternative explanations rather than those that rely on a metaphysical paradigm are more readily supported by the evidence. To claim that "'S'cientists" say otherwise is a straw man.

ETA

I know dozens of gay people and I BELIEVE they were born that way. Why? Because they told me convincing stories of their life as a child and how they always knew they were different.

But, what I want to know is how is that BELIEF any different than another person's BELIEF in a near death experience, ESP, UFOS or God for that matter.

Do you know why some "'S'cientists" think that homosexuality is hard-wired? Because there is scientific evidence to support that proposition. Anecotal evidence is good for defining certain areas of investigation for research, nothing more.

So there you go. That's why that belief is different than another person's belief in NDEs, ESP, UFOs, or God - because that belief has rational and empirical evidence to support it.

To suggest that NO ONE is claiming to definitively know that there is no such things as ESP, UFOS, God, etc is completely untrue.

There are plenty of people willing to make EXACTLY that claim, although they represent the 20% at the other end of the spectrum to those who may believe the bible is literally true word for word.

That is the distinction between "S"cience and science. It is very real and not a straw man in any sense of the term.

Also, if you can provide evidence that those individuals represent the 20% at the other end of the spectrum, I'd appreciate that as well.

Bear in mind that the quotes you need to provide are ones where the person is asserting that they know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that X does not exist.

ETA: Also, this is really a red-herring. Even if there are people who claim in all seriousness that the know for certain that X does not exist, that doesn't make ESP, UFOs, NDEs, or god any more legitimate. It just means that, from an epistemological standpoint, these people are mistaken in their reasoning.

Since in the context of your post you claim that providng you the quotes would prove nothing, why should I bother going through google to find quotes from people claiming X isn't real.


Here, I will make it easy on you. Here are all the quotes you need.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Ghosts+are+not+real%22

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22UFOs+are+not+real%22

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22ESP+is+not+real%22

There ya go, thousands and thousands of quotes from people claiming to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that X isn't real.

...it seems extremely plausible that ghosts are not real...

I think ghosts are not real because you...

I'm not going to do your work for you.

And I honestly don't know why you should bother...well, other than to support your claim that the "opposite 20% of the spectrum" claims, for certain, that ghosts are not real. Otherwise I call shenanigans.

The links are all there for you. Thousands and thousands and thousands of them for you to wade through.

I'm going to stop reading yours.