+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Ramble City (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=44)
+--- Thread: What's up with all this snake oil lately? (/showthread.php?tid=2210)
Pages:
1
2
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - Dark Jaguar - 9th September 2004
Honestly, it's been going on for a few years now, and it's kinda disgusting exactly how much total trash labelled "alternative medicine" is making the rounds these days.
So, with things like "magnetic therapy" (sans MRI), homeopathic "medicine", the Atkins diet, and that great elixer made from a root found only on the tallest mountain of China that's a sure thing to cure what ailes you, how long is it until we actually, I mean we REALLY DO, start seeing mercury being sold as medicine?
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - OB1 - 9th September 2004
You're confusing homeopathic medicine with something else, probably holistic medicine. Homeopathy is well-respected in the medical community and is just as "mystical" as aspirin. I don't buy most of that alternative medicine stuff, but believe it or not there are other ways of healing yourself aside from taking drugs and getting surgery. Certain types of food are better for the body than others, and stuff like ginger is good for you if you have a stomach ache. Nothing fantastical about that.
And what's mystical about the Atkins diet? I don't really follow it but it is a scientific fact that carbs pack in the fat, so a diet with limited amounts of carbohydrates probably would work for some people. But it's also vital for energy so I'd never do it.
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - Great Rumbler - 9th September 2004
Around here we had emu oil. It was supposed to cure all kinds of ailments, but apparently it didn't because no one sells it anymore.
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - N-Man - 9th September 2004
Like Obi said, the Atkins diet is based in scientific fact, and homeopathic medecine isn't all that bad; it's basically medecine-lite. Good to follow, as long as you don't count on it to (for example) remove a tumor.
However, I don't think the term 'holistic medecine' is accurate either to describe what DJ said. Whereas elements of it have been making their way into the mainstream, from what I've heard it's just an effort to treat diseases in a more, well, holistic manner; ie treating the root causes of the disease instead of just the symptoms. Keeping the example of a tumor: instead of just treating it with radio/chemotherapy, doctors would be trying to find out what caused it in the first place, and encouraging you to make the appropriate lifestyle changes.
IMO it's important to draw the line between "alternative" medecine which has some worthwhile elements that have yet to be absorbed into the mainstream, and pure bullshit like "magical elixirs from China" or emu oil.
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - OB1 - 9th September 2004
Well said, N-Man. Use homeopathic medicine if you have diarrhea and don't want to use something as strong as Immodium AD, which is bad for you if you use it more than once every several months.
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - Great Rumbler - 9th September 2004
*scoffs at the Atkins diet*
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - OB1 - 9th September 2004
Hey I skoff at it too, but it seems to work. Though in the end it's probably not that great for you.
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - Dark Jaguar - 9th September 2004
Okay then, allow me to explain exactly what homeopathy is.
Homeopathic medicine, as normally defined, is actually water with ridiculous dilutions of certain medicines. The belief is that the water holds some sort of "memory" of whatever was diluted in it, so the water itself is able to somehow maintain properties, or at least trigger the same "healing" response the actual medicine that was originally diluted into it had. It involves "the law of similars", a completely unproven concept.
Quote:Proponents call homeopathy's defining principle the "Law of Similars." ("Like cures like.") This holds that substances that cause healthy people to get symptoms can cure diseases that have these symptoms. This idea is a form of "sympathetic magic" similar to the primitive idea that eating the heart of a lion will make a person brave.
Allow me to point something out. The scientific community does NOT support homeopathy at ALL. If you are seeing a doctor who supports it, GET A NEW DOCTOR!
As you may have noticed reading above, the very concept of this medicine is foolish. It violates everything known about how atomic particles operate. Water molecules do NOT have a system for maintaining memory, at all. If they did, it would completely rewrite the very foundations of physics. This isn't a bad thing of course, but there is no evidence that it is the case.
Also, do some logical thinking. Aside from the medicine, what else is in that solution? Likely bits of dirt, dust, bacteria, and whatever else may have drifted in there.
Allow me to point you to a page that does a lot better job pointing out the flaws than I. This page is supported by "The Amazing Randi", no not the comedian/magician who shares the name, he's the skeptic's skeptic, who offers a 1 million dollar prize to anyone who can prove any pseudoscience he has listed as such. This fellow is pretty respected, though he can be somewhat rude, by the scientific community. As such, if this guy supports the following site, you can assume this particular site isn't made by a quack themselves.
Here's Randi's page: http://www.randi.org/
Here's the Quackwatch page: http://www.quackwatch.org/
Here's a particular link regarding Homeopathy itself, and WHY it's harmful in the end, even though it's just water.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html
Note that there aren't "two sides" in this. In life a LOT of things are one-sided when the evidence totally piles up on one side. Don't listen to Fox News telling you there's "two sides to every story", because a lot of the time in science, there isn't :D.
Quote:Homeopathic products are made from minerals, botanical substances, and several other sources. If the original substance is soluble, one part is diluted with either nine or ninety-nine parts of distilled water and/or alcohol and shaken vigorously (succussed); if insoluble, it is finely ground and pulverized in similar proportions with powdered lactose (milk sugar). One part of the diluted medicine is then further diluted, and the process is repeated until the desired concentration is reached. Dilutions of 1 to 10 are designated by the Roman numeral X (1X = 1/10, 3X = 1/1,000, 6X = 1/1,000,000). Similarly, dilutions of 1 to 100 are designated by the Roman numeral C (1C = 1/100, 3C = 1/1,000,000, and so on). Most remedies today range from 6X to 30X, but products of 30C or more are marketed.
This points out how it's SO diluted, that there is generally one bit of the healing element per KNOWN UNIVERSE, or even higher. With dilutions so ridiculously high, it's easy to see that buying a vial of this stuff is a huge gamble that you will even GET a particle of the healing bit IN your sample.
Now, as to the Atkins Diet.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/lcd.html
(I think it's cute that that low carb diet can be acroed to lcd :D, note I just think it's funny, not that it's evidence of anything :D.)
http://www.atkinsdietalert.org/
Holistic Jerry, Holistic...
As to that, "all natural" is a meaningless buzz word. Snake venom is all natural. Oil is 100% organic. A big sack of sugar is "fat free". These words mean nothing.
Treating the cause is what actual doctors do anyway! The big "conspiracy against alternative medicine" with the whole argument that "the big money hospitals" are interested in keeping you alive but sick so you keep coming in, is just that, a conspiracy theory. Doctors, in general, are people who WANT to see you healthy. Just walk into any overrun hospital full of injured patients and you'll easily see doctors have more than enough to deal with without making sure MORE people become ill. Radiotherapy is really a method that works.
Okay, one other thing. If you believe that any of these methods worked on you, it's all psychology. I am NOT calling you stupid, in fact smart people can be especially vulnerable because they overthink this stuff into validation. It's just that these methods are NOT proven via the scientific method, and ALL medicine MUST be tested by that standard! As of yet, homeopathy and the rest shows a success rate no greater than is allowed by chance. If you got better, it's almost certain it would have happened anyway.
One important thing. YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IS IRRELEVENT! This is the most offensive thing most not familiar with the scientific method hear, but it's true. Your personal experience, unless it was your experience doing a fun double-blind test with a very massive range of tested people, has no bearing on the truth of something.
Please, PLEASE read everything I posted there and really REALLY think about what you have been experiencing with alternative medicine! This is important! I really don't want to see people getting scammed by this stuff! PLEASE take what I say seriously and don't just respond with anger!
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - OB1 - 9th September 2004
Okay two things: Firstly, you are speaking of homeopathic medicine as it is called in the U.S., and even though it was invented in Germany it is something entirely different in Europe. Not diluted herbs and stuff. Just regular foods and herbs used to alleviate pain and symptoms. Like ginger for stomach aches. Stuff like that.
Secondly, the homeopathy as it is known in the U.S. is not a complete farce and the majority of the scientific community does not reject it because it does help people, even if it's solely a placebo effect. What matters is the end result. Saying that your personal experience is irrelevant is a ridiculous thing to say. We're talking about methods of healing people, and the best way to figure out what works is to see what effects these methods have on people, even if they have not been scientifically proven. Surely you can't be that narrow-minded, DJ.
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - N-Man - 9th September 2004
Uhh, okay dude. I guess I misunderstood what homeopathy was. I was under the impression it involved the whole natural-remedies sorta thing. Never heard of this diluting scheme. My aunt is sort of into alternative medecine (odd lady), acupuncture and natural remedies and stuff, but I've never heard her talk about diluting drugs. Of course that sounds completely bogus.
My line of thought was rather that folk remedies, even when they aren't proved scientifically, can help us understand the way the human body works. Example: I have Crohn's disease. People traditionally take fish oil (I think it is) to help with that. By studying what properties said oil has, we can move closer to finding how it counters the disease, and then create new drugs that counter it in a more effective way. It's an entirely different thing than this homeopathy business you speak of, but I feel you're lumping it all together.
Take it easy man, all those caps make you seem a little high-strung.
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - OB1 - 9th September 2004
DJ is indeed very high-strung. :)
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - Dark Jaguar - 9th September 2004
I didn't use that many caps. The cap to lower case ratio is about where it would be :D. Actually, in some of those cases I used caps to emphesize, not yell.
Here's the thing. Finding out HOW it works comes AFTER finding out IF it works. (Those caps for example were to emphasise parts of that sentence so you can see what parts of it were important.)
What I mean is this. If it's unknown if fish oil even treats a disease, finding out how it treats the disease becomes a logical nightmare. There's just no way to do it, because to say "how does it work?" presupposes that it does in fact work. It must be confirmed that it actually works first. Only then can a study be done to find out what mechanism allows it to work.
The thing about folk remedies is a large number of them don't work at all. Sadly, the fact that something has been practised for centuries in no way supports how well it works. This goes into my whole "personal experience is irrelevent" thing.
I suppose I should give an extreme example.
On the stereotypical farm, ya got that rooster that crows when the sun comes up. What if someone came along and claimed that it was the rooster that actually CAUSED the sun to rise each day? In this imaginary extreme scenario, the people do not submit this claim to the scientific method. Instead, this person is seen as a great thinker, as the "proof" comes in the form of "well, every single time it crows in the morning, the sun is rising, what mornings DIDN'T the sun rise, smart guy?". Anyway, this belief is held as fact for several centuries. As a result, a new bit of evidence is presented when anyone questions it. "This is a well established fact that has been known for centuries!". Well, as you can see, this is a belief that was easy to hold for a long time, and there really was no way anyone would have questioned it outside logic.
Now, the thing is, there are a good number of "natural" medicines that really are valuable and valid. Some are actually being rediscovered. However, and this is important, they were tested scientificially and passed the test. Old world medicines like mercury mixes however do not pass the test, and are in fact things that harm.
Now, I know a lot of people think there's no harm in holistic medicines even if they are a scam. I mean, some people do think they feel better even (something called placebo). However, I should point out a few things. First off, placebo only affects the way you see pain. It doesn't actually cure any real disease, but it can make symptoms, very often imagined symptoms, disappear in the mental sense. One cannot "will" a bullet shot away, but they can will away a minor headache problem. By the same token, you can't will away cancer, since placebo is merely psychological. One may not feel sick any more (if the symptoms manifest themselves in a minor way), but the cancer is still there, and the body is having just as tough a job fighting it. Well, actually cancer is PART of your body, so your body doesn't fight it at all, and in fact heals it when it gets infected just like anything else, but you get what I mean.
Anyway, therein lies the harm. Those taking homeopathy are being given false treatments and hocus pocus diagnosis. This means that the real disease might not even be detected, and certainly isn't being treated. I'm sure you can see how this sort of thing can have a terrible end. Someone being "treated" by one of these con-artists* may have a genuine serious problem that is going untreated until it is too late. Sad but true, this does happen...
*Now, I should point something out. A large number of chyropractics (in all that medical practise, it's only the allignment stuff that real medicine considers legit, and even then not in the way chiros would have you believe, no "blocked energy" nonsense) really DO believe in what they do. These people are not con-artists, or idiots, but are just really mislead. Unfortunatly, someone who has dedicated their life to something like this is someone who will almost never be capable of accepting it no matter the evidence. They can't accept it because of what that would make them. It's a sad thing, but too many continue to practise, totally unwilling to face the truth when it is presented to them. Honestly, can you blame them that much? I know I certainly wouldn't want to realize everything I lived for was a total lie. and all the people I thought I helped were actually being hurt.
In the end, dealing with medicine means that the patient needs to do practical research before getting any treatment. Don't go for that shark cartilidge on the "off chance" it'll work. For all you know you could make it worse, and might waste money that could be better spent on a legitimate treatment.
Edit: Oh yes, I just read something on randi's site that I think I should explain here too. A lot of people might assume when a skeptic says something like this that they are "closed minded" and "think they are totally right". Not so. The skeptic's viewpoint isn't that "anything that isn't proven by science is automatically not true". It's that "anything that isn't proven by science... isn't proven by science". Not believing in certain exotic creatures, like let's say a new kind of monkey is different from disbelief. That is to say, it's not that the skeptic actually thinks "it does not exist". Their position is that it "hasn't been proven to exist". It may very well exist, but it has to be proven before any skeptic can believe it. It may seem as a sort of control, a limitation, but that's the way it works. Some skeptics might actually be inclined to believe in certain unproven things, but don't actually believe in it yet. They don't disbelieve, they actually have a state of nonbelief. It's hard for me to explain, but well, it's just that they don't have enough proof to consider it a fact.
They certainly know well enough that they aren't in a position that everything science currently thinks is true. In fact, most scientists are CONSTANTLY trying to find NEW information BECAUSE they don't think they know everything. If a new fact seems to throw everything they know about a certain field on it's head, they don't bury it in the sand, they look into it. Scientists are about as open minded as it gets. They WANT to find out amazing things that prove everything they know wrong. It's one of the greatest feelings in the world! When someone has discovered that mass simply can't be an inherent property of matter, so much as matter clinging to some heretofor unknown "god particle" (think of it this way, electrons don't really seem to have centrifugal force), it sends everyone into a "wow, let's check that out" mode, not a "we must silence the heretic" mode.
I've mentioned this on other boards. When someone makes a claim, the burden of proof is on them. Someone can't claim bigfoot exists and demand that others disprove it's existance. That's stupid. The burden of proof is on them to show it DOES exist. I won't begin to claim "You can't proove a negative", because that's only true some of the time (I can for instance prove I am not a giraffe, or even the mighty Gumbercules), but also because that argument shifts the burden of proof back to me :D. So, if someone claims that some strange medicine works wonders, scientists don't HAVE to proove it doesn't work (and they aren't even interested in "proving themselves right", they just want to find the TRUTH, as if it does work, who knows what else they could find out as a result?), it's the person making this claim who has to prove it.
Really, would you have it work any other way? Anyone is free to question the scientific community, they do it to themselves all the time. HOWEVER, fair is fair. If you can question them, they can also question you about anything you claim. If the burden of proof layed on the other person instead of the claimant, we could never be sure about anything. The entire scientific method would fail, and we would have no method for finding out how things work. Imagine if you will if scientists had to prove every single claim someone else made, including things like "the alligator always chirps twice when BURROWED INTO YOUR SOUL, and also it makes the sun rise every morning when it crows", they wouldn't ever get anywhere.
Well, that's all. I just wanted to make it clear that I have no problem with these methods actually working, but there's no PROOF, and THERE MUST BE PROOF, THAT IS A REQUIREMENT. :D
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - Private Hudson - 9th September 2004
Your posts would be much shorter if you weren't under the impression that we are all 6 year olds who have no idea what you're talking about.
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - OB1 - 9th September 2004
It never ceases to amaze me how throughout history people have proclaimed things as absolutely true or false based on their level of understanding of science. We still have a very limited understanding of science, oftentimes just knowing the names of certain principles and ideas without even knowing the why's or how's. It is true that there are many things that we can claim as absolute fact with much more confidence than people could have even 50 years ago, but there is still so much unknown to us that stating something as absolutely false solely based off of the fact that we can not current prove it to be true... is simply ridiculous. If there's one thing that has been consitent over time it is the arrogance of man.
Your rooster example is valid, but so would someone a thousand years ago believing but not being able to prove that the earth is not flat based off of his or her own observations. This person may not be able to prove his or her theory to be fact, but likewise it also cannot be disproved. Now I'm not saying that I believe in most of the things you've talked about, but I definitely do not have the arrogance and foolishness to proclaim then as absolutely false. You can use words like "unproven", "inprobable", and even "poppycock", but it is not wise to proclaim something as absolutely false when there is simply no way (currently, at least) to prove it right or wrong.
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - OB1 - 9th September 2004
Private Hudson Wrote:Your posts would be much shorter if you weren't under the impression that we are all 6 year olds who have no idea what you're talking about.
My vote for post of the year.
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - Dark Jaguar - 9th September 2004
Well I really don't mean to offend, I just really want to make myself clear. I tend to over-explain pretty much everything I say, I know, but that's because in the past I have had a lot, a LOT, of confusion over what I meant. I do believe you may even remember some pretty heated arguments based solely on a total misunderstanding of what I'm talking about.
Really, don't take it as me "talking down" to you. I just want to make sure no one assumes I'm saying something else.
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - alien space marine - 10th September 2004
It would be good if they could test the content of those diluted remedies and expose the truth, It would have greater credibility if it was done by a nonbias university or research institute then one already opposed to homeopathy.But I dont believe in it.
Ive done it and I had doubts for a long time about those watery flat beer tasting pieces of shit. The all tasted the same thats what made me suspicious about their content it may has well been old beer or tap water, Now some of the things they give like Vitamens or different herb roots I would believe do somthing good for your body. The reason some would go for these things is because line ups for chemeothreapy atleast in my country could be so long some will think that this stuff will atleast help them out in the meantime.
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - Dark Jaguar - 10th September 2004
Why does the opinion of the tester have anything to do with it? The testers are doing it solely to expose the truth, no matter what it is. They DO believe it's not true, but that doesn't affect them. A good test doesn't care what the opinions of the testers are. These tests are like that. Even if the tester was 100% certain there was NO way it could be true ever (that would actually be bias), these tests wouldn't be affected, because they are double-blind tests.
As of yet, testing the contents isn't what they do. Instead, they test the medicine's effectiveness. They apply this medicine to a large number of people.
Here's how the test works. What they do is have a massive assortment of samples. Half of the samples are homeopathic mixes. The other half is plain water. In order to prevent the actual tester from affecting the results in any way, the tester has no idea which is which, or what patients are getting what mix. The patients ALSO have no idea if they are getting the water or the medicine in question, so their mental state will have no affect on the results either. This is why it's called double-blind testing, because neither the tester or the testee has any idea of a certain crucial part of the test. Anyway, the tester doesn't know, but instead the people, a decent number of them checking each other, prepare the samples. They mark all the samples with a letter/number combo (something that's totally unintelligable to either party, since the marking isn't a code so much as randomly chosen) and mark down on a list which ones are water and what's the treatment. The patients themselves ALL have been thoroughly tested to assure they ALL suffer the same condition (they must be absolutly positive they all have this condition and have been properly diagnosed as such) and have the same symptoms. The reason they all have to suffer the same thing and that it must be confirmed is fairly obvious.
Anyway, with all this preparation, it's obvious they are serious about it. They aren't just humoring them, they really are trying to find out the truth. So, the test commences. They give them all their sample, assigned by the testers, not the mixers, and remember neither the testers nor the patients have any idea which samples are the homeopathic remedy or which is the water. They then proceed to moniter them and ask how they are feeling a significant time later. Some of them really are feeling better, but what percentage of the people who feel better are the ones who took the homeopathic remedy?
Well the final element of the test is applied. The original mixers come out with their master list. They then match up the patients with the sample they took, which is matched up with the chart showing which was and was not the placebo. Well, when all is said and done, unfortunatly, the homeopathic remedy failed the test. Those who felt better fell evenly on both sides (half were taking water and the other half the "remedy"), in fact VERY evenly, WELL within what's allowed by chance. That said, the remedy was tested and found to be no better than chance. This means that the remedy has no healing affect greater than straight water, meaning it has no healing affect at all. It is pure junk. Now, this was a large sample, but larger samples mean greater accuracy, right? Well, this test has been repeated many times, and sadly it always fails.
It would have been incredible if it turns out that the medication actually has a real effect that showed it wasn't just chance. It would not only be a major boon for medicine, but physics in general! It would truly be a revolutionary chance to our understanding of how the world works. Sadly, it would seem that's not the case. It would seem this particular thing is false, and that it's conjecture on how the world works is merely wishful thinking...
You see, they really DO want to find out the truth about how the world works. They aren't this secretive council attempting to stifle new thought. I mean, they would be out of a job if they stopped finding out new stuff :D. No one pays a scientist that tells the world stuff it already knew after all :D.
Edit: I failed to mention something, but some people bring this up so I thought I might. Yes, the people representing homeopathy have a huge say in the matters concerning the tests. Namely, they are there to confirm that the various patients have the disease as well, and they are allowed to provide all the samples, mixed themselves in any way they should please, so they can make them in as favorable conditions as they should want. They are also told of all the steps and their approval of the method is confirmed before the test takes place. This is to assure that everything is as favorable for the claimant as possible so that any failure cannot be later blamed on the scientists rigging the tests or the conditions being somehow faulty. Any failure with these rigurous tests can only then be blamed on the claim being false.
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - alien space marine - 11th September 2004
Could be more helpful If I had a link .
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - A Black Falcon - 11th September 2004
DJ, would this be a good time to ask if you unbanned OB1's posts? :)
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - Great Rumbler - 11th September 2004
That might explain a few things...
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - Dark Jaguar - 11th September 2004
Oh, no not as of yet. Why?
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - Great Rumbler - 11th September 2004
Well, he has contributed quite heavily to this thread...
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - alien space marine - 11th September 2004
It violates the laws of free press!We dont need DJ to censore the forum we are grown ups! We can logically reason on issues we dont need to be shelterd from dangerous materials by a evangelical like DJ! On this site OB1 is closest thing we have to a role model.
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - Great Rumbler - 11th September 2004
...
...
...
...
What are you talking about?
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - alien space marine - 11th September 2004
Somthing you just ruined
........................*Sign*
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - Dark Jaguar - 11th September 2004
I didn't censure OB1. I just blocked his posts from my OWN view :D.
And besides, let's just try and see Canada sue this site :D.
Anyway, I assume OB1's being calling all the people who believe in this stuff idiots or something? Or has he been arguing against it in a more, nice manner?
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - N-Man - 12th September 2004
OB1 SPEAKETH
Quote:You're confusing homeopathic medicine with something else, probably holistic medicine. Homeopathy is well-respected in the medical community and is just as "mystical" as aspirin. I don't buy most of that alternative medicine stuff, but believe it or not there are other ways of healing yourself aside from taking drugs and getting surgery. Certain types of food are better for the body than others, and stuff like ginger is good for you if you have a stomach ache. Nothing fantastical about that.
Quote:Well said, N-Man. Use homeopathic medicine if you have diarrhea and don't want to use something as strong as Immodium AD, which is bad for you if you use it more than once every several months.
Quote:Hey I skoff at it too, but it seems to work. Though in the end it's probably not that great for you.
Quote:Okay two things: Firstly, you are speaking of homeopathic medicine as it is called in the U.S., and even though it was invented in Germany it is something entirely different in Europe. Not diluted herbs and stuff. Just regular foods and herbs used to alleviate pain and symptoms. Like ginger for stomach aches. Stuff like that.
Secondly, the homeopathy as it is known in the U.S. is not a complete farce and the majority of the scientific community does not reject it because it does help people, even if it's solely a placebo effect. What matters is the end result. Saying that your personal experience is irrelevant is a ridiculous thing to say. We're talking about methods of healing people, and the best way to figure out what works is to see what effects these methods have on people, even if they have not been scientifically proven. Surely you can't be that narrow-minded, DJ.
Quote:DJ is indeed very high-strung.
Quote:It never ceases to amaze me how throughout history people have proclaimed things as absolutely true or false based on their level of understanding of science. We still have a very limited understanding of science, oftentimes just knowing the names of certain principles and ideas without even knowing the why's or how's. It is true that there are many things that we can claim as absolute fact with much more confidence than people could have even 50 years ago, but there is still so much unknown to us that stating something as absolutely false solely based off of the fact that we can not current prove it to be true... is simply ridiculous. If there's one thing that has been consitent over time it is the arrogance of man.
Your rooster example is valid, but so would someone a thousand years ago believing but not being able to prove that the earth is not flat based off of his or her own observations. This person may not be able to prove his or her theory to be fact, but likewise it also cannot be disproved. Now I'm not saying that I believe in most of the things you've talked about, but I definitely do not have the arrogance and foolishness to proclaim then as absolutely false. You can use words like "unproven", "inprobable", and even "poppycock", but it is not wise to proclaim something as absolutely false when there is simply no way (currently, at least) to prove it right or wrong.
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - Dark Jaguar - 12th September 2004
Ya know, there's not much of a point of me blocking him if you are just going to quote him at me.
Never mind, went ahead and read that against better judgement. I have decided not to respond though except for this, I think I've covered most of his "arguments" pretty well in the form of modern scientific thought pretty much laying the smack down on all these things.
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - A Black Falcon - 12th September 2004
DJ, OB1 is definitely being nicer. You should unblock him... or at least think about it.
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - Dark Jaguar - 12th September 2004
Thought about it already, but this seems a tad argumentative. I'll give it another month... Don't take it too sersiously. I already explained it before and only lazy even responded to that, positively I might add. Weird how it's suddenly brought up.
Anyway, back on topic, so ABF, what are your opinions on all this?
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - Great Rumbler - 12th September 2004
Quote:but this seems a tad argumentative.
Uhh...weren't you TRYING to start up a debate with this thread?
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - Dark Jaguar - 12th September 2004
Well, actually I had assumed everyone here agreed with me. When it comes to science, most people here share the same opinions on a lot of it, so I thought this would be yet another thing we all agreed on. I had originally predicted we'd all have a fun time of it bashing quack doctors or something....
But anyway, what I meant there was the ad hominum. That stuff is bad.
But hey, here's what's important, OB1 doesn't care. At least when I talked to him in IM, he said he wasn't even offended by the whole thing.
Therefor, back on topic.
I just wanted to add something about the whole idea that everyone has thought they were right in the past but were wrong.
That's about right, but the devil's in the details. In the fairly distant past, no one was using the scientific method. Aristotle thought things fell down because they longed to be united with the Earth, and he didn't have a single bit of evidence at all to support it, just his own philosophizing (philosophy basically being a fancy way to say "day dreaming"). So, the fact that they were wrong but thought they were right has no bearing on the validity of the scientific method. When you get to Galileo fighting against the establishment, well, he WAS the scientific method, in it's earliest form, and he wasn't fighting against anything resembling the current scientific community. It would be more apt to say ol' Gal was the scientific community fighting against the establishment which represents pseudoscientists. Newton was actually ACCEPTED when he presented his findings, once proven, and rather willingly, thanks to Galileo's work. There was no "fighting the grand fight" there, except his own personal struggle to actually formulate the first complete set of laws of motion. Einstein, now he actually had a battle ahead of him. The scientific community had gotten a bit stagnant, but that was them drifting away from science. However, in defence, Einstein DID have a lot of evidence to show, and rightfully so, and many times he just didn't have it, and the holes were all legitimate when nay-sayers pointed it out. Anyway, today if there's enough evidence to back up a claim, the scientific community in general won't stubbornly refuse it. My main point in this very rough and brief history was just to say the whole idea that "every great thinker in the past had to struggle agains the rest of the world thinking they were wrong and laughing at them" is misleading, and wrong (namely in the "every" part of it, and laughter wasn't really a part of it, ever).
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - OB1 - 13th September 2004
Nah I really don't care if DJ is blocking my posts. It's immature, but I've actually had more fun here since DJ hasn't been replying to my posts. :)
Anyhow, putting so much confidence into the modern-day scientific method is the only real problem I have with DJ's stance. I probably believe in most of this stuff about as much as she does, but I don't completely dismiss everything not proved by the scientific method simply because our scientific method is based on our current level of understanding of the sciences, which is still pretty much in its infancy. Not being able to prove something as true does not necessarily prove it falsehood.
Oh and who was that last paragraph in reply to? That had almost nothing to do with what I was talking about.
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - A Black Falcon - 13th September 2004
DJ, it's brought up because (as OB1 says and you can't see) it really is kind of immature. Okay, go and ignore his posts. Fine with me, a lot of the things he says much of the time are worth ignoring. But totally blocking them all? Stupid. You cut out the decent ones as well as the bad. But more importantly, it makes threads like this one and a couple others kind of weird... :)
Quote:Anyhow, putting so much confidence into the modern-day scientific method is the only real problem I have with DJ's stance. I probably believe in most of this stuff about as much as she does, but I don't completely dismiss everything not proved by the scientific method simply because our scientific method is based on our current level of understanding of the sciences, which is still pretty much in its infancy. Not being able to prove something as true does not necessarily prove it falsehood.
I'm extremely skeptical without proof and even then I'm still skeptical; see 'acupuncture'.
Quote:Oh and who was that last paragraph in reply to? That had almost nothing to do with what I was talking about.
DJ likes to talk about science, OB1... not necessarially with a reason...
As for the subject, I don't think about it a whole lot (and don't run into people saying how, as I think DJ said once, talking about how the germ theory of disease is wrong... maybe I'm not around the right places... :D), but sure. Holistic healing, etc, etc... all garbage in most all ways. The only way I can see any effect coming from any of that stuff is if it affects the person into thinking it should make them feel better -- after all, the human mind is strange and you can convince yourself out of some ills. On a similar note, I don't understand at all how stuff like acupuncture has any effect... doesn't seem like it should...
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - OB1 - 13th September 2004
Hey you didn't mention that even though I find it immature, I really don't care.
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - A Black Falcon - 13th September 2004
Yeah, and DJ knows that...
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - OB1 - 13th September 2004
Yeah but the way you said it it may look like I care now.
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - A Black Falcon - 13th September 2004
But why would you have changed your mind on the matter so quickly? Doesn't really make sense...
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - OB1 - 13th September 2004
What do you mean? I didn't care when I first heard about the post block.
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - A Black Falcon - 13th September 2004
Exactly, why would you suddenly change your mind and care?
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - OB1 - 13th September 2004
...
I just said that I don't care, you nitwit! And that you're acting as if I do care!
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - A Black Falcon - 13th September 2004
*sigh* I give up, it's hopeless... if you can't tell what I'm trying to AGREE with you, no wonder you can't tell what I'm saying when I disagree...
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - Great Rumbler - 13th September 2004
....
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - OB1 - 13th September 2004
What the hell is going on with Brian today?
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - Great Rumbler - 13th September 2004
Quote:Exactly, why would you suddenly change your mind and care?
Translation: I concur. It would be strange for you to suddenly change your mind and start caring.
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - Dark Jaguar - 13th September 2004
Not sure what's going on, but I think it's safe to assume this is the reason I turned on "ignore".
Look, the whole thing started a while ago when this was the only way I could see not getting into huge debates with OB1. It was a last resort, yes, and I know a huge problem with myself when I see it, that being, I kept getting dragged into arguments. I'll keep the block up until as such time as I think I can avoid getting sucked in.
Besides, it's not like it's affecting anyone :D.
So anyway, it's clear you agree with me on this. I will make a point of saying that I don't think having faith is wrong. I'm a Christian, I've said so before, sometimes blind faith with no evidence is great. HOWEVER, when it's about science, not about trusting people, an attitude of skeptisism is needed. If a stranger walks up to you, without any proof, and says "here, drink this and pay me for it", skepticism is needed. Again, something MAY very well be true, depending on the tests done to it. The possibility that SOMEONE somewhere CAN dowse wasn't ruled out by the tests done. At times things can still POSSIBLY be true if the tests didn't completely exclude it, but the chanes are low. I must repeat myself, and sorry if it's redundant, but it's not a matter of actually thinking all claims that haven't been tested are FALSE, it's a matter of NON-belief, that is, the scientist has no strong feelings either way until the test is done. HOWEVER, when that claim goes against things the method HAS shown to be true, a scientist can and should be allowed to consider it false until otherwise shown. I mean, that's the entire POINT. When all the evidence stacks on one side, and there's none for the other, it is illogical to just plain believe in the other. The scientific method is, when able to be executed flawlessly, the best tool we have. All other methods for finding the truth are flawed. Name one time the scientific method has, after flawless execution, resulted in exposing something as one way when it is known that it is another way. I mean, test something everyone knows using a quality double-blinded and controlled test, and see if you can ever get it to show an untrue result, aside from compromising the test itself, in which case it no longer meets the method's standards.
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - Great Rumbler - 14th September 2004
Quote:Not sure what's going on, but I think it's safe to assume this is the reason I turned on "ignore".
It's actually not as bad as usual.
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - OB1 - 14th September 2004
Oh this is just one giant mess thanks to stupid ABF here. That guy seriously needs to learn how to express himself properly.
And would someone quote what I'm about to say for DJ?
Yes I agree that skeptisism is a must, but I do not agree with absolutely dismissing anything that has not been proven by our current level of understanding of the sciences. Being skeptical is find and dandy, but saying with complete confidence that something is wrong soley because it cannot be proved right now is very arrogant and foolish. Basically what I'm trying to say is that you cannot completely dismiss everything as foolishness when our scientific method is only as good as our current level of understanding.
What's up with all this snake oil lately? - Great Rumbler - 14th September 2004
OB1 says:
Quote:Yes I agree that skeptisism is a must, but I do not agree with absolutely dismissing anything that has not been proven by our current level of understanding of the sciences. Being skeptical is find and dandy, but saying with complete confidence that something is wrong soley because it cannot be proved right now is very arrogant and foolish. Basically what I'm trying to say is that you cannot completely dismiss everything as foolishness when our scientific method is only as good as our current level of understanding.