Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> (There are people who think that accupuncture is nonesense. But now 
>> scientists are finding that it causes measurable chemical changes in 
>> the body that do, in fact, do something. As crazy as that sounds...)
>>
> 
> It is nonsense.

Thanks for clearing that up for us. I guess all the actual medical doctors 
can stop looking into it now.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> If *nobody else* studying it is good, an unqualified *nobody* studying it is
> even better, is it not?

No.

> Besides, the nature of paranormal claims is such that they can not be
> conclusively disproven. 

This is incorrect.

 > There will never be a study to disprove that which
> is not a theory.

That's why you make theories about it.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:4b111fbd$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>>>> Disproving a theory is every bit as important as proving a theory. By
>>>> proving that the psychic phenominon does not exist, now nobody else
>>>> needs to study it. This is beneficial.
> 
>>> If *nobody else* studying it is good, an unqualified *nobody* studying
> it is
>>> even better, is it not?
> 
>> The only way to scientifically determine whether a claim is valid or not
>> is to, you know, actually investigate it. If we wrote off anything that
>> sounded too weird, human kind would never have advanced anywhere.
> 
> Person A: I can read minds.
> Scientist: Hypothesis: Some people can read minds. Sure, let's test it.
> - Test yields a negative result -
> Person A: I was off that day. I cannot read minds on Fridays.
> Scientist: Sure, let's repeat the test on a Monday.
> - Test yields a negative result -

After a few of these, you start asking questions like "why does the day of 
the week matter."

Just like you say "Things fall at the same speed."  "Well, not a feather and 
a hammer."  "Why not?"

> Person A: The room was too cold. It doesn't work in the cold.

Scientist: Why not?

> So what did the scientist "prove"? 

That's not how science works.

> Even if she tests a million people with
> negative results, she can not conclude that reading minds is not possible

That's not how science works. The scientists investigating the claim weren't 
trying to prove it's impossible. They were trying to find people who could 
do it. If you run out of people who say "I'm willing to prove I can do it", 
or you test a statistically large sample, you can come back and say "we are 
99% sure nobody can do this."  You don't have to prove that remaining 1%, 
any more than you have to prove a drug always works for everyone before you 
can start prescribing it.

> The supposed hypothesis stated at the
> beginning was patently inadequate and nonsensical,

And what hypotheses did the actual scientists actually investigate? Or are 
you just making up straw men and then knocking them down?

> A claim itself is not evidence (unlike what some people here seem to think).

It *is* evidence. It's just not *scientific* evidence.

If I claimed I drove to Las Vegas last week, would you doubt my claim? Would 
you insist it must be nonsense because I'm the only one making that claim?

> With paranormal, there are only personal/subjective claims.

Yes. And that's evidence. It's just not scientific evidence. So then you 
apply the scientific method to see if the personal claims are actually 
scientific evidence.

I can measure cold fusion or irregularities in the orbit of mercury too, and 
until you run through the scientific process, it's also personal/subjective 
claims.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   *Some* people believed the Earth was flat at some point, but it was not
> as common as most people nowadays believe.

The people arguing against Columbus setting out weren't arguing that he'd 
fall off the edge, but rather that the Earth was far too large to sail 
around in the size ships he was taking. Which was true. He would have died 
had he not run into the Americas.

>   The placebo effect also causes measurable chemical changes in the body.

Interestingly, I've read that the placebo effect has been getting measurably 
stronger over the last few decades. How's *that* for a mind-screw?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> (Actually, the history of science and mathematics seems to involve quite 
> a lot of things being discovered, forgotten and then rediscovered, often 
> after a seriously large length of time.)

That happens a lot when fanatics burn down libraries. Hasn't really happened 
much since the invention of the printing press.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Have any links to those studies, I would love to see it in print and be
> able to pass it around to others.

GIYF? http://www.livescience.com/health/090120-acupuncture-placebo.html

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/29/09 11:15, Darren New wrote:
> Even nowadays, it surprises me (in some sense) that religious people
> object to the teaching of evolution here. You'd think if creationism
> were *true* and they *really* believed it, they wouldn't be worried
> about *science*.

	The same could be said about teaching creationism.

	The sad truth is (and history - both recent and past - suggests) that 
being true/correct/logical is not that good a criterion for being accepted.

> Why would the church lock up Galileo if they thought his observations
> and deductions were factually incorrect?

	Because it's not too hard to make false statements the "truth", despite 
their being lots of evidence to the contrary?


-- 
"A man doesn't know what happiness is until he's married. By then it's 
too late." - Frank Sinatra

Post a reply to this message

On 11/29/09 11:21, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Oh, I think there have always been people who truly, honestly believe
> that every single syllable of the Bible is the Word of God, and cannot

	Every syllable? In which language?<G>


-- 
"A man doesn't know what happiness is until he's married. By then it's 
too late." - Frank Sinatra

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> Have any links to those studies, I would love to see it in print and be
>> able to pass it around to others.
> 
> GIYF? http://www.livescience.com/health/090120-acupuncture-placebo.html
> 

The article doesn't say that sham acupuncture is just as effective.
LiveScience isn't a journal, so I will give them the benefit of doubt
that they didn't misquote things, but still take their opinion with salt.

If that article is referring to
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab007587.html then it doesn't say
that acupuncture to the wrong points was just as effective. From the
abstract of "Acupuncture for tension-type headache", Linde K et al:

> Main results
> Eleven trials with 2317 participants (median 62, range 10 to 1265) met the inclusion
criteria. Two large trials compared acupuncture to treatment of acute headaches or
routine care only. Both found statistically significant and clinically relevant
short-term (up to 3 months) benefits of acupuncture over control for response, number
of headache days and pain intensity. Long-term effects (beyond 3 months) were not
investigated. Six trials compared acupuncture with a sham acupuncture intervention,
and five of the six provided data for meta-analyses. Small but statistically
significant benefits of acupuncture over sham were found for response as well as for
several other outcomes. Three of the four trials comparing acupuncture with
physiotherapy, massage or relaxation had important methodological or reporting
shortcomings. Their findings are difficult to interpret, but collectively suggest
slightly better results for some outcomes in the control groups.
> 
> Authors' conclusions
> In the previous version of this review, evidence in support of acupuncture for
tension-type headache was considered insufficient. Now, with six additional trials,
the authors conclude that acupuncture could be a valuable non-pharmacological tool in
patients with frequent episodic or chronic tension-type headaches.

And for migraine headaches, it seems that the placebo effect is strong
enough that real needles are not needed. But, same authors, so perhaps
that speaks more about migraine headaches than it does about acupuncture.
(http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001218.html)

> Authors' conclusions
> In the previous version of this review, evidence in support of acupuncture for
migraine prophylaxis was considered promising but insufficient. Now, with 12
additional trials, there is consistent evidence that acupuncture provides additional
benefit to treatment of acute migraine attacks only or to routine care. There is no
evidence for an effect of 'true' acupuncture over sham interventions, though this is
difficult to interpret, as exact point location could be of limited importance.
Available studies suggest that acupuncture is at least as effective as, or possibly
more effective than, prophylactic drug treatment, and has fewer adverse effects.
Acupuncture should be considered a treatment option for patients willing to undergo
this treatment.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> No, but that's a posteriori. Anyone may make a claim without good reason or
> evidence, and I can justifiably laugh at him (for making a claim without
> supporting reasoning or data). That's present time. That same person, in the
> next 10 years, may actually work very hard to prove his claim, and let's say
> it turns out to be correct (whether it was dumb luck or unexplainable genius
> behind him making such a claim 10 years before he had any evidence, matters
> not). But that won't change the fact that at the time he made the claim, he
> did not know enough to make it.
> 
> 

So, how much is the minimal evidence required before the person can
state their absurd hypothesis aloud? Or would you prefer no one made a
hypothesis until after they had enough evidence to back it up?

Post a reply to this message