Junk Science

[Psi]

I should clarify, im not really talking about theoretical physics or string theory or any of the theoretical math areas.

I'm talking about the methodology used to prove and disprove ideas.

Its not like a bunch of people get together and vote how science works.

Well they kind of do in terms of the methodology, it's not something that was discovered, it has been invented and improved over time. It will continue to improve as new methods and test are discovered and new areas of science are discovered requiring different methodologies.

This "slant"ing is just part of the natural order of things.

So it's that way just because that's the way it is? I've never found that to be a good answer to any question.

[Time]

Well they kind of do in terms of the methodology, it's not something that was discovered, it has been invented and improved over time. It will continue to improve as new methods and test are discovered and new areas of science are discovered requiring different methodologies.

The scientific method has not changed and will not change.  Its practically common sense to approach some hypothesis with the notion of controls and variables and repetition.  You were probably doing it in every day life before it was formally introduced to you as a method.  I know I was.  If you can formulate a better method for proving or disproving a theory than you should probably write for publication. Those elements are the very rudimentary notions of the process and it is adapted to the different theories accordingly.  I can start naming famous experiments if you want.  If you think it is inadequate but can't provide another alternative that is just indicative of your lack of understanding, simply put. 

The theory itself dictates the path of experimentation.  If you theorize an idea than you should be able to say "If this is true than we should be able to do X and observe Y as a result" and that is where all experimentation is born, regardless of methodology.

So it's that way just because that's the way it is? I've never found that to be a good answer to any question.

What is a good answer? Its not like the scientific community is full of conspirators who are just trying to make everyone think a certain way.  In fact, its the exact opposite.  You should probably get more in touch with modern science journals and technical proceedings.  You would probably be pretty impressed with how progressive thinking has evolved since the Slovay conference era.  Those guys changed everything and brought new light on thinking. 

[Zero999]

Things that are proven to be 100% true or false via observation and experimentation don't involve much imagination or creativity. What involves creativity is designing experiments to prove theories. Another thing which requires creativity is coming up with theories to test i.e. imagination tends to fill in gaps in knowledge, just look at all of the theories about how the dinosaurs lived, what they ate, their lifespan and even their mating systems, a good proportion of it is guesswork based around some fossil remains. As with other areas of science some theories seem pretty solid: the dinosaurs evolved from reptiles and are the ancestors to modern birds but most are just speculative: whether they were warm/cold blooded, average lifespan, egg incubation period, parental care, colour ect.

I wonder how many government ministers in each European country have a lot of interest in pharmaceutical companies, if it became main stream (the actual electronics in it only have a value of about £20 so they could be cheaply mass produced) the drug industry would take a serious hit and that's a fact!

I'll try to keep an open mind about whether the machine works or not but I don't see that as a valid reason for it not being accepted, the same way that free energy is not being suppressed because of governments wanting to support the oil companies.

If the pharmaceutical company sponsored suppression theory is correct then their wouldn't be so many drugs which were released then later found to be dangerous or detrimental and banned causing huge losses for the drug companies. Most governments in Europe also have some sort of universal health system, like our NHS, so they would most likely save huge amounts of money if a super cure all was discovered causing the pharmaceutical industry to go bankrupt. Look at it another way, the governments are buying a service from the drug companies, if they do a bad job (produce ineffective.dangerous products) they get whipped and if someone else can do the job cheaper and more effectively the government stop using them: the NHS are continuously looking for more cost effective treatments and will switch from one drug to another to save money.

[Psi]

The scientific method has not changed and will not change.

You would probably be pretty impressed with how progressive thinking has evolved since the Slovay conference era.  Those guys changed everything and brought new light on thinking.  

These two statements are pretty much exactly what im talking about, assumptions that something we know now is the whole story, that the scientific method cannot possibly be wrong or need changing in the future.  If the Slovay conference era changed everything and brought new light on thinking then it's arrogant for science to assume that in 10/100/1000 years there wont be another event that changes human understanding in science again with the same or a greater degree.

And as such, we shouldn't always be assuming that modern scientific methods will work for new problems.  Sure, they are all we have at present, but i believe there are too many assumtions being made.
Of course this is just my opinion. I'm not trying to force my view on anyone else, just explain what my view is.

[Simon]

I wonder how many government ministers in each European country have a lot of interest in pharmaceutical companies, if it became main stream (the actual electronics in it only have a value of about £20 so they could be cheaply mass produced) the drug industry would take a serious hit and that's a fact!

I'll try to keep an open mind about whether the machine works or not but I don't see that as a valid reason for it not being accepted, the same way that free energy is not being suppressed because of governments wanting to support the oil companies.

If the pharmaceutical company sponsored suppression theory is correct then their wouldn't be so many drugs which were released then later found to be dangerous or detrimental and banned causing huge losses for the drug companies. Most governments in Europe also have some sort of universal health system, like our NHS, so they would most likely save huge amounts of money if a super cure all was discovered causing the pharmaceutical industry to go bankrupt. Look at it another way, the governments are buying a service from the drug companies, if they do a bad job (produce ineffective.dangerous products) they get whipped and if someone else can do the job cheaper and more effectively the government stop using them: the NHS are continuously looking for more cost effective treatments and will switch from one drug to another to save money.

Well the other thing when dealing with governments is they have to keep people happy so probably stick to traditional methods. I don't know why the Skenar has not gained the recognition it deserves but I know it can do many good things, it's no miracle machine no more than drugs are and so far has proved completely harmless (before people get ready to cal in lawyers to sue). But then we live in a world of ignorance and denial of how things should be, be it for money or just because we want them to be so and so and don't want to hear of a better way that does not suit our thinking. If you ever fancy trialling it give me a shout

[cybergibbons]

Psi, I think the problem is that you don't understand what the scientific method means - it isn't "scientific methods". They are the fundamental principles used to investigate and build knowledge, and are based on sound logical reasoning. You can test any hypothesis using the scientific method - it doesn't matter how ridiculous.

Take homeopathy - where many high quality studies show that it is no better than placebo. These studies do not try to explain how homeopathy works - they simply try to see if it does work. The proponents of homeopathy say that science doesn't understand homeopathy and start the mumbo-jumbo about frequencies and memory. The point is that science often doesn't need to know how.

[Mechatrommer]

These studies do not try to explain how homeopathy works - they simply try to see if it does work ... The point is that science often doesn't need to know how.

agree, many knowledge have been discovered this way, or simply just by coincidences. only a few very deep knowledge (mostly in pure particle physics afaik) have been predicted through concrete mathematical formulation or mastermind's imagination. guess who discovered electricity? and how? as long as it does work, science will find a way to convert it into concrete reasoning.

[Time]

How they approach theoretical ideas changed.  How they tested these theoretical ideas did not change and will never change.  1000 years ago intellectuals were doing it the same way scientists will be doing it 1000 years from now.  It has never changed and will never change.

[Mechatrommer]

1000 years ago intellectuals were doing it the same way scientists will be doing it 1000 years from now.  It has never changed and will never change.

similar to sex industry.

[Simon]

shafri, what is your problem with science? i think plenty of it went into the skenar which you have suddenly taken a liking too, you can't have it both ways and science made your electronics and photography possible

[Mechatrommer]

shafri, what is your problem with science?

i dont have any, do you? is it wrong to compare science with sex? they both never changed just as Time said. maybe you are taking this topic seriously.

[Simon]

me no I'm not taking it seriously, you did start earlier on a rant about not trusting science and was endorsing the skenar, yet this was developed with science. As to how science works and a debate about that I'm none the wiser, it's science and works the way it does...

[Zero999]

Oh well, I'll throw in my opinion.

I've Googled the skenar and there doesn't seem to be much information about it. From what I gather it's an electrostimulation device with feedback. I'm no doctor but just going from what I've read, I can't see it being useful for much other than pain control and perhaps muscle stiffness. I don't see how it could help the body fight something like the common cold but I suppose making the patient feel more comfortable might help. The fact that this is allegedly developed by the Russians doesn't really add much weight to it. Russia is pretty corrupt and if it's a scam, it wouldn't surprise me if the Russian government are making a lot money out of it.

[Simon]

it was not "allegedly" developed in Russia, I WAS, I've watched this thing go from hard to come by with the russians not being too helpful in supplying info (a large language barrier, plus just being funny) to it's establishment in europe, I can't speak for the more modern machines, it was taken from russia as one model and has been further developed but that was probably only in graphical output and overall control. You do actually have to learn to use one of these. The original developers carried out tests. As i said because people don't understand it they start making up explanations that start to venture into pseudo science, if someone had an atmel chip programmer their welcome to come and try and read the code off the two chips, I'd love to know whats in there.

As I said I've seen it perform and I'm no less skeptical than the next man. Unfortunately the european medical bodies won't take it seriously and test it, and to flip the coin, what are they afraid of ? if it is junk it is junk, but I don't think so. It's really funny that we as a being have survived relatively well for thousands of years and then all of a sudden when you think of it there are not many people left that don't take pills to make their live bearable if not survive in some cases.

As I said I've seen this machine from all aspects as a patient and treating family members, I can't deny what I have witnessed and if placebo explains it away well then, what the fuck are medicines for if the body is so powerful to not need them because "the idea" is enough to put into place life saving cures ?

oh and the russian goverment have nothing to do with it anymore, the scams that come out of russia are none existant babes that want to marry you not miracle health cures. Like I said i suspect the development of it was also cold war fueled when america and russia were racing to be the first to establish space dominion.

[Psi]

Psi, I think the problem is that you don't understand what the scientific method means - it isn't "scientific methods". They are the fundamental principles used to investigate and build knowledge, and are based on sound logical reasoning. You can test any hypothesis using the scientific method - it doesn't matter how ridiculous.

How would someone go about proving through scientific method that they love their partner?
It's not so easy to apply logical reasoning to emotions and emotions seem to be important in some of the areas of new age medicine. We know they are somehow important for the placebo effect.

Take homeopathy - where many high quality studies show that it is no better than placebo. These studies do not try to explain how homeopathy works - they simply try to see if it does work. The proponents of homeopathy say that science doesn't understand homeopathy and start the mumbo-jumbo about frequencies and memory. The point is that science often doesn't need to know how.

Homeopathy is actually a good example.  I'm not really trying to imply that it works or doesn't work, but I did see a scientific study on homeopathy that was a good example of some of what i'm talking about.  If you've ever read a pamphlet on homeopathy or maybe just the text on the bottle you sometimes see instructions like "keep away from bright light" or "keep away from strong smells"   even sometimes "Keep away from strong emotion".
In the study they showed homeopathic solutions being prepared in a laboratory in a clear glass beaker under bright laboratory lights. Not exactly the best way to test something with supposid requirements for a dark environment. Laboratories are also often full of chemical or cleaning smells which is against the so called "instructions" as well.  The final warning about keeping it away from strong emotion is also interesting as I would expect the scientists testing it were definitely experiencing that, be it 'for' or 'against' or excited about finding out, or angry that they were being forced to waste their time testing it.

If it happened to turn out eventually that the emotions of the person conducting the experiment are important for some experiments then reproducing other peoples results starts to get a bit tricky.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Anyone interested in this area should read Ben Goldacre's book Bad Science.
For a taster there is a chapter online that didn't make the first edition for legal reasons

[cybergibbons]

Homeopathy is actually a good example.  I'm not really trying to imply that it works or doesn't work, but I did see a scientific study on homeopathy that was a good example of some of what i'm talking about.  If you've ever read a pamphlet on homeopathy or maybe just the text on the bottle you sometimes see instructions like "keep away from bright light" or "keep away from strong smells"   even sometimes "Keep away from strong emotion".
In the study they showed homeopathic solutions being prepared in a laboratory in a clear glass beaker under bright laboratory lights. Not exactly the best way to test something with supposid requirements for a dark environment. Laboratories are also often full of chemical or cleaning smells which is against the so called "instructions" as well.  The final warning about keeping it away from strong emotion is also interesting as I would expect the scientists testing it were definitely experiencing that, be it 'for' or 'against' or excited about finding out, or angry that they were being forced to waste their time testing it.

If it happened to turn out eventually that the emotions of the person conducting the experiment are important for some experiments then reproducing other peoples results starts to get a bit tricky.

This can all be accounted for in a randomised controlled trial, or studied independently and isolated from the main hypothesis.

You can study the efficacy of preparing homeopathic remedies in the lab vs a normal preparation bought from a homeopath or shop.

You can double or triple-blind a trial to isolate problems with people knowing what they are administering, taking, or analysing.

You can have the remedy prepared and administered by a random selection of people, or even investigate if a remedy given by a for/against person will have any effect. There are a lot of studies into this kind of area - for example, I recall a study where the efficacy of a placebo administered by a real doctor, an actor acting as a doctor, a nurse, and a "normal" person was investigated. Indeed, it did cause the efficacy to vary.

As a complete aside, if a homeopathic remedy cannot be made in a sterile and/or mass production environment, then discussing it's efficacy is a moot point as it will never get used. Also, I'd take strong issue with the storage and sales of most homeopathic remedies - normally in a chemists under bright lights, next to the aromatherapy oils. If they are this badly affected by such things, why don't the manufacturers stipulate that the products are stored correctly in the shop?

[Psi]

I'd take strong issue with the storage and sales of most homeopathic remedies - normally in a chemists under bright lights, next to the aromatherapy oils. If they are this badly affected by such things, why don't the manufacturers stipulate that the products are stored correctly in the shop?

You make a good point about the sales in shops next to aromatherapy oils.
With regard to the lighting issue, they are sold in dark glass bottles which i can only assume is done to take care of the lighting issue.

[mikeselectricstuff]

I'd take strong issue with the storage and sales of most homeopathic remedies - normally in a chemists under bright lights, next to the aromatherapy oils. If they are this badly affected by such things, why don't the manufacturers stipulate that the products are stored correctly in the shop?

You make a good point about the sales in shops next to aromatherapy oils.
With regard to the lighting issue, they are sold in dark glass bottles which i can only assume is done to take care of the lighting issue.

No, it's to fool buyers into thinking they're real medicines.

[cybergibbons]

With regard to the lighting issue, they are sold in dark glass bottles which i can only assume is done to take care of the lighting issue.

Boots here has them in clear bottles, marked "Keep in a cool, dark place away from strong smells or flavours".

[quantumfall]

Psi, I think the problem is that you don't understand what the scientific method means - it isn't "scientific methods". They are the fundamental principles used to investigate and build knowledge, and are based on sound logical reasoning. You can test any hypothesis using the scientific method - it doesn't matter how ridiculous.

Take homeopathy - where many high quality studies show that it is no better than placebo. These studies do not try to explain how homeopathy works - they simply try to see if it does work. The proponents of homeopathy say that science doesn't understand homeopathy and start the mumbo-jumbo about frequencies and memory. The point is that science often doesn't need to know how.

Science knowledge is limited to what has been discovered by the "Scientific Method" which is to find the truth.  As Richard Feynman said "Guess, test or compair to reality if wrong start again"  you can find out things but a deeper understanding may be found later.  Newtonian gravity to Einsteins gravity models as an example. A deeper reality may come out later it dose not mean the first theory / explanation is wrong but there maybe more depth  discovered later. Science finds facts but the facts may change later it never can say its the only fact as a better theory may come along later. It can not say we know how things are full stop.  If you see what I mean.

Homeopathy / placebo effect this proves that it could all just be the placebo effect, better than nothing I suppose.


Just as an aside I would like to say that I think the pharmaceutical companys look for long term sales of drugs to treat symptoms rather than cures as its more profitable.  As they do the research and employ the tallented people this is evil I think.  Some cheap herbal / traditional treatments are very effective I would think but the pharmaceutical companys want to get them banned to have a monopoly situation.

Some natural pesticides like neam tree extracts are also under threat, I can't remember exactly why or where but they are lobbying to get them banned because they want to sell commercial products instead, this is all junk science as well.  Not that natural substances are  automatically safe or better but we should have the choice and information.