SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Post 0

Wednesday, August 31 - 3:33am

Link

Edit

To better understand the dynamics here -- it may be appropriate to speak to someone who went through a graduate minor in Complementary & Alternative Medicine (CAM), himself. Let me get him for you ...

Oh, hello there, I'm Ed Thompson! Yes, published articles on alternative medicine are often muddled and confusing. When I went through the approved graduate minor (the first one offered in the country) for this specialty -- it was a friggin' joke. There was absolutely no depth to it. I knew more from my personal studies than the entire program had taught me. The most likely reason: the program was "meant" to fail. It was "meant" to be a paper tiger.

As a paper tiger, it served (on paper) the "needs" of the tree-hugging voters while, simultaneously, prevented attainment of the real need for an honest, comparative evaluation against "conventional" medicine. It is this honest, comparative evaluation that is ignored -- while folks myopically argue for either more, or less, alternative medicine within ivory towers.

You can't judge (even if you THINK you can) what you haven't thoroughly cross-examined, and thorough cross-examination is precisely that which is ignored in the media hype and hoopla.

Ed

Post 1

Wednesday, August 31 - 7:17am

Link

Edit

It seems more about ideology, and lobby by associations who put out some of these "journals", and *less* about scientific rigor.

It is not surprising that a journal like "Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine" which uses appropriate research methods to examine some of these claims is rejected.

I did not learn how to detect bullshit in the scientific community until I took my first research methods class in graduate school. What an eye opener!

John

Post 2

Wednesday, August 31 - 8:57am

Link

Edit

Ed,

You can't judge (even if you THINK you can) what you haven't thoroughly cross-examined, and thorough cross-examination is precisely that which is ignored in the media hype and hoopla.

Agree.

John,

I did not learn how to detect bullshit in the scientific community until I took my first research methods class in graduate school. What an eye opener!

A good point.

From Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology,

Objective validity is determined by reference to the facts of reality. But it is man who has to identify the facts; objectivity requires discovery by man�and cannot precede man's knowledge, i.e., cannot require omniscience. Man cannot know more than he has discovered�and he may not know less than the evidence indicates, if his concepts and definitions are to be objectively valid.

The statists in the 'scientific community' who try to control knowledge, i.e. set boundaries that attempt to hold new discovery within certain 'appropriate' perameters, are no better than any other statists despite their 'degrees'. Robert Stadtler is alive and well and running these government agencies.

Post 3

Wednesday, August 31 - 10:37am

Link

Edit

Thanks Robert, for the level-headed validation.

Incidentally, as I perused the medical school course curriculum, I noticed that THERE WERE some alternative medicine courses offered to med students: for 0 credits!

Yes, you read that right: med students could, in principle, TAKE these watered-down (paper tiger) courses in nutrition, or in herbal medicine, etc -- but who in the hell would want to ADD an academically unproductive workload to the already staggering workload of a med student?!

Bottom line: The "presence" of these courses in the course catalog "looks good" (and appearances -- not reality -- are what matter to major universities).

Ed

Post 4

Wednesday, August 31 - 3:12pm

Link

Edit

My favorite horror story concerning the corruption of science by political power is the HIV causes AIDS hypothesis that is nearly universally regarded as valid and beyond reasonable dispute. Peter Duesberg, virologist at UCLA Berkley, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote an 800+ page book entitled "Inventing the AIDS Virus" that demolishes the hypothesis. I won't go into his discussion of the contradictons and logical gaps in the hypothesis, except to mention that Duesberg proves that it violates every one of Koch's postulates. And that's just one of many fatal weaknesses in the hypothesis. Duesberg also traces through the chronology of events, discoveries, and scientific controversies that led to the ascendancy of this speciman of junk science, and shows how the dominance of political power corrupted the process.

Duesberg is an old fashioned scientist who is epistemologically sound, who is unconcerned with any consideration bearing on his conclusions on this subject other than evidence and logic, and who has written a brilliant thesis. I so enjoyed his old-fashioned science that I read the book 3 times over the years, even though I have no personal stake or particular interest in the subject. For Duesberg's efforts at exposing this bundle of fallacies, he has been persecuted and hounded by the medical-science establishment at Berkley, which has relegated him to teaching undergradutate classes, tried to take away his tenure, and refused to publish his comments and rejoinders to articles criticizing his ideas in medical journals.

The biggest stumbling block to citing the above as an example of the corruption of science by coercive power in the US today is that most people have difficulty believing that intellectual corruption could possibly reach so far into the organism of the medical research establishment. I recommend his book highly.

Post 5

Wednesday, August 31 - 5:51pm

Link

Edit

For Duesberg's efforts at exposing this bundle of fallacies, he has been persecuted and hounded by the medical-science establishment at Berkley, which has relegated him to teaching undergradutate classes, tried to take away his tenure, and refused to publish his comments and rejoinders to articles criticizing his ideas in medical journals.

The belief that Science is alway right and always virtuous is intrinsicism.

Post 6

Thursday, September 1 - 6:12am

Link

Edit

Mark Humphrey says concerning the "hypothesis" that HIV causes AIDS:

Duesberg proves that it violates every one of Koch's postulates.

If you google "Koch's postulates" and HIV, the first hit you get is from the NIH showing that the "hypothesis" that HIV causes AIDS fulfills Koch's postulates. Of course, that's just the guvment talking

I suggest you spend less time reading Duesberg's book and more time reading his opponents. Duesberg is a crackpot. If Berkeley didn't have a tenure policy, they would have fired his sorry ass years ago, and rightfully so.

For someone who has "no personal stake or particular interest in the subject" to refer to current AIDS research as "junk science" is outrageous.

Post 7

Thursday, September 1 - 7:25am

Link

Edit

Glenn,

The point I have been trying to make on this forum, and will continue to attempt to make is that an intrinsic belief in "Science" is wrong. There is no need to panic everytime someone says something out of the ordinary. The fact is bad ideas are easily dismissed and soon forgotten.

You say:

If you google "Koch's postulates" and HIV, the first hit you get is from the NIH showing that the "hypothesis" that HIV causes AIDS fulfills Koch's postulates. Of course, that's just the guvment talking

What you are saying is as long as the government engages in what I consider constructive pursuits (like Science), I sanction their position of power. This is pragmatic, at best.

I suggest you spend less time reading Duesberg's book and more time reading his opponents. Duesberg is a crackpot. If Berkeley didn't have a tenure policy, they would have fired his sorry ass years ago, and rightfully so.

Here I agree with you. Look at the counter arguments; that is what rational people do many times a day, and because we do not become apoplectic on each and every one of those occasions, why should inordinate emotion be expended over this. If it is most likely wrong and easily disputed, as you say, one should not react to it like the entire future of western civilization is endangered. For those who fret that some sheeple may be mislead, I say that it does not matter. Their 'misunderstandings' are legion, so something like this in their heads is just a drop in a large bucket. It is statistically unimportant. If you are worried about civilization I would spend some time thinking about Eco and Derrida.

Tenure is misapplied and abused. We should consider alternatives.

Post 8

Thursday, September 1 - 8:19am

Link

Edit

Robert,
You said:

You say:

If you google "Koch's postulates" and HIV, the first hit you get is from the NIH showing that the "hypothesis" that HIV causes AIDS fulfills Koch's postulates. Of course, that's just the guvment talking
What you are saying is as long as the government engages in what I consider constructive pursuits (like Science), I sanction their position of power. This is pragmatic, at best.

That's not what I intended to say. I was suggesting the opposite: that just because the government is involved, doesn't mean that the information should be discounted. Actually, the NIH doesn't do most of the science; it funds private researchers to do it.

You also said:

The fact is bad ideas are easily dismissed and soon forgotten.

I wish that were true, Robert, but just look around at some of the bad ideas and ask how long they've been around. As for tenure, I agree with you.
Thanks,
Glenn

Post 9

Thursday, September 1 - 9:52am

Link

Edit

"Actually, the NIH doesn't do most of the science; it funds private researchers to do it."

And of course those private researchers have no incentive whatever to tell the guvmint what it wants to hear. They weren't chosen by the guvmint because they had already revealed their own biases on the issue and made it clear that their "studies" would yield the desired results.

Oh no. Absolutely not.

JR

Post 10

Thursday, September 1 - 11:47am

Link

Edit

Jeff,
So the guvmint doesn't fund research into the flat-earth model because the researchers didn't "tell the guvmint what it wants to hear"? Is that the only reason you can come up with for the guvmint not funding some particular research?
Glenn

Post 11

Thursday, September 1 - 12:08pm

Link

Edit

Your naivet� is an inspiration to us all, Glenn.

JR

Post 12

Thursday, September 1 - 2:11pm

Link

Edit

Jeff,
I just realized what it is about your posts that bothers me. It's like talking to ELIZA; you know, that computer that was supposed to respond like a human to input from an unsuspecting person.

Guess what, Jeff; you just failed the Turing Test.

Post 13

Thursday, September 1 - 2:23pm

Link

Edit

Glenn Fletcher writes:

"Jeff,

"I just realized what it is about your posts that bothers me. It's like talking to ELIZA; you know, that computer that was supposed to respond like a human to input from an unsuspecting person.

"Guess what, Jeff; you just failed the Turing Test."

And, given your views on the AIDS controversy, I'm sure you extend to the Turing Test the very same unquestioning religious faith that you seem to extend to all official "science."

JR

Post 14

Friday, September 2 - 10:50am

Link

Edit

Glenn,

Sorry I got your govt remark wrong.

But, as to bad ideas disappearing Max has posted an article about the Ozone layer today. Now there was bad research and a bad idea that went away. Of course the environmentals who made us jump thru hoops over it have moved on to global warming. My point is that if instead of the outrage everyone expends over ID, that energy was redirected against environmentalists we'd be better off. But to attack environmentalists is to attack Science and its intrinsic virtue must never be challenged. Even the evironmentalist wackos must be tolerated to prevent the omniscience that is Science from criticism.