The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Pseudoscience, Snake Oil and Hollistic Bullshit
Robman
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
First off, let us salute the greatest and most ass-kicking destruction of a mound of appealing bullshit ever put into print,
http://www.technologyreview.com/sens/docs/estepetal.pdf (WARNING BIG PDF)
The epic destruction of the SENS project by a group of leading minds. Wonderful.
Pseudoscience, or SCIENCE! is mumbo-jumbo dressed up in labcoats, it is a collection of unsupported claims made using scientific-sounding language to confuse the layperson into thinking these claims are valid. The people who make these claims often have degrees, which confuses laypeople further - few grasp how specific the area of study and thus the validity of opinion is in academic work.
Pseudoscience is insidious and seductive at any level. Much like how we view financial fraud, we think that only a fool could be seduced by the siren's call of the pseudo-scientific theory. Right up to the point where some bastard just took out a mortgage on our place of residence and emptied our bank accounts. There is also the danger of misusing the term itself - a theory without good evidence is not necessarily pseudoscience, but a theory that primarily relies on arguments that "make sense" rather than measurable data probably is. Things often get blurry at the theoretical edges of a field.
I would continue to rant on this, but I feel like I'm reaching the edge of my knowledge quickly. The worst kind of pseudoscience is when someone trained in one area of research applies their skills of literature research to pull out good-sounding sources without having the background to judge good research from bad. Most everyone falls victim to this.
http://www.technologyreview.com/sens/docs/estepetal.pdf (WARNING BIG PDF)
The epic destruction of the SENS project by a group of leading minds. Wonderful.
Pseudoscience, or SCIENCE! is mumbo-jumbo dressed up in labcoats, it is a collection of unsupported claims made using scientific-sounding language to confuse the layperson into thinking these claims are valid. The people who make these claims often have degrees, which confuses laypeople further - few grasp how specific the area of study and thus the validity of opinion is in academic work.
Pseudoscience is insidious and seductive at any level. Much like how we view financial fraud, we think that only a fool could be seduced by the siren's call of the pseudo-scientific theory. Right up to the point where some bastard just took out a mortgage on our place of residence and emptied our bank accounts. There is also the danger of misusing the term itself - a theory without good evidence is not necessarily pseudoscience, but a theory that primarily relies on arguments that "make sense" rather than measurable data probably is. Things often get blurry at the theoretical edges of a field.
I would continue to rant on this, but I feel like I'm reaching the edge of my knowledge quickly. The worst kind of pseudoscience is when someone trained in one area of research applies their skills of literature research to pull out good-sounding sources without having the background to judge good research from bad. Most everyone falls victim to this.
Robman on
0
Posts
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Isn't it just a bunch of suggested solutions to various components of aging that require future sci-fi technology?
With the goal being to try to work towards those technologies or something.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1371037/?tool=pmcentrez
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The claims of what is feasible any time soon is extremely optimistic at best and ignores many, many problems.
It was captivating bullshit.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Even if it was though, his stated goal is to change the mentality that clinical immortality is impossible/not within our current reach and so get the billionaires afraid of dying to throw money at the problem. He's not selling anti-aging drugs, he wants research funded that according to this pdf cannot be responsibly speculated about.
But.. so what? It's not like he's taking money from the funds going to these other researchers, if he stayed home the money stays in the pockets of whoever. If he gets them excited about technology that may not work and they fund research into it, well research still gets done. You always learn something even if you don't achieve your desired goals.
As long as he's not scamming people for his personal profit why are we lumping this guy's (apparently overzealous) passion in with the acupuncture and chiropractors and etc.?
I'd rather research gets done by people who don't habitually lie.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Homeopathy is the serious bullshit though.
When what it should mean is "it is the interaction of all these parts together that make up the result".
In the same way that if you take apart a clock then pile up the pieces, you don't get a functioning device. It is only by understanding how each part of the device affects every other part that you know how it works. This gear must make this gear work which affects this spring and so on.
In the case of extremely complex system like our own body, just understanding how each individual component of that body interact is still not enough as you need to know what forces are affecting the body. What is the person eating, drinking, what is their environment, what is occuring to their body and then how is this affecting the interactions of every part of the body with every other part. It's a way of keeping in mind that you need to explore a shit ton of variables for even the most simple thing, to the point that for very complex systems you would need to simulate all of the forces interacting on that system to be able to accurately simulate it.
So the term holistic, itself, isn't actually a terrible concept. It's people misusing the term because they don't understand it that are the problem.
De Grey's basically just saying "put money into research and you may live forever" while the scientists in that article are saying "put money into research and your great-great-grandchildren may live forever" and well, I wonder which will actually raise more money? In the pdf it's always the same line: relies on "fantasy" technology that cannot yet be developed. I just kind of feel like, well why not try to develop it anyway?
It's like the space elevator. It'll be built when everyone stops laughing right? Relies on many things that have yet to be developed, but it somehow feels wrong that no one even tries.
IMHO we shouldn't put this guy in the same category as homeopathy and other "cures" that people are actually selling.
I don't really care much about De Grey - as far as the reams of pseudoscience out there go, he is very minor and hardly worth bothering with.
Again, this terminology is tricky... naturopathic doctors (NDs) can be analogous to a GP in some regions, dieticians are strictly licensed and regulated, and massage/recreational therapy often get tarred by the overzealous skeptic.
A way to distinguish scientific claims is to see if they have depth to them. If you ask the person "Oh yeah? Says who?" they should be able to say x y z year year year this paper oh and this paper oh and it goes back to here and here and here and....etc etc etc
With all those papers being well constructed. Basically if you ask questions you should get solid logical answers. And a good one is to keep asking until they admit that they do not know because the field has not explored that far (or that perhaps the question isn't a real one). Then see if they tell you that what they don't know isn't part of what they are trying to sell or convince you off because, rightly, they don't know. In this you are checking for "self awareness" of the limitations of the field.
What you want to watch for are people who, when asked questions, give back fuzzy replies and circular feel good emotional words. And in particular, if they don't know the answer, they try to tell you optimistic crap about "not yet but soon" and so on. No depth, happy optimistic selling words and a stubborn refusal to avoid answering the really hard questions are hallmarks of bullshit, science or not.
Saying that we need X hypothetical technology/scientific breakthrough to beat one hypothesized aspect of aging while explicitly saying that it's hypothetical and reliant on future breakthroughs is in no way in the same category as homeopathy.
It's at worst speculative sci-fi that tries to develop the speculated technologies.
He has made an extreme claim that he cannot back up. It is not just a "maybe" he is saying "it will". You do not say "it will" unless you can bury someone under a ton of papers and evidence that tell them "it has". He does not have this.
Do you have a cite? Because to my knowledge there has never been any such example at least according to the original definition of homeopathy.
Well, it will if all the steps fulfilled. The only problem is that we don't know whether any the ifs are in any way possible. It's like if someone was able to prove with quantum mathematics or some shit that time flows backward in a perfect vacuum traveling at the speed of light, but them proposed we try it without demonstrating that we can clear a perfect vacuum or send the chamber at the speed of light.
Next sentence, unless I misunderstood the definition.
But each step require speculative technology so he's basically saying "If we invent the technology to cure aging, we will definitely cure aging"
By this logic, we could never know for sure whether or not Douglas Adams's theory of flying (Step 1, throw yourself at the ground. Step 2, Miss.) is in anyway possible.
Ok, here's something I'm wondering about.
My parents go to the chiropractor a lot because they've got trouble with their backs. After their appointments their backs feel a lot better. So I've never really given a second thought to chiropractors because in my mind they've always been kind of like a massage therapist I guess?
But apparently they're crazy and believe something in the spine causes all kinds of problems in the rest of the body...? What's the deal? Are there non-crazy chiropractors? I didn't know until recently that they're looked upon so negatively.
Do... Re... Mi... So... Fa.... Do... Re.... Do...
Forget it...
Definition per Wiki:
At its simplest level, modern pharmacological medicine operates on two principles: 1) the effect that a drug has on the body, and 2) the effect that the body has upon the drug via absorption, distribution, etc. Homeopathic medicine says in regards to 1) that (supposedly) a substance that causes a similar symptom in the body can acts as a curative for that symptom when already present in the body. In contrast to the idea of using an anti-inflammatory (ibuprofen for example) to reduce inflammation, homeopathic medicine supports the idea that introducing a substance that causes inflammation would paradoxically reduce it in the body. In regards to 2), well, the idea of diluting an active ingredient to a degree of non-existence in the finished product runs entirely contrary to modern pharmacology.
Exactly.
But this isn't just bad science, it's not science at all. This logic is the same logic used by those who attempt to insert intelligent design into biology classes.
I actually had a rib set by a rare gem of a chiropractor, who also held an MD. But he said "most chiropractors will sell you some shit about curing your indigestion, I'll hand you a Tums and fix your back"
I was going by the dictionary definitions, as well as the derivation of the word roots and the definition of its antonym, "allopathy."
MW:
Chiropractic medicine is probably very good for a very specific set of conditions. Kind of like how you wouldn't see a podiatrist for a broken arm.
Or somebody trying to compile all the various theories for how a goal could be met. The real differentiating factor is whether he only lists one very large set of conditions or multiple sets that all are potentially possible under our current understanding.
SENS doesn't have any theories. Not in a scientific sense.
SENS is based on unfounded speculation and misinterpretation of other people's work.
Neither SENS, nor De Grey, add any knowledge, truth, nor guidance to the conversation.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yes, exactly. It's not a scientific statement.
This is argument from ignorance, a classical logical fallacy. "We don't know for sure so we can't rule it out."
No.
We do not know. We rule it out until we do. We find out through a methodological examination of trial and error based on theory that is in turn based on prior experimentation. Argument from ignorance shifts the burden of proof away from where it should be: on the person making the claim. Science puts the burden of proof directly on the person making the claim and De Grey has nothing. There's no way to get around that.
Nobody, anywhere, in any field of science, leaps out and tries to invent something based on speculation. They make small incremental steps out from what they already know, and they step in the direction that their knowledge tells them they should step. The previous knowledge lets them outline the way in which they can test future hypothesis and if they're good scientists they'll be doing that pretty precisely.
Anybody telling you about miraculous scientific leaps or scientific possibility is pandering pseudoscience. Regardless of why or how.
Right. There are evidence-based chiropractors out there, and they're not terribly uncommon. Chiropracty is slowly transitioning away from pseudoscientific notions into a more objective framework. This essay describes it nicely: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ROkGyYEudroJ:jmmtonline.com/documents/HomolaV14N2E.pdf
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
From my old football days, I would occasionally see a chiropractor if I had an alignment problem, which are actually pretty easy to get if you continue to play while sustaining a one-sided injury or an injury that forces you to run or walk differently. Our team chiropractor would set you on his table, do some adjustments, and in a few days you'd be back to normal.
So I move to Dallas, and agitate an old back injury, so I call the nearest Chiropractor in my area. They quote me a charge of over $1000 dollars for a visit, and I ask for what.
"Basic homeopathic diagnostics. Reflexological measuring, brainwave scans, accupressure . . . . "
"Yeah. Goodbye."
Technically that process is exactly how you orbit the Earth.