Are most people just plain stupid?

by logansrun 245 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Abaddon

Hohoho!
Little Toe:
What I do find disturbing is the attitude of trying to debunk, rather than understand, with an absence of evidence either way. In such an environment it's no wonder that people can get defensive of their chosen discipline.
What we have here is a classic misconception.
If I said sticking my finger in my ear and eating daffodil bulbs cured cancer BUT there was
"an absence of evidence either way"
... as to whether or not it worked, effectively I'd just be some twat with a funny taste in my mouth and a finger in my ear, and would (rightfully) have my 'medicine' mocked. It would be okay if I decided to treat myself that way, but we're not talking of that, we're talking of therapies and treatments that are advocated and sold with no evidence it's anything other than re-wrapped snake oil.
If 'people' have 'practised the healing art of fingerdaffodilly' for millenia as a cure for cancer BUT there was
"an absence of evidence either way"
... as to whether or not it worked, suddenly, just because it's been done a long time, someone who points out there's no evidence it works is 'closed minded' and those who believe it have a 'cleverer than thou but buggered if we can prove it' attitude that passes all belief.
It's utter nonsence. If things work you can prove they work. Doesn't matter if it is cold fusion or faith healing.
Also, anyone asking you prove their pet belief "doesn't work", when there has been no proof it DOES work, obviously needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
Likewise the argument that certain things are not testable is just an excuse for masterbatory belief structures with no relation to reality, or at the VERY best, no reliable use. It's also a great way to make money for those providing such services.
I mean, if someone invests $5,000.00 in financial invertment with no proof that the investment works, he's a fool. If someone invests their health in a treatment with no proof it works, they are 'open minded'?
Hahahahahahahaha... yeah, right...
It's so annoying when the 'alternative' (i.e. unproven effecacy) lobby (not you) display such wooly-mindededness and double-standards.
LittleToe

Abaddon:
Are you saying that anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all?
Is lack of evidence classed as evidence of a contrary nature?
Personally I believe that anything of a medical nature should be up for scrutiny, but I can understand the defensiveness of those who pursue "questionable" disciplines and are constantly at the butt end of mockery.
I have little time for the pasttime of "ridicule all who are different", which I see as prevalent.
logansrun

All science starts with questioning, which is simply a euphemism for skepticism. Good science has no use for sentimentality for "mystery" or believers feelings. A great book which tackles much of what this thread has discussed is Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things."
The most recent version has a very good chapter entitled, "Why Smart People Believe Weird Things." The book is also an excellent introduction to the scientific method.
Bradley
rem

:Are you saying that anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all?

It is not good evidence - not good enough to prove anything. Anecdotal evidence can only prove something to someone who already believes. Wonder why snake-oil salesmen and current con-artists load up their advertizements with anecdotes and no verifiable data? Sensing a pattern here?

At best anecdotal accounts are a starting point for real inquiry.

Since anecdotal evidence is so low on the ladder of evidence, it is not sufficient to prove extraordinary claims (at least for rational people). Remember the aphorism "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

You can give me anecdotal evidence that you had Cheerios for breakfast this morning and I will probably not require any more proof. If you only give me anecdotal evidence that a shark bit you in the bathtub I would need better evidence to believe such and extraordinary claim.

rem
rem

LT,
:Just a quick comment on alternative therapies... :If they are merely placebos, enabling an individual to access the power of the mind to effect pain relief and cure, what's the problem?

This is the problem:

http://www.randi.org/jr/111403.html
Reader Shawn Hughes, RN, tells us this heartbreaker:
First, I would like to thank you for your work in confronting those in this world that prey on the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of others. The purpose of this letter is to share with you a recent experience I have had.
I am a registered nurse and do legal consulting work. I recently had a client approach me regarding the death of her 6-year-old daughter. This girl had been diagnosed with leukemia about a year before her death. Her physicians naturally recommended the standard therapies which included chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation. Her parents initially consented to the procedures.
The girl's mother explained to me that her daughter seemed to go from being vibrant and healthy to sick and constantly lethargic during the chemotherapy. I responded to this statement by saying that chemotherapy is generally hard on most people, even healthy ones, and even more so when they are young. It was this lady's next few statements that left me speechless.
She claimed that during her daughter's treatment she came across a book written by a "Homeopathic" practitioner. This book claimed that chemotherapy was, in fact, the cause of most cancer patient's problems, and not the cure. The author went on to claim that proper rest and nutrition were shown (in his own case studies) to be the best way to battle "unhealthy" cancer cells. After doing some research of her own on the Internet, the mother took her daughter off all of her medications and refused any further chemotherapy treatment.
Randi comments: As one who has seen the workings of chemotherapy, I'll just say that not only is it a severe and uncomfortable treatment, but it invokes all sorts of depression and feelings of despair. It's understandable that a mother would have a bad reaction to seeing the discomfort her child was going through, and the relief experienced - albeit temporary - when the chemotherapy is discontinued. We have to see this matter charitably. Shawn continues:
The mother claimed that her daughter got better overnight. However, two months later she "suddenly" became ill. The mother told me that the sudden turn for the worse was a result of the medications she had received months earlier that still lingered in her system - another tid-bit she got from this book. The parents returned to the doctor demanding that their daughter receive a blood transfusion - again from the book, perceiving that it would help cleanse her system. The doctors informed her that the leukemia was now terminal. The mother argued with the doctors about every recommendation they made, even going so far as to say that her daughter never had leukemia in the first place.
The little girl died shortly thereafter, from what the mother described as a lack of nutrition and over-medication. The mother wanted to sue the doctors for making her daughter sick with chemotherapy and failing to treat her per her own recommendations.
This little girl was started down the right path and under good care until the seed of misinformation was planted in her mothers head. People who deal with a loved one's sickness often describe an overwhelming feeling of hopelessness. I often hear family members of patients say, "There has to be something I can do!" And naturally, as any good mother would do, this lady simply wanted to help her daughter and ease her suffering.
In her moment of despair it appeared that she could become empowered to help her daughter, through this book. It was something she could comprehend and have control over. She did not hide from me the fact that she now "knew something" that the doctors did not know. To her, modern medicine was a conspiracy, and homeopathic medicine was the truth that it sought to undermine.
Unfortunately, the lady would not give me the name of the book. As much as I try to be a skeptic and not a cynic, I find myself shaking my head at people who believe the difference between truth and fiction is nothing more than what they can and cannot understand. To take advantage of the hopeless is truly despicable, but to prey on the helpless, whether directly or indirectly, is criminal.
Please note: we do not know whether the author of this book was a knowing or unknowing quack. Most homeopaths, in my experience, are genuinely taken in by the nonsense, and convince themselves that it works, despite the contrary evidence.
rem
Abaddon

LittleSantoe
Are you saying that anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all?

Anecdotal evidence is that which cannot be repeated for scientific study. That which we do can not study scientifically is that which we do not know fully. That which we do not know fully is that which cannot benefit us fully.
Is lack of evidence classed as evidence of a contrary nature?
It depends; extraordinary claims, remember? "I met my mate Burt at the pub" presented without evidence is still likely to be true, as we know from experience the meeting of mates in establishments for the sale of intoxicating beverages is well within the liklihood of happenchance.
"I cured the cancer Sally had" is NOT well within the likilihood of happenchance. It's an extraordinary claim, and unless provable is just someones perception of an event, not neccesarily a true description of what occured.
Personally I believe that anything of a medical nature should be up for scrutiny, but I can understand the defensiveness of those who pursue "questionable" disciplines and are constantly at the butt end of mockery.
But my point it "the movement they need is on their shoulder". If they are criticised for having no evidence to support your claims, they would be better advised to go out and get evidence to support their claims. Instead of proving their claims, they complain about their claims not being accepted.
In the end it boils down to their claims being accepted being more important than their claims being proved.
While they get benefit if their claims are accepted, the real benefit comes if their claims are proved, as then greater good will come of it.
The only thing that happens if claims are accepted is egos are stroked; "there there mr alternative cabbage therapy person, we'll smile and accept what you say, even if you can't prove it we don't want to hurt your feelings".
That's not the way cancer is cured, anyone can see that.
I have little time for the pasttime of "ridicule all who are different", which I see as prevalent.
Little Toe, some people are wrong. You might decide that you do not want to confront them with their wrongness. That's your choice.
But just as someone clinging to a belief in a Biblical Global Flood in the time period specified by the Bible is hiding their eyes from the evidence that such an event DIDN'T happen (that's a fact as in 'there's so much evidence it didn't happen it would be unreasonable to accept it'), so to can a person who believes in crystals be wrong.
Don't get me wrong; crystals MAY work. Or people MAY find it easier to use innate 'paranormal' healing powers on themselves using crystals as a focus, even though no focus is needed (a 'magic feather', like in Dumbo).
But, if the people who do support such therapies spent half the time doing decent research that they spend complaining about how the scientific community keeps asking for decent evidence, they might have the decent evidence.
The fact that to this date mind-reading, healing, precognition, telekinesis and a host of the alternative fringe are unproven is a clear sign that they may well not be provable for the simple reason they are no more effective than a chickens entrails are in predicting the future; something which people firmly believed in at some point, and probably defended with great indignation when asked to provide evidence.
Difference is fine; dillusion is not.
asleif_dufansdottir

If things work you can prove they work.

I'm not so sure I agree with that. In general it's a pretty good rule of thumb for simple linear causality - in other cases, I would say that if something works, if you are testing the correct root cause, then you can prove it...but proving causality sometimes comes down to being lucky, if you are talking about a complicated system with multiple root causes or emergent properties (complex adaptive systems being the new buzzword), then it's not such a slam dunk.
Sometimes there's a correlation and not causality, sometimes it's a coincidence that you don't see because of your preconceptions (remember the movie Medicine Man?)
The history of science is full of times when we thought we knew why something happened, and it turned out we were wrong.
edited to add: I suppose I should mention that my post is talking about 'science' and 'the scientific' in general, and was critiquing the general (modernist, positivist) notion that "it can be proved!"
(critiques of science are apparently a by-product of having to write an anthro paper on Western "science-based" notions like what is nature, wilderness, and biodiversity...but I digress)...I wasn't specifically referring to "quack" medicine...although I will mention that most anthropologists who study Western medicine (one of my profs included) will point out that a lot of Western medicine has no more basis in "fact" than the stuff we call quackery...but that's a big debate I don't have the time or knowledge to summarize now!!!
LittleToe

Rem:
To be honest, I have no time for Randi. Are you related to him? I ask because you seem to quote him a lot
I've seen his arrogance on TV, therefore my opinion of him must be correct
I wasn't claiming that anecdotal evidence was good evidence, just that it is a form of evidence.
Abaddon:
Anecdotal evidence is that which cannot be repeated for scientific study. That which we do can not study scientifically is that which we do not know fully. That which we do not know fully is that which cannot benefit us fully.
I disagree.
An anecdote is a short amusing or interesting true story.
I didn't say that anecdotal evidence was sufficient to prove claims. I'm merely implying that it is a form of evidence (albeit low-on-the-ladder, as Rem suggested).
If 90% of people on cabbage treatment recovered from malignant cancer, with no other treatment being offered, as compared to 20% recovering in a test group - with every indication that said treatment shouldn't work - I think we'd have the basis for some serious research into why it works.
If (similarly) 3000 people reported the same result, though none of the above-stated statistics were available, would that be a reasonable start point for research? Or would we debunk the idea before the data was in? How many studies would be required before we accepted the result, else gave up researching it?
Is viable and proper research testing restricted to things that don't appear "stupid"? (I had to get back on-thread somehow)
Incidentally, nice side issue of "the Flood", btw - you kinda love that one, huh?
Further, none of my comments on this thread haver been intended to be derogatory of your own position.
(All statistics contained within this post were supplied by the "LTImagination Corporation of Ficticious Data". No animals were harmed in the gathering of said data. LTImagination Corp disclaims all liabilty for injury or bodily harm caused by the application of these statistics)
Sirona

REM
There are some individuals out there who are stupid enough to refuse standard medical treatment and opt for alternative therapies which are not scientifically proven to be of benefit. Those individuals make a choice and it is the individuals who are at fault, not the alternative therapy. The argument that alternative therapies discourages people going to the doctors just doesn't wash anymore. Responsible practitioners of Reiki (or whatever therapy) encourage their clients to get all medical treatments recommended by their doctor aswell as using the alternative therapy to provide extra healing (as suggested, this may be purely psychological).
I've performed healing in a group situation, mostly distance healing. This is certainly not instead of medical treatments.
I'm all for there being tighter controls on pratitioners of such therapies - there are bad doctors, there are bad reiki practitioners, etc. That does not mean there is no merit in alternative therapy.
Sirona
Abaddon

asleif
In the example I gave for an experiment on faith healing, the structure was so thought out as to allow a statistical analysis of what happened to which group so as to be able to determine any difference BETWEEN 'treatment' groups (i.e. genuine, fake and control), and any difference WITHIN treatment groups (belivers, agnostics and cynics).
This reduces a potentialy complex system to one where one can determine ANY benefit AND 'where' that benefit comes from. This initial testing would allow re-testing of specific features that the first experiment highlighted worthy of iunvestigation.
For example, it could be that there was no statistical differnce between genuine healers and fae healers, in terms of benefits, but that there WAS a statistical benefit to those in the two groups receiving 'healing' be it genuine or fake' who believed it worked; a placebo effect to be sure, but if you can show a placebo effect can give a tangible repeatable benefit, then learning how to harness placebo effects with great efficiency could save lives, which is far more important than keeping the 'alternative therapy' industry going.
You're right to say my statement is a good rule of thumb for simple linear causality, and equally right to add the proviso you do, but I am assuming that any decent research would be a set of experiments designed to drill down through as many layers as possible to find where there IS testability.
I see possibility that, just as they made complex clockwork devices (orreries) to mimic the movement of planets as seen from Earth that bore no relation to reality BUT MAPPED REALITY, so too some 'alternative' therapies etc. may map reality (i.e. work), but that the mechanism is a fanciful one that needs development and understanding.
Thus my example of accupunture. All of the ancient stuff was a load of cobblers that had developed to explain something that worked; a 'focus', as I like to call it. You don't need to know about channels of chi or jade gates or the red emperor, you don't even need needles; you can use little electrodes like are used for EKG's/ECG's.
This was discovered by patient testing and open mindedness to both the fact the treatment obviously worked, but also to the fact accepting four-thousand year old explanations of HOW it worked might be a bit 'kin stupid.
But, you will still find 'traditonal' accupuncture being taught; a bit like teaching orbital mechanics using an orrery. And you will still have people complacently accepting ancient wisdom, just like accupuncture, rather than develop a decent scientific approach to the subject and perhaps gain greater benefits.
Little Toe:
An anecdote is a short amusing or interesting true story.
Wrong, but usefully wrong as it illuminates the heart of the issue for some.
Find me a dictionary that uses 'true' in defining 'anecdote'. You can't. You seem to have a presupposition that anecdotal evidence is true until proved false.
I have an assumption that an anecdotal experience that cannot be duplicated scientifically is made up, or a misconception, or a subjective perception of reality, and that until it is tested scientifically, is at most an indicator of something that may deserve study.
If 90% of people on cabbage treatment recovered from malignant cancer, with no other treatment being offered, as compared to 20% recovering in a test group - with every indication that said treatment shouldn't work - I think we'd have the basis for some serious research into why it works.
Yup.
If (similarly) 3000 people reported the same result, though none of the above-stated statistics were available, would that be a reasonable start point for research?
Yup. Such claims have been investigated. And faith healing has never been proven to work in any duplicable or reliable fashion that could be used as a mass therapy.
And people 'reporting' the same result, as distinct from being studied properly, may lie, may not have what they sincerely claim they have, may have so much tied up in believing it works they'll believe they are undergoing remission when they are not, may be a forteen year-old boy making a prank call to the reporting line.....
... remember, studying a group of people who believe something that cannot be proved normally proves they believe in what they believe in, which is what you knew to start of with.
It doesn't prove god allah jesus or bugger all. The High Priest of Quezlacotl (sp?) probably sincerely believed he needed to cut all those hearts out to keep the sun rising; are we going to defend him not testing this assumption?
Or would we debunk the idea before the data was in? How many studies would be required before we accepted the result, else gave up researching it?
Again, people SAYING something means nothing. If people saying something meant anything, we would be playing with a lion in our short-sleeved shits and stay-prest trousers whilst our poodle-skirted wives made our sandwiches before we went off to clear all the bones of Armagedon's dead away! I'm not talking about debunking ideas before data is in, I'm challanging those who believe in them to do something useful rather than complain about being asked for proof.
It sometimes seems that people consider the right to hold a certain belief is more important than being able to defend that belief competantly. It that belief is innocuous, fine. If it's harmful; not. And just as swindling people of money by making false claims of an investment is wrong, so to is swindling people out of hope or money by making false claims of a treatment.
Is viable and proper research testing restricted to things that don't appear "stupid"? (I had to get back on-thread somehow)
I don't care WHAT things 'look' like. Hell, Heisenburg's Uncertainty Theory and quite a lot of Quantum ChromoDynamics is VERY silly. BUT YOU CAN TEST IT.
Incidentally, nice side issue of "the Flood", btw - you kinda love that one, huh?
I have never, ever, ever had anyone come up with a rebuttal of the dendrochronological evidence that points to trees growing before during and after the flood with no interuption or harm. To me this means anyone taking a 'the Bible is the literal inspired flawless word of god' stance is a fool, as the facts show they are wrong.
Once you open people up to the Bible being a historical document, rather than inspired god speech, you can generally have far more interesting conversations with them as 'coz it sez it in the Bible' ceases to be a decent argument.
I just think it cuts to the chase... no Flood, no literal Bible interpretation, less people dying. I'd do the same to any text-obsessed religionist.
Further, none of my comments on this thread haver been intended to be derogatory of your own position.
Ah likewise, this is just a fun conversation.

Are most people just plain stupid?

Share this