Singularity U, or Singularity Woo?(skepticblog.org)
skepticblog.org
Singularity U, or Singularity Woo?
http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/07/05/singularity-u-or-singularity-woo/
19 comments
Kurzweil's second nutrition-oriented book was coauthored with Terry Grossman, a licensed homeopath. It does make you raise your eyebrows.
a licensed homeopath
Henriette, the late pet cat of Ben Goldacre, a UK anti-pseudoscience writer, is a licenced nutritionist. Poor old Hettie was able to get the certificate after she died.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/sep/30/badscience.res...
Henriette, the late pet cat of Ben Goldacre, a UK anti-pseudoscience writer, is a licenced nutritionist. Poor old Hettie was able to get the certificate after she died.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/sep/30/badscience.res...
I'm finding this stuff out a lot, lately. Especially about Kurzweil. Is it fair to say that the futurist movement is less about cynicism/skepticism and more about idealism and optimism for the future, or is this just the case for Kurzweil? Are there other members of the futurist movement who would disagree with this endorsement by the homeopathic community?
None of the on-the-ground transhumanists take Ray very seriously. While he might genuinely be attempting to bring about advanced technology, I don't see how "get lots of publicity" is a viable method to reach his purported goals.
He hasn't really worked on OCR since the 70s. Apparently, that's his claim to technological progress. Oh, also he did some electronic noisemakers. Still, I wonder about the 40 years between then and now. 40 years is a long time to work towards transhumanist technologies. But instead he has squandered it into publicity on top of his OCR accomplishments?
There is a growing sentiment among transhumanists that his cheerleading and publicity campaigns aren't going to materialize advanced technology. We have to build it ourselves. But we already knew this, it's just that the "sit back and wait for it to happen" fairytale is very seductive. In fact, that's exactly what people want to hear.
For somewhat-unrelated criticism regarding Ray Kurzweil, there are these emails from Paul D. Fernhout: http://heybryan.org/fernhout/ But to be fair, you can still spot TSiN on random bookshelves when you go to hackerspaces. It's almost cute, really.
Bias: irc.freenode.net ##hplusroadmap ("sponsored by George Church" just like everything else)
He hasn't really worked on OCR since the 70s. Apparently, that's his claim to technological progress. Oh, also he did some electronic noisemakers. Still, I wonder about the 40 years between then and now. 40 years is a long time to work towards transhumanist technologies. But instead he has squandered it into publicity on top of his OCR accomplishments?
There is a growing sentiment among transhumanists that his cheerleading and publicity campaigns aren't going to materialize advanced technology. We have to build it ourselves. But we already knew this, it's just that the "sit back and wait for it to happen" fairytale is very seductive. In fact, that's exactly what people want to hear.
For somewhat-unrelated criticism regarding Ray Kurzweil, there are these emails from Paul D. Fernhout: http://heybryan.org/fernhout/ But to be fair, you can still spot TSiN on random bookshelves when you go to hackerspaces. It's almost cute, really.
Bias: irc.freenode.net ##hplusroadmap ("sponsored by George Church" just like everything else)
He made the Kurzweil synths and as far as I remember his OCR was for the disabled.
Sometimes it's easy to disregard someone completely just because one think they take it too far.
Imagine how a Davinci might look today.
I do not buy Rays ideas on this matter either but there sure is a discussion worth having in there. Even despite some of the claims he makes.
Sometimes it's easy to disregard someone completely just because one think they take it too far.
Imagine how a Davinci might look today.
I do not buy Rays ideas on this matter either but there sure is a discussion worth having in there. Even despite some of the claims he makes.
I'd be really curious to get a copy of the OCR software. I'd like to disassemble it and see what the fuss was about. I can hardly get tesseract to reliably work.
<unnecessary sarcasm>Maybe Ray should jump in and fix tesseract for us.</unnecessary sarcasm>
<unnecessary sarcasm>Maybe Ray should jump in and fix tesseract for us.</unnecessary sarcasm>
All you need to do is look in the history book and realize that he was one of the few pepople working in that field. A more concrete thing was his text-to-speech synthesis.
Anyway. I see no point in defending Ray or any of his ideas. Just saying that the man isn't stupid and have done quite a few inventions.
To brush him of, as much as I disagree with some of his points, simply because he makes outragous claims seems a tad self-defeating.
Anyway. I see no point in defending Ray or any of his ideas. Just saying that the man isn't stupid and have done quite a few inventions.
To brush him of, as much as I disagree with some of his points, simply because he makes outragous claims seems a tad self-defeating.
Random programmer decides to cast his "expert" eye over others' work in bid to determine the value of such work. Who are you again?
This concept of "on-the-ground transhumanists" interests me. Are there actually transhumanists who actually work on building transhuman stuff?
> Are there actually transhumanists who actually work on building transhuman stuff?
More than you might guess. There's a lot of participation within the do-it-yourself biohacking scene. Also, RepRap and other open source hardware projects tend to attract transhumanist talent. I don't mean to sound too biased but you should check out that IRC channel I mentioned.
More than you might guess. There's a lot of participation within the do-it-yourself biohacking scene. Also, RepRap and other open source hardware projects tend to attract transhumanist talent. I don't mean to sound too biased but you should check out that IRC channel I mentioned.
A while back I interviewed with a startup doing transhumany things that was full of on-the-ground transhumanists and they were all quite serious about it. They're out there.
>Terry Grossman, a licensed homeopath
I am a fully licensed archmage. Anyone who wishes to get their journeyman warlocking certification should send 25 BTC to the address in my profile.
I am a fully licensed archmage. Anyone who wishes to get their journeyman warlocking certification should send 25 BTC to the address in my profile.
I never understood the hate for homeopathy from highly educated people.
I won't touch it with a ten-foot pole myself, but homeopathy does get people the placebo effect and that's "A Good Thing" (tm).
That our analytical skills have correctly identified that homeopathy can't really do anything and we thus have to resort to beliefs in the mind-body relationship and e.g. meditation to achieve similar benefits is actually too bad for us.... just popping some pills would've been a lot easier.
I won't touch it with a ten-foot pole myself, but homeopathy does get people the placebo effect and that's "A Good Thing" (tm).
That our analytical skills have correctly identified that homeopathy can't really do anything and we thus have to resort to beliefs in the mind-body relationship and e.g. meditation to achieve similar benefits is actually too bad for us.... just popping some pills would've been a lot easier.
Homeopaths market and sell their products for serious life threatening diseases. Homeopaths don't tell people it's the placebo effect, they tell very sick people that they can cure them, and charge them for the pleasure.
Homeopaths (and other pseduo science peddlers) make money out of people who are at their most desparate state by selling them lies.
Homeopaths (and other pseduo science peddlers) make money out of people who are at their most desparate state by selling them lies.
Homeopathy is woo-woo at its worst. But it seems plausible that the majority of practitioners believe as much in its efficacy as do patients. When you say they are selling lies, you ascribe malice where self-deceit may be the more likely explanation. Of course, no manner of good intentions will help those desperately ill people who would have been better served by conventional medicine.
Oh yes, I believe ignorance and self-delusion is more common then malice. However that doesn't excuse them totally. When it's literally a matter of life and death for someone else, you have a moral duty to ensure you're giving the right advice.
Homeopaths are careless and other people die.
Homeopaths are careless and other people die.
But they are not careless from their own point of view. I daresay they are more intensely passionate in seeking out the latest knowledge in their own field than your average family physician. Breaking out of an inculcated intellectual and epistemological framework is an almost impossible feat.
I would make an analogy to veganism. Vegans as a whole are more intensely interested and passionate about their health and what they eat than your average healthy omnivore. For that reason, they're also more likely to proselytize and promote their ways to others. It's my belief that in doing so they potentially bring harm to themselves and to others. Do I think they should be engaged in vigorous debate and their arguments refuted to the best of scientific knowledge? Yes, absolutely. But I don't think treating them as idiots or malefactors is well-deserved or productive.
I would make an analogy to veganism. Vegans as a whole are more intensely interested and passionate about their health and what they eat than your average healthy omnivore. For that reason, they're also more likely to proselytize and promote their ways to others. It's my belief that in doing so they potentially bring harm to themselves and to others. Do I think they should be engaged in vigorous debate and their arguments refuted to the best of scientific knowledge? Yes, absolutely. But I don't think treating them as idiots or malefactors is well-deserved or productive.
> homeopathy does get people the placebo effect and that's "A Good Thing" (tm).
No. Much like teaching religious stories as if they were the truth doesn't do us any favors. "So what there is no evidence it works? It worked for me." and then you have to undo the damage to what could have been a rational person.
No. Much like teaching religious stories as if they were the truth doesn't do us any favors. "So what there is no evidence it works? It worked for me." and then you have to undo the damage to what could have been a rational person.
I'm ambivalent about Kurzweil because he has been a great early popularizer of empirically/scientifically-founded futurism.
But at this point he is probably doing more harm than good, for the reasons you describe.
But at this point he is probably doing more harm than good, for the reasons you describe.
Sure. Even Isaac Newton had some crazy beliefs ("wrote more on Biblical hermeneutics and occult studies than on science and mathematics" according to wikipedia).
Sure, but Newton formulated Newton's laws, built the first reflective telescope, explained motion of planets, developed differential calculus, and wrote Principia.
Exactly. Newton is seen by many as the smartest scientist who ever lived. So I'm saying even those who contribute the most can have crazy ideas. It's typical. Not sure we disagree.
Or are you saying Kurzweil's contributions are very small in comparison?
Or are you saying Kurzweil's contributions are very small in comparison?
I think what I'm saying is that Newton is remembered for his discoveries and inventions, not for his publicity campaigns.
He is remembered for his discoveries which were confirmed by hundreds of years of experimentation.
As a person he should be judged holistically, and that includes his affinity for the occult. If he were to be a professor of Stanford today, his beliefs on the supernatural should be taken into consideration and viewed as a lack of intellectual integrity(although with all that we know now versus what humanity knew during his time, his stance would most likely be different today).
As a person he should be judged holistically, and that includes his affinity for the occult. If he were to be a professor of Stanford today, his beliefs on the supernatural should be taken into consideration and viewed as a lack of intellectual integrity(although with all that we know now versus what humanity knew during his time, his stance would most likely be different today).
Newton had boatloads of crazy beliefs and --oddly enough for his future reputation-- was probably kept from publishing most of his esoteric work by the religious intolerance of the period.
The Newton Project at University of Sussex and Cambridge University has collaborated with University of King's College in Halifax, Canada, and Indiana University to collect and transcribed his all of his writings. Their progress widget has them at 4,950,000 words so far.
Alchemical writings: http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/prism.php?id=82&ca...
Religious writings: http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/prism.php?id=44
The Newton Project at University of Sussex and Cambridge University has collaborated with University of King's College in Halifax, Canada, and Indiana University to collect and transcribed his all of his writings. Their progress widget has them at 4,950,000 words so far.
Alchemical writings: http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/prism.php?id=82&ca...
Religious writings: http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/prism.php?id=44
Disclosure: SU Alumnus here.
Being from India, it is not unusual for all natural remedies (Neem leaves to soothe burns) to be classified as "Homeopathic".
More Examples Here:
http://hpathy.com/materia-medica/indian-homeopathic-drugs/
Note: I am not saying everything in the URL is gospel, just that there are some natural remedies that work.
Hanhemann's description of Homeopathy is:
"based on the hypothesis that a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure that disease in sick people." (Wikipedia)
This theory is nonsense and proven to be quackery.
In summary: I suspect that Professor Wadhwa's interpretation of Homeopathy was culturally biased. There is nothing wrong or revolutionary with giving natural cures a closer look, just not under the Woo of Homeopathy. If Wadhwa was advocating Hanhemann's Homeopathy then that is indeed disappointing given prevalent evidence.
Being from India, it is not unusual for all natural remedies (Neem leaves to soothe burns) to be classified as "Homeopathic".
More Examples Here:
http://hpathy.com/materia-medica/indian-homeopathic-drugs/
Note: I am not saying everything in the URL is gospel, just that there are some natural remedies that work.
Hanhemann's description of Homeopathy is:
"based on the hypothesis that a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure that disease in sick people." (Wikipedia)
This theory is nonsense and proven to be quackery.
In summary: I suspect that Professor Wadhwa's interpretation of Homeopathy was culturally biased. There is nothing wrong or revolutionary with giving natural cures a closer look, just not under the Woo of Homeopathy. If Wadhwa was advocating Hanhemann's Homeopathy then that is indeed disappointing given prevalent evidence.
" it is not unusual for all natural remedies (Neem leaves to soothe burns) to be classified as "Homeopathic"."
That's unfortunate that in this day and age, there are people who can't distinguish between scientifically proven natural remedies and homeopathy. Natural remedies work because they contain chemicals that have an effect on the body. For example, willow bark contains salicylic acid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aspirin
Science, people!
That's unfortunate that in this day and age, there are people who can't distinguish between scientifically proven natural remedies and homeopathy. Natural remedies work because they contain chemicals that have an effect on the body. For example, willow bark contains salicylic acid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aspirin
Science, people!
Agreed! When homeopathy works, it's because people call active formulations of herbal medicines homeopathic, even when they have way more than homeopathic doses in them.
Yeah it makes me mad that complete BS medicine with no active ingredient gets mixed up with actually effective herbal remedies.
Is it fair to call it quackery or should it be more fairly called a placebo-based remedy system?
Can it be slotted in the same league as naturopathy?
After all naturopathic formulations don't always have the same efficacy in controlled trials. Do they?
Can it be slotted in the same league as naturopathy?
After all naturopathic formulations don't always have the same efficacy in controlled trials. Do they?
it blows my mind that this got downvoted.
The main issue seems to be Vivek Wadhwa (not the whole University) for sending out one poorly thought out mass-email that is vaguely in support of homeopathy.
If I remember correctly, Vivek Wadhwa also authored quite a few articles (on Techcrunch and elsewhere) that demonstrated a poor understanding of stats/science.
For example:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2831195
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2495012
If I remember correctly, Vivek Wadhwa also authored quite a few articles (on Techcrunch and elsewhere) that demonstrated a poor understanding of stats/science.
For example:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2831195
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2495012
When a VP Academic makes a statement, this statement is supposed to reflect the view of the entire institution. When a VP Academic makes such public statements demonstrating gross misunderstanding of science (which I would describe as incompetence), (s)he can normally expect to be fired if (s)he works for a reputable institution.
That's disappointing though. Nobody is going to give credence to the crazy-sounding core tenets of Singularity U if they allow pseudo scientists on their staff.
If I were in charge of Singularity U I would view this as immediate grounds for firing Mr. Wadhwa.
If I were in charge of Singularity U I would view this as immediate grounds for firing Mr. Wadhwa.
Wadhwa keeps putting out immigration studies, like this one, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1348616 "Americas Loss is the World's Gain: America's New Immigrant Entrepreneurs" on why immigrant entrepreneurs and skilled tech workers are leaving the U.S. to return home, decrying the brain drain, and that it is devestating the U.S. economy.
The studies consistently show visa issues are almost never the primary reason they are returning to their home countries. Many are going back to India and China because their economies are or at least were booming offering more opportunities, they are more comfortable in their homeland, nearer family and friends, less culture shock, etc.
He will then immediately whipsaw around and insist its urgent the U.S. pass Startup Visa and increase H1-B quotas to somehow solve the pressing visa problem… which isn't actually the problem per his own studies.
So if the guy is willing to ignore the results from his own study because its inconvenient to the agenda he is pushing, this latest episode surprises me not at all. Once he latches on to something he seems to stick to it, regardless of what the data says. His long running primary agenda seems to be he wants the U.S. to throw the doors open to all Indian engineers and entrepeneurs who want to come. This also happens to be a popular agenda with a lot of big tech companies and VC's which contributes to his popularity among certain circles.
The studies consistently show visa issues are almost never the primary reason they are returning to their home countries. Many are going back to India and China because their economies are or at least were booming offering more opportunities, they are more comfortable in their homeland, nearer family and friends, less culture shock, etc.
He will then immediately whipsaw around and insist its urgent the U.S. pass Startup Visa and increase H1-B quotas to somehow solve the pressing visa problem… which isn't actually the problem per his own studies.
So if the guy is willing to ignore the results from his own study because its inconvenient to the agenda he is pushing, this latest episode surprises me not at all. Once he latches on to something he seems to stick to it, regardless of what the data says. His long running primary agenda seems to be he wants the U.S. to throw the doors open to all Indian engineers and entrepeneurs who want to come. This also happens to be a popular agenda with a lot of big tech companies and VC's which contributes to his popularity among certain circles.
>The studies consistently show visa issues are almost never the primary reason they are returning to their home countries.
Personally in my case, Visa issues were the no.1 reason that I moved back to India.
It seemed unfair that while all other developers in the US could happily do indie and freelance work in their free time and even start their own company, while I had to be an H1-B slave and work for pretty much the same company for 6-8 years before I could even get permanent residency.
Also even working for startups and getting equity is mostly out of question as most startups typically dont do H1-Bs until they are large enough. Your only choice is to work for a shitty megacorp and get confined to your cubicle and a mediocre pay for 6-8 years. Also make sure you are nice H1-B slave coz if you get fired you have to leave in 30 days.
Seriously fuck that!
Personally in my case, Visa issues were the no.1 reason that I moved back to India.
It seemed unfair that while all other developers in the US could happily do indie and freelance work in their free time and even start their own company, while I had to be an H1-B slave and work for pretty much the same company for 6-8 years before I could even get permanent residency.
Also even working for startups and getting equity is mostly out of question as most startups typically dont do H1-Bs until they are large enough. Your only choice is to work for a shitty megacorp and get confined to your cubicle and a mediocre pay for 6-8 years. Also make sure you are nice H1-B slave coz if you get fired you have to leave in 30 days.
Seriously fuck that!
All universities should have a "defense against the dark arts" class where students learn how to weigh evidence, arguments, and logic. Outside of that, I believe class should be opinionated and biased.
If that were the case, then quacks would find themselves without an audience.
I do worry that by casting quacks out of polite society, we will also cast out iconoclasts and free thinkers.
If that were the case, then quacks would find themselves without an audience.
I do worry that by casting quacks out of polite society, we will also cast out iconoclasts and free thinkers.
The Singularity Institute is working on it (or rather, the spinning-off Center for Applied Rationality is working on it); and indeed, we have literally been known to refer to it as "Defense Against the Dark Arts".
>weigh evidence, arguments, and logic
Philosophy 101
Philosophy 101
What school even just mentions Bayes' theorem in Philosophy 101?
> "All logic texts are divided into two parts. In the first part, on deductive logic, the fallacies are explained; in the second part, on inductive logic, they are committed."
--Morris Raphael Cohen, quoted by Cohen in "The Earth Is Round (p < 0.05)"
--Morris Raphael Cohen, quoted by Cohen in "The Earth Is Round (p < 0.05)"
“Do you know what they call ‘alternative medicine’ that’s been proved to work? ‘Medicine’.” — Tim Minchin
There's a huge economic imbalance between the economic resources and motivations given to prove and market traditional medicine and alternative medicine. Sometimes this leads to a situations that non-fully proven alternative treatments can offer better results with less side effects than current medicine practice. And since risk for many alternative medicines is low it makes sense to try them.
This of course doesn't apply to homeopathy.
This of course doesn't apply to homeopathy.
> Sometimes this leads to a situations that non-fully proven alternative treatments can offer better results with less side effects than current medicine practice. And since risk for many alternative medicines is low it makes sense to try them.
This is a strange sentence. So this hypothetical alternative treatment has been shown to work better and with less side effects and also that it's risk is low, but is only "non-fully proven".
If you showed low risk and better efficacy and less side effects then that's pretty much fully proven. What's left?
This is a strange sentence. So this hypothetical alternative treatment has been shown to work better and with less side effects and also that it's risk is low, but is only "non-fully proven".
If you showed low risk and better efficacy and less side effects then that's pretty much fully proven. What's left?
>"Sometimes this leads to a situations that non-fully proven alternative treatments can offer better results with less side effects than current medicine practice."
Maybe you're right. Care to point to some specific cases?
Maybe you're right. Care to point to some specific cases?
St John's Wort for depression is the poster child; it's in the process of gradually becoming ordinary medicine as more studies are performed, but it's not yet something your doctor would prescribe you.
We err far too much on the side of not approving new treatments (it's like we think harming someone by giving them bad medicine is thousands of times worse than doing the same harm by not giving them good medicine), particularly when there are no patents so no drug company profit motive to push them through trials.
We err far too much on the side of not approving new treatments (it's like we think harming someone by giving them bad medicine is thousands of times worse than doing the same harm by not giving them good medicine), particularly when there are no patents so no drug company profit motive to push them through trials.
I'm in the pharmacy business, so this is of obvious interest to me.
>"but it's not yet something your doctor would prescribe you."
Because it doesn't require a prescription. There is nearly unlimited information on the product (including efficacy), and I can go into any pharmacy in North America and buy it off the shelf, no questions asked.
>"particularly when there are no patents"
The idea that you can't make money without owning the patent on something flies in the face of everything done in the hacker world, doesn't it? I don't buy into that theory, but can't really back up my opinion. The world is filled with companies who sell commodity products at a mark up, though.
>"but it's not yet something your doctor would prescribe you."
Because it doesn't require a prescription. There is nearly unlimited information on the product (including efficacy), and I can go into any pharmacy in North America and buy it off the shelf, no questions asked.
>"particularly when there are no patents"
The idea that you can't make money without owning the patent on something flies in the face of everything done in the hacker world, doesn't it? I don't buy into that theory, but can't really back up my opinion. The world is filled with companies who sell commodity products at a mark up, though.
Omega-3 for adhd is one example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20424008
Basically what is says that omega-3 combination might help some kids, we need more research.
omega-3 is safe to use(except maybe for people who use blood thinners). The best strategy seems just to try.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20424008
Basically what is says that omega-3 combination might help some kids, we need more research.
omega-3 is safe to use(except maybe for people who use blood thinners). The best strategy seems just to try.
> less side effects
Well, yes. Less effects of all sorts naturally means less side effects as well.
Well, yes. Less effects of all sorts naturally means less side effects as well.
Do you know what they call 'alternative medicine' that's been proved to be useless? "Alternative Medicine"
I'll echo the sentiment of others here in saying that this isn't representive of anyone I know at SU. I'd say it's quite a rational crowd and while Kurzweil and others are a bit on the edge of reason in some of their work on Singularity stuff - it's vastly not blatant wrong facts a la homeopathy. It's at most overoptimism in the factors of exponential growth and supporting tech like cryogenics being more useful than is likely. The Newton reference below is apt - let's judge people on their best contributions - and let only heinous stuff (if Newton ended up a violent dictator) count against them.
Newton's dablings in the occult SHOULD be considered and count against him. The thing is, we've confirmed calculus and universal gravitation through centuries of experimentation. Whadwha's situation is different. He is alive, a PROFESSOR AT STANFORD, and the VP of academics at SU. His contributions of the past should not be muddied by his current stances, especially if others have corroborated his work (although I don't know if Whadwha does real research). However, if he chooses to believe in homeopathy, something which has been shown time and time again to be as effective as a placebo, it shows a certain lack of intellectual integrity that is not acceptable of a practitioner of higher education.
Some of the greatest scientists in the world have been corrupted by their personal biases and if people like Einstein can waste decades in a hunt for something that doesn't exist (i.e., his denial of Bell's theorem and search for a deterministic hidden variable) then surely Whadwha too can fall prey to his biases (which he seems to have shown today). The difference is that Einstein did research that could be corroborated, while Whadwha teaches, which can impact the intellectual integrity of his students.
Some of the greatest scientists in the world have been corrupted by their personal biases and if people like Einstein can waste decades in a hunt for something that doesn't exist (i.e., his denial of Bell's theorem and search for a deterministic hidden variable) then surely Whadwha too can fall prey to his biases (which he seems to have shown today). The difference is that Einstein did research that could be corroborated, while Whadwha teaches, which can impact the intellectual integrity of his students.
Einstein died before Bell discovered his theorem. Careful with the rants about integrity.
Wow, I've always enjoyed Vivek Wadhwa's articles, but he just lost all credibility with me. This is the same level as finding out he is a scientologist.
Didn't he also attack 20 under 20 or anyone leaving the formalized educational system?
I honestly don't understand this. Do you not evaluate each of his points on their own merit, or have you been relying on reputation alone?
It's very difficult to weigh each point on its 'own merit'; for example, if someone is writing an article on diet, it's relatively easy for them to construct a very impressive looking article, each citation of which is genuine and does indeed match the description, and which is logical - but also completely wrong because they cherrypicked the few dozen results which supported the thesis and ignored all the other studies and meta-analyses which reveal the thesis is complete bullshit.
For example, take dual n-back. Just with the materials in http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ I could construct a case that dual n-back is a fantastic intervention which will boost children's grades, help cure ADHD, help addicts kick drugs, increase your IQ, etc - or I could construct a case that it's a statistical artifact contributed to by financially compromised researchers which has failed replication and ought to be kicked to the trashheap of history.
Both would be true if you 'evaluate of my points on their own merit'.
When someone says that him believing in pseudoscience X reduces their confidence in any of the articles on topics Y or Z, they are quite correct. They have learned reasons to think that he left evidence out, or twisted it, or didn't look for counter-evidence, or engaged in any of the myriads of sins of omission or commission that lead a reader to falsehood.
For example, take dual n-back. Just with the materials in http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ I could construct a case that dual n-back is a fantastic intervention which will boost children's grades, help cure ADHD, help addicts kick drugs, increase your IQ, etc - or I could construct a case that it's a statistical artifact contributed to by financially compromised researchers which has failed replication and ought to be kicked to the trashheap of history.
Both would be true if you 'evaluate of my points on their own merit'.
When someone says that him believing in pseudoscience X reduces their confidence in any of the articles on topics Y or Z, they are quite correct. They have learned reasons to think that he left evidence out, or twisted it, or didn't look for counter-evidence, or engaged in any of the myriads of sins of omission or commission that lead a reader to falsehood.
Credibility isn't exactly the same thing as reputation.
Some authors have more credibility than others. If someone positions themselves in the realm of the incredible (which is what homeopathy is), they lose credibility, as they should.
Some authors have more credibility than others. If someone positions themselves in the realm of the incredible (which is what homeopathy is), they lose credibility, as they should.
Of course I evaluate each of his points on its merit, and may continue to do so. But part of how much mental "weighting" to put on his points is based on how much I respect how his thinking process goes, and how it lines up to mine. That weighting just got significantly reduced.
"First, the idea of false balance, suggesting that there are two sides to the current state of our knowledge on a scientific theory. No, the scientific method produces our best understanding of a subject to date. It does not produce both that and its antithesis."
Well - no, science produces falsifiable hypothesis. Here is my hypothesis, you (or me) could falsify it by showing x. x could be shown, but I can't show it - can you?
That's science.
In this debate the homeopaths are asked time and again to show x, they never do, so the hypothesis that we have is that it's utter bunk. If some homeopath can show that their shit really works (with a double blind randomized trial with controls) then booooo yahhhh! it works!
It's not about debates, it's not about who is right. It's about what can be shown to be true, or not.
Well - no, science produces falsifiable hypothesis. Here is my hypothesis, you (or me) could falsify it by showing x. x could be shown, but I can't show it - can you?
That's science.
In this debate the homeopaths are asked time and again to show x, they never do, so the hypothesis that we have is that it's utter bunk. If some homeopath can show that their shit really works (with a double blind randomized trial with controls) then booooo yahhhh! it works!
It's not about debates, it's not about who is right. It's about what can be shown to be true, or not.
OP is saying that in science a hypothesis needs to be taken off the table once has been falsified. (Unless new evidence comes along saying otherwise.)
Homeopathy deserves to be removed from the table.
Homeopathy deserves to be removed from the table.
It's an interesting debate as to when things should come off the table. My usual metric is that respected people start to refuse to talk about it - at some point topics just stop being interesting to them and that's the point that it generally means that it's over. If for no other reason than because you know no one is going to be generating new evidence as they sure ain't going to be getting any grants!
Crank science is different. I guess that The Media and capitalism are the problem. Homeopaths are probably never going to go away because there is money to be made, and The Media are probably going to keep reporting on it because it sells.
Perhaps there will come a point (like with UFO's) where interest will simply dissipate and it'll stop being a story.
Until then we have a problem - the process is the story, just like for AGW. Why aren't there grants for this? Why do wise professors simply dismiss it? What on earth are we doing supporting these massive drug companies with their expensive and somewhat poor therapies? We need to be aware that the processes of science (everyone I know thinks this is just uninteresting, therefore there is every reason to believe that anyone working on it is wasting there time - unless I have reason to think otherwise - so mehh) doesn't have the effect that we anticipate it to; so lots of careful, calm, open minded rebuttal based on cast iron facts and offers of changes of opinion if things can be proved other wise would be good.
Crank science is different. I guess that The Media and capitalism are the problem. Homeopaths are probably never going to go away because there is money to be made, and The Media are probably going to keep reporting on it because it sells.
Perhaps there will come a point (like with UFO's) where interest will simply dissipate and it'll stop being a story.
Until then we have a problem - the process is the story, just like for AGW. Why aren't there grants for this? Why do wise professors simply dismiss it? What on earth are we doing supporting these massive drug companies with their expensive and somewhat poor therapies? We need to be aware that the processes of science (everyone I know thinks this is just uninteresting, therefore there is every reason to believe that anyone working on it is wasting there time - unless I have reason to think otherwise - so mehh) doesn't have the effect that we anticipate it to; so lots of careful, calm, open minded rebuttal based on cast iron facts and offers of changes of opinion if things can be proved other wise would be good.
It's not contradictory to say that the scientific method produces our best understanding of a subject to date and that its statements are falsifiable. In fact, it is because of the standard of falsifiability that scientific knowledge reflects, in all likelihood, the actual facts much more accurately than say, religious dogma.
Richard Dawkins made an excellent documentary, The Enemies of Reason, which covers homeopathy. Parts of the it can be found on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dawkins%20homeop...
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dawkins%20homeop...
James Randi's explanation of homeopathy is incredibly intellectually dishonest. In the video Randi says that homeopathy involves extreme dilution to the point where virtually none of the original substance is left. But this isn't true. There were two schools of homeopathy, high dilutionists and low dilutionists. Only one school of homeopathy believed in dilution like this.
It was homeopathy that pioneered evidence-based medicine, which is why mainstream medicine eventually merged with low dilution homeopathy and began to use its methods. But Randi doesn't mention that either.
It was homeopathy that pioneered evidence-based medicine, which is why mainstream medicine eventually merged with low dilution homeopathy and began to use its methods. But Randi doesn't mention that either.
Note: I don't want to be the [citation needed] asshole here, but this is the first time I've heard of the distinct schools of homeopathy and I'm skeptical (of course).
Can you point me to an article about this history?
Can you point me to an article about this history?
From JAMA: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=202602
"19th-century homeopaths pioneered systematic drug-testing research, challenged the dangerously depleting procedures of mainstream physicians at that time, established rigorous professional standards, and valued advanced education at least as highly as their mainstream counterparts did. It was not without reason that homeopaths considered the bases of their approach to medical problems to be more logical and more promising than the inherited tradition of the ancients, upon which mainstream physicians still based their practices. [...]
This book will be useful primarily to scholars looking for specific information about particular people, events, and developments within the homeopathic movement during the period covered. Among other things, readers will find the names—and often the opinions—of hundreds of previously invisible homeopathic practitioners, publicists, and professors; they will follow fierce debates between the so-called high-dilutionists (whose therapeutic commitment to infinitesimally small doses of supposedly energized substances verged on spiritualism) and the low-dilutionists (who ultimately merged with mainstream physicians in the early decades of the 20th century); they will explore the founding and fate of homeopathic medical schools; they will listen to well-intentioned homeopaths defend themselves against attacks from the American Medical Association; and they will learn about regional variations in the character, reception, and legal standing of homeopathy around the country."
Anyway not to defend homeopathy, but I just find it sad that so many people view James Randi as a credible source despite the fact that he can rarely go five minutes without lying about something.
"19th-century homeopaths pioneered systematic drug-testing research, challenged the dangerously depleting procedures of mainstream physicians at that time, established rigorous professional standards, and valued advanced education at least as highly as their mainstream counterparts did. It was not without reason that homeopaths considered the bases of their approach to medical problems to be more logical and more promising than the inherited tradition of the ancients, upon which mainstream physicians still based their practices. [...]
This book will be useful primarily to scholars looking for specific information about particular people, events, and developments within the homeopathic movement during the period covered. Among other things, readers will find the names—and often the opinions—of hundreds of previously invisible homeopathic practitioners, publicists, and professors; they will follow fierce debates between the so-called high-dilutionists (whose therapeutic commitment to infinitesimally small doses of supposedly energized substances verged on spiritualism) and the low-dilutionists (who ultimately merged with mainstream physicians in the early decades of the 20th century); they will explore the founding and fate of homeopathic medical schools; they will listen to well-intentioned homeopaths defend themselves against attacks from the American Medical Association; and they will learn about regional variations in the character, reception, and legal standing of homeopathy around the country."
Anyway not to defend homeopathy, but I just find it sad that so many people view James Randi as a credible source despite the fact that he can rarely go five minutes without lying about something.
Thank you!
It seems a stretch to say that James Randi is lying when he doesn't include a disclaimer that the same word happened to also be used for something more scientific around 80 years ago.
Everything Randi talks about is perfectly true if you use the contemporary understanding of the word "homeopathy"
It seems a stretch to say that James Randi is lying when he doesn't include a disclaimer that the same word happened to also be used for something more scientific around 80 years ago.
Everything Randi talks about is perfectly true if you use the contemporary understanding of the word "homeopathy"
"Everything Randi talks about is perfectly true if you use the contemporary understanding of the word 'homeopathy'.
Which he wasn't. He was specifically talking about homeopathy in the period when it was invented and when it came to the US in the mid 19th century. In fact he even talks about 'the proving', which as a far as I know isn't even actively done anymore in modern homeopathy. (I'm pretty sure the modern manufacturers are just reusing old formulas and not actually doing new 'research'.)
Which he wasn't. He was specifically talking about homeopathy in the period when it was invented and when it came to the US in the mid 19th century. In fact he even talks about 'the proving', which as a far as I know isn't even actively done anymore in modern homeopathy. (I'm pretty sure the modern manufacturers are just reusing old formulas and not actually doing new 'research'.)
He gave some historical background but also brought it around to how homeopathic preparations are presently made, with the examples of actual products using 30x and 1500x dilutions. There are lots of specifics we could be pedantic about, but I agree with the grandparent that for a 15 minute summary of homeopathy it's on target.
Let's pull another part of that quote:
"John S. Haller, Jr, reminds us that homeopathy in the 19th century rested upon highly specific principles—all of which flowed from Samuel Hahnemann's fundamental axiom that “like cures like”"
Taking a magical axiom as a given and then using scientific principles is not science.
You can make the exact same arguments about alchemists and some schools of occult study. They used careful and meticulous methods, and even made some discoveries in the areas of lab work or procedure that were useful to many areas.
These things don't mean the beliefs are any more true.
So you're mad at Randi for not providing a small piece of historical context in a presentation about protecting people from modern con artists? That just seems like you are looking for something to object to.
"John S. Haller, Jr, reminds us that homeopathy in the 19th century rested upon highly specific principles—all of which flowed from Samuel Hahnemann's fundamental axiom that “like cures like”"
Taking a magical axiom as a given and then using scientific principles is not science.
You can make the exact same arguments about alchemists and some schools of occult study. They used careful and meticulous methods, and even made some discoveries in the areas of lab work or procedure that were useful to many areas.
These things don't mean the beliefs are any more true.
So you're mad at Randi for not providing a small piece of historical context in a presentation about protecting people from modern con artists? That just seems like you are looking for something to object to.
"Taking a magical axiom as a given and then using scientific principles is not science."
If that's true, then modern medicine isn't science because it works exactly the same way. It starts with all sorts of spiritual axioms, like the idea that the most effective drugs are made by isolating one single molecule out of the entire plant. And that's what modern medicine believes is a universal and inviolable law, no matter how much empirical evidence there is that this isn't always the case. (E.g. look at the efficacy trials of marijuana vs. pure THC.)
"So you're mad at Randi for not providing a small piece of historical context in a presentation about protecting people from modern con artists?"
It's not really a small piece of trivia, especially considering the idea that all homeopathy is high dilution was the sine qua non of his argument. And furthermore, low dilution homeopathic treatments still exist today, e.g. those zinc lozenges you see at the checkout counter of every pharmacy. More people probably have exposure to those than every other homeopathic remedy combined.
If that's true, then modern medicine isn't science because it works exactly the same way. It starts with all sorts of spiritual axioms, like the idea that the most effective drugs are made by isolating one single molecule out of the entire plant. And that's what modern medicine believes is a universal and inviolable law, no matter how much empirical evidence there is that this isn't always the case. (E.g. look at the efficacy trials of marijuana vs. pure THC.)
"So you're mad at Randi for not providing a small piece of historical context in a presentation about protecting people from modern con artists?"
It's not really a small piece of trivia, especially considering the idea that all homeopathy is high dilution was the sine qua non of his argument. And furthermore, low dilution homeopathic treatments still exist today, e.g. those zinc lozenges you see at the checkout counter of every pharmacy. More people probably have exposure to those than every other homeopathic remedy combined.
You're going to disparage the scientific credibility of the entire medical profession because some practitioners are focused on isolating and synthesizing the effective components of medication?
I guess Randi could have said "only the people who believe this crazy stuff believe this crazy stuff", but he did make it clear that his history wasn't complete and comprehensive.
The damning evidence remains the same: I can go into an otherwise reputable store and pay for "medicine" that is just water with pseudoscientific incantations performed over it. And you have the chutzpah to call Randi dishonest?
I guess Randi could have said "only the people who believe this crazy stuff believe this crazy stuff", but he did make it clear that his history wasn't complete and comprehensive.
The damning evidence remains the same: I can go into an otherwise reputable store and pay for "medicine" that is just water with pseudoscientific incantations performed over it. And you have the chutzpah to call Randi dishonest?
"You're going to disparage the scientific credibility of the entire medical profession because some practitioners are focused on isolating and synthesizing the effective components of medication?"
My criticism of western medicine isn't that it focuses on new molecular entities (NMEs), but rather that it focuses only on NMEs despite loads of empirical evidence pointing out that much of the best medicine is potentially neither new nor a molecular entity. My point is that it's not fair to criticize alchemy for having guiding spiritual assumptions if you're not willing to admit that western medicine has its own spiritual assumptions.
My criticism of western medicine isn't that it focuses on new molecular entities (NMEs), but rather that it focuses only on NMEs despite loads of empirical evidence pointing out that much of the best medicine is potentially neither new nor a molecular entity. My point is that it's not fair to criticize alchemy for having guiding spiritual assumptions if you're not willing to admit that western medicine has its own spiritual assumptions.
> despite loads of empirical evidence pointing out that much of the best medicine is potentially neither new nor a molecular entity
Can you link to this empirical evidence? I'm honestly not aware of it.
Can you link to this empirical evidence? I'm honestly not aware of it.
I'm not aware of any single good source on this, but a couple interesting links:
http://maps.org/
This is a non-profit pharma company working on getting MDMA through phase III trials. They've been getting tons of publicity lately, in part because of their very solid methodology and in part because of their results and the interestingness/importance of the project. No traditional pharma companies will do any research on the drug though because it can't be patented, not to mention it's schedule I meaning that each study can take literally several years to get approved.
For a comparison of marijuana with marinol, this is a good link:
http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/marinol-vs-natural-c...
There are lots of plants that compare well with pharma drugs safety and efficacy wise in preclinical studies, but there are basically zero actual clinical studies done on them because they can't be patented or prescribed.
Andrew Weil has a great writeup on why plants are usually better than drugs here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weil-md/why-plants-are-...
Obviously there are many famous counterexamples where the isolated molecule really is much better, like with aspirin. But often with just the whole plant or some extract you can get at least 80% of the benefits but with only 10% of the side effects. (Plants kill only a couple hundred people in the US per year, whereas pharma drugs kill 200k+ per year.)
http://maps.org/
This is a non-profit pharma company working on getting MDMA through phase III trials. They've been getting tons of publicity lately, in part because of their very solid methodology and in part because of their results and the interestingness/importance of the project. No traditional pharma companies will do any research on the drug though because it can't be patented, not to mention it's schedule I meaning that each study can take literally several years to get approved.
For a comparison of marijuana with marinol, this is a good link:
http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/marinol-vs-natural-c...
There are lots of plants that compare well with pharma drugs safety and efficacy wise in preclinical studies, but there are basically zero actual clinical studies done on them because they can't be patented or prescribed.
Andrew Weil has a great writeup on why plants are usually better than drugs here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weil-md/why-plants-are-...
Obviously there are many famous counterexamples where the isolated molecule really is much better, like with aspirin. But often with just the whole plant or some extract you can get at least 80% of the benefits but with only 10% of the side effects. (Plants kill only a couple hundred people in the US per year, whereas pharma drugs kill 200k+ per year.)
> (Plants kill only a couple hundred people in the US per year, whereas pharma drugs kill 200k+ per year.)
Well in all fairness, the volume of people being treated with plants and the volume of people being treated with pharmaceuticals probably isn't near enough to proportional to make that a fair comparison.
Well in all fairness, the volume of people being treated with plants and the volume of people being treated with pharmaceuticals probably isn't near enough to proportional to make that a fair comparison.
That's true, but even the most benign of pharma drugs like aspirin, ibuprofen, and tylenol kill around 7,500 people per year combined. Whereas no one is dying from marijuana, aloe, cranberry juice, etc. Virtually all of the plant deaths in the US are from people eating poisonous plants, either accidentally or to commit suicide. Despite the tens of millions of Americans using plant medicines each year, I doubt there are more than a few dozen adverse drug events from all of them combined.
I'm not sure those support your points (except the huffpo article which I find ... unconvincing), isn't MDMA a "molecular entity"?
There are many plants that work very well indeed, much of modern medicine is based on them. I'm just not sure why you would not take the next step and isolate the active ingredients and synthesize them so that people can benefit from something with predicable dosages and a price affected by economies of scale.
In terms of drug research being hampered by prohibitionist drug laws we are in agreement. What I still don't understand is why you think that some beneficial compound that's adulterated and present in unpredictable amounts in plant form is better than the alternative? I'm definitely going to challenge you on this 80%/10% statement.
Something either has a biological effect or it doesn't. The cases like aspirin (where the natural form also had a second active ingredient that acted as a buffering agent) are rare, it's more common that the plant form has other active ingredients that are harmful.
I sympathize with your bias towards the naturalistic fallacy, since I'm prone to it as well the facts aren't on your side here.
There are many plants that work very well indeed, much of modern medicine is based on them. I'm just not sure why you would not take the next step and isolate the active ingredients and synthesize them so that people can benefit from something with predicable dosages and a price affected by economies of scale.
In terms of drug research being hampered by prohibitionist drug laws we are in agreement. What I still don't understand is why you think that some beneficial compound that's adulterated and present in unpredictable amounts in plant form is better than the alternative? I'm definitely going to challenge you on this 80%/10% statement.
Something either has a biological effect or it doesn't. The cases like aspirin (where the natural form also had a second active ingredient that acted as a buffering agent) are rare, it's more common that the plant form has other active ingredients that are harmful.
I sympathize with your bias towards the naturalistic fallacy, since I'm prone to it as well the facts aren't on your side here.
"isn't MDMA a 'molecular entity'?"
Yeah but it's not patentable. There are many drugs that have the potential to cure all sorts of diseases that never make it to market for this reason.
"I'm just not sure why you would not take the next step and isolate the active ingredients and synthesize them so that people can benefit from something with predicable dosages and a price affected by economies of scale."
Because often they work less well and have more dangerous side effects. There literally is no isolated molecule that on average will produce better results than the whole plant, even though what you're getting from the plant is a little different each time.
The first rule of recreational drug use is rotate your receptors. E.g. if you keep hammering the exact same receptor with the exact same molecule each time, bad things are going to happen. The same thing often applies to medicinal drugs, in which case standardization tends to be worse on average than taking a random cocktail of chemicals, even if you don't know what it is your taking. Again, c.f. the research on marijuana vs pure THC for a good example of this.
"What I still don't understand is why you think that some beneficial compound that's adulterated and present in unpredictable amounts in plant form is better than the alternative?"
Because that's what the evidence says is often the case. It doesn't really make any logical sense, it's just what happens to be true. A good example of this is the TED video Eating To Starve Cancer, where they talk about how mixing a bunch of different types of tea together is more anti-angiogenic than any individual tea:
http://blog.ted.com/2010/05/17/can_we_eat_to_s/
Even if you were to standardize some mixture, there is no reason to believe that taking the same mixture day after day would be more effective than taking a different mixture each time.
Also, you can actually standardize plant medicine now. Plants are cloneable, and you can grow them in highly controlled conditions and then blend them together the same way they blend tea or champagne. (Which is why champagne from a good house tastes almost exactly the same despite the wildly different growing conditions each year. Same for things like Lipton english breakfast tea or whatever.)
"I sympathize with your bias towards the naturalistic fallacy"
The naturalistic fallacy is assuming that if something comes from nature it must be better. That's not at all what I'm saying here.
Yeah but it's not patentable. There are many drugs that have the potential to cure all sorts of diseases that never make it to market for this reason.
"I'm just not sure why you would not take the next step and isolate the active ingredients and synthesize them so that people can benefit from something with predicable dosages and a price affected by economies of scale."
Because often they work less well and have more dangerous side effects. There literally is no isolated molecule that on average will produce better results than the whole plant, even though what you're getting from the plant is a little different each time.
The first rule of recreational drug use is rotate your receptors. E.g. if you keep hammering the exact same receptor with the exact same molecule each time, bad things are going to happen. The same thing often applies to medicinal drugs, in which case standardization tends to be worse on average than taking a random cocktail of chemicals, even if you don't know what it is your taking. Again, c.f. the research on marijuana vs pure THC for a good example of this.
"What I still don't understand is why you think that some beneficial compound that's adulterated and present in unpredictable amounts in plant form is better than the alternative?"
Because that's what the evidence says is often the case. It doesn't really make any logical sense, it's just what happens to be true. A good example of this is the TED video Eating To Starve Cancer, where they talk about how mixing a bunch of different types of tea together is more anti-angiogenic than any individual tea:
http://blog.ted.com/2010/05/17/can_we_eat_to_s/
Even if you were to standardize some mixture, there is no reason to believe that taking the same mixture day after day would be more effective than taking a different mixture each time.
Also, you can actually standardize plant medicine now. Plants are cloneable, and you can grow them in highly controlled conditions and then blend them together the same way they blend tea or champagne. (Which is why champagne from a good house tastes almost exactly the same despite the wildly different growing conditions each year. Same for things like Lipton english breakfast tea or whatever.)
"I sympathize with your bias towards the naturalistic fallacy"
The naturalistic fallacy is assuming that if something comes from nature it must be better. That's not at all what I'm saying here.
> those zinc lozenges you see at the checkout counter of every pharmacy
So those other things that don't work? Zinc as a common cold treament has never had a convincing effect size and when controlling with equally bad tasting placebos has no effect.
> like the idea that the most effective drugs are made by isolating one single molecule out of the entire plant. And that's what modern medicine believes is a universal and inviolable law, no matter how much empirical evidence there is that this isn't always the case. (E.g. look at the efficacy trials of marijuana vs. pure THC.)
I'm not aware of any universal and inviolable laws in modern medicine other than the need to prove a treatment actually works. There are certainly scientists and doctors looking at non-THC cannabinoids. To suggest that anyone is using non-scientific principles to do anything useful in this area is absurd.
The reason that active ingredients are isolated is to provide a predictable and safe result for all patients. When you skip that step you get other results: Like the people who lost their sense of smell by taking Zicam because low dilution homeopaths told them it would cure the common cold.
So those other things that don't work? Zinc as a common cold treament has never had a convincing effect size and when controlling with equally bad tasting placebos has no effect.
> like the idea that the most effective drugs are made by isolating one single molecule out of the entire plant. And that's what modern medicine believes is a universal and inviolable law, no matter how much empirical evidence there is that this isn't always the case. (E.g. look at the efficacy trials of marijuana vs. pure THC.)
I'm not aware of any universal and inviolable laws in modern medicine other than the need to prove a treatment actually works. There are certainly scientists and doctors looking at non-THC cannabinoids. To suggest that anyone is using non-scientific principles to do anything useful in this area is absurd.
The reason that active ingredients are isolated is to provide a predictable and safe result for all patients. When you skip that step you get other results: Like the people who lost their sense of smell by taking Zicam because low dilution homeopaths told them it would cure the common cold.
citation needed.
Fallacy.
Vivek Wadhwa has the better perspective on the matter. The author is assuming that "because people who believe in homeopathy are believing in something that does not follow from our scientific models, homeopathy must not work." But this is fallacious.
We all know about the placebo effect. Do we know the efficacy of homeopathy in the realm of the placebo effect? Perhaps a pill with a bogus (but plausible to the naive) reason has more power than a sugarpill with no explanation at all as to why it works. If so, by some definitions of efficacy (say, "works better than a sugarpill"), you would have to conclude that homeopathy works (albiet in the context of our world, where many are scientifically illiterate).
The universe does not follow our scientific model. Rather, it is always(1) the model that follows the universe. There will always(2) be inexplicable (and apparently scientifically impossible) phenomena, and the purpose of science is to find them.
(and also to simplify the axioms. Wolfram might be disappointed with the LHC outcome, but I'm hopeful that somebody will find a new model -- equivalent to the standard model, or at least one that leads to the standard model in other scales of physics -- that I can actually understand ;) )
(1) Well, never say neither always nor never, and mileage may vary based on unexpected factors.
(2) This I've concluded from Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem, but then again I don't actually buy that 100% either. I don't buy that (X implies X) implies (X is true), which I think is assumed in GIT. Input appreciated.
Vivek Wadhwa has the better perspective on the matter. The author is assuming that "because people who believe in homeopathy are believing in something that does not follow from our scientific models, homeopathy must not work." But this is fallacious.
We all know about the placebo effect. Do we know the efficacy of homeopathy in the realm of the placebo effect? Perhaps a pill with a bogus (but plausible to the naive) reason has more power than a sugarpill with no explanation at all as to why it works. If so, by some definitions of efficacy (say, "works better than a sugarpill"), you would have to conclude that homeopathy works (albiet in the context of our world, where many are scientifically illiterate).
The universe does not follow our scientific model. Rather, it is always(1) the model that follows the universe. There will always(2) be inexplicable (and apparently scientifically impossible) phenomena, and the purpose of science is to find them.
(and also to simplify the axioms. Wolfram might be disappointed with the LHC outcome, but I'm hopeful that somebody will find a new model -- equivalent to the standard model, or at least one that leads to the standard model in other scales of physics -- that I can actually understand ;) )
(1) Well, never say neither always nor never, and mileage may vary based on unexpected factors.
(2) This I've concluded from Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem, but then again I don't actually buy that 100% either. I don't buy that (X implies X) implies (X is true), which I think is assumed in GIT. Input appreciated.
You're quite right. If you actually read the Shang et al 2006 paper you'll discover that homeopathy was discovered to be better than placebo but less good than the best conventional treatment. The PR and media coverage around the paper missed this entirely. The Ernst paper mentioned by the article also could not determine if homeopathy was entirely due to placebo. Its worth noting that this is the current state of scientific knowledge regarding homeopathy. It appears to be somewhat better than placebo judging from meta analysis.
Now, this doesn't mean its real (or fake), it just means we need more research. Its also worth noting that the trials of homeopathy in the Shang 2006 article were rated as higher quality than those of conventional treatment (but there were less of them).
Now, this doesn't mean its real (or fake), it just means we need more research. Its also worth noting that the trials of homeopathy in the Shang 2006 article were rated as higher quality than those of conventional treatment (but there were less of them).
When there was more than one conventional treatment trial matching a homeopathic trial, they randomly selected the conventional treatment trial. They did not inject any notion of 'best' conventional treatment.
(or I read the wrong paper...)
(or I read the wrong paper...)
My faith in humanity has been restored. This calls for a beer if you or any true skeptics are around the bay area.
If x, then x. x can be true or false! It is true that if false, then false. It is also true that if true, then true.
Seems like Singularity U needs something like Hacker News as a platform for discussions. Email proclamations to successively larger mailing lists are not exactly an efficient approach.
Should they just use Hacker News itself? Build their own? Or can Hacker News sprout channels? I'd be fascinated by the topics they cover.
Should they just use Hacker News itself? Build their own? Or can Hacker News sprout channels? I'd be fascinated by the topics they cover.
http://www.lesswrong.com is probably what comes closer to what you are describing.
wrt to his nutritional /supplemental writings in his latest books Kurzweil provides evidence in form of studies etc, or if not available or study was limited in relevance etc, he plainly acknowledges this. I thought it was obvious he was trying to fill gaps with what was available. He also acknowledges he is choosing to reinterpret some findings, and gives his rationale for this too. He also rejects a raft of homeopathic and modern medical treatment with same rationalization. He never claims to be a scientist, rather he says he is just a guy doing his best to leverage science from an engineer and inventor perspective for his own personal health benefit, and sharing it with the rest of us.
Disclosure Singularity U alumnus here.
My hypothesis here is that Vivek was trying to open a debate, to challenge the students to accept the possibility of alternative views, rather than pushing those alternative views. This is strongly aligned with his role as VP of Academics where he is trying to encourage the students to consider alternative possibilities and that there are different perspectives, this is within his role remit. Not to defend homoeopathy but it's when you examine and challenge existing hearsay that you can make great strides of innovation.
My hypothesis here is that Vivek was trying to open a debate, to challenge the students to accept the possibility of alternative views, rather than pushing those alternative views. This is strongly aligned with his role as VP of Academics where he is trying to encourage the students to consider alternative possibilities and that there are different perspectives, this is within his role remit. Not to defend homoeopathy but it's when you examine and challenge existing hearsay that you can make great strides of innovation.
[deleted]
I am a SU alumnus and I can assure everyone this is not representative of Singularity University in any way.
can someone explain the 'woo' reference? k thx.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo
http://www.skepdic.com/woowoo.html
It's the non-denominational version of making stuff up while untroubled by complete lack of evidence. Also the sound effect that goes along with handwaving.
http://www.skepdic.com/woowoo.html
It's the non-denominational version of making stuff up while untroubled by complete lack of evidence. Also the sound effect that goes along with handwaving.
Skeptic's dictionary has a pretty good definition:
http://www.skepdic.com/woowoo.html
is "woo" a well known concept? I feel like this post would be much more popular if it didn't use such an obscure word in its title
It's well-known to the people reading skepticblog.
Yes.
I had to pause a second to search my mental vocabulary database to make sure it was what I thought it was, but yeah. I wouldn't say it's the most common word used to describe the concept, but I would think that it would be well known.
I had to pause a second to search my mental vocabulary database to make sure it was what I thought it was, but yeah. I wouldn't say it's the most common word used to describe the concept, but I would think that it would be well known.
[deleted]
[deleted]
aka bullshit
[deleted]
[deleted](3)
Personally I think Kurzweil is the poster child for plausible sounding woo. Consider this. Kurzweil thinks he's going to be able to live forever and essentially reconstruct his dead father. He takes 150 (previously 250) supplements and 10 glasses of alkaline water per day. He wrote a nutrition book about avoiding fat, particularly butter, organ meats, and eggs. If you've read anything about nutrition in the last decade, you'll probably be aware these are some of the healthiest foods on the planet and the campaign against dietary fat was always lacking evidence. To be fair, he did backpedal on this point in a later book, but then again why would a computer scientist write two nutrition books in the first place?
His predictions have always seemed rather silly to me too (turing test passed in 17 years) but they are a bit more debatable at least.