dras knowledge

Friday, June 17, 2005

I'm an Educated Academic, and proud of it

I would be proud of the label of "educated academic." For this implies a thirst for knowledge and an understanding that wisdom is not solely derived from within oneself. Plenty of people claim to have answers to life's questions and many are powerful and subtle in convincing you that theirs is the best, and others are wrong.

Only with education and common-sense will you realize that there are elusive influences that determine how healthy you feel, as well as how healthy you are. That selling "wellness" is big business. And that every sales ploy and tactic is used to manipulate individuals and society in order to sell an idea or product.

Through education you can understand the tricks of the trade. You can begin to see how a salesman will tactfully use your own feelings, frustrations and fears in order to win your confidence and make a sale. You can apply common-sense and educated skepticism and understand what opinion is credible, which ideas have real value, and when a charlatan is using generalizations, fallacies of logic, and clever rhetoric in working his way into your wallet.

Become educated and your eyes will be open to a wealth of common-sense knowledge. That the health, mortality and longevity of a society benefiting from a modern understanding of medicine is far better overall than would be without it. That the manufacturing processes of a "top-quality nutritional" is likely substandard or equal to that of most "synthetic drugs." That the definition of "nutritional supplement" versus "drug" was more created by politicians, not chemists, not drug companies, not naturopaths.

Maybe you'll see how salesmen use the psyche to convince you that you are sick, that you are well, and that whatever they are selling is the answer. You'll see that accusations and inferences of conspiracy are used to generate emotion and fear, and how these feelings are used in a sale. You'll learn about how the scientific method is used to gauge the legitimacy of an idea, and how and why medical studies are written the way they are and how we gain understanding from them. Perhaps you'll create your own opinions (rather than just agreeing with someone else) about how drug companies, bureaucracies and politicians truly function to influence health care.

Ultimately, you'll develop a confidence in medicine as an art and a science, and you'll gain the wisdom to make more valuable decisions about your health care.

Thursday, June 02, 2005

Foremost research into Energy Medicine

If you want to read the entire study paper on Energy Medicine, a version is available at:> http://tillerfoundation.com/ToGenExpPart1.pdf >

I tried to read this. I'd have to reread it several more times in order piece together and picture how or what they actually did during all this time, at all these different locations, and why. I don't think this would be considered a shining example of a randomized controlled trial. Unless that means to control for some random variables and to collect some random data at random.

It seemed if measurements didn't conform to expectations, it was called a"perturbation," "information entanglement" and"experimenter effect" so they would change locations, or some other study protocol and move on. I guess when you have all this artefact, it's difficult to measure the... er.. uh.. nevermind.

The paper has an air of scientific credibility about it and some pretty graphs denoting some suggested indisputable scientific findings that should make you feel good about continuing to fund the research.

I kept picturing Bill Murray's character in Ghostbusters: "We're scientists, ma'am." Or, the Queen's Court in Alice in Wonderland and the Hare screaming "highly significant!"

Science really is a popularity contest

Found in the Washington Post Letters to the Editor:> >
Leave Science to the Scientists> Saturday, May 21, 2005; Page A17--snip-->
"The real issue is that unlike religion, politics and law, science is not a popularity contest of ideas. Scientists seek the best explanation for data, not the story that makes the most people happy. That is why science has been spectacularly successful at explaining the physical realities of the universe, and theology has been spectacularly unsuccessful at the task."

....

I argue that ultimately, science is a popularity contest. A scientist can present a theory or propose something as fact, but it is meaningless unless the audience (peers/society/funders) accepts it as valid.

We really cannot do as the letter says and "leave science to the scientists" when, given a single data set, different scientists will come up with different theories and predict different phenomena. Let's not substitute a scientist for the role that shamans, royalty or war generals had in ancient civilizations.

Scientists do "seek the best explanation for data." However, "best" is a subjective term. Your physicists and mathematicians will likely use logic to explaindata. They use randomized controlled trials (RCT's) to eliminate human variables and predict phenomena. Then, there are other scientists who won't put much emphasis on RCT's. They suggest that since science is done by and for humans, trying to remove the human variable from science is not only impossible but renders the end product less valuable. They see science more as a social process, than a prediction of nature.

So, what do we have? Science Wars! (Episode III, Revenge of the Stiff)

There is a purist version of science, that's shared by most physicists, mathematicians, evidence based medicine (EBM) advocates, etc. Many proponents of so-called complimentary and alternative medicine (sCAM) see science from a relativistic, or social science point of view. Many are not all about deceit or fraud as is often characterized. They are American Chiropractic Association (ACA) members, Harvard medical school professors, social anthropologists(?), etc.

There is much at stake for both types of scientist in convincing us (society) of their version of science, especially in medicine or healthcare. We purists have the better influence over those with lots of money; those that need to predict a return on an investment. Government, third-party payors, investors, etc. understand math, so they understand, and often side with EBM.

Relativists in the sCAM camp are usually better at influencing the common man. Understanding science as a social process, their appeal is better among the masses.

Science war battles are seldom openly fought among scientists. (The Sokal Hoax was an interesting exception.) They are fought among bureaucracies, politicians, congressmen, courtrooms, and the press. Purist tactics are to use logic, math, and objective reason.

Relativists typically counter purist "logic" two ways. One is to lump both perspectives of science together under the recognized umbrella of "science". Thus, by claiming that a different interpretation of data is equally valuable, they hope to gain the same legitimacy and respect afforded to the tried-and-true theories of the purists. The second tactic is to point out the flaws in 'pure' science, and thus weaken the ascendancy of the purist's logic base.

The shortcoming of the purists is that they're not able to eliminate, or even adequately calculate or agree upon the human factor of influence in their analysis'. They must predict a probability when society demands the definitive. The bane of the relativists is that their scientific views or conclusions can't maintain the same kind of intellectual or mathematical integrity as that presented by purists.

Who will win the Science War? Purists predict that they will. To the opposit camp, it's all relative.

-dras