Shermer!
Skeptic magazine editor Michael Shermer (The guy from the Baloney Detection Kit video) lays down the skeptical, scientific approach in this Scientific American article:
The principle of positive evidence applies to all claims. Skeptics are from Missouri, the Show-Me state. Show me a Sasquatch body. Show me the archaeological artifacts from ( Read more... )
The principle of positive evidence applies to all claims. Skeptics are from Missouri, the Show-Me state. Show me a Sasquatch body. Show me the archaeological artifacts from ( Read more... )
I remain a critic of homeopathy, simply because the study abstract you cited ended with this wonderful little ditty:
We are however unable to explain our findings and are reporting them to encourage others to investigate this phenomenon.
Did the researchers find something? Yes. Do they know what they found? Nope. They have discovered not "empirical evidence," but as they openly admit an anomaly they cannot explain. As you assert, these researchers may well have discovered the opening clues into what may in the future become important science; we don't know what will happen. What they lack today is a theory that ties the anomaly to the world around them.
Homeopathy, however, is trotted about as a theory, fully fleshed with proponents and practitioners spouting the same dogmatic reasoning Benevenist pioneered, one based on poorly-defined "essences" and probably driven by a mistrust in conventional medicine. Sadly, their "theory" lacks enough specific, independently testable assertions to become something other than the target of skeptics . . . and, in the saddest cut of all, a filler of body bags.
We all have our pet ideas that cannot be proven, each and every one of us. A great example can be found in the first link you gave:
Led by a small, but highly aggressive group of fundamentalist pseudoskeptics such as . . . science writer and magician Martin Gardner and magician James Randi, CSICOP sees science not as a dispassionate, objective search for the truth, whatever it might be, but as holy war of the ideology of materialism against "a rising tide of irrationality, superstition and nonsense". (sic)
In a speech given at TAM, though, Randi himself revealed that Martin Gardner considers himself a "deist," someone who feels the presence and importance of some supernatural being. He can't prove it, no; but just harboring such an untestable concept betrays him not as a crusading materialist, but as human. We are all in some way leather-clad vegetarians.
Do some skeptics boorishly flaunt their dismissals of the untestable? Sure. So some on the other side of many, many fences equally openly dismiss the conventional? Of course.
But when it comes down to something as important as medical treatment, give me what Shermer's having.
Reply
An anomaly IS empirical evidence. In fact, it is the very best kind of empirical evidence. It is the kind that drives our understanding of nature forward. If it hadn't been for anomalies- pieces of empirical evidence that were inexplicable by theory - we would neither have relativity nor quantum mechanics. In many instances, anomalies had to wait decades for a theoretical explanation!
In my opinion, one of the most pernicious misunderstandings in modern science is the notion that "theory overrides evidence" - that if evidence is discovered that is not explained by any theory, or even contradicted by theory, then the theory wins and the evidence must be discarded. But that's just not how real natural science works. Observation is primary, and if the observation contradicts theories, then the theories have to go.
You are of course correct that eventually , there has to be a theory. But the evidence requires theory ideology creates a catch-22 for anomalous observation.. scientific credibility must precede attempts at replication, and replication is a precondition for scientific credibility. Research can only take place when the phenomenon has already been proven to exist.
Scientific discovery simply can't take place if its end result has to exist already before it can be undertaken in the first place.
Reply
And here I must disagree, conditionally.
An anomaly IS empirical evidence.
Yes; but what does any given researcher do with it? That's the real rub. For example, Gould had several essays regarding the near futility of making random observations without considering theory beforehand. One simply doesn't know what one is trying to prove or disprove without some overarching concept.
(One of my favorite examples was Leonardo da Vinci's natural observations that disproved the biblical creation, but failed to support his pet theory regarding what could be called the Living Earth. Because his theory was never supported, he never bothered to incorporate those observations, and let them stay scattered as marginal notations in four separate notebooks.)
Yes, one must consider the anomalies. But one cannot allow the anomalies to dictate exceptions beyond the effectiveness of any given working theory. That is, if the existing theory "works" -- if the theory is sound enough to provide predictions and can be therefore used to develop new technologies -- then the theory really does trump the anomalies, at least until a new theory can be fashioned to incorporate the unexplained observations. Think of anomalies as unexplained content in radio signals. Until that content can be deciphered or properly interpreted, it remains static, just noise.
Einstein is a perfect example. Until he came along, Newton and Leibniz pretty much dictated how one mathematically interacts with the world. As I understand it, though, Einstein's contributions did not obviate Newton's, but only clarified those gaps Newton had neither the observations nor the math to fill.
I'm sure that more folks will replicate and expand on the histamine study you cited. It's inevitable. And with enough observations, perhaps someone will come up with a theory that -- most importantly -- makes use of those observations without contradicting the body of accepted evidence regarding the efficacy of drugs.
Until that time, though, no way in hell am I going to bet my life on treatments unsupported by sound theory and testing, as many -- if not most -- homeopaths currently provide.
Reply
As a logical person I fully understand that a histamine study doesn't prove homeopathic remedies work. That's a huge logical jump. At best, it proves that there is a chance that they may work.
Nevertheless, I regularly use homeopathic remedies, and that's because the overall cost-risk ratio makes sense to me.
For example, homeopaths recommend Aconite 30c as a major first line of defense for cold and flus. Taken within the first 24 hours of the onset of symptoms, it's said to have a major positive effect on the severity of symptoms and may even abort the infection altogether.
Years ago I bought an Aconite 30c from a health food store. It cost me $6. My personal experience in taking this is that the homeopaths are essentially accurate and that the remedy has the claimed effect. This proves nothing of course, since I can't split myself into two and observe how the other half would do without the remedy. But the remedy was dirt cheap and I'm still on the same bottle! It will probably last me another 10 years.
So I'm paid an infinitesimally small price for a remedy that MAY have a major health benefit to me, and the risk is zero, because worst case, it's just a sugar pill. I'm not risking my life on it because if the infection gets worse, I will still seek treatment for it. So why wouldn't I do this?
Reply
For you, perhaps not. Your example specifically notes that "if the infection gets worse, (you) will still seek treatment for it." For anyone following that reasoning -- homeopathy for the minor afflictions, allopathy when the afflictions turn serious -- true, there seems to be little risk.
Sadly, as the What's the Harm site proves, not everyone can be as practical. Not everyone knows when to say when. And really, when the homeopathic providers make such bold claims about their mostly-water remedies, who can blame these patients for continuing their "treatments?" Therefore, for the sake of accuracy, I would amend your opening statement to:
"But homeopathy might not be about betting your life!!"
Reply
Leave a comment