| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 785.1 | More things in heaven and on Earth... | PBSVAX::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Fri Jul 01 1988 15:05 | 18 |
| I'm looking forward to reading this article.
The editors have overlooked another case where a scientific journal
published a disbelieved article with an editorial warning -- when
Nature published Puthoff and Targ's experiments with Uri Geller.
This is, I should add, far from a blow against logic, and a triumph
for solipsism (the philosophy of personally created reality) -- just
the contrary. It shows that the application of logical principles
of experimental design can lead to unexpected results -- contrary
to those that the skeptical experimenters would have chosen to create.
What it also shows is that the universe is ever so much richer than
our current level of understanding, and that those who (illogically)
believe that there current understanding encompasses even that
fraction of reality that is ordinary experience are bound to be
surprised.
Topher
|
| 785.2 | | COOKIE::WAHL | Dave @ Mr. Wizard's Mountain Chalet | Fri Jul 01 1988 19:14 | 32 |
| > Nature is one of the two most prominent and respected journals
> of science. Its editors could not recall a similar case in scientific
> publishing of deliberate publication of an article that is disbelieved
> together with a warning to readers.
A slightly naive statement. _Nature_ is a popular journal, but it's stature
isn't as significant as the procedures it uses to referee papers. Either this
paper was refereed or it wasn't, and either the results were checked out or
they weren't.
*Every* paper published in a refereed journal is an invitation for discussion
and dissent on technical grounds. The whole purpose of journal literature is
to encourage communication on matters which are still subjects of research and
disagreement.
> Newmark said the result of the experiments was particularly
> objectionable because it tends symbolically to support homeopathy-
> the discredited practice of using herbs and oils "attuned" to organs
> in order to cure ailments in them. Prominent in homeopathy are
> dilution and vigorous shaking of the remedy.
"The evidence is objectionable because I disagree with its implication."
I wish we had learned some things from Galileo.
> The authors said that shaking the solution for 10 seconds was
> essential; failure to shake it resulted in a failed experiment.
What is "shaking", and what are the effects of being shaken? Surely some
quick investigations can determine the chemical changes which take place
after shaking the substance.
Dave
|
| 785.3 | Ramblings. | PBSVAX::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Fri Jul 01 1988 20:29 | 80 |
| re: .2 (Dave)
> _Nature_ is a popular journal, but it's stature isn't as
> significant as the procedures it uses to referee papers. Either
> this paper was refereed or it wasn't, and either the results were
> checked out our they weren't.
_Nature_ is more than simply "popular" it is one of the two most
*respected* and *prestigious* truely interdisciplinary journals
in the world (the other being Science, the journal of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science). It has gotten that
reputation by its rigor in its editorialship, including its
refereeing procedures. Because of their prestige they can call
on the very top people in virtually any field to do their refereeing.
If something has been published in Nature -- outside the commentary
and letters section -- then it has gone through as rigorous a
refereeing process as for any more specialized journal. That would
go triple for a report like this which makes the editors so
uncomfortable.
> I wish we had learned some things from Galileo.
To play Devil's Advocate a bit -- science exists within a social
context. Scientists must be aware of the consequences of their
research. Every experiment carries the risk of false negatives
or false positives. The normal chains of communication are
predicated on a particular (generally quite small) cost associated
with a false result. When there is a large social cost associated
with publishing a false result then it behooves scientists to take
extra precautions against such publication -- to decrease the
risk. If it is believed that the publication of these results --
particularly in so accessible a forum as Nature -- is likely to
lead to increased prestige to a form of medical treatment (and
thus to discourage some people from seeking what is believed to
be more beneficial treatment) *out of proportion to what is
actually justified by the results* then a demand for extra scrutiney
is proper.
Homeopathy is based on a whole series of beliefs not shared by the
current dominant medical consensus. The particular belief tested
here is one of those beliefs, but only one. If this research is
found to be replicatable than that belief will have been justified,
but homeopathy will not yet have been. There will be some, however,
who will look at this single test as a justification for the whole
of homeopathy without either waiting for the necessary replication
or understanding the limits of what has been found even if taken
at face value.
> What is "shaking", and what are the effects of being shaken?
As I understand it, just what it sounds like. Before administration
the container holding the solution is vigorously agitated for 10
seconds.
The main effect is apparently that "it" works then.
> Surely some quick investigations can determine the chemical changes
> which take place after shaking the substance.
I'm sure they are studying that. But if a quick investigation yielded
something, they would have reported it. Even distilled water is
an amazingly complex substance -- full of various ions, disolved
gasses, local area structure, thermal gradiants etc. If the water
isn't distilled, things get even more complex. The whole polywater
incident is hardly ancient history, although analytic methods are
considerably better now then then.
It will be interesting to see what relation, if any, the analysis
of the super-diluted shaken solutions have to the analysis of water
samples which have had "healing energy" directed into them.
>>
Nature usually arrives at the DEC Hudson library 5 days after the
publication date. Figuring 6 days because of the 4th, I should
see a copy of this article on Wednesday. I'll report anything of
significance I notice.
Topher
|
| 785.4 | | COOKIE::WAHL | Dave @ Mr. Wizard's Mountain Chalet | Sat Jul 02 1988 01:00 | 25 |
| My ramblings spawned from Topher's ramblings in .-1
I'm familiar with _Nature_ and used to read it regularly.
Either the work was done with scrupulous respect for the scientific method,
or it wasn't. Either proper controls were exercised, or they weren't.
Either the result is repeatable, or it's not. If the answer to any of those
questions is negative, then I think the work should not be published until
the authors can do the experiments under the proper conditions and the
referees are satisfied that it's nature at work and not trickery.
This business of the editors claiming limited confidence in the science
done and then permitting publication seems to me to be nonsense. I had the
same problem with the Geller article (which I read).
I should have clarified my reference to Galileo. I agree with Topher
that scientists need to be sensitive to the non-scientific implications of
their work. That's why scrupulous adherence to the scientific method is
so important. Galileo showed that opinion and prestige, even when the
opinion is dogmatic and the prestige is sacred, are irrelevant in the face
of repeatable, controlled, and carefully bounded results. If the editors of
_Nature_ don't have confidence in the work, then all they are doing is adding
to the publicity about controversial phenomena rather than advancing the
science which will eventually settle the controversy.
Dave
|
| 785.5 | Reply to .0 | NEXUS::MORGAN | Human Reality Engineering, Inc. | Sat Jul 02 1988 21:30 | 21 |
| > If taken at face value, the research shows that the immune system's
> antibodies can work even when the solution they are in is so diluted
> that no antibody molecules are left in it.
> There is no known physical basis for such action-it would mean
> there is some bizarre way that the solution could "remember" the
> presence of the antibody molecules and act as if they were still
> there.
So what is the problem? What if the parts per million or billion
are so small that they can't be detected or measured? And in shaking
it up the residual molecules travel around so much that for practical
reasons they appear greater in number.
What is the link to homeopothy? What does homeopothy do with
antibodies? My impression is that homeopothy deals with healing
herbs, tonics, poltrices, exercises, massages, etc. How does a
homeopothist create an antibody?
Signed:
Confused by Nature
|
| 785.6 | If You Would Elaborate . . . | CACIQE::ESPOSITO | | Mon Jul 04 1988 04:19 | 13 |
| Re: .0
". . . that each person is entirely responsible for the reality in
which they exist."
I thought your statement and my inquiry might perhaps sit better in the
Philosophy conference? Nevertheless, I'd be very interested in
understanding your ideas and specifically how you feel this remarkable
phenomena substantiates and relates to your "individual reality"
beliefs?
- Richard
|
| 785.7 | | PBSVAX::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Tue Jul 05 1988 14:58 | 32 |
| RE: .5 (Confused by Nature)
A number of different beliefs and practices are now called by their
practitioners and others homeopathy. Originally, however, it refered
to a quite specific, albeit complex, system of treating disease.
The basic practice is one of exposing a person to a small quantity
of a substance to set up a protective reaction. So far it sounds
like standard "allopathic" immunization.
The difference lies principally in two things. First it is the
belief of homeopaths that the more dilute the solution used, the
more potent. It is this that the experiment was designed to test.
Specifically, as is common practice in homeopathy, the solution
used was so dilute that it is statistically highly unlikely that
even one molecule of the original substance was in it.
The other difference has to do with a specific method of diagnosis
which is used for deciding what dilute solutions are to be used
when it isn't obvious (e.g., if you are allergic to bee stings
it is obvious what to use, but if you suffer from backaches what
is to be done?). This method of diagnosis is arbitrary and
nonsensical from the "allopathic" viewpoint (allopathy is the term
coined, I believe, by the founder of homeopathy -- whose name escapes
me -- to describe conventional medicine).
Most of the herbs, tonics, etc. are holistic adjuncts to the basic
homeopathic practice, or are being used by people who describe
themselves as homeopaths but do not follow the medical practices
for which the term was originally coined.
Topher
|
| 785.8 | A definition or two | LEDS::BATES | | Tue Jul 05 1988 18:04 | 17 |
|
Just a bit of etymology...
The word homeopathy derives from the Greek term homos, meaning like
or similar, and -pathos, meaning suffering or disease. In homeopathy,
substances which would produce the symptoms of a disease in healthy
people are used in much diluted form in its treatment.
Allopathy derives from the Greek prefix allos, meaning other or
different, and the word suggests that in allopathic medicine the
substances used to cure a disease are not those that would cause
it ... although I've never quite understood how that accounts for
the existence of certain vaccines...
Gloria
|
| 785.9 | Well, no one is passing out pass/fail results. | WRO8A::GUEST_TMP | Going HOME--as an Adventurer | Wed Jul 06 1988 04:42 | 42 |
| re: Topher
While I can thank you for your insights and notations
and explanations about this topic, I would like to simultaneously
point out an "error" (from my perspective.) The error is in what
you consider to be "creating your own reality." As I have expressed
on at least a couple of occasions in a couple of topics, creating
your own reality does not *necessarily* mean that whatever you
THINK, will manifest. Why not? Because the thought that "guides"
manifestation comes from FEELING, not thinking.
"YOU ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU want, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT YOU ask
for." (Lazaris)
While the words "creating your own reality" are simple enough, the
concepts involved are highly interwoven and intricate. In the case
of this note, *I* [Frederick] am getting what *I* want in support
of my "positive" reality creation. The scientists involved with
the experiment are getting what they *don't* want, or, are getting
a "negative" reality creation (from their standpoint.) Similar to
everything in life where sometimes we get "nice" things and sometimes
we get "not-so-nice" things. It doesn't take much to notice that most
(as in the overwhelming majority) of the people do not *ASK* for the pain,
hurt, etc. that they "get." So clearly if creating your own reality
is true, just uttering the words (for whatever one wants) isn't enough.
As I have pointed out before and again above, when you couple
impeccable thought with clear emotion, then you will manifest that
thought. If the feeling is unclear, then you manifest the unclear
feeling. Let me say it yet another way...what one *may* be looking
for is frustration, anger, self-pity (via victimhood or martyrhood,
perhaps,) etc. and THAT is what will manifest. I think that this
particular experiment shows exactly that. If it is true that the
scientists "are disappointed," then disappointment is the emotion
that was manifested and that was the reality that they were looking
for...it does not matter that they say otherwise (in terms of what
they were looking for.)
So, the point is that, yes, for me it very definitely indicates
a sort of "proof" for creating my own reality because it is this
kind of proof that I am actively seeking in my reality. If in
someone else's reality this isn't proof, then they have something
else to deal with. "Allow for the miracles that can be there."
Frederick
|
| 785.10 | Off the topic a bit. | WRO8A::GUEST_TMP | Going HOME--as an Adventurer | Wed Jul 06 1988 05:02 | 31 |
| re: .6 (Richard)
See my former note, in case you haven't, for the answer to one
of your questions. To your point about Philosophy, for me this
is somewhat a gray area since metaphysics is both a branch of
philosophy but also a part of psychic phenomena. My original
entries in DEJAVU were in note 316. From there I moved to note
358 and more-or-less made that note a discussion (mostly via
reporting, from notes I have) on "creating your own reality" or
data as given by Lazaris. Let me make it clear that Lazaris is
not the first to say this, but he does a really great job in
giving the supporting arguments necessary for upholding this
belief. Personally, the premise is clear and supported for me.
Since it is, it automatically rejects any "need" for worship.
Why? Since the seat of consciousness in all that is Frederick
lies within me, what would I have to worship? Worship would
be turning my power over to something besides myself and that is
not usually prudent, since I am the one sitting in the driver's
seat, so to speak. Anyway, if you are truly interested in my views,
please read those notes (and they can be somewhat dogmatic, in
the manner in which I have presented them...also, it may be too
much to ask since they can also be ponderous and weighty) so that
I don't have to repeat what I have already stated. If you wish
to "argue" a point, let me know what the point is. Either I
will attempt to explain it or reexplain it or I will choose to
not "argue" at all.
Happy reading, bonhomme Richard.
Frederick
|
| 785.11 | Alternatives to logic #1: Assuming the conclusion | PBSVAX::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Wed Jul 06 1988 14:43 | 8 |
| RE: .9 (Frederick)
In other words whatever anyone gets can be assumed to be what they
*really* wanted, and so can be taken as evidence for CYR. If the
scienctists had gotten negative results, would you also have taken
that for evidence of CYR?
Topher
|
| 785.12 | Sounds simple...too simple? | WRO8A::GUEST_TMP | Going HOME--as an Adventurer | Wed Jul 06 1988 23:37 | 22 |
| re: -.1
In a word, yes. Again, (from previous entries,) the future
creates the present, against the backdrop of the past. The only
true moment is the "now" moment. How do you wish to color the
now? The reality is being created instant by instant. As I wrote
in a reply a few weeks ago, the "end" results produce the "means".
Or, to put it yet another way (of infinite possible ways to put
it) the causal plane exists (outside of time) with all possible
causes and effects available...it is us on this physical plane
who put order into the non-ordered (random) nature of the "universe."
What that means is that we "find" or "create" the effects FIRST,
then find the causes, excuses, reasons AFTERWARD. So, back to your
statement, YES, whatever the results are are a result of having
created that particular reality (obviously.) As Lazaris has put
it, "God/Goddess/All-That-Is only says 'YES!'" Can I be rich?
"YES!" Can I kill people? "YES!" Can I have a harem? "YES!"
Etc., etc., etc. And we spend how ever many lifetimes it takes
to get the "causes" we seek.
Frederick
|
| 785.13 | Thought you should see this... | NRADM::BERNIER | REAPING THE HARVEST | Mon Aug 08 1988 17:00 | 14 |
|
Just found this in today's VOGON News Service under the Science,
Technology, Medicine, and Nature section.
" Claims by University of S Paris researchers that led by Jacques
Benveniste that homeopathic medicine using a solution of antibodies,
diluted and shaken until a dilution which could not contain
a single molecule of antibody, could still evoke an immune reponse,
were found not to be reproducible by a team set up by the scientific
journal Nature. "
Gil
|
| 785.14 | A bit premature. | PBSVAX::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Mon Aug 08 1988 17:16 | 9 |
| I've read the article in Nature which makes this claim. I'm still
thinking about it. To some extent in quite clearly follows the
"debunker's maxim" that "There is no evidence clean enough to
support a truely unorthodox claim; there is no evidence too sloppy
to be used to reject such a claim"; but I have not decided yet how
badly contaminated with that attitude the counter-claims are. I'll
get back to you when I'm sure what I think about it.
Topher
|
| 785.15 | Grasping the truth | AITG::PARMENTER | Laws don't change by obeying them | Tue Aug 09 1988 16:17 | 22 |
| My distrust of Homeopathy is pretty much based on some very curious
claims made by its followers. The minute doses are a particular
poser, because as Topher pointed out, the chance of even a single
molecule of the remedy being present in the solution is unlikely.
Homeopathic remdies are initially mixed as a 10% solution, 90% of
which is thrown away an the remaining portion diluted again to 10%.
This is done 60 times, resulting in a dossage that is nonexistant.
You would be more likely to geta drop of medicine if you poured
it into the atlantic ocean, stirred it up and took a sip.
The famous "experiment" which has the Homeopathic community in a
tizzy, even if authentic, does not seem to match the degree of
dilution that Homeopaths practice.
Another problem I have with Homeopathy is that some of the remedies
themselves are well, a bit silly, such as the tears of young girl,
or chalk being prescribed for gout.
References: The New Apocrypha, John Sladek
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, Martin Gardner
- Dan
|
| 785.16 | Gasping for the truth. | PBSVAX::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Fri Aug 12 1988 19:18 | 37 |
| RE: .15 (Dan)
> The famous "experiment" which has the Homeopathic community in
> a tizzy, even if authentic, does not seem to match the degree
> of dilution that Homeopaths practice.
(BTW why the "'s around experiment, whether the experiment is well
performed or not, it is an experiment. Also the conventional
medical, scientific and immunological communities seem to be in
*much* more of a tizzy over it than the homeopaths).
The maximum dilution used in the experiment was 10^120. The
procedure you described would produce a dilution of 10^60. The
experimental dilutions were thus equivalent to those which would
be produced by taking the result of the procedure you describe
and applying it all over. However, I believe the experimental
protocol actually produced the dilution by performing only 60
dilution steps, but using 5% rather than 10% at each step.
> Another problem I have with Homeopathy is that some of the remedies
> themselves are well, a bit silly ...
I don't comment from any particular knowledge of homeopathics, but
have to point out that it is a common tactic of "debunkers" to
represent -- explicitly or implicitly -- the beliefs of the very least
credible individuals as typical or even the most credible of a
group as a whole. I don't know how many times I have been challenged
as a parapsychologist to justified unscientific statements by
the Backster's and Geller's of the world. Martin Gardner is rather
well known for this tactic.
To see how silly it is, all we have to do is remember that many
homeopaths are MDs. Therefore, we can say with equal honesty that
it is *MDs* who use the tears of a young girl as a remedy, and
thus we should reject the entire medical establishement.
Topher
|
| 785.17 | The common factor... | AITG::PARMENTER | Laws don't change by obeying them | Fri Aug 19 1988 16:28 | 32 |
| MArtin Gardner can be unnecessarily harsh at times. For a much more
humorous and humane look at pseudoscience, read THE NEW APOCRYPHA
by John Sladek. He doesn't only debunk, he tries to account for
why people accept irrational ideas. One of his best points is that
"quacks" are effective because they are willing to listen to
hypochondriacs when "serious" medical practitioners won't. If the
value of quackery or traditional medicine is purely to put the mind
of the patient at ease, then perhaps there is some good to it.
Actually, a lot of the current Homeopathy hoopla has gotten me
thinking. I read somewhere or other that the success rate of
non-traditional healing methods are about as high as for traditional
approaches.
Now take Psychiatry, mental health, therapy and that sort of thing.
I believe very firmly that there are good, caring, healing people
working in those professions. I also believe that there are
astrologers, tarot readers, palm-readers, aura-readers etc. who
are also good, caring healing people. There are bad therapists and
there are bad spiritual healers. I believe that some people, by
natural gifts, skills and talent are capable of being truly helpful,
theraputic people, regardless of what medium they happen to use.
If someone is able to understand people's problems by referring
to Freud or tossing the I-Ching, what is most important is the helping.
I don't know if I'm making this clear or not, but my idea is that
the quality that makes a good homeopathic healer is the same quality
that makes a good surgeon. The quality that makes a good astrologer
is present in the best psychiatrists or priest. A person could
be a minister or a witch doctor and still have that quality.
- Dan (atheist and skeptic)
|
| 785.18 | Sounds good to me. | USAT05::KASPER | You'll see it when you believe it. | Fri Aug 19 1988 16:38 | 6 |
| re: .17
It makes good sense to me. And I think that the idea of caring
and compassion is a prerequisite to any kind of healing.
Terry
|
| 785.19 | Alternatives help prevent "suicides" | WRO8A::WARDFR | Going HOME--as an Adventurer | Fri Aug 19 1988 17:45 | 15 |
| re: .17
I agree. And I also agree with Terry's comment (.18.)
It has been stated [and I think most of you can guess who
by] (and I entered this comment many months ago both here and
in the Holistics notesfiles) that a good healer resonates high
(you could use quotes around that such as "healer" "resonates"
"high" to substitute other words) and that in "healing" they
bring the resonance of the one to be healed up to their level
as opposed to dropping down to the level of that person. What is
implied with this is that whatever the method used--it is *not* as
important as the belief (or manner used) behind it is.
Frederick
|
| 785.20 | Instances of the same phenomenon... | AITG::PARMENTER | Laws don't change by obeying them | Fri Aug 19 1988 18:23 | 5 |
| I guess I agree with that idea, the evidence for it is too
overwhelming, with ministers, psychics, doctors and even just that
person you know who is "a good listener".
- Dan
|
| 785.21 | More Info | CIMNET::PIERSON | Milwaukee Road Track Inspector | Mon Sep 19 1988 12:37 | 39 |
| re .14 (and previous...)
The September 88 issue of Scientific American, in the Science and
the Citizen section, has an update on the experiment, and some
further evaluation. To my (conventionally oriented...) mind, it
appears that there are substantial questions about the results.
Briefly:
Due to the contoversy over the initial report, Nature requested
that an observer team watch several runs of the procedure. The
team included Luis Alvarez, James "The Amazing" Randi, and several
other interdisciplinary members. A total of seven runs through the
dilution sequence were performed for the observers.
During the first three, all present knew which samples could be
expected to exhibit activity, IF the high dilution anomoly was true.
In these three runs, the activity appeared. The effect was observed
to occur.
In the fourth run, the persons doing the determination did not know,
though the observers, and some undefined "others" did. The effect
was observed "weakly".
In the last three runs, Randi personally coded the samples, and
was the only one who knew which ones would be active, _if_ the
proposed effect was valid. No effect was observed.
I assume that Randi's marking and corelation were verified after
the fact. Other pieces of info: During the original runs, the effect
was not reproducible, seemed to vary with the sample used, and the
operator performing the determination. Based on the observed runs,
Nature has published what seems to be a retraction.
This seems to raise serious questions, however other labs have
repeated the dilution runs, and gotten (apparent) positive results.
This, for me, leaves the question open.
thanks
dave pierson
(still catching up...)
|
| 785.22 | All in the mind = all in the test-tube ? | FNYHUB::PELLATT | Just what is it with Turkey ? | Mon Sep 19 1988 16:15 | 6 |
| Re .21
Interesting. Sounds like they made a case for the creation of consensus
reality ( bet that never makes it into Nature though (8^) )...
Dave
|