Why We Need Science: “I saw it with my own eyes” Is Not Enough

[HuckleB]

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=729

"I recently wrote an article for a community newspaper attempting to explain to scientifically naive readers why testimonial “evidence” is unreliable; unfortunately, they decided not to print it. I considered using it here, but I thought it was too elementary for this audience. I have changed my mind and I am offering it below (with apologies to the majority of our readers), because it seems a few of our readers still don’t “get” why we have to use rigorous science to evaluate claims. People can be fooled, folks. All people. That includes me and it includes you. Richard Feynman said: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person to fool."

Science is the only way to correct for our errors of perception and of attribution. It is the only way to make sure we are not fooling ourselves. Either Science-Based Medicine has not done a good job of explaining these vital facts, or some of our readers are unable or unwilling to understand our explanations.

Our commenters still frequently offer testimonials about how some CAM method “really worked for me.” They fail to understand that they have no basis for claiming that it “worked.” All they can really claim is that they observed an improvement following the treatment. That could indicate a real effect or it could indicate an inaccurate observation or it could indicate a post hoc ergo propter hoc error, a false assumption that temporal correlation meant causation. Such observations are only a starting point: we need to do science to find out what the observations mean.

...

So there are lots of ways we can get it wrong. Luckily, there’s a way we can eventually get it right: by scientific testing. There’s nothing mysterious or complicated about science: it’s just a toolkit of common sense ways to test things. If you believe you’ve lost weight and you step on the scale to test your belief, that’s science. If you think you have a better way to grow carrots and you test your idea by planting two rows side by side, one with the old method and one with the new method, and see which row produces better carrots, that’s science. To test medicines, we can sort a large number of patients into two equal groups and give one group the treatment we’re testing and give the other group an inert placebo, like a sugar pill. If the group that got the active treatment does significantly better, the treatment probably really works.

..."


--------------------------------


A worthy read for anyone, IMO. It's a wee bit long, but it explains a great deal about how we can fall for false claims.

:toast:

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

1. Good "I saw Mother Theresa on my toast with my own eyes" doesn't work anymore.

[HuckleB]

3. Well, I'm not so sure about that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7chup0dZ1s

:toast:

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

4. Funny

:rofl:

[DavidDvorkin]

2. The same applies to religious belief, of course

A subjective experience of the existence and power of a god is meaningless, but it's the standard evidence offered by the typical religious person. "I just know it's so."

[azul]

5. There is a backlash against science and even eggheads

going on today that is not entirely irrational.

I presume that it has something to do with the abuse of science and technology by scientists and militarists and capitalists that have lost their moral compasses.

"If technology is so great and scientists are so smart, then why are we wasting most of our resources and energy killing each other and polluting the planet?" question asks everyone.

Do we really need more military and profit-priority-business science as it is now being produced?

[jeff47]

12. Because scientists have to eat too

"military and profit-priority-business science" pays.

So what we do is take what is discovered by "military and profit-priority-business science", and use it for peaceful means. We used RADAR research to create the microwave oven. Military and NASA funded research for massive improvements in computers, and with further military research created the Internet, which then freed Egypt.

There is no such thing as single-purpose science. We might only recognize one path at the time, but every discovery opens infinite paths.

[Codeine]

39. Yes it is entirely irrational. nt

[midnight]

6. Can someone explain this phrase: Science is the next politics...

I'm not a scientist obviously or I probably would not be asking for help, but I read this recently, and I seemed to embrace this idea knowingly without the good facts of science... I'm looking forward to stem cell therapy for many people I know could use this science..... It is this application of science that has the sunday church people around me wagging some of their disapproval....

[CanSocDem]

7. Speaking of YOUR eyes....

...you must have missed this part:

" If you think you have a better way to grow carrots and you test your idea by planting two rows side by side, one with the old method and one with the new method, and see which row produces better carrots, that’s science."

Or more likely the logic escaped you.

What's a "better carrot"? USDA approved...????

:rofl:

.

[Confusious]

9. No, I don't think he did

The logic escaped you.

To put it in the articles terms, most people who use their own experience as evidence are only planting one row of carrots, and claiming they have the best way of growing carrots.

Planting using the old method and the new method proves, with hard data, that you have the best method.

[HuckleB]

13. +1

[CanSocDem]

15. Again....

" Planting using the old method and the new method proves, with hard data, that you have the best method."


What I'm talking about is a subjective analysis of the results. You and your pals are interested in the methods. You seem to want to qualify the 'method'(planting) while claiming the results are irrelevant.

As I and others have said: We're only interested in the results because, as many have pointed out, the methods used by modern science have become compromised by economics and the nature of a competitive market. Genetics is also relevant but it still comes back to what YOU like in a carrot.

At the risk of sounding rhetorical, who is going to tell you which is the better carrot??

The USDA? You know of course that they prohibit the individual testing of cattle for 'mad cow disease'. Maybe it isn't cost effective or maybe they have other concerns....

A red herring just for you Huckleberry.

.

[HuckleB]

16. Yeah, I know you're trying to spin it so you can ignore science.

Got it.

[Confusious]

17. Again, you're wrong

In science, both the "method" and "results" matter. If you have a "method" with no results, you ain't got shit. If you have "results" without a method, you still have shit.

The woo peddlers have no "method" and the only thing giving results is the persons belief, which as a ratio, works for 1 in ten thousand or less. They then go out and proclaim it's the best thing ever and science is "compromised by economics and the nature of a competitive market."

The "methods" used by modern science have not become compromised. Science is a tool, not a philosophy. People can still have science show them one thing, and go out and proclaim the exact opposite, as in global warming.

BTW, global warming must not be real, since science is "compromised by economics and the nature of a competitive market." Or is it a selective thing with you?

Every branch of science uses a variation of the exact same methods. If one branch is faulty, they are ALL faulty. It's not an either/or thing.

As I see you still don't seem to be able to separate the relationship, the best method of growing a carrot has nothing to do with the carrot someone likes.

The only red herrings are the ones you pull out of your vast ocean of woo.

[CanSocDem]

18. ???

"I you have a "method" with no results, you ain't got shit."


"Science is a tool, not a philosophy."

"BTW, global warming must not be real, since it's "compromised by economics and the nature of a competitive market."


"As I see you still don't seem to be able to separate the relationship, the best method of growing a carrot has nothing to do with the carrot someone likes."


I'm sorry. I don't do stupid.

.

[Confusious]

19. Obviously you do

Since you didn't understand the post.

Thought I made it simple enough. Guess I was wrong.

[CanSocDem]

20. "Guess I was wrong."......Yep!

[HuckleB]

21. Interesting.

Something tells me that you think he was wrong about something other than what he was actually wrong about.

:rofl:

[Confusious]

26. Yep! I made it as simple as I could and you still couldn't understand.

I guess we can agree on something.

[Celebration]

40. it seems simple to me

The problem is that the results are tainted, not the method.

As an example, a drug might be tested, and it turns out that it lowers cholesterol, and heart attacks! That is good, right? So the drug is approved and all the doctors prescribe it. The only is, in the results part of the test, they don't measure life span. Why is that a problem? Because the people taking the drug live no longer than the people who don't take the drug. How could that be? One example would be that the positive effects of the drug (heart health) are equal, or even less than the negative (cancer).

The end points in studies are not dictated by science, but by profit.

Very good point.

[HuckleB]

41. Repeating the same claim has no valid purpose.

It's nothing more than a claim, and a red herring one at that. Yes, there have been scams pushed by failing to follow the ethics of the scientific method. That does not make the method wrong, nor does it make the majority of the science done via good ethics and method wrong. Further, this does not justify the complete scam bs pushed by the alternative/complementary/integrative scam artists.

[Celebration]

42. not a red herring at all

Science is manipulated, not by manipulating the method, but by manipulating the end point. But they still call it science. And the end result is that it isn't any better than anecdotal evidence. It is a dog and pony show to get the official stamp of approval from corrupted agencies. It is fraud. Anecdotal evidence doesn't claim to be anything more than it is--anecdotal evidence. Therefore it is not fraud. It may not be scientific, but it makes no claims other than being anecdotal.

[HuckleB]

43. And again you repeat the same claim, which is nothing but a red herring.

Denying it doesn't change it.

:eyes:

[HuckleB]

14. Using the term logic while offering a classic red herring is quite humorous.

Thanks for the giggle.

[FLAprogressive]

8. Unfortunately that occurs in 100% of threads debunking sCAM "treatments"

[laconicsax]

10. That's because the plural of "anecdote" is believed to be "data." n/t

[Odin2005]

11. This is something the "vaccinations caused my kid's Autism" idiots don't understand.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

[BeFree]

22. Heh

That medicine I took damn near killed me.

It didn't work for me. Maybe I should try it again just to be sure?

[HuckleB]

23. Thanks for the pointless red herring.

:hi:

[BeFree]

24. Heh

Awww, is it that hard to understand?

I used science to determine that the damn drug almost killed me.

Even tho the FDA and maker never claimed as much or made warning. I found out why I was so fucked up by reading works printed by those who were in favor of alternatives. And it saved my life.

But if it will make you feel better, I'll take some more just to prove to you that MY SCIENCE is valid and sometimes they can stick their science up their asses.

OK?

[laconicsax]

25. Let us know when your science accomplishes anything notable.

:eyes:

[xchrom]

27. +1

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeFree]

31. Already have

You didn't read it, I guess?

Well, go read it again.

[laconicsax]

36. My, you really are the center of the universe.

So tell me, in reading things written by quacks, were you really using your "science," or theirs?

[HuckleB]

29. So you don't know what a red herring is?

:shrug:

[BeFree]

30. Ok, I'll play this your stupid game

Seems evident that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid and so you can place me in that category and now that I am here, explain what you mean by red herring and how exactly it is that I acquired the blurb.

Or you'll just blurble some more?

[HuckleB]

32. Are you saying you don't know what a red herring is?

You offered up a great example with your first response to this OP. (Look it up.)

And nice attempt at putting words in my mouth. Try again.

[BeFree]

33. Floor is yours

Go ahead... don't be afraid.

Why do you think that to be a red herring?

This is supposed to be about discussions, not just label throwing. Don't cuss, discuss.

[HuckleB]

34. I'm not going to waste time explaining something so obvious.

If you have nothing to discuss, then I'm done.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

[CanSocDem]

35. Aw c'mon....

...the "red herring" is your thesis. It's all you talk about. I think it is all you've got...

.

[HuckleB]

37. So, when someone offers a red herring, I should pretend it's not a red herring?

:shrug:

[some guy]

38. blah blah blah

I was tempted/challenged, and opted not to resist :D

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=9626804&mesg_id=9626816