|
U-Know! Forum » House of Commons Committee advises end to NHS funding of homeopathy |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 5531 posts |
Feb 24, 2010, 21:03
|
||
|
"Gonna let you have this last word on this one Nigel as i fear this could go on and on and on(and on)!" Well it would certainly go on for as long as someone kept asking me the taxpayer to finance something unproven! ;)
|
|||
Moon Cat 7264 posts |
Feb 24, 2010, 21:33
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: "Gonna let you have this last word on this one Nigel as i fear this could go on and on and on(and on)!" Well it would certainly go on for as long as someone kept asking me the taxpayer to finance something unproven! ;) You're not up for tax money invested into, say, theoretical particle physics or any other similar researches that involve seeking proofs for theories and hypothoses then?
|
|||
|
nigelswift 5531 posts |
Feb 24, 2010, 23:44
|
||
|
Moon Cat wrote: You're not up for tax money invested into, say, theoretical particle physics or any other similar researches that involve seeking proofs for theories and hypothoses then? Ah well, you have me there I suppose. I might even put money into a voyage to see if there were lands to the West of Ireland... But water with a memory...?! Nah, being the person that pays gives you certain rights don't you think?
|
|||
stray 1630 posts |
Edited Feb 25, 2010, 00:06
Feb 25, 2010, 00:01
|
||
|
Its a nonsense comparison though really mooncat, theoretical physics does after all have mathematical proofs. Edit : You know, you do really have to put in some serious fucking effort to get your research funded. Unlike Homeopathy it seems where the plural of anecdote seems to be fact.
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 7264 posts |
Feb 25, 2010, 00:28
|
||
|
stray wrote: Its a nonsense comparison though really mooncat, theoretical physics does after all have mathematical proofs. Edit : You know, you do really have to put in some serious fucking effort to get your research funded. Unlike Homeopathy it seems where the plural of anecdote seems to be fact. Yes, I was just playing devils advocate with that really. Although, it might be argued that mathmatical proofs are all well and good until, as seems possible, things 'down' there keep getting weirder and weirder. I've read that some physicists have admited the possibilty that our definitions of how things work may well be redundant if/when we find out the quantum world is even madder than we might allow for. I quite like those possibilities though.
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 7264 posts |
Edited Feb 25, 2010, 00:47
Feb 25, 2010, 00:46
|
||
|
Just wondering. I can save some dosh on the West of Ireland thing anyway. Just have a look on maps where it says "Here be dragons", that should sort it. Hmmm. Well proof or not, it does seem that the benefit(s) that some (quite a lot actually) people get from homeopathy is genuine, even if the 'science' is not and I would think that's a better and worthier investment than a lot of things the Govt. chucks money at these days. Anyhoo, it's an advisory committee so it'll probably be totally ignored regardless. ;^)
|
|||
|
stray 1630 posts |
Edited Feb 25, 2010, 01:51
Feb 25, 2010, 01:23
|
||
|
Moon Cat wrote: stray wrote: Its a nonsense comparison though really mooncat, theoretical physics does after all have mathematical proofs. Edit : You know, you do really have to put in some serious fucking effort to get your research funded. Unlike Homeopathy it seems where the plural of anecdote seems to be fact. Yes, I was just playing devils advocate with that really. Although, it might be argued that mathmatical proofs are all well and good until, as seems possible, things 'down' there keep getting weirder and weirder. I've read that some physicists have admited the possibilty that our definitions of how things work may well be redundant if/when we find out the quantum world is even madder than we might allow for. I quite like those possibilities though. Erm... all that does not distract from the fact that the methods used have produced solid reproducible results in different fields. The methods have developed from a long tradition that have produced traceable, proveable results and are internally consistent. Remember dude, this kind of mathematical analysis and modelling of non-deterministic, non-linear and even recursively adaptive datasets was my thing for too many years. I don't actually make shit up everytime I approach a dataset or a problem. My thing was looking at data, the math used to analyse it, and say what assumptions it is 'safe' to draw from the method you are using. I did this by pulling from a long tradition of proven mathematical approaches. Yeah, of course we can be 'wrong' but ffs a hell of a lot more thought, and an awful lot of rigid balances and checks are performed than simply collecting peoples anecdotes. We also say 'A positive correlation is not a proven truth' for example (er.. or that could just be me). There may well be 'something going on' with Homeopathy, I'm willing to shrug and accept that, but that does not mean we have to be funding it when our standards in other fields are.. well, we actually have standards in other fields. I'm really surprised to discover that UK medicine and/or the NHS (maybe NICE) don't. Funding has to be just as consistent in how you get it as our science has to be consistent in it's research. Seen ? Or do we want to be shovelling shitloads of cash at some fruitloop, with fuck all qualifications or knowledge of physics, who 'thinks' he can build a perpetual motion machine harnessing zero point energy in his shed ? Actually don't answer that, you'll probably say yes. This is the last time I intend to get sucked into a discussion relating to what sicence does, how maths work etc, etc with people with absolutely no grasp of what work is done or how. I love you mate, but damn this anti-science, psuedo philosophical anti-intellectual crap (which is becoming alarmingly common these days) annoys me as much as people saying KISS suck does you. Edit : And most important of all, as amazingly elegant and internally consistent and whole as theoretical work HAS to be, we still call it theory. Edit2 : AND ANYWAY, the placebo effect is known, and it is very, very well researched. In order for Homeopathy to deserve any kind of serious attention it has to prove (with a LARGE dataset, not just a hundred people) that it produces extremely improved results to a placebo. Show me the data, now, shoot it all over my face. A proper paper would be good too, detailing every step of the research study. Hahah, I just realised a problem you would have doing that kind of 'grown up' research, which would be proving that the placebo does not already contain elements of the homeopathic cure already.
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 7264 posts |
Edited Feb 25, 2010, 01:57
Feb 25, 2010, 01:52
|
||
|
Dude, I think you are completely over reacting and perhaps misinterpreting my thoughts, which were jotted down in the spirit of "I read something quite interesting about...what do you think?.." rather than a definitive statement regarding anything to do with science, quantum physics and certainly not homeopathy ffs. I am certainly not, NOT anti-science, far, far far from it. I might not have the depth of your knowledge and experience but I am interested and on, occasion excited about certain things in certain fields. And one of those things I am excited about on a conceptial level was reading about the possibilities of rule books being, if not re-written cos clearly things seem to work as we think they do for the most part, but re-IMAGINED even, because the stuff we don't as yet know may well turn out to be weirder than we've even got a vocabularly for, let alone a theoretical structure. As an outside observer with an interest these sorts of things buzz my brain and why shouldn't it? And I like it when these aspects of science provoke a certain, imaginative and engaging kind of thinking above and beyond equations and facts. It's appealing, you know? Something for those of us that only have a maths CSE to get interested in. Apart from anything else it's helpful. And incidentally, if you are keen for people to a least be aware and appreciate the depth, effort and quality of work and research being done, and your passion would indicate that you are, then, mate, there's no point getting tooth-gnashy and gnarly with friendly minds that want to inquire. A certain degree of patience is going to be required by anyone 'in the know' explaining things to those of us less 'in the know' but wish to hear more. Anti-science is a harsh brand for someone that just may have, you know, got something wrong. (For the record the KISS - or any band/film yadayada -thing makes me smile and I don't get annoyed by it - more bemused, unless I encounter just rudeness for rudeness sake. I just find it weird a band percieved as being some silly thing appears to routinely provoke such debate, especially if Mr Cope mentions he likes 'em. I don't get why some people have a problem with that.) By the way, I think your last paragraph was a bit mean-spirited to say the least you know, this 'problem' that I'd have. If it takes that kind of 'tude to do 'groan-up' research, then, yeah, your probably right and I'm more than happy to leave you to it. I wish you'd stop kicking sand in the face of people that ain't the enemy pal.
|
|||
|
stray 1630 posts |
Edited Feb 25, 2010, 02:19
Feb 25, 2010, 02:08
|
||
|
*meep* motherfucker *meep* - Damn it, I just changed my avatar to beaker and it didnt bloody work.. grrr... hyuk, hyuk.. er cache... Nah, it wasn't aimed at you per se, but you see to people who struggle to get their hard work funded then those attitudes are well.. they are the enemy yeah ? and seeing the NHS fund something so completely lacking in anything approaching scientific rigour freaks all of us, in many different fields, the fuck out. I'm not being gnarly, gnashy, I thought you got me by now. A snide remark maybe, thats me. I'm bound to look down on something which from a scientific perspective is at best a joke and at worst a horrifying scam. As for the rulebooks changing etc, etc. Yep, I've seen that in my own work, and I saw a whole heap of other things too which made me drop the pencil, say 'fuck it then' and switch entirely into my art and post-structuralist philosophy. But don't think there is a consensus about the weirdness, or the theories (that will forever remain unproveable) Check this book.. Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Continuing Challenge to Unify the Laws of Physics - Peter Woit. tis damn good at showing the glaring holes in current practice, it supports what your saying while challenging it. In short a proper analysis of the state of play. Edit : But the book is flawed, of course. Thats the game.
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 7264 posts |
Edited Feb 25, 2010, 02:53
Feb 25, 2010, 02:43
|
||
|
Fairy nuff then. Leave that in the 11th dimension See, although I can understand you frustration when you find yourself dealin with what you percieve as pseudo-science and philosophising, you should in a way be prepared to grit your teeth a tad and, as some one is want to say 'deal with it' ;^). The reason I say this is that there is everychance, when the weirdness factor in certain disciplines DOES get that weird, it's gonna a require a shifting of the psychic goal posts (dont go AGH just yet), from all and sundry, scientist and layman alike, just to attempt to investigate and illustrate. And that'd gonna require debate that will drive everyone bonkers I'm sure. Plus, and this is important from the perspective of getting funding. A populist approach in some sciences, as vulgar as it might seem, is partly necessary simply to get it out there why these researches are important and why they should be done. Now, given that that kind of discourse is going to be spread across the intellectual landscape - you know, from hardcore theorist to a bloke reading Wired to someone writing the cheque and beyond - then it's almost inevitable that there's gonna be cultural clashes and diversions into random philosophising along the way, as painful and annoying as that might be, simply to get things moving. And it really is selling ideas in a 'different language' and that's fucking hard in most disciplines. You know how S Hawking (and bear with me on this) said we are gonna have a unified theory and then a few years later said, actually, looking at it, probably not. That is at once disappointing and then quite exciting really. Cos, as I was trying to say, the implications with that, and other stuff isn't so much "We will never know" but rather "we will never know unless we literally change our thinking processes, and it might not be possible...at this point". And yeah, maybe it IS psuedo philosophising, but so what really? Simply considering the notion that our perceptions, our very way of going about things is going to have to evolve into something other if we want to understand - well, I think that's really tantalising. In fact, you could say, that , in populist terms at least, science is on the cusp (relative to history) in engaging in and with philosophy, or at least philosophical processes in a way that it hasn't since ye olde days when scientists were 'philosophers'. That, to me, is terribly exciting. I certainly don't mean abandon all rationality, practice and process ye who enter by the way. I just mean it feels 'next step'ish. you know? It implies a potentiallity is there for us if we are flexible enough to grasp at it. I imagine there will be decades of false starts and dead ends, but the thought that it is OUT there, knowledge and newness of thought and concept is quite exciting, even to a pleb like me. Thanks for heads up on the book. Sounds inneresting, flawed or otherwise. ps I love it in some books when they have graphics trying to illustrate some of the 'weird' in theories. I feel for the guy tryna describe the brief and the guy who has to illustrate it. You can sometimes sense the "Well, no it should sort of look like....Uh...I dunno...it's got these....erm" Artist " What if I do it in blue, what if....aaaagh!" 8^)
|
| Pages: 6 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
- ©2012ce Head Heritage Ltd. Contact us Top of page