Bad Science Awards 724
KDan writes "The Bad Science Awards are out. These should put a smile on any science geek's face. Prize gems include: shrinking water molecules, anesthetic condoms, and a plan to send homeopathic AIDS remedies to Botswana."
Horses for courses (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure the condom story will cause the most general hilarity though - shades of 'Riotous Assembly' by Tom Sharpe - which I heartily recommend if you want people to wonder why you suddenly burst out laughing...
The real issue of course is that the general public ("sheep") will believe anything a man in a white coat ("doctor") tells them. Scepticism is a vanishing but valuable trait
Simon
Re:Horses for courses (Score:2)
I still have one these I got free at a nightclub. It came with a sample packet of lube that I assume contains antiseptic. Is Performa still on the market? Mine might be worth something one Ebay.
Its actually ingenious when you think about, if more than a little counterproductive.
Re:Horses for courses (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Horses for courses (Score:3, Insightful)
To speak as a condom salesman (I run an online condom store http://www.xessentials.co.uk/ [xessentials.co.uk]) the "Delay" type of condom is VERY popular, at least here in the UK. Durex, Condomi and Safex all have them (with Benzocaine/Polyvalent Alcohols as the "active ingredient").
Delay condoms are our second biggest sellers after extra thin condoms (i.e. the exact opposite for people who want MORE sensation during sex with a condom), with many repeat visitors buying them over and over again (so they obviously work for so
Re:Horses for courses (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Horses for courses (Score:5, Funny)
Please allow me to post the following warning:
Mind you, I could see some hopeful geek buying this. "I just bought a comdom on eBay for $15! Now in 4 to 6 weeks I will get to have sex!" ;).
Shouldn't that be counterreproductive?
Yaz.
Re:Horses for courses (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing new though - topical lidocaine has been available for this purpose since *ponder* the late nineteen fifties, I believe ( first in creams, then sprays ). Of course, if they didn't mention they were putting benzocaine in the lubricant, they should be pegged out in the sun on an anthill - benzocaine, while in pretty wide use ( even in teething gels and stuff for infants ) has been known to invoke a contact dermatitis
New meme? (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article:
However the winner was Space Tomato Number One, part of the Chinese government's "space breeding" project, where radiation in space is used to create comic book mutations and giant space plants, including tomatoes weighing almost a kilogram.
I fear we may have a new meme on our hands: In China, X is always positive.
Re:New meme? (Score:3, Funny)
In China, SEX is always positive.
It's all the positive energy coming from Chinese molecules. After sex.
Re:New meme? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:New meme? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:New meme? (Score:4, Funny)
In Slashdot, posters fear we may have a new X on our hands?
What's with the meme craziness? We went through Soviet Russia and Korea and now to China. Can I finish up the important Communist countries and create In Soviet Cuba, X smokes cigars?
Re:New meme? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:New meme? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:New meme? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Horses for courses (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem isn't that science isn't being taught. A lot of scientific facts are taught, and a nod is given to the scientific method, even.
What isn't being taught is reason and skepticism. And the way science is taught - as a stream of facts for the students to swallow unquestioningly - only encourages that lack of skepticism. After all, it's not a very big jump from being spoon-fed cute lab demonstrations by a
Space men (Score:5, Funny)
Or grow vegatables in 0 gravity so they can grow HUGE.
Bad science I know but it'd be fun to see the results
Re:Space men (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Space men (Score:2)
Re:Space men (Score:2)
Re:Space men (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Space men (Score:3, Interesting)
thats all fine but... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:thats all fine but... (Score:5, Funny)
Dyslexic (Score:4, Funny)
how about "creationism" crap? (Score:2, Insightful)
repeat after me: creationism (or "intelligent design") is not a scientific theory. it has no predicative power, it offers no real explanation, nor can it be tested.
it belongs in philosophy, religion, psychology and/or sociology classes but not in a science class.
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are mistaken. Psychology and sociology are both sciences.
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:4, Insightful)
I personally prefer to think of those as the 'soft' sciences. Sort of testable, with a heavy dose of subjectivity. As opposed to 'hard' sciences such as chemistry/physics, which are pretty solid really.
biology can sit somewhere in the middle, because it does have room for subjectivity.
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:4, Informative)
what about all the people insisting on teaching creationism in school as an alternative theory to evolution in biology classes?
These are British awards. I've never heard of anybody here in the UK insisting on anything of the sort.
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly. Some people treat science like it's a religion or something (pun intended). It's only an explanation. If anything, science is an alternative theory to common organized religion just as much as creationism is an alternative theory to evolution.
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:5, Insightful)
i never said creationism is "wrong." it has its place in the learning/education and this world. just not in a science class.
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:3, Insightful)
i cannot see similar convictions for a method that tells me to read a book and take what it says as an explanation on "faith."
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:5, Insightful)
The scientific method is powerful and is logical. I agree with it. I have never said that I don't believe that science works, or that it is incorrect. I have never said I believe, and in fact I don't believe, that God created the world at once so that evolutionism arose from a mass of confused scientists and evil conspirators. I am a scientist at heart, as much as I am a Christian.
Yet science is only valid within the realm of science. Your saying that logic precludes a deity is no more valid than my saying that the Bible precludes evolution.
I also believe in Jesus Christ because of what you may call the scientific method: many repeated experiences of the power of God. Note that I do not take Scientology on faith. In it I've seen many repeated examples of corporate abuse of people.
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet science is only valid within the realm of science
True. But then what exactly is "the realm of science"? It's just simply "stuff we can test and try to prove ourselves wrong." Anything not in that realm is something that has no credibility because you can't differentiate the made-up from the rigiously tested. And that the line separating that realm from other things is not stagnant. What isn't science today could become science tomorrow. It all depends on what kinds of tests can be devised.
No
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:5, Insightful)
belief in god is as valid as belief in unicorns. You do believe in unicorns, right?
to risk pressing a point a little too far, have you ever considered the idea that your 'religious experiences' are little more than a firing of neurotransmitters in a particular way, caused by perhaps a particular mental and physical state?
Some people report feelings of 'religious euphoria' which are strikingly similar to what some clubbers report feeling when high on ecstasy. It seems to be basically a strange response to a particular chemical state in the brain, possibly related to being in a particular social situation too (evangelist tent rallies, meet open-air rave parties). It's a deep feeling of joy, perhaps with a strong sense of belonging mixed in, with generous helpings of contentment. Cosmic, man.
In the party example, you can explain it ("I felt great because I took drugs and danced") whereas the same feeling at church or during prayer is attributed to some higher power. Which is where it all breaks down, really, because there's no foundation for that conclusion. It's just meditation.
I wonder how difficult this hypothesis would be to test?
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:3, Insightful)
Alas, in other contexts, I've found that what I want to be true is pretty useless in determining what actually is true. (Otherwise, Bill Gates would be applying for a job cleaning toilets in the building where I work.)
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you equate a natural explanation of the world with blandness? From my position the bland option is to explain away the enormous complexity of the w
Deity does not help analyze things (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between science and superstition (also known as "religion") is that it doesn't claim to be 100% correct, and is constantly checked and verified and revised to get as close to the truth as possible. If you want to believe in some crazy story that some other person made up, feel free; but schools are for educating people with things that are useful, not making them believe lies.
It's hard to believe that even here, on Slashdot, "news for nerds", so many people are completely ignorant of what science is.
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:2, Insightful)
There's an eloquent way to seperate the religion from the science: Science is there to try to explain the how (How does a rock fall? How do we procreate? Fact based questions.) Religion is there to explain the why (why does the rock fall? Why do we procreate? Theology.). The trick is to make the seperation - something we as americans are no good at. School is responsible for the s
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:2)
Neither are scientific, neither are falsifiable. Both rely upon unprovable axioms, and neither have thus far managed to display any predictive power.
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:2)
creationism (or "intelligent design") is not a scientific theory. it has no predicative power, it offers no real explanation, nor can it be tested.
Just to make the argument - all of the above apply to "big bang" theory as well.
Did the universe come from somewhere, or not? This is the fundamental question - and no theory surrounding this can ever meet any of your above criteria, unless we invent some time machine that could withstand the collapse of the universe and go check it out.
I agree with you that cr
Not true (Score:3, Interesting)
It might not give us the reason for the "big bang" occurring but as far as I know nor does it claim to.
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:3, Interesting)
The Big Bang, as I understand it, started out not as a theory, but as the result of extrapolation. Start out with the Universe as we observe it now, including expansion and run time backwards. Everything will end up in the same place at the same time. From that, you can deduce that everything started out there, resulting in the Big Bang.
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:3, Funny)
>roughly 1x10e-50 seconds after the event until
>now
so... the big bang theory explains, for example, why sirius, the rabbit who lives in my living room, has a pathological hatred of snoopy, the rabbit who lives under my bed?
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, as creationists will point out, evolution can't be tested on a multi-million year time-scale either, and multi-million-year predictions are hard to check.. As for offering no real explanation, creationists will also disagree about that; and moreover, real scientific theories sometimes don't have real explanations; like Newton's theory of gravity.
The thing with creationism is that it cannot be disproved, and that's what makes it a non-contender. It's called falsifiability. You can never prove there is NO God. Perhaps he likes it that way, and being almighty, there's no way you're gonna catch him out! Can't be sure, can you? In fact, he might be faking all them scientific resultamajigs so as to test y'all's faith in him! Nope siree, can't disprove God.
On the other hand, if the skies crack open and a thundering voice bellows "This is God. Evolution is a crock. Check out genes #43.125-43.234 in starfish and humans" and it turns out those genes contain a binary encoded (C/G=1, T/A=0) message saying "(c) YHWH, 4000BC, nobody mess with my copyrites, I rulez0rs, go forth and multiply suckas!", well, then that could quite possibly be a good way to disprove evolution..
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:5, Funny)
You could if you found a Babel fish.
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:5, Insightful)
> What exactly are you referring to here? I read the passage, and I don't see where it would contradict the view that a day in the Bible is 24 hours.
"A day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day." That's the same 'day' as in Genesis. And the author is explicitly given: Moses. The same author traditionally given for Genesis. (Although there is a good case to be made that Moses compiled, not authored Genesis.) Now try to justify the statement that "the Hebrew word for 'day' always refers to a 24 hour period."
Also compare the frequent phrase "the day of the LORD" - which clearly does not refer to a 24 hr day.
P.S. To get really nit picky, you'll also find a 48 hour day in Joshua (the sun stood still for 24 hours) and a 24 hr 20 min day in II Kings (the shadow on the sundial went backward 10 degrees - assuming 1 deg = 1 min).
Intelligent design gets to the heart of the real disagreement between origin of life theories. Was it purposeless and uncaused, or designed? We ask the same questions about murders, artifacts, turing tests, and radio signals from space. The same techniques can be used.
The Bible asserts that G-d created every living thing "after its kind". However, it was Aristotle, not the Bible, who declared that species (and the stars) were immutable and unchanging. The Church somehow became supporters of the scientific orthodoxy of the day (Aristotleanism) instead of sticking to the Bible and Apostolic Tradition - and has been tarred with that brush ever since.
The scientific orthodoxy began to unravel with the appearance of two visible supernovas in the 15 and 16 hundreds (spectacular evidence that no, the stars are not immutable). But many were burned at the stake for stating the obvious conclusion from what they saw. Galileo got off easy because of the support of the Pope (who saw the moons of Jupiter through Galileos telescope with his own eyes - an Aristotelean impossibility). Galileo was foolishly undiplomatic, and his house arrest was needed to appease the insulted Aristoteleans.
Detractors of Intelligent design often proceed by showing mathematically that there can be no algorithm capable of classifying signal sources as "intelligent" or "not-intelligent" (for some definition of intelligent). This begs the question. The premise of the Christian supernatural is that this universe is embedded in a larger reality. This does not mean parallel universes or higher dimensions. The traditional metaphor was book and author. Good books like "Lord of the Rings" or "Harry Potter" are worlds created by their author. The author resides in a larger reality. A better metaphor in the computer age is a simulation or virtual world. Just as the existence of the virtual worlds we create depends on the continued functioning of the computer systems that house them, so our universe depends for its existence on whatever it is in the "more real" world that sustains it as computers sustain our virtual worlds. In turn, that world may be embedded in an even higher reality. Like a story within a story - to use the traditional metaphor. Where does it all end (or start)? The source of all realities and all worlds is God - like in Douglas Hofstadter's "Push and Pop" dialog in "Godel, Escher, Bach".
The "intelligence" of Intelligent Design is presumed to have its source outside of our universe - in the higher reality. A better model of the kind of experiment ID proposes can be illustrated by an online game. Suppose you are playing your favorite online game - which contains many AI players as well as human players. The game provides no explict indication of which avatars are human and which are machine driven. You have no contact with any of the human players except through the game. Would you be able to tell which avatars were controlled by human players, and which were artificial, using only the features of the virtual world and without resorting to any outside communication?
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:3, Interesting)
So...the explanation for our complex universe is an even more complex universe that contains it? How does that help? And how *do* you test for that, by the way?
It seems to me that if you really want to take Intelligent Design seriously as a scientific hypothesis, you
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:5, Insightful)
2) if you cannot do #1, then give me a suitable definition of "evolve" that applies to non-physical objects but has scientific meaning. (the fact idea of "God" changes over time is not science. that's a anthropology/sociology/religion question.)
3) finally, show me how to test God's physical evolution. tell me under what principles it evolves so that the theory offers some predicative power.
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:2, Flamebait)
To scientifically prove the existance of an Intelligent Designer or application of evolution to God you must show me how to disprove that existance or application. Remember, all science is known by testing for it be disproven.
So, you tell me how to find out God doesn't exist, and I'll tell you why creationism is science!
I presume that's not your objective.
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you still want to argue, how about some classic mind-twisters: if some intelligent being created life, who created the intelligent being? How the hell did he become all-powerful? Does this not violate the basic laws of physics as well as produce logical contradictions? What evidence do you have for the existence of such a being?
Bad argument. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bad argument. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not to say that we have stated the laws correctly, but the whole of science is founded on the assumption that there are real, rational, understandable physical laws.
Yes, these laws are simply the properties of matter, but that does nothing to tell us how they could come to be. They just are. Before the Big B
Re:Bad argument. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Physics laws provide a useful approximation. They are not exact, and they don't govern anything. The best they can do is tell you what will happen in a certain situation. And even then it only does it approximately.
That's not to say that we have stated the laws correctly, but the whole of science is founded on the assumption that there are real, rational, understandable physical laws.
If something is t
Re:Bad argument. (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think you're understanding my point. Perhaps it's my fault for using "physical law" in a (potentially) non-standard way. I thought my comment, "That's not to say that we have stated th
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I have a BS in Physics and have studied some physics at the graduate level.
You don't assume things and then try to disprove them. You take the knowledge you have, produce a hypothesis that logically follows from that knowledge, and test it, thereby acquiring new knowledge.
I apologize for being unclear. As you say, we use the knowledge we have to make a hypothesis to support a scientific theory. The act of testing the hypothesis helps to strengthen the b
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:5, Insightful)
physicists are looking for the grand unification theory. ok, here it is, i have the answer: f(x) = G. i can't tell what the function f is or the variables x and G are, but that's the formula and it's the grand unification theory, when f, x and G are suitable defined.
do you believe that i just came up with a GUT? don't you agree that all i did was mask the question and didn't really provide any explanation at all?
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:4, Interesting)
Talk to a Creationist sometime: you'll find that person also believes that the earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs either never existed, or were on Noah's ark, etc. Creationism isn't just a simple belief that God created the world; anyone could believe that and still have no problem with any part of science. Creationism is an entire belief system that attempts to explain the current state of the world using numerous assumptions that have been proven false by evidence. For instance, a geologist would have to be nuts to believe the earth is 6000 years old after examing fossil evidence, geological evidence, and looking at everything we now know about how the earth's geology works. But ask a Creationist, and he'll claim the Grand Canyon was made very quickly by the "great flood"! Astrophysicists could point out that there's lots of things we can see with telescopes that are so far away, the light has taken over 6000 years to get here. But ask a Creationist, and he'll come up with some crazy explanation for it, such as that God put that light in motion 6000 years ago to look like that.
The idea that a deity had some hand in creating the universe isn't a bad one. Science doesn't have the answers for that, and may never have them. Yes, there's a Big Bang theory, but what came before that (if it even happened that way)? This simply isn't a question for science, at least not before we evolve into some much more advanced race in the next million years. These are the kinds of things religion is supposed to investigate. But here in the US, religion isn't about investigating or contemplating the metaphysical; it's about making claims that fly in the face of physical evidence because it's unfathomable that an extremely literal and narrow interpretation of an old text could possibly be wrong, and in the process attempting to brainwash everyone into believing the same falsehood for no good reason.
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:4, Insightful)
when it's proven wrong the proponents quickly change the theory to fit the facts
Correct. That's why science is superior to religion.
Hmm.. (Score:2, Funny)
- anesthetic condoms
- a plan to send homeopathic AIDS remedies to Botswana
Well that makes one see geeks in a whole new light..
Re:Hmm.. (Score:2)
Come to think of it, why would we even be sick in the first place? Wouldn't we already all be bathed in the beneficial and health-giving vibrations of the trace homeopathic elements in our environment?
Damn, that's a harsh prize (Score:5, Funny)
According to TFA, Dr Gillian McKeith PhD. wins this prize for "outstanding innovation in the use of the title 'Doctor'":
Man, that's just harsh . . .
My favorite [read: most annoying] bad science: (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I'm sorry, that's not bad science, that's just really bad logic. . .
Re:My favorite [read: most annoying] bad science: (Score:2)
What the hell? (Score:5, Funny)
Can someone tell me why they put the condoms on their tongues? Or is that part of their normal testing process for bad science?
Re:What the hell? (Score:2)
Re:What the hell? (Score:2)
Re:What the hell? (Score:2)
Re:What the hell? (Score:4, Funny)
Oral Sex?
Stretching the limits of credulity (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, we have wonderful scientists like Kevin Warwick: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/12/11/kevin_warw ick_a_life/ [theregister.co.uk] flying the flag for idiocy,
Homeopathic remedy for AIDS ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Homeopathic remedy for AIDS ? (Score:4, Interesting)
*NOT* a troll I wouldn't believe it myself unless I'd seen it personally on numerous occasions.
Durex Performa (Score:5, Informative)
I found that I didn't like them, and the dullness continued longer than desired. Secondary considerations included not being able to maintain an erection as easily (hehe, little guy couldn't feel anything, so he said "Why bother?").
Other guys could probably use them with better success. It was worth a try, but I'd not recommend them whole-heartedly.
bah, the people who compiled the list suck (Score:3, Funny)
One advantage... (Score:2)
Shrinking Water Molecules? (Score:4, Informative)
I half expected to find them using Randell Mill's BlackLight Process [blacklightpower.com] to create "Oxygen Dihydrino".
Cranial osteopathy... (Score:3, Interesting)
he also states that your skull "contracts and expands a dozen times or so each minute to push the [cerebrospinal] fluid round" your brain, along with various other amusing misunderstandings of basic medicine.
This is actually a pretty controversial area of medicine-- known as cranial osteopathy [cranialacademy.org], there have been numerous studies that claim to show that the skull does have movement due to cerebrospinal pressure. Actual doctors do believe this, although as I say, it's not commonly accepted.
If anyone's interested, I'll dig up some research..
Re:missing items (Score:5, Insightful)
TuPac Ron Hubbard? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:missing items (Score:4, Informative)
Re:missing items (Score:3, Funny)
Re:missing items (Score:5, Insightful)
And I'm giving up mod points to say that.
Do you know anything about the *real* environmental and animal research going on, or do you base your impressions on the loudest screamers of the pop-science realm?
Re:Global warming? (Score:3, Insightful)
Kyoto does not require anyone to increse their CO2 emmissions. At most, it allows them to.
Re:Global warming? (Score:5, Informative)
Can you provide a citation to support this?
The protocol itself [unfccc.int] makes no mention of this. Developing countries are excluded from the emissions reductions targets that apply to the "Annex I" countries, but they're not required to increase their emissions--that's patently absurd. Note that China has apparently stated their intent to join Annex I soon and has been reducing their emissions anyway.
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/achinagg.asp [nrdc.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol [wikipedia.org]
China is third in emissions behind the USA and European Union, they're still a developing nation [wikipedia.org], and their still managing to lower their emissions while the USA continues to increase theirs.
Re:Global warming? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or wrong scientists.
If you don't like a Hummer, don't drive one. That simple
No, it's not that simple. That's like saying "nuclear weapons should be legal for personal use - don't like them? don't buy them". When what you do affects the health of me, my family, and everyone else on the planet, then it's not JUST your business.
If global warming were real, Chinese gas would be as nasty as American gas. But it is all politics
Chinese gas is just as nasty as American gas. Kyoto is a (bad) political response to a very real impending disaster. Stating that Kyoto is flawed does nothing to make the reality of the problem any less serious.
Re:Why not some mainstream fallacies? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why not some mainstream fallacies? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is, once we get to a point where it can be 100% proven, it's too fucking late. The evidence, whilst not totally conclusive, is pretty damn strong. We could stick our heads in the sand and sing "la la la", or we could do something about it and try to save ourselves and our descendents.
Fallacy. Let me illustrate:
The problem with not believing in God is once you get to the point where it can be proven, its too late. Therefore, the logical conclusion is to believe in God. - Pascal's Wage [wikipedia.org]
Re:Why not some mainstream fallacies? (Score:3, Interesting)
A friend of mine used to tell me the reason he never runs stop lights or passes in no passing zones, it's because he said that if he never does those things, it will be impossible for him to be in an accident while running a red light or passing in a no pass zone.
In other words, if you avoid deviations from the norm, you also avoid the potential problems that lie outside the
Re:Durex Performax (Score:3, Informative)
Did you read the article? They didn't really say it wouldn't work; in fact, they said quite the opposite:
The magic ingredient was benzocaine, a local anaesthetic, which made the judges' tongues go numb. We didn't even think about trying it on our genitals.
Re:A physicist's view on homeopathy (Score:3, Insightful)
Placebo effect does not just refer to the effect on the patient. There is also an effect on the diagnosing parent/doctor/veterinarian.
But if you have double-blind studies you'd like to tell us about, please feel free.
"though I do know an excellent one for the flu."
Occasionaly I think I'm getting the flu, but after a day or so's rest I feel much better. It's easy to see how a homeopathic cure could convince me I'd recovered from the flu in record time.
Re:A physicist's view on homeopathy (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopat hy.shtml/ [bbc.co.uk]
As for "yes, I can tell when it is working and when it isn't.". This is prime example of why we have strict testing. No you can't. Damn. Sorry. This crap makes me angry. One step to faith healers in my opinion.
Re:A physicist's view on homeopathy (Score:3, Informative)
Were these peer reviewed studies? Can you cite these studies? All I have found are sites like this one: Homeopathy Fails in the UK Again [randi.org]
Re:A physicist's view on homeopathy (Score:3, Interesting)
Where are these studies? Have they been reproduced etc? Every vaguely serious inquiry into it I've seen hasn't come up with adequate studies.
The BBC documentary [bbc.co.uk] on it was quite int
Re:Okay, I need to come out and say this.. (Score:5, Informative)
So which one was it?
To what degree was each responsible?
Might one of them have still been a negative, and be better off without it?
Might the entire improvement be entirely attributable to one factor? Perhaps not one even listed?
Might the improvement even been due to none of these things at all, but would have come regardless?
Let me answer those questions for you: "You don't know, you don't know, you don't know, you don't know, you don't know", and yes, "you don't know".
I don't laugh, I don't deny the results, I'm glad he's doing so well. But you are in absolutely no position to be making any claims about the cause of his improvement. Even if his actions are responsible, which you don't know, you changed so many variables at once that even the statement "If you do these 24 things, your AIDS might improve. After all, this one person I know's did." is still nearly bereft of information. I mean, just being "a fighter" has been shown to be helpful almost across the board!
(Remember, one of the ways of measuring information is "the extent to which a fact is a surprise"; no surprise, no information. "Eating a pound of popcorn a day cures AIDS" is a surprise. "If you do a lot of stuff, and also improve your lifestyle in several ways at the same time, you'll be healthier" isn't much of a surprise for anyone who has been paying attention to health science, or, well, much of anyone else either.)
This in no way belittles your Uncle's accomplishments. Moreover, he may even be right and maybe he's sitting on the perfect treatment; it has happened before. But you aren't in any position to know. The plural of anecdote is not "data"... and you haven't even reached the "plural" part.
That is what science is about. Not denying that certain things have benefit, but testing and verifying and quantifying so we know, and in knowing become stronger and more capable. The reason herbal remedies are so often despised is that so many of them, when actually put to the test, fail miserably, not that they are herbal. Proof? Why, when the tests succeed, they are swiftly coopted... one can hardly list all the medicines that started out as herbal remedies. Obviously science hasn't got an intrinsic problem with such things, and anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something.
Science is far from perfect, but it beats the hell out of "I know this guy who sort of flailed around and tried a lot of things and one or more of them may or may not have had a significant impact on his disease", which is where you stand now. Again, it's great that he's doing well, but wouldn't you like to find out what actually contributed, and whether there might be something that works even better, so that others can actually benefit without potentially wasting time and money on things that are neutral or even harmful?