[helene_t]

jtfanclub, on Jan 30 2009, 11:58 PM, said:

I'm actually kind of surprised that the placebo effect was even debatable.  Otherwise, Phase II trials are a sick joke- if it makes no difference to a person whether they're getting a placebo or getting nothing at all, why not let them know?  This is especially true when the illness is almost certainly fatal to those getting the placebo.

We observe that patients allocated to placebo sometimes improve more than we would have expected them to if they had not been recruited to the trial. We do not know if this is because they think they might have received active treatment, or if it is because our expectation of what would have happened to them outside the trial is somehow flawed. But in any case, we need to have a placebo group to establish the efficacy of the treatment.

We cannot let them know that they are on placebo because that knowledge might influence their behaviour so that they are no longer comparable to the treatment group. For example, they could seek alternative treatment to compensate for the experimental treatment that they don't get.

Minor comments: I suppose you mean phase 2/3. Btw it is not ethical to assign patients to pure placebo if an effective treatment exists. In that case the "placebo" group may receive standard treatment plus placebo, while the experimental group receives standard plus experimental. Alternatively it is just standard vs experimental, in that case there is no placebo involved.

[jtfanclub]

Winstonm, on Jan 30 2009, 06:52 PM, said:

Quote

I'm actually kind of surprised that the placebo effect was even debatable.

This is so weird. I keep saying the same thing over and over and am ignored and rebutted for something I didn't say.

One more time - the placebo effect is not in question. What has been questioned is your statements that placebos cure and that faith cures.

Quote

People are cured by placebos. People are being cured by their own faith. And yet, that's simply accepted and taken into account by Modern Medicine

I do not know of any modern medical practioner that accepts the claims of placebo cures and curing by faith as valid.

And so when I quote....

Quote

Doctors in one study successfully eliminated warts by painting them with a brightly colored, inert dye and promising patients the warts would be gone when the color wore off. In a study of asthmatics, researchers found that they could produce dilation of the airways by simply telling people they were inhaling a bronchodilator, even when they weren't. Patients suffering pain after wisdom-tooth extraction got just as much relief from a fake application of ultrasound as from a real one, so long as both patient and therapist thought the machine was on. Fifty-two percent of the colitis patients treated with placebo in 11 different trials reported feeling better -- and 50 percent of the inflamed intestines actually looked better when assessed with a sigmoidoscope ("The Placebo Prescription" by Margaret Talbot, New York Times Magazine, January 9, 2000).

You don't think these are cures, or you don't think they actually happened?

It's not that faith in religion cures. It's that a belief that you're going to get better makes it more likely that you'll get better, whether that belief is from a placebo or a religion or something else. Again, I'm surprised this is still surprising.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Jan 31 2009, 04:45 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 1 2009, 12:26 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jan 31 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to a close system
The Earth is not a closed system

richard, i *know* that... it still, unless someone shows differently, doesn't explain to me how non-living matter can transform into organic matter, without some guiding force... even adding energy from outside doesn't seem to give an answer to that... i know that some evolutionists try to keep the origin of life distinct from evolution, but that makes no sense to me... how can there be evolution if there is nothing to evolve from?

as far as entropy itself is concerned, it's true that outside agents can cause a decrease on individual systems, but not on the whole - on the whole (whether that is the environment or something else) there is always an increase

Comment 1: If you *know* the difference between open and closed systems, why do you bother posting arguments that ignore this same distinction?

Comment 2: We are discussing evolution, not abiogenesis

I know that I shouldn't be surprised that you're desperately attempting to muddle the conversation. Still, its disappointing...

i don't know why you're disappointed, you had a chance to answer this earlier... i'll repost it because i really do want to know

me said:

i do have a question (not to argue, but for edification) concerning the theory of evolution... if my understanding is faulty here, i'm sure someone will correct me... am i correct that for this theory to be true inorganic atoms and molecules combined, more or less spontaneously, to form protein (and other even more complex molecules) and from these (adding a measure of time) even more complex beings were formed? and that this order from chaos all came together from its natural state? that dna formed in this manner?

[Winstonm]

I guess I have to go one-by-one but this is the only time I will line item a response like this. Again, IMO, we are seeing a correlation confused with a causation. It is a common error.

Quote

Doctors in one study successfully eliminated warts by painting them with a brightly colored, inert dye and promising patients the warts would be gone when the color wore off.

First off, the source is unnamed "doctors" reported in the NT Times - hardly a perfect venue for proof but let's assume the information was right: doctors painted warts with dye, promised the patients the warts would be gone, and behold the warts disappeared. Fine.

As to what agent caused the relief, what is the proof that seperates among the dye, the promise of cure, or the fact that the immune system may have killed the virus? Was any further work done to determine if the underlying virus had indeed been eliminated or was simply the symptom - the raised bump - gone? And did it ever return? We don't know these answers so we don't know if this was indeed a cure and if it were we don't know the agent of causation.

Quote

In a study of asthmatics, researchers found that they could produce dilation of the airways by simply telling people they were inhaling a bronchodilator, even when they weren't.

This is not cure. It only describes a classic placebo effect which I have not disputed is real.

Quote

Patients suffering pain after wisdom-tooth extraction got just as much relief from a fake application of ultrasound as from a real one, so long as both patient and therapist thought the machine was on.

Placebo effect. Not a cure. You do not cure acute pain - it is treated.

Quote

Fifty-two percent of the colitis patients treated with placebo in 11 different trials reported feeling better -- and 50 percent of the inflamed intestines actually looked better when assessed with a sigmoidoscope

This is rather meaningless - feeling better than whom - the other group - themselves compared to earlier? Even if we concede that the group felt better than they did earlier, it is still nothing but the placebo effect and is NOT a cure.

Lastly. inflamed intestines looking better during a procedure in pretty much meaningless as proof of much of anything other than the possibility of reduced inflammation - which could have been caused by a myriad of events unrelated to a placebo or belief in the placebo.

I don't blame you for using the NT Times article - we all do that in the WC - I am only saying that these articles will always be slanted to show a point of view and cannot be relied upon as scientific fact or data.

Quote

It's not that faith in religion cures. It's that a belief that you're going to get better makes it more likely that you'll get better, whether that belief is from a placebo or a religion or something else.

Sorry, but I am a little frustrated right now as I feel I am dealing with good folks who have some kind of reading disorder - I never said the placebo effect can't make you temporarily better - what I said is that neither faith nor placebos cure.

I really don't care what makes the placebo effect work - faith, placebo, or invisible green monkeys - because at best it can only be used to augment treatments. It is never utilized as the sole means to cure unless you are engaging in the hocus-pocus of Christian Scientists, witch doctors, or faith healing.

[Winstonm]

Trinidad

Thanks for the terrific explanation. Posts such as yours are gold to us non-scientists who are trying to learn.

[hotShot]

luke warm, on Feb 1 2009, 01:32 AM, said:

me said:

i do have a question (not to argue, but for edification) concerning the theory of evolution... if my understanding is faulty here, i'm sure someone will correct me... am i correct that for this theory to be true inorganic atoms and molecules combined, more or less spontaneously, to form protein (and other even more complex molecules) and from these (adding a measure of time) even more complex beings were formed? and that this order from chaos all came together from its natural state? that dna formed in this manner?

Well that is about right.
But since 1828 when Wöhler could produce urea without a living being involved, the separation of inorganic and organic chemistry is more traditional than necessary.
You can produce simple amino acids from nitrogen, C02 and water by adding a little energy (although that is very inefficient). If those amino acids combine to chains you get proteins. Proteins that wind around metal ions are prototypes of enzymes. The idea is that if enough organic material is available in a small space together with some primitive form of reproductive molecules they can combine to a cell.

[Fluffy]

I don't fully understand that isolated system thing. If the Earth is not isolated enough because it takes energy from the sun, why don't you make the system bigger and involve the sun?

You could just say the system is the universe.

[luke warm]

hotShot, on Jan 31 2009, 07:13 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 1 2009, 01:32 AM, said:

me said:

i do have a question (not to argue, but for edification) concerning the theory of evolution... if my understanding is faulty here, i'm sure someone will correct me... am i correct that for this theory to be true inorganic atoms and molecules combined, more or less spontaneously, to form protein (and other even more complex molecules) and from these (adding a measure of time) even more complex beings were formed? and that this order from chaos all came together from its natural state? that dna formed in this manner?

Well that is about right.
But since 1828 when Wöhler could produce urea without a living being involved, the separation of inorganic and organic chemistry is more traditional than necessary.
You can produce simple amino acids from nitrogen, C02 and water by adding a little energy (although that is very inefficient). If those amino acids combine to chains you get proteins. Proteins that wind around metal ions are prototypes of enzymes. The idea is that if enough organic material is available in a small space together with some primitive form of reproductive molecules they can combine to a cell.

setting aside the "ifs" and "the idea is" and the inefficient forming of amino acids, where do the reproductive molecules (or any other molecules) come from?

[Winstonm]

Quote

start smaller, winston... first start by asking whether or not non-material things even exist... that's what started this, imo... the weight of importance ascribed to this existence is at the root of the whole thing... what do you think?

Thanks for asking my view. I tried to point out that a discussion where one argues from a scientific basis and the other from a metaphysical basis seems bound to lead to only frustration. From the quotes I posted, there has long been a conflict between the two schools of thought.

But I really don't think they should overlap in a debate - either we both debate the metaphysical or we both debate the scientific.

My problem is when the scientific 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is borrowed and utilized as a metaphysical Law of Entropy - IMO it cannot be both. Also, IMO, as I stated before, it appears the metaphysical utilizes a gross generalization of entropy and then claims that as a general law.

So I guess my starting point would be this: I have serious doubts about the reality or usefulness of any metaphysical Laws. A=A, The Law of Identity, doesn't seem to serve much useful purpose. Seems more like a high school debate rule than a Universal Law.

[hotShot]

Fluffy, on Feb 1 2009, 02:15 AM, said:

I don't fully understand that isolated system thing. If the Earth is not isolated enough because it takes energy from the sun, why don't you make the system bigger and involve the sun?

You could just say the system is the universe.

Imagine you enter the kitchen after cooking, you will usually find some sort of mess.
You can wait as long as you want, it won't reach a state of order on its own.
You need an external source of energy, e.g. you working to get the kitchen into a state of order again.

No need to involve the universe.

[luke warm]

Quote

Thanks for asking my view. I tried to point out that a discussion where one argues from a scientific basis and the other from a metaphysical basis seems bound to lead to only frustration. From the quotes I posted, there has long been a conflict between the two schools of thought.

But I really don't think they should overlap in a debate - either we both debate the metaphysical or we both debate the scientific.

My problem is when the scientific 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is borrowed and utilized as a metaphysical Law of Entropy - IMO it cannot be both. Also, IMO, as I stated before, it appears the metaphysical utilizes a gross generalization of entropy and then claims that as a general law.

So I guess my starting point would be this: I have serious doubts about the reality or usefulness of any metaphysical Laws. A=A, The Law of Identity, doesn't seem to serve much useful purpose. Seems more like a high school debate rule than a Universal Law.

would you agree that whether serves a useful purpose or not, in your opinion, it can still be a 'law'? the point isn't, in any case, the usefulness we might ascribe to 'laws', it's whether or not they even exist

you can call the discussion of such things equivalent to high school debates if you want, but there are many who even have a year or twenty of college who think about such things

[Winstonm]

Quote

a question: what happens when a professionally trained doctor misdiagnoses and the patient dies as a result? Are they also charged?

No criminal charges but could certainly have a civil suit for malpractice.

A agree that some aspects of medicine tend to be a closed system - but you have to realize also that medicine is based on scientific advance, so testable, verifiable, and repeatable studies are at its heart.

This tends to make it seem reluctant to change - but in truth not all of your complaints are unfounded - but it is not a simple as many of the articles we might read want us to believe or as moribund as some talk-show radio hosts would have us think.

[hotShot]

luke warm, on Feb 1 2009, 02:19 AM, said:

setting aside the "ifs" and "the idea is" and the inefficient forming of amino acids, where do the reproductive molecules (or any other molecules) come from?

Assuming you don't ask that molecules are built from atoms, please look at Trinidads post. As he points out there is room for a god in this model.
Science can't prove the existence or nonexistence of god.
People used to explain everything they could not understand with a god.
Science can explain a lot of things, so there is no need to use god as explanation for these things. But this just proves abuse of the "god model".

[helene_t]

Fluffy, on Feb 1 2009, 01:15 AM, said:

I don't fully understand that isolated system thing. If the Earth is not isolated enough because it takes energy from the sun, why don't you make the system bigger and involve the sun?

You could just say the system is the universe.

Good point.

The second law says that the entropy in an isolated system is non-decreasing. Include the Sun in the system and the entropy changes are dominated by the increase in entropy related to the Sun's radiation, so what happens on Earth becomes irrelavant.

Free energy (the opposite of entropy) is build up when organisms grow. So if anything, the abuse of the second law could lead to the idea that life cannot exist. For evolution it is completely irellevant. Free energy builds up when an animal or plant community expands, not (necesarilly) when it evolves.

[gwnn]

Mike said:

I have now read Books I and II and skimmed Book III of the lectures later produced as mere Christianity... I thank Richard for the link.

Sorry, but I am not convinced.

That was not the purpose of me referring it to you (or you to it?) as I said

I just wanted to show you a simple and extremely readable version of Christian thought.

On amazon.com, between the many extremely positive Christian and extremely negative atheist reviews, I found myself agreeing with a positive review from an atheist which went something like
"While I do not agree with CS Lewis' main conclusions or premises, it is still wonderful to see his arguments working."
Of course it would be quite foolish from me to dismiss every other review as biased and his review as absolutely objective, I thought this could be your opinion also.

mike said:

But Lewis wrote before developments that have come to be known as evolutionary psychology came about.. he wrote in an era of relative ignorance.

And this is where the crux of the matter is: is morality and related concepts sufficiently explained by evolutionary psychology? From the little that I have read about its concepts I'm not convinced either but I hope I can go into it a little more some other time.

I would like to point out the minor flaw of your arguments against the Gospels' accuracy that they weren't written "hundreds of years after his death", I would say that word is misleading, but that doesn't matter much. Of course in this case also it is a question for everyone to decide, how are those texts/sayings etc best explained, along with all the other facts/experiences/etc related to the religions: Jesus was invented by clever men/Jesus was a clever man and his sayings were modified to make it sound even more clever/Jesus was indeed more or less some sort of special person (as many Eastern religions believe)/etc. Everyone must decide for themselves, and of course almost everyone will be only partly sure and will have doubts/open mind for accepting being wrong in case the balance of evidence changes dramatically.

(and of course the invitation to read the book was not addressed only to MikeH, but he was the one who had talked about reading similar books so I thought he might be most interested).

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Jan 31 2009, 07:20 PM, said:

Quote

start smaller, winston... first start by asking whether or not non-material things even exist... that's what started this, imo... the weight of importance ascribed to this existence is at the root of the whole thing... what do you think?

But I really don't think they should overlap in a debate - either we both debate the metaphysical or we both debate the scientific.

So I guess my starting point would be this: I have serious doubts about the reality or usefulness of any metaphysical Laws. A=A, The Law of Identity, doesn't seem to serve much useful purpose. Seems more like a high school debate rule than a Universal Law.

The laws of the physical world are pretty much useless without some metaphysical laws; for instance, the law of non-contradiction. At any given time and in a single context, both "A" and "not A" cannot be true. If you don't hold to that one, there's not really much point in having a zillion-page "evolution v. creationism" thread.

You don't have to debate or discuss them, and maybe it's a silly exercise, but you do have accept them to move onto the empirically-based debates.

[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Feb 3 2009, 11:41 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 31 2009, 07:20 PM, said:

Quote

start smaller, winston... first start by asking whether or not non-material things even exist... that's what started this, imo... the weight of importance ascribed to this existence is at the root of the whole thing... what do you think?

But I really don't think they should overlap in a debate - either we both debate the metaphysical or we both debate the scientific.

So I guess my starting point would be this: I have serious doubts about the reality or usefulness of any metaphysical Laws. A=A, The Law of Identity, doesn't seem to serve much useful purpose. Seems more like a high school debate rule than a Universal Law.

The laws of the physical world are pretty much useless without some metaphysical laws; for instance, the law of non-contradiction. At any given time and in a single context, both "A" and "not A" cannot be true. If you don't hold to that one, there's not really much point in having a zillion-page "evolution v. creationism" thread.

You don't have to debate or discuss them, and maybe it's a silly exercise, but you do have accept them to move onto the empirically-based debates.

Maybe it is just me but I have trouble calling these "laws" - principles seems a better description because they seem (again to me) as self-evident. I can grasp the significance of these principles to logic and philosophy - but I am unsure about their value outside that realm as at the heart it appears all that can be done is to argue an opinion about those things which cannot be verified.

[mikeh]

gwnn, on Feb 3 2009, 10:34 AM, said:

Mike said:

I have now read Books I and II and skimmed Book III of the lectures later produced as mere Christianity... I thank Richard for the link.

Sorry, but I am not convinced.

That was not the purpose of me referring it to you (or you to it?) as I said

I just wanted to show you a simple and extremely readable version of Christian thought.

On amazon.com, between the many extremely positive Christian and extremely negative atheist reviews, I found myself agreeing with a positive review from an atheist which went something like
"While I do not agree with CS Lewis' main conclusions or premises, it is still wonderful to see his arguments working."
Of course it would be quite foolish from me to dismiss every other review as biased and his review as absolutely objective, I thought this could be your opinion also.

mike said:

But Lewis wrote before developments that have come to be known as evolutionary psychology came about.. he wrote in an era of relative ignorance.

And this is where the crux of the matter is: is morality and related concepts sufficiently explained by evolutionary psychology? From the little that I have read about its concepts I'm not convinced either but I hope I can go into it a little more some other time.

I would like to point out the minor flaw of your arguments against the Gospels' accuracy that they weren't written "hundreds of years after his death", I would say that word is misleading, but that doesn't matter much. Of course in this case also it is a question for everyone to decide, how are those texts/sayings etc best explained, along with all the other facts/experiences/etc related to the religions: Jesus was invented by clever men/Jesus was a clever man and his sayings were modified to make it sound even more clever/Jesus was indeed more or less some sort of special person (as many Eastern religions believe)/etc. Everyone must decide for themselves, and of course almost everyone will be only partly sure and will have doubts/open mind for accepting being wrong in case the balance of evidence changes dramatically.

(and of course the invitation to read the book was not addressed only to MikeH, but he was the one who had talked about reading similar books so I thought he might be most interested).

I should have checked before writing about the gospels I gather that there is a general consensus among scholars who are not bound by church dogma that the gospels were probably written over a period of years, but that the earliest would have been written two or more decades after the death of Jesus and that, moreover, the original writing would have been in Greek. It seems to me unlikely, based on an admittedly vague recollection of the new Testament, that any of the actual disciples would have been able to write in Greek. This combination suggests that the gospels were at best second-hand.

I would also hope that most of us recognize the human tendency to embellish our memories when we sit down to tell about our past, especially if that past has elements of drama, as would surely have been the case. I am not saying that the gospels are thus inherently unreliable.. but I am suggesting that I think that some of the details ought to be read with some degree of scepticism.. an attribute that we routinely bring to bear on secular information but one that, it seems to me, is blithely ignored when it comes to believers reading holy scripture (at least for the more evangelical, or fundamentalist ones).

And in terms of the 'final' form of the gospels and which ones (of many) were selected to be the New Testament.. yes, the selection was made hundreds of years after the events, and thus by people who could have had no personal knowledge.

As for the underlying nature of our moral sense... that seems to be the bedrock underlying Lewis' acceptance of religion, which in turn, after more somewhat dubious 'logic' led him to Christianity. Personally, having read Pinker in particular, and having read of the morality studies described by Dawkins, the argument in favour of morality being an adaptive trait seems very strong. 'Right', in the sense that it is beyond doubt? No... but 'right' in the sense of plausible and avoiding the need to invoke the unprovable... yes.

The perception (I almost wrote 'fact') that Lewis indulged in some pretty loose arguments, that can readily be seen to be fundamentally flawed, doesn't automatically mean that his conclusions were incorrect. It is possible to come to a correct view based on faulty reasoning.. counting a suit out to break 3-2 with length on one's left may get you to hook lho for the missing Queen, and it turns out that you had miscounted, and it was RHO who had the length, but LHO had the Queen anyway. But it does mean that sceptics will likely be reinforced in their scepticism when 'the best that they can do' is so weak (I am not saying, for a moment, that Lewis's Mere Christianity is the 'best that they can do', but it is the place you suggested I visit)

[jtfanclub]

Winstonm, on Jan 31 2009, 06:47 PM, said:

Quote

It's not that faith in religion cures. It's that a belief that you're going to get better makes it more likely that you'll get better, whether that belief is from a placebo or a religion or something else.

Sorry, but I am a little frustrated right now as I feel I am dealing with good folks who have some kind of reading disorder - I never said the placebo effect can't make you temporarily better - what I said is that neither faith nor placebos cure.

I really don't care what makes the placebo effect work - faith, placebo, or invisible green monkeys - because at best it can only be used to augment treatments. It is never utilized as the sole means to cure unless you are engaging in the hocus-pocus of Christian Scientists, witch doctors, or faith healing.

Treatments in general don't cure, medical or otherwise. Your body cures itself. Treatments just help your body in doing so.

For example, cancer treatments don't cure cancer. They mark and destroy vast portions of the body, and trust that the body's immune system and healing process will do the actual curing. Splints don't cure broken bones, they're just a treatment to help the body cure itself. Vaccines? Just help the immune system, and so forth. Short of removing a part of the body or transplanting it, what is it in modern medicine that you consider a cure?

Is it that you believe that without treatment, things like cancer cannot be cured? Well, in truth, most cancer can't be cured period, with or without treatment. Chemotherapy, Radiation therapy, even surgical removal generally doesn't do the trick. Doctors don't talk about cancers being cured, they talk about them being "in remission", which is temporary. So if a placebo allows a cancer to go into remission, does that not count because it's only temporary?

Besides, temporary is often permanent, much the way that you won't come back to life if a doctor removes a bullet from your heart. High blood pressure leads to a higher incidence of heart attacks. Heart attacks can kill. If I temporarily lower somebody's blood pressure by giving them a placebo, I have significantly lowered of his odds of dying during this period. Living vs. Death is permanent. If a patient is given a placebo to lower his blood pressure while a splint is being inserted to keep him alive, then there's a huge chance that placebo will help keep him alive.

And finally, I reject that it's temporary at all. Medications have been recalled by the FDA after they've been shown to be no better than placebos after having been on the market for decades. If people hadn't noticed an effect from them all this time, why would they still have sold? You can argue that it's all in their head, but the truth is that the human immune and repair system is centuries ahead of every medical device and drug ever invented. Your mood and beliefs affect your body's natural healing process, both directly (through secreted chemicals) and indirectly (such as happier person is more likely to exercise).

This is an actual case behind this- a medicine given to patients before a splint was inserted was pulled off the market because it was no better than a placebo. But before it was pulled, that medicine had saved hundreds of lives. You can draw your own conclusion.

[Winstonm]

Quote

what is it in modern medicine that you consider a cure?

Using antibiotics to kill harmful bacteria. Some surgical repairs.

Quote

Besides, temporary is often permanent

That's as convoluted as George Bush saying, "When I say war, I really mean peace."

Quote

And finally, I reject that it's temporary at all

Sounds like you have a lot of faith in your beliefs.

Next time I a seriously ill, I am going to a physician - I wish you well with your faith healers.