Feb 25 2010
Why You Can’t Depend On The Press For Science Reporting
I admit that the title of this post is a little inflammatory, but it’s frustrating when reporters call for input and then proceed to write unbalanced accounts of pseudoscientific practices. A case in point – my last post described a conversation I had with a reporter about energy medicine. My interviewee was very nice and seemed to “track” with me on what I was saying. I did my level best to be compelling, empathic, and fair – but in the final analysis, not a single word of what I said made it into her article. For fun, I thought you’d like to compare what I said, with the final product.
Here’s an excerpt from the article:
Disease has always been with us, but modern, Western medicine is only a few hundred years old.
Before germ theory and pharmaceutical research, the human race devised countless strategies to relieve pain, banish illness and prolong life. Southern Marylanders are keeping a few of these ancient disciplines alive, insisting they have much to teach us, even in a scientific age.
The rest of the piece is full of the usual pseudoscientific arguments: anecdotal evidence, mistrust of scientific methods, a call to “open-mindedness,” an emphasis on “natural” as being synonymous with “safe and effective,” and an “everybody’s doing it, even academic medical centers” rationale for adoption. There was no dissenting opinion – just an unquestioning acceptance of energy medicine.
Now to be fair, the reporter told me that she had included a quote from me in her submission, but that the newspaper editors had cut it out of the online version.
Nonetheless, my take home message from the experience is that blogs like Science Based Medicine seem to offer the only guarantee of unedited rational thought on matters of health and medicine. Thank goodness we’re no longer beholden to mainstream media for all our health news and commentary. It is a shame that most consumers get their news from TV and other outlets that don’t seem to maintain a journalistic quality filter.
This is why our work here is so important… because without scientists and healthcare professionals providing a counterpoint to the endless onslaught of superficial and misleading information, our patients won’t stand a chance of discerning the truth. We need more critical thinkers to join the cause, and I hope that more of us will step up to the plate and contribute to outlets like SBM or Better Health. Waiting for reporters to include us in the discourse could take a very long time…
346 Responses to “Why You Can’t Depend On The Press For Science Reporting”
The problem is with all reporters, not just science reporters.
Dave Winer of RSS and blogging fame has a no-interview policy.
http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/01/29/newPolicyOnInterviews.html
Previously he wrote that he wants to be interviewed by writing in his blog
http://www.scripting.com/2006/08/11.html#interviewRequest
Health News Review, http://www.healthnewsreview.org., critiques news stories about health care and gives advice to journalists on science reporting. The editor may limit the site to print stories now, having decided that broadcast news stories were so consistently bad that it wasn’t worth the effort.
Reading an article like that, one might wonder why we bothered to invent western medicine (Ask your neigborhood pharmacist about Western Medicine!) at all.
I have to agree with the first commenter; it’s not just science reporting. It’s all reporting. I’ve taken to getting news from sources outside the United States since even NPR and the NYT seems to have sold out. Thank FSM for the internet.
Um, this isn’t really science reporting and I doubt the editor or writer considers it to be science journalism or about science really. It’s a puff piece that’s probably in the lifestyle section and he’s a staff writer and clearly not a science journalist. It’s worthy of contempt and critique – and they definitely wasted your time and are presenting a very biased and uncritical view of woo – but that’s pretty par for the course for puff pieces in the lifestyle section. (At least that’s what it looked like to me from what I could tell online.)
It’s a shame that they didn’t give you and science even a token nod and wasted your time. You’ve got to wonder why they even made the pretense of actually doing investigative or fact-based journalism but people do like to fool themselves. Add in the sad fact is that a lot of the people who still have jobs in journalism are the cynical and the credulous. The cynical believe people are stupid and it’s only about selling advertising, the credulous are employed by the cynical because they’re easy to manipulate and don’t think critically or ask questions. And some people are just desperately clinging to the dying corpse of professional journalism trying to pay their rent.
Of course, you do have beacons of hope vis a vis science journalism (MSM has always been somewhat problematic for a wide variety of reasons, you really need competing newspapers in a city and people buying them for good journalism to thrive). There are magazines like SEED (privately funded) which supports these blogs, and there are writers like Ben Goldacre and sometimes you get good science writing in some of the bigger newspapers (and often really crappy science writing).
There are two strategies that could be employed here. One would be to get a letter writing campaign underway by local skeptics and the medical/science community (addressing the editor and/or publisher, not the actual writer). The other is to offer to write an editorial or article for a competing newspaper if there is one – or to approach a sympathetic journalist to do so. However, this kind of lifestyle article is like the kinds done on makeup (or cars or technology) where they’re really intended to be puff pieces that won’t offend readers or advertisers (and actually support advertisers’ products). I’d guess that this writer’s articles about anything are equally fluffy.
So, yes, thank goodness for the blogosphere – it spits up all kinds of idiocy as well as genius, of course. This is why it’s important to be consistent in maintaining integrity and being ethical and transparent if one wants to establish and maintain a reputation as being trustworthy. Because, let’s be honest, there’s just as many people writing blogs who lack integrity as there are journalists, which is why learning how to think critically is so important. That said – go blogosphere!
Not all science reporting in popular media is dreck. Today’s Wall Street Journal offers a well-presented article that examines controversy over routine use of low dose aspirin for the prevention of heart attack.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704511304575075701363436686.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
I agree with the observation that blogging and such are wonderful avenues to get an awesome discussion going on health topics. Of course, it is all open, and so is not vettted, but if people only had a decent science educaiton and a critical mind, the degree and level of education on various topics that can be gleaned in an afternoon are awesome.
Here, for example, various people chip in with side issues, emerging info, etc., and you just almost cannot get that elsewhere -maybe at a research conference seminar.
A journal is too static. Colleagues often have their own research or clinical specialty, so they are not quite your “community.” Listserves can be good.
Maybe an improvement over the blog would be a journal that posted peer-reviewed articles, then set up a discussion forum relative to the article. A “sign-up” deal, such as WordPress login, could cut riff-raff a bit, and some moderator could remove or consor at will to control ad hominem, profanity, etc. — Amazon does that on their discussion boards, and it all seems to go pretty well.
Don’t get me wrong! Keep the blog going! I just think it is a shame that journalism cannot convey health ansd science stories well.
Sorry the news person wanted to write a good-sounding story, versus a relevant, accurate story. So it goes.
Regarding the Southern Maryland story: this woman reported using vodka, and there is a decent evidence base that a drink or two a day is good for the heart. !Salud!
Wow, you sure got sucker punched with that one! At least she didn’t make any attempt to sound unbiased. It might have been even worse if she threw in a quote from you as a sort of sour-grapes perspective.
I hope you continue to do these kinds of interviews, even if it does raise your blood pressure. we who have to read that sort of dreck in our newspapers are thrilled when a little reality breaks in.
One thing I noticed from the article: it seemed as though the author met with her naturopaths and spent quite a bit of time with them, whereas she only spoke to you briefly on the phone. I think their charming personalities and lovely accoutrements may have had more to do with the tone of the final story than anything else.
It is reallly frustrating that the media so often handles science so badly. And while it is critical that rational, skeptical scientists talk to the media, otherwise our perspective won’t be represented at all, it is hard to force oneself to do so knowing one’s perspective will be minimized or misrepresented.
I was recently asked to speak on a Sirius network radio call-in show run by a “holistic” veterinarian. I declined because I felt it was likely to be an ambush, and he seemed to be looking for a sacrificial skeptic to carve up. His subsequent blog trashing of me confirmed my suspicions, but several people have still chastised me for not making the effort to use whatever platform offerred, even a hostile one, to try and combat medical nonsense. *sigh* I suppose even quixotic battles are sometimes worth fighting.
“Regarding the Southern Maryland story: this woman reported using vodka, and there is a decent evidence base that a drink or two a day is good for the heart.”
For men, yes. For women, there appears to be an increased risk of breast cancer.
How can you tell a good reporter from a bad one? Simple, if the woo-meisters like them, they are bad reporters. For example, J.B. Handley of GenerationRescue, routinely trashes McNeill from the NY Times. McNeill’s crime? Writing about the lack of a connection between vaccines and autism. Likewise for Trine Tsouderous (hope I got the spelling right), who exposed Boyd Haley’s quackery with OSR, and industrial chelator. Sharyl Atkinsson of CBS is virulently anti-vaccination and does drive-by trashings of Paul Offit. There are more, but SBM readers are well aware of that.
Recently, I wrote an article at Age of Ignorance, http://age-of-ignorance.blogspot.com/2010/01/experts-used-by-4th-estate-should-be.html where I demonstrated the credulosity of reporters when they are told that a doctor is some sort of expert.
The bottom line is, you have to know your reporters, and do you own background checks. Never take anything at face value.
Please post any Wakefield Sightings at http://wakefieldwatch.blogspot.com/ . We must keep track of this dangerous person.
I hope someone from SBM will analyze this OpEd by Nicholas Kristof in today’s New York Times: “Do Toxins Cause Autism?”
As other commenters have said, it’s not just science reporting. My experience with “journalists” (who are, as a group, the dregs who can just barely make it through college) is that what they don’t get wrong through malice or bias they get wrong through incompetence.
I was interviewed by Millimeter for a puff piece about an animated film. The writer rearranged some words I had actually said, added a few of his own, and generated a sentence that made me sound like an incoherent illiterate. And that’s a magazine with a good rep. By the time you get down to Newsweek territory, you just can’t expect much.
I wish everybody could have the experience that you and I have had, that of being interviewed and then made to look stupid in print. It would make sure that nobody believes anything a reporter writes – at least not without a lot of corroboration.
[...] Val Jones writes about getting shafted by a journalist (or perhaps, their editor) today on the blog Science-Based [...]
[...] Take Dr. Val Jones’ recent Science Based Medicine blog: Why You Can’t Depend On The Press For Science Reporting. [...]
Reporting in general often isn’t that hot. I’ve had several experiences with situations covered by either print or television reporters, and the story you see is often close to what happened in general, but short of accurate in details.
TV reports will often include interviews with people that are interesting to put on camera, even if they didn’t see or know as much about the story as other people that were interviewed or on scene.
We had a bomb go off in our parking garage last year (very interesting story), and the news reports did an interesting job of misquoting the people interviewed, mis-attributing the people quoted, and getting job titles completely wrong.
There isn’t a lot of evidence for energy healing, but this is partly because it has not been studied scientifically until recently. As skeptics, I think we are obliged to consider the evidence, whatever our feelings about it. It doesn’t matter if we understand how energy healing works or not — there are many types of therapies that are accepted, even if no one is sure how they work.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/169354.php
“In a detailed review of 66 clinical studies looking at biofield therapies in different patient populations with a range of ailments, Jain and Mills examine the strength of the evidence for the efficacy of these complementary therapies”
“they find strong evidence that biofield therapies reduce pain intensity in free-living populations, and moderate evidence that they are effective at lowering pain in hospitalized patients as well as in patients with cancer.”
“There is also moderate evidence that these therapies ease agitated behaviors in dementia and moderate evidence that they reduce anxiety in hospitalized patients. ”
“The authors conclude that there is a strong need for further high-quality studies and suggest specific areas for further research.”
[citation needed]
A bass in my choir used to be the Chief Medical Officer of Health for the City of Ottawa. He complained many a time of being misrepresented by the press. What really got his goat is that he understood any attempt to criticize the press for their misdeeds would be political/public relations suicide.
“There isn’t a lot of evidence for energy healing, but this is partly because it has not been studied scientifically until recently. As skeptics, I think we are obliged to consider the evidence, whatever our feelings about it. It doesn’t matter if we understand how energy healing works or not — there are many types of therapies that are accepted, even if no one is sure how they work.”
No plausibility. This is gullibility pure and simple. This stuff is about as real as facilitated communication. Wasn’t there a 12 year old girl a few years ago that checked this scientifically? I’m pretty sure I read it in JAMA.
Of course, the irony of the writer starting the story going on about how “western” medicine is only a few hundred years old is that Reiki is less than “a few hundred years old”, having been invented in Japan in the 1920s, and it’s pretty clear that anything with “Quantum” in it is an even more recent invention. Ah, the land of make believe….
lizkat said:
“There isn’t a lot of evidence for energy healing, but this is partly because it has not been studied scientifically until recently. As skeptics, I think we are obliged to consider the evidence, whatever our feelings about it. It doesn’t matter if we understand how energy healing works or not — there are many types of therapies that are accepted, even if no one is sure how they work.”
OMG, where do I start.
Unfortunately this is the wrong thread.
weing asked:
“Wasn’t there a 12 year old girl a few years ago that checked this scientifically?”
Linda Rosa tested “therapeutic touch” and it failed the scientific test. The plausibility factor was about zero, so it was not a surprising result. What is also not surprising is that therapeutic touch continues to be used – even, and especially by, nurses who should know better.
I think energy healing/therapeutic touch sounds great for a placebo/ somebody cares about me effect. In a church. Where I don’t have to go.
I have to strongly second the suggestion to address Kristof’s NYT piece today. I think he makes some good points (about lead, mercury, asbestos) and I also wonder if toxicology has moved into the medical mainstream as he claims. But I’m skeptical about his main thesis- potential autism causes and phthalates. Thanks!
>No plausibility. This is gullibility pure and simple. This stuff is about >as real as facilitated communication. Wasn’t there a 12 year old girl >a few years ago that checked this scientifically? I’m pretty sure I >read it in JAMA.
weing, as skeptics we should not allow ourselves to ignore evidence we don’t like, or to only consider evidence we do like. Anyone who does that is a believer, not a scientific skeptic.
There was a review of 66 studies, published in a mainstream journal, showing some effectiveness. Versus one negative study.
Remember that plausibility is in the mind of the believer. Energy, and how it is related to biological processes, is not well understood.
How many times do we have to prove Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are not real?
weing on 26 Feb 2010 at 8:52 am
“How many times do we have to prove Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are not real?”
∞
weing
“How many times do we have to prove Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are not real?”
∞
You know that guy, Sisyphus? With the boulders and hills and all?
I am glad that at least we got to read your comments here, Dr. J.
micheleinmichigan,
That was in Hades, the Greek equivalent of hell. I don’t think we should be put in the Sisyphian hell by these believers who have placed themselves into the hell of Tantalus.
Damn, I was going for the Camus, Myth of Sisyphus reference and now I have to look up Tantalus. Serve’s me right.
Okay, standing in a pool of water, grapes above, but can’t reach out to eat or drink.
Good one.
[...] Val Jones, M.D., a blogger at Science-Based Medicine and president and CEO of a health education company, tees off on media coverage of science in a post titled “Why You Can’t Depend On The Press For Science Reporting.” [...]
“How many times do we have to prove Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are not real?”
You can refuse to acknowledge scientific evidence if that makes you feel good. But that means renouncing your skeptic status.
I used to tell my kids that Santa Claus was real and they found lots of scientific evidence to prove it. I, myself, nearly drove off the highway when I found out Santa was not real. I had been skeptical about the non-existence of Santa up to that point. Then, I became a believer.
Energy medicine is a perfect example of what I have called Tooth Fairy Science. They are studying clinical applications of something that has not been shown to exist. If there is a human energy field that involves real (not imaginary) energy, advocates should be able to demonstrate that energy to physicists (and quantify it) and practitioners should be able to demonstrate that they can detect it under double blind conditions.
The existence of Santa Claus can be “proven” by the appearance of gifts on Christmas morning. There is an alternate explanation. There is also an alternate explanation for the positive results of energy medicine studies. It involves poor research methodology, psychological factors, and self-deception.
LizKat,
1) You’re quoting a press release.
2) The press release doesn’t refer to randomized prospective double-blinded studies. For all we know, the studies are all surveys of the type, “I just manipulated your aura. Do you feel better now?” We know there were no good studies included because the authors of the paper say so.
3) It’s plausible that receiving an aura manipulation in addition to standard therapy would be soothing for people who like that kind of thing. That doesn’t necessarily mean that aura manipulation exists. It could mean that visualisation exercises and the company of a relaxed person are beneficial to people in pain.
4) See Harriet Hall on Tooth Fairy Science. http://skepticstoolbox.org/hall/
“If you don’t consider prior probability, you can end up doing what I call Tooth Fairy Science. You can study whether leaving the tooth in a baggie generates more Tooth Fairy money than leaving it wrapped in Kleenex. You can study the average money left for the first tooth versus the last tooth. You can correlate Tooth Fairy proceeds with parental income. You can get reliable data that are reproducible, consistent, and statistically significant. You think you have learned something about the Tooth Fairy. But you haven’t. Your data has another explanation, parental behavior, that you haven’t even considered. You have deceived yourself by trying to do research on something that doesn’t exist.” The prior probability of a person being able to manipulate something undetectable (undetectable both by objective methods and to themselves, as Emily Rosa demonstrated) is close to zero. There is currently no reason to think that studies on “energy healing” have anything to do with “biofields.”
5) You’re asking people to believe in the existence of something that nobody can detect and accusing them of being unskeptical when they don’t.
6) On the other hand, there are other, simpler explanations of why “energy healing” might make some people feel better. You don’t accept these simpler explanations that fully account for the observations, so you aren’t skeptical of energy healing. You consider yourself skeptical, but skepticism is general: it applies to everything. If you are not skeptical of energy healing, you simply aren’t skeptical.
7) It’s not that energy healing can’t exist, it’s just that we have no reason to think it does. My ex used to cite as proof of ghosts the fact that once when she was taking a bath her coffee mug appeared on the edge of the bathtub when she had put it on the floor. I pointed out that there was another, simpler, possible explanation (that she was smoking a lot of dope in that period of her life, that she was stoned at the time of the coffee-mug-and-bathtub incident, and that she herself had put the coffee mug on the edge of the bathtub and had simply had a memory lapse and forgotten). It’s not that ghosts can’t exist; it’s that the coffee-mug-and-bathtub incident isn’t a reason to think they do.
I’m with lizkat. I don’t bow down to your gods of plausibility.
What’s implausible today often becomes conventional wisdom a decade or a generation from now.
Is anyone willing to actually carefully examine the study and critique it on its merits rather than simply saying or implying that it can’t be valid so no need to pay any attention to it?
Here’s the link to the full study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2816237/
I don’t reject energy medicine because it is implausible. I reject it because there is no evidence that the alleged human energy fields exist. I reject the kind of evidence in the cited review because it is all Tooth Fairy Science that attempts to study the use of something that has not been shown to exist. Tooth Fairy studies are almost guaranteed to show some positive results due to the pitfalls of scientific research, but the conclusions don’t prove the existence of the Tooth Fairy.
Bowing down to the gods of plausibility?
If I have to question everything all the time, I wouldn’t be able to function. What if pink snakes are going to come out of my nose if I drink that coffee? What if the next metro is going to take me to the moon? What if breathing doesn’t actually help oxygenate my hemoglobin after all? What if the woman in the next cubicle is controlling my thoughts? My beloved had a vasectomy, but what if I’m a disguised hammerhead shark and can still reproduce asexually? What if there’s a an undetectable teapot orbiting the sun?
You might be able to construct an imaginary universe in which these things could be true, but there is no reason to think that any of them might be. And there’s no reason to think that energy healing might be true either. It’s a nice idea, but there’s no more reason to think it has effects beyond placebo than there is to imagine that I’m a billionnaire — also a nice idea.
I looked at the energy therapy reference above and it contained the phase
“Gaseous Discharge Visualization”
Some things write themselves.
The subject of energetic healing is interesting. I like to keep an open mind about it. When I see the often reflexive dismissal of it by bloggers here I always think a more thoughtful commentary is due.
Whenever I encounter too much certainty on the part of some individuals regarding the nonvalidity of hypothetical types of energy I revert to physics, that most fundamental of the sciences. There are some strange goings on in the world of physics (Einstein dubbed nonlocal quantum interactions “spooky”) which highlight just how much physicists do not know. I certainly don’t understand everything about physics, but what is so refreshing about most physicists is their willingness to admit that neither do they. The trend of physics professors writing high level books for the lay person is a welcome one for me.
Take, for example, virtual particles. The Berkeley Lab site’s interactive “The Particle Adventure” states “The virtual particles exist for such a short time that they can never be observed.” Yet “Most particle processes are mediated by virtual-carrier particles.” In other words, virtual particles have measureable effects, yet the virtual particles themselves are not observable.
http://www.particleadventure.org/virtual.html
So are virtual particles “real” or not? This article says they are http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea
This from the Stanford Linear Accelerator site: http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/model.html#Higgs Physics
“In the Standard Model, there is at least one additional type of interaction beyond the four known forces (weak, strong, electromagnetic, and gravitational). This force is needed to explain how all the fundamental particle masses are generated. This part of the theory is the least tested experimentally, so there are a number of different competing ideas on how it may work.” A fifth unknown force, interesting.
This hypothetical fifth force, combined with the queer fact of nonlocality or quantum entanglement, and the hypothesized multiple dimensions and branes of M theory lead me to believe we are ignorant of much of workings of physical reality. Many nobel-laureate physicists have contemplated the strangeness of physical reality, whether or not it is “real” and what role is played by human consciousness. Rather than “tooth fairy” science I prefer some less derogatory label for virtual or unmeasureable forces and masses. Theoretical physics is the fascinating cutting edge of these studies. For concepts like energy healing it might be more scientifically accurate to state that “scientific experiments and instruments have not yet been able to observe and measure a force or energy facilitating healing effects”.
For anyone interested in reading more on physics I highly recommend two books written at a high level by physicists for the lay public: (these are not “woo” books by any stretch of the imagination and the Quantum Enigma authors explicitly state so).
Warped Passages: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universe’s Hidden Dimensions by Lisa Randall (2006) (Lisa is a Harvard theoretical physicist, one of the few prominent women in this field)
Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner (2008)
The rule of newspapers:
If they write about something you know, they are not to be trusted; when writing about something you don’t know, they are the absolute truth.
I see this, and fall prey to it, too often.
A weird sort of cognitive dissonance seem to happen to people when they read the paper, or watch the news.
Please turn in your skeptic card.
If you are really, really trying to be a “skeptic” in these regards, then you must really go through all the slides of Dr. Hall’s “Tooth Fairy Science and Other Pitfalls: Applying Rigorous Science to Messy Medicine” such link has already been posted to you, but just in case you have skipped it… :
http://skepticstoolbox.org/hall/
To further clarify, one might be justified in describing the concept of energetic healing as a speculative one, but it is unnecessary to denigrate speculation as “tooth fairy” science, unless you’re willing to apply that label to theoretical physics as well.
A link to the Quantum Enigma website where the authors carefully discuss the misuse of physics theories to support pseudoscience. They discuss the difference between legitimate hyberole and hype, while they “succinctly expose the mystery physics has encountered, admit the limits of our understanding, and identify as speculation whatever goes beyond those limits”
http://quantumenigma.com/nutshell/notable-quotes-on-quantum-physics/
I think the skeptics here would appreciate this book, as the authors describe the mysteries or physics’ “skeleton in the closet” as they phrase it, but they assiduously avoid unwarranted speculation.
Yaaay! Quantum physics!
You’ve posted my second comment, which makes no sense without the first comment, still held up in moderation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2816237/
“Inclusion criteria for studies were as follows: (1) published in a peer-review journal in English language, (2) use of a proximally practiced (i.e., practitioner and client in same room) biofield-based modality, and (3) quantitative (biological and/or psychological) endpoints. RCTs are included in this review, as well as within-subject designs that incorporated appropriate pre- and postmeasures and/or historical control groups.”
“five of seven placebo-controlled trials with pain patients reported reductions in pain for biofield vs placebo controls”
It’s hard to understand why Harriet Hall won’t take any of this seriously. She accepts the usefulness of antiretroviral drugs for AIDS on much, much weaker evidence.
I suppose the international journal of quackery is considered peer-reviewed if the peers are quacks. In my spare time I’ve been trying to study a little quantum physics. I still don’t know enough about it. So far I’ve learned that if it doesn’t make you angry, then you don’t understand it. But I’m angry because I don’t understand it.
Quantum Medicine. It behaves differently depending upon how it’s observed. I’m NOT up for being the first test subject in that study.
Weing said on quantum physics “So far I’ve learned that if it doesn’t make you angry, then you don’t understand it. But I’m angry because I don’t understand it.” Weing this worthy of Yogi Berra (meant as a compliment).
No one understands quantum physics, not even quantum physicists. So don’t feel bad.
“You’ve posted my second comment, which makes no sense without the first comment, still held up in moderation.”
Screening anything that doesn’t fit well with the anti-CAM ideology. Oh yes, very skeptical and scientific.
# lizkat
“You’ve posted my second comment, which makes no sense without the first comment, still held up in moderation.”
Screening anything that doesn’t fit well with the anti-CAM ideology. Oh yes, very skeptical and scientific.”
I’m pretty sure this is an automated system, I’ve often had very mundane (non-controversial) posts get caught up in moderation. I figure all you can do, if you need to make a second post that is based on a first, is to leave the second one in the edit box and then hit submit after the first one leaves moderation. Clumsy, but better than telegraphing I suppose.
Here’s another fascinating article from Stanford’s site about some recent surprising discoveries about the structure of water “suggesting that molecular models that went out of fashion decades ago may be in fact more accurate than recent ones”. I would like to highlight the comment at the end which sums up the complexities of making new physics discoveries and how experimentation and theorizing work hand in hand: “I think of this type of research as a relay race: The experimentalists run for a while until they can’t explain something they’ve seen, and then the theorists run for a while until they can’t go any farther without more data, and then it’s back to the experimentalists,” he said. “So, this time, we’re saying that it’s time for the theorists to run their leg.”
http://today.slac.stanford.edu/feature/2010/water-structure.asp
To those speculating here about the moderation process and comments getting hung up in moderation. I have at times suspected that there was an intentional delay in posting a comment such that it will be buried behind subsequent comments and not noticed by readers following only the most recent comments in a thread. I could be wrong of course.
“Screening anything that doesn’t fit well with the anti-CAM ideology. Oh yes, very skeptical and scientific.”
You are not skeptical of this claim?
There’s no “could be” about it. You are wrong. We have day jobs, you know, and other things going. I do most of the checking of the spam filters, and it’s not as though I sit there waiting for your scintillating wit and wisdom to appear so that I can release it as soon as possible. Sometimes it’s several hours. Sometimes it’s overnight. I do sleep sometimes, you know.
“I do sleep sometimes, you know.”
You expect us to believe that?
Thanks for clarification DG, we all need some shut eye occasionally.
Here’s another example of science journalism from this week’s “Time.” The Autism Vaccine Debate:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1967796,00.html
# oderb
“I’m with lizkat. I don’t bow down to your gods of plausibility. ”
But I have to point out if a bunch of SBM practitioners were in a garage band that would be a great name.
“Gods of Plausibility” or if you don’t want to seem egotistical* “Sons of Plausibility” or Daughters. Sorry you can’t have both men and women, the name is too long.
If it ever happens, please call me to do the flyer.
*unusual in a garage band…
Dr Gorski & Wales – We all tend to take things personally, even things that have nothing to do with us (which is most things really). Our brains are, to put it unscientifically, meaning machines and evolved to give us a sense of “me” (we’ve even got a sense of a meta “me” in the super ego or watching consciousness, probably just a weird evolutionary by-product but it does make life interesting…personally I suspect we share this with some other mammals, much as we like to think we’re super special not-animals
)
I’d say that one of the first things it’s important to recognize in both considering science and skepticism is that it just isn’t really all about us…not as individuals, not as a species, not even as a planet or solar system. Yes, it can cause some existential angst to realize this for some people (hence the need for gods and to make the universe revolve around us, or at least one of the reasons we make up big sky mommies and daddies). But, hey, reality just is. The scientific method is the best we’ve got for trying to see what is from an objective perspective.
And about journalism. I think it’s good to take science journalists to task and I appreciate Dr Jones’ sharing her experience with crappy journalism. Anecdotes are always interesting, it’s why they’re so often used in human interest stories like the one being critiqued (which is all anecdote and narrative and certainly doesn’t let facts get in the way of a “good story”). On the other hand, it’s a bit like complaining that water is wet. Many people seem to be very naive about how the media functions so have unrealistic expectations and get disappointed when the reality proves to be different than what they’d like it to be. Why not help people understand the nature of MSM media and how to think critically and deconstruct media – or point them to sites that do just this and good sources of science journalism – rather than simply complaining that water is wet?
The other thing is that most people below a certain age don’t even read newspapers or watch much TV, they get most of their information and entertainment online. It’s pretty easy to point to a rotting corpse and to proclaim it stinks. It’s much dirtier and harder to do the forensic work of dissecting that corpse and seeing what killed it so as to keep the next generation healthy and maybe even help out those still on life support. I mean, all the bloggers here obviously think it’s important to communicate with the general public about science (barring the recently departed), how do we make it better? How do we inoculate the general public against memes that make them woozy? I’m pretty sure Rupert Murdoch is impervious to anything but money and there’s no cure for avarice (but his offspring seem less impervious to public opinion). That said, a robust media environment from science (and skeptical or reality-based thinking) can start with strengthening scientific communication at the source too.
or rather….”That said, a robust media environment FOR science (and skeptical or reality-based thinking) can start with strengthening scientific communication at the source too.”
oderb,
Who knows? In a few years we may accept it as common knowledge that Santa really exists or that 2=1.
It’s very interesting how the reporters apply a double standard to these daughters of woo. If a physician had ties with big pharma like the woman in the referenced article, he would be denounced with ad hominems as a pharma shill.
“Daughters of Woo” sounds like a great name for a rock band.
Damn it. There is a rock band named The Sons & Daughters of Woo already. The WSJ was right. It is getting harder and harder to patent an original name for a rock band.
There is more than one way to look foolish. Lord Kelvin famously said in 1894 that there were no new physics discoveries to be made. Thank goodness scientists paid no attention to him, or we’d have no transistors, lasers or MRIs (and a host of other discoveries that haven’t yet been put to practical use). Retrospective foolishness can be accompanied by an excess of imagination or scarcity of it.
No, it’s “The Sons & Daughters of Woody Guthrie.” I guess I’m still safe, then.
“it’s not as though I sit there waiting for your scintillating wit and wisdom to appear so that I can release it as soon as possible”
Oh, shucks, I thought all you did 24/7 was wait for our wit and wisdom!
“Retrospective foolishness can be accompanied by an excess of imagination or scarcity of it.”
Fortunately, reality is not hampered by the constraints of imagination.
Ok, my last comment is awaiting moderation. It must be a real doozy. Not!
And just how is it that physicists are confident that dark energy makes up 70% of the energy in the universe yet they cannot describe it or observe it? I love those physicists, they are not afraid to go out on a limb based upon mathematical calculations. “informed” speculation if you will.
If their calculations have been trustworthy thus far in explaining the observable universe, then they must be correct when they indicate the existence of dark energy and matter. If they are wrong, we will learn something new.
Weing I couldn’t have said it better.
Well, I think Grouch Marx once said “Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?”
Lizkat: “http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2816237/
“Inclusion criteria for studies were as follows: (1) published in a peer-review journal in English language, (2) use of a proximally practiced (i.e., practitioner and client in same room) biofield-based modality, and (3) quantitative (biological and/or psychological) endpoints. RCTs are included in this review, as well as within-subject designs that incorporated appropriate pre- and postmeasures and/or historical control groups.”
“five of seven placebo-controlled trials with pain patients reported reductions in pain for biofield vs placebo controls”
It’s hard to understand why Harriet Hall won’t take any of this seriously. She accepts the usefulness of antiretroviral drugs for AIDS on much, much weaker evidence.”
===============================
Harriet may have missed this comment.
It is very difficult to achieve complete patient blinding in such studies, especially so as to to prevent conscious or unconscious cueing of patients by therapists as to whether they are getting “real” treatment or not. Simply saying to a few patients “you will feel better now” could warp the results into statistical significance.
So this is weak evidence that such treatments do anything — that is, beyond the enforced “time out”, the well-meaning human interaction and other placebo influences.
We have come to even EXPECT such results when enthusiasts for theatrical difficult-to-blind kinds of treatment start seeking vindication in clinical studies.
The nature and strength of the beneficial responses reported are also suspiciously close to those expected of placebo medical interactions, there being no demonstrable effects of TT or Reiki upon any disease or physiological activity.
In contrast there is powerful objective evidence that HIV patients are living healthier and longer when using modern drugs. There are other objective effects of treatment such as reduced viral load and higher CD4 counts after treatment is commenced.
Our position is not that “bioenergy” treatments are of no value at all to the recipients. We just cannot, on present evidence, take the theory behind it seriously. It is not needed to explain the observed facts.
pmoran said, “Harriet may have missed this comment.”
No, I didn’t miss it. I just thought it was useless to respond to someone who has said she believes the evidence shows that anti-retroviral treatment for HIV/AIDS does more harm than good.
If she had read all of my posts and http://skepticstoolbox.org/hall/ she would have had an opportunity to understand why I take antiretroviral drugs seriously and don’t take energy medicine seriously. I say “would have had an opportunity” rather than “would have understood” because I have so often seen preconceived ideas interfere with reading comprehension.
#
# waleson 27 Feb 2010 at 12:04 pm
“And just how is it that physicists are confident that dark energy makes up 70% of the energy in the universe yet they cannot describe it or observe it? I love those physicists, they are not afraid to go out on a limb based upon mathematical calculations. “informed” speculation if you will.”
Oh well, the concept of gravity is based on mathematical calculations, informed speculation. But I will trust it enough to avoid wandering off a cliff edge.
By which I mean I believe many of the theories of physics are based on observation of our enviroment. My physics is pathetic, but I thought that the theory of dark energy was based on observations of elements in space around the proposed dark matter. Also in calculating the mass of light matter (the matter we can see) it fell short of the mass in a given area. Therefore there is mass we can not see (dark matter). Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. This is not entirely abstract mathmatical calculations. There is observation. But I believe it is very hard to test.
We form theories as a foundation for additional theories. Sometimes a new idea disproves another one. Science is not static, but that does not mean we must sit idle because something maybe wrong.
This is how I do artwork. I do not expect every mark to be correct and solid in it’s own right. I move forward with each mark based on the previous ones and erase or paint over the previous ones as needed, constantly reassessing if elements make sense together.
The difference, I imagine, is the canvas of science will never be complete. (groan, that was excruciatingly trite, but I have to go cook dinner.)
NO!!! Sorry, I hadn’t noticed this thread until now, but this is exactly the kind of misinformation that Larry Dossey and other advocates of psychokinesis (‘energy healing’) have managed to foist upon the academic medical world. There has been more than enough scientific effort squandered on psi for decades, and it has long been time to “close the books” on it.
“someone who has said she believes the evidence shows that anti-retroviral treatment for HIV/AIDS does more harm than good.”
I believe I actually said that the evidence is confusing and not very convincing. Correlational studies show AIDS mortality going down once AR treatment began. But at the same time there was also an increase in diagnosis. We know that correlations do not necessarily imply causation.
Controlled experiments only used placebo controls at the beginning, before AZT was approved. Once AZT was approved, it was considered unethical to deprive patients of the accepted treatment. But AZT was never shown to be effective in studies lasting more than 3 years.
Later experiments compared newer drugs to older drugs. So there is no good solid evidence for AR drugs.
I can understand being skeptical of energy healing, and I am skeptical of it also. But if you say all energy healing is wishful thinking, and all the research is defective, then you should apply the same standards to AR treatments.
http://www.aras.ab.ca/azt-ineffectiveness.html
“Among patients who did not receive zidovudine, the death rate was approximately constant for the first 5 years after AIDS diagnosis. For patients treated with zidovudine, the death rate within the first year since starting zidovudine was markedly lower than for untreated patients who had developed AIDS at the same time (relative rate, 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42 to 0.51). For longer times since starting zidovudine, the association with reduced mortality rate was diminished, and for patients surviving more than 2 years since starting zidovudine, the death rate was greater than for untreated patients who had developed AIDS at the same time (relative rate, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.58). Adjustment for other prognostic factors failed to substantially affect this observation.”
So mortality was GREATER for patients treated with AZT, after 2 years.
If the studies on HIV treatment were as crappy as the studies in the review you referenced, we would all be skeptical of it.
weing on 27 Feb 2010 at 11:32 am
“Daughters of Woo” sounds like a great name for a rock band.
I like “Daughters of Woo” I’m thinking either a Grrl group or…
or if you’re looking for something in the alternative realm like Wheezer or Hole, it could just be Woo, but that has to be taken.
Generally, I’d guess if you look to science for your band names you may find a great many copyright free. I’m partial to the idea of a thrash band named after an intestinal parasite.
Oh no, not HIV again? Could you just number your arguments?
Lizcat: In regard to HIV see 1
1st commentor: oh yeah, well 5
2nd commentor: don’t forget about 10!
Lizcat: well what you haven’t considered is 26
1st commentor: there is no need to make personal attacks!
3st commentor: if you had read 10 you wouldn’t be suggesting 26
1st commentor: umm, ultimately you are just in denial about 9
Because really aren’t we all just in denial about 9?
Think of all the scrolling we’d save.
No sorry, I’m not really suggesting that. I just got caught up in the concept.
weing on 27 Feb 2010 at 11:59 am
“Fortunately, reality is not hampered by the constraints of imagination.”
Yes. It is also fortunate that imagination is not hampered by reality. Some discovers are an inspired leap from “reality” as we know it.
lizkat,
“No one understands quantum physics, not even quantum physicists.”
I am quite prepared to accept that you understand absolutely nothing about quantum physics. Quantum physicists, however understand a whole lot more than that.
weing,
“I still don’t know enough about it. So far I’ve learned that if it doesn’t make you angry, then you don’t understand it. But I’m angry because I don’t understand it.”
The energy freaks, on the other hand, think they know all about quantum physics and they are completely happy in their utter ignorance of the fact that they don’t even know that they don’t know.
“Some discovers are an inspired leap from “reality” as we know it.”
Oh well, “reality as we know it” (yes, sorry, your scare quotes were a little off) is quite a different animal from “reality as she really truely, you know, “in actual reality”, exists”.
…sorry, I think I might have got the punctuation a little wrong.
The evidence for HAART is abundant and overwhelming, and does not require prospective, placebo-controlled RCTs. It consists of numerous studies of diverse populations unanimously showing abrupt, marked improvements in survival curves beginning in 1996 (when multi-drug HAART regimens became available), other studies showing unanimous worsening of survival among those who subsequently stopped HAART, and more. See here and related articles.
Lizkat,
We went through all this with you extensively on Dr Amy Tuteur’s post on Reflexive Doubt:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3638#comments
For a more scientifically based assessment of the usefulness of HAART in treating HIV/AIDS, I suggested the following article by Nancy Wongvipat, M.P.H.
http://www.thebody.com/content/treat/art4826.html
She comments:
“HAART stands for Highly Active AntiRetroviral (anti-HIV) Therapy. The first HAART treatments, in 1996, included a protease inhibitor along with two nucleoside analog drugs to fight HIV. Now HAART means any potent combination of three or more anti-HIV drugs.”
—————-
Lizkat, you then cited the following reference:
From AIDS Truth: http://www.aidstruth.org/science/arvs
In particular, you don’t understand that in mathematics and logic, when you show that B is better than A and you show that C is better than B, you can deduce that C is better than A.
Or, as your own source described it:
“Benefits of antiretroviral drugs: Evidence that the benefits of HAART outweigh its risks
Numerous clinical trials as well as observational data (i.e. studies from clinical practice) have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the benefits of antiretroviral treatment for people with HIV/AIDS far outweigh their risks. ”
and the following:
“Jordan et al. (2002) Systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence for increasing numbers of drugs in antiretroviral combination therapy. BMJ 2002;324:757. This meta-analysis of 54 antiretroviral clinical trials has demonstrated that:
* Using one antiretroviral reduced progression to AIDS or death by 30% against placebo.
* Using two antiretrovirals reduced progression to AIDS or death by 40% against one antiretroviral
* Using three antiretrovirals reduced progression to AIDS or death by 40% against two antiretrovirals”
HAART is not a panacaea or a cure. But, it is far better than the alternative.
And, the “follow-up” has been going on for 15 years.
Your response on 31 Jan 2010 at 8:11 pm was:
“* Using one antiretroviral reduced progression to AIDS or death by 30% against placebo.
* Using two antiretrovirals reduced progression to AIDS or death by 40% against one antiretroviral
* Using three antiretrovirals reduced progression to AIDS or death by 40% against two antiretrovirals”
The drug vs placebo trials used AZT, which is now known to be ineffective. Subsequent trials compared newer drugs to AZT, not to placebo.
We’ve been through all this already.
”
Yes, lizkat, we have been through all this already.
And, I don’t plan to beat it to death any further on this thread.
But, I would like to note a couple of things before I end this comment.
1. As I recall from my reading up on it a few weeks ago, current HAART combinations still include AZT but at a reduced dose to minimize side effects.
2. Simple multiplication shows that the combination of three antiretrovirals reduces progression to death by 155% with a moderately increased statistical uncertainty from using the three trial comparison instead of a direct A-B trial.
@michelleinmichigan,
I think you hit the nail on the head.
I have a longer comment for lizkat in moderation as of 10:30 pm EST.
Lizcat (I think) ” There isn’t a lot of evidence for energy healing, but this is partly because it has not been studied scientifically until recently.”
Kimball Atwood responded “NO!!! Sorry, I hadn’t noticed this thread until now, but this is exactly the kind of misinformation that Larry Dossey and other advocates of psychokinesis (’energy healing’) have managed to foist upon the academic medical world. There has been more than enough scientific effort squandered on psi for decades, and it has long been time to “close the books” on it.”
I don’t know anything about Reiki or any of the research that has been done, but a quick reading of the link up thread indicates that it is a review of research regarding Reiki and it’s use to decrease pain in cancer, anxiety in hospitalization and negative behavior in patients with Alemizers.
I don’t think “healing” is the topic here. It is not healing in the sense of “look! the wound is healed.”
On the other hand, when used to manage pain, reduce anxiety or negative behavior, I think it would be much more likely that the Reiki or TT could be acting in a way similar to Cognitive Behavior Therapy, no need to assume that PSI is at work.
I don’t even know that the research analysis in the link intended to look at Reiki or TT as anything beyond a cognitive training process, since the study is done by authors from:
“1UCLA Division of Cancer Prevention and Control Research, Los Angeles, USA
2Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, USA
3Symptom Control Group, Moores Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, USA”
Harriet mentioned the blinding issue. How do researcher’s blind CBT techniques?
Perhaps there are Reiki techniques that are more effective than placebo for helping patients reframe their pain experience, distract from ruminating about pain or lower anxiety, better than the typical placebo effect. Perhaps there is something there that CBT can add to it’s expanding toolbox.
But that discussion doesn’t have anything to do with some mysterious energy that can heal physiological disease.
Oh and I haven’t been caught in moderation once this session. But I have been posting in lower traffic times. I’m guessing during higher traffic times the server software gets a backlog on the comment/moderation functions. Just a thought if someone is trying to predict when their comments are less or more likely to get caught in moderation.
I meant – Perhaps there are Reiki techniques that are more effective than placebo for helping patients reframe their pain experience, distract from ruminating about pain or lower anxiety.
got distract in the midst of rephrasing.
#
# BillyJoeon 27 Feb 2010 at 9:56 pm
“Some discovers are an inspired leap from “reality” as we know it.”
Oh well, “reality as we know it” (yes, sorry, your scare quotes were a little off) is quite a different animal from “reality as she really truely, you know, “in actual reality”, exists”.
No worries on the quote correction.
I agree. I was afraid it was going to sound like I was contradicting weing, and I’m now I see I did.
I was only trying to say that imagination or inspiration plays an important role in new discoveries of “actual reality”. A thought that that weing’s post sparked in me. This is a pet thought of mine. How science is a creative endeavor.
A bit to tangential to say so briefly.
michele – “On the other hand, when used to manage pain, reduce anxiety or negative behavior, I think it would be much more likely that the Reiki or TT could be acting in a way similar to Cognitive Behavior Therapy, no need to assume that PSI is at work.”
I’m not someone who dismisses things out of hand, I like to investigate for myself and I’ve found that if you want to understand what something is in any real way, you need to do some real research and not just rely upon anecdotes. Being a level one Reiki “master” – hey, I’m curious, open to new experiences and the opportunity came up to see what Reiki was actually about so I took it – and having worked with people on developing their ability to use mindfulness techniques to help manage chronic pain, I’m pretty confident in saying that CBT and reiki are actually very different from each other. Reiki is also very different from mindfulness techniques and meditation (which have a plausible mechanism). There’s no plausible mechanism for reiki. CBT is about becoming aware of one’s thoughts and feelings and how they’re connect, and how they’re connected to actions. In very simple terms, it’s coming to understand cause and effect and learning how to modify thoughts and actions to change how one reacts in a situation. It is all about self awareness and living in reality (sometimes a reality one has been avoiding). On the other hand, reiki is entirely passive and about indulging in make believe (not necessarily a bad thing if you’re clear on the difference between reality and make believe, potentially harmful for people who have a mental illness that already causes confusion about what is real and what is imaginary). Reiki is based on the idea of imaginary energy flowing into the person to heal them and cleanse their energy. There’s lots also a fortune telling/free association kind of aspect that involves relating images that arise in the reiki practitioner’s head (not the actual person getting the reiki treatment, the practitioner, and often involving past lives and so on). No doubt there’s a social placebo effect from simply paying attention to someone and being soothing, most of us can use more gentleness and loving touch in our lives. The more traumatizes or stressed we fell, the more us apes need to be groomed and touched. However, you generally can’t charge someone oodles of money just to be kind to them and you don’t get to pretend you’ve got magical powers and are a special, spiritually superior healer if you’re just compassionate and kind with others. It’s a symptom of how we tend to devalue kindness and compassion in our culture unless it’s a grandiose act that props up the narcissistic image of the person who’s trying to create a public image of themselves as kind and compassionate.
Sorry for veering off topic into pain management but since it’s been brought up it seems worth discussing with a bit more depth. North American culture tends to have somewhat stoic and/or puritanical cultural beliefs around pain (and expressing certain emotions). How we cope with and experience pain isn’t only biological, it’s also defined by our family culture (which can be very influenced by our ethnic culture) and the larger culture we live within. Also, there’s often an aspect related to being male or female since most cultures have different rules around pain for each gender. Since we all have the subjective experience of pain – and there are no biological/objective measurements for pain – we all have a tendency to project our experience onto others (which is why it can be hard for people who’ve never experienced chronic pain to understand what it’s like and why people can’t “just get over it”). When someone is experiencing unrelenting suffering, a little bit of kindness and compassion can go a very long way. I hesitate to classify this as a placebo effect in and of itself in some ways, though obviously being kind and compassionate can create a placebo effect.
* Using one antiretroviral reduced progression to AIDS or death by 30% against placebo.
* Using two antiretrovirals reduced progression to AIDS or death by 40% against one antiretroviral
* Using three antiretrovirals reduced progression to AIDS or death by 40% against two antiretrovirals”
If the first claim is not accurate, then the next two don’t mean what you think. The meta-analysis cited by AIDS Truth says AZT only showed a benefit it studies lasting under 3 years, and showed no benefit in studies lasting 3 years or more. So there was no demonstration of long-term benefit of AZT, compared against placebo.
The laster studies compared newer drugs and combinations against AZT, and were shown to be better than AZT. But if AZT was never shown to have any long term benefit over placebo, then what do we really know about the newer drugs and combinations?
We do know that AZT is toxic and that some of its adverse effects can lead to death. So it’s possible the newer drugs perform better than AZT at least partly because they are less toxic.
AIDS Truth wants to promote HAART, yet this was the best evidence it could show for the effectiveness of AR drugs.
lizkat – By arguing an AIDS denialist perspective (because there’s not absolute proof) AND arguing that reiki and “energy healing” should be given the benefit of the doubt without any decent evidence (and despite there being no plausible mechanism) in the same thread, you make your very unbalanced requirements for evidence and personal bias obvious. If you were demanding absolute proof (not a very scientific thing to do in the first place) before something should be accepted and used for both, then perhaps your claims to be a skeptic would have at least one leg to stand on. As it is, you’re making it blatantly obvious that you kneel down to woo and turn your back on medicine and science. You’re merely doing a cargo cult ritual of weighing evidence and being scientific.
No Fifi, I don’t deny AIDS or HIV. I am skeptical about the antiretroviral treatments. I am not expecting absolute proof. I said there was no evidence that AZT is safe and effective long term, and yet it was approved. All later treatments were compared against AZT, so we can’t know if the later treatments are safe and effective long term.
“you’re making it blatantly obvious that you kneel down to woo and turn your back on medicine and science.”
That’s really silly. A person can be open-minded and skeptical about mainstream medicine and science, without denying all of CAM completely. It doesn’t have to be all one way or all the other way.
You seem to be drawing a hard “us vs. them” line between what you consider scientific and what you consider to be “woo.”
“arguing that reiki and “energy healing” should be given the benefit of the doubt without any decent evidence (and despite there being no plausible mechanism)”
I don’t give energy healing the benefit of the doubt. I just consider the evidence, whichever way it goes. As for “plausible mechanisms” — how the heck can you decide in advance what is plausible or not?
If you refuse to consider evidence because you think there is no plausible mechanism, your attitude is far from scientific or skeptical.
lizkat – The point is that you’re willing to believe in woo and argue for it but entirely skeptical about medicine and argue even against evidence, this makes you a pseudoskeptic. There is a hard and fast line between what is based upon viable evidence in the scientific sense and what is woo and wishful/magical thinking based on no viable evidence. There are plenty of unknowns in between but that doesn’t mean that make believe things with no plausible mechanism are simply part of the great unknown. You’ve yet to actually offer any viable evidence for “energy healing” despite constantly claiming there’s evidence. Having actually investigated energy healing and undergone a reiki initiation – being a reiki master, for what that’s worth if you’re not out to make money off of it – I’m actually quite familiar with what reiki and other energy healing modalities are. It’s pretty easy to convince someone you’re psychic or magical, particularly if they want to believe. (All cons are based upon lies people tell themselves and their desires.) If you know a bit about cognition and psychology, it’s actually pretty easy to figure out why people delude themselves and others into believing woo “works”. I am curious and open minded, I just don’t hold woo and medicine to different standards of evidence. You’ve made it very clear in this thread that you do.
I don’t actually have a problem with people playing make believe or dress up – it’s a really fun thing to do and it’s an essential part of creativity. Besides, we all need a break from the mundane realities of life every once in a while and, working in the arts, I’m a huge fan of play. (In many ways I’ve designed my own life to have maximum play time.) However, when people try to pass off make believe as medicine or reality – particularly for a fee – I find it problematic because it has very real world impacts and it’s exploitative. It’s not compassionate or kind to con sick or vulnerable people out of money or to give them false hope. I’m generally pretty tolerant of relatively harmless woo in my day to day life – I practice yoga, meditate and work in the arts so I have to be! Because I walk in two worlds – one that privileges subjectivity and one that privileges objectivity, I’m particularly interested in how these interact. I’ve always found it odd that so many people seem to need to give up either imagination or reality-based thinking and can’t simply enjoy both for what they are. (Though I’ve come to understand that some people are more prone to fantasy/imaginative/subjective thinking, while others are neurobiologically primed for objective/linear thinking and this can create some very different ways of thinking and experiencing the world which many people can’t overcome to see beyond their own subjective experience of the world. My favorite artists and scientists can generally use both imagination and analytical thinking.)
Kimball Atwood said “There has been more than enough scientific effort squandered on psi for decades, and it has long been time to “close the books” on it.” I understand that the majority of medical professionals are comfortable embracing the practical fruits of quantum mechanics (lasers, MRI) while distinctly uncomfortable confronting the philosophical interpretations and ramifications of QM (and how those in turn might impact medicine). The practice and instruction of medicine appears to be still largely based upon classical physics rather than quantum physics. But calling for a “closing of the books” on research into energetic healing (or any subject for that matter) is distinctly counter to the spirit of scientific inquiry. This head-in-the-sand mentality has distinct disadvantages, as explained by the authors of Quantum Enigma.
Discomfort with and avoidance of the mysteries contained in the proven theories of quantum physics (primarily the observer or measurement problem and the entanglement problem) are also felt in academia and industry. For the moment we’ll ignore the yet unproven hypotheses of multiple dimensions, etc. currently circulating among theoretical physicists. There is quite enough mystery contained in particle physics and the standard model. The authors of Quantum Enigma (Rosenblum & Kuttner) wish to make the mysteries of quantum mechanics known by physics and non-physics students at the university level and have written their book for this express purpose. They use the analogy of human reproductive education: it is a social responsibility to acknowledge the mystery and have accurate facts laid out rather than to sweep the subject under a rug. The authors explain that physics’ “skeleton in the closet” is unresolved (though has multiple interpretations) and is usually either ignored in physics instruction or explained away as not important (or as someone put it, the advice to physics students and physicists in industry is to “shut up and calculate”). The authors take great pains to avoid unwarranted speculation, but they set the stage for (and prompt the reader to) speculation on the subject, after laying out the undisputed proven scientific facts of quantum mechanics.
The authors state “The human implications of quantum mechanics that fuel popular discussion arise in the “measurement problem” and “entanglement.” That’s at least how we refer to these topics in a physics class, where we rarely go much beyond their mathematical formulation. These same issues are also legitimately discussed more broadly in terms of the nature of reality, universal connectedness, and consciousness. But we don’t distract physics students with excursions into issues that extend embarrassingly beyond the boundaries we define for our discipline. Accordingly, unlike the biology student able to defend evolution against Intelligent Design, a physics student may be unable to convincingly confront unjustified extrapolations of quantum mechanics.”
They continue “It’s not the student’s fault. For the most part, in our teaching of quantum mechanics, we tacitly deny the mystery physics has encountered. We hardly mention Bohr’s grappling with physics’ encounter with the observer and von Neumann’s demonstration that the encounter is, in principle, inevitable. We largely avoid the still-unresolved issues raised by Einstein, Schrödinger, Wigner, Bohm, and Bell. Outside the physics classroom, physicists increasingly address these issues and often go beyond the purely “physical.” Consciousness, for example, comes up explicitly in almost every one of today’s proliferating interpretations of quantum mechanics, if only to show why physics itself need not deal with it. “ The authors go on to say that “Physics’ encounter with the observer and consciousness can be embarrassing, but that’s not a good reason for avoiding it.”
Now that is the spirit of open and rational scientific inquiry and informed speculation that I wish more skeptics embraced, rather than a reflexive dismissal of and a call for closure on certain topics. With physics instructors increasingly teaching from the Quantum Enigma book (Oxford University Press recently requested a second edition), awareness of and inquiry into these areas will not go away but will increase, and deservedly so in my opinion.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC100314/?tool=pubmed
squirrelite, thankyou so much for posting this link. I knew there must be data like this somewhere, but was unable to locate it myself in previous brief searches, including of Cochrane. It is entirely understandable that Lizkat and others will buy the views of contrarian web sites when for many reasons it is not easy to directly access the primary evidence.
Lizkat, the above link is to the full paper online, and you should examine that as carefully as you are able and as critically as you like.
Note that FIFTEEN quality controlled studies compared Zidovudine and placebo.
This figure http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC100314/figure/F2/ shows their results. There are in the main quite dramatic effects in terms of disease progression or death, but you should also look at the graph that shows how the duration of the studies affected the result. Even in the two longest and largest trials there was a small benefit in favour of Zidovudine, with only one of the fifteen studies suggesting a tiny disadvantage for that drug.
This is as strong evidence as you will ever get in medicine that Zidovudine is better than placebo in delaying death in the short term and either about the same as placebo or, more probably, better in the long term.
So on what logic would studies comparing combinations of drugs with Zidovudine not be reliably demonstrating superiority over placebo? How would you justify now comparing new drug combinations against placebo, which in this context is the same as saying “no treatment”. Why would anyone remain dubious?
And please don’t now try to switch debate onto your safety concerns about ARVs. That is, essentially, an informed consent issue, with patients mostly being preapred to make major trade-offs when it comes to living or dying.
The physicists I’ve talked to seem pretty comfortable dismissing the new age version of quantum physics and “energy healing” type beliefs (if not actively frustrated that their discipline is being abused in this way). Not being a physicist myself, I’m quite willing to take their word for it (particularly since it changes nothing in my life either way). While the nature of reality is clearly not how we subjectively perceive reality to be, the attempts to try to latch onto quantum physics to justify woo is nothing other than an attempt to latch onto something science-related (but not biology related) to pretend that woo is real. The greed and size of many people’s egos and desire to be eternal and magical may be infinite, that doesn’t mean consciousness is! There are many very plausible and pretty self evident ways to explain how we’re interconnected without needing to resort to magical quantum psychic powers.
Besides, one doesn’t need to resort to quantum physics to understand that the nature of reality is not how we perceive it to be. Some basic knowledge of how our brains and perception work from studying cognitive science or contemporary psychology will show you this. Of course, most quantum woo claims are based on confusing the imaginary and reality and misrepresenting certain cognitive traits or quirks (or states) so contemporary charlatans/gurus do tend to reach for quantum woo instead of cognitive science. After all, you wouldn’t want your marks to actually understand the con you’re pulling! (And if you’re deluding yourself, then it means accepting a whole other reality than the idea that you’re a special magical person with spiritual insight or enlightened in a way that makes you better than the average bear! And, of course, that justifies much ego massaging and tithing of gold…)
The book Quantum Enigma clearly draws a scientific line between the unjustifiable extrapolation of physics theories and the proven scientific basis for as yet unexplained mysteries regarding physical reality and how it’s related to consciousness. That has been my point and why I recommend the book. They do not shut the door on further exploration and speculation. Careful reading of my comment above will reveal the a key point is that the education of physicists has in the past brushed the mysteries under a rug or explained them away as somehow reasonable, when they are not. Hence many physicists today will not publicly admit of any mystery, in keeping with Fifi’s experience. My comments really don’t do justice to the book. Those interested should read it for themselves.
wales – “Hence many physicists today will not publicly admit of any mystery, in keeping with Fifi’s experience.”
What is unreasonable is how, despite the evidence to the contrary, some humans are simply unable to believe that their “consciousness” (though I suspect “ego” may be more appropriate) isn’t the centre of the universe or creating more than their subjective experience of their personal reality. Really, it just seems like yet more attempts to find a scientific rationale for religious beliefs. Our religious beliefs are in and of themselves projections of our desires and based upon our subjective experiences. It’s one reason I find religion and religious beliefs interesting despite being born and raised an atheist. I’ve tried out many different religious rituals and practices, I enjoy culture and make believe. I’ve had quite a few ecstatic experiences, including many that people tend to classify as being psychic or metaphysical. (Apparently my neurobiology is good for that kind of thing.) I’m quite comfortable with mysteries and the unknown, and have no need to explain away what can’t yet be explained. The thing is, if you understand a bit about cognition and you’re not a true believer, a lot of subjective experiences that people think “prove” the existence of the metaphysical are quite easily explained with what we already know. It’s also quite understandable how the stories about ghosts and psychic powers were created to explain these experiences (though many gurus and fakirs were well aware of the tricks they were playing on the uninitiated).
wales,
Do you understand quantum mechanics? Does it make you angry?
If not, then we can safely assume that you don’t understand it. The woo associated with QM is quite understandable. It reminds me of when I was in college studying what QM was necessary for my chemistry and physics courses and then ruminating about it under the influence of hashish. I believe the term “pipe dream” describes the experience.
Weing, No I don’t understand it fully (though this book further my understanding tremendously), and no it doesn’t make me angy, it fascinates me. Just as Fifi is comfortable taking her physicist friends’ “word for it” I am comfortable taking the authors’ (physicists) word for it that there is an unresolved mystery here that deserves attention. In my physics and chemistry courses at the University of Michigan I don’t recall being taught about any quantum mystery, I never realized there was a mystery. One of the authors discusses a meeting he had as a youth with Einstein, arranged by a friend. Einstein wanted to discuss the weirdness of QM, but the author was unaware of what Einstein was getting at because his physics education had glossed over the mystery. The author states “That evening with Einstein still haunts me (Bruce). And makes me regret (to put it mildly) that my courses in quantum mechanics left me unaware of the weirdness of the theory that Einstein wanted to talk about.”
Anyhow I don’t get what anger has to do with it. Bohr said “Anyone not shocked by quantum mechanics has not yet understood it.” Yes I am shocked, and fascinated.
wales,
I don’t have a problem with any of that. Anyone who seriously studies it finds mystery and weirdness. Maybe your courses only glossed over the material to give you only what you needed to know? Still, the mystery and weirdness of QM has nothing to do with energy medicine. QM is just a term appropriated by these practitioners of woo to make it sound sciency. Their understanding is akin to the understanding of cargo cults.
I get angry when I’m shocked. Just my nature.
The idea that university professors decided what I needed to know does make me angry, and thus I laud the QM authors for deciding students have a right to know. I also don’t think that we can rule out energy medicine, given the unknowns in the standard model and the weirdness of virtual particles and a hypothetical 5th force, etc. I am not a proponent of energy medicine, and I am not a Reiki master. I am merely contemplating the possibilities. But I understand that doesn’t sit well with most sbm bloggers and commenters. All the same, it’s been interesting chatting with you Weing.
“The point is that you’re willing to believe in woo and argue for it but entirely skeptical about medicine and argue even against evidence”
That is not what happened here. I did not argue against any evidence for AR drugs. — I showed where the evidence is weak. I didn’t see you showing that I was wrong and that the AZT evidence is not weak. Instead you fall back on calling me a woo-believer. But I never claimed to believe in energy healing. I said the evidence for energy healing is stronger than the evidence for AZT.
I am simply looking at the evidence.
I wouldn’t get too angry with them. I remember, when my children were little, they were not allowed to cross the street. Later, when they were ready, they were taught to look to the left and then to the right before crossing. Regarding energy medicine, I think the production of ATP and it’s consumption in driving the complex reactions and interactions leading the emergence in the cell of what we call life and, on a greater scale, consciousness, is fascinating. But, that is not what these woomeisters are about.
“I said the evidence for energy healing is stronger than the evidence for AZT.”
I guess there are pockets in Africa where medications are not available and energy healing is all they have. How’s it working out for them?
“I also don’t think that we can rule out energy medicine, given the unknowns in the standard model and the weirdness of virtual particles and a hypothetical 5th force, etc. I am not a proponent of energy medicine, and I am not a Reiki master. I am merely contemplating the possibilities.”
Me too.
“But I understand that doesn’t sit well with most sbm bloggers and commenters.”
No, it doesn’t. There is some kind of political taboo surrounding the idea of energy medicine. Somebody decided long ago that all forms of energy are already understood, and it would get people upset if other forms were discovered.
It’s not “political taboo” it’s just woo.
Weing your analogy is understood by all of us with children, and I do understand the practicalities of teaching and deciding what students need to know for all practical purposes (or FAPP as John Bell of Bell’s Theorem disparagingly referred to it). Certainly as a non-physics major I would not have encountered the QM concepts in any depth. The authors of QE explain how the topic or mystery has been ignored or avoided even in graduate level education and I applaud their attempts to teach the concepts to undergrads and non-physics majors.
[a lot of subjective experiences that people think “prove” the existence of the metaphysical are quite easily explained with what we already know.]
Fifi,
You were raised as an atheist and your parents convinced you that the mysteries have easy explanations. I had a similar kind of upbringing, and it was reinforced by my education. However I gradually awoke from the brainwashing and realized that hardly anything is explained. That doesn’t mean I believe in any particular religion or dogma. I am a skeptical agnostic. But I can see the limits of our scientific knowledge. It seems like we know a whole lot, since science has progressed rapidly in the past century. Even so, most mysteries are still very far from being solved.
I’ve never heard of any scientist claim that they understand dark energy. How much of the universe is accounted by it? Looks like you are straw manning. Energy medicine is simply imagined. The universe and reality are so much more than can be imagined.
You don’t have to be an atheist. I was raised a Roman Catholic and was an altar boy. The first book I read was the New Testament, not in English, but in my native tongue. I used to believe there was something to woo. I studied it and gradually realized that there was nothing to it.
@pmoran,
Thanks for your helpful elucidation on antiretrovirals. I’m sure I’ll keep reading up on this, but fortunately I don’t have an immediate personal need to do so.
@wales,
Quantum Enigma sounds like an interesting book. I’ll probably try to read it sometime if I can borrow a copy or find it at a reasonable price.
However, when you say that “calling for a “closing of the books” on research into energetic healing (or any subject for that matter) is distinctly counter to the spirit of scientific inquiry”, I think you miss the fundamental difference between quantum mechanics (in physics and chemistry and biochemistry and all around us) and “energy medicine” or psychic healing or reiki or whatever the practitioner chooses to call it.
Quantum mechanics was developed as a theory to explain the results of many experiments like electromagnetic emission and absorption lines and theoretical problems with the classical model of the atom such as why the orbiting electron doesn’t radiate away all its energy and collapse into the nucleus. The explanation is weird and mysterious, but that does not make the effects observed any less real.
Energy medicine, on the other hand, is a theory in search of evidence to support it. The energy fields which the practitioner claims to manipulate cannot be measured or even detected by any objective means. And, they seem to have whatever characteristics the practitioner needs to explain their purported effect. The more carefully we design and perform experiments to test these effects, the clearer it becomes that the only “effects” are random variations in the results that come just from doing the test enough times.
I can manipulate energy fields by waving my hands. I demonstrated it pretty clearly a few days ago when I was hooking up a TV antenna for my sister-in-law. The antenna cable was broken and when I touched it or moved away from it the signal would come on or go off. But, those are the ordinary fields of electromagnetic energy, which we have been studying for centuries and can observe in dozens of ways. They have real and important uses in medicine in MRI’s, laser surgery, and nuclear medicine, all of which depend on quantum effects.
When the supporters of energy healing can demonstrate a 30 or 40% delay in progression to death (as in the studies I noted above for HAART), I will jump up and down and cheer. But, if the best they have is uncontrolled studies that show that when the practitioner comes in and visits the patient and waves their hands around the patient reports that they feel better, then I think we have flushed enough money down this particular hole and I support Dr Atwood’s position.
To learn about Quantum Enigma, I looked up a couple of reviews on-line. One is by David Bacon, who is an assistant research professor at the University of Washington.
http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=1300
I particularly liked his summation at the end.
“So what do I come away from “Quantum Enigma” with? Well for one, I would recommend this book for any of the “What the Bleep” crowd as a way to ween them towards more reasonable discussions. As a popular science explanation of quantum theory the book succeeds. As a new revelation which convinces me that the answer to quantum theory lies down the road of “consciousness,” I’m not sold.”
Chad Orzel, who is an associate professor at Union College, also has an interesting review at:
http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2006/08/review_quantum_enigma_physics.php
As he commented:
“Though they deal with some very strange and frequently misrepresented material, they do an admirable job of avoiding and even denouncing quackery. They have some harsh words for What the Bleep Do We Know?, and deny that quantum mechanics supports mysticism:
‘ Quantum mechanics tell us strange things about our world, things that we do not fully comprehend. This strangeness has implications beyond what we generally consider physics. We might therefore be tolerant when non-physicists incorporate quantum ideas into their own thinking– even if they do so with less than complete understanding, or even a bit incorrectly.
We are, however, disturbed, and sometimes embarrassed, by cavalier, perhaps intentional, misuses of quantum ideas, as a basis for certain medical or psychological therapies (or investing schemes!), for examples. A touchstone test for such misuse is the presentation of these ideas with the implication that the notions promulgated are derived from quantum mechanics rather than merely suggested by it.’
While they could be stronger in their condemnation of quantum abuse, it’s good to see a book on this topic that doesn’t veer off into total woo-woo mysticism.”
and
“In fact, this brings me to what I consider the weakest part of the book, which is the sparse reference to experiment. Particularly in the last couple of decades, there have been many beautiful and elegant experiments done to demonstrate the various phenomena discussed in the book, and they’re hardly mentioned here. Where important results have been confirmed by experiment, they usually mention the existence of experiments, but never present data or any detailed discussion of how the experiments were done.”
And, he pointed out in a comment:
“They do a good job of avoiding and denouncing quackery. That is, they avoid falling into it themselves, and also have some harsh words for quacks. They’re not letting it go unchallenged.”
So, it’s an interesting book, but hardly a ringing endorsement for energy medicine.
Wales & lizkat – I’m quite comfortable with there being mysteries and with the unknown, I just don’t need to stuff god into the gaps (or some metaphysical human consciousness that’s a slightly more sophisticated version of god that posits we’re the gods). Just because I was born and raised as an atheist doesn’t mean that I believe there’s an “easy answer for everything”. Quite the opposite – it’s pretty clear that “god” is the easy answer for everything and for all mysteries. Me? I’m quite comfortable with there being things we don’t know (yet and maybe we never will)…that’s what growing up with science gives one, the ability to say “we don’t know”. Alongside a good dose of curiosity for how things work and a healthy respect for the mysteries and awesomeness of the real world (not that imagination isn’t fun too, it’s just that truth and reality are often much stranger than the fictions people create…including the god fantasies created to plug the gaps and explain the mysteries). Religion gives people “easy answers for everything”, science rarely does – science usually answers one question while opening up many more. I don’t need to believe I’m the centre of the universe, that there is some cosmic plan that’s all about me or that I imagine the universe into being (not that I don’t enjoy considering these things or creating fictitious universes). I don’t need to believe I’ll live forever. I’m okay with being finite and human, to be an animal that returns to the earth upon death. Meaning is a human thing (or perhaps a mammalian thing), the universe doesn’t care about meaning or you or me. It’s not all about our consciousness/ego!
Squirrelelite: You misrepresent my comments entirely if you believe I said that the book is a ringing endorsement for energy medicine. Here are some more reviews of the book.
http://quantumenigma.com/reviews-our-responses/
Here’s another review of the book by physicist Richard Conn Henry of Johns Hopkins. I’m not sure I agree with all of his points, but he certainly gives food for thought and I admire him for his honesty and fearlessness.
http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/quantum.enigma.html
Also, while I know it’s somewhat unusual to be brought up without a god or gods, most atheists start out in at least nominally religious households. I wasn’t brought up in an anti-god household or in one where science was a religion, just one without god/s…they’re pretty irrelevant really if you’re comfortable with the reality that there aren’t answers for everything. That said, I do find religion and the stories we’ve made up to explain the mysteries of life and the universe (and our own brains and cognition) quite interesting.
“I can manipulate energy fields by waving my hands.”
Theramin!
Fifi you are one comfortable person. I am not sure why you have directed your monologue on god toward me.
Lest you’ve missed my point: my comments here celebrate uncertainty, they do not deny it. Others are “comfortable” as well.
wales,
Perhaps I got a little overenthusiastic at the end when I was trying to finish up my comment. (I had a little interruption to go work on supper.)
Sorry!
However, when you commented
“I also don’t think that we can rule out energy medicine, given the unknowns in the standard model and the weirdness of virtual particles and a hypothetical 5th force, etc.”,
you may have stretched things a little too far. Weirdness and unexplained phenomena are the seeds for future research and theoretical studies. That is why we built the LHC. And scientists are always looking for more unexplained results to study. At a rough guess, I would expect that more scientists are hoping to see something new and unexplained at the LHC than are hoping just to find the Higgs boson and wrap up the standard model.
But, when they do so, they will have some real results to compare with and use as a basis for informed speculation.
The difference with the practitioners and investigators of energy medicine is that with energy medicine, there are no real results and only guesses, hopes and allegations to base anything on.
Wales – “The practice and instruction of medicine appears to be still largely based upon classical physics rather than quantum physics. But calling for a “closing of the books” on research into energetic healing (or any subject for that matter) is distinctly counter to the spirit of scientific inquiry.”
Wales – I directed my comments towards you because you seem to be making a roundabout argument for quantum woo and energy healing (or at least investing money into chasing unicorns rather than betting on a real horse). Medical research is about saving and/or improving lives, it’s a practical field of research and not an abstract one – no matter how esoteric some medical research may seem to lay people. (And nothing against the Haldron Collider – I’m sure there’s a practical application for that research somewhere – but that money could have been improving live instead of scaring people who are into woo because they think the Haldron Collider will make the universe implode.) Staying open minded to speculation is a very different thing than investing money into researching things with no plausible mechanism when there are things to research that do have very plausible mechanisms. Yes it’s good to be able to use one’s imagination but when it comes down to allocating resources to research then it’s time to deal with reality.
Wales – firstly – Go Blue
So, if you are saying that you believe it is possible that Reiki is using a mysterious undiscovered energy that has been hinted at by the exploration of quantum physics, wouldn’t it follow that this energy could in fact have incredibly unpredictable and dangerous consequences? Ones that we have no concept how to track, much less control?
For example, initially, radiation was considered to be a health wonder treatment, until we found out, “whoops! use with extreme caution.”
If Reiki is actually working on a quantum level, do we know that Reiki therapy is not creating a bunch of alternate probability zombies? Okay, well I’m on a zombie kick this week-end, but what I mean is something so weird that we don’t even know how to look for it.
So the options as I see it…
Reiki – a placebo like piece of woo that is relatively physically harmless but has a potential for lost dollars and patient deception.
Reiki – a placebo like technique that could be examined for it’s potential based on psychological benefits, if it could be practiced without deception.
(FiFi, I read your thoughts on this, but I wasn’t sure if you were saying you thought this possible or not possible)
Reiki – a mysterious energy that is controlled by a mechanism we don’t understand that has highly unpredictable results. In other words, experimentation on humans without their consent.
——–
Just a side note to commenters. My eyes aren’t what they used to be. I’d appreciate it if folks would consider liberal use of paragraph breaks, say every 6 to 15 lines if it is grammatically feasible. It makes it so much easier for eye tracking while reading.
# Fifi on 28 Feb 2010 at 9:25 pm
“Staying open minded to speculation is a very different thing than investing money into researching things with no plausible mechanism when there are things to research that do have very plausible mechanisms. Yes it’s good to be able to use one’s imagination but when it comes down to allocating resources to research then it’s time to deal with reality.”
My thoughts exactly!
Michele, I appreciate your comments. I know nothing about reiki, I mentioned it simply because someone else hear said they were a “reiki master”.
Sorry michele, I’m the queen of the run on sentence and paragraph.
I’d hesitate to promote reiki, simply because I actually think it can do more harm than good – not energetically, but psychologically since it promotes believing in some karmic ideas about disease and woo. On the other hand, I certainly advocate being kind to others, listening and simple, gentle, loving touch. Why? Because we’re social animals and it makes us feel good – that’s entirely natural, there’s nothing supernatural about it!
On a purely theoretical level, if reiki did actually work then it would be the worst thing ever for people with cancer. (To be very simplistic, cancer cells essentially don’t shut down and die like regular cells so filling them up with more “life” energy would be just encouraging them to grow more!) It can be quite fun to bring that up, not that most people into reiki will actually even ponder the theoretical disconnect between promoting reiki for cancer.
I’m the reiki “master” – I can also read a mean tarot. If I hadn’t been brought up by doctors with the “first do no harm” credo – and was bereft of a conscience – I’d be rich by now. Damn ethics and empathy (though that makes me good at “reading” people) get in the way all the time!
Oh, and I brought up the reiki thing because lizkat was playing the “you’re just close minded card” regarding “energy healing”. I’m a big believer in actually researching and experiencing something before writing it off. That way you can get some insight into why people are into it (or not, I still don’t like the taste of sea urchin!)
Wales – Oy!? wasn’t it you who brought up the energy healing? Must have been Lizcat.
That’s okay. I know nothing about Reiki as well.
My comment was based on your comment…
“I also don’t think that we can rule out energy medicine, given the unknowns in the standard model and the weirdness of virtual particles and a hypothetical 5th force, etc. I am not a proponent of energy medicine, and I am not a Reiki master. I am merely contemplating the possibilities.”
Fifi on 28 Feb 2010 at 9:53 pm
“Oh, and I brought up the reiki thing because lizkat was playing the “you’re just close minded card” regarding “energy healing”. I’m a big believer in actually researching and experiencing something before writing it off. That way you can get some insight into why people are into it (or not, I still don’t like the taste of sea urchin!)”
The problem is of course, researching and experiencing is not enough. If you don’t “believe” in it. It won’t work. (Don’t you know.) I don’t know if this attitude applies to Reiki, but I have come across it with other folks who believe in psychic healing.
michele – “If you don’t “believe” in it. It won’t work. (Don’t you know.) I don’t know if this attitude applies to Reiki, but I have come across it with other folks who believe in psychic healing.”
Well, as the practitioner I don’t need to believe in it, only the mark..um, er, patient..yeah, that’s it, only the patient does!
But, yes, I’m aware of the Tinkerbell theory of faith healing
There have been two glaring omissions in this discussions about energy healing and (quantum) physics.
1) The word “energy” in “energy healing” bears no relationship whatsoever to the word “energy” in physics.
The term is simply meaningless.
2) Quantum physics is the study of the ultramicroscopic world of subatomic particles. It has no effect on our everyday macroscopic world in which “energy healing” is supposed to work.
This puts paid to comments like the following:
wales: “I also don’t think that we can rule out energy medicine, given the unknowns in the standard model and the weirdness of virtual particles and a hypothetical 5th force, etc”
Lizkat: “There is some kind of political taboo surrounding the idea of energy medicine. Somebody decided long ago that all forms of energy are already understood, and it would get people upset if other forms were discovered.”
FiFi – hehe
# BillyJoe
There have been two glaring omissions in this discussions about energy healing and (quantum) physics.
1) The word “energy” in “energy healing” bears no relationship whatsoever to the word “energy” in physics.
The term is simply meaningless.
I have no interest in physic energy healing, I’m only asking to clarify for my future knowledge. There are forms of energy used in medicine. Right? Radiation, would be one, but that is more of a controlled destruction. Electro-magnatic? Electrical used in cardiology, neurology (?). Even traction would be a form of energy, gravitational.
I ask this for a couple reasons.
1)Just because I wonder if I’m unclear on the concept of energy. (and, I’m not being sarcastic)
2)Last night I asked my husband (engineer) if there were any inventions based on Quantum Mechanics and he said he thought some people were working on a couple. Firstly a Quantum Clock. Secondly a Quantum Computer that would replace transistors with atoms and would have variable level based on particle behavior (so not binary, 1 or 0 but a gradation). I think.
A microscopic beyond binary computer? Think of what that could do for medicine.
I still don’t get what makes energy healing special that it should get funding to research it. I don’t spend my day making up nice ideas out of whole cloth and investigating them to see if they are true. (Do I have a billion dollars? [checks] Not in my regular bank account, no. Maybe I have a billion dollars worth of real estate, though. Wouldn’t that be great? I’m certainly not closed minded enough to eliminate that possibility. That wouldn’t be skeptical. [spends lots of money looking up property titles; finds nothing] I know! Quantum theory means that the same piece of real estate can be owned by more than one person simultaneously! There. I own the entire planet. Even better than I originally thought. Anyone who thinks I’m just making this up should read about quantum theory and take lessons from those nice open-minded physicists who admit they don’t know everything.)
If I acted as if I owned the planet I would probably end up being treated for bipolar disorder by some nasty closed-minded psychiatrists who refused to acknowledge the mystery of quantum physics. (If I just spent a lot of effort trying to prove that I owned the planet, the diagnosis would more likely be schizophrenia.)
There are reasons to think that dogs exist. There are reasons to think that subatomic particles exist. There are reasons to think that people feel better when you pay attention to them kindly. But there is no reason to think that energy healing exists other than it would be really cool if you could do it — no more than there is any reason to think that I’m a billionaire beyond that it would be really cool. (Even less, actually, because we actually have examples of existing billionaires.)
I don’t get this whole thing about being closed-minded about “energy” when there’s nothing to be closed-minded about. The concept adds nothing to any current explanations and doesn’t explain things that current explanations do not.
Alison – “I still don’t get what makes energy healing special that it should get funding to research it.”
Oh ye of little faith…it’s spiritual! It strikes me that this is very much about people believing their articles of faith (religious beliefs) should get special treatment. It’s no different than what the ID crowd are pushing really, it’s just got quantum woo mixed in to make is sound more sciency.
To go off on a bit of a tangent (who me?)…historically religion has claimed ownership of love and compassion. They’re not human, animal or mammalian qualities, they’re divine ones. (Even science, because it’s historically influenced by religion, took a long time to admit that other mammals experience love and it has an evolutionary purpose.) Experiences pretty much got divided up into good=god/divine bad=devil/human/evil. So, a rather natural mammalian need for comfort, touch and signs of caring/inclusion becomes a “spiritual” thing rather than the normal mammalian need for love and social connection that it is. Since only god (be that in the form of “healing energy” or whatever) can provide love under this schema, something as mundane as being kind gets attributed to god. A lot of human blindness regarding reality comes from wanting to believe we are (or I am) the centre of the universe and that our individual lives are incredibly important (and as a species we’re super special and not really animals at all). It’s why so many people cling to religion in its 101 guises (be it quantum woo for those who believe themselves to be sophisticated and contemporary or fundamentalism for those who like things traditional and simple). Seems to me that being an animal is a pretty good thing if we learn to be kind to each other and live like happy animals! It’s the pretending we’re not mammals that gets us into all kinds of trouble!
Some good health and science reporting!!!
http://www.seattlepi.com/health/1500ap_us_med_vaccine_skeptics.html
Alison said “There. I own the entire planet. Even better than I originally thought. ”
You may own the entire planet, but with this economy you can’t sell it. If you do, you’ll have to take a loss. Then you’ll have to bring money to closing, and I can only imagine how much THAT’s going to be for the entire planet. The assessment fee alone will kill you.
“(If I just spent a lot of effort trying to prove that I owned the planet, the diagnosis would more likely be schizophrenia.)” Particularly, if the planet told you to.
Ultimately the argument seems to boil down to “Quantum Physics is weird and therefore you can not say that people are physic”
(aside)Wales, I’m not saying that’s your argument, I’m not quite clear on your argument or if you are just making an observation. I might see it our library has the book you recommended, maybe that would clarify.
Which basically boils down to people using the fact that you can’t prove a negative to open a loophole for their pet theory. So let’s give everyone a billion dollars!
My pet theory is that humans live longer when living a carefree life on a tropical beach drinking margaritas. I plan on not only authoring the study, but being a test subject (not in the control group). I plan on publishing my paper in “Surf” which will make it peer reviewed (after I learn to surf). It’s all Quantum Dude.
michele – “My pet theory is that humans live longer when living a carefree life on a tropical beach drinking margaritas.”
As an animal, I like your pet theory a lot!
“Ultimately the argument seems to boil down to “Quantum Physics is weird and therefore you can not say that people are physic”
I’m assuming you meant to say “Ultimately the argument seems to boil down to “Quantum Physics is weird and therefore you can’t say that people AREN’T psychic”, in which case I agree. Sure, anything is possible but science is about probabilities.
Billy Joe said “Quantum physics is the study of the ultramicroscopic world of subatomic particles. It has no effect on our everyday macroscopic world in which “energy healing” is supposed to work.”
Really? Quantum physics has no effect on our everyday macroscopic world?????? You may want to retract that statement. I think it’s self evident, but let’s quote the physicists.
1)If all matter is ultimately composed of subatomic particles just how exactly is there “no effect on our everyday macroscopic world”? This requires explanation. Quoting QE: “Quantum mechanics is essential to every natural science. When chemists do more than follow empirical rules, their theories are fundamentally quantum mechanical. Why grass is green, what makes the sun shine, or how quarks behave inside protons are all questions that must be answered quantum mechanically.” Also “The still-to-be-understood nature of black holes or the Big Bang is sought in quantum terms.” I guess the Big Bang had no effect on our everyday macroscopic world.
( 2) quoting the QE authors “The details of MRI are complicated, but the only point we wish to make is that, as for the laser and transistor, physicists and engineers developing MRI must explicitly take quantum phenomena into account.” That should answer Michele’s question as well “Last night I asked my husband (engineer) if there were any inventions based on Quantum Mechanics” The authors further state that “MRI is made possible by the coming together of the quantum phenomena responsible for nuclear magnetic resonance, superconductivity, and the transistor. Each of these technologies, as well as the laser, has led to a Nobel Prize in physics, MRI most recently in 2004.” The authors estimate quantum based technologies to comprise one-third of our economy.
As for Billy Joe’s first point, since particle physicists have found
that under the standard model there is a fifth unknown force, where’s the proof that there is not a fifth type of energy that impacts healing? According to QE “Quantum mechanics is the most accurate theory in all of science.” Well, if the most accurate theory in all of science is still searching for a fifth force to explain how all the fundamental particle masses are generated, how can we be certain about the impossibility of energy healing?
wales on proving a negative:
“As for Billy Joe’s first point, since particle physicists have found that under the standard model there is a fifth unknown force, where’s the proof that there is not a fifth type of energy that impacts healing?”
And while you’re at it, where’s the proof that I don’t have a billion dollars? And the proof that Russel’s teapot doesn’t exist?
My question is, why would anyone think any of these things in the first place? Physicists think some very weird things, but they know why they think them.
Alison, I am not trying to prove a negative. I don’t even consider this a debate. I am trying to point out that those who state absolutely that energy healing is impossible have no proof for their absolutist stance. Why do they insist on a false sense of certainty instead of just admitting we don’t have good evidence at this time but it could be a possibility?
If you had told someone before the advent of the laser that we would be able to cut through matter using light, most people would have said “that’s impossible” instead of “perhaps, but we don’t have any evidence of that yet”. Who could have imagined lasers and MRIs fifty years ago (aside from science fiction writers)? I understand a “that’s impossible” stance from the general public. But in a science based venue I expect a more thoughtful and science based response about possibilities. Physics is the most fundamental of all sciences, literally underlying all the others (chemistry, biology, etc.) If physicists stopped exporing possibilities we would have no new technology. Another book I recommend is “Physics of the Impossible” by physicist Michio Kaku.
I also recommend all of Kaku’s other books.
But why are you even entertaining energy healing in the first place? Where does the idea come from?
Nobody can deny it outright, because a negative can’t be proven. I can’t deny it outright. But neither can I deny the existence of Russel’s teapot (or my billion-dollar property title that I just haven’t found yet). Why would you invest any energy at all in thinking about something there’s no reason to think about?
Actually, I would expect that the first person who played with a lens was motivated to speculate about cutting through hard stuff with a really good lens. Lasers weren’t invented in a vacuum. The idea came from somewhere. Where is the idea of energy healing coming from?
“I am trying to point out that those who state absolutely that energy healing is impossible have no proof for their absolutist stance.”
We are not saying it’s impossible. There is no evidence for any such thing. We also have no proof for our absolutist stance that Santa is not real.
Fifi,
You are right in saying kindness did not originate with religion. Cats and dogs aren’t religious but they can be kinder and nicer than people, if treated well. Look at any social animal and you will see creatures expressing love and kindness towards each other.
When people give religion credit for morality and compassion, it’s because they are ignorant about evolution and zoology. And/or because they have never even bothered to observe their own pets.
How could anyone say that kindness and compassion started with humans, and that humans would be entirely selfish and cruel without religion? But they do say it, and I agree with you that they are wrong.
But the fact that people make ignorant claims for religion does not prove that there are no undiscovered substances or energies.
“But the fact that people make ignorant claims for religion does not prove that there are no undiscovered substances or energies.”
Or Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny.
No, and you can’t prove there is no god either, which is why I’m agnostic. I don’t know if there are undiscovered substances or energies emanating from the human body, but there is no evidence to think so at this point.
What I don’t understand is why religious people insist on having science behind their beliefs and confusing the two. I have no problem with religious people using energy healing, and maybe it does work as a placebo. Nothing wrong with that. Just like there’s nothing wrong with creationism- until you try to put in a science classroom. Why can’t people separate faith and science?
Seriously, I don’t know why you guys bother. You have to ask Lizcat and Wales- what is it that will convince them that there are no energy fields? Are their beliefs falsifiable? It’s like arguing with somebody who believes the Bible is the infallible word of God- no winning!
“Science is about probabilities” Yes, but wildly improbable realities are quite common in our world.
David Bailey of Berkeley Labs states in his paper “Evolution and Probability” that the probability that a chain 141 amino acids long would be a usable hemoglobin molecule can be calculated as 1 in 20 to the 25th, or roughly 1 in 10 to the 33rd. (sorry I don’t know how to get the superscripts in here)
Bailey, speaking on the specific subject of evolution, says “Probability calculations should be a tool to help us calibrate the diversity of life and the extent to which various lineages may have diverged from common ancestors. Instead, they often are used as a tool to manipulate scientifically unsophisticated audiences.” In other words, anti-evolutionists use improbability as a tool to support their claims that evolution is impossible.
All I am saying is let’s not fall into that trap, of claiming that improbable things are by definition impossible.
This has been fun. Unfortunately I won’t be able to contribute as much time to this conversation as I’d like to.
http://crd.lbl.gov/~dhbailey/
http://www.dhbailey.com/papers/dhb-probability.pdf
“I have no problem with religious people using energy healing” do you think only religious people believe in energy healing? I had never equated energy healing with religion.
wales,
Who said that “energy healing” was impossible?
Alison,
You are right. Physical therapists use heat. Radiation oncologists use energy for killing tumors. Pacemakers use electrical energy. Nuclear medicine uses nuclear energy in diagnostics. It’s all healing energy.
ME, that’s who equating energy healing with religion. There’s no scientific evidence that it could work. Or the tooth fairy or Santa Claus, as others mentioned.
“It’s all healing energy.”
And weing I can’t figure out why you think all forms of energy have already been discovered.
And none of this has anything to do with religion.
Because any form of interaction (that’s really what we’re talking about, not energy) with discernible macroscopic effects (by definition, if it’s to be useful for healing) has, well, discernible macroscopic effects.
High-energy physicists do precise calculations of reaction rates and cross-sections all the time. If there were an interaction strong enough to do what’s claimed of these “energies”, it would throw off those calculations significantly. Yet, they are highly accurate. The inescapable conclusion is that any new interactions are insignificant at low (i.e. everyday) energies.
There’s room for uncertainty at higher energy scales, certainly, but there is NO meaningful room whatsoever for any undiscovered “energies” along the lines being discussed here.
In particular, the various musings wales has posted here are utterly laughable to anyone with an actual background in high-energy physics.
lizkat on Reiki:
“I can’t figure out why you think all forms of energy have already been discovered.”
You were asking Weing, but I actually have no opinion on this. Maybe it has, maybe it hasn’t. But that has absolutely nothing whatever to do with my question.
What I want to know is why you think a so-far undetected and undescribed energy might have something to to with why offering focussed, kind attention to another person might make them feel better?
I mean, a so-far undetected and undescribed energy might have something to to with, say, why my coffee is hot. But the fact is, electricity is a perfectly adequate explanation and I have no need to speculate that psi might be involved.
Ditto why my thigh muscles are sore. Yes, somebody might have put a curse on me, but lactic acid buildup subsequent to running after a young, recently-acquired border collie is, again, a perfectly adequate explanation. I don’t need to invoke psi.
Do you propose psi as a possible cause of every effect — including effects that are very well explained by currently well-understood causes? Your thirst is quenched not by water but by psi. You’re feeling warm not because you put on a sweater but because of psi. You fell over not because of gravity but because of psi. Etc?
Or do you only keep your mind open to psi as the cause of some effects? If so, how do you choose which effects you want to keep an open mind about?
L:”And weing I can’t figure out why you think all forms of energy have already been discovered.”
Who said that? It’s more that there is no good reason to postulate the existence of the energy being proposed. Valid theory is always founded upon reliable observation.
L: “And none of this has anything to do with religion.”
A form of energy that only manifests itself in healing virtually obligates a mystical explanation.
wales – “do you think only religious people believe in energy healing?”
Well, yes. It’s an article of faith (because there’s no decent evidence of “energy healing”) and always connected to a religious idea, no matter how sciencey Ramtha or whoever tries to make it by calling it “quantum healing” or if it’s called “chi”. And no matter if someone labels it “spiritual” or “alternative” to try to distance themselves from what they perceive to be the negative connotations of Christianity. (Though, of course, there are Christian versions as well as Buddhist, Jewish, Islamic and whatever hodge podge of imaginary and ancient religions and esoterica that’s being peddled by new agers as a replacement religion for your parents’ religion you reject.) Reiki definitely has religious roots. I’d actually be interested in hearing one example of “energy healing” that doesn’t have a religious/spiritual root or aspect (putting aside nuclear medicine and so on since that’s obviously not what people mean when they say “energy healing”).
There are very simple and plausible explanations for why people enjoy being fussed over and being in a relaxing atmosphere, there’s no need to invoke supernatural causes for relaxation or being cared for. Feeling better because you’re being cared for isn’t the same thing as being healed or cured of an illness (unless it’s purely psychosomatic, of course).
Fifi: “There are very simple and plausible explanations for why people enjoy being fussed over and being in a relaxing atmosphere, there’s no need to invoke supernatural causes for relaxation or being cared for. Feeling better because you’re being cared for isn’t the same thing as being healed or cured of an illness (unless it’s purely psychosomatic, of course).”
Well, put, Fifi, although I would go further than the “simple and plausible explanations”.
It is now fairly finally established that these limited but useful, all-pervasive generic benefits from medical interactions are mediated by the overall psychological environment, and not by mysterious energies or “quantum connections”. They can be turned on or off or up or down by simply telling the patient different things or merely spending more caring time with them.
It suits the involved parties to pretend, and even perhaps half-believe that something more mysterious is going on. That is not necessarily always a bad thing, so long as everyone comes back to reality when it really matters. Most do. Even Haitians. apparently.
“Because any form of interaction (that’s really what we’re talking about, not energy) with discernible macroscopic effects (by definition, if it’s to be useful for healing) has, well, discernible macroscopic effects.”
Before there were instruments for receiving or detecting radio waves we had no idea they were all around us. And that is true for any particle or energy that doesn’t register with our senses or the instruments that have so far been invented. It seems possible, or probable, that most of what exists is all around us but unknown to us.
Some of the energy supposedly used in energy healing might be our familiar electricity. We know that the brain generates electromagnetic waves, and we know that electricity sometimes promotes healing.
So we don’t even have to hypothesize mysterious unknown forms of energy to consider that energy healing might sometimes work. And that would help explain why some of the research has positive results.
lizkat on electromagnetic waves:
“And that would help explain why some of the research has positive results.”
Why do you think help is required explaining it?
“Some of the energy supposedly used in energy healing might be our familiar electricity. We know that the brain generates electromagnetic waves, and we know that electricity sometimes promotes healing.”
Does this have the ring of cargo cult thinking to anyone else besides me?
Dark energy makes up most of the universe. Isn’t it possible that it manifests as Santa on Christmas? That would help explain some of the gifts under the Christmas tree. I mean, you can’t rule it out, so it’s possible isn’t it?
Lizkat said,
“Some of the energy supposedly used in energy healing might be our familiar electricity.”
I doubt that. We can easily detect and quantify our familiar electricity.
lizkat – “We know that the brain generates electromagnetic waves, and we know that electricity sometimes promotes healing.”
Yes but that has nothing to do with what you’re proposing is “energy healing” and it’s not that mysterious. We use electricity in shock therapy and deep brain stimulation. It’s entirely measurable and has nothing to do with waving hands over people or the kind of faith based “energy healing” you’re promoting.
lizkat – “So we don’t even have to hypothesize mysterious unknown forms of energy to consider that energy healing might sometimes work. And that would help explain why some of the research has positive results.”
Ahhhhh, yes, actually you do need to hypothesize mysterious unknown forms of energy because we can measure electricity. Once again you’re reaching to fantastic lengths to try to justify your faith that “energy healing” exists despite a lack legitimate evidence or even a plausible mechanism.
weing – It must be the dark energy that leaves the lumps of coal for bad children…
The press get a lot of crap and I’m pretty sure most of you don’t know what they have to deal with.
Don’t you think that a lot of us writers know very well and good the story needs to be longer, more in-depth, etc.? But you, the readers, want news. Short. Quick. To the point. If you wanted the whole story as we want to give it to you, you would be reading it in a book, not picking up a newspaper. Catch my drift?
Often, it is the form you are frustrated with, not the writer. The writer often turns in a 1,000 word story and has it cut by the editor down to maybe 600 words. Why? Because not only do you want your news short, you don’t want to pay for it. So our pages have to be filled with advertisements that will bring in money instead information. Quotes are dropped, context left out. It becomes bare-bones and suddenly looked at as inaccurate. In the end, it is a sick cycle with both readers and writers to blame.
People are multi-faceted and the stories should be as well. Just like medicine though, I think a lot of you expect miracles. It comes down to “Here is the skill set I posses and here is what I know how to do with that.”
Also, there is a reason so few science journalists exist: its complicated. How do I explain why a TB vaccine is all but useless while being accurate enough that the medical side is satisfied, simple enough that my audience who can maybe conjure up a recollection of BIO 101 lessons can understand, and in-depth and interesting enough that people will read it. Oh yeah, and “unbiased”. All in 600 words.
This “unbiased” stuff needs to stop. Fair enough though, journalism got itself into that one. But let’s throw out there that it is a good thing to strive for. Doctors should also be unbiased, but that doesn’t happen. You do one thing for one patient that you wouldn’t do for another. Maybe they were nicer to you, maybe they could articulate their symptoms better, maybe you had an extra minute to spare that day.
We all have bias. Many of us try to work beyond that, but admittedly, we always have to keep trying. It will never be an automatic thing. Bias is who you are. Bias brings you to NPR vs Fox. It is why you do not like this girl’s article but you like something else…that is more in line with your own viewpoints.
@colourmetwice on 01 Mar 2010 at 11:01 pm “… Don’t you think that a lot of us writers know very well and good the story needs to be longer, more in-depth, etc.?”
Okay, do you realize that the cited story was a puff piece for modern superstition and con-artistry? It is not lacking in depth, it is lacking in facts. As things stand, it is grossly misleading such that the public can imagine that the described quackery is legitimate.
@colourmetwice on 01 Mar 2010 at 11:01 pm “Also, there is a reason so few science journalists exist: its complicated. … Oh yeah, and [reporting should be] “unbiased”.”
It is not okay to promote con-artists because separating the wheat from the chaff is complicated. Bias is a good thing when it is based in education. “Bias [on social opinions] brings you NPR vs Fox” but bias on technical issues brings usable, reliable information. The Earth is not flat, nor is it at the center of the Universe, nor is it 6,000 years old. Do you need to present those opinions when you report on geology and astronomy? I don’t think so.
It looks like I have to revisit this:
“There have been two glaring omissions in this discussions about energy healing and (quantum) physics.
1) The word “energy” in “energy healing” bears no relationship whatsoever to the word “energy” in physics.
The term is simply meaningless.”
In physics energy is the capacity of a physical system to do work. Energy = force X distance.
Energy is the work you do to move an object through a certain distance.
What the altmed crowd mean by energy can be ascertained by its synonyms: vital force, prana, chi, chakra, aura, spirit, soul. These are mystical entities which have no connection at all to science which is based on the materialist assumption.
Energy in physics has units of joules, ergs, calorie, horsepower etc. What are the units of energy healing:?
“2) Quantum physics is the study of the ultramicroscopic world of subatomic particles. It has no effect on our everyday macroscopic world in which “energy healing” is supposed to work.”
It seems wales misread this but perhaps I was little unclear. Of course I did not mean that macroscopic objects are not composed of atoms and therefore not composed of quantum “particles”. What I obviously meant is that what happens at the microscopic level doesn’t spill over into the macroscopic level. Qantum weirdness remains at the quantum level. Spooky action at a distance, entanglement, probability waves do not make an appearance in our everyday deterministic macroscopic world. Even chemical reactions between molecules are pretty straight forward deterministic processes.
…so, if you want to be a quantum healer, you need to make yourself really really small. Small enough, in fact, to completely disappear from view. Now that would be nice.
While superficially reasonable, with an actual understanding of high energy physics it is quite obviously utterly wrong. You see, we don’t depend on detecting energy with instruments. We measure the actual interactions between particles.
If we didn’t know about electromagnetism but could perform the kinds of experiments like the Tevatron, SLAC, LHC, etc. (yes, a solid grounding of EM is crucial to building such, but let’s leave that aside for the time being) we would see that the observed particles were experiencing additional interactions beyond the ones we knew about. This would very quickly lead us to EM.
It’s really quite simple. The properties a new interaction would have to have in order to evade our current experiments necessarily preclude such an interaction from having the effects postulated for it.
But we can measure and detect EM fields; there are no such generated in “energy healing.” Nor any mechanism by which they might be generated in a controlled manner.
In all seriousness, you really should just accept that you don’t have enough knowledge of physics to debate this. You’re just flat-out wrong, in pretty much every conceivable way.
Joe – “Okay, do you realize that the cited story was a puff piece for modern superstition and con-artistry?”
Well, yes, as pointed out earlier when it was noted that complaining about water for being wet is a bit silly. This was critiqued by Dr Jones as if it was science journalism when, in reality, it’s very obviously not science journalism but human interest fluff. It’s a bit like critiquing homeopathy for not being effective medicine and then saying all medicine sucks and is useless because homeopathy sucks and is useless.
Colourmeblind makes good points about journalism. You want good journalism? Then support good journalism not fluff/yellow journalism, etc. You want SBM, then support SBM not homeopathy. While I take no offense at Dr Jones recounting her story, perhaps she should have done a bit of simple research about the publication and author before agreeing to do the interview. (Just like we all need to do a bit of research before we choose a doctor or a treatment.)
Seriously, if you want good science journalism then understanding what is and isn’t science journalism is necessary, and having an actual understanding of journalism and how it works is also necessary if you want to be dealing with reality and not a fantasy of how journalism should be. If you get upset when people think woo is medicine, then don’t make exactly the same kinds of mistakes about other professions that you complain about people making about medicine.
As for blogging being superior – blogging and information on the internet is a two edged sword. Yes it allows for scientists/doctors to interact much more directly with the public and people who are good communicators are fantastic at this. It also allows for the spread of all kinds of pseudoscience and profitable quackery as well (particularly when someone is essentially using blogging as a career or to make money somehow). The internet and blogging are just mediums that have both benefits and negatives, just like print journalism does. They allow for the rapid spread of information and for interaction, that’s the basic advantages over print (and it’s basically free most of the time). The internet doesn’t care if it’s accurate information or woo – as seen by the huge role the internet has played in the anti-vax, AIDS and climate denialist movements, the anti-Codex astroturf campaign, and all kinds of political propaganda and astroturf activism. If anything, blogging and the internet have allowed for woo to spread much more effectively.
So how does one counteract this? By educating people about how to deconstruct the media (be it online or in print) and think critically about information, as well as about how the media (including advertising) works. (A bit of basic education about cognition and logic help, which is what a lot of education about skepticism essentially is when it’s at its best.) You educate people about reality and how to discern what is real, what is fantasy and what is unknown (and to accept that sometimes there are unknowns). It’s hard to do this effectively if one holds a fantasy image of what media is, just like it’s hard to effectively educate about science and medicine if you’re coming from an ideological and not reality-based perspective. One way to help people understand the difference between science journalism and fluff is to point out good journalism when it happens – and why something is good journalism – so that people can recognize it. Of course, it’s not like politicians or the corporations that buy advertising really want to promote reality-based thinking for the most part!
[But we can measure and detect EM fields; there are no such generated in “energy healing.” Nor any mechanism by which they might be generated in a controlled manner.]
We actually the energy healing researchers claim to measure this. But you would have to read their journals, and you wouldn’t because non-mainstream is all pseudoscience, of course.
[In all seriousness, you really should just accept that you don’t have enough knowledge of physics to debate this. You’re just flat-out wrong, in pretty much every conceivable way.]
Oh yes, you can always say that to any non-mainstream argument. But maybe you’re just flat-out brainwashed by your mainstream science teachers.
They claim it, but the methodology is shoddy at best.
You do realize that you’re now essentially claiming to know more about high-energy physics than a person with a PhD in the subject?
@Fifi on 02 Mar 2010 at 8:54 am “Joe – “Okay, do you realize that the cited story was a puff piece for modern superstition and con-artistry?”
Well, yes, as pointed out earlier when it was noted that complaining about water for being wet is a bit silly.”
You quoted me out of context.
Joe on 02 Mar 2010 at 3:08 am “@colourmetwice on 01 Mar 2010 at 11:01 pm “… Don’t you think that a lot of us writers know very well and good the story needs to be longer, more in-depth, etc.?”
Okay, do you realize that the cited story was a puff piece for modern superstition and con-artistry? It is not lacking in depth, it is lacking in facts. As things stand, it is grossly misleading such that the public can imagine that the described quackery is legitimate.”
Get it? The story was loaded with detail- but all of it is factually incorrect (as far as health-care is concerned) and offers potentially harmful advice. It wasn’t short on analysis (the argument to which I was responding), it was devoid of analysis. A proper article may have had the headline “Quacks invading our area.”
Oh, and by the way, why don’t you actually address the actual arguments made? I suspect it’s because you simply don’t have the knowledge or background to do so, hence my point.
lizkat – “But you would have to read their journals, and you wouldn’t because non-mainstream is all pseudoscience, of course.”
Ah, the old “mainstream” vs “alternative” canard….quack, quack… If your “energy healing researchers” claim in their special non-scientific journals to measure energy then it’s very easy to prove that they do if it’s more than an empty claim. That kind of physical evidence would get published in a “mainstream” journal if it had any validity. However, I can see you’re now going down the conspiracy theory road (which you also travel regarding AIDS treatments so it’s hardly surprising that you’re now showing your true colours…wild claims based on no evidence, claims about “mainstream” science conspiracies, etc). I’d say you’re pretty clearly showing you hold faith based believes that you very desperately want to believe are evidence/science based and not articles of religious faith. It’s always highly entertaining to me that people who cling to religious beliefs like “energy healing” think they’re some kind of “alternative” or “radical thinker” when they’re actually espousing very traditional conservative beliefs about the power of god/s and are part of the mainstream (at least in America where most people believe in god/s and ghosts and so on…talk about being part of the mainstream!)
“We actually the energy healing researchers claim to measure this. But you would have to read their journals, and you wouldn’t because non-mainstream is all pseudoscience, of course.”
Some links would make it easier…
Joe – “Get it? The story was loaded with detail- but all of it is factually incorrect (as far as health-care is concerned) and offers potentially harmful advice. It wasn’t short on analysis (the argument to which I was responding), it was devoid of analysis. A proper article may have had the headline “Quacks invading our area.”
Yeah, I get your complaint but expecting a puff piece to be a critical analysis is tantamount to expecting homeopathy to be effective medicine. Get it? It’s also factually incorrect as far as the woo is concerned too. If you read the article, you may have noticed that the quacks were actually having a hard time making a living and had to go from being a profit-driven enterprise to a non-profit. A better headline might have been “woo not selling as well as energy healer wished” or “magical thinking not so magic”. Look, obviously this article was a puff piece about a local person and not science journalism in any real way.
I totally understand why Dr Jones is annoyed about having her time wasted and the pretense that was made when she was interviewed, but let’s apply a bit of reality-based thinking here too and show that an SBM blogger can actually discern the difference between fluff/human interest journalism in what appears to be a backwater newspaper and actual science journalism (and some awareness of how the media and journalism work). If someone can’t do that, they’re not qualified to critique – in the same way that someone who can’t tell the difference between homeopathy and medicine isn’t qualified to critique SBM.
I’d like to add in something here as a writer who’s written articles based upon interviews. (I tape all interviews and meticulously transcribe what people say, and always take measures to to ensure quotes remain in context. I’ve only very exceptionally had someone take issue with what I’ve written. I write about art and culture mainly so it’s quite different than science or news reporting.) People often sound different to themselves in their own head than they actually do when they speak. They say one thing out loud but mean something else in their own mind, they leave out pertinent things, they don’t talk in complete sentences, and so on. Certainly there are journalists that misquote, change context or misrepresent what someone said but there’s also a lot of people who just don’t communicate what they think they’ve communicated.
We could get into the nature of TV reporting (which is all about sound bites) vs print too. If people want to be effective communicators in the media – be it tv or print – then it’s worth knowing how they work and how to best communicate one’s message in a way that it stays intact. That said, the MSM – be it tv, print or online – will probably never again (and rarely was in the past) a venue for deep, highly contextualized discussions that recognize complexity and really analyze something thoroughly – that’s what specialty magazines, tv programs and blogs/sites are for and why they exist. We should be embracing the ability to have these kinds of specialized discussions, rather than lamenting that the bloated corpse of MSM doesn’t (and that this inability is part of what killed MSM, along with a lot of other factors…the death was preventable).
Scott
“You do realize that you’re now essentially claiming to know more about high-energy physics than a person with a PhD in the subject?”
Oh Scott*, it’s so sad that you think of a PhD as valuable when it comes to expertise in an area. Don’t you know that it only mean’s you’ve spent more time being brainwashed? It only show’s that you are a narrow minded part of the liberal, ivory tower, elite?
You have to understand that the LESS education you have and the LESS you have thought or read about something the more trustworthy you are. That shows that your mind is open, not cluttered by preconceived notions of facts, observations, scientific history or an understanding of your field.
I know it’s a set back, but you are going to have to do something to balance this PhD disadvantage. Could you take up bowling**?
*warning heavy sarcasm ahead.
**no offense to bowling. I like it, particularly with the gutter bars up.
Argh, moderation! wait for it….
[ It’s always highly entertaining to me that people who cling to religious beliefs like “energy healing” think they’re some kind of “alternative” or “radical thinker” when they’re actually espousing very traditional conservative beliefs about the power of god/s and are part of the mainstream (at least in America where most people believe in god/s and ghosts and so on…talk about being part of the mainstream!)]
So Fifi, this is all about who is the least conservative and mainstream? What matters to me is trying to understand, not trying to be weirder than the next person.
And I don’t believe any conspiracy theories. I just think mainstream science is capable of being wrong sometimes.
You are obviously emotionally invested in atheism, and incapable of looking at evidence objectively.
“I just think mainstream science is capable of being wrong sometimes.”
Is anyone claiming that? The point is. Mainstream science is self-correcting. Pseudoscience is never wrong and therefore doesn’t require self-correction.
I meant. Is anyone claiming otherwise?
lizkat on objectivity:
“I just think mainstream science is capable of being wrong sometimes.”
If you rephrase that to “The conclusions that the scientific method leads to are subject to constant refinement and even revision,” then everyone here is in complete and utter agreement with you.
Why, in particular, do you think that the scientific method is incorrect in not seeking further, untestable, explanations for phenomena that are completely accounted for by current understanding?
To go back to my example of my sore thighs. The current scientific explanation that takes into account what we know about mammalian physiology and recent events would be lactic acid buildup subsequent to chasing after a young, newly adopted border collie.
Again, it is possible that the science of sore thighs is wrong — it’s unlikely to be completely wrong about the lactic acid, but it’s possible that there are other effects that contribute to my sore thighs that are not completely understood in all their subtlety.
It’s possible that I am secretly in much better shape than I think I am and that my sore thighs are really due to a curse. But there is nothing about the current state of affairs that leads me to question the lactic acid hypothesis in any significant way or to leap to a curse explanation instead. There is a great deal of excellent physiological research in support of the lactic acid hypothesis and none in support of the curse hypothesis. Even evaluating the curse hypothesis would be completely arbitrary and random.
If the lactic acid hypothesis takes all variables into account and is completely consistent with the observations of sore thighs, then what is scientific about saying it could be a curse? What is closed-minded about not investigating thigh curses randomly and spontaneously, but waiting until the evidence leads us to investigate thigh curses?
There is no evidence at all that leads us to investigate a fifth form of energy as an explanation for the effects of Reiki. The effects of Reiki are completely accounted for currently well-understood psychological and interpersonal effects. (Just like my sore thighs are accounted for by the lactic acid hypothesis and my hot coffee is accounted for by the electric coffee maker hypothesis.) One day there may be data that lead us in that direction, but we’ve been looking for a very long time — hundreds of years anyway, and probably thousands — and not found data that require any other explanation.
There are many, many things for which there are no data that lead us to think they might be true. Russel’s teapot. Homeopathy. My billionnaire status. Energy healing.
Long-windedly back to my question: what is so special about energy healing that it needs more open mindedness and special attention than thigh curses, my billion dollars, or Russel’s teapot?
weing on 02 Mar 2010 at 2:05 pm
I meant. Is anyone claiming otherwise?
Hmm, my dad was a physicist and he used to claim that he was factually correct 99.9% of the time (yeah, my dad was a man rich in peculiarities). That’s about as close as I ever heard a scientist claim to being infallible. Perhaps I could hook a Ouija board up to my keyboard and he could debate Lizcat from the great beyond. Who’s to say it couldn’t happen?
Of course my dad would not truck with psychics or any sort of psi. Then again he didn’t like doctors very much either…pretty much thought it was all a hoax, so I’m not sure if he would be a good advocate for SBM.
huh, my other comment is still in moderation. Did I already make the mysterious psi energy moderation joke? Because now would be the time.
No, lizkat, actually I’m not emotionally invested in atheism (or the non-existence of Santa Claus as a real being who flies around the world once a year, or Russel’s teapot or the great spaghetti monster). There’s nothing to be emotionally invested in since it’s merely a lack of belief in god/s. I do understand that this can be hard to grasp for people who do believe in god/s and because they hold faith based beliefs themselves it’s hard to imagine someone not having an equivalent faith based belief.
And since you keep using “mainstream” clearly you’re the one hung up on what is and isn’t “mainstream”. Science is just science to me, and pseudoscience is just pseudoscience. I’ve noticed that a lot of people who believe in new age religious/spiritual beliefs are pretty hung up on “mainstream” and “alternative” and like to pretend that their faith-based beliefs are merely being oppressed by science and are scientific even though there’s no viable evidence or even plausible mechanism. Usually the accusations that their “alternative” beliefs are being oppressed by “mainstream science” is resorted to after they can’t make quantum woo or pseudoscience fly.
To be fair, while I am fine with “closing the book” on types of psi that have been investigated thoroughly, I am not keen to discount any psi-like phenomenon that has not been scientifically explained. I suggest there can be interesting information to be had in unexplained psi-like phenomenon.
For instance, sometimes I see ghosts. I’ve seen white ladies floating next to my bed, and bizarre apparitions coming up from the floors or floating above me. No I am not dreaming. I am perfectly awake. When I tell people this, some people think “ohhh, haunted house”, other think “Why is she pulling my leg?” some “oh, weird.”
Although I never really thought I was seeing ghosts, imagine my relief when I found out my visions were cause by a sleep dysfunction. Apparently, sometime you can wake up, but your sensory system is still in dream mode. So you are awake, but can see or hear elements from your dream. Often without remembering the dream.
In my family we also have the typical weird “everybody call at the same time out of the blue” phenomenon. This wouldn’t be so weird if we all weren’t so phone adverse. No calls for months, then all at the same time with no birthdays or holidays, etc in sight. Is it just a form of confirmation bias, noticing only when everyone calls? Or is there something else? Some sort of salmon homing or interesting social networking brain function? Or maybe someone already has an explanation and they just haven’t featured it on NPR Science Friday yet.
But that’s not really medicine. and I know, I’m so far out into left field I just ran into the wall.
If you are taught in college and in medical school that there is not, and cannot be, any form of energy or field that is specific to living organisms, then you would probably never become interested in the subject.
However there are researchers investigating biofields, energy healing, etc., because they realize that the “facts” taught in medical school can sometimes be inaccurate our outdated.
One of the most significant disagreements between mainstream medicine and CAM centers on whether biofields and “life energy” can or cannot possibly exist.
CAM says yes, mainstream says no. Mainstream won’t believe anything not published in its own journals, and it won’t publish anything it “knows” cannot be true.
“Some sort of salmon homing or interesting social networking brain function? ”
I think it would be nice if mainstream science would consider the possibility of “wireless” communication between brains. Why not? You don’t think it’s strange that machines can communicate without wires. Why do you insist it can’t possibly work with brains? Why are you so sure that our brains are isolated within our bodies and cannot receive electronic information from outside?
weing – “Mainstream science is self-correcting. Pseudoscience is never wrong and therefore doesn’t require self-correction.”
What weing said….
michele – “I am not keen to discount any psi-like phenomenon that has not been scientifically explained. I suggest there can be interesting information to be had in unexplained psi-like phenomenon.”
I agree entirely that exploring things that haven’t been explained is a worthwhile endeavor. The issue with most psychic type of stuff is that there are very good explanations about why we have these kinds of experiences that are based in solid physiology. I personally find it fascinating how our cognitive and biological glitches have contributed to folklore and have played a role in creating our cultures (and many religious beliefs). As someone who meditates, I find the narratives that people create around the experiences we can have meditating fascinating (almost as fascinating as understanding why we have certain experiences from engaging in certain practices). It’s pretty cool to have an understanding of one’s brain/mind and body from both a subjective and objective perspective.
What this argument fails to consider is that “biofields” which can do what the woo-meisters claim are as firmly ruled out by current experimental results as the idea that gravity is a repulsive force.
It is NOT simply declining to think about it; it’s thinking about it, considering it in relation to empirical results, and observing that it is grossly inconsistent with said empirical results.
I additionally observe that you still haven’t made the slightest attempt to actually refute this point.
lizkat,
“You don’t think it’s strange that machines can communicate without wires.”
No, because they have built-in transmitters and receivers.
“Why are you so sure that our brains are isolated within our bodies and cannot receive electronic information from outside?”
Because, despite extensive knowledge about human anatomy from detailed anatomical dissection by a large number of different anatomist all over the world over a long period of time, no one has yet been able to detect a built-in transmitter or receiver in the human body.
“Why do you insist it can’t possibly work with brains? ”
What do you think lizkat?
What will it take to convince you that this is not possible.
micheleinmichigan,
“Although I never really thought I was seeing ghosts, imagine my relief when I found out my visions were cause by a sleep dysfunction. Apparently, sometime you can wake up, but your sensory system is still in dream mode. So you are awake, but can see or hear elements from your dream. Often without remembering the dream.”
This is called a hypnopompic hallucination.
If it happens going off to sleep, it’s called a hypnogogic hallucination.
The mechanism are a little different apparently, hence the different names.
“In my family we also have the typical weird “everybody call at the same time out of the blue” phenomenon. This wouldn’t be so weird if we all weren’t so phone adverse. No calls for months, then all at the same time with no birthdays or holidays, etc in sight. Is it just a form of confirmation bias, noticing only when everyone calls? Or is there something else? Some sort of salmon homing or interesting social networking brain function? Or maybe someone already has an explanation and they just haven’t featured it on NPR ”
Or may something quite mundane like….coincidence!
Yes, coincidence.
Coincidence is the result of pure random chance:
Flip a coin 100 times. You will be almost guaranteed to get a run of 6 heads by pure random chance. If you show people four sequences of coin flips, three of which are fake and one real and you ask them to pick the fake one, they invariably pick the real one. If looks fake because it will have runs of heads and tails.
I point out these coincidences in my family all the time and now they just roll their eyes. Lesson well learnt I think
(BTW, I’m afrad you reply held up in moderation will be read by no one. I suggest you post it again if you’ve had the forsesight to save it)
lizkat on hypotheses that are cool to think about:
“I think it would be nice if mainstream science would consider the possibility of “wireless” communication between brains.”
Science has. It’s well documented. It’s chemical communication, such as pheromones.
If you are talking about psi, again, science has. Carefully. For decades. Investigators have not found any good evidence that it exists, and if they can’t establish that it exists then they can’t look for a mechanism that would explain how it works.
Yet again lizkat, what are your criteria for random, baseless hypotheses that you think science should investigate? Anyone can come up with an almost infinite number of random, baseless hypotheses. Some of them — like my billionaire hypothesis — are, as you put it, “nice.” Which are the ones that you think other people should investigate for you?
“You don’t think it’s strange that machines can communicate without wires.”
But we are communicating without wires right now. I have a wireless modem. Is that not woo enough for you? It would have been unbelievable 100 years ago.
lizkat said “You are obviously emotionally invested in atheism, and incapable of looking at evidence objectively.”
This is the kind of comment I wish our commenters would avoid. Instead of drawing conclusions about the personalities of other commenters and insulting them, if you think they are wrong about something why not present evidence to demonstrate what you think is the truth and let others draw their own conclusions about your opponents?
You have not even given us a concrete example of evidence that needs to be looked at objectively.
“Because, despite extensive knowledge about human anatomy from detailed anatomical dissection by a large number of different anatomist all over the world over a long period of time, no one has yet been able to detect a built-in transmitter or receiver in the human body.”
Very little is actually understood about how the brain works. There is nothing to rule out the possibility that the brain can detect electromagnetism, as well as generate it.
“Instead of drawing conclusions about the personalities of other commenters and insulting them”
But it’s perfectly ok for Fifi to draw that sort of conclusions? Why the double standard?
EM’s a dead end here, I’m afraid. If that were the mechanism of action, it would be almost trivially easy to detect, measure, and reproduce. Yet, this has not been properly done.
“Why are you so sure that our brains are isolated within our bodies and cannot receive electronic information from outside?”
Well, apart from never being demonstrated to the most ordinary standards of science, it looks very unlikely from what else we know.
Electroreception is actually very common in fish and it even occurs in another mammal, the platypus. Two types of electroreceptor are known.
If man was able to do something similar there would have to be similar receptors somewhere near the surface, definitely not buried in the brain and subjected to strong electrical fields and currents everywhere. We also sense everything else — touch, sound, sight, warmth, vibration and cold through exposure to the outside.
No such suitable receptors or nerves have yet been found in man. That we encounter extremely powerful electrical fields all the time without being aware of them also makes them improbable.
But there are so many rational objections to the idea of a healing bionergy that they cannot be dealt with in one post.
Of course, the healing energy advocates bypass all these by moving in and out of mysticism — pleading science when they think it helps, and dismissing sciencce as inadequate and usually wrong when it doesn’t.
They sincerely believe they are helping people, and they probably are in limited ways, just not in the way they think.
lizkat,
Come to think of it. 100 years ago and way before that there were those that pretended to communicate across distances. Serious scientists kept tinkering away and now we have what would have been considered miraculous then. The pretenders are still with us I see. BTW I have seen patients that are picking up radio waves that their neighbors are sending them to affect their minds. They are trying to tell them to do various things. Some of them quite bad. Is this what you are talking about?
lizkat said
“But it’s perfectly ok for Fifi to draw that sort of conclusions? Why the double standard?”
No, it is not OK for anyone, and there is no double standard. I said “This is the kind of comment I wish our commenters would avoid.” I meant ALL of our commenters, not just you.
BillyJoe –
Apparently I have both hypnopompic and hypnogogic hallucinations. I thought it was the same thing when waking and falling asleep. Interesting to know.
Regarding phone serendipity. I have no problem with the chance explanation. That is kinda what I meant by confirmation bias. Good explanation though! I would like to know if my family has a higher occurrence than suggested by chance (four people calling the same person on the same day), but like I said the calls are quite far between. So I think I’ll be gone before we could get a reasonable sample.
Regarding reposting the comment in mod limbo. That would be cheating, more effort than it’s worth and deprive me of referring to it incessantly
lizkat,
If you have ANY evidence to support your theories on energy medicine, seems like now would be a good time to mention them. Believe it or not, most of us are curious, not dogmatic, and are interested in thinking about things that challenge our preconceptions. That’s kind of why we are skeptics.
I regret that I haven’t had time to participate further in the discussion on physics. I am able to do so now only because of insomnia. Someone asked why even entertain the idea of “energy healing”? (or I would substitute “any as yet unexplainable physical phenomena” here, as I have no particular investment in energy healing) I have two reasons. I quote the Quantum Enigma book at length here as it has opened my eyes to this matter.
First, the most successful theory (quantum mechanics) of the most fundamental of sciences (physics) has proven the fact of nonlocality, quantum entanglement, call it what you will. An object has been proven to have an effect on a distant separate object, but with no known, observable or measurable mechanism of action. This is extremely odd. For me it demands further explanation, speculation and contemplation. John Bell (of Bell’s Theorem) believed that quantum mechanics reveals the incompleteness of our worldview. He said that he suspected “that the new way of seeing things will involve an imaginative leap that will astonish us”. To quote QE: “Bell’s Theorem has been called the most profound discovery in science in the last half of the 20th century”. (The authors suggest that Bell would have been awarded the Nobel Prize if it were awarded posthumously.) “It [Bell’s Theorem] rubbed physics’ nose in the weirdness of quantum mechanics. As the results of Bell’s Theorem and the experiments it stimulated, a once “purely philosophical” question has now been answered in the laboratory. There is a universal connectedness. Einstein’s “spooky interactions” do in fact exist. Any objects that have ever interacted continue to instantaneously influence each other. Along with Bell, we suspect that something beyond ordinary physics awaits discovery. Many would like to dismiss the enigma, our “skeleton in the closet” as merely a psychological problem, claiming that we just have to get used to the quantum strangeness.”
Lest we minimize the importance of qm, the QE authors state “Quantum theory is not just one of many theories in physics. It is the framework upon which all of today’s physics is ultimately based.” And “Quantum theory is the most stunningly successful theory in all of science. Not a single one of its predictions has ever been wrong.” Okay, they’ve got my attention.
Second, for those who would separate qm from classical physics and who claim that the quantum weirdness does not manifest itself in our macroscopic world, from QE: “Essential to the Copenhagen Interpretation was a clear separation of the quantum microworld from the classical macroworld. That separation depended on a vast difference in scale between atoms and the things we deal with directly. In Bohr’s day, there was a wide no-man’s land in between. It seemed acceptable to think of the macro realm obeying classical physics and the micro realm obeying quantum physics. Today’s technology has invaded the no-man’s land. With appropriate laser light we can see individual atoms with the naked eye the way we see dust motes in a sunbeam. The macroscopic apparatus in this case is the human eye. Quantum mechanics is increasingly applied to larger and larger objects. Even a one-ton bar proposed to detect gravity waves must be analyzed quantum mechanically. In cosmology, a wavefunction for the whole universe is written to study the big bang. It gets harder today to nonchalantly accept the realm in which the quantum rules apply as somehow not being physically real.” QE reminds us that “Quantum physics does not replace classical physics….. but encompasses classical physics as a special case.” That is a mind bending idea, our perceived macroscopic reality is a “special case” within the larger scope of qm.
I also want to comment that since Scott claims to have a PhD in physics, on which I can only take his word, when his interpretations differ from those of the QE authors it must be attributable to a matter of opinion. I am also relying on the QE authors’ word for the facts of qm and their educational backgrounds and positions as UC faculty members are verifiable. I assume that Scott and the authors agree upon the facts of qm, but may disagree upon the interpretation/implications. They also seem to disagree on physics vocabulary, as the authors are comfortable discussing electromagnetism as a “force” rather than an “interaction”.
It is understandable that most physics students and professional physicists, whose practical aim is to obtain a degree and a job, tend to overlook, dismiss or disregard the qm weirdness (though as the authors point out, that is in large part due to professors’ avoidance of the issue as too distracting), but in the interest of knowledge some physicists are not content to dismiss qm’s implications. As the authors state “Only a minority of our physics colleagues share our bias that the quantum enigma merits attention”. They may be part of a minority, but they are in good company (John Wheeler, John Bell, Albert Einstein, etc. etc.) Einstein (as well as many other physicists) had first-hand experience in contending with disbelief from his peers: “Ten years after Einstein’s work on the photoelectric effect, the American physicist Robert Millikan found that Einstein’s formula in every case predicted “exactly the observed results.” Nevertheless, Millikan called Einstein’s photon hypothesis leading to that formula “wholly untenable” and called Einstein’s suggestion that light came as compact particles “reckless.” Millikan was not alone. The physics community received the photon postulate “with disbelief and skepticism bordering on derision.” Even when Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1922 for the photoelectric effect, the citation avoided explicit mention of the then 17 year old, but still unaccepted, photon. An Einstein biographer writes “from 1905 to 1923 Einstein was a man apart in being the only one, or almost the only one, to take the light quantum seriously.”
wales,
So the idea of energy healing never occurred to you until you read Quantum Enigma?
wales,
If a PhD in physics disagreed with my understanding of a book on QM, I would think the problem was with my interpretation and would look for clarification. But that’s just me. I just started previewing the Teaching Company course on QM, it should be arriving in a few days. I hope to have an incomplete understanding of it in about a month, barring interruptions.
This is not accurate. Entanglement is not actually an action or an interaction; it’s really pretty unique. And, in particular, cannot be used to explain the kinds of things you’re trying to have it do. Specifically, entanglement cannot transmit information – this is what saves causality in the presence of nonlocality. There are interesting implications of entanglement, but influencing an object at a distance is not one of them.
They do not differ. As weing indicated, the discrepancy you think you see is due to you not quite understanding what they meant. (No shame in that, it’s a very hard subject that takes years to wrap one’s head around.)
As I read your comments, the particular points you’re inappropriately conflating are the idea of a macroscopic vs. quantum divide (which you correctly note is a largely false distinction, though in practice it is often a useful approximation) with the arguments I’ve made with regard to the energy scale of interactions. While these may seem similar to a layperson, they are completely different. (In particular, even what I referred to as low energy/macroscopic is still firmly within the “pure quantum” realm – more specifically, quantum field theory.)
Either may be used, though depending on the context one or the other may be more appropriate (in high-energy physics, for example, “force” is not really suitable because, say, pi0>gamma+gamma can’t really be interpreted via forces – the more general “interaction” really works better). I’d really like for you to point me to where I said differently; the closest thing to it that I recall saying is that calling things like psi or qi “energy” is NOT proper physical terminology. Which it definitively is not.
It’s also rather ironic that you talk about resistance to Einstein’s ideas in the same post you’re touting entanglement, given that Einstein considered entanglement untenable – he’s the “E” in the EPR paradox. (Note that I’m not saying it’s wrong or inappropriate, just amusingly ironic.)
It occurs to me that a clearer statement of the fundamental difficulty with postulated new interactions may be helpful.
Any postulated new interaction cannot significantly impact the interactions of the Standard Model particles at energy scales accessible to current (i.e. pre-LHC) experiments. This is because the measurements of those interactions conform extremely tightly to the predictions of the Standard Model.
Therefore, any non-SM interaction can have only very weak effects at currently accessible energy scales. They may certainly have very strong effects at higher energy scales, however.
Biological systems, including humans, operate at very low energy scales indeed, compared to what current accelerators can reach. (eV vs. TeV), and are composed of Standard Model particles. Ergo, interactions relevant to biological systems would be easily accessible to current experiment. But, as we have noted, there is no room for new interactions accessible to current experiments.
Scott – Thanks for taking the time to explain this. QM is way out my league – I do understand the limitations of my own knowledge and education and ability to discern the validity of a theory based upon this – but the leap to use it to explain psychic powers seemed to have all the hallmarks of previous attempts to claim psychic powers are real using the latest technology or physics theory. And, personally, I’m quite willing to take the word of the experts here (though I have no objection to the idea being used in scifi…fiction is fun).
It’s a bit like how people constantly try to frame understandings of the brain in terms of the latest technology and then come to believe because they know something about how computers work that they entirely understand brain function! This is the danger with using metaphors to describe complex things we don’t entirely understand (or need highly specialized knowledge to understand), we risk mistaking the metaphorical object for the actual object/process rather than remaining open to understanding something on it’s own terms. (A bit like how people start to believe that because wifi exists then telepathy must…and how back in the day the telegraph and telephone were used in the same way.) Personally I think it’s much more interesting to actually try to understand why people have these kinds of experiences from a cognitive perspective – the brain and our experience of mind are quite interesting in and of them selves without having to make up extra magical abilities to explain things we may or may not yet understand!
# Fifi
“I do understand that this can be hard to grasp for people who do believe in god/s and because they hold faith based beliefs themselves it’s hard to imagine someone not having an equivalent faith based belief.”
I’m getting in a tangential competition with FiFi.
I had to come back to the above statement because I’ve been reflecting on it the whole morning. This would inevitably lead me to the place were all argument go, existentialism.
Because the only meaning or certainty we have in life can be viewed as completely manufactured. I can say, honestly, that the pursuit of science and medicine is as much faith based as that of religion. It may use facts as tools, but the foundation, the concept that knowing more or healing more is valuable beyond someone’s subjective experience is as faith based as any religious belief.
For example, I can say “I will support the most effective form of medicine possible to alleviate suffering” But the fact is, I am working on faith that lowering infant mortality and increase the human life span will alleviate suffering. When the earth’s population was 1/6, 1/4, 1/2 what it is today, wasn’t there more or less human suffering? One can argue about that all day, but the answer in the end would be subjective.
I could use a hundred examples. But I know, at 3:00 am, everyone knows what I am talking about. All but the most dogmatic religious people at some point doubt their god. All but the most dogmatic scientific people at some point doubt they are making any difference at all. And I’m guessing we all know that their doubts are just as factual as their beliefs.
The goals and meaning we inject into our lives are arbitrary. I believe this is a good thing. I can not imagine a way that humans could function without this sort of arbitrary faith or manufactured certainty.
Belief in god is just a drop in the bucket of all the faith based decisions all humans make.
My inclination is to separate religion and science. I believe they each function better that way. Of course I have very little evidence that that is true or that functioning better is a good thing.
I will now return you to your regularly scheduled sensible conversation.
“When the earth’s population was 1/6, 1/4, 1/2 what it is today, wasn’t there more or less human suffering?”
correction, WAS there more or less human suffering?
FiFi – “This is the danger with using metaphors to describe complex things we don’t entirely understand (or need highly specialized knowledge to understand), we risk mistaking the metaphorical object for the actual object/process rather than remaining open to understanding something on it’s own terms.”
Excellent observation.
I wish SBM had “I like” buttons on comment boxes. Save me looking like a “me too” commenting idiot.
michele – “The goals and meaning we inject into our lives are arbitrary. I believe this is a good thing. I can not imagine a way that humans could function without this sort of arbitrary faith or manufactured certainty.”
To wander down the philosophical path… I’m not sure if they’re arbitrary really (since there’s usually an internal logic to our goals and what we find meaningful and, in many ways, we learn to attribute meaning, it’s not random). It’s also worth noting that ethical behavior seems to have a biological basis, so that’s not particularly arbitrary or without causation. That said, on non-personal/non-human/objective scale I entirely agree. In many ways, what are our beliefs in god/s but a way to stave off existential angst? (As well as explain the unexplainable, god concepts to serve multiple purposes both individually and culturally.)
I see science as a process or methodology, which is why it’s different than a religion or belief system to me. Certainly one can take on the information the process reveals as part of a belief system and some people do turn science into an ideology (but then it’s not really science anymore, or so it seems to me).
Of course I have beliefs that guide my actions and that shape my perception of the world (some rational, some emotional, all the usual human stuff). That said, I don’t see a big conflict between acknowledging that an objective world exists independent of my perception of it (materialist philosophy apparently) AND recognizing that our subjective perceptions of the world are constructs (post-modern philosophy apparently…like quantum physics and mechanics, poor post-modernism has been abused by a lot of people that don’t understand what it is as cultural theory). This seems like pretty basic cognitive science to me but apparently a lot of people get very freaked out by objective/subjective and the idea that their subjective perceptions are a construct and not very accurate. I guess we all like to believe our experiences and perceptions are real because it’s how we locate ourselves in the world and it gives us a sense of control…keeping that existential angst at bay.
One of the reasons I went into art (and then ended up as a writer) is that I find subjectivity and the huge diversity of human cognition fascinating, along with communication. Neurodiversity, perception and cognition are pretty damn cool, though I’d say our tendency to assume that everyone else experiences/perceives the world the same way we do causes a lot of misunderstanding and conflict. As an art AND science geek – and just someone who’s intensely curious about what’s going on inside other people – I do sometimes find it interesting to see how some people can’t imagine/think beyond their own perception or cognitive tendencies. (For instance, I’m equally comfortable having a discussion with someone very literal and on the autistic end of the cognitive spectrum as I am with someone on the schizophrenic hyper-symbolic-meaning-attributing end of the spectrum…it’s about understanding someone else’s cognitive style and internal logic rather than trying to make them conform to one’s own.)
Scott: my mistake, you said “Because any form of interaction (that’s really what we’re talking about, not energy)” and I incorrectly remembered you referring to force here. Also I thought I made it clear that I agree any disagreement between you and the QE authors was with regard to interpretation/implications, not with QM theory itself. Also your comments on Einstein, exactly! He found the QM weirdness hard to swallow and could not just dismiss it in his own mind. Hence he was one of those scientists who thought it deserved attention.
Alison: of course I had heard of energy healing before I read the QE book. But I had never really thought about what a mechanism might be. What got me going on this was a comment from the QE book “That widespread acceptance [among the general public] of paraphenomena is sufficient reason for including some comment in our book. A more important reason is that certain competent researchers claiming to display such phenomena cannot be dismissed out of hand. But hard-to-believe things require strong evidence. As yet, evidence for the existence of paraphenomena strong enough to convince skeptics does not exist. But if—if!—such a phenomenon were convincingly demonstrated, we would know where to start looking for an explanation: the quantum effects of consciousness, Einstein’s “spooky interactions”.
Gotta run, hope to catch up on this later. Scott thanks for your explanations.
wales on hypotheses:
“Of course I had heard of energy healing before I read the QE book. But I had never really thought about what a mechanism might be.”
What is the difference between that and, “Of course I had thought I might be a billionnaire before. But I had never really thought about what a mechanism might be.”
What is causing you to entertain the hypothesis that energy healing exists? The same things that are causing me to entertain the hypothesis that I am a billionnaire — that it would be awesome if it were true? Or is there something else that is causing you to entertain that particular hypothesis?
“If you have ANY evidence to support your theories on energy medicine, seems like now would be a good time to mention them. ”
I already linked a recent mainstream review of 66 energy healing studies. The quality ranged from medium to high, and outcomes did not differ with quality. Overall, there was a moderate positive effect. There hasn’t been as much RC research on this as on drugs of course, since big drug companies have money. And drugs are easy to control with a placebo, while certain other kinds of treatment are not.
“Believe it or not, most of us are curious, not dogmatic, and are interested in thinking about things that challenge our preconceptions. That’s kind of why we are skeptics.”
No, that is not the case with the average SBM skeptic. I am a skeptic because I look at more than one side of controversies. I don’t assume one side is smart and the other is dumb. I assume that each side has different experiences and knowledge.
If I see a study that shows evidence for energy healing I don’t automatically think there must be something wrong with it, because there is no plausible mechanism. And if a study shows no evidence for energy healing I don’t think it must be right.
Some commenters said the studies in the energy healing review are all trash. But the only reason they “know” that is because they “know” that energy healing has no plausible mechanism.
So the average SMB skeptic only believes what he/she thinks has a plausible mechanism. And he/she decides what is plausible or not based on his/her philosophy.
Evidence does not matter. This is not EBM, it’s SBM, and there is a difference. EBM considers the evidence, regardless of philosophical preferences. SBM only considers evidence that fits what it considers to be scientific.
The catch-22 is that if evidence contradicts something already “known” to science, then it has no plausible mechanism, and it cannot be real. So evidence doesn’t count, unless it supports your philosophy.
FiFi said, “I’m not sure if they’re arbitrary really (since there’s usually an internal logic to our goals and what we find meaningful and, in many ways, we learn to attribute meaning, it’s not random). It’s also worth noting that ethical behavior seems to have a biological basis, so that’s not particularly arbitrary or without causation.”
A discussion of philosophy is not complete without semantics.
In regard to arbitrary I meant something like this.
–adjective
1.
“subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one’s discretion: an arbitrary decision.”
For example: one might choses their path for a variety of reasons; your biological inclination, your internal logic, the path of least or most resistance. But the enormous scope of random events and our inability to find solid evidence that any goal is truly valuable (when looked at from every possible angle) brings me to the conclusion that the actions we chose are based solely on one’s discretion.
You can chose to do good or evil. Random events and subjective viewers will ultimately tell whether your actions resulted in good or evil.
“I see science as a process or methodology, which is why it’s different than a religion or belief system to me. Certainly one can take on the information the process reveals as part of a belief system and some people do turn science into an ideology (but then it’s not really science anymore, or so it seems to me).”
Although I understand what you are saying and agree. I want to clarify that I was not talking about science as ideology. In the context I was talking about, religion and science are both different tools (a screwdriver and hammer) that people use to accomplish their goals. We work on faith that the goals have value or that we are using the better tool. In truth, reality doesn’t have a rule against moving the goal posts.
“I don’t see a big conflict between acknowledging that an objective world exists independent of my perception of it (materialist philosophy apparently)”
I’m not sure if this is in response to my thoughts or another’s. I too see no conflict there. We do it all the time.
“For instance, I’m equally comfortable having a discussion with someone very literal and on the autistic end of the cognitive spectrum as I am with someone on the schizophrenic hyper-symbolic-meaning-attributing end of the spectrum”
We must be opposite sides of the same coin. I would say I feel equally uncomfortable with the two and most people inbetween.
lizkat on evidence for energy healing:
“I already linked a recent mainstream review of 66 energy healing studies.”
Yes, but that doesn’t show that energy healing exists. It shows that being nice to people makes them feel better. We already have perfectly good explanations for the outcomes of the 66 studies (several of which were junk and many of which were negative).
Going back to my sore thighs, yet again. If I already have a perfectly good hypothesis with excellent evidence (lactic acid), why would I bother randomly generating another hypothesis with no evidence (I’m under a curse)?
If what we know about cognitive and interpersonal effects already explains the evidence, why would we invent some other force to explain it?
“The catch-22 is that if evidence contradicts something already “known” to science, then it has no plausible mechanism, and it cannot be real. So evidence doesn’t count, unless it supports your philosophy.”
What a load of bovine scatology. Evidence always counts.
The money (evidence) left under your pillow was from your parents, not the tooth fairy. You just don’t like the explanation given by science for your evidence.
“This seems like pretty basic cognitive science to me but apparently a lot of people get very freaked out by objective/subjective and the idea that their subjective perceptions are a construct and not very accurate.”
Actually, I think I’m getting where you are coming from here. (?) I often get freaked out when I find that someone else’s subjective experience is vastly different than mine. I think the main reason is that I have chosen “getting along with people” as one of my (arbitrary) goals. Using self-observation to predict what others will think is one of the best (most intuitive) tools I have to predict another person’s reaction to something I do.” When I am confronted with the obvious flaws in that tool, I am left shaken. Perhaps I should choose a different tool or a different goal, as if it mattered.
“Yes, but that doesn’t show that energy healing exists. It shows that being nice to people makes them feel better.”
That’s why they try to use placebo controls. To be counted as high quality a study has to be well controlled and blinded. And the results were similar for high and medium quality.
If you think the authors of the review are morons, then that might help you maintain your preconceptions.
Otherwise, you might have to wonder about these results.
If I flip a coin and call heads or tails and occasionally I call it, every once in a while I will call it right above chance. That does not prove energy, psi, or whatever. I used to fold a small piece of paper into an umbrella shape and center it on a pin and try to make it spin with my mind. I was surprised when it did. So, I placed my palm between the paper and my nose and the spinning stopped. My dreams of winning at craps at the casino were blown to bits. But I saved myself a lot of money.
weing, by “interpretation” I was referring to Scott’s take versus the authors’ take on the Copenhagen Interpretation and the other 8 QM interpretation circulating, not to my interpretation of the QE book versus Scott’s. Many physicists disagree as to the interpretation/implications of QM, hence the 9 interpretations laid out in the book.
weing, Why the heck would you fold a small piece of paper into an umbrella and center it on a pin, to test moving something with your mind? You have got some sort of methodical personality, don’t you?
I was once amazed in a bar when my beer glass drifted slowly toward me. My initial assumption was that I was subconsciously using telekinesis to suggest another sip. Sadly, I noticed the beer was sitting in a puddle of condensation. Drat, those pesky laws of physics.
weing, by “interpretation” I was referring to Scott’s take versus the authors’ take on the Copenhagen Interpretation and the other 8 QM interpretation circulating, not to my interpretation of the QE book versus Scott’s.
I have given no take on the Copenhagen Interpretation, nor does it (or many-worlds, or any of the others) have any relevance whatsoever to the discussion. It simply does not mean what you’re trying to have it mean.
lizkat on placebo controls:
“To be counted as high quality a study has to be well controlled and blinded.”
Yes. I read the paper (oderb posted the link):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2816237/
Most studies included some form of control: standard care, being put on a waiting list, the same person being evaluated both with and without an “energy healing” intervention. Some of them even included a placebo control of fake healing. From what I could understand, that meant that a healer would go to someone and sometimes do real Reiki and sometimes do fake Reiki (or whatever). This is not exactly blinded.
In many studies, it wasn’t clear that the control and intervention groups had been randomized.
In addition, blinding was not usually applied to the people who evaluated the subjects and interpreted the results.
Simply saying Look! A study! doesn’t make it prove anything in particular. I didn’t see anything that jumped out as justifying any interpretation beyond the ordinary statistical, cognitive and interpersonal ones.
Well, here’s a bit of reporting that they may as well go after with full zeal.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14501591?source=most_viewed
lawyer instigated CAM lawsuits?! why I never!
“If I flip a coin and call heads or tails and occasionally I call it, every once in a while I will call it right above chance. That does not prove energy, psi, or whatever.”
And that is why experimenters use statistics. If something happens once in a while be chance we don’t consider it of scientific interest.
wales,
“the quantum effects of consciousness”
Could you explain what you mean here?
Because I think it could be at the root cause of your inkling that quantum physics could support PSI.
lizkat,
“I already linked a recent mainstream review of 66 energy healing studies.”
Umm, could you link to it again? It’s not that simple to sort through 150 comments to find the one where you put your link.
Make that 247 comments.
lizkat was working with a press release, but oderb kindly linked to the paper itself:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2816237/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n772q20j61180nj0/fulltext.html
Trying …
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n772q20j61180nj0/fulltext.html
I’ve looked at the 4 top rated studies in terms of overall rating and methodology. The top 3 were negative. The fourth, Laidlow et al, looked like it was measuring emotional noise in the life of a medical student. I have to tell you that I am not impressed. As the quality of the studies beyond these is reportedly lower, then any positive results are likely to be less convincing. I will shift my limited attention to something more likely to be useful. Sorry.
micheleinmichigan,
“My inclination is to separate religion and science.”
Unfortunately this is impossible.
Science has deconstructed religion.
You now need cognitive dissonance to hold on to both.
Yeah, life’s a bitch.
wales,
The micropscopic/macroscopic divide re-revisited.
You agree, don’t you, that “entanglement” and “Heisenberg” are nowhere in evidence in our macroscopic everyday word?
Theoretically, yes, if you jump at a brick wall often enough you will eventually pass straight through unscathed like that “tunnelling electron”. In practice, however, you can jump at that wall every second for a trillion years and the probability that you will jump through that wall is still essentally zero.
It’s the same with relativity theory. A muon can reach the Earth from outer space because of time dilation, but the difference in the ages between a stay-at-home agoraphobic twin and his brother who travel 20km to and from work everyday and takes weekend jaunts in the countryside and overseas holidays at christmas, is still essentially zero.
You cannot invoke quantum physics (or relativity for that matter) to explain what happens between a quack practitioner and his patient.
(And I’m still interested to hear what you meant by “the quantum effects of consciousness”)
Fifi: “apparently a lot of people get very freaked out by…the idea that their subjective perceptions are a construct and not very accurate”
My wife is one of those people. She is freaked out by a demonstration of the eye’s blind spot and by this illusion:
http://www.optillusions.com/dp/1-67.htm
Fifi: “This is the danger with using metaphors to describe complex things we don’t entirely understand…we risk mistaking the metaphorical object for the actual object”
In the world of homoeopathy, Lionel Milgrom has made just that mistake. He used quantum entanglement as a metaphor and before long mistook it for the real thing. That is why clinical trials don’t work for homoeopathy, you see – because “observation collapses the wave function” (which is, of course, utter crock anyway)
micheleinmichigan,
“I would like to know if my family has a higher occurrence than suggested by chance ”
It would be almost impossible to tell. Outliers occur by chance alone. Your family may be one of them. Most cancer clusters are just outliers in the probability curve. Your chance of winning lotto is 1 in a million. If I were to say that you will never win lotto my chance of being wrong are aproximately zero. But there are people who have won lotto three times. They are also outliers in the probability curve.
“In practice, however, you can jump at that wall every second for a trillion years and the probability that you will jump through that wall is still essentally zero.”
Ah, like General Stubblebine of healthfreedomusa and The Men Who Stared at Goats infamy who tried to walk through the wall of his office every day? To no avail… Life really is stranger than fiction.
BillyJoe “But there are people who have won lotto three times. They are also outliers in the probability curve.”
Yeah, but I want to know how I can get to be one of those lotto outliers and not one of those lighting strike outliers (aside from avoiding open fields in thunderstorms).
Obviously, a rabbit’s foot is the key.
BillyJoeon 03 Mar 2010 at 10:18 pm
micheleinmichigan,
“My inclination is to separate religion and science.”
Unfortunately this is impossible.
Science has deconstructed religion.
You now need cognitive dissonance to hold on to both.
Yeah, life’s a bitch.
BillyJoe, I don’t think we are on the same page. I did not mean to say that religion could be viewed as factual from a scientific perspective. I meant to say that as a tool, religion can be useful in meeting a goal. I other words reality is only important if reality is your priority.
Perhaps, I am making it appear more convoluted than it is, but…
If one’s goal is to live a long life with as few symptoms of disease as possible, then SBM is the way to go. But, some people may chose a goal of living an incredibly spiritually rich life and choose to make life span and symptoms as a low priority. Then religion may be the way to go. So I am inclined to separate the two. Because, yes, trying to meet both goals may create cognitive dissonance.
So, I have occassioanally come across a scientific atheist who will deride a religion person’s view because they are not science-based. So! that is not religions goal.
I have more often come across a religious person who will deride science for not incorporating religious beliefs. So! that is not what science is for.
If some people are strongly attached to one tool or the other, it may create cognitive dissonance to incorporate both. But, if as a scientist you see that many choices you make in life are subjective and not fact based, it may not be so problematic to except a tool that is subjective and not fact based.
Lizkat,
Thanks for the links. I am not an MD, so the following is simply my take on some of the most reliable (according to the authors) studies cited in the paper. Here are the results, starting with the top of their list. I’ll keep a running tally of the effectiveness of the therapy being studied.
3 notes:
1. The criteria for including a study was very wide, including “spiritual healing,” “subtle energy,” “energy healing,” “biofield healing,” “external qi therapy,” “emitted chi,” “emitted qi,” “qi-therapy,” “Johrei,” “pranic healing,” “polarity therapy,” “Reiki,” “therapeutic touch,” and “healing touch.”
2. The focus of the studies were likewise heterogeneous, ranging from chronic pain to bone marrow transplant patients, although the only outcome claimed in the conclusion was reduction in pain intensity, reduction in hospital anxiety, and reduction in agitation from dementia. In other words, no objective markers provided support for the energy field hypothesis.
3. The studies that I looked at were all cited exactly once: by the review article you referenced.
Cleland et al: “CONCLUSION: Spiritual healing does not appear to have any specific affect on patient asthma related quality of life.”
Score:0
Beutler et al: “In this study no treatment was consistently better than another and the data cannot therefore be taken as evidence of a paranormal effect on blood pressure. Probably the fall in blood pressure in all three groups either was caused by the psychosocial approach or was a placebo effect of the trial itself.”
Score:0
Meehan: “The hypothesis, that therapeutic touch would significantly decrease postoperative pain compared to the placebo control intervention, was not supported.”
Score:0
Laidlaw et al: “RESULTS: Mood scores on 5/6 of the POMS-Bi subscales were slightly but significantly more positive in the Johrei condition. State anxiety was similarly decreased. IgA levels were unchanged but cortisol levels were found to be slightly but non-significantly lower after Johrei than after the control condition and DHEA levels slightly but non-significantly raised, with a negative correlation between cortisol and DHEA levels.”
Score: 2/5, slightly positive outcome. Note: positive outcome only found in the self-measured criteria.
Woods, Craven, & Whitney: “RESULTS: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) (F = 3.331, P = .033) and the Kruskal-Wallis test (chi2 = 6.661, P = .036) indicated a significant difference in overall behavioral symptoms of dementia, manual manipulation and vocalization when the experimental group was compared to the placebo and control groups. The experimental (significant) was more effective in decreasing behavioral symptoms of dementia than usual care, while the placebo group indicated a decreasing trend in behavioral symptoms of dementia compared to usual care.”
Score: ½. Experimental (therapeutic touch) seems to have an effect; however placebo TT also shows an effect.
Smith et al: “RESULTS: A significantly lower score for central nervous system or neurological complications was noted for subjects who received MT comppared with the control group; however, no differences were found among the 3 groups with respect to the other 10 complication categories or in the total mean score for complications. Patients’ perception of the benefits of therapy (total score) was significantly higher for those who received MT compared with the FV control group. The mean scores on the comfort subscale were significantly higher for patients receiving both MT and TT compared with the FV control group.”
Score: ? Massage Therapy , not an energy field therapy, shows some promise in some areas. TT only shows effect in subjective comfort scale.
These are the studies at the top of the list, i.e., the most trustworthy. This is the best evidence out there. I can’t say it makes me want to go out and spend time and money trying out one of these therapies.
BillyJoe, Thanks for the really good description of outliers. I’ve have been seeing that word in the media and have and been meaning to look it up.
You seem to have a real knack for explaining concepts. This is one of the reasons I enjoy SBM. The opportunity to read comments about a broad range of science based subjects from a variety of personalities with varied expertise from around the world.
Billy Joe I think you have arrived at the crux of the matter. Billy Joe said: “observation collapses the wave function” (which is, of course, utter crock anyway)”
This is where we differ. I am taking the QE authors’ word that observation does in fact collapse the wave function.
Quoting from the book Quantum Enigma about the probability interpretation of the wavefunction “Quantum probability is not the probability of where the atom is. It’s the objective probability of where you (or anyone) will find it. The atom wasn’t in that box before your observed it to be there. Quantum theory has the atom’s wavefunction occupying both boxes. Since the wavefunction is synonymous with the atom itself, the atom is simultaneously in both boxes. The point of that last paragraph is hard to accept. That’s why we keep repeating it. Even students completing a course in quantum mechanics, when asked what the wavefunction tells, often incorrectly respond that it gives the probability of where the object is. The text we teach from emphasizes the correct point by quoting Pascal Jordan, one of the founders of quantum theory: “Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it.” But we’re sympathetic with our students. Using quantum mechanics is hard enough without worrying about what it means.”
This is what I meant by the quantum effects of consciousness. Counterintuitive, hard to swallow? Absolutely. But it is what the experiments prove. This is why the philosophy or interpretation of physics or “what it means” is so interesting. Anyhow, I have been repeating the same thing for awhile now. It’s been interesting, but I think it’s time for me to move on.
“My wife is one of those people. She is freaked out by a demonstration of the eye’s blind spot and by this illusion:”
Neat link. In my 2D design class in art school, I had a instructor who was very into optical color theory. Much of the class concentrated on exercises using color and value to create certain optical effects. (Such as in the link.) It’s essential for good graphic design, since certain color/value combinations are pretty much illegible. For instance colors of the same value, opposite from each other on the color wheel are optically difficult. So red text on a green field will appear to blur or buzz.
Correction: I didn’t keep a running tally. The scoring got a little tricky…
Dacks,
There were 66 studies included in the review, none of them considered low quality by the authors. There was an overall positive effect, which did not differ according to quality. Your selection means nothing. And if a placebo has an effect that means nothing if its effect is less than the treatment.
And the authors stated that there has not been a lot of research on energy healing. Certainly not published in mainstream medical journals.
It is always possible to select studies out of a review that were negative, but why? If the authors had found that energy healing studies generally found no effects they would have said so.
If your claim is that the authors are lying or stupid, which is possible, then the publisher made a mistake in accepting their review.
If the publisher made that mistake, then someone will notice and inform them.
As of right now, I don’t think that has happened. And like it or not, we should provisionally accept the conclusion, that more research is warranted.
Even if that gives us an upset stomach. Otherwise, we are being dogmatists, not skeptics.
Lizcat,
Did you not notice that those were the studies the authors considered most reliable? You can’t brush it off as cherry-picking. Nor, unless you can actually refute Dack’s points, can you reasonably claim that it must be considered valid unless the publisher retracts it! Bad studies make it through all the time, and these findings are MORE than enough to justify entirely disregarding the review, unless you are able to actually refute them.
Liz,
I just started at the top of their list of studies, going in order of what they (the authors) thought were the highest quality studies, and looked at the first five in descending order. (These are listed in table 3 of the paper)
I’m certainly not claiming that the authors are lying or stupid. In fact, I’m not claiming anything. If you look at the specific studies, the first 3 most reliable studies show NO effect from any of the energy therapies, and the next 2 show small effects.
There is no reason to accept the conclusions of the authors if they are contradicted by the data they are examining.
lizkat,
The authors regarded ten of the 66 studies as junk and excluded them from their analysis of which therapies might work for what.
They also accepted placebo at face value, which I find difficult to understand given that blinding is almost impossible. Do they mean that the faith healer went to one person and did faith healing, and to another person and did fake faith healing? Where is the blinding in that?
Most of the studies were not fully blinded. For instance, the person analyzing the data might know which group the results came from.
Many of the studies were not randomized.
Of the six best studies, none showed an effect of faith healing on objective measures.
There is no need to invoke anything paranormal to explain these results.
Here are the next five most reliable studies:
Quinn “The theorem that eye and facial contact between therapeutic touch practitioners and subjects should not be necessary to produce the effect of anxiety reduction was deduced from the Rogerian conceptual system and tested. This theorem was not supported.”
Score: 0
Post-White et al: “MT and HT lowered blood pressure, respiratory rate (RR), and heart rate (HR). MT lowered anxiety and HT lowered fatigue, and both lowered total mood disturbance. Pain ratings were lower after MT and HT, with 4-week nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug use less during MT. There were no effects on nausea.”
Score: a Hit!
Except, again we are talking about therapeutic massage combined with healing touch, and it’s not clear whether they were ever given separately.
Lin & Taylor – this is a meta-analysis, not a study.
Aghabati, Mohammadi, Esmaiel: “The TT (significant) was more effective in decreasing pain and fatigue of the cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy than the usual care group, while the placebo group indicated a decreasing trend in pain and fatigue scores compared with the usual care group.”
Another hit! And the placebo works, too!
This reminds me of something….
Woods, Craven, & Whitney: “The experimental (significant) was more effective in decreasing behavioral symptoms of dementia than usual care, while the placebo group indicated a decreasing trend in behavioral symptoms of dementia compared to usual care.”
Movaffaghi et al: “CONCLUSIONS: Significant changes of both variables in TT and MTgroups suggest that more careful precision might be needed while selecting individuals as sham therapists in further experiments.”
In other words – this results can not be confmirmed because of the poor quality of the study.
“Did you not notice that those were the studies the authors considered most reliable? You can’t brush it off as cherry-picking.”
Of course it is! What if you took only the most reliable from the top of the list, and it’s negative. Then you can say 100% of the most reliable studies were negative. You can choose whatever number of reliable studies you like, making sure they are all negative.
“Another hit! And the placebo works, too!”
Placebo usually works. That’s why placebo controls are used.
lizkat, you are incorrigible!
“Of course it is! What if you took only the most reliable from the top of the list, and it’s negative. Then you can say 100% of the most reliable studies were negative. You can choose whatever number of reliable studies you like, making sure they are all negative.”
I took the top 11 most reliable studies IN ORDER – no picking or choosing. I swear to God, cross my heart, I did not look at any other studies than the ones I quoted. They just happened to have the results as shown.
Your are right in pointing out that placebos work. I believe that in most studies the active therapy is compared to the placebo, as well as to the control, to see whether there is a significant effect above what is expected with placebo. I don’t know whether that was done in these cases.
Lzikat,
If your argument is that if I had only continued down the list to the lower quality studies I would have found support for the authors’ conclusions about the effectiveness of biofield therapies, well, you might be right about that. But I don’t plan to delve any deeper into this article right now.
OTOH, if you have some evidence that really convinces you that energy healing can be measured, you could share it here.
“There were 66 studies included in the review, none of them considered low quality by the authors. ”
Then you obviously did not read the paper. They ranked the studies according to their criteria. If the top quality studies are negative and the quality deteriorates after that, why bother looking for anything at all in these studies? It’s a complete waste of time as far as I’m concerned. You won’t learn anything from it that you can rely on. If you want to entertain yourself with them fine. I’d prefer reading the Histories of Herodotus. Excellent reading BTW.
In the first paragraph of this blog post, Val commented that not a single word made it into the article.
Actually, it looks like there was a second article, released the same day in a different newspaper that’s part of the same chain (The Independent, as opposed to The Enterprise), which took the skeptical mindset and quoted Val extensively:
http://www.somdnews.com/stories/02192010/indymor173133_32233.shtml
Perhaps there is something to be gleaned here about the demographics of Enterprise readers versus Independent readers.
(Apologies if someone already pointed this out — I did a quick search through the comments to see if anyone had, but I didn’t read all 274 of them to be sure.)
“Placebo usually works. That’s why placebo controls are used.”
I hear placebo parachutes work out of this world.
“If your argument is that if I had only continued down the list to the lower quality studies”
You took the first four. The fifth was positive, and the sixth, and the seventh. So you aren’t fooling me. Maybe everyone else here.
“If the top quality studies are negative and the quality deteriorates after that, why bother looking for anything at all in these studies? ‘
That is not what happened. They said the outcomes were unrelated to quality. But you need to know basic arithmetic to understand.
“They said the outcomes were unrelated to quality.”
Why did they rank them?
If you question kids regarding whether they really saw Santa. You ask the teenagers and they all say no. You ask the 5 year olds and they all say yes. Who are you gonna believe?
“Why did they rank them?”
One reason they ranked them, probably, was to see if the outcomes were generally related to quality. If higher quality correlates with negative results, that is suspicious. That did not happen according to this review.
“Who are you gonna believe?”
I think that if we choose whether or not to believe scientific research depending on whether or not it agrees with a certain philosophy, then we are not being scientific at all.
If you accept studies that are not perfect (and none are) because they support your preconceptions, and you reject others because you simply don’t like the results, then you are not a skeptic.
Why did they rank them?
One reason they ranked them, probably, was to see if the outcomes were generally related to quality. If higher quality correlates with negative results, that is suspicious. That did not happen according to this review.
Who are you gonna believe?
I think that if we choose whether or not to believe scientific research depending on whether or not it agrees with a certain philosophy, then we are not being scientific at all.
If you accept studies that are not perfect (and none are) because they support your preconceptions, and you reject others because you simply don’t like the results, then you are not a skeptic.
lizkat on ranking:
“One reason they ranked them, probably, was to see if the outcomes were generally related to quality.”
Yes, that is correct. They reported that the ten junk studies that they looked at were slightly more likely to be negative than the remaining 56.
Somehow they forgot to look at the ten best studies and report that they were a lot more convincing of negativeness.
I am very skeptical of that logic. You are saying that your rejection of higher quality studies do not support your preconceptions and acceptance of lower quality studies because they support your preconceptions make you a skeptic? Not in my book. I prefer the approach of higher quality studies disproving my preconceptions. Then I can learn something.
I find the dichotomy of simultaneously arguing “you only looked at the highest-quality studies; they were negative but you need to look at the lower-quality studies which showed positive results” and “there was no anticorrelation between quality and positive results” to be quite intriguing.
“The fifth was positive, and the sixth, and the seventh.”
Actually, no.
#5 -The experimental (significant) was more effective in decreasing behavioral symptoms of dementia than usual care, while the placebo group indicated a decreasing trend in behavioral symptoms of dementia compared to usual care.
As noted above, there is no mention of how significant the response was compared to placebo.
#6 – This covered MT as well as TT: Both massage and Therapeutic Touch provide comfort to patients undergoing this challenging process.
“Comfort” as an endpoint is not very compelling in my opinion.
#7 – The theorem that eye and facial contact between therapeutic touch practitioners and subjects should not be necessary to produce the effect of anxiety reduction was deduced from the Rogerian conceptual system and tested. This theorem was not supported.
Hmm, now what do you suppose “not supported” means?
@LC,
Thanks for the link. How odd that one newspaper chain publishes diametrically opposed articles at the same time. Call me cynical, but…
Dacks on 04 Mar 2010 at 2:52 pm
@LC,
Thanks for the link. How odd that one newspaper chain publishes diametrically opposed articles at the same time. Call me cynical, but…
It’s so much easier to keep your advertising that way. Gotta love the target marketing approach to “the news”.
wales,
“It’s been interesting, but I think it’s time for me to move on.”
Well, not before you learn a very important lesson.
“I am taking the QE authors’ word that observation does in fact collapse the wave function.”
It could be that they are wrong.
Or it could be that you have misunderstood them.
“The atom wasn’t in that box before your observed it to be there. Quantum theory has the atom’s wavefunction occupying both boxes. ”
The problem here is the word “observation”.
I think you have misunderstood what the word actually means (perhaps the authors have as well, but I haven’t read the book).
Observation here doesn’t mean a person actually looking inside the box. You can’t actually see atoms after all. What actually happens is that you put a detector in the box (or both boxes). Before the atom is detected in one or the other box, the probability wave extends through both boxes. As soon as one of the detectors detects the atom in one box – well it’s in that box of course, and the wave function has collapsed.
An important point here is that it does not require *you*, the observer, for this to happen. You could have set up the experiment and gone off to sleep, lapsed into a coma, or died and the detector will still detect the atom in one or the other box. Once you have set up the experiment, the experiment will run its course and *you* become completely irrelevant to the outcome.
More importantly: it is the interaction between the detector and the atom that “collapses the wave function”. The observer plays no role whatsoever.
And, most importantly: “consciousness” plays absolutely no role whatsoever in the “collapse of the wave function”.
I suggest you read the book again and see if this is what the authors are actually saying. If not, I suggest you get yourself another book.
“This is what I meant by the quantum effects of consciousness. Counterintuitive, hard to swallow?”
Really, forget about “consciousness”, it has nothing to do with the experiment. When quantum physicists say they “observe” something, all they mean is that that put detectors in there. That’s all! The detectors are not conscious and your consciousness is not required.
Of course, for energy medicine or homoeopathy or any other pseudoscientific idea to find its basis in quantum physics, it would need to be true that you could use consciousness to determine *how* the wave function collapses. There is definitely no room for that in quantum physics.
regards,
BillyJoe
LC – “Actually, it looks like there was a second article, released the same day in a different newspaper that’s part of the same chain (The Independent, as opposed to The Enterprise), which took the skeptical mindset and quoted Val extensively:”
Thanks for finding and posting this – interesting that it’s the same writer doing two completely different stories! And kind of strange that the writer didn’t tell Dr Jones that she was being extensively quoted in another article. It’s not actually that unusual that a newspaper will publish articles that contradict each other – it is pretty interesting that this chain has the same staff writer writing two different stories for two of their publications that were published on the same day. I’d be curious to know if the writer pushed to do one or the other, or if they were just assigned to do them both and had no say in the matter (staff writers generally write about all kinds of things).
[yes, that is correct. They reported that the ten junk studies that they looked at were slightly more likely to be negative than the remaining 56.
Somehow they forgot to look at the ten best studies and report that they were a lot more convincing of negativeness.]
The didn’t find an overall correlation of low quality with positive results. So the positive findings most likely didn’t result from bad experiment design.
So why are we even talking about it??
[I am very skeptical of that logic. You are saying that your rejection of higher quality studies do not support your preconceptions and acceptance of lower quality studies because they support your preconceptions make you a skeptic?]
I never said anything like that! There are a lot of energy healing studies with positive results, whatever quality. To reject all of them because you don’t personally believe in energy healing is not scientific.
“There are a lot of energy healing studies with positive results, whatever quality.”
Obviously the quality of the study doesn’t matter to you as you only seek to confirm your belief in energy healing. Being a “skeptic” you’ll take whatever quality. I’m not a “skeptic” and I seek only high quality studies that will invalidate my hypothesis that the intangible energy healing does not exist in reality.
Thanks, Billyjoe for that explanation. It informed me as to the role, or rather non-role, of the human observer.
Would it help if energy medicine proponents flung themselves at a diffraction grating at very high speeds? That might clarify some matters.
To reject low-quality ones because they are contradicted by higher-quality ones, is. And provisionally rejecting the concept because the overall weight of the evidence isn’t anywhere close to overcoming the immense weight of evidence against it also is.
In all seriousness, the studies supporting energy healing would have to be EXTREMELY strong in order to have any chance against the many different well-understood lines of physics and biology that weigh against it. Whereas what there *are* isn’t enough to establish it as effective even in the absence of any countervailing evidence.
Wales commented:
There are too many false (or unsupported) assumptions here for me to decontruct them all, so I’ll settle for one.
Quantum entanglement affects only very small (atom-sized) objects, although it can be detected by macro-scale instuments. In large assemblages of “quantum objects”, the inherent randomness removes the “signal”.
As a result, any time someone uses “quantum entanglement” or “nonlocality” as an explanation for a phenomenon seen in very large assemblages (e.g. cells), I know that I don’t have to read any further.
It’s almost like a “crank litmus test”.
Prometheus
“Obviously the quality of the study doesn’t matter to you”
Of course it does. I never said it didn’t. No study is perfect. The quality varies, and it matters. This is a really insane conversation.
“the immense weight of evidence against it”
WHAT evidence against it? One small study supposedly proved once and for all that energy healers can’t feel energy fields. One small study outweighs all the hundreds of positive ones?
There is NOTHING in physics or biology saying that energy healing can’t work.
“There is NOTHING in physics or biology saying that energy healing can’t work.”
No. There is nothing in physics or biology saying that energy healing even exists.
“One small study supposedly proved once and for all that energy healers can’t feel energy fields. One small study outweighs all the hundreds of positive ones?”
If it was a good one it would outweigh an infinite amount of bad ones.
pmoran,
“Thanks, Billyjoe for that explanation. It informed me as to the role, or rather non-role, of the human observer. ”
Thanks.
Unfortunately, I think the intended target may have disappeared:
wales: “It’s been interesting, but I think it’s time for me to move on.”
micheleinmichigan.
“BillyJoe, Thanks for the really good description of outliers. I’ve have been seeing that word in the media and have and been meaning to look it up.
You seem to have a real knack for explaining concepts. This is one of the reasons I enjoy SBM. The opportunity to read comments about a broad range of science based subjects from a variety of personalities with varied expertise from around the world.”
Thanks.
It’s just a small contribution – a little payback for all the information and explanation that has come my way from others in forums such as this one.
That’s really quite interesting, given how many different lines of evidence have been explained to you showing that it can’t work. Why don’t you actually try to refute some of them, instead of lying?
“If it was a good one it would outweigh an infinite amount of bad ones.”
If there were one absolutely good study it would outweigh an infinite number of absolutely bad studies. But that is not how it goes with scientific research.
“different lines of evidence have been explained to you showing that it can’t work. Why don’t you actually try to refute some of them”
What?? You haven’t shown ANY evidence that it can’t work! None!
“What?? You haven’t shown ANY evidence that it can’t work! None!”
You are the one making the preposterous claims and it is incumbent on you to give satisfactory evidence that it exists and that it works. Sorry. The evidence has to be extraordinary given that the claim is extraordinary.
Read, oh, ANY OF THE PREVIOUS POSTS!
“Read, oh, ANY OF THE PREVIOUS POSTS!”
There are NO previous posts showing EVIDENCE that energy healing CANNOT work. NONE. There are none explaining logically or scientifically that energy healing cannot work. NONE.
You can say there is no “plausible” mechanism, but that’s just saying you don’t believe it, just because you don’t.
You have been presented evidence that energy healing cannot use any currently known interaction (as it would be readily detected). You have been presented evidence that energy healing cannot use any currently unknown interaction (as any interaction relevant at such energy scales would have been detected already). These combine to form exceedingly strong evidence that energy healing cannot work.
Are you seriously too emotionally invested in your irrational belief in energy healing to even NOTICE when evidence against it is presented?
lizkat – There is also no evidence proving that magical elves or Russel’s Teapot don’t exist. You seem to be having some difficulty understanding how science works.
You’ve yet to even propose any valid or plausible mechanism (and your claims about wifi and qm have been shown to not provide plausible mechanisms so, at the moment, you’re simply promoting a faith based belief that you want to pretend has some scientific validity rather than simply being honest with yourself and others about the nature of your beliefs). I, for one, don’t bother arguing with people about their faith – that’s a personal affair (if believing in Tinkerbell makes your subjective world more tolerable or enjoyable, fantastic). However, when you try to impose your subjective fantasies on reality and want people to waste real resources on things you’d like to believe are real based on no good evidence, then you’re moving into the realm of being an evangelist (no matter how many others share your subjective fantasies and no matter hwo many times you protest that you’re not promoting a faith-based belief that you’d like others to believe and accept as reality based on no sound evidence and despite the fact that it contradicts natural law).
“Are you seriously too emotionally invested in your irrational belief in energy healing to even NOTICE when evidence against it is presented?”
NO, I am seriously invested in considering the evidence. And I am seriously invested in NOT assuming that what is already known is all that will ever be known.
“based on no sound evidence and despite the fact that it contradicts natural law’
There is no natural law that is contradicted by energy healing. And there is experimental evidence, which can be found in Pub Med. You are the one who goes with faith instead of reason or science.
Then why do you persist in ignoring the evidence? And “assuming that what is already known is all that will ever be known” is either a deliberate gross misrepresentation, or conclusive proof that you haven’t actually read what I posted.
“energy healing cannot use any currently unknown interaction (as any interaction relevant at such energy scales would have been detected already). ”
It is a common mistake to confuse science with the set of already accepted scientific facts. But science is an evolving process. Clinging to the already-known is a dead weight on scientific progress. Unfortunately, it is human nature (for many but not all) to hang on to the past and present, and to fear the future.
People who call themselves scientific skeptics are often actually a reactionary force that does not want the currently known “laws” of nature to change. They crave stability. How can the laws of nature change?
Well the laws can’t change, but our understanding of them certainly can. And like it or not, our understanding does change and will continue to change.
It’s laughable when you pretend to understand all about qm and to know exactly why it can’t be relevant to biology.
lizkat,
If you want science to validate your faith in the tooth fairy aka energy healing it will not do that. Keep on believing, but don’t call it science. It’s called faith for that reason. As someone once said, “I believe it because it’s not true.”
I never said I believe in energy healing weing. I said there is evidence for it, and nothing in the laws of nature to rule it out. And our species does not have a complete understanding of the laws of nature. Very far from it.
“And our species does not have a complete understanding of the laws of nature. Very far from it.”
Who said we do? We know some things. We know santa , the tooth fairy, and healing energy do not exist.
Ah! Ah! Ah!
Anyone following this thread will greatly appreciate the following:
http://ow.ly/1eGKm
Fun and games for everyone folliwing this thread. Nominally about homeopathy, but energy medicine would be even better.
http://www.jakearchibald.co.uk/homeopathy/
“We know santa , the tooth fairy, and healing energy do not exist.”
It would be interesting to see how you explain your certain knowledge that energy healing doesn’t exist. No adults believe in Santa or the tooth fairy, and no scientific studies have ever suggested they might exist. No studies have even been done on them, because there is no anecdotal evidence suggesting they might exist.
>We know santa , the tooth fairy, and healing energy do not exist.
It would be interesting to see how you explain your certain knowledge that energy healing doesn’t exist. No adults believe in Santa or the tooth fairy, and no scientific studies have ever suggested they might exist. No studies have even been done on them, because there is no anecdotal evidence suggesting they might exist.
lizkat on Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy:
“there is no anecdotal evidence suggesting they might exist.”
There is a huge amount of anecdotal evidence suggesting they exist! Vast!
What makes you so certain santa and the tooth fairy don’t exist? Lots of anecdotal evidence. Ask any child that’s written to santa. They will tell you. Unless they have been indoctrinated into believing otherwise.
lizkaton 05 Mar 2010 at 1:38 pm
>We know santa , the tooth fairy, and healing energy do not exist.
“It would be interesting to see how you explain your certain knowledge that energy healing doesn’t exist. No adults believe in Santa or the tooth fairy, and no scientific studies have ever suggested they might exist. No studies have even been done on them, because there is no anecdotal evidence suggesting they might exist.”
I know people who believe that the tooth fairy exists. In fact I have seen her with my own eyes, when she came to get my tooth one night.
I am not aware on any studies that have been done on the existence of the tooth fairy. Maybe we should put a million bucks into it, see what comes up?
Of course in opposition, there IS all the evidence of parents putting money under pillows. But, there is also a lot of evidence of con-artists faking energy healing. And just because some parent’s are con-artists doesn’t mean that ALL the money came from parents.
lizkat,
You want scientists to take energy medicine seriously. Right?
Well, scientists WILL take energy medicine seriously when they are shown either one of the following:
- mechanism.
- clinical evidence.
Mechanism:
You have suggested a couple of possible mechanisms and you have been shown how these cannot be the mechanism for energy medicine. Unfortunately, it seems you don’t have sufficient knowledge of these fields of physics to understand the arguments against your suggestions, even though they have been put as simply as possible.
Also it is not sufficient to throw up your hands and say: “well, there might be some as yet unknown mechanism” because there might be an as yet unknown mechanism for almost anything you could come up with.
Clinical evidence:
Of course the reason that you say: “there might/must be some unknown mechanism” is because you are swayed/convinced that there is clinical evidence of an effect of energy healing. At this point your lack of knowledge centres around what constitutes a good quality clinical trial and you lack the experience to evaluate clinical trials properly and to understand the conclusions that can be drawn from them.
So its a circle for you. Your lack of knowledge about clinical trials allow you to conclude that there is evidence for energy medicine, and your conclusion that there is clinical evidence of an effect for energy medicine allows you to say that there could be or must be some as yet unknown mechanism for energy medicine, which would be an absurd thing to say if there was actually no clinical evidence for an effect of energy medicine, which your lack of knowledge of clincal trials prevents you from seeing is exactly the case.
Unfortunately, we can argue till the cats come home, but unless you obtain the necessary knowledge in these matters of science, we will fail to convince you that your position on energy healing is unscientific and untenable.
regards,
BillyJoe
For those interested in learning more about physics’ quantum enigma, these books are all written by physicists:
Einstein’s Moon, Bell’s Theorem and the Curious Quest for Quantum Reality (1991) by F. David Peat
From Paradox to Reality: Our New Concepts of the Physical World (1989) by Fritz Rohrlich
Quantum Physics: A First Encounter: Interference, Entanglement and Reality (2006) by Valerio Scarani
On Physics and Philosophy (2006) by Bernard d’Espagnat
Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics (1987) by Nick Herbert
Wales,
If you want see what’s really going on, get out of your office and come down to the work floor once in a while.
It is a pity after reading all those books that you cannot actually discus the topic without quoting extensively from them. There comes a time when you really have to consider putting in your own words the things you have learned. Only when you do this will it actually become clear, to you and everyone else, that you have understood what you have read or what ti si that you ahve understood. An inability to repond effectively to those who have a different interpretation is a sure sign that you have either not understood what you have read, or that you have read the wrong books and only the wrong books.
I’m beginning to think it’s the authors wales reads.
Here are quotes from two of the authors he mentions:
Bernard d’Espagnat:
“I believe we ultimately come from a superior entity to which awe and respect is due and which we shouldn’t try to approach by trying to conceptualize too much. It’s more a question of feeling.”
Nick Herbert”
“So the real question is why is telepathy so dilute? I would expect a proper science to explain that fact. Then, of course once we had that explanation, we could increase it, make it greater, or overcome the diluteness if you didn’t want to have telepathic contact with certain people.”
BillyJoe on 06 Mar 2010 at 1:31 am
“I’m beginning to think it’s the authors wales reads.
Here are quotes from two of the authors he mentions:
etc.”
Well, that’s not quite fair. Just because someone’s wrote something crazy once doesn’t mean they are completely unreliable. I’d have to find the books you quoted and read them to even see if the quotes are an true representation of what they were saying. I’ve been burned by quotes to many times. And even if they are accurate that doesn’t tell me that the rest of their work isn’t brilliant. Even a great batter strikes out sometimes.
Wales, on the other hand. You are not going to be able to convince me by giving me a book list to read. I’m happy to educate myself, but I do have my own priorities. If you want to be convincing, you have to give me a plausible summary of how some sort of psychic energy could be connected to quantum physics beyond “it’s mysterious, we don’t really know what’s happening” Unfortunately, I think that BillyJoe already refuted the “observer” theory pretty well*.
Of course, I will concede that you may have no interest convincing me, in which case, ignore my advice.
*Which corrected a misconception of mine and made me aware of how foolish one of my blog postings looks to a physicist. Gee… thanks BillyJoe.
It appears that Billy Joe’s point (in trying to discredit physicists d’Espagnat and Herbert by cherry picking quotes, which incidentally has been attempted by others with regard to Einstein as well) is that scientists who are open to the possibility of the paranormal or spirituality cannot perform accurate science. Well there are many examples which disprove this idea, but let’s take an obvious one: nobel laureate physicist Brian Josephson. Though I suppose it’s possible he was awarded the nobel prize in error…….
Michele, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I leave that to others who are certain they know all the answers. I simply offer sources that I have found to be educational. The idea that Billy Joe (who I assume is not a physicist) has successfully “refuted” the observer theory is amusing. I guess he had better quickly inform all those physicists who are still uncertain about what’s really going on.
I’m not sure you can really say that. Take Linus Pauling for example. Brilliant guy, one of my heroes. But a fruitcake when it comes to medicine. I think we are all susceptible to the irrational. BTW my Teaching Company course in QM just arrived.
micheleinmichigan,
“Well, that’s not quite fair. Just because someone’s wrote something crazy once doesn’t mean they are completely unreliable. ”
Yes you are right .
But, in the case of these two individuals, the quotes are actually representative of their preconceived ideas about the paranormal that drive their rather quirky interpretation of quantum physics.
wales,
“Billy Joe.. trying to discredit physicists d’Espagnat and Herbert by cherry picking quotes”
Unlike micheleinmichigan, you are obviously familiar with the writings of these two individuals, so you must know that what you wrote above about cherry picking is not true.
“which incidentally has been attempted by others with regard to Einstein as well”
That is a logical fallacy. Meaning that you can’t use this as an argument in support of d’Espagnat. In other words, just because someone said this about Einstein and it turned out not to be true, doesn’t mean that the same thing is true about d’Espagnat.
“It appears that Billy Joe’s point…is that scientists who are open to the possibility of the paranormal or spirituality cannot perform accurate science.”
That is not actually my point.
In fact, I don’t even believe that to be true.
My point is that these physicists have allowed an underlying belief in the paranormal to cloud their *interpretation* of the valid science that they (and others) have performed. It has nothing to do with the physics itself but their philosophical interpretation of physics.
I still don’t know, though, whether they believe that nonsense about the significance of the observer or whether that is just your misinterpretation of what they have said.
wales,
“Michele, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I leave that to others who are certain they know all the answers.”
That is not fair.
I don’t know all the answers, and I have never said so.
But I do know that you have a misunderstanding about the significance of the “observer”.
“I simply offer sources that I have found to be educational. The idea that Billy Joe (who I assume is not a physicist) has successfully “refuted” the observer theory is amusing.”
What I said was also meant to be educational.
And it would be more accurate to say that I have explained a common misunderstanding about the observer.
” I guess he had better quickly inform all those physicists who are still uncertain about what’s really going on.”
Most physicists are already well aware of this misunderstanding.
But, anyway, I think the ball is now in your court:
If you are so convinced that I am wrong, please point out exactly where I have made my mistake. Please show me the result of any experiment in quantum physics that demonstrates that my understanding of the observer is incorrect.
“Most physicists are already well aware of this misunderstanding.” If you read any of the books I’ve cited you’ll realize that some physicists, granted a minority (though some nobel laureates and some from our finest universities) believe that the observer and nonlocality problems cannot be dismissed or reconciled by any particular interpretation. The physicists who question conventional wisdom on these topics are not doing so out of ignorance or misunderstanding.
The ball isn’t in my court, I don’t consider this a debate. We agree on one thing, there are the undisputed scientific facts of quantum theory, and there are the interpretations of those facts. Given the odd experimentally verified facts of the observer/measurement problem and of nonlocality/entanglement, I am interested in exploring the interpretations of the physicists who question the “conventional” or “practical” viewpoint. Go Weing go.
“Michele, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything.”
Fair enough. my bad then.
wales,
(First of all, thank you for pointing out that the authors you have referenced hold minority opinions and that their subject is the *philosophical interpretation* of quantum physics.)
I will state this one last time:
You have misunderstood the meaning of the word “observer”.
(…as I have explained to you before)
This is a fact that you seem unwilling to face.
No quantum experiment ever done supports your version of the observer.
If you disagree, please point to one that does.
I will promise to have a look and demonstrate to you that it doesn’t mean what you think it means.
——————-
Here is an example of how easy it is to misread or misunderstand something.
This is from d’Espagnat:
“two particles that have once interacted always remain bound in a very strange, hardly understandable way even when they are far apart, the connection being independent of distance.”
The problem word here is *always*
He actually means “always – provided neither of them interacts with any other particle”. As soon as these particles start interacting with other particles, the connection quickly fades and is lost. But, unless you had some grounding in quantum physics, you would not know that would you?
Of course, he doesn’t really mean *particle* either does he?
And just in case you think this is all about you, I must tell you that I had haboured the same misunderstanding that you seem to have about the observer untill these misunderstandings were pointed out to me. I also thought that *always*, as in the above quote, meant *always* and was surprised when it was pointed out to me that this was not so and was not even intended to mean that.
—————
“We agree on one thing, there are the undisputed scientific facts of quantum theory, and there are the interpretations of those facts.”
No we don’t.
That is the problem.
It is an undisputable fact that consciousness plays no role in experiments in quantum physics.
You, and the authors you reference are entitled to your philosophical interpretations of the facts, but you are not entitled to your facts. If your authors think that the consciousness plays a part in experiments in quantum physics, they are simply denying the facts of the matter. If their philosophy is based on these erroneous “facts”, then their philosophy has no grounding in reality.
“You have misunderstood the meaning of the word “observer”.
(…as I have explained to you before)” Perhaps, but if the authors I have cited also misunderstand it, then I am curious as to why. Amongst physicists there are a variety of opinions on the matter. As physicist David Mermin says “Does quantum mechanics give consciousness a special role to play in our description of the physical world? Opinions range all over the map.” (American Journal of Physics, March 2007)
Why you insist that these authors are not saying what they clearly state they are saying is interesting, given that you have not read the books. The authors write with great clarity and one of their explicit messages is precisely that they do not want the reader to misunderstand their interpretation.
“He actually means “always…….”. How can you know what d’Espagnat “actually” means, not having read his book?
I don’t know who has “pointed out” your previous “misunderstanding” about physics and has helped you achieve physics enlightenment, (interesting that you rely upon this “source” as the ultimate truth, but dismiss the authors I have cited as “denying the facts of the matter”) but there are others with as much or more scientific expertise who differ in opinion. Let’s just agree to disagree on this one. I have nothing more to say.
I cannot see how Billyjoe and his physicists can be wrong, if human awareness of quantum effects is limited to what inanimate detectors show.
Is there any independent evidence of human consciousness being involved? Might that not require observers examining the same printout and seeing something quite different?
wales.
“Perhaps, but if the authors I have cited also misunderstand it, then I am curious as to why.”
I don’t know. My inclination is to think that they are driven by preconceived ideas about how they would like things to be. It seems to me that most of them have a firm belief in something beyond the physical.
“Amongst physicists there are a variety of opinions on the matter.”
But those who reject the straight forward understanding of the word “observe” in quantum experiments must surely be in the minority.
“Why you insist that these authors are not saying what they clearly state they are saying is interesting, given that you have not read the books. The authors write with great clarity and one of their explicit messages is precisely that they do not want the reader to misunderstand their interpretation.”
I have not read books by those authors, but I have read others, perhaps half a dozen, and all them trying their best to be really clear about what they are saying. Nevertheless it took direct discussion with actual physicists – admittedly in a forum setting – with whom I could actually interact and ask questions, to set me straight. And it all makes perfect sense.
BillyJoe said: “He actually means “always…….”.
wales replied: “How can you know what d’Espagnat “actually” means, not having read his book?”
I am merely assuming d’Espagnat actually knows something about quantum physics – after all, his bio says he worked with John Bell and Alain Aspect who between them resolved the EPR paradox – so he would know that entanglement is lost once the particles interact with other particles.
“I don’t know who has “pointed out” your previous “misunderstanding” about physics and has helped you achieve physics enlightenment, (interesting that you rely upon this “source” as the ultimate truth, but dismiss the authors I have cited as “denying the facts of the matter”) but there are others with as much or more scientific expertise who differ in opinion.”
The thing is it all suddenly makes sense once you realise that “the observer” simply “the detection device”. Especially when it is then pointed out to you that consciousness cannot alter the result of the experiment.
As you said yourself the outcome of experiments in quantum physics are amonst the most accurate in any field. They are completely predictable. You set it up this way and you will get this result. You set it up that way and you get that result. All completely and utterly predictable outcomes. Where could consciousness possibly enter into such a picture of quantum physics. And where are the experiments that demonstrate that you can use your conscious mind to change the predicted result. There aren’t any? Doesn’t that surprise you? Why are there no such experiments? Simply because there’s no need to. When those experimenter said “the observer” they simply meant “the detection device”.
” Let’s just agree to disagree on this one. I have nothing more to say.”
Okay, I can’t hope to persuade you in the space of a week that a view, that has taken years of reading books to arrive at, is wrong. May I simply ask you to do this. Go back and read the details of, for example, the double slit experiment and see whether taking “the oberver” to mean “the detection device” makes sense. Then tackle a few of the other scenarios. I think you will be as surprised as I was.
regards,
BillyJoe
Here is an example of what I mean when I said that these scientists have “a firm belief in something beyond the physical”.
All these quotes are from d’Espagnat:
“[I am] convinced that those among our contemporaries who believe in a spiritual dimension of existence and live up to it are, when all is said, fully right”.
“underlying…empirical reality is a mysterious, non-conceptualisable ultimate reality, not embedded in space and (presumably) not in time either.”
“Partly from my own intuition and partly from my physics I came to the view that there is something that is greater than us in every respect,”
“When we hear great classical music or look at very great paintings, they are not just illusions but could be a revelation of something fundamental.”
“Mystery is not something negative that has to be eliminated. On the contrary, it is one of the constitutive elements of being”
“contrary to those who claim that matter is the only reality, the possibility that other means, including spirituality, may also provide a window on ultimate reality cannot be ruled out, even by cogent scientific arguments.”
—————-
You will note that he says that the spiritual cannot be ruled out by science, not that science proves the spiritual; and that it is more an appeal to intuition rather than an appeal to science that convinces him of the existence of the spiritual realm.
Science, of course, seeks natural explanation for phenomena.
Hmmm, well generally I’d have to say I agree on everyone one of d’Espagnat points. They tie into what I was talking about earlier (existentialism, etc)
But, his words usage leaves things very open to semantic interpretation. “matter is the only reality,” well define reality? etc.
So I think that when I read these statement they come across as philosophical and they do not suggest a disconnect to the information you presented regarding quantum physics.
It sounds to me, when you read the statements you do see a disconnect.
But I will admit, the your last paragraph suggests I may be interpreting your comment wrong?
Oh shoot, I was bottom up reading and somehow missed the “firm belief in something beyond the physical” reference. So now I get the point.
[...] recently wrote about an experience that I had with a reporter (Erica Mitrano) who interviewed me about energy healing at Calvert Memorial [...]
[...] Why You Can’t Depend On The Press For Science Reporting (sciencebasedmedicine.org) « I’m Certain That I Can Certainly be Wrong or Confidence and Memory, Is one a Good Measure of the Other? [...]