According to the Oz, Queensland LNP Senator Matt Canavan has called for public funding for research promoting his belief that scientists since Arrhenius have been wrong about climate change. He makes this claim on the basis that the overwhelming body of evidence amassed by mainstream science means that “only one side of the debate is heard” (there’s also something about witches). Oddly enough, Canavan goes on to cite some (presumably publicly funded) research on aerosols from the Max Planck Institute which he thinks supports his arguments. The fact that such research gets undertaken and published suggests that there is no problem with the scientific process as regards climate change.
Still, there’s an interesting question here. To what extent should research funding seek to promote research approaches that are regarded by most experts in the relevant field as wrong or discredited?
In fields like economics, the ebb and flow of opinion is such that any temporary appearance of consensus is illusory. When I started studying economics, the dominant Keynesian/market failure school regarded classical economics as a collection of exploded fallacies. Within a decade or so, the position had reversed. Free market microeconomics and New Classical microeconomics became dominant and remained so until the Global Financial Crisis. The position now is best described as confused. Something similar could be said of fields like psychology (another example where plenty of non-specialists have strongly held views)
In the natural sciences, there are a lot more firmly established conclusions, which nonetheless run against the prejudices of many (obviously including Senator Canavan). I don’t see any merit in funding the pet theories and tribal prejudices of politicians. But at the frontiers, there are lots of instances where some particular approach (such as string theory in particle physics) seem to be dominant, at least in part, for sociological reasons. Here it would be desirable to ensure that alternative approaches get a hearing.
Any thoughts?
John Quiggin 
The conservatives may have to be a bit more careful raising issued of balance in future. An inquiry into left wing bias on Q&A (no doubt set up because of the bleatings of an ex-pm) failed to find any left wing bias. But it did find that women were underrepresented on Q&A, and that when they were there, less questions were directed to them.
I’m sure it never even occurred to Tony and his ilk that an inquiry into bias might include gender in its investigations.
Ha, ha, ha, we’ve got a version of a ‘Grue Bleen’ [1] here who creates a male character, called Ernestine, and then communicates agreement or disagreement with this character to third parties.
Quite entertaining, particularly to all those with the name Ernestine, who are quite sure they are female – as theiir name suggests.
Question: Do GrueBleens go to bed with the chooks (before it gets dark) and stay in bed with curtains drawn when it rains?
[1] Re ‘grue bleen’ see: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674290716.
The “what is maths” question is OT but I can’t resist it.
Maths is a language. It’s a specialised form of language with many dialects. The reason that modern formal systems (like maths or English) apply to the world in many useful ways is that with them we can acquire, store, manipulate and communicate information by symbolic correspondence but also by a process I call “analogical correspondence”. I don’t know what academics call the latter. Languages have been both adventitiously evolved and expressly designed by us to perform the above tasks. If a proto-language doesn’t possess some or enough useful forms of symbolic correspondence or “analogical correspondence” it doesn’t survive and propagate as a useful formal system. We evolved our useful languages. By a process analogous to natural selection, only very useful formal systems survived and expanded successfully precisely because they allowed us to interact with external, objective reality successfully. That is why languages (word based or maths-symbol based) work.
By “analogical correspondence” I mean something something more than just formal symbolic correspondence. Items like maps, circuit diagrams and flow charts, if accurate, show some analogical correspondence with real phenomena. Languages can begin with analogical correspondence, typically then move to symbolic correspondence and then build in operators and rules which redevelop analogical correspondence at a higher functioning level.
For example, three strokes /// bear a basic analogical correspondence with any three discrete items. However, the numeral 3 no longer bears any clear analogical correspondence. When maths uses symbols and operators as in 3 + 3 = 6, it assigns rules to the operators which essentially restore analogical correspondence at a higher functional level. Although it is a symbol string, the symbols and the rule set it uses encapsulate rigorous forms of analogical correspondence which do relate to the real world. But the symbol string only makes sense when interpreted by a human brain trained in the necessary operations and which can translate the symbolic information back to information of a nature with real world analogical correspondence.
“…does that mean that “Intelligent Design” should get government funding ?”
I suppose a precondition for implementing the affirmative is that Mr Morrison would have to introduce a new expenditure item in the budget, called ‘intelligent design’. If he were to do so, my best guess is that the Australian public would LOL all over the place and very loud.
@Ikonoclast
“analogical correspondence” — philosophers of language working on a very general level, wanting to speak of the nature of (all) sign systems, sometimes use the word/concept of ‘metaphor’ there if I am reading you correctly . So we never know anything (including ourselves) ‘directly’ by thinking/writing/feeling/saying/calculating ,only by comparison with something else ,the parts of which are in turn only known by metaphor etc, etc all the way down. Hence Derridas typically provocative statement that ‘there is nothing outside the text’ .Wittgenstein wrote well ,and a lot, about the concept of metaphor but I’m not sure he used the word itself .I’d bet Foucault and Derrida used it . ‘Metaphor’ was in common usage when I studied philosophy of language at undergrad level ,that was 15+ yrs ago .Most (but not all) of the dudes in this long long lineage ,even up to fairly recently, had very heavy (often history making) backgrounds in maths and logic.
Wiki has a rundown of ‘metaphor in Continental philosophy ‘ that accords pleasingly with my (not guaranteed) musing. Apparently Nietzsche said truth was ‘a movable host of metaphors’ ! – surely they are just trying to wind us up !
@sunshine
My philosophising is entirely naive outside of some autodidact reading of Bacon, Berkeley and Hume. I don’t presume to read anyone in translation in philosophy and I can only read English.
I don’t think my “analogical congruence” is exactly equivalent to those Continental ideas of “metaphors” but I might be wrong. My analogical congruence thesis is expressly based on the notion that some objective information can be successfully transferred both ways. We can make accurate maps and these maps can be used to get to real places. Of course the word “maps” means maps, plans, models, mathematical models etc. etc.
All of this should be understood to include the basic fact that “the map is not the territory”. The model is not the original material phenomenon but it is a material phenomenon in its own right. An accurate map or model is a material artifact. It can be a book or a set of ideations in the brain for example. The book is material. The brain is material. The ideations are material; dynamic patterns of material-energy. There is no immateriality implied at any stage. Analogical congruence simply describes the phenomenon of successful transfer, storage, processing and re-transmission of information to real effect between different categories of material structures.
Reality looked at from this perspective is not metaphors “all the way down”. My perspective posits one objective material holistic (monist) existence which consciousness detects as information through the senses. Any such consciousness so detecting is in fact a material sub-system of the whole material system. A thorough-going material monism must posit that consciousness itself is a material phenomenon. The material interacts with the material. That is all we can investigate. Otherwise one gets into an infinite regression problem. By even positing subject-object dualism we already start on the path of the regression problem.
“How can we satisfy ourselves without going on in infinitum? And, after all, what satisfaction is there in that infinite progression? Let us remember the story of the Indian philosopher and his elephant. It was never more applicable than to the present subject. If the material world rests upon a similar ideal world, this ideal world must rest upon some other; and so on, without end. It were better, therefore, never to look beyond the present material world. -?Hume, 1779[8]
I align myself with Hume in calling for a strict materialist perspective. The material is all we can investigate and we must rigorously do so without any postulates essentially invoking dualism or idealism. To say consciousness is anything but a material phenomenon immediately introduces an unnecessary postulate. Reverse the question, and ask why consciousness cannot be a wholly material phenomenon? Try to prove consciousness is not a material phenomenon. If you do this rigorously you will get the result that George Berkeley got. Namely that the material cannot exist. I greatly admire Berkeley’s work. It is beautifully consistent and remarkably empirical in its own way which of course must seem odd when one is talking about idealism.
Materialism and Idealism are reverse “swichens”. See Ernest Gellner for a discussion of “swichens”. Pure materialism and pure idealism are both fully internally consistent philosophical systems. However, my argument would be that idealism, of the Berkeleyan variety, posits a kind of deception by deity. But this will get too long if I go into that. Materialism posits no deception but does posit “extensiveness”, “inaccessibility” and “unknowability” as limits on consciousness knowledge. These limits come from the limits and imperfections of information transfer.
@Ernestine Gross
I do apologize, Ernestine. My only defense is that I thought that somebody as ‘Grossly’ erroneous as you would have to be a male. Ha ha ha.
No, really, I didn’t give any thought at all as to your gender or whether your nom is actually your name or is supposed to be indicative of your name or whatever. I’m really just not that much into you.
But I do thank you for your entertaining question regarding my bedroom habits – is your question taken from your own life experience ?
However, I am pleased that you took the time to research GrueBleen and to find Goodman’s book. May it inspire you to work at being less erroneous in your future postings.
@Geoff Edwards
Oops. Now I have read your post and yes it was you and not Ernestine. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear mea maxima culpa. No wonder Ernestine wasn’t impressed by my tenuous grasp of reality.
Oh well, at least it did get a very perceptive question about sleeping with chooks into the discussion. But otherwise, my profound apologies, Ernestine.
@GrueBleen
To save Geoff Edwards forwarding your apologies to me, I copy your text below:
‘Oops. Now I have read your post and yes it was you and not Ernestine. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear mea maxima culpa. No wonder Ernestine wasn’t impressed by my tenuous grasp of reality.
Oh well, at least it did get a very perceptive question about sleeping with chooks into the discussion. But otherwise, my profound apologies, Ernestine” [GrueBleen @58]
@Kel Young
The opposite is the case. The contrarians have been quite unable to come up with data that can’t be easily fitted into the standard physics and chemistry of the models. It;s like challenging electromagnetism.
@GrueBleen
“Intelligent design” isn’t a scientific theory at all but a theological one. Things were different between Paley and Darwin, but Chapter 6 in The Origin of Species provided a satisfactory selectionist account of the emergence of “organs of extreme perfection” like the eye – in fact in multiple ways, a difficulty for the IDers. (Octopus eyes are different from ours, and have the optic nerve sensibly leading from the back of the retina not the front, IIRC). There is no deep puzzle left. The big difficulty that Darwin did recognize was that the fossil record does not show gradual changes in lineages. Species pop up suddenly, survive for a greater or lesser timespan, then disappear. This puzzle was solved recently by “punctuated equilibrium”. What major difficulties are left? The origins of sex, eukaryotic cells, and life itself, perhaps.
I would hope that philosophers, theologians and cosmologists continue to think about the anthropic principle and the apparent fine-tuning of fundamental constants. They should, like other academics, have sufficient time to pursue such inquiries. What specific funding could be needed?
Professor Quiggin
One interesting field that is controversial but related to this topic is Chinese Medicine. In the recent decades, the medical field has accepted certain forms of Chinese Medicine, such as major public hospitals in Australia (NSW) and US offering Acupuncture as the preferred method of pain management instead of Aspirin or other forms of treatment. However this acceptance of Chinese Acupuncture is more in forms of evidence based approach instead of “scientifically explainable” approach (the public hospitals are actual offering acupuncture as a treatment without even understanding how it works, e.g. look for the ABC article that described major public hospitals accepting Acupuncture as a form of pain management treatment).
Acupuncture is also theoretically closely related to another major arm of Chinese Medicine which is herbal medicine that is also labelled as not scientifically proven theory. There is quite a disconnection as to why should the medical field accept part of a major theory but not another, when the part of the theory they accepted (Acupuncture) also works in conjunction to herbal medicine as a full treatment.
I do not think Chinese Medicine should be disregarded as a myth nor placebo effect, however should Chinese Medicine research get public funding when it is hardly scientifically provable currently?
@Tom
Western medicine is an interesting case. There is a considerable amount of Western medicine that is science based and thus evidence based. Yet there is also a not inconsiderable amount of Western medical practice which has not been evidence based and/or has been based on invalid evidence or incorrectly derived by induction from evidence.
Freudian psychoanalysis for example is now completely discredited. There is no evidence for any of its central tenets. Ernest Gellner’s book “The Cunning of Unreason” is worth reading in this context. It has now also been established that very little of physiotherapy is evidence based. People might or might not find these contentions controversial but if they examine the literature they will find them so. Thus Western Medicine was (and still is to some extent) a broad church which went well beyond what was empirically justified in developing and prescribing treatments. By the same token, much of Chinese medicine has been shown to not be evidence based. Acupuncture is a case in point.
Footnote: While Freudian psychoanalysis is now completely discredited as science, one cannot say it has been wholly useless as a research project, as a proto-science. While the “talking cure” leads to “analysis interminable” (i.e it gets exactly nowhere) it has had a value. There is considerable good evidence that while people are kept talking they are not jumping off high ledges. This positive treatment judgement however probably only holds for post-Freudian psychotherapy. Freud and his early analytical descendants like Melanie Klein demonstrably did a lot of damage in practice. Freud in his non-evidence based fundamentalism and Svengali-like control of disciples and acolytes reminds me somewhat of Ayn Rand. Read “Why Freud was Wrong” by Richard Webster. This a large tome BTW. It is also worth reading “Why Freud Still Matters, When He Was Wrong About Almost Everything” by George Dvorsky. This latter is a short essay available online.
@Ikonoclast
‘ I don’t think my “analogical congruence” is exactly equivalent to those Continental ideas of “metaphors” ‘ .Yes ,my mistake ,I see it is not ;- ** although you sometimes show a somewhat Continental sentiment **. I think you want to reside more in the tradition of Analytic philosophy as described by wiki ,where our maps can sometimes potentially be knowably accurate representations of reality. The Continental mob dont deny an independently existing real world ,but they dont assert one either. They dont deny that our conceptions of the world might be accurate ,just that we can never really know when they are.
Also ,the worrying doubt associated with infinite progression of metaphor never actually prevents action in the real world as it is not possible to avoid being in such a world anyway. Non-action is a kind of action. For everyday living doubt should merely be taken into account .
Your analogical congruence feels to me like it might be a matter of degree – not either present or absent. Does /// have more congruence with 3 oranges or with 3 sticks lying side by side ? Does 3 have more with one eel arranged into the shape of 3 or with 3 eels swimming about? How much does Marxism have ? Newton thought he had it all but was wrong. Also it may not help if thought is physical like the world ,even if that meant there might be rules in common. Those rules might be able to know their own limits.
@Ikonoclast
“By the same token, much of Chinese medicine has been shown to not be evidence based. Acupuncture is a case in point.”
Hmm, Acupuncture is actually accepted because of evidence based research instead of theory based. Acupuncture has only been accepted in public hospitals in Australia because hospital and clinical trials shows that it works just as good if not better than conventional Western Medicine treatments. However the reason why Acupuncture works cannot yet be explained by modern scientific reasoning. So it’s the theory that is problematic not the evidence.
@Tom
Not everyone is confident about the efficacy of acupuncture. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/08/20/an-acupuncture-bait-and-switch-on-hypertension/
@sunshine
Karl Popper wrote, IIRC, something like this “Our progressive correction of error indicates the existence of (at least some) objective truth.” I basically agree with this statement although it might need further caveats. And maybe Popper gives those caveats.
Your final paragraph of criticism of my basic idea of the origin or provenance of analogical congruence is valid. We would have to delineate a spectrum from the analogically congruent to the nominally symbolic at this basic level. But as I said before or implied; complex formal system models based on symbols (which symbols are no longer in themselves analogically congruent) can still demonstrate analogical congruence at the system to system level.
I think there is a test for practical congruence at the systems level. The test is successful transmission of information and thence successful performance in the real system(s); successful in the sense that positive real (planned or predicted) effects can be obtained or observed.
I see genuinely important (non-trivial) analogical congruence as existing at the complex systems level. It links formal systems to real systems and when successful and valid allows transmission of useful information both ways. A further elucidation of the theory holds that formal systems always exist as material artifacts in their own right. Yet there is still a qualitative and quantitative difference between formal systems and real systems. Formal systems essentially require far less materials and energy to get their results (to put it crudely). That’s the quantitative difference.
The qualitative difference goes deeper and I am still working on it (in my totally amateur manner it must be said). I suspect it relates to dimensions (and forces) in the sense of relativities. There is a formalisation of dimensions (to wit the space dimensions and time though you can talk of space-time if you wish) in formal systems which allows dimension manipulations which cannot be performed in the real world. In formal systems, the dimensions can be distorted, compressed, (relative both to each other in the formal system and also by comparison with the real system) omitted, rendered in different manners, added to or multiplied and so on. In many ways, I think it is these dimension manipulations which allow creation and testing of ideas at the formal system level.
Time seems to present special issues. It can be run backwards in some models. It can be run over and over in some models. In other models, the linearity and arrow of time is crucial to the model’s analogical congruence validity with real systems (if I can say it like that). In some kinds of models the issue with time is precisely that it cannot be distorted and yet still get valid (analogically congruent) results.
Of course this might be all nonsense and I might be a crank. Some days I am honestly not sure. 🙂
@Tom
Where’s the disconnection?
@Tim Macknay
The disconnection (to me) is that both Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine explains how the human body works under the same theory but different to Western Medicine. I understand the need for the science and medical profession to be cautious regarding (most of the time) pseudoscience nature of ancient knowledge. However if the Western medical profession (who are well known to be scientific most of the time) came to the conclusion of something like “Ok, we can’t explain why Acupuncture works but based on hospital and clinic results, it works, so we should introduce it into the hospitals and as proper alternate forms of treatment”; then that’s already accepting a part of a major theory. If so, then why not also research/test the other parts of the same theory (besides political reasons) and potentially introduce the other parts too IF the other parts of the theory are also proven to work? As far as I know, although hospitals has done a substantial amount of trials for acupuncture in the past before introducing acupuncture, the same has not been done for herbal medicine of the same theory (although admittedly it’s difficult to prove when it’s difficult to explain it scientifically). That’s why it seems like a disconnection to me.
@Tom
Mayo Clinic (whose opinions I regard as a gold standard for evidence based medicine) say in brief;
“The benefits of acupuncture are sometimes difficult to measure, but many people find it helpful as a means to control a variety of painful conditions.
Several studies, however, indicate that some types of simulated acupuncture appear to work just as well as real acupuncture. There’s also evidence that acupuncture works best in people who expect it to work.
Since acupuncture has few side effects, it may be worth a try if you’re having trouble controlling pain with more-conventional methods.”
I suspect from this that most effects are placebo effects.
The Science Based Medicine site declares that “Acupuncture does not work”. It’s worth looking at that article.
“What David and I have convincingly argued, in my opinion, is that after decades of research and more than 3000 trials, acupuncture researchers have failed to reject the null hypothesis, and any remaining possible specific effect from acupuncture is so tiny as to be clinically insignificant.
In layman’s terms, acupuncture does not work – for anything.
This has profound clinical, ethical, scientific, and practical implications. In my opinion humanity should not waste another penny, another moment, another patient – any further resources on this dead end. We should consider this a lesson learned, cut our losses, and move on.
I suspect, however, human nature being what it is, that this will not happen anytime soon.”
The actual meat and potatoes article then printed in full is “Acupuncture Is Theatrical Placebo”. There are plenty of references to reputable studies.
@Ikonoclast
You get Berkeley exactly backwards.
@Ikonoclast
You should therefore advise public hospitals to not use acupuncture as the main pain management treatment or in emergency rooms as this is the direction they are going.
@Tom
Fair enough. I guess I’d take the view that accepting, on the basis of clinical evidence, that acupuncture is a useful treatment for certain conditions doesn’t necessarily entail accepting any part of the tradition TCM explanation for how it works.
It’s possible, I think, to make a public interest case for research into ‘alternative’ medical practices as, given that they are in quite wide use, it would be beneficial to get a clearer picture of how effective (or ineffective) the various practices are. Of course, to counter that, there is the view that users of alternative health practices are not actually concerned with whether there is scientific evidence to support the treatments. Homeopathy, for example, has been studied exhaustively enough to reasonably say that it has been proven not to work, but that hasn’t stopped many people from continuing to use it.
@Tim Macknay
I agree, there are many alternate treatment which the patients may not be concerned whether if it’s useful or not. These exists in Chinese Medicine, Western Medicine or any other alternate forms of treatment. However, there is a difference when major hospitals which were and still are pre-dominantly Western Medicine based, considering, offering and using a particular alternate treatment such as Acupuncture for pain management to even emergency departments, such hospitals include The Alfred, Northern, Cabrini, Epworth Hospitals etc. and much more prominent in the US hospitals. Laymans such as us have no effects to change that unless the medical profession themselves are convinced acupuncture is useless.
@Tom
.. I meant a public interest case for publicly funded research into alternative medical practices.
@Ernestine Gross
Ah, so if I actually reply to somebody, then I shouldn’t expect anybody else to read my comment unless the respondee passes it on to them. Ok.
Anyway, I’m glad you were able to pass my heartfelt apology on to yourself.
However, just in case it’s of any interest to you or anybody else, I didn’t find out about GrueBleen and BleenGrue from Goodman’s book. I wasn’t truly aware of the existence of that until years later (until Google and the Web, in fact). I encountered it in William Poundstone’s ‘Labyrinths of Reason’ – one of his many publications but a jolly good read nonetheless. Goodman was mentioned in ‘Labyrinths’ but basically just in passing.
@Tim Macknay
Understood, I’ve only raised the topic of Chinese Medicine because of the topic Professor Quiggin raised, that should research about alternate views to the mainstream view of particular knowledge be publicly funded so that the alternate views can be proved/disproved.
@James Wimberley
If you think that Intelligent Design is theological, not scientific, then you might like to visit this site: http://www.intelligentdesign.org/ wherein you will find many people just waiting for your total demolition of their beliefs. Good luck.
As to whether there are any problems left in evolutionary theory, well … You have, for instance, resolved all the controversies surrounding Neutral Theory and Random Genetic Drift, I take it. Well gooodo then, but you may want to look up the Sandwalk site ( http://sandwalk.blogspot.com.au/ ) just to confirm that.
Otherwise, well I haven’t heard much mention of the Anthropic Principle for some time – do I understand rightly that you are a proponent ? Of the Strong Anthropic Principle, I expect. So, what work remains to be done to prove this “theory” and how much financing will the work require ?
@Ernestine Gross
ID does get government funding in Australia. The Howard government, through the push by a certain group of theo-neocons, smoothed the way for ID to use CDs and DVDs in publicly funded schools (in Qld). This occurred under the radar for a while, but surfaced when some leftwing-biased journalist went “Hang on a minute…”. I reckon it was 2004/2005 when the news articles about it finally popped up. The whole thing recurred in 2010, and again 2013. The Queensland Studies Authority has several statements concerning ID and/or Creationism. A quick search online shows it to be an on-again, off-again, topic of discussion in Qld education circles.
I believe it is part of the Qld phenomenon of “when it suits me” libertarianism, an assertion of individuality against the Guvm’nt in Canberra. Anti-vax, Anti-fluoridisation of water supplies, Anti-Windmill Anti-Climate Science, etc. There are pockets of this around the country, but Qld does appear particularly blessed.
@Ernestine Gross
You think so, Ernestine ? Maybe, but probably only because almost nobody in Ozland knows what ‘Intelligent Design’ means – they probably think it’s weasel words invented by pollies.
But of the relative few who do have an idea what it means, I’d expect the majority to deliver a rat’s fart of indifference and for the remainder to be passionate supporters of government funding.
Not much different in the USA, I suspect, except that the passionate proponents would be more numerous, more noisy and have a lot of say in the conduct of the Republican Party.
You may enjoy this quote from the Wikipedia entry on “Intelligent Design in politics”:
“According to the Center for Science and Culture’s weblog,[8] at least 10 state legislatures are now considering legislation reconsidering how evolution is taught. Many of these initiatives benefit from significant legal assistance from a number of conservative legal foundations including the Thomas More Law Center, the Alliance Defense Fund, and Quality Science Education for All (QSEA). All have litigated extensively on behalf of the movement.”
@tony lynch
You mean Berkeley’s philosophy is materialism? Surely not. So you need to expand.
Alternatively, you might mean I was wrong in saying this. “Try to prove consciousness is not a material phenomenon. If you do this rigorously you will get the result that George Berkeley got. Namely that the material cannot exist.” This was not Berkeley’s method (or it’s a bad caricature of it). I understand that. However, the outcome will be the same in my admittedly lightweight opinion: a set of proofs that the material does not exist given certain a priori assumptions.
If you are Tony Lynch of UNE then I have picked an argument well out of my intellectual weight class. In that case, if I lose badly as seems probable, then we can both hope that I learn something. 🙂
@Tom
It’s not up to me. I have no medical or scientific qualifications. However, if I was a politician or an administrator with powers in that arena, that is exactly what I would be doing. I would be listening to the experts in medicine and science but only the ones who were without a direct conflict of interest in the matter. The Medical profession can be both pragmatic and money hungry. Either or both can explain the acceptance of acupuncture. Plenty of MDs get fed up with scientifically ignorant patients who demand quack treatments. A relatively harmless placebo can be both a harm minimisation and a time-saving maneuver. It’s called the Crank Placebo maneuver. I made that term up.
Tony Lynch may yet have to perform the philosophical version of that maneuver on me. Maybe he already has and I am not even smart enough to realise it. 😉
@Ikonoclast
The situations which you describe, that ignorant patients demanding placebo treatments does certainly exists. While the conflict of interest is complex in this case and potentially harmful to Western Medicine doctors (especially private) or drugs industry by accepting Acupuncture as it exists as a treatment to replace more expensive (thus more profitable) types of treatment. In most cases, however, things such as acute lower back pain caused by bone displacement or other serious issues are not usually something ignorant patients demanding placebo treatment could help, emergency departments is even more implausible.
@Ikonoclast
In most cases, however, things such as acute lower back pain caused by bone displacement or other serious issues are not usually something ignorant patients demanding placebo treatment could help, emergency departments is even more implausible.
Grammar mess. Should have been:
In most cases, however, ignorant patients demanding placebo treatments is unlikely to exist when they face acute lower back pain or other serious pain conditions; emergency departments is even more implausible.
Politicians, in the main, operate on beliefs, much like members of religious groups, or they engage in political rhetoric in support of a vested interest. What they say about scientific findings must always be looked upon from these perspectives. Undermining a scientific consensus that challenges either is what we might expect and, therefore, should be ignored. If such politicians succeed in influencing the views of the public, it is a political, not a scientific, problem that is faced and should be dealt with in a political arena.
We know from religious contexts, for example, that no amount of factual information about evolution will change the mind of a creationist, therefore there is no point in running an argument based upon fact when faced by belief. If scientific findings are repressed or distorted by politicians, it is due to weaknesses in the political process, not to poor communication by scientists, as is often stated. Scientists are in the business of scientific inquiry, not political advocacy and never should be. Regrettably, because their discipline is barely a science, many economists do not seem to understand this.
@John Foster
I agree with all of what you say there. I have some considerable sympathy for economists except for those I might term clearly neocon or neoclassical. Not that economists need my sympathy of course. It’s just that, if done properly and comprehensively, economics (as political economy and thermoeconomics combined) would perforce be massively multi-disciplinary. In turn, I mean “political economy” as all of national economy, macroeconomics, institutional economics, economic history and comparative economic ideology.
The above is why I advocate an approach which seeks a unified theory of formal system – real system interactions. We need to be able to identify as many points as possible where extant, operating economic-financial theory (the formal system theory and models) is incongruent/incompatible with real systems. Endless growth ideology versus the real, finite earth biosphere system is a clear and obvious example. I believe many more subtle examples could be found in a thorough and methodical search.
Bear in mind that humans and human societies are real systems also. How much economic ideology and economic modelling (of various ilks) is inconsistent with what can be asserted as reliably known from the soft sciences like psychology and sociology, for example? Pointing out the need for a unified theory of formal system – real system interactions is my amateur hobby horse. How do they interact? How is information transmitted between the two categories of systems and acted on in each system set? Etc. Clearly it’s beyond me but I think it needs looking at. Maybe some group somewhere are already working on it.
http://www.emqm15.org/ may be of interest.
Will there be any censure, criticism or even statement that he might be wrong for Mr Canavan from with the LNP – which supposedly accepts mainstream climate science?
I don’t think the LNP does accept the science on climate and it’s a matter of Party loyalty and unity to tolerate climate science denial by their comrades and avoid any clear ‘contrary’ statements that unequivocally support the mainstream science based view that it’s real, serious and urgent.
Worse – and unlike the US Republicans – a politically expedient dishonest pretence of acceptance overlays that rejection; ie lying to the public is embedded into their response to the climate issue. I think that is tactical, as a way to dodge being called to task and be explicit, by mainstream journalism that has shown itself pathetically incapable of acting as the community’s informers and their means of ensuring accountability.
@Ken Fabian
Well put. I think this in particular was brilliantly expressed, accurate and concise.
“a politically expedient dishonest pretence of acceptance overlays that rejection; ie lying to the public is embedded into their response to the climate issue.”
I think it of it as a simple tradeoff that comes up in most optimization — you want to choose to fund ‘good’ research/researchers, but you also want some randomness in the search to step you getting stuck in local minima.
So the ideal approach is to have some filters for quality, but also some randomness to allow for unconventional research/researchers. How to make this seem fair, and how to tell whether you are at an optimal point between completely random and academic cartel is left as an exercise for the reader 🙂 I think we’re too far down the cartel end of the spectrum myself.
@Tom
I’ve only raised the topic of Chinese Medicine because of the topic Professor Quiggin raised, that should research about alternate views to the mainstream view of particular knowledge be publicly funded so that the alternate views can be proved/disproved.
It has, pretty well exhaustively and at considerable expense. Charitably one can say the results have not been positive. https://nccih.nih.gov/
This is not to say that some traditional herbal remedies may not have valuable active ingredients or uses, just that as is there is very little to no evidence of the effectiveness of acupuncture in particular and “Traditional Chinese Medicine” —which is rumoured to be more of an invention of Chairman Mao than anything—in general.
How what we know as TCM compares to the real historically documented Chinese medicine and medical theory is unclear to me but there seems to be some discrepancies, not to mention Chinese medical history spans two or three thousand years so things may have changed just a bit in that time and “traditional” may be something of a moving target.
For more info on this you might want to have a look at The Science and Civilization in China : Vo. IV, Pt. 6. Medicine. Joseph Needham and Lu Gwei-djen, edited by Nathan Sivin (2000) http://www.nri.org.uk/science.html which I, unfortunately, have never managed to get my hands on. The few peripheral documents I have read makes it clear that Chinese medicine was much more complicated than what is currently purveyed in the West.
@jrkrideau
Thanks for the info. Regarding discrepancies of TCM to historically documented Chinese Medicine, it is understandable. Chinese Medicine has never been a really well organised discipline in the sense that some doctors may know certain knowledge which other doctors may not know and choose to keep it to themselves as trade secret. The system of acupuncture and Chinese medicine is complex enough that a little trade secrets changes the treatment and its effectiveness, therefore creating discrepancies.
“This is not to say that some traditional herbal remedies may not have valuable active ingredients or uses, just that as is there is very little to no evidence of the effectiveness of acupuncture in particular and “Traditional Chinese Medicine” —which is rumoured to be more of an invention of Chairman Mao than anything—in general.”
I don’t know where the rumour that acupuncture is invented by Chairman Mao comes from, but acupuncture has quite a long history which can be found not only in documented Chinese history but also Korean (which is also heavily influenced by ancient Chinese culture).
Is that link suppose to provide me with the view that “there is very little to no evidence of the effectiveness of acupuncture”? Because I struggled to find it?
To further my comment above #92, many medical reviews has produced inconsistent conclusions on the effectiveness of acupuncture, after disregarding biased publications which occurs in Asia region. To some extent, the knowledge discrepancies of the acupuncture doctor has also caused a lot of inconsistencies in the outcomes, such as certain reports suggests the inconsistencies in outcomes depending on which doctor is delivering the treatment. If the Cochrane Review is to be considered as a reputable study, then it’s conclusion is also inconsistent on certain conditions and across their own studies.
Copying from Wikipedia:
For pain conditions: “A 2009 overview of Cochrane reviews found acupuncture is not effective for a wide range of conditions, and they suggest it may be effective for only chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting, postoperative nausea/vomiting, and idiopathic headache.[13] A 2011 overview of high-quality Cochrane reviews suggests that acupuncture is effective for certain types of pain.[14]”
For lower back pain: “A 2011 overview of Cochrane reviews found inconclusive evidence regarding acupuncture efficacy in treating low back pain.[14]”
For headache and migraines: “A 2009 Cochrane review of the use of acupuncture for migraine prophylaxis treatment concluded that “true” acupuncture was no more efficient than sham acupuncture, but “true” acupuncture appeared to be as effective as, or possibly more effective than routine care in the treatment of migraines, with fewer adverse effects than prophylactic drug treatment.[100]”
For osteoarthritis: “A 2010 Cochrane review found that acupuncture shows statistically significant benefit over sham acupuncture in the treatment of peripheral joint osteoarthritis; however, these benefits were found to be so small that their clinical significance was doubtful, and “probably due at least partially to placebo effects from incomplete blinding”.[105]”
For shoulder pain and lateral elbow pain: “A 2011 overview of Cochrane reviews found inconclusive evidence regarding acupuncture efficacy in treating shoulder pain and lateral elbow pain.[14]”
For nausea and vomiting and post-operative pain: “A 2009 Cochrane review found that stimulation of the P6 acupoint on the wrist was as effective (or ineffective) as antiemetic drugs and was associated with minimal side effects.[109][111] The same review found “no reliable evidence for differences in risks of postoperative nausea or vomiting after P6 acupoint stimulation compared to antiemetic drugs.”[111]”
For cancer-related conditions: “A 2015 Cochrane review found that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether acupuncture is an effective treatment for cancer pain in adults.[120]”
For fertility and childbirth: “A 2013 Cochrane review found no evidence of acupuncture for improving the success of in vitro fertilization (IVF).[128]”
For rheumatological conditions: “A 2013 Cochrane review found low to moderate evidence that acupuncture improves pain and stiffness in treating people with fibromyalgia compared with no treatment and standard care.[134]”
For stroke: “A 2008 Cochrane review found that evidence was insufficient to draw any conclusion about the effect of acupuncture on dysphagia after acute stroke.[142]”
Tom,
Those quotes essentially destroy any case for acupuncture so what is your point?
From another report:
“The best controlled studies show a clear pattern, with acupuncture the outcome does not depend on needle location or even needle insertion. Since these variables are those that define acupuncture, the only sensible conclusion is that acupuncture does not work. Everything else is the expected noise of clinical trials, and this noise seems particularly high with acupuncture research. The most parsimonious conclusion is that with acupuncture there is no signal, only noise.” – Acupuncture is Theatrical Placebo – Colquhoun, Novella.
@Ikonoclast
I don’t think those quote states acupuncture is Placebo. For certain conditions the Cochrane Review has found positive effects whilst for certain other conditions it is either moderate to low evidence, inconclusive and no evidence. This is somewhat expected because I don’t think anybody is expecting a treatment to work for everything; as well as what I have stated before the outcomes is also inconsistent depending on the skill and knowledge of the acupuncture doctor delivering the treatment (it has been stated above that acupuncture and Chinese Medicine field itself contains discrepancies).
@Tom
Only a person clutching at straws could find any positive message in that. But if you want to believe in magic I guess that is your prerogative. There is no simply no real evidence for acupuncture. All claimed evidence is explained by regression to mean, incomplete blinds, placebo effects and random noise.
@Ikonoclast
Hmm I find it difficult to imagine the Cochrane Review & the likes of British NHS to be clutching at straws to prove acupuncture effect at certain conditions… Perhaps you can point out to me their private interests in introducing acupuncture in hospitals to potentially replace/in addition to other types of treatments (note that NHS already funds acupuncture and publicly advocate acupuncture as a viable alternate treatment).
As mentioned above, there are a lot of treatments for certain conditions which results in inconclusive (uncertain) results instead of no evidence of benefit (Placebo). I can hardly point to any other organisation that is more reputation and trustworthy than the Cochrane Collaboration for medical research and reviews in terms of quality and quantity.
Wait, there’s someone pushing ID/ creationism upthread?
Gruebleen quote in italics:
If you think that Intelligent Design is theological, not scientific, then you might like to visit this site: http://www.intelligentdesign.org/ wherein you will find many people just waiting for your total demolition of their beliefs. Good luck.
By comparison with modern science, the ID people you link to aren’t actually doing science. They’ve formulated a number of hypotheses, ignored the evidence against them, and continue to claim to have won despite nobody at all agreeing with them.
So, not science.
As to whether there are any problems left in evolutionary theory, well … You have, for instance, resolved all the controversies surrounding Neutral Theory and Random Genetic Drift, I take it. Well gooodo then, but you may want to look up the Sandwalk site ( http://sandwalk.blogspot.com.au/ ) just to confirm that.
Just because there are gaps in knowledge of evolutionary biology doesn’t mean that ID/creationism is correct. This is a well known logical fallacy that these useless people trot out at every opportunity.
@Ikonoclast
Sorry for such a late response Ikonoclast. Just caught up with things. Your identification skills are spot on.
My short comment re Berkeley really begins with Hume. Hume was not a materialist, he was a skeptic and one thing he was skeptical about is the existence of “external objects”. This is because his empiricism is embedded in a Cartesian conception of consciousness. So all we know empirically are “impressions and ideas” and these are mental states. We might want or like to think that “out there” behind that which we know (impressions etc.) is some “material substance”, but this is an inference without empirical support, so wishful thinking. In short, Hume is more idealist than materialist, and this is demanded by his Caretsianism about consciousness and his empiricism about data.
The originality (and beauty) of Berkeley is that he sees exactly what it is that pushes Hume towards what is, ultimately, a solipsistic idealism. It is the Cartesian view that all we know are states of our own consciousness, not objects “out there”. So Berkeley rejects this view. He holds that we can and do – as common sense insists – have direct (“empirical”) knowledge of objects in themselves. He has a direct perceptual realist account of knowledge of material objects.
Of course these objects are not – and can’t be – the utterly mind external things Hume both suggests are there and is ultimately skeptical about. The idea that this is what “material objects” have to be is not common-sense but a shadow cast by an intrinsically skeptical dualist metaphysics.
Rather objects are – as common-sense takes it – just those things we perceive. And note the “WE” here. For Berkeley is no solipsist idealist. Objects are those things we WE (me and others) can perceive. Those things only I can “perceive” and not others, are precisely those things which are illusions – and certainly not the empirical data for any kind of knowledge as Hume hoped. And, of course, as we all know (again, it is common-sense) “10,000” Frenchmen CAN be wrong (we can be subject to collective delusions), and so we are committed to the idea that objects may exist even when none of us perceive it, or not exist when we all think we perceive it. How can this be, except that we are presupposing that there is a perceiver there all the time, and a perceiver with greater powers of discernment than us humans? That being is God. So the final beauty of Berkeley, he shows, he thinks, that common sense realism rests on and expresses an absolute Divine idealism.