We have acquired a lot of information on a subject, even some might say knowledge, and still know very little. That science is placed on a pedestal does not really help – perhaps it even hinders. After all, through science we expect to know things with confidence if not certainty. If it is proven through scientific experiment it must be true. Right? Wrong.
Scientific experiment even if it can be accurately repeated proves only the conditions tested by the experiment. We tend to be accepting of the results whereas we should, as with all things maintain an open mind and be sceptical.
This post is triggered by a recent discussion where someone said they had read at least 10 books on the subject and they all basically agreed and the experimental evidence proved X. My view, so what?
Consider a non-theological example and one which I have much sympathy for, namely that homeopathic medicine is a waste of money, being ineffective.
Experiment (1) to test the claims of homeopathy was conducted (I do not have the reference, but my point lies in the principle not the specific of the example). Students were infected with the common cold and while confined in the same accommodation were given (double blind) either a homeopathic remedy or a placebo. Conclusion, the homeopathic remedy was no more effective than the placebo. This experiment confirmed the results of similar studies and is seen as supporting the conclusion that homeopathic remedies don’t work.
Now I take exception to that conclusion and question the validity of the experiment. The experiment tested the clinical effectiveness of a substance – I would accept the results for a commercial cold medicine. Certainly it demonstrated that in a clinical trial the substance was not effective.
BUT that is not the claim made by homeopathy. Classical homeopathy claims to provide a holistic treatment of the person, not a symptom relief treatment as with a commercial cold medication. Therefore the experiment did nothing to test the basic claim of homeopathy.
An experiment that involved a full consultation with a homeopath then a triple blind supply of either placebo or the prescribed homeopathic remedy would certainly provide a better test for the claims. BUT is that still good enough?
Possible outcomes:
A: Either placebo or remedy have better outcome
B: Placebo and remedy have similar outcomes and similar treatment rates as for first experiment.
C. Placebo and remedy have similar outcomes but better treatment rates than for experiment (1). This would be an expected outcome. From what we know of the placebo effect it is reasonable to expect that the method of administration (thorough examination, diagnosis & prescription) would enhance the effectiveness of both placebo and remedy.
So what have we proved? I suggest that there would be evidence to suggest that the homeopathic method was more effective than the clinical method of experiment (1). But certainly one could argue that there is no control group that received a similar level of attention, from say a conventional doctor and then received placebo or remedy – let’s call that experiment (3). I would again predict outcome C.
So what has been proven. Perhaps we should compare the level of efficacy of the placebo in (2) and (3). BUT I still argue that we do not have a valid experimental methodology to test the claim of homeopathy that it is effective as a long term holistic treatment regime. Problem is I can’t think of a practical experiment to test this claim. Such an experiment (4)would have to:
i) Look at the long term effect on general health (how?)
ii) Ensure the equivalence of the health prospects of the participants at the start (how?)
iii) Maintain an equal health environment for participants throughout the experiment (how?)
iv) Provide a valid control groups – perhaps both placebo and conventional medication (in the light of i, ii & iii – not easy)
v) Direct the treatment towards condition(s) considered appropriate for homeopathic intervention – and how do all agree on that?
vi) Administer the homeopathic treatment in line with the homeopathic school, but the placebo in a neutral way (how? Given the responsiveness of the placebo effect to the method of administration).
Now I have found no experiment equivalent to (4) that I would consider a valid test of the claims of homeopathy. So where do we go now?
How about common sense? The homeopathic method has been around for a long time. Its practitioners (the scholarly ones anyway) will have developed their treatment and remedy regimes based on what was found to work (and not work). Their patients would have continued to consult them )or not) based on how effective they considered the treatments to be.
There is a history of scholarship (perhaps not of the type found in a prominent university science faculty) in homeopathy, its treatments are differentiated to align with patient needs and demonstrate a level of consistency. Patients have not unanimously decided it does not work.
Conclusive? Hardly. Of the treatment options available I still find more attractive options. But don’t expect me to accept - that because someone reads a book or two on the subject and that the simple experiments they contained “proved” it does not work – that indeed the case is closed ... and certainly, just because you read on the www or saw it on TV or heard the interview on the radio does not excuse you from not properly exercising your scepticism and thinking it through.
OK now who wants to talk about experiments that test the effectiveness of prayer?
Hamba kahle - peace
Sunday, December 5, 2010
What we think we know?
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Ever heard of Putaruru?
We have failed to heed God’s message – God’s fault or ours?
The world is in financial and economic crises – sounds sterile. Hundreds of thousands of people around the world are losing their jobs, they and in many cases, their families will suffer real hardship.
Some atheists may ask why God let the evil bankers trick us into spending money we did not have on what we did not need just so that they could get rich.
I may respond and ask why we did not listen to the many voices, Christian and others, which warned that it would not end well? … and perhaps I would admit the voices of churches were not raised very loudly (or did the media stifle them?) to call us to think about increasing number being plunged into abject poverty as we plugged in our flat screen TVs. … yea blame the messenger for not making us listen to God’s word.
Perhaps we all have to concede that the most strident voices calling us to ‘love our neighbour as ourselves’ were those of the fundamentalists – the loony fringe (?) – oh but had we all heeded their cry! Had we been more like Nineveh – certainly we received the same message – and less like Sodom, well who knows …
It is easy to say that Christ preached against the avarice practised by the merchant bankers and others who sowed the seeds of this crisis; it is also easy to say that if we had all followed Christ’s teachings we not be in this sorry state.
Correct me if I am wrong – if we had not been distracted by the new and shiny would we not have been better off living a good Christian or Hindu lifestyle, respecting those around us, even the starving in Darfur? But all of us (me included) did not do that, so …… and the starving still starve and the number of the poor increases.
Do I seem heartless? No, I weep for those who really do and will suffer, I feel nothing but disdain for those who rode the pig’s back and now have to make do on a few million less next year, yet how clear is the sound of their weeping, and so loud that governments around the world have come to THEIR aid – I guess those that really need the aid (like wiping 3rd world debt) have to again rely on the trickle down effect – like Lazarus at the gate of the rich man’s house. Certainly the situation is the fruit of avaricious. Certainly lax regulation opened the gate – blah blah … etc I could rant on, but you know it anyway.
Out of the gloom comes a story of real Christian spirit. In the small New Zealand town of Putaruru the sawmill is to close and around 200 jobs are to be lost. Bad news in a small town with a population around 3500. However, in the neighbouring town of Tokoroa (pop 4000) the workers at the mill there have agreed to restructure their shifts and reduce their hours and take home pay to create about enough new jobs for those laid off in nearby (25kms away) Putaruru.
Now those taking the pay cut are not the management of the corporate parent on $mega packages with bonuses that motivate the cutting of jobs at the first sign of missing their double digit targets. Those taking the 12.5% cut in work hours are giving up their pay at overtime rates, so more than 12.5% of take home, are those who can least afford it, earning generally at or below the average wage.
Is this proof of God, of course not, but it is the message of Christ, “love your neighbour as yourself” at work. Are all those who are making the sacrifice Christians – I doubt it, even with Google Earth showing 7 churches in the Tokoroa & 6 in Putaruru (1 per 600 people). Christ’s teaching is God’s message to all – and is particularly relevant now. Those who will now have jobs for the new year have those jobs because good has triumphed over evil, love over selfishness – these are the fruits of God’s spirit at work within the spirits of the good people of Tokoroa, Putaruru and around the world.
If you pray (or for atheists is it, wish or hope – or does life just happen for you?) for anything next year, perhaps you will join me in wanting more openness in the world to the spirit that moved the workers in Tokaroa.
Now I know most of my visitors are atheists (interesting how visitor numbers soar (& lots more repeat visitors - feel free to comment folks) when I get active on the DC site) so I mean no disrespect to your beliefs but see wishing you and those dear to you a blessed Christmas as a small act of love ...
… so I wish all who have visited here, together with those close to them and my enemies too, a wonderful and blessed Christmas. May the peace of Christ and the blessings of Holy Spirit be with you, in your homes and on your travels; in your anxieties and your joys.
While I look forward to talking with you again next year I will reflect over Christmas about maintaining this blog, or resting it for a while. On the one hand it is hard to find time, on the other I have learned much from you, thank you for time, I am sure it is more valuable than mine and you have given it freely to me, a stranger, as a gift – there I knew God’s spirit was at work in you too!
Hamba kahle
Thursday, September 25, 2008
At the alters of science, economics and relative morality
Are our cell phones really safe, what about GE foods or new drugs?
The TV reported a court case involving the claimed harm from electromagnetic radiation that was lost on the grounds that it had not been conclusively proven that the specific radiation caused the illness.
Now I find this very interesting. It is of course a product of our enlightened age, where scientific proof is the new God and is the final arbiter on all things. As a society we have accepted this and generally accept it. In doing so have we created the age of pseudo-informed gullibility?
From a public policy perspective seeking conclusive evidence before acting is in my view irresponsible. In a community driven by moral values rather than economic incentives perhaps we could hope for better.
While we now accept that smoking causes cancer it is not understood why in some cases it does not. Indeed the failure of smoking to deliver cancer with scientific repeatability bogged the smoking debate down for years and to some extent still does. Do we have to wait for science stamp of approval before we believe anything?
Of course the true rationalist may argue, for instance, that a “safe” drug later shown to harmful was never proven safe. If causality between cell phone use and neurological damage is eventually established (perhaps at least as well as the smoking – cancer link) then they might argue that the scientists had done a good job in establishing the link and were wise to have been initially cautious, to await proof – they could have been wrong otherwise.
Wrong in what way – scientifically of course, to question the actual morality may require reference to an absolute. After all, why would a company knowingly market a product that may kill off its customers in 10 years – surely the morality of economics is enough to regulate conduct. Why give home loans to people who may not be able to repay them? But wait – it works, the market is correcting itself and all is well, none have been harmed (well not the ones that matter!). Why would a drug company market a diabetes drug that increased the risk of heart attack by 43% - surely there is no economic or moral gain in placing your customers at risk? … but they do have to wait until the risk is conclusively proven.
There are two sides to the proof problem in public health.
First is that we require “proof” when common sense should prevail. Would you sleep under EHV powerlines by choice, or that phone ‘attached’ to your ear all day or continue to take that medication? At some point acting morally to reduce the risk has to be recognised as the preferred option. But it will require a change in the public mindset, a turning away from the God of conclusive proof.
Second in our free market driven world of contestability most research is funded, directly or indirectly, by corporates with a vested interest. That’s good right? They will want to know their products are safe …. Perhaps this provides the reason for the paucity of well funded research in many of the areas of public health – of course if there was a possible pill to counteract the effects of electromagnetic radiation then the science would be there.
Perhaps I have grown cynical? But, while as a society we continue to not believe it because science says it can’t be proven - indeed the very oxygen of atheism – we place ourselves knowingly but unverifiably at risk. While we continue to worship at the alters of science, economics and relative morality perhaps we gain an insight into what lies behind the biblical lesson of the sins of one generation being visited on the next.
Is there a better way?
Hamba kahle - peace
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Been busy in the salt mine
Being too busy to post on the blog is perhaps rude as it implies that I value what distracts me as more important than those who honour me with visits and their opinions. It would indeed be rude to elevate my needs above the calls other make on my time, but it is often uncomfortable to adjudicate between those demands. So please accept my apologies, no offence intended. As recompense I have now posted reply comments on:
Atheism, the emperor's new clothes.
OK, I rose to the bait
Time wasted? An apology
"Damascus Road"
Atheist argument - finely crafted, but lacking
So does God exist?
An advantage of having been away is that I had to re-read the posts and comments and that hopefully brought some clarity. As I result I have not necessarily responded point by point but rather tried to focus on what I now see as the core issues.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Where have all the flowers gone?
Growing up in the 60’s protest was part of my life. The songs of the great poet Dylan (not Thomas you …) were on our lips.
I mourn the demise of protest! It is not as if there are no injustices to protest today! Hell we are spoilt for choice!
So where is the flower of youth today? What has captured their attention that injustice is of less importance?
I could surmise that there has been an erosion of (forgive my use of the easy term) genuine Christian values. In the affluent west have we replaced morality with materialism? We have certainly become a more secular society.
Secularism has its merits, but it has had its unfortunate consequences. We no longer speak of a greater moral truth; rather we have replaced it with the ethic of self: “If it works for me that’s OK, as long as there is no direct harm for others”. The problem lies in “direct harm”. Perhaps it is the “now” society that blinds us of the consequence of our actions, perhaps we have perfected too cleaver a definition of “direct harm” - - sort of like “I did not have sex with ...” …. …. …. But then perhaps if our politicians had really got the message of the greater moral truth we would not have been protesting in the 60’s
Friday, July 13, 2007
Me intolerant?
Is intolerance the home of the misguided? I find it ironical that in climate which seems to revere individual rights intolerance is so rife. Political correctness is of course intolerant. So called “liberals” are often most intolerant of opposing views, just listen to a liberal politician. Atheist based religious intolerance is strongly evident around Christmas and Easter as they try to rid the world of an untruth and to free the population from the shackles of false belief (do I hear an echo of the Inquisition here?).
But my real question is why is intolerance thriving in an era when I thought we were trying to eliminate it – to honour the individual, democracy and freedom? – getting caught up in the spin am I?
My first reaction is to blame the media, of course. After all their influence has increased as they have become more pervasive. Also there is little doubt that parts the media are firmly aligned with various agendas. Consolidation of media ownership has also limited debate. But does all this explain an increased intolerance.
Perhaps there has not been a real move towards intolerance for intolerance sake – perhaps it is a defence. We are increasingly being spoon fed news and views at a superficial level. When last did you see a really good unbiased, in-depth, investigative doco on TV – and as for the magazine programmes …
So perhaps we are forming our opinions not on a solid base of our own reasoning, but rather on the opinions of others. If so we have little of substance with which to defend our views. So do we become intolerant of opposing views? Do we fear being shown up as suckers for some piece of “spin”?
There may be hope in the e-world with its ease of dissemination of opinion – this blog is an example. But perhaps the weakness of this medium lies in its very strength. There is too much information and opinion. It is not easy to find, often swamped by millions of hits in a Google search – I wonder if anyone will ever read this? Because of the proliferation of information the way we use the web for research can capture us. We tend to go to the top of the list of search results (= popular opinion), we tend to follow site links (= pools of similar thinking). This may lead us into the trap of being extremely well misinformed – and perhaps to believing we are right, after all we researched it thoroughly on the web! So if we are right, then they must be wrong. Well at this point what else can we do but make sure they are put right and while we are at it we should try to make sure they don’t spread their mistaken views. Of course we could just enter the debate and convince them of the merit of our argument, perhaps even accept that there are two sides here and one has to choose. No … that’s too hard and we really have to know what we are talking about.
Perhaps I should be more tolerant of intolerance.
Friday, July 6, 2007
To post or not to post
With this blog I hope to take a stand against accepting populist views without subjecting them to the same level of criticism than that to which we tend to subject traditional views.
Sociological change is ever present.
What drives it?
Government policy, the media, popular opinion … ?
One observes ideas taking root in populist thinking, gaining strength and growing to perhaps have massive impact on our lives. It becomes unacceptable to voice contrary opinions.
Examples include:
- Feminism
- Dry right market forces economics
- Abortion
- Women in the workforce - childcare
- Atheism
- Restriction on child play (at school and elsewhere) in the interests of safety
- No fault divorce
I am not saying that there is no merit in some of these causes. Certainly I believe some to be misguided. All would have benefited from informed debate. As a result some may have been abandoned or at least modified. Informed debate of course goes beyond visiting a large number of web sites that essentially support one side of the argument. Interesting that so many sites discourage debate about their views, but seek comments that support their views. This blog encourages thoughtful debate in line with the rules for comments
