"Ridiculous beliefs, by definition, deserve ridicule"

Turtwig

nagirrac wrote: »

Then you need help!

From Batman?:pac:

nagirrac

Everyone knows Superman > Batman.

Turtwig

nagirrac wrote: »

Everyone knows Superman > Batman.

Superman just happened to be born on the right planet and then shipped to ours. Batman trained his body to a physical peak. Used his genius intellect to create gadgets. He studied criminology, biology, physics, engineering. He hired mostly the right people and wasn't scared of a glowing green rock.

Also if Batman was real he could probably help people. Superman would mostly likely just squish everyone he catches. Physics don't like Superman. Batman could possibly work in a universe with proper physics.

BATMAN
BATMAN

BATMAN!

ShooterSF

Jernal wrote: »

From Batman?:pac:

Batman's a scientist?


(Two simpsons references in two days wohoo!)

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Because from a medicinal or physiological standpoint a sugar pill foe example shiuld have no effect.

Should have no effect according to whom, and why do they decide how nature operates? And surely the fact that it does have an effect counters the notion that it should have no effect.

Delirium

nagirrac wrote: »

Everyone knows Superman > Batman.

:P

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

Should have no effect according to whom, and why do they decide how nature operates? And surely the fact that it does have an effect counters the notion that it should have no effect.

According to logically rational people of course
The same rationality that says homeopathy is bollox.
I agree fully there is much about nature and how it operates we do not understand. According to objecrive materialism though placebo, homeopathy and religious rituals like meditation should not work as there is no known mechanism that we can measure going on.

Sarky

Relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GRG57PNdpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0Fw3zuu4-A

WumBuster

When you think about it the athiest argument is just as zany. That the universe appeared by some mysterious chemical reaction out of nothing. I think the most 'rational' position for anyone to take is to say that we simply don't know. We may never find out or there may be some very simple explanation thats right in front of our nose that we havent come to yet. Anything else is just a theory. This knowledge gap and uncertainty has been exploited by religions. I think most of the politicians in the world are agnostic/athiests deep down but allow religions to thrive because they are afraid of an athiestic world.
As for the OP, most of us were brought up in religious households. When you have been engrained with this stuff from a very young age its very hard, almost impossible id argue to let go of this entirely. I wouldnt blame anyone for believing in it. Its pretty manipulative stuff that holds the most basic human emotions like a vice. but it annoys me when people just flock along with it without question. However, i think you should just leave people to their beliefs, unless they actually want to discuss it. Its an emotive subject at the best of times and although it might be hard to restrain yourself when you see your nearest and dearest behaving in this irrational fashion as you see it, just remember that they are entitled to their beliefs as much as you are to yours.

endacl

Zany? The atheist argument is 'I don't know, and I don't need to insert magic. I'm comfortable not knowing. Smart people are trying to figure it out'. How is that 'zany'?

The religious argument runs more to 'this Bronze Age farmer wrote it down, so that's how it happened. Stop thinking immediately'. OK. I'll give you the zany on that one...

endacl

Oh, and they would be left to their beliefs, once their beliefs are kept to themselves. Out of medicine. Out of education. Out of the public discourse.

Most do.

Pherekydes

WumBuster wrote: »

When you think about it the athiest argument is just as zany.

The 'atheist argument' is to do with the existence or non-existence of a god or gods.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

According to logically rational people of course

I'm aware of no rule of logic that says the placebo should have no effect.

You sure you aren't confusing this with something else?

nagirrac wrote: »

The same rationality that says homeopathy is bollox.

Homeopathy is bollox, but that wasn't determined through the rules of logic, nor was it determined because there was no known method for it to work.

nagirrac wrote: »

According to objecrive materialism though placebo, homeopathy and religious rituals like meditation should not work as there is no known mechanism that we can measure going on.

I would write a book on what is wrong with that sentence. To avoid going way off topic lets just say that that isn't way people say homeopathy and religious rituals are bollox and why the placebo effect isn't.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

I'm aware of no rule of logic that says the placebo should have no effect.

Homeopathy is bollox, but that wasn't determined through the rules of logic, nor was it determined because there was no known method for it to work.

I would write a book on what is wrong with that sentence. To avoid going way off topic lets just say that that isn't way people say homeopathy and religious rituals are bollox and why the placebo effect isn't.

Rather than a book, maybe you could write a few sentences to refute my points and engage in debate, rather than just dismissing them.

As I explained earlier there are (at least) two kinds of rationality, logic based and psychology based. For the placebo effect to be logically rational, it must be argued from reason or evidence. There must be reasoning why it should work or evidence of how it works. Someone saying they feel better after taking a sugar pill is psychological, a mental state, an entirely different type of rationality to logic based. As we know the mind is capable of all kinds of unusual states, something you have mentioned yourself.

What reasoning can you provide why placebo should work? It is an entirely mental state and there is nothing physical going on that we can measure. Unlike a drug treatment, there is no physiological mechanism, no biochemistry, that explains the effect. Homeopathy is essentially no different, and in fact is a placebo effect, as the amounts of the active ingredient has no measurable physiological effect and is no different to administering say a sugar pill. Could you explain the difference between administering a sugar pill (a placebo) or an extremely dilute mixture of a biochemical in water? A biochemical that in most cases has no know efficacy even in more concentrated amounts.

As for religion or religious practices, I have said that in my opinion the effect it has on many people is similar to a placebo effect, as again it is a mental or psychological effect. Of the three (placebo, homeopathy and religious ritual), meditation is by far the one that has actual evidence to back up its benefits. While placebo and homeopathy are psychological and thus only have subjective data, meditation has been used for treatment of certain conditions such as OCD and studies based on fMRI show physical changes in the brain before and after a treatment plan. If you accept that meditation is form of religious practice then while placebo and homeopathy can be called bollox, at least from a physiological basis, meditation is clearly not bollox.

To finish with a simple example. Three people suffer from frequent headaches and go to seek help. The fist participates in a clinical trial, but is in the control group and is administered a placebo, a sugar pill. He reports after treatment that the severity of his headaches has diminished. The second goes to a homeopathic practitioner and is administered a remedy that he is told contains an ingredient that is known to help his condition. He also reports a positive outcome after treatment. The third goes to a psychologist and is told his headaches are possibly due to stress and he needs to find a mechanism to reduce stress. The best he can come up with is he decides to go to a church every morning and sit in quiet contemplation for 15 minutes. He also reports a positive outcome.

What is the difference between these three? How are two bollox and one not bollox?

eipi

Zombrex wrote: »

Homeopathy is bollox, but that wasn't determined through the rules of logic, nor was it determined because there was no known method for it to work.

When a solution is diluted so much that there is not a single atom of the substance consumed, I think you can logically imply that it has no effect.

Mark Hamill

WumBuster wrote: »

That the universe appeared by some mysterious chemical reaction out of nothing.

Who said it came from nothing?

Sycopat

nagirrac wrote: »

Rather than a book, maybe you could write a few sentences to refute my points and engage in debate, rather than just dismissing them.

As I explained earlier there are (at least) two kinds of rationality, logic based and psychology based. For the placebo effect to be logically rational, it must be argued from reason or evidence. There must be reasoning why it should work or evidence of how it works. Someone saying they feel better after taking a sugar pill is psychological, a mental state, an entirely different type of rationality to logic based. As we know the mind is capable of all kinds of unusual states, something you have mentioned yourself.

What reasoning can you provide why placebo should work? It is an entirely mental state and there is nothing physical going on that we can measure. Unlike a drug treatment, there is no physiological mechanism, no biochemistry, that explains the effect. Homeopathy is essentially no different, and in fact is a placebo effect, as the amounts of the active ingredient has no measurable physiological effect and is no different to administering say a sugar pill. Could you explain the difference between administering a sugar pill (a placebo) or an extremely dilute mixture of a biochemical in water? A biochemical that in most cases has no know efficacy even in more concentrated amounts.

As for religion or religious practices, I have said that in my opinion the effect it has on many people is similar to a placebo effect, as again it is a mental or psychological effect. Of the three (placebo, homeopathy and religious ritual), meditation is by far the one that has actual evidence to back up its benefits. While placebo and homeopathy are psychological and thus only have subjective data, meditation has been used for treatment of certain conditions such as OCD and studies based on fMRI show physical changes in the brain before and after a treatment plan. If you accept that meditation is form of religious practice then while placebo and homeopathy can be called bollox, at least from a physiological basis, meditation is clearly not bollox.

To finish with a simple example. Three people suffer from frequent headaches and go to seek help. The fist participates in a clinical trial, but is in the control group and is administered a placebo, a sugar pill. He reports after treatment that the severity of his headaches has diminished. The second goes to a homeopathic practitioner and is administered a remedy that he is told contains an ingredient that is known to help his condition. He also reports a positive outcome after treatment. The third goes to a psychologist and is told his headaches are possibly due to stress and he needs to find a mechanism to reduce stress. The best he can come up with is he decides to go to a church every morning and sit in quiet contemplation for 15 minutes. He also reports a positive outcome.

What is the difference between these three? How are two bollox and one not bollox?

I'm very confused.

Placebo's aren't bollox, the placebo effect is real and observed. In order for something to be classified as a working treatment it must work demonstrably better than placebo.

Homeopathy doesn't work better than placebo according to any study I've ever seen (excepting the ones which are biased, flawed or both). Homeopathy is bollox because it's only as good as a placebo, but claims this to be for mystical magical reasons, or dressed up as a science with big words.

What a placebo absolutely is, by definition, is a sham treatment. It is a reassuring lie.

Homeopathy's not bollox because it doesn't have an effect, it's bollox because it's effect cannot be differentiated from reassuring lies. That it's stated mechanism is also ludicrous just makes it a nice introduction to certain branches of skepticism.

I don't know anything about the effects of meditation and whether or not it beats out placebo's, as I haven't read on the topic. I would however not be surprised if there were instances where it did beat out placebo, particularly in cases where the root cause of a condition is stress related. I'd really have to see your references to judge for myself and I'm not sure I have that time, so I'd be tempted to give you a pass. Except I'm not sure I accept that meditation is a 'religious ritual' either. Religion does not have a monopoly on clearing the mind and breathing slowly.

For what it's worth though, I don't really have a problem with people using homeopathy in cases where a placebo might be an appropriate treatment, but placebo's are usually only really appropriate in cases like your example: Headaches and other minor things which can be generally lumped under the (not particularly snappy) title of: Things which normally go away on their own.

Which by the way, kind of brings us to one of the major reasons all three individuals in your example could, correctly, report a positive outcome.

Headaches usually go away on their own after a bit of time. Even the frequent ones.

That's also why the first stop 'medical treatment' option you left out for frequent headaches is over the counter pain medication. That stuff that doesn't really make the headache go anywhere, just dulls the pain while the headache goes away on it's own.

Are we really still at the point of discussing homeopathy and placebos?

And explain again these differences in 'psychology based' and 'logic based' rationality because as far as I can see (and I may be simply misunderstanding something) your two modes of rationality are actually 'subjective observation' vs 'objective observation', neither of which have really much at all to do with rationality, which is related to consistency of thought. To go back to the painting analogy, both beliefs about the painting are entirely valid, but that does not make them rational. They may be (and subjective value judgements usually are at some level) irrational.

One may like the image for no reason whatsoever other than it pleases them. The other may dislike it because the technique is sloppy and colour choice poor. Both are subjective value-based judgements, however the second choice is 'rational' because it is consistent with the viewers other beliefs that those things are important. Even there though, and even if the technique is sloppy and the colour choice is poor, the decision to assign value to these things could be considered arbitrary. The first choice could be considered rational if the viewer believed such technical criteria were unimportant. It kind of depends on where in the thought process their decision to like/dislike the painting comes, as it is entirely possible for them to rationalise their irrational opinion after the fact.

However this clouds the difference between subjective and objective observation and rationality. A subjective opinion is dependent on the observer,e.g. an observation of art, an objective one is independent of the observer,e.g. the measurement of some physical property such as length and rationality relates to consistency of thought and action following or building from the observation.

It might be easier to demonstrate the relationship of rationality and consistency with follow up actions. It would be irrational for the person who hated the painting to buy a print, hang it in their house, and invite visitors to their house to admire it because that is inconsistent with their opinion of the piece. Similarly it would be irrational of the person who liked the piece to complain of it's flaws to anyone who brings it up in conversation. But their subjective opinions of the piece are not inherently rational simply by dint of being held opinions, which seems to be what you're claiming.

While I'm here I will also briefly respond to the actual topic of this thread.
I don't, in general, ridicule religious beliefs to the faces of believers for a variety of reasons.

Probably the most important though is I think the subject of ridicule is hardly ever going to change their mind. The seeds of doubt grow better when you don't salt the earth against them.

long post is long.

nagirrac

Sycopat wrote: »

I'm very confused.

Placebo's aren't bollox, the placebo effect is real and observed. In order for something to be classified as a working treatment it must work demonstrably better than placebo.

Homeopathy doesn't work better than placebo according to any study I've ever seen (excepting the ones which are biased, flawed or both).

And explain again these differences in 'psychology based' and 'logic based' rationality because as far as I can see (and I may be simply misunderstanding something) your two modes of rationality are actually 'subjective observation' vs 'objective observation', neither of which have really much at all to do with rationality, which is related to consistency of thought. To go back to the painting analogy, both beliefs about the painting are entirely valid, but that does not make them rational. They may be (and subjective value judgements usually are at some level) irrational.

The placebo discussion stemmed from my prior statement that a placebo "should" have no effect, and Zombrex stating "..according to whom, and why do they decide how nature operates".

From WebMD, "A placebo is anything that seems to be a medical treatment, but isn't. What all placebos have in common is that they have nothing in them that can treat a medical condition". This is why a placebo "should" have no effect. While the placebo effect is not fully understood, clearly it is a mental or psychologically effect i.e. the expectation of a response somehow triggers biochemical changes in the body. In that sense I would agree the effect is due to an aspect of nature that we do not fully understand. The key aspect of the placebo effect is that the same biochemical changes are often observed in the body as if the actual medicine had been administered, suggesting a mind-body interaction we have little knowledge of currently.

I am not trying to say homeopathy is better than a placebo effect, I am saying it is a placebo effect. Like a sugar pill it has nothing in it, at least that we can detect, that can treat a medical condition, but it has the same effect in many cases as a placebo. An aside here is that many people describe the claims of homeopathy incorrectly, the claim is not that the (very) low concentration of active ingredient has a medical effect. The claim is that when the active ingredient is shaken in water it creates a memory effect and this memory effect is retained even after several dilutions. As far as we can tell however, the "medicine" is simply water so like a placebo should have no effect.

The point I am trying to make is that from a logical standpoint, placebo and homeopathy, both of which have "nothing in them that can treat a medical condition", should not work. However, clearly they do work in some cases. I agree that rationality has to do with consistency of thought, so for example someone who receives a homeopathy treatment and has no expectation of it working will likely see no effect, and therefore the conclusion that "homeopathy does not work" is rational. However, someone who has an expectation of it working is more likely to see an effect, just like someone receiving a placebo in a clinical trial. In the latter case the effect matches the expectation, so regardless of logic the belief is also rational.

Geomy

I was hanging one morning with a bad toothache, which was at me for 3 days.
My head was in bit's.
Ended up on a quite beach at 4.30 am
5 foot swell, winds offshore, bodyboard under my arm and a beauuuuutiful sun rise
After my first duck dive the pain in my jaw, head, gums etc went and never came back...

Was it the sunset, duck dive or a load of bollocks that stopped the pain ?

endacl

Did the board hit you in the bollocks, and distract you from the pain?

Sycopat

nagirrac wrote: »

The placebo discussion stemmed from my prior statement that a placebo "should" have no effect, and Zombrex stating "..according to whom, and why do they decide how nature operates".

From WebMD, "A placebo is anything that seems to be a medical treatment, but isn't. What all placebos have in common is that they have nothing in them that can treat a medical condition". This is why a placebo "should" have no effect. While the placebo effect is not fully understood, clearly it is a mental or psychologically effect i.e. the expectation of a response somehow triggers biochemical changes in the body. In that sense I would agree the effect is due to an aspect of nature that we do not fully understand. The key aspect of the placebo effect is that the same biochemical changes are often observed in the body as if the actual medicine had been administered, suggesting a mind-body interaction we have little knowledge of currently.

I am not trying to say homeopathy is better than a placebo effect, I am saying it is a placebo effect. Like a sugar pill it has nothing in it, at least that we can detect, that can treat a medical condition, but it has the same effect in many cases as a placebo. An aside here is that many people describe the claims of homeopathy incorrectly, the claim is not that the (very) low concentration of active ingredient has a medical effect. The claim is that when the active ingredient is shaken in water it creates a memory effect and this memory effect is retained even after several dilutions. As far as we can tell however, the "medicine" is simply water so like a placebo should have no effect.

The point I am trying to make is that from a logical standpoint, placebo and homeopathy, both of which have "nothing in them that can treat a medical condition", should not work. However, clearly they do work in some cases. I agree that rationality has to do with consistency of thought, so for example someone who receives a homeopathy treatment and has no expectation of it working will likely see no effect, and therefore the conclusion that "homeopathy does not work" is rational. However, someone who has an expectation of it working is more likely to see an effect, just like someone receiving a placebo in a clinical trial. In the latter case the effect matches the expectation, so regardless of logic the belief is also rational.

I'd agree with much of what you say, except this stuff about placebo's 'should' have no effect, because placebo's undeniably do have an effect. I realise you're not denying that, but I don't see how it subsequently becomes logical to expect a placebo to have no effect. It is, as you say, clearly a mental or psychological one, but why does that matter? They are intentional lies, but they do have a success rate. Similarily, I don't see how it becomes logical to expect Homeopathy to have no effect. I'd expect it to have the same effect as a placebo if it didn't have any active effect and a better (or worse...) one if it did have an active effect.

I'd also agree that from the point of view of someone who believes in homeopathy, uses homeopathy, and experiences a placebo effect from homeopathy that it is rational for such a person to continue believing in homeopathy, but I'd consider that regular rationality, not a specific different type. However I'd also consider it a weak conclusion, being drawn from a personal anecdote with only other peoples personal anecdotes as back up. This hypothetical person is simply ignorant enough to not be aware of homeopathy's flaws.

However once the placebo effect and homeopathy's established efficacy is explained to said person (And there are people who have simply not been exposed to concepts like the placebo effect, another reason I will generally refrain from mocking peoples beliefs to their faces. Look mods! I'm on topic!) would not said persons continued 'belief' in homeopathy become irrational, as they are now aware it has the same effect as snake oil?

Akrasia

I think that the so called placebo effect is really a conspiracy to hide the fact that sugar pills can help to cure almost anything.

Sugar is the wonder drug, and big pharma is tricking us al intol drink diet coke so that we all get sick and need to take their drugs

kate.m

Akrasia wrote: »

I think that the so called placebo effect is really a conspiracy to hide the fact that sugar pills can help to cure almost anything.

Sugar is the wonder drug, and big pharma is tricking us al intol drink diet coke so that we all get sick and need to take their drugs

O.o