• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

CauseHealth: £1m Philosophy and Science project to better understand unexplained conditions like CFS

Messages
1,446
.
Professors of English Literature have already exploited our disease. In 2008 you could study 'Chronic Fatigue Syndrome' as a Hysterical Epidemic on MA Literature courses at Birkbeck and Reading universities.

The MA Course books - Andrew Motion's 'Diana', and Literature Professor Elaine Showalter's 'Hystories - Hysterical Epidemics and Modern Culture'...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hystories-H...UTF8&qid=1439019854&sr=8-1&keywords=hystories

"Daring and provocative" The Independent

Customer Review: "The book also covers modern forms of "mass hysteria", such as alien abduction, recovered memory and chronic fatigue syndrome, showing how easily people can be persuaded to believe that their problems are caused by some outside entity rather than looking at their own emotional problems or stresses"

"Excellent scholarly examination of late 20th century disease"
.
 
Last edited:

Jonathan Edwards

"Gibberish"
Messages
5,256
But they also have to write down the assumptions and hence acknowlegde them as beliefs. As I see it quite a lot of papers the assumptions are unclear. Having done quite a lot of mathematical modelling of various situations one of the big gains as to force people to carefully think through what assumptions they were making. Where people were disagreeing it often turned out they had different assumptions but until we applied a degree of rigour to their arguments that was not apparent.

Having said that its applied maths really rather than philosopy.

Maybe there are other ways to get people to think clearly but I worry about the reasoning and lack of acknowedgement of assumptions in some papers.

Yes, I don't thin philosophers think much about actual maths, although people like Russell wanted to use logic as a basis for maths. Philosophers are just interested in qualitative syllogistic arguments mostly. And as you say, and Wittgenstein said, most philosophy consists of people with different muddled ideas about what their premises mean talking at cross purpose. Almost the whole of late twentieth century philosophy can now be thrown in the bin because it has become clear that it was all nitpicking about meanings that did not apply in the context used.
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
Bad enough having to argue with psychoquackers, but philosophers can be even more infuriating / harder to pin down and counter with rational, evidence based arguments. Would anyone else like to use our illness as a vehicle to espouse their particular brand of pseudointellectual nonsense? Spiritualist mediums perhaps? Faerie believers? Please anyone feel free to blow a million pounds on your own publicity by linking your "study" to our illness.
I wrote a satirical blog some time ago that put forward that its all caused by evil spirits. You could just as easily write something about aliens, or the Illuminati.
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
Philosophers are just interested in qualitative syllogistic arguments mostly.
I was trained in symbolic logic a long time ago. One of the first things we were taught at a postgraduate level was a symbolic logic proof that symbolic logic is flawed. Things may have changed with new logics, but I doubt it.

Logic still has to pass a reality check. That is why both evidence and reason are so very important. Its very much yin and yang.
 

jimells

Senior Member
Messages
2,009
Location
northern Maine
Professor Kerry said:
‘It will focus on the care of people with complex, life-long conditions and seek to understand what causes these people to improve their health and wellbeing.’

Ummm, how about effective medical treatment from competent physicians?

(That will be $1,000,000 please)
 
Messages
5,238
Location
Sofa, UK
I was trained in symbolic logic a long time ago. One of the first things we were taught at a postgraduate level was a symbolic logic proof that symbolic logic is flawed. Things may have changed with new logics, but I doubt it.

Logic still has to pass a reality check. That is why both evidence and reason are so very important. Its very much yin and yang.
Sounds like maybe you're referring to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem? Plain English translation would be the following statement: "This statement cannot be proved". Is that statement true or false? If the statement is false, that means it can be proved - but that can't be right, because you clearly can't prove something that is false. So the statement must be true, but then it is true but it cannot be proved. Which is puzzling, because we just proved it! However, this is actually all correct: what actually just happened (strange as it seems) is that the proof of the statement had to come from outside of the logical system that contained it. The bottom line from this is that any consistent logical system you can construct inevitably has to have the property that there are statements you can construct within it that are true, but are impossible to prove (from within the logical system). Any consistent logical system is 'incomplete' in this sense: it contains statements whose truth you can't determine. It was indeed a devastating blow for logical philosophy, but I love it. :D

I actually think that we have an awful lot of philosophical discussions on this forum, and I think that's because the whole concept of the psychosomatic hypothesis really forces us into this territory. Mind and body, philosophy of science, what constitutes evidence and proof - these are things we discuss every day here. So it actually makes a lot of sense to me to suggest applying some clear and logical thinking to the 'scientific' literature on ME/CFS. I actually think it should be mandatory for scientists to pass courses in philosophy of science and ethics before they're allowed to publish scientific papers, and I also think that if people had more of that kind of training and disciplined thinking, they should be more able to see through the illogicality and spin that comes out of the BPS camp. So I can actually see how a philosophical examination of the literature on psychosomatism and 'false illness beliefs' etc could potentially yield some very worthwhile and helpful analysis. If that money came out of a pot that could otherwise be spent on worthwhile hard scientific research on ME/CFS, then sure, that's not a great use of that money. But otherwise, I'm quite relaxed about this project going ahead - it could potentially be quite interesting I think.
 

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
But otherwise, I'm quite relaxed about this project going ahead - it could potentially be quite interesting I think.

Have you read the blog of the author? Some of the content is similar to like a lighter version of the Wessely school rhetoric.

For example, about lower back pain:

The red line represents psychosocial and emotional factors with the positive prognostic factors (Now for Pink Flags! by Louis Gifford) on the front-left and the negative prognostic factors on the rear-right. Again, the continuum is broad and takes into consideration factors such as depression, loneliness, anxiety, guilt and outlook on life. I also use it in the context of what I determine as traits or states of the patient. How much are these factors contextual and changeable and how much are these factors are likely to be simply characteristics of the patient? Both require acknowledgement and management. States are modifiable; traits need to be managed. For example, an engineer who is a perfectionist and is frustrated and anxious is likely to be managed in a different way to an musician who has a different world view and a laid back attitude but has low mood. The engineer may want more information and therefore reconceptualization of the problem through pain education and relationships to movement as opposed to the insurance broker who responds to a careful assessment and permission to exercise through graded exposure. The context, as well as the degree of psychosocial factors, appears to be important. Completing a psychosocial prognostic measurement may inform the clinician as to the current status of the patient in this regard, but does little in respect in how to rehabilitate the patient.

https://mattlowpt.wordpress.com/201...the-management-of-lbp-a-personal-exploration/

I'm pretty sure that he will reach for psychosomatic explanations and "solutions" after concluding that the symptoms have no known cause and no proven medical treatment.

He also has a blog entry on the importance of language, where he suggests replacing dangerous words such as "chronic" with "sensation".

PS: I agree, language is important, but I think the correct language is simple and honest, not a deceptive attempt to secretly manipulate and control the patient.
 
Last edited:
Messages
5,238
Location
Sofa, UK
Have you read the blog of the author? Some of the content is similar to like a lighter version of the Wessely school rhetoric.

For example, about lower back pain:



https://mattlowpt.wordpress.com/201...the-management-of-lbp-a-personal-exploration/

I'm pretty sure that he will reach for psychosomatic explanations and "solutions" after concluding that the symptoms have no known cause and no proven medical treatment.

He also has a blog entry on the importance of language, where he suggests replacing dangerous words such as "chronic" with "sensation".

PS: I agree, language is important, but I think the correct language is simple and honest, not a deceptive attempt to secretly manipulate and control the patient.
Oh dear...in that case, clearly it's not a devastating critique of the philosophical flaws in the Wessely school's reasoning that's on the way - just £1m worth of philosophobabble. What a shame. :( I'd still like to see the psychobabble ripped to shreds by some intelligent philosophical analysis but I guess that's just wishful thinking...
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
Sounds like maybe you're referring to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem? Plain English translation would be the following statement: "This statement cannot be proved".
No, though I like that theorem. I think there are a whole lot of such theorems in symbolic logic, though Godel's is well known.

Its basically possible to prove any A is any B in symbolic logic (its been a long time, first order predicate calculus?). Or in other words, everything is the same. I forget the specifics, its been 22 years, but you can prove a triangle is a square. Or the other way around. Or substitute anything you want. The issue is that in representing things as abstract symbols you lose something in translation, and then you have to turn it back into language or real world understanding, or at least that is my understanding.

Or in other words, its a special case of the wider incompleteness theorem. First order logic does not necessarily give you consistent results when you translate to the real world.

Computers in effect use symbolic logic. Oops. GIGO is fundamental. Reality checks are so very important.

This is also why I think symbolic artificial intelligence is a pipedream. Nonsymbolic intelligence is however a given - our brains are nearly all nonsymbolic, but manipulate symbols as part of their higher function.
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
Mind and body, philosophy of science, what constitutes evidence and proof - these are things we discuss every day here. So it actually makes a lot of sense to me to suggest applying some clear and logical thinking to the 'scientific' literature on ME/CFS. I actually think it should be mandatory for scientists to pass courses in philosophy of science and ethics before they're allowed to publish scientific papers, and I also think that if people had more of that kind of training and disciplined thinking, they should be more able to see through the illogicality and spin that comes out of the BPS camp. So I can actually see how a philosophical examination of the literature on psychosomatism and 'false illness beliefs' etc could potentially yield some very worthwhile and helpful analysis.
I completely agree. In fact what you are discussing is in part what I wanted to do in my book, which is now on hold while my brain is in decline. You can read the psychogenic stuff and see fallacy after fallacy. Almost nobody says boo.
 
Messages
5,238
Location
Sofa, UK
No, though I like that theorem. I think there are a whole lot of such theorems in symbolic logic, though Godel's is well known.

Its basically possible to prove any A is any B in symbolic logic (its been a long time, first order predicate calculus?). Or in other words, everything is the same. I forget the specifics, its been 22 years, but you can prove a triangle is a square. Or the other way around. Or substitute anything you want. The issue is that in representing things as abstract symbols you lose something in translation, and then you have to turn it back into language or real world understanding, or at least that is my understanding.

Or in other words, its a special case of the wider incompleteness theorem. First order logic does not necessarily give you consistent results when you translate to the real world.

Computers in effect use symbolic logic. Oops. GIGO is fundamental. Reality checks are so very important.

This is also why I think symbolic artificial intelligence is a pipedream. Nonsymbolic intelligence is however a given - our brains are nearly all nonsymbolic, but manipulate symbols as part of their higher function.
I'm not aware of the findings you're describing, if you could point me at anything specific I'd be very interested. What you're describing overall sounds right to me (though any A equals any B sounds extraordinary). I'm fascinated by logic, but one of the things that fascinates me about it most is how it falls short of fully representing reality, and especially human experience and intelligence...it sounds like you're saying this gap has been proven?
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
I'm not aware of the findings you're describing, if you could point me at anything specific I'd be very interested. What you're describing overall sounds right to me (though any A equals any B sounds extraordinary). I'm fascinated by logic, but one of the things that fascinates me about it most is how it falls short of fully representing reality, and especially human experience and intelligence...it sounds like you're saying this gap has been proven?
I will see what I can turn up. I will start with a search, but otherwise I would have to reverse engineer the statement, and that might be beyond me right now. The issue is you can express something that is true in logic, but not in the real world.
 

redaxe

Senior Member
Messages
230
Great :rolleyes:- this sounds awful. Yet another bunch of academic psychobabblers trying to parasitize rare research dollars from us to advance their careers......

Why is philosophy even being considered as a useful tool to investigate disease in the 21st century.

Models of rational thinking have been around for centuries now so it really has hit a dead end - honestly what is there left for philosophy to do????
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
Why is philosophy even being considered as a useful tool to investigate disease in the 21st century.
I think the philosophy of science is badly underutilized. Its not useful for doing the research, what its useful for is criticizing the research. Bad research gets through in part because too many are unfamiliar with poor reasoning and how to detect it. Psychiatrists seem particularly susceptible to this, though I am aware that at least in part this is due to attitudes.
 

redaxe

Senior Member
Messages
230
I think the philosophy of science is badly underutilized. Its not useful for doing the research, what its useful for is criticizing the research. Bad research gets through in part because too many are unfamiliar with poor reasoning and how to detect it. Psychiatrists seem particularly susceptible to this, though I am aware that at least in part this is due to attitudes.

That is true - well if these guys want to spend a million dollars to investigate the ideology and scholarship of guys like Wessely than they have my blessing