Empirical Science

[Hip]

This thread was started from posts that initially appeared in the thread, COVID19 and Melatonin.

Before making this assumption, you might want to review some of the 102 references attached to the bottom of the article.

It's not an assumption: there's just no evidence I could find showing melatonin will help with SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus infection, meaning there are no clinical trials or even anecdotal case histories showing it helps.

The article author, who incidentally is pianist by profession, not a scientist, provided some arguments for why melatonin might help. That's not the same as a clinical trial which shows it does.

And sometimes in clinical trials, something which was designed to help turns out to make things worse.

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

The article author, who incidentally is pianist by profession, not a scientist,

Einstein was employed in the patents office, and a postal worker as was Dickens, Tom Lehrer (a respected world-class mathematician and lecturer at Harvard) was a musician and songwriter, and there are other examples, but fighting against ME/CFS, a mod case of what responds to tick all the boxes on all the symptoms of COVID-19, and massive fatigue and brain fog, I can;t summon them right now.

Hopefully, you'll take my word for it, even tho I just a member of PR with no particular official credentials

 

[Hip]

Yes, but even Einstein was generally not believed until solid evidence for his theories had sufficiently accumulated, which took about 50 years. In science you generally do not assume anything is true until there is good evidence. And that rule applies even to the geniuses.

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

Yes, but even Einstein was generally not believed until solid evidence for his theories had sufficiently accumulated

His theories, including The Special Theory and The General Theory of Relativity, along with a paper he wrote when he was 14, were immediately accepted by almost the entire scientific community, the latter being lauded as a brilliant hypothetical that could never be proved, but showed the depth of his intellect and brilliance.

Along with his Theories of Relativity, it forged the basis for quantum physics, or quantum mechanics, something that was supported and believed even without solid proof. This in turn led to his lifelong search for a provable equation for his Unified Theory, still ongoing and undertaken by every scientific mind with the capacity to follow his equations.

 

[Hip]

His theories, including The Special Theory and The General Theory of Relativity, along with a paper he wrote when he was 14, were immediately accepted by almost the entire scientific community, the latter being lauded as a brilliant hypothetical that could never be proved, but showed the depth of his intellect and brilliance.

You certainly know your physics history! It's a subject I had some interest in too, as that was the area of my BSc study, so nice to discuss it.


I am not sure about the special theory, which is easier to understand, but for the very difficult general theory, it was famously said that only three people in the world understood it!

During one of Eddington's lectures he [ Silberstein] asked: "Professor Eddington, you must be one of three persons in the world who understands general relativity."

Eddington paused, unable to answer.

Silberstein continued: "Don't be modest, Eddington!"

Finally, Eddington replied: "On the contrary, I'm trying to think who the third person is."

Source: here



I am not too clear on the uptake and acceptance of the general theory in various quarters, but I know that in the 1970s, when the US GPS satellite navigation system was first launched, the GPS engineers were very skeptical about the idea that the lower gravity and high velocities of Earth orbit could possibly affect the very flow of time, as both theories of relativity predict.

So the GPS engineers hedged their bets, and in the GPS software they placed in the GPS satellites, they set up two versions of the software: one based on the standard Newtonian constant flow of time, and the other based on the variable flow of time predicted by relativity.

Because GPS relies of very precise time signals, these issues were critical. The idea was that the engineers would wait until the satellites were in orbit, and then they would see if Einstein was really right.

And of course it turned out that relativity was correct, so the engineers flipped a switch to activate the software that was based on relativity.

So this shows that even in the 1970s, not everyone had confidence that relativity was correct.

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

I am not too clear on the uptake and acceptance of the general theory in various quarters, but I know that in the 1970s, when the US GPS satellite navigation system was first launched, the GPS engineers were very skeptical about the idea that the lower gravity and high velocities of Earth orbit could possibly affect the very flow of time, as both theories of relativity predict.

Astonishing and kind of appalling, but that's human nature for 'ya ....

So this shows that even in the 1970s, not everyone had confidence that relativity was correct.

If I'm remembering right, and who knows, the staffing of both NASA and space engineering was predominantly drawn from the ranks of the Brilliant Young Turks from MIT, Stanford, etc, which was fortunate for us, because a lot of them are still around, shaking their heads at some of what they regard as the grotesque mistakes being made currently, and quite possibly available for future drafting ....

But on the flip side, the young are often quick to dismiss "old" theories that they haven't really dug into, and how many people can really dig in to Einsteins Generl Theory, as you pointed out ....

All of this fascinates me. Stuff like Schrodinger's Box and E=MC2 and quantum physics are my version of counting sheep. I know I'll never fully grasp them down to the root as it were, but it keeps the brain from going to sleep, while simultaneously putting it to sleep. Quantum physics at work, more or less .....

 

[Wayne]

In science you generally do not assume anything is true until there is good evidence.

It's generally assumed this approach is the great strength of science. I consider it to be one of its most glaring weaknesses, at it seems to throw the art of critical thinking out the window. The story of the doctor who advocated for washing hands before delivering a child is a notable example. Here's a link to an article from NPR which tells the story well: -- The Doctor Who Championed Hand-Washing And Briefly Saved Lives

The article describes how Ignaz Semmelwei methodically traced down the reason for so many deaths at a childbirth clinic, and eventually discovered it was because the doctors would do autopsies, and then go deliver a baby without washing their hands. I'd heard of this story before, but never knew the details. The opening paragraph sums up the problem in science at the time, a problem I see being repeated all to often in these times as well.

This is the story of a man whose ideas could have saved a lot of lives and spared countless numbers of women and newborns' feverish and agonizing deaths. ​

​

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

The story of the doctor who advocated for washing hands before delivering a child is a notable example.

I'm not going to read the story, I already know it, and it always makes me cry. At the waste, the stupidity, and at Dr Semmelweiss's tragic, appalling end ....

The article describes how Ignaz Semmelwei methodically traced down the reason for so many deaths at a childbirth clinic,

The thing that sparked his curiosity was that the clinic in question, with the numbers of childbirth and infant deaths, was the clinic that catered to wealthy women. The one that had the much lower death count was the poorer clinic, which mde no sense to him.

That got him thinking, and sniffing around for an answer. It didn't make any sense, at least no sense in the received wisdom of the day.

And you;re right ..... that kid of inventive intellectual curiosity and thoughtful consideration is almost completely absent in the current research/scientific/medical structure, replaced by greed and fear.

Not sure there's a cure for something that so many are making so much off of.

 

[Wayne]

Not sure there's a cure for something that so many are making so much off of.

@YippeeKi YOW !! -- I've got an idea for a good start. Repeal the ruling that allows government workers to profit from their research discoveries. To the best of my understanding, this rule went into effect in the early 1980's to allow researchers to copyright various things the've developed in government labs, and then of course to profit from them. The whole orientation of givernment research changed literally overnight, from doing research that might benefit society at large, to research that would benefit the researcher.

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

Repeal the ruling that allows government workers to profit from their research discoveries.

HALLELUJAH !!!

And it's even worse than that.

In order to get full support from the scientific and especially the medical community for their 'discovery', there are literally sometimes THOUSANDS of Drs and low-to-middle level researchers who are also signed on to that vaccination or medical parts (like stents, knee replacements, etc) 'discovery', so that every time it sells, and those who profit from it make sure it sells, they get royalties, sometimes in the 100's of thousands a year. Sometimes more.

This is why so many of the 'life saving' vaccinations turn out to have side-effects ranging from the unpleasant to the life threatening. Not all of them, but enough so that I'm not entirely happy about spinning that chamber and hoping that the one that fires doesnt have the bullet in it.

The whole orientation of givernment research changed literally overnight, from doing research that might benefit society at large, to research that would benefit the researcher.

.... and along with that, much of the medico/scientific community.

It's a sorry little world. And we let it get that way. We can take it back, but it'll require real effort during election cycles to research all the candidates, not just the ones for the big offices, but the smaller ones, where benches are built up for future use.

 

[Hip]

It's generally assumed this approach is the great strength of science. I consider it to be one of its most glaring weaknesses, at it seems to throw the art of critical thinking out the window.

The only truth in science comes from empirical evidence, ie, the evidence of observation. Any scientific theory has to be judged in the court of empirical evidence, and a theory or idea hangs in limbo until its truth or falsity is judged by empirical observation.

No scientific theory can ever be proved true using pure logic or reason; it's only empirical evidence that decides upon scientific truth or falsity. Or as it is sometimes said, in science, nature is the ultimate arbiter of truth. By nature it is meant the observable physical world.

In this respect, science differs from mathematics, as in the latter, truth is decided by reason alone, completely independently of empirical evidence. That's often why pure mathematicians and logicians love their subjects, because they are the only disciplines in which truth is arrived at completely independently of the physical world. Pure mathematicians really like the fact that their subject is not sullied by the grimy and imperfect physical world.

But scientists' subject of study is the physical world, so they cannot ignore it.



You bring up the story of Semmelweis to support the view you are proposing that empirical observation is one of the "most glaring weaknesses" of science, but Semmelweis employed the full methodology of science, both theoretical ideas and empirical observation.

He theorized the existence of germs through reason alone; but he also proved his theory empirically by introducing hand washing into his maternity ward, which dramatically reduced the number of maternal deaths. So Semmelweis was well aware of the two pillars of science, and employed them both adeptly.

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

you are proposing that empirical observation is one of the "most glaring weaknesses" of science

@Wayne was proposing that the lack of it, at least on this side of the pond, is the problem.

Semmelweis employed the full methodology of science, both theoretical ideas and empirical observation.

The full methodology of science at that time had allowed doctors to dissect rotting corpses, slick and gelatinous with infection and bacterial decay, and then, without a second thought, go and shove those same unwashed and undisinfected hands into an agonizing mother's birth canal and all over the newborn.

Few survived this treatment, but no one before Semmelweis, using his logic and powers of observation and willingness to suspend his devotion to the received wisdom, had bothered to even notice it, let alone give it any extra thought.

Semmelweis didn't use the exisiting methodology, he used his sharp intellect, common sense, keen observation, and ability to connect the dots. His thanks for that was being ostracized and driven from the medical community he'd tried to bring into the light, and the practice that he'd lived and fought for.

Some things never change.

The only truth in science comes from empirical evidence, ie, the evidence of observation.

Which is exactly what Semmelweis used. The other Drs had apparently never heard of it.

Any scientific theory has to be judged in the court of empirical evidence, and a theory or idea hangs in limbo until its truth or falsity is judged by empirical observation.

By what court? By whose empirical observation? Who writes the final paper, who approves or disapproves? Who gives the deciding imprimatur?

Clearly, the Drs in power at the time of Semmelweis' desperate pleas for the minimal effort of just washing the putrefaction off their hands before entering the birth chamber disagreed with him.

And we know what followed.

Le plus ca change, and sorry, no French keyboard ....

Maybe things are different in the UK, but over here, everything that Wayne wrote has been backed up by investigative reports, which in turn are backed up with proof.

Because I'm fighting this virus, and ME, and looming financial annihilation, and other problems of a tedious and quotidian, but potentially devastating nature, I don't have the reserves to dig around and prove it to you.

But maybe you could suspend your disbelief just long enough to consider, "Well, maybe ....." ???

 

[percyval577]

No scientific theory can ever be proved true using pure logic or reason; it's only empirical evidence that decides upon scientific truth or falsity.

It´s even worse, strictly taken also a well accepted theory could be proven to be wrong, may it be a theory about space and time or cancer: There could come up one example of a concrete subject in our world that would not be explained by the theory. It cannot be logical excluded.

Therefore, "true theories" are only best theories, even in case they have been - hopefully - validated by empirical data.

Interestingly this goes also for the acts of simple perception (including data for complex theories), you can principially never be sure that your judgement you are doing is true, it could be a failure, and only because every thing may fit together nicely, we can trust. This can be illustrated by dreams which are as lively as our - obviously real - perceptions, but never fit together on the longer run.

A difference being here of course, that simple perceptions only claim something "here and now" and no generality.

--

Nevertheless the melatonin theory is a very interesting one. And it´s ever a good idea to think in more thin guesses like also in everyday´s life, and never to rely only on "really certain things", you might end up in paralysis or dissapointed.

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

Nevertheless the melatonin theory is a very interesting one. And it´s ever a good idea to think in more thin guesses like also in everyday´s life, and never to rely only on "really certain things", you might end up in paralysis or dissapointed.

I completely agree with both parts of your statement above, and .....

WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN @percyval577 ????

I thought that you just got tired of the Thread Gnomes, it took me awhile (am working with extra layers of fog and flop) to realize that it wasnt just the Train Your Brain thread, you didn't seem to be posting anywhere .... really glad to see you back !!!! Especially in these uncertain times ....

 

[Hip]

@Wayne was proposing that the lack of it, at least on this side of the pond, is the problem.

In response to my statement: "In science you generally do not assume anything is true until there is good evidence", @Wayne said "it's generally assumed this approach is the great strength of science. I consider it to be one of its most glaring weaknesses".

Thus @Wayne says he considers the process of assessing a theory using empirical evidence, one of the main pillars of science, to be a glaring weakness of science.

Semmelweis didn't use the exisiting methodology, he used his sharp intellect, common sense, keen observation, and ability to connect the dots. His thanks for that was being ostracized and driven from the medical community he'd tried to bring into the light, and the practice that he'd lived and fought for.

Prior to the rediscovery of the Greek texts, Europe languished in the dark ages, where there was very little logical or scientific thought, because everyone was steeped in religious ideas and religious teaching. Few thought scientifically at that time, because the methodologies of science and logic in a sense are not "natural" ways of thinking, but have to be taught.

The Greek texts — Aristotle, etc — when they were rediscovered in the Middle Ages re-educated Europe in how to think logically and scientifically. They were like downloading a new piece of software that gave Europe great new capabilities in thought and understanding.

Semmelweis and everyone else in Europe from the Renaissance onwards owes their ability to think logically and scientifically to these Greek texts, and the methodology they contain. Had they not been rediscovered, Europe and the rest of the world might still be languishing in the dark ages today.

His thanks for that was being ostracized and driven from the medical community he'd tried to bring into the light, and the practice that he'd lived and fought for.

Semmelweis appeared to have a mental breakdown, and was placed in an asylum. Had he remained sane, things might have been different.

Being smart in hindsight is always easy, but the idea of invisible entities existing on the hands of doctors and causing disease must have sounded a little outlandish at the time, especially coming from a man whose mental health was in question.

It's actually a testament to scientific thinking that germ theory was also discovered and demonstrated by other scientists around about the same time, and became accepted.

 

[percyval577]

@YippeeKi YOW !! glad that you agree!

WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN @percyval577 ????

I stopped searching for further papers and their proposed facts, instead I slowly clean my flat, and make slowly for returning to work - but it seems that now the world slows down, and maybe there won´t be any work?

I also still have trouble with the computer, so this is limiting as well. This makes that I even stick to tv somehow when looking at news. The malatonin theory though is only via internet available, I think.

All the best to you and to all of you!

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

In response to my statement: "In science you generally do not assume anything is true until there is good evidence", @Wayne said "it's generally assumed this approach is the great strength of science. I consider it to be one of its most glaring weaknesses".

Thus @Wayne says he considers the process of assessing a theory using empirical evidence, one of the main pillars of science, to be a glaring weakness of science.

I think that you may be misinterpreting @Wayne. I read it as his statement that THE LACK of that was what had ruined American research and development in the medical, medications, and treatment fields.....

We'll have to wait to hear from @Wayne to find out which was what ....

The point I am making is that Semmelweis knew the importance of offering empirical evidence to support his theory, and was able to provide such evidence.

And a lot of good it did him. Challenging the status quo and the popular misconceptions that supported a large proportion of the income finding its way into various pockets has never really been a one way ticket to paradise ...

Received wisdom is hard to beat back, no matter your empirical evidence, poof, or good intentions, as poor Semmelweis discovered ....

Prior to the rediscovery of the Greek texts

Europe languished in the dark ages,

Do you mean Late Antiquity? Or post Late Antiquity? Similar, but really two different animals ....

Had they not been rediscovered, Europe and the rest of the world might still be languishing in the dark ages today.

Sad news for the Irish monks who, for generation after generation, patiently labored in often difficult and uncomfortable surroundings, and copied every ancient script they could find in order to bring light and education to an ever-darkening world. Their libraries were the earliest Google ....

Would love to go into this at greater depth because history, and particularly Greco-Roman history, and the footprints that both left on a world still operating under, and enjoying the benefit of, many of their gifts, is a minor passion of mine, but I'm just falling apart and feeling sicker and sicker right now. And I haven't been able to eat or hold anything down for over a week, so am a little physically .... what's the word .... flucked, I think. Yeah, that's the one.

I know that some rest and a good night's sleep will tune me right up, so can I come back with a fully functioning brain and maybe having been able to hold down some breakfast sometime later today or early tomorrow?

All I said is that it seems clear from @Wayne's statement that he does not appreciate how vitally important empirical observation is in science. Using empirical evidence to test theories is not a glaring weakness of science, it is science's most fundamental asset.

Again, I think that may be a misunderstanding of @Wayne's intent with that statement, which I understood to be that it was not that empirical evidence and the testing of theories was in itself a glaring weakness, but that the lack of it in US medical research and development labs since about 1980 had created an almost gladiatoril arena of greed and self serving.

Semmelweis appeared to have a mental breakdown, and was placed in an asylum.

It is believed in a lot of impressive circles going back quite a few years now that Semmelweis was hounded into a complete physical breakdown, and had a mental breakdown.

Semmelweis wouldn't shut up or stop trying to force his hard won, and by his lights ( and I'm guessing yours, mine, and @Wayne's) critical, life-changing, and laudable discovery and proof of the connection between badly contaminated Drs hands and the mountain of dead bodies that that practice had left behind, and turn it into real socio-medical change.

And he paid the price that pretty much every social innovator, in whatever field, has paid since time immemorial.

More later, yes? Fading really badly ...

Stay well !!!

 

[Wayne]

Thus @Wayne says he considers the process of assessing a theory using empirical evidence, one of the main pillars of science, to be a glaring weakness of science.

@Hip, to clarify (and maybe I didn't make this clear enough in my original post), the glaring weakness I referred to is when the process of assessing a theory using empirical evidence is done at the expense of using good judgment and good critical thinking, and is unduly influenced by the profit motive, which is all too often the case (almost always these days).

To further clarify, most people assume that when their doctor makes a health recommendation, it's based on it being the best treatment--based on empirical evidence. And that it the safest, least expensive, most effective, etc. treatment available. But the way our system is set up, that's rarely the case. So patients often get a treatment that is dangerous and/or ineffective (and costly), even though it's assumed that the empirical evidence supporting it was gathered with utmost ethics and intregrity, and would reasonably be assumed to be the best treatment available.

Much of the medical research that takes place these days is incredibly skewed by the intent of the researchers and funders of research. Are you aware a lot of research is only approved and/or funded after it becomes clear what the researcher is either trying to prove or disprove? Are you aware that this dynamic is what set back research into the medicinal value of cannabis for decades? If a researcher made a proposal which sought to look for any medicinal values of cannabis, not only would it be highly unlikely to get funded, but it could possibly be the "kiss of death" to their career as well.

This type of skewing seems to be especially pervasive when it comes to any kind of natural, safe, effective, inexpensive therapy, such as cannabis, vitamin C, DMSO, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if DMSO could become the best selling and profitable "drug" of all time--if only it could be patented. Since it can't, very few people know much about it. -- Obviously, I could go on and on, but I really don't have any interest in debating points that strike me as being too far afield from what I'm trying to say.

Last I heard, Gilead has added $12B to its market capitalization since it became known they're working on a certain drug treatment for the coronavirus. It's obvious why Gilead and other for profit company try to develop new profitable drugs, and ignore safe, effective alternatives that have already been shown to be effective. I'm (relatively) OK with that, but I think people should be aware that some of the best and safest potential treatments will never be researched. Because of this lack of research, medical care consumers often lack the best array of choices to choose from--because some of them don't have some kind of "scientific validation". -- That's a problem.

 

[Wayne]

To further clarify on why we should be cautious when people say science proves this or that, below is the introduction to a new article on ProHealth. I haven't read the book they link to, but the title makes me think the author agrees with me that there's a lot of " Bad Medicine and Lazy Science" out there, effecting people in real ways. I have a high regard and respect for good "science based science", but little tolerance for "non-science based science". Way too much of bad science is passed off almost as gospel. Examples are almost innumerable.
-

Many diseases that primarily affect women have been considered “purely psychological” by medicine just because the physical origins of the conditions aren’t yet understood, suggests Maya Dusenbery, writer, editor, and author of Doing Harm: The Truth About How Bad Medicine and Lazy Science Leave Women Dismissed, Misdiagnosed, and Sick.​

​

With it’s long road to legitimacy, fibromyalgia is one such condition. It affects primarily women; an astonishing 75% to 90% of fibromyalgia patients are female. And, before the 1990s, fibromyalgia was widely believed to be a psychological phenomenon, with no organic, physical cause.​

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

@Wayne
Thank you for chiming in here. You're supporting everything I said in my clarifications to Hip above, who I think completely misunderstood where you were coming from ....