A logical theory of illogicality ?

[Pabmusic]

...It does seem to me to be an odd part of the human race's hubris, self-importance and self-loathing that if anything big in the world of nature is going wrong, we positively rush to blame ourselves for it, and completely discount the possibility that we ain't doing it, it's being done to us! ...

The subject of this spent a long time dismissing the 'it's all our fault' argument. Until recently, that is ... http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...bon-pollution/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

[agingjb]

Isn't the Holocene extinction rather more significant than changes in the weather?

[LeMartinPecheur]

Isn't the Holocene extinction rather more significant than changes in the weather?

[LeMartinPecheur]

The subject of this spent a long time dismissing the 'it's all our fault' argument. Until recently, that is ... http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...bon-pollution/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/op...pagewanted=all

Thanks for the links Pabmusic: moves me a bit further from the (rational) sceptic position. Hasn't worked thus yet on Mrs LMP though!

[Roehre]

Re climate change sceptics, doesn't the term need some unpacking?

The term seems to include a) Those who question whether there is any significant climate change happening at all; b) Those who accept that significant climate change IS happening but question whether it is humanity's actions that are driving it.

I do not subscribe to a) but am keeping an open mind at present on b). But please note however that I do support action on climate change just in case we are to blame. And care over the use of carbon fuels is good house-keeping regardless of whether they're changing anything upstairs!

There seems to be an unstated assumption in much of the climate change debate that, left to its own devices, the climate would and should generate a flat, even graph, no change in sight. This is to discount well-documented periods of significant climate change in the historical record. The period of ice fairs on the Thames (18C?) is an obvious one. OK, brief cold periods are often linked to volcanic eruptions (can't recall if that's the standard explanation for the freezing Thames) but there are also long exceptionally warm periods (the Medieval Warm Period for instance which AFAIK seems just to happen, or might be linked to only dimly understood solar and earth's-solar-orbital cycles.

There is a c) too: those who accept climate change is happening and do accept that the human race is contributing, but are unsure regarding the actual impact of humanity on climate.

And: it even depends on the fact that "climatological data" are in many cases "running averages " over a set period of time, quite often as short as 30 years. But -as already mentioned- even within historic times -i.e. the last approximately 3 millennia- weather has changed dramatically. Given the short termish approach of many "climatological data", this means climate changes might be more the rule than the exception.

[MrGongGong]

Given the short termish approach of many "climatological data", this means climate changes might be more the rule than the exception.

Phew , so that's ok then for me to move to the Maldives ?

[Simon]

Fancy that! As if in response to my previous post, there's this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22241

Interesting. I know next to nothing about homeopathy, so I googled "Does homeopathy really work?" and came up with an interesting page of articles, including this one:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/15/homeopathy-works-scientific-evidence

It appears that for every scientist wanting to debunk it, there's another supporting it. The only way for such as me to assess it, it seems, if I wanted to, which I don't, would be to arrange my own properly-organised scientific trial!

[Sydney Grew]

. . . I had to grin a bit at the following:

"All scientists are sceptics: it is a healthy, everyday part of the process of systematically weighing up evidence and reaching a considered conclusion."

That's what scientists like to think they are, and indeed the better ones will aptly fit such a description. But there are also many scientists who are blinkered and narrow-minded, just as there are such people in many other walks of life. . .

You will be pleased to know, Simon, - if you did not already know it - that Goethe had much the same opinion of scientists:

"The most horrifying thing one has to listen to is the repeated assurance that the entire body of natural scientists share the same conviction about some subject. But he who knows men, will know how that comes about: good, capable, and bold minds hammer out such a view for themselves on the basis of the probabilities; then they win over adherents and pupils. A group of that kind acquires a literary power, the view is rated more and more highly, exaggerated, and even propounded with a certain passionate energy. And then hundreds upon hundreds of well-meaning, intelligent men who work in other disciplines, and who wish to ensure that their own field is lively and effective, distinguished, and respected - what would be better and more sensible for them to do than to leave the study of another discipline to the first group, and simply to assent to what does not affect themselves? And then the result is called 'universal agreement among scientists'."

[Pabmusic]

...It appears that for every scientist wanting to debunk it, there's another supporting it. The only way for such as me to assess it, it seems, if I wanted to, which I don't, would be to arrange my own properly-organised scientific trial!

Slight exaggeration.

There have been literally dozens of clinical trials. In general, none have been negative, but when homeopathic medicines have been tested beside placebos (sugar piils) there's no difference except cost. This is quite interesting: http://altmed.creighton.edu/Homeopat...e/efficacy.htm

Placebos can be very effective indeed, but doctors aren't allowed to use them (imagine the headlines "Quack gives sugar pills and says it's real drugs"). Here's Ben Goldacre: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...sciencenews.g2

And this deals well with the levels of dilution in homeopathy: http://www.quackwatch.com/01Quackery...ics/homeo.html Basically, the homeopathic medicines are diluted so much that there's probably not one molecule of the active ingredient left. They are therefore expensive sugar pills.

Sugar pills are just as effective and cost much, much less, but you generally have to be ignorant of their real contents.

[MrGongGong]

Interesting. I know next to nothing about homeopathy, so I googled "Does homeopathy really work?"

OH dear
It's made up
It doesn't "work"
Placebos DO
it's a dangerous fraud that somehow is allowed to continue (the whole malaria scam should be enough surely ?)
and how is Boots allowed to sell little bottles of sugar pills which have NONE of the substance indicated on the label ? If someone did that with beer it would be prosecuted

People have died taking this nonsense instead of the drugs that will save their lives ..........

http://www.merseysideskeptics.org.uk/2011/02/overdosing-on-homeopathy-theres-nothing-in-it/

[Simon]

Ah, thank you, GongGong. All questions answered, then.

I knew we could expect the definitive answer from such a knowledgeable, open-minded expert as yourself.

[heliocentric]

Homeopathy is a bit like creationism. If it were true, it wouldn't just affect a little bit of science, but the whole lot, since science is a huge interlocking network of interdependent elements: chemical reactions may be understood in terms of quantum physics, the functioning of living organisms and the mechanisms of heredity may be understood in terms of chemical reactions, the "origin of species by natural selection" and thus the evolution and diversity of all life on earth may be understood in terms of those mechanisms of heredity, and so on. If there were any validity in the idea of molecules being diluted out of existence but leaving some mysterious imprint on the diluting water, it would require this entire edifice (upon which rely not only our scientific theories but also most of the technology we take for granted) to be redesigned; and that in itself is a sign that it's probably wrong, before you think about experimental trials.

Revolutionary discoveries in science, from Pasteur to Einstein, haven't brought down the edifice but have created deeper and stronger links within it by creating explanations of seemingly disconnected phenomena. The pseudoscience of homeopathy has no connections with any other element in the scientific edifice and explains nothing. It was devised in the late 18th century by Samuel Hahnemann on the basis of a hunch, at a time when the atomic structure of matter, the basis of chemical reactions and the whole of biochemistry was not yet known. (Another of Hahnemann's hunches, published in 1803 under the title On the Effects of Coffee from Original Observations, was that many diseases - "constipation, impotence, dental caries, abscesses in children, pulmonary mucus, blue rings around the eyes, leucorrhea, ulcers, general megrim, nervous affections, chronic diseases, insomnia, stammering of speech, lack of appetite for food, ophthalmias, rattling in the chest, etc." - are caused by drinking coffee. This theory seems not to have gained many adherents.) Hahnemann himself seems to have been honestly devoted to solving the mysteries of disease and its treatment, but he had only a tiny fraction of the knowledge of the human body and its workings that we have now. For example, the idea of cleanliness as a guard against infection was first put into practice by Ignaz Semmelweis in 1847, four years after Hahnemann's death.

On the other hand, many homeopathic practitioners are highly skilled in putting together a picture of an individual's state of health, mainly because they generally take the time and trouble to find out far more about a person than a GP is able and/or willing to. As a result they're often able to identify conditions with more accuracy and give useful advice about diet, lifestyle and so on. But nobody should pretend that the "medicines" they offer have any efficacy beyond that of a placebo. I was already appalled that Cameron is so desperate that he would promote Jeremy, er, Hunt rather than abandoning him to the oblivion that his being Murdoch's government puppet should have consigned him to, but given that he confuses quackery with medicine it's maybe not surprising that he's on record as regarding the NHS as ripe for dismantling, having coauthored a book in 2005 advocating that policy.

Just in case anyone thinks I'm making this up, the book is called Direct Democracy: an Agenda for a New Model Party and I quote from page 78: "Our ambition should be to break down the barriers between private and public provision, in effect denationalising the provision of health care in Britain". The book can be downloaded as a pdf here:

http://www.douglascarswell.com/upload/upload13.pdf

[MrGongGong]

Ah, thank you, GongGong. All questions answered, then.

I knew we could expect the definitive answer from such a knowledgeable, open-minded expert as yourself.

No problem matey
now would you like to hear my Symphony ?

[Frances_iom]

Hunt is too much in league with big business for him to be allowed anywhere near the NHS - however he will probably do more damage than Lansley would have inflicted as he appears to be irrational in too many areas other than his own immediate self interest (but maybe this is the definition of a neoconservative tory ) - even the Torygraph seems to be habouring doubters - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/95...-hes-made.html

[Simon]

Hunt is too much in league with big business ... (but maybe this is the definition of a neoconservative tory)

It's the definition of most politicians, full-stop. With the honourable exception, probably, of Dennis Skinner and a few others.