(09-29-2012, 09:13 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]However, the thing to understand is that the scientific method does not so constrain in the least according to worldview or rational development for that matter.
You are right. The scientific method is neutral with respect to those, and could be successfully applied in any manner of contexts. But the knowledge obtained through the scientific method is constrained by empiricism and our instruments of measurement.
In my opinion, where the "skeptical inside-the-box, reductionistic mentality viewpoint" goes wrong is in the assumption that, if it cannot be measured or empirically tested, it does not exist. Which is also very interesting because that view presupposes a premise which, itself, cannot be measured or empirically tested. So it's another one of those little ironies of life.
There is a whole vast universe of knowledge that exists outside of what can be empirically measured. Certainly, many scientists are fully cognizant of this. But why aren't they the ones writing policy or textbooks?
Quote:I am very familiar with the profession of natural medicine.
What is the nature of your familiarity with it?
Quote:That's true, but there should be some type of accountability for the sake of the trusting patient/client. Without formal regulations, the burden is on the healthcare practitioner to provide appropriate advice and treatment, and also to dedicate themselves to continued learning about how to heal.
Well yes, there should be some accountability as a certain amount of trust and faith has been invested in the practitioner. If there is a breach of trust, or just plain malpractice, then there should be consequences. However, in many cases, where there have been moves at formal self-regulation of natural medicine, roadblocks are thrown up by the selfsame people who, at other times, in other contexts, decry the lack of regulation.
Quote:When it comes right down to it, pseudoscience is about making scientific claims without adequately describing or expressing the underlying principles.
Well yes, there is a problem when a claim is forwarded as "scientific" when it has no scientific basis. But again, there are many claims which are taken at face value in the "mainstream" scientific world which have never been proven, and yet are presented to the public as if they have.
I'm just using medicine here because it is the area which I have the most experience. But the same could be said of just about any scientific field, from physics and astronomy to geology and meteorology. The larger point is that so many scientists get frustrated with all the "woo" and pseudoscientific claims being made and yet miss the glaring hypocrisy caused by failing to take responsibility for their own misrepresentation of theories as facts.
Is this not, as with so many other things,
simply projection of what is denied within one's own consciousness onto the screen of the "other"?
Amongst themselves, scientists understand what is the prevailing theory. But to the public it is not made clear that so many things are still in the realm of theory, and not proven fact. This causes many problems, especially where politics becomes involved. It is precisely because some people actually do investigate things for themselves and learn that some idea which was presented to them as a "cold, hard fact", was never a fact at all, but simply an opinion which gained consensus status. And a shitty one at that.
Why should they trust anything anyone says after that happens?
Quote:Some idea may seem to have the potential to solve some problem, but scientifically that means literally nothing without a proper treatment.
Yes, that is true. But giving an idea a proper treatment takes time and money, and when certain ideas are summarily dismissed "out of hand" and never given a chance to be properly explored, there is often some funny-business going on in the background that has more to do with protecting somebody's profits, than the pursuit of truth.
At the very least, I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask what are the financial motives at play. But to this point, scientists only go so far to disclose who they are "for".
They do not declare who they are "against". It many, if not most, cases: They don't even
know who they are against. Has science come a long way in a short time in this regard? It could be argued yes. But it can also be argued that it is long past due for some severe overhauls in the manner with which science is conducted.
Case-in-point would be Tesla's demonstration of wireless power. Only now, 120 years later, is wireless power finally being developed. We could have had this technology over a century ago. It would have led to an entirely different course of history- one with likely much less sickness and war. And it will-
120 years after originally scheduled.
But it didn't happen back then because it would have cut to deeply into
somebody's bid for financial dominion over the earth. This is not some "BS conspiracy theory". Can it be ultimately proven? Maybe not. But IMO it is a likely reality- not at all surprising. And I would suggest that if the scientific community copped to at least the
possibility of these realities instead of poo-pooing and denying they are even possible, then we wouldn't have so many real "BS conspiracy theories" floating around to contend with.
Quote:While it is a difficult thing for one to write a proper science paper, it's an extremely easy thing for one to make a fantastic claim or to cry conspiracy.
Yes, it is easy to cry conspiracy. And it is even easier to act as if they simply aren't possible. Conspiracies can, and do, happen. Take the LIBOR scandal as another example. Just a few years ago, the idea that these banks were colluding to fix interest rates was widely considered nothing more than another nutjob conspiracy theory. Many even said that the structure of the financial system itself precluded this type of collusion from even being possible. And yet it was possible, and it did happen. And still all those naysayers and poo-pooers haven't grown the ballsacs to admit that they were very, very wrong.
For some, it doesn't matter how many actual conspiracies have come to light over the years, they will continue to deny that they exist in this very moment.
Now that's cognitive dissonance at its finest! 
Quote:"pseudoscience" to me (and I would say most working scientists) is not about something which has not yet been addressed by science or given a scientific treatment, it's about the manner in which claims are made.
Yes, there are certainly many out there who are making claims in completely inappropriate manners. I wouldn't argue that.
What I will argue is using a "strawman" technique where the worst possible examples of pseudoscience are deliberately sought out- even encouraged- and then reported back to the public as if they are somehow representative of the whole.
Thus we have a world where people are cautioned against vitamin C because of a few fringe-dwellers who were claiming they could cure cancer with it. Meanwhile, the public is still unconvinced that organic produce is a better choice for themselves, and for the planet.
Let's just say for shits and giggles that it turned out that vitamin C
did cure cancer. That is to say- whenever we finally
do figure it out, it will have been something that will be difficult to believe that we had missed the whole time. There's actually a great deal of uncomfortable emotion which would need to be processed in that sort of situation.
Imagine- the chagrin at having dedicated one's life to telling people that they needed to be sliced open, irradiated and poisoned in order to cure their cancer when it wasn't at all necessary. Watching it happen. Making it happen. Watching them die. Watching their families watch them die. Your community of peers watching you watching them die. Your spouse and your family watching you watching them die.
All of that negative emotion which was projected onto others which now has to be reclaimed and absorbed back into the self.
That's a lot to process. So there could be more than just financial motives going on here.
Quote:In order to give their alternative ideas credibility or authority people will often hijack some established concept of science (which their intuition vaguely suggests is somehow associated with their work) and ride with it. With art you can glue pieces together like that, with science you simply can't.
Yes, that is true. For example, there are a ton of practitioners out there (including MDs and DOs) claiming they can diagnose people with "quantum machines" that can supposedly read a person's subtle field and reliably determine what is wrong with their body. IMO this is complete quackery.
Quote:I would say that when you get down to some level, almost all have unknown mechanisms of action (protein behavior, receptor sites, etc really just know some kind of stimulus and response - we can't create these biological tissues and functions from scratch after all). Science is about creating the best models available and improving upon them, not about hiding what is unknown.
Well, yes. But you are kind of sidestepping my point. Which was that many scientific theories are portrayed to the public as if they were facts. That is not hiding the unknown, but rather falsely portraying that the unknown is known. Instead of saying, X is the commonly accepted or consensus view, it is simply portrayed as fact, and competing theories Y and Z are not even mentioned.
Quote:If you actually bother to look at those things which seem to be "ignored" by science, it's inevitably something not amenable to research due to lack of understanding.
Yes, that is true. But rather than scoff at and poopoo those things, why doesn't science just state that they are not amenable to research, and leave it at that?
Quote:This is regardless of what one's intuition may suggest as something which "holds great promise to all of humanity" and the number of followers of that individual.
Well, I will make no defense of charismatic intuitives and their throngs of mindless followers. I'm just suggesting that if the scientific community conducted themselves with greater integrity with respect to admitting what we don't know, and acknowledging that sometimes conspiracies do happen, it would leave less space for these types to gain a hold in the mass consciousness.
Quote:Many doctors are pragmatic when it comes to how to treat certain conditions and do not snub their noses at alternative treatments. There are biases in both professions, especially when one or the other course of treatment is not generally known to be effective or, the reverse, when it has been shown to be effective.
Yes.
Quote:The body is one of those areas which has been given a lot of attention to scientific study, but being a 2D system with time/space components, is extremely difficult to model. I agree that the shortcomings of western medicine are directly related to the lack of scientific understanding of the body.
Yes, but also a stubborn unwillingness to admit when it was wrong. Of all the sciences, medicine seems to suffer from this the most.
Quote:Great thing is that, for now anyway, you can simply go to another doctor.
Well, that is true in theory. But for most people it is not practical or financially feasible to keep seeking until they find the right doc. Plus, with all the smoke and mirrors, from all sides, it is exceedingly difficult for the average person to see through the BS and discern who is truly trustworthy.
