+- Eyesight Improvement Forum (https://www.iblindness.org/forum)
+-- Forum: General Discussion (https://www.iblindness.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Bates Method (https://www.iblindness.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: Fallacies of the Scientific Method (/showthread.php?tid=267)
Pages:
1
2
Re: Fallacies of the Scientific Method - Minesweeper - 02-25-2007
READ SLOWLY. VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION.
The first half addresses problems with conventional medicine.
The second half addresses skeptics and researcher issues.
To begin, we'll look at the Constraints Analysis article, which was typed up by supporters of conventional medicine. It says:
"Their objections were overcome by demonstrating the possibilities of varied designs for trials and the possibility to quantify subjective parameters with the use of research methods from sociology."
Here you have conventional medicine saying they can use research methods from sociology, but it was not until recently that studies allowed limited psychological/sociological measures in medicine, at least in Italy and other westernized countries... it makes one wonder about conclusions we still rely on heavily based on studies before psychology was "considered a rigorous science like any other, in so far that it studies and explains human behavior according to rules of evidence and principle." ("limited" psychology allowed)
Citation: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.psicotraumatologia.com/biofeed.pdf ">http://www.psicotraumatologia.com/biofeed.pdf </a><!-- m -->
Citation(2): <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.psicotraumatologia.com/pdf/bibliografia_psicotraumatologia_psicologia_emergenza.pdf ">http://www.psicotraumatologia.com/pdf/b ... .pdf </a><!-- m --> (dates the biofeed.pdf article on p. 2)
However, there is no direct linear consistency so it makes it especially difficult to acquire measurable evidence in something that has to do with neuroscience. The Bates Method, in the sense of mental imprints leading to 'clear flashes', is based on the principles of neuroplasticity, a recently emerged field of neuroscience. When thoughts and emotions are a catalyst in creating results, they completely undermine any conclusive comparison between the outcomes for the ̬̉placebỏ̬ subjects and the experimental subjects in an RCCT. The success rate might differ greatly from person to person and it will be dismissed as placebo without taking into consideration the idiosyncrasies of neuroscience.
The biofeed.pdf file also states on p. 145, "...we would like to inform the reader that there is no direct, or simple, or linear consistency, between physiological and psychological systems. Furthermore, we know from available literature on the subject, that there is no clear boundary between sympathic and parasympathic activities, and this is because the two systems are independent and complementary."
"The fallacy of an assumption of simplicity" article states: "The conceptual basis of most RCCTs can also be seen to be dualistic. The impact of a ̬̉placebỏ̬ group of subjects as representing an effective ̬̉control̬̉ simply misconstrues the actuality of the placebo effect. Christiane Northrup, MD has provided us with this trenchant observation about the human organism: ̬̉Thoughts and emotions can either create or destroy healthy tissue.̬̉ This concept would completely undermine any conclusive comparison between the outcomes for the ̬̉placebỏ̬ subjects and the experimental subjects in an RCCT. Therefore, in order to have a prayer of getting a marketable result from an RCCT, the human body has to be conceived of as being entirely separate from the mind and from the emotions." One needs to understand that a dualistic approach isn't the same as an organismic approach. An organismic approach is different because it allows for isolation of the mind and emotions from the body, in which the mind and emotions act as a trigger or control center for regenerative and degenerative processes, that can lead to physical manifestion of healing processes or diseases.
The concept that ̬̉thoughts and emotions can either create or destroy healthy tissue" can be illustrated in the case of depressing thoughts (depression) weakening the immune system, leading to cardiovascular diseases and high blood pressure. Understanding differences between conventional medicine and unconventional medicine is like this: Western medicine = body <--> brain (mind being the same) while a holistic, organismic approach = body <--> mind (entirely separate from the brain) with very strong emphasis on the boldfaced direction going from the mind to the body. The boldfaced direction (going left) means the mind has the power to trigger or strengthen regenerative and degenerative processes which cannot always be controlled through attack-the-symptom, drug-based medicine.
The article further argues: "Because RCCTs are invariably designed within a mechanistic/dualistic rather than an organismic framework, there is no way around the consequence that the formulation of an issue to be tested will usually be flawed; or that, given the shortcomings of a reductionistic and mechanistic mind-set, the collection of data through observation and experiment will also be seriously flawed." What this hints is that a mechanistic/dualistic approach would be an inappropriate, incomplete approach for fields related to neuroscience.
Here is evidence on why an organismic approach is necessary.
Meir Schneider, who authors Movement for Self-Healing: An Essential Resource for Anyone Seeking Wellness, has been able to regenerate cartilage in arthritis patients (as doctors confirmed through lab x-rays) and medical opinion stands firmly against the idea of cartilage regeneration. Without addressing the mind entirely separately from the body, the cells may lack the "command" to repair any tissue, including cartilage. Both thoughts and emotions can "command" the cells to either begin or strengthen a regenerative or degenerative process. Schneider has cured several things that Western doctors cannot understand given their evaluation methods. He teaches his patients to visualize their healing processes. It has to be understood that medicine usually either masks or relieves the symptoms, instead of addresses the cause. There is a strong bias in the medical community that makes it favor attack-the-symptom, drug-based medicine.
The Constraints Analysis article also says:
-"It should be noted that many methods that are in use in conventional medicine today, even at university level, have not been evaluated sufficiently." (People need to know about this!)
-"It was agreed that a transition period should be allowed for methods that can look back on a long history of use and safety." (Hmm... long history of use and safety? It is a possibility incorrect procedures were in place, and conventional medicine has indirectly agreed to this by agreeing that a transition period should be allowed.)
-"In the end no articles could be accepted by both conventional and unconventional medicine representatives as meriting clinical consequences."
-"Some good quality studies on unconventional medicine with negative results have been completely ignored by the unconventional medical therapeutic community of that particular system because the therapist was "not good". This sort of argument only strengthens opponents of unconventional medicine in arguing against all future funding for unconventional medicine trials." (Interesting overall point. They also admit "good quality" studies have been done "in a negative sense", but other things interfered with those studies' own progress, leading to biased selection of studies by its own group; one thing they don't realize is it's difficult since some unconventional medicine procedures deal directly with the neurological system, requiring someone who has good understanding when it comes to dealing with other people's own neurological systems in non drug-based ways)
It can be very clearly concluded from all this that there are a lot of mixed feelings out there regarding research procedures, and why else would unconventional medicine professionals wage war against conventional medicine methods and write such a sensible article such as "the fallacy of an assumption of simplicity" if there weren't any merit to the unconventional methods? What needs to be understood that science is prone to ââ∠âswingsâââ¬ï¿½ of groupthink and this can lead to a trend of misinformation in the public, so itâââ‰â¢s an individualâââ‰â¢s job to decide what is acceptable by trying something and not being too dependent on a groupâââ‰â¢s way of thinking. This includes the scientific "facts" presented to us in higher educational institutions.
(continued...)
Re: Fallacies of the Scientific Method - Minesweeper - 02-25-2007
Skeptics say that they will not believe anything until they see the evidence for themselves. There seems to be nothing wrong with this rationale at first sight. But there is. What is wrong with this? How vulnerable are they? Read the following statement:
Healthy skepticism consists of questioning virtually everything, including one's own beliefs and entrenched cultural beliefs like the belief that the researchers manage to always get on top of matters and the belief that modern scientific evidence always supersedes any previous findings and is unassailable due to the "hierarchy of facts". There are good exceptions to the "hierarchy of facts" principle because flawed procedures and foundations which can last for decades or centuries can be subtle, deceiving, and cause incalculable and irreparable damage especially in surgical procedures.
Here is an example of an exception. Helmholtz's Theory of Accommodation (the foundation of our eye doctorsâââ‰â¢ beliefs), which goes back 152 years to 1855, was developed using candles. The first publicly demonstrated light bulb wasnâââ‰â¢t invented until 1879. And then this theory was not challenged by mainstream scientists (with the exception of Bates) for over 140 years. Even now, very few scientists have challenged it and when they do it's an "halfway" challenge, not considering all factors, because they are still doing the research from a "lens" perspective based on partial acceptance of Helmholtz's theory, without realizing there's something extra involved in the lens mechanism: the extrinsic eye muscles.
The extrinsic muscles' role in accommodation has been ignored for over 140 years due to this theory, which has resulted in perplexing intellectual bankruptcy in the science of optometry. The widely-held belief that Helmholtz's theory is certain and unassailable has rendered the extrinsic eye muscles a non-factor in the mechanism of eye accommodation, automatically disqualifying the extrinsic eye muscles from partaking in the research procedure. Why else did it take over 140 years before a few started looking into it? Due to this incomprehensible neglect, only a very few studies have ever been conducted on the muscles of the eyeball affecting lens accommodation. However, one such study by Richard McCollim has been found at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aarcolin4.net/1.html">http://aarcolin4.net/1.html</a><!-- m --> ... Read the 1-3 of the Conclusions at the bottom of the webpage.
If you look at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aarcolin4.net/4.html">http://aarcolin4.net/4.html</a><!-- m --> you get this shocking statement:
"To claim that myopes don't see well because their eyes are permanently focused for near vision is crazy, right? It is impossible that such a fact could have eluded generations of eye researchers, yet there is impressive evidence that this is indeed the case." If Helmholtz's theory is assailable, then so are its 'lens-based' surgeries like LASIK - addressing only the symptom, while the real disease remains elsewhere and causes degenerative vision loss. McCollim states, "An experiment in long-term compression of the globe of the eye produced a large increase in myopia" and "It is hypothesized that the cause of this effect was spherical aberration of the crystalline lens resulting from pressure of the superior oblique muscles." Have any eye doctors disproven this hypothesis? If so, you find the evidence and show me. Due to limited studies done on the extrinsic muscles' role in causing accommodation in the lens due to belief in Helmholtz's theory, it is very unlikely any conclusive studies have been done on this.
In the words of Barrie D Soloway, MD, FACS, Assistant Professor of the Department of Ophthalmology at New York Medical College:
"Presbyopia is one of the most common diseases affecting mankind. Donders' table predicts its incidence as universal when persons reach their mid 40s. Until the last decade, Helmholtz's theory implicating increasing lens rigidity was an unchallenged article of faith. Belief in this theory had prevented any method of reversing this disease." <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.emedicine.com/oph/topic729.htm">http://www.emedicine.com/oph/topic729.htm</a><!-- m --> (warning: graphical illustrations at bottom of page)
Then you have <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.i-see.org/eyeglasses_harmful/chap7.html">http://www.i-see.org/eyeglasses_harmful/chap7.html</a><!-- m --> which describes in detail why Helmholtz's theory is not scientifically sound. Despite the age of the text cited, it really has nothing to do with hierarchy of facts. The evidence just keeps piling up.
To recall what was said earlier, healthy skepticism consists of questioning everything. Skeptics do not usually question all of their own beliefs, and that does not make them intelligent skeptics; it is self-defeating and makes them vulnerable to brainwashing. In cultural anthropology, this is referred to as ethnocentrism. Theyâââ‰â¢ve been hoodwinked by assumptions. It seems irrational being skeptical in that way.
I have sufficient evidence that can reveal, even in a sentence sentence from their own lips, how the researchers fall into assumptions so easily. For example:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.us.cibavision.com/for_your_eyes/vision_library.shtml">http://www.us.cibavision.com/for_your_e ... rary.shtml</a><!-- m --> - You'll see this sentence: "exactly why eyeball shape varies is not known, but the tendency for farsightedness is inherited." Inherited? They donâââ‰â¢t know what causes differences in eyeball shape, yet they say presbyopia is hereditary. However, if the eye muscles are what causes change in eyeball shape, then that could probably do away with the presbyopia myth as well as our understanding of how the eye acquires diseases. Ask any eye doctor and they cannot give you a conclusive answer on what causes the eyeball shape to vary.
They may explain away by saying that genetics is what causes it. Someone told me, ââ∠âFaulty genes and modifications in genetic expression (how actively the information stored in a gene is transformed into a protein) is considered to be the leading cause of myopia and has an inheritance pattern which confirms a genetics etiology (cause).âââ¬ï¿½
But thereâââ‰â¢s a problem with this. There are studies which have been done on Eskimos that suggest otherwise.
Evidence:
Young, F., Baldwin, W., Leary, G. and D. West. 1969. âââ‰â¬ÂThe Transmission of Refractive Errors within Eskimo Families.ââ∠â American journal of optometry and archives of American Academy of Optometry 46: 676-685.
ââ∠âThis is the most cited paper in the regarding myopia. The paper is a classic and discusses how a small Eskimo community had a sharp increase in myopic individuals. Early generations had a very low prevalence of myopia but the generations that were introduced to modern schooling and activities showed a significant increase in myopia. 1.5% of the population 41+ years old has myopia, whereas 51.4% of people ages 11-40, who had attended modern schooling, have myopia. Young et al. has sets the stage for present myopia discussion regarding the evolutionary development of myopia. Between genetic and environmental factors, Young et al. finds that environmental factors play a larger role in causing myopia.âââ¬ï¿½
Link 1: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://domingo.zoology.ubc.ca/isci350/AnnotatedBiblios/MyopiaBiblioFinal.pdf">http://domingo.zoology.ubc.ca/isci350/A ... oFinal.pdf</a><!-- m -->
Link 2: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=5265188&dopt=Abstract">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract</a><!-- m -->
The Eskimo study reveals that genetics may not be as significant a role in vision problems as we originally thought. The evidenceâââ‰â¢s right there in how the eyesight of a younger generation (11-40 yrs old) abruptly became myopic by an astonishing percentage and was worse than its predecessors (41+ years old) once the younger generation started attending modern schooling. There is compelling reason to believe that myopia (and possibly other refractive errors) is not mostly genetic, but mostly epigenetic instead.
I could reveal more evidence of how misassumptions are formed, and how researchers seem to come to faulty conclusions. People tend to get confused easily, and even if the researchers themselves say that something is unknown, other researchers or doctors may distort the facts and misinform the general public. This can be demonstrated through the "telephone game". This applies to all humans, and shows how misinformation easily is created even among scientists when they communicate information to each other.
Citation: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers</a><!-- m -->
Citation(2): <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wjbeaty">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wjbeaty</a><!-- m --> (evidence that it happens to our scientists, and information is being distorted in academic physics and electricity. Look through the links at bottom of page for evidence presented by famous scientists like Richard Feynman about this problem at the top levels of science)
Citation(3): <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.fotuva.org/feynman/what_is_science.html">http://www.fotuva.org/feynman/what_is_science.html</a><!-- m --> (For those who do not know who Richard Feynman was, here is what he's recognized for. He assisted in the development of the atomic bomb, expanded the understanding of quantum electrodynamics, translated Mayan hieroglyphics, and cut to the heart of the Challenger disaster. In this article, he says, "The experts who are leading you may be wrong. I have probably ruined the system, and the students that are coming into Caltech no longer will be any good. I think we live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television--words, books, and so on--are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science.")
Citation(4): <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html ">http://amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html </a><!-- m --> (It is as important to read as "the fallacy of an assumption of simplicity" article. It begins, "This article addresses and attempts to refute several of the most widespread and enduring misconceptions held by students regarding the enterprise of science. The ten myths discussed include the common notions that theories become laws, that hypotheses are best characterized as educated guesses, and that there is a commonly-applied scientific method. In addition, the article includes discussion of other incorrect ideas such as the view that evidence leads to sure knowledge, that science and its methods provide absolute proof, and that science is not a creative endeavor. Finally, the myths that scientists are objective, that experiments are the sole route to scientific knowledge and that scientific conclusions are continually reviewed conclude this presentation.")
Citation(5): <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.socialtext.net/insna-socnet/index.cgi?telephone_game ">http://www.socialtext.net/insna-socnet/ ... game </a><!-- m --> (includes several links to research papers done on the "telephone game" concept)
Citation(4) reveals, "Unfortunately, while such a check and balance system would be useful, the number of findings from one scientist checked by others is vanishingly small. In reality, most scientists are simply too busy and research funds too limited for this type of review.
The result of the lack of oversight has recently put science itself under suspicion. With the pressures of academic tenure, personal competition and funding, it is not surprising that instances of outright scientific fraud do occur. However, even without fraud, the enormous amount of original scientific research published, and the pressure to produce new information rather than reproduce others' work dramatically increases the chance that errors will go unnoticed."
From all this, it can be very reasonably concluded that conventional medicine research is not free from bias and unnoticed errors. This has a direct, disastrous effect on conventional medicine arguments against 'alternative methods' such as the Bates Method.