1. Registering for the Forum

    We require a human profile pic upon registration on this forum.

    After registration is submitted, you will receive a confirmation email, which should contain a link to confirm your intent to register for the forum. At this point, you will not yet be registered on the forum.

    Our Support staff will manually approve your account within 24 hours, and you will get a notification. This is to prevent the many spam account signups which we receive on a daily basis.

    If you have any problems completing this registration, please email support@jackkruse.com and we will assist you.

Philosophy Of Science Of Medicine

Discussion in 'Beginners Area' started by KalosKaiAgathos, Nov 7, 2018.

  1. KalosKaiAgathos

    KalosKaiAgathos New Member

    Saw this link coming by on Facebook:

    The Year’s Most Important Study Adds to Uncertainty in Science

    The article claims that researchers in medicine, by analyzing the same data, end up using very different statistical methods which lead to different results (and perhaps end up with different results by using the same statistical methods).

    My Facebook comments on the article were the following:

    "Thanks for this article. Eye-opening.

    Gives credence to my thesis that truth is always provisional from a philosophy of science perspective. Many "givens" that are blindly accepted in science today - such as "indubitable" conclusions in medicine - will probably consider half-truths or falsehoods 100 years from now.

    Additionally, this article rigorously questions (or better: nail in the coffin of) the entire hypothetico-deductive model that underlies science. Why? If several different statistical methods can be used to test the same data--statistical methods which are incommensurable and which lead to different results--then I don't think logical deductions OR inductions rule this step of the scientific process. One rather ends up with an abduction (which is logically far more dangerous), as there is no straightforward method to determine whether one needs a Bayesian analysis or multivariate regression...

    I could write down another 10 thoughts on the subject matter, but will end here.

    Thanks :) "
     
  2. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Perspective colors what is believed and published.

    HOW PERSPECTIVE OPERATES in SCIENCE: How you see the world defines the lens you see things through. Black Swans always take the skeptic position. Science is the culture of doubt, not belief or religion.



    A. I define quackery as bypassing the scientific process and peer review to promote alternative theories to the public that are at odds with the consensus view in fields in which one is not an expert. I don't care how smart you are. If you do that, you are a quack.



    B. I define quackery as obscuring the scientific process by hijacking the methodology and peer review process to promote profiteers interests. This allows continued support of alternative theories to the public that profiteers can keep selling into. These methods are at odds with the consensus view of paradigms in fields. A consensus is not part of the scientific process; science is anticonsensus. When you create science for your patron you are not an expert. I don't care how smart you think you are based upon your Ph.D. If you do that, you are a quack.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    This topic interests me because we use the RCT and call it the gold standard but then......QED underpins all of nature and it rejects RCT and determinism of cause and effect because it is based on probability. One is right and the other is religion......your perspective determines which one you believe.
     
  4. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Today's science is as shaky as the geocentric theory of the solar system or that Santa Claus is real......but when I say something like this it seems so hyperbolic people think I am being funny........and I am not. It is true.

    What is the most important question to the Black Swan: the pursuit of science or how science is perceived? Thoroughly conscious ignorance always exists before any real wisdom is obtained. Your perception frames your focus. Not only does the earth revolve around the sun but all life itself revolves around the sun and the science of light, but you'd never know this from the PEER reviewed literature. So.....how good is the evidence in a journal?? The wise learn the words "I don't know" are interchangeable with "surrender with an attitude of wonderment" and "allow the possibility”. When you become wise you always realize it is what we don't know that is most critical in resolving the present paradox in science.

    Why is common sense rarely a part of the scientific method anymore? It seems natural to some to think that living things must be the toiling of a celestial architect. But at one time it was also common sense to think that the sun went around the earth. Overcoming naive impressions linked to common sense and have the discriminative intellect to figure out how things really work is one of humanity's highest callings. People engaged in nature realize that common sense is often a path to idiocy because knowledge unconnected to the fabric of wisdom is dangerous. It is a very counterintuitive concept to an unripe mind. Train your mind using mito-hacks to overcome this negativity bias. It is a deep deficit we humans have. Sometimes, things change in our environment and they are never the same again no matter how many times we study them. This is what calorie restriction data never will be repeated. It is why nutrition studies are rarely reproduced because the light in every study varies and is never controlled carefully. This is ironic when you consider foods are ENTIRELY MADE by sunlight, do not you think? This is why I chuckle at the food guru perspective. They are among the most dogmatic scientism gods on Earth It is also why all RCT are worthless. They have been done in worlds that varied from 0G-4.5 G and as the network changes so do the results of RCTs and we do not realize it. Technology moves the cheese in these experiments, and no one questions it. That's reality! Life moves on. And so should we……..science rarely does because they do not realize how methodology effects results and data.
     
  5. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Dynasties must fulfill their destinies. Paradigms are like dynasties. Paradigms must enforce their dynasties. Nature is different because life is nature’s dynasty. This “paradigm’ often stands at odds with manufactured dynasties. With nature, everything is hitched to everything else; It couldn't be any other way. Nature simply is, therefore nature has to be unified. Human’s are unwilling to delete dogmatic dynasties because of confirmational bias and cognitive dissonance. These biases make most people believe the paradigm’s design is correct. Modern "complexity" is based on retained isolated outdated paradigms, held together by obfuscations, rationalizations, math equations, power, prescriptions, and propaganda. The truth is always simpler than all that. That is why I teach people about nature.........
     
  6. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Scientism = Orthodoxy = radicalism + time

    Science is a journey, but commerce turns it into a destination. Science works by making mistakes and building off those mistakes to make new mistakes that allow us to make new discoveries. Commerce hates mistakes; mistakes involve liability and costs. Today science has been usurped by commerce and this is why science is now broken.

    Theoretical roadblocks develop in people’s minds and ideas on new science because of ideology. They are only political because they feed your belief system.

    Science evolves by being challenged. Not by being followed. There is no consensus in science.

    Why does poor methodology in experiments hurt the public? The NIH pays for 99% of Big science and taxpayers fund the NIH. When you fund your own bad experiments you are the source of your own problems. Because it games the results for those who pay for the science. Today's science is quid pro quo. Whoever pays gets the results they seek. This is why bad science hurts us all……..it buries the good stuff from getting funded by biased data with poor controls.
     
  7. ElectricUniverse

    ElectricUniverse New Member

    This perspective helps us understand how batsh*t crazy and whackadoodle pseudoscientific ideas like anthropocentric global warming and the widely assumed safety of nnEMF can be firmly held in the mind of otherwise rational humans--- while reality is honking and waving at them that they are false.
     

Share This Page