Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

13 Things That Do Not Make Sense

Posted by CowboyNeal on Thu Mar 17, 2005 10:22 PM
from the wookies-on-endor dept.
thpr writes "New Scientist is reporting on 13 things which do not make sense. It's an interesting article about 13 areas in which observations do not line up with current theory. From the placebo effect to dark matter, it's a list of areas in need of additional research. Explanations could lead to significant breakthroughs... or at least new and different errors in scientific observations. Now there are 20 interesting problems for Slashdotters to work on, once you combine these with the seven Millennium Problems!"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • There was a study not that long ago that concluded that the placebo effect doesn't really exist. How did they test that? Did they give some patients a placebo, and others (the control group) a fake placebo?
    • by Shachaf (781326) on Thursday March 17 2005, @10:25PM (#11972175)
      Possibly they gave one group real medicine, and the other nothing at all, and got the same results as giving one group real medicine, and the other a placebo.
    • Here's the Slashdot story [slashdot.org] on the study that seemed to discredit the placebo effect.
    • by daveo0331 (469843) on Thursday March 17 2005, @10:28PM (#11972202) Homepage Journal
      Two groups of test subjects. Tell Group A the usual story, some people are getting placebos while others are getting the real thing and no one knows who's who. Tell group B everyone's getting a placebo. Give everyone placebos, and see if the pills being taken by group A have any effect.
      • by Citizen of Earth (569446) on Thursday March 17 2005, @11:41PM (#11972642)
        Give everyone placebos, and see if the pills being taken by group A have any effect.

        Also get Group C and tell them they are all getting placebos and give them the real pills and get Group D and tell them they are all getting the real pills and give them placebos. With Group A, the patients will have some uncertainty about what they are getting and that may affect the effect.
        • by dumdeedum (150099) on Friday March 18 2005, @12:51AM (#11973054)
          Two groups of test subjects. Tell Group A the usual story, some people are getting placebos while others are getting the real thing and no one knows who's who. Tell group B everyone's getting a placebo. Give everyone placebos, and see if the pills being taken by group A have any effect.
          ~
          Also get Group C and tell them they are all getting placebos and give them the real pills and get Group D and tell them they are all getting the real pills and give them placebos. With Group A, the patients will have some uncertainty about what they are getting and that may affect the effect.

          Then get Group E and tell them they are getting real placebos and give them random pills and then get Groups F through J and give them pills on the second Tuesday of every month and tell them you're uncertain about what the pills are and then get Group K to distribute fake placebos, real placebos and small slices of toast to Groups A, D and G respectively and then tell Group L they're not needed and should just take whatever pills they find at home or on the street. This ensures that Groups B, C, E and J but not C know what they're taking but not really and that people in Group A will think they're in Group D.
    • by shanen (462549) on Thursday March 17 2005, @10:54PM (#11972360) Homepage Journal
      Yeah, we know you're in a hurry to post quickly, but the result is an entire thread with your hurried spelling mistake (not copied above).

      Anyway, the counterexample in the article is easy enough to explain, in that the counter-placebo actively prevents some secondary effect, where it is the secondary effect that is closer to the true cause of the perceived pain reduction. The the morphine or the original placebo are just acting somewhere higher in the chain. Given how little we know about the nature of the mind (including our perception of pain), the results are not nearly as suprising as they proclaim.

      The whole topic of "truth" just seems so passe these days. Faith-based politicians aren't going to worry about any of it, anyway. They don't need or want better science or more facts--they already know what they believe, and they're going to structure the world around their beliefs, no matter how crazy. The whole notion of truth is under attack.

      So many examples, it's hard to know where to start. The two that are on my mind right now are the new UN ambassador who is pledged to destroying the UN, and appointing the master planner of the Iraq fiasco to the World Bank.

    • Hey, have you heard about Placebo Domingo, Placido's younger brother? He looks just like his brother and gets great press, but he actually can't sing worth a damn.

      Heh heh. Hoo, tough crowd tonight...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2005, @10:26PM (#11972187)
    Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with science? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with science! It does not make sense! Look at me, I'm posting on slashdot in response to an article about science, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense. And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests
    • by halivar (535827) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {reglefb}> on Thursday March 17 2005, @10:51PM (#11972343) Homepage
      Oh great. Now we can add the "Chewbacca defense" to the same illustrious group of overquoted "instant +5 funny" personalities as Yakov Smirnov, CATS, Kent Brockman, and the Beowulf cluster guy.

      I can't wait for someone to mention that in Korea, only old people use the Chewbacca defense. /me shoots self
  • by filmmaker (850359) * on Thursday March 17 2005, @10:30PM (#11972214) Homepage
    So what is going on? Doctors have known about the placebo effect for decades, and the naloxone result seems to show that the placebo effect is somehow biochemical. But apart from that, we simply don't know.

    That's really interesting. The body and/or the brain releases the THIQ (I would presume) as if herion were present, but only if the morphine blocker isn't used in combination with the placebo.

    This suggests that as long as we think we're getting morphine, our bodies will respond accordingly. If the phenomenon could be isolated...combine that with some VR, and you've got the opium dens of the digital age. But no opium.
  • Thank you (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2005, @10:35PM (#11972235)
    Just great, like I really needed 13 more things to worry about.

    Hey, why wasn't my wife on that list?
  • I have emough thimgs that dom't nake semse im ny life so as to worry about that. For exanple, why the fuck does ny keyboard type "n" whem I clearly hit the "m" ke... wait, mvn... forgot to put the keys back right. Okay, i'll give those problems a whirl now.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17 2005, @10:37PM (#11972249)
      For exanple, why the fuck does ny keyboard type "n" whem I clearly hit the "m" ke...

      Because you're a norom?
  • by prakslash (681585) on Thursday March 17 2005, @10:43PM (#11972293)

    I guess I might as well buy those enlargement pills after all.

    Hey, you never know...

  • by FunWithHeadlines (644929) on Thursday March 17 2005, @10:45PM (#11972308) Homepage
    The 14th thing that makes no sense: Not reading the article that is posted right there in the submission and easily reachable to inform the reader, and yet feeling fully qualified to write something as a comment without that knowledge.

    Such as this comment...

  • by porcupine8 (816071) on Thursday March 17 2005, @10:50PM (#11972338) Journal
    Why do they make it sound like it's a suprise that the placebo effect is biochemical and that the "mind can affect the body"?? The mind is pretty much defined as the product/functions of the brain. The brain is biochemical and part of the body. This wouldn't surprise the middle schoolers I'm currently teaching psychology too, it shouldn't suprise any scientists.

    Yes, the placebo effect is still not completely understood, if it exists at all. But that article made it sound like things that are pretty common knowledge are new and shocking.

  • Assholes (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Renraku (518261) on Thursday March 17 2005, @10:52PM (#11972354) Homepage
    14. Why Being An Asshole Gets You Chicks

    Its true. Go to any mall and you'll see a not-so-attractive man walking around with a beautiful, well-endowed lady in tow while he's making fun of her to his friends, or is putting her down. He never calls, he never does the dishes, he never puts the seat down, and most of all, he's getting some.
    • Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)

      by No Such Agency (136681) <abmackay@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Thursday March 17 2005, @11:19PM (#11972522)
      I grow as weary of explaining this as I am of being an example of it*. "Assholes" get chicks because they go out there to meet women, with confidence and at least the illusion of interest. They don't stay in griping about being single on Slashdot, while thinking "no hot girl will ever like me".

      * an example of the latter, not the former
    • Re:Assholes (Score:5, Informative)

      by thefirelane (586885) on Thursday March 17 2005, @11:22PM (#11972534)
      Seriously, this is not a troll, read this:

      Why 'Nice guys' are such losers [heartless-bitches.com]
    • by KalvinB (205500) on Friday March 18 2005, @12:12AM (#11972814) Homepage
      girls like dicks.

    • The point being? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jesterzog (189797) on Friday March 18 2005, @01:18AM (#11973161) Homepage Journal

      Go to any mall and you'll see a not-so-attractive man walking around with a beautiful, well-endowed lady in tow while he's making fun of her to his friends, or is putting her down. He never calls, he never does the dishes, he never puts the seat down, and most of all, he's getting some.

      Really, though, would you want a partner like that?

      I had one once, and it was awful -- she was so convinced that she was useless and constantly putting herself down. I felt really sorry for her because somewhere along the line she'd been seriously messed up, but I also wouldn't wish her on anyone. In any case it lasted for a matter of weeks before I dumped her (or she interpreted it that way) because I just couldn't stand it any more.

      The way that she acted a lot of the time suggested that she was expecting to be beaten for some of the things she did, no matter how much I constantly told her that there was nothing wrong and I wasn't going to treat her like that. She never actually listened to me, and all the time she was assuming I was someone I wasn't. Honestly, it wasn't until I'd met her that I understood how it's possible that some women put up with that kind of crap from guys. She was practically inviting it, and with someone else she would've gotten it. (No, I didn't oblige.)

      It took me a while to get over that, but my current girlfriend, who took a while to find, is very assertive. If she doesn't like something I say or do, she'll make sure I know straight away, and I do the same for her. It's a whole lot better.

      • Re:Assholes (Score:5, Funny)

        by Renraku (518261) on Thursday March 17 2005, @11:08PM (#11972439) Homepage
        I actually tested this theory one day. I dressed like a whigger (backwards baseball cap and all) and started talking to your typical overdone-tan chick at the mall and after an hour she was wanting me to come and hang out with her. Then I was like, "No, I'm actually a nerd. I just wanted to prove something. Sorry."
        • Re:Assholes (Score:5, Funny)

          by XanC (644172) on Thursday March 17 2005, @11:10PM (#11972456)
          So... You're an even bigger asshole than you were pretending to be. Is there a bell curve here? Is there an optimum level of asshole-ness?
        • Re:Assholes (Score:5, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2005, @12:01AM (#11972763)
          I actually tested this theory one day. I dressed like a whigger (backwards baseball cap and all) and started talking to your typical overdone-tan chick at the mall and after an hour she was wanting me to come and hang out with her. Then I was like, "No, I'm actually a nerd. I just wanted to prove something. Sorry."

          note: may not have happened
      • Re:Assholes (Score:5, Funny)

        by Renraku (518261) on Thursday March 17 2005, @11:10PM (#11972458) Homepage
        Yeah, that's what I see. I see there are two types of guys in a lot of women's eyes. The kind you fuck and the kind you go crying to when you can't get to a guy you fuck. The later type is also the one you put in charge of fixing your car, raising your kids, and providing general emotional support.
  • I remember once... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CaptainPotato (191411) on Thursday March 17 2005, @10:57PM (#11972379) Homepage
    ...getting a guy completely trashed on water, because he thought he was drinking vodka. Sure, he'd had a few vodkas already (only a few), but once the bottle ran out, he still wanted more, so I filled up the bottle with water, and he and I sat down and kept drinking the 'vodka'.

    I acted as if I were drinking vodka (the flinching at the strength of it, and pretending to be feeling the effect), until he became so drunk on about 350ml of water (and the perhaps 100ml of vodka that he'd drunk earlier) that he couldn't stand and was passed out, and was out of action for almost a day.

    After this, with the d*ckh**d out of the way, I finished my good deed for the party, and everybody else had a great time from that point onwards at the party... it only took about 40 minutes for this to work.

    So, yes, I can believe that the placebo effect works - and even more effectively on fools like the guy in my anecdote.
    • by ultramk (470198) <ultramk@noSpAm.pacbell.net> on Thursday March 17 2005, @11:25PM (#11972551)
      A couple of thoughts... (possible complications)

      1. Maybe he had more actual booze than you were aware of. I remember at that age having a few *before* the party, to loosen up. Remember too, that alcohol takes a while to metabolize under some circumstances.

      2. Perhaps he was just a lightweight, all it took was a couple to push him over the edge. Case in point, my wife (this was last year, btw) went out for drinks and a movie with her mom, her aunt, and some ladies from her bookgroup. She's not a tiny thing, and she's not incapable of holding her drink. However, on this particular day, she hadn't had anything to eat, and was slightly dehydrated. She had 2 martinis, and literally passed out 30 minutes later at the theatre. Either because of her lack of eating that day, blood sugar weirdness, or whatever. (I picked her up, and drove her home. She didn't wake up for 2 hours. I would have taken her to the emergency room, but her mom's a nurse, and suggested that she just needed to sleep it off. She was right.) If you're wondering, she hasn't had a drink since.

      3. He could have been on some medication/recreational drug that amplified the effects of the alcohol he DID have.

      I'm not saying any of those things had to be the case, but the effects of alcohol vary so widely, from person-to-person, and even from day to day depending on diet etc, that it's hard to quantify an anecdotal account, and use it as proof of an actual physiological effect. Just a thought.

      What would be more convincing to me would be a double-blind study with a rigorous testing method. It would probably even be fun to do! Any volunteers?

      Interesting story, though.
      m-
  • by munpfazy (694689) on Thursday March 17 2005, @11:03PM (#11972407)
    From the article:

    >IT IS one of the most famous, and most
    >embarrassing, problems in physics. In 1998,
    >astronomers discovered that the universe is
    >expanding at ever faster speeds.

    Embarrassing? Since when is being able to study something qualitatively new and unexpected an embarrassment? One would expect cosmologists to jump for joy at their luck. (And among those whom I know, everyone does!)

    If anything, dark energy is a triumph of experimental science. An experimental groups found something no one expected, and within a hand full of years, armed only with careful data analysis, they convinced not only themselves but everyone else that it was genuine and radically changed our picture of the universe. Since then we've accumulated even more convinging data, and found independant evidence to confirm the existance of dark energy. There is a vigerous community studying the problem and proposing new tests, and theorists everywhere proposing new and interesting ways to accomodate the data. One couldn't hope for a more perfect example of science working in the way we all like to believe it does.

    Cold fusion, on the other hand, is a *real* embarrassment for physics - dozens of seemingly reputable scientists have spent millions of dollars and decades of work and produced diddly squat. The experimental case isn't bulletproof - it's just so riddled with holes that no one notices when new bullets pass through it. The story is now so thick with poor experimental practice, unprofessional behavior, and overt fraud that few legitimate researchers will touch the subject for fear of being associated with all the hucksters and frauds who haunt it.

  • by hedley (8715) <hedley@pacbell.net> on Thursday March 17 2005, @11:04PM (#11972412) Journal
    I think these recent experiments are interesting and require some explanation.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/841690.stm [bbc.co.uk]

    and also

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/655518.stm [bbc.co.uk]

    Hedley
  • Paradigm shift? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wronski (821189) on Thursday March 17 2005, @11:05PM (#11972415)
    (one of) The exciting thing(s) about dark matter/dark energy/Pioneer anomaly is that they smell like new fundamental physics. A bit like in the early 20th century, when people had everything pretty much figured out, except for a few nagging problems such as the UV catastrophe and Michelson-Moreley's failure to detect changes in the speed of light. Which of course led respectively to quantum theory and relativity.

    We assume DM and DE are there because according to general relativity we need something to clump visimble matter, something to accelerate the universe today (and another something to accelerate the universe in the past if inflation is to be believed), and a bunch of something to make the universe (very nearly) flat. Postulating all these weird stuff is a bit contrived. Or we can heve some new physics.

    This probably what the Wow aliens were trying to tell us...

    PS: The 4neutron stuff and changing constant *are* new physics, if true. Right now they are just plain weird, IMHO.
  • On cold fusion (Score:5, Informative)

    by Avumede (111087) on Thursday March 17 2005, @11:06PM (#11972426) Homepage
    This article sort of looked like bullshit to me, especially the cold fusion part. Notice how they hint that cold fusion has been replicated, but don't actually go out and say so. Then they quote an "Engineer" saying the evidence is strong, like they couldn't find any scientist that would support their claim. So I asked [straightdope.com] at the Straight Dope Message Board about the cold fusion, and got some interesting answers. What I learned basically confirmed that (to the knowledge of that fairly well informed board), yes, cold fusion still is unlikely and unreplicated.
  • 1977, it was called the Wow! signal.

    2005, it would have been the WTF! OMG! LEET! signal.
  • by Cycnus (162186) * on Friday March 18 2005, @01:21AM (#11973172) Homepage
    I find it strange that they mention the Belfast homeopathy test in their list.

    Not long ago (in 2002), there was a very good, very scientific test done by Horizon on the BBC using the very same technique.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2512105.stm [bbc.co.uk]

    It seems that part of the problem in the Belfast findings may be due to the fact that the cells that had a reaction were manually counted, possibly introducting a bias known as "the experimenter effect", of which little is really known apart from the fact that it exists (a bit like the placebo effect).
    There is little doubt that the experimenter acted in good faith, but the fact was that the very controlled experiment commissioned by the Horizon (involving the Royal Society and a number of specialists in various relevant fields) ended up showing a statistical no-greater-than-chance result.

    Now, before you say "how can you trust a TV show", I'll say that Horizon is no ordinary TV show. It's probably the best, most balanced and scientific accurate show ever to grace the screen. Those who are lucky enough to be able to watch it will probably agree.

    There is another large scale experiment being done at the moment on homeopathy, invoving both homeopaths, scientists and people like James Randi.
    Randi predicted that the experiment will show no more than we already know today, that homeopathy is not worth much as a medical practice, but that most believer will be undeterred by any amount of evidence.
    The real question to test a practitionner of alternative medecine is to ask: what would it take you to admit that it doesn't work?
    For many, nothing will.

    But it's worth investigating anyway, I'm ready to consider that there is some benefit to it if tangible, undisputable proof was found. It would certainly help to use homeopathy if its field of action -if there is any- was actually well known, and if it is doing better there than other types of medecine. http://www.homeowatch.org/ [homeowatch.org]

      • Re:Homeopathy. (Score:5, Informative)

        by RollingThunder (88952) on Thursday March 17 2005, @10:53PM (#11972358)
        I thought the homeopathic test was performed on white blood cells in a solution - not in a body, leaving no possibility for the mind to affect it.
        • Depend on the test (Score:5, Informative)

          by aepervius (535155) on Thursday March 17 2005, @11:27PM (#11972561)
          For an a normal drug test there are two types of test. The one you do in labor (first on cells culture then later on cobaye animals) and later the one you do under hospital condition (on human). I am roughly simplyfying here. Those hospital test mostly consists in double blind experiment if possible (the patient do not know what they get, some get nothing (water/sugar) other get the substance, and neither the patient nor the experimentor at the starts know who is given what, only after the experiment is finished the experimentor can check from a reference number that this was the drug or sugar), or in the case where it is not humanly possible (for example cancer drug) where a live depends on it, then a simple hospital trial.


          In the case of homeopathy this NEVER depend on life, but since this is only sugar (for any dilution beyond Avogadro number) they do not need the labor trial and can be tested directly on double blind. Fact is, all study I know of in double blind , the group getting the drug and the group getting nothing did not show any statistical difference. In other word their body reacted as if they got nothing (which they did... Since beyond 20CH I think , you have no active molecule). In other word in double blind nobody has yet of today proved that homeopathy worked. Ever.


          Now there are a serie of controversial experiment where ONE attempt to dilue some allergen substance, and then after enough dilution to ahve nothing of the alergen in the end liquid, attempt to make it react with Basophile (the so called bevenist experiment). Up until now all of those experiment yelding positive result where either downright fraud, or sloppy experimental design (forget to clean up, or bad dilution processes). And seriously I doubt any new results will change that. This would be a MAJOR news for all physiker (physicist?)...
    • by tlambert (566799) on Friday March 18 2005, @12:15AM (#11972848)
      The BBC program "Science and Nature" had an episode on BBC Two, which was called "Homeopathy: The Test" which first aired last year on Tuesday 26 November, 9pm.

      The results of a controlled, random, double-blind study were that the effect did not actually exist.

      Here's the link:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopa [bbc.co.uk]t hytrans.shtml

      I think what we are seeing here is a six month editorial lead time on articles in New Scientist (giving their research department the benefit of the doubt).

      -- Terry
    • by vistic (556838) <corbyz&gmail,com> on Friday March 18 2005, @12:15AM (#11972850)
      I don't get how they can claim that stuff like spider venom can be diluted in water to the point where the sample likely doesnt contain a single molecule of spider venom... but that it left an "imprint" on the water, whatever the hell that is.

      If this were true, then what about the other things which got into the water and "imprinted" those water molecules over the years? Where do they get the water from to dilute in? How can they be sure the water they are using isn't "imprinted" with something bad... or is there some way to de-imprint the water before they imprint it with whatever they're selling...

      This is nonsense that requires very, very minimal thought to realize it's flawed very fundamentally. If this stuff which isn't even present in the water, imprinted it... then what about all the other stuff which has touched the water over the years?
    • Re:Missing option (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Joe Tie. (567096) on Friday March 18 2005, @12:17AM (#11972863)
      That's a good question, and one I always find myself wondering whenever the usual Democrat VS. Republican arguments break out here. I think some, certainaly not all but at least a portion of it comes down to humans having some inate need to believe in a higher power. One which has a greater knowledge than the individual and can provide another group of people to hate. Couple hundred years back it would have been preachers telling of the danger posed by witches and heathens, now it's politicians preaching about the evil ways of their oposing party. A lot of folks would be quick to believe anything, provided it gave an easy target to explain why things are going wrong. It's them darn liberals/It's them darn conservitives! From what I've heard, even the politicians themselves are trapped in it, pretty quickly finding their former views lost and replaced by whatever their peers particular view is.