(Yet) Another Year End List 346
gordonb writes "New Scientist has yet another of those endless end-of-year lists, "13 things that do not make sense", including such topics discussed on Slashdot this year as the placebo effect, dark energy, and the ever-popular cold fusion. I know there are a lot more than 13 things that don't make sense, such as free markets, but, oxymorons aside, this is an interesting list, nevertheless."
Research mistakes or conundrums? (Score:5, Interesting)
Guess what? It worked. I just made it up but I told her I heard about it on a medical show. The power of the mind is amazing, but it has taught me how easily duped we humans are. I guess this means don't trust anyone until you know what their end desire is.
This is an interesting article, but it seems common for them to say that these unknown "problems" might all boil down to bad research -- and I believe that could likely be the answer for many. "Bad research" covers all science conundrums: either you misread the results, or previous bad research gave you an incorrect theory.
Problems solved
Re:Research mistakes or conundrums? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Research mistakes or conundrums? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not proving the placebo effect, because hypochondria's a mental state. The placebo effect is when a real illness is treated with a placebo, not when imaginary ones are treated with a placebo.
Think about it - there's nothing odd about make-believe cures being able to affect make-believe illnesses. It's like when you are kids, and your make-believe bulletproof vest stops your friends' make-believe bullets shot from their make-believe guns. The placebo effect is like when those make-believe bulletproof vests stop real bullets.
Re:Research mistakes or conundrums? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Research mistakes or conundrums? (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't even looking at somatoform disorders (physical ailments that come from the toll of being in a mental illness). The truth is that the human mind is far more of a powerful, persuasive instrument than we are normally led to believe and the state of mentality is very much a physical rather than imaginary thing. Placebo effects likewise are not usually effective in helping such mental disorders, so the grandparent's point that it works is meaningful and should not be dismissed. Most likely, the tapping repetition forced the client to breath, and take note and prevent the panic that is prevalent in most anxiety disorders, which in turn backed the person away from their usual repetition compulsion, bypassing the worse part of her illness.
Re:Research mistakes or conundrums? (Score:5, Interesting)
Certainly some people have strong difficulties in their lives. And certainly some people have deformities or injuries to their nervous system. But the idea that "mental illnesses" such as depression have direct neurological expression is not as supported [time.com] as SSRI makers would like you to believe. (Another link: here [intenex.net].)
Labeling psychological difficulties (other than neulogical illness or injury) is questionable [reason.com]. It has strong legal and social consequences that we ought to consider.
The DSM, the official defintion of mental health and illness, has its roots in a military effort to decide who was too crazy (or not crazy enough?) to be a soldier. It's critera for listed condtions are famously vauge. And who decides which condtions are "illnesses"? Just a few decades ago, homosexuality was a "mental illness" according to the DSM.
I agree, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we should use the word "illness" to describe these states.
Re:Research mistakes or conundrums? (Score:3, Interesting)
Once I shielded me for the pain of a dying nerve in a tooth by reading a book, and a dying nerve in a tooth is *quite* painful, granted this is quite different from a placebo more similar with the use of hynosis to shield a patient from pain during a surgery.
Re:Research mistakes or conundrums? (Score:2)
But if you had read the article you would have noticed that the placebo effect was blocked by the addition of naloxone a morphine blocker. All in the mind or all in the biochemistry?
Re:Research mistakes or conundrums? (Score:2)
Re:Research mistakes or conundrums? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Research mistakes or conundrums? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Research mistakes or conundrums? (Score:2)
Re:Research mistakes or conundrums? (Score:2, Insightful)
However, it doesn't just 'appear' to work, it does work for the simple matter that placebos do work.
This is a known medical fact, despite the fact it makes no sense. Placebos work better than doing nothing quite often, ergo, homopathy works better than doing nothing
Re:Research mistakes or conundrums? (Score:2)
Of course, it's idiotic to spend that money when you can just, I dunno, pray or something.
I believe otherwise; wasting money on it is probably a part of its efficiency. It's called "commitment" in social psychology.
Re:Not quite, dick-heads. (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact that that sentence makes no sense? A cure that can't be shown to work better than placebo is the same as a cure that doesn't work better than placebo.
Your justifaction is the suggestion that anecdotal evidence is better than systematic evidence, which is what quacks have always said when the systematic evidence reveals them to be quacks.
Re:Not quite, dick-heads. (Score:2)
Very true. And there's a word for something that can improve a subjective experience of health in subjects without any causal relationship.
It's "Placebo".
The placebo effect is brilliant.
Homeopathists think they're being devalued when their remedies are described as "basically [lacebo", and are wo
Re:Not quite, dick-heads. (Score:2)
Seriously. How many people knew an old couple where the husband was really sick, and literally holding onto life as long as the wife survived, and when the wife died, that guy pretty much said 'To hell with it' and just...died? It happened to my great-grandparents.
Pretending there is no mental aspect to health is silly, and pretending that homopathic medicine is anything but that is silly.
As for 'prayer'
Re:Oh dearie, dearie me. (Score:2, Interesting)
However, this 'And there has to be special circumstances', is exactly the kind of crap psychics got away with for fifty years 100 years ago.
If homeopathy works, it is a medicine. Medicines have demonstratable effects on illnesses and the body. If a homeopathic medicine made from X has an effect on condition Y, it should repeatably have that effect.
And, more to the point, there is no way to do a double-blind test when homeopathy 'doctors'
Re:Chewbacca Defense (Score:2)
From Wikipedia: (Score:2, Funny)
Inflation caused by Higgs field? (Score:2, Interesting)
I was under the impression that Inflation is caused by a certain energy value of the Higgs field. Did I miss something and Higgs field is no longer the savior of Inflation?
Re:Inflation caused by Higgs field? (Score:2)
The Large Hadron Collider, currently under construction (also at CERN), is expected to eventually confirm or disprove the existence of the Higgs boson with a few months of experiments once completed. At this point, we have only indirect experimental evidence. We can't t
Re:Inflation caused by Higgs field? (Score:4, Interesting)
Bit more complicated than that -
Inflation could have been caused by a phase change in the Higgs field, but this is a necessary-not-sufficient part of the explanation for the observed features of the universe. Then one also has to find a reason for the phase change and why it happened to have the precise characteristics needed (there's some fine tuning of parameters required in order for what we see today to pop out the other end of this process).
Then there's of course the root question of whether the Higgs field itself exists, though a lot of the Standard Model would have to be junked in order for it not to exist.
Wow, even year-end lists can be outdated. (Score:3, Funny)
obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Why would a Wookie, an eight-foot tall Wookie, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does NOT MAKE SENSE! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does NOT MAKE SENSE! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, 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 deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] 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.
Re:obligatory (Score:2)
Re:obligatory (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
End of year list? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:End of year list? (Score:5, Funny)
Dupe (Score:5, Informative)
Heck, this was even on
Re:Dupe (Score:2)
Well, that at least makes PERFECT sense.
Snide (Score:5, Insightful)
All right! Always room for a little mindless, irrelevant editorializing, right?
It's a joke, not a troll. (Score:2)
Re:It's a joke, not a troll. (Score:2)
Uh huh. Well, you are free to write your own implementation of that code "required for compatibility" making yourself free of the GPL. You are also free to buy a non-GPL license from the FSF. Sounds like a free market to me, by your definition. Oh wait, I get it, a free market is only "free" depending on the point of view of the observer. Sounds pretty oxymoronic to me.
And since when should the editors censor articl
Re:Snide (Score:3, Funny)
Too bad nothing on this list has changed... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Too bad nothing on this list has changed... (Score:2, Funny)
-sp
Ooo, clever (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ooo, clever (Score:3, Funny)
Do I get +1 ThankGodHeShutUp now?
Re:Ooo, clever (Score:2)
And I cannot stop laughing after that post.
Re:Ooo, clever (Score:2)
That makes two of us now, heh.
Re: Ooo, clever (Score:3, Insightful)
no, the free market has never helped one poor person. we are so muc
Re: Ooo, clever (Score:5, Informative)
Funny about that... The current minimum [wage] places a family below the federal poverty level, unable (as Wal-Mart's chairman put it) to shop even at Wal-Mart. [slate.com]
Re: Ooo, clever (Score:2, Informative)
I guess it's a good thing that not everyone working at Wal-Mart is their family's primary income provider then. Don't teenagers and single adults with no children deserve to make money as well?
Re: Ooo, clever (Score:2, Interesting)
Almost every person that make minimum wage now will make more in the future (teenagers) or has made more in the past (retirees).
The poverty level is relative. The poverty level in the US would be solidly middle class in other places.
The minimum wage puts people out of work, as supply and demand would suggest (labor costs go up, so businesses use less labor). Is it better to be poor or unemployed?
Sigh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Claim: Free markets make perfect sense! They are the most logical, sensible system.
Counterclaim: If you're on the top of the pile. Those being crushed on the bottom might reasonably feel otherwise.
Counter-counterclaim: [sarcasm] Yeah, because it isn't like everyone benefits from the freemarket system. Only the Waltons benefit from their stores. Not the millions of poorer people that are able to afford more goods and live better lives because they can afford c
Re:Raise it to $500 an hour, then!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I should qualify the statement first. I meant "moderately" raising the minimum wage. If you raise it too much at once, then yes, it could.
The point is that if an employer is making so little money from an employee that paying them a decent wage is going to kill profits - then the business was never sustainable in the first place. The idea that companies are making profits solely because of the low minimum wage is absurd. It would mean that their business is actually abo
Re: Ooo, clever (Score:2)
It needn't be an "either or" choice. You can have a largely free market tempered with a certain degree of centralised control. In practice, in the real world, that's what we have everywhere. The only arguments are over exactly how much and what should be centralised, which certainly remains a very open question (and in my personal view has no fixe
This whole article reminds me of Sagan's book (Score:5, Interesting)
IT WAS 37 seconds long and came from outer space. On 15 August 1977 it caused astronomer Jerry Ehman, then of Ohio State University in Columbus, to scrawl "Wow!" on the printout from Big Ear, Ohio State's radio telescope in Delaware. And 28 years later no one knows what created the signal. "I am still waiting for a definitive explanation that makes sense," Ehman says
Actually, earlier than even the "WoW" signal(sometime in the 60s IIRC) a bunch of Soviet scientists convened a conference to discuss how they swore they found intelligent life because they found a long, continuous perfect sine wave somewhere out in space. Turns out it was a quasar, a hithero unkown phenomena, but the Soviets made laughing stocks out of themselves by assuming first it was aliens instead of a more mundane explanation...
Re:This whole article reminds me of Sagan's book (Score:2, Insightful)
Sceptical (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Research mistakes or conundrums? (Score:2)
Re: Research mistakes or conundrums? (Score:2)
Yes, but the placebo effect has been shown to have a statistically significant effect on the treatment outcome. Thus, your statement that "substance X had no effect on the condition" is misleading. Patients who receive neither the real treatment nor the placebo do not show the same rate of improvement as patients receiving a placebo.
Re: Research mistakes or conundrums? (Score:2)
From the article: "he added a final twist by adding naloxone, a drug that blocks the effects of morphine, to the saline. The shocking result? The pain-relieving power of saline solution disappeared."
If you read the orginal test report, the patients didn't know they were getting naloxone at all. they just thought they were getting their morphine shot...which wasn't a morphine shot but the placebo followed by the naloxone...which made the pain appear again. This
Free markets an oxymoron? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm hereby moderating this entire SITE (-1, Tro (Score:5, Insightful)
An unregulated free market didn't lead to Microsoft, because we don't *have* an unregulated free market
in the United States. In a real unregulated market, without things like patents, and the bazillions of dollars worth of government restrictions and regulations required to start a business, there would be a lot more competition for MS. It would actually be much harder for monopolies like MS to become overwhelmingly powerful in a real free market, because it would be much easier to set up shop and compete with them on a level playing field.
Of course some people say that there would be no innovation without patents... I contend that such an assertion is not true, and that the lack of artificial government granted monopolies (patents) would result in a constant "arms race" situation where companies would be forced to innovate constantly or die. Look at how military technology advances... the US is forced to constantly work on developing better battle technology exactly because there is no way to prevent our competitors from using what has already been invented. I mean, it's not like we could patent the nuclear bomb and keep Russia, China, India, Pakistan, etc. from using it...
Give us a real free market sometime, and let's see what happens... until then it's all just speculation, because we damn sure don't have anything approaching a free market now.
Re:I'm hereby moderating this entire SITE (-1, Tro (Score:2)
The US drug companies are always on television telling you how important their profits are to continued research, but outside observers say they spend 10x as much on advertising as they do on researc
U.S. Federal Deficit by Political Party (Score:2)
Re:I'm hereby moderating this entire SITE (-1, Tro (Score:2)
The great thing about slashdot is that, despite all the idiotic stories, there are usually some good comments explaining what's wrong with each story. Alterslash [alterslash.org] will usually pick a lot of them out for you automatically. If you want both, plus a little bit of del.icio.us thrown in, there's always diggdot [diggdot.us].
Our kids need to see more articles like this! (Score:5, Insightful)
The evolution/creation/intelligent-design debate has taken on the nature of trench warfare; the opponents believe that the least enemy victory will spell doom for their way of life, so they dig in and protect every axiom of their belief system no matter how fragile or poorly supported. As a result, young people are told that nothing in their religion's official interpretation of Holy Writ is open to question. In school they are told the same thing about the current geological, paleontological and cosmological dogma.
I'm sure that many church leaders honestly believe that if kids are encouraged to doubt and question, they will lose their nascent faith, and perhaps discourage others. Likewise many educators assume that students who doubt and question current scientific beliefs will never become scientists, and undermine others who might.
The contemptible response is that those who question religious doctrine are branded as nonbelievers, and those who question scientific doctrine are dismissed as ignoramuses. Nothing goes so far to discourage the development of the scientific and spiritual leaders of the next generation.
Healthy skepticism, not jaded cynicism, should be encouraged everywhere if there is to be true advancement in any field. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, and neither are knowledge and wisdom.
Re:Our kids need to see more articles like this! (Score:2)
They are? When? Where? Any decent scientific education always shows that scientific view change. I would be interested to see a report of any school scientific teaching that states that any current theory is unquestionable dogma.
Likewise many educators assume that students
Mod parent up! (Score:2)
Re:Our kids need to see more articles like this! (Score:2)
I remember in a junior high science class being asked the following true/false question: Did birds evolve from reptiles? This was a straight forward, black-and-white question that left no room for doubt whatsoever, and it was indicative of the public education I received. When I
Re:Our kids need to see more articles like this! (Score:2)
I do want to bring up that there seem to be some religions on this planet which do promote questioning and doubting, and learning about other religions. I always wondered why such tolerance didn't take over the religio-sphere, so to speak, since it should be more encompassing, more welcoming, more interesting.
But, I suppose that just plays into your point:
Re:Our kids need to see more articles like this! (Score:2)
the opponents believe that the least enemy victory will spell doom for their way of life
I dunno. This is totally subjective but I think it's more than a defensive initiative. It smells to me like a "they should do things our way" busybody approach. Especially given the "poor us, persecuted American Christians" bullshit that is so often spouted.
Food for thought.
Late addition! (Score:5, Funny)
Uniform temperature (Score:2)
I don't get this. Maybe a Physics geek can clue me in. Why would we expect to see different temperatures? If the big bang exploded in a completely uniform way, I would expect the "shrapnel" to behave in a completely uniform way in every direction. What exactly would cause on
Re:Uniform temperature (Score:3, Insightful)
It would only then look uniform if you were are the center of it, and it all spread out from where you were.
If you were on one side, it would look hotter on the side it came from and cooler
Re:Uniform temperature (Score:2)
Re: Uniform temperature (Score:3, Interesting)
> I don't get this. Maybe a Physics geek can clue me in. Why would we expect to see different temperatures? If the big bang exploded in a completely uniform way, I would expect the "shrapnel" to behave in a completely uniform way in every direction. What exactly w
#2 (Score:2, Interesting)
Dark matter, or an erroneous calculation? (Score:2)
Cosmic Rays (Score:3, Interesting)
natural nuclear reactors, built by bacteria (Score:4, Informative)
Our understanding is far from complete (Score:2)
9 Dark energy
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. It's an effect still searching for a cause - until then, everyone thought the universe's expansion was slowing down after the big bang. "Theorists are still floundering around, looking for a sensible explanation," says cosmologist Katherine Freese of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. "We're all hoping that upcoming observations of
Viking results and Martian life (Score:5, Informative)
Well I am a chemist and a mass spectrometrist who in my youth used to regard Bieman as an almost godlike figure. Well he was wrong. The MS results were of limited sensitivity. The most likely form microbial life in Martian soil would take is to be dormant spores waiting for the rare periods when liquid water becomes available. These spores could be in a very low level in the Martian soil well below the level that would produce sufficent quantities of organic compounds to be detectible by MS.
The LR experiment is very sensitive. Levin was able to use it to show the presence of microorganisms in Antarctic ice cores, which could not be detected chemically, but which could be confirmed by the standard microbiological procedures of plating out. Lunar rock from the Apollo mission gave no false positives in the LR experiment.
All the recent results from Mars probes showing both evidence for the existance of liquid water on the surface of Mars in the past and for evidence of the presence of water now, all serve to support the claim that the original Viking biology results provide a strong indication that microbial life is present on Mars. There is a case to answer. Now is the time for NASA to invest in sending a chiral LR experiment to Mars to further investigate and hopefully come up with some conclusive answers.
Mistake in Horizon Problem (Score:2)
28 billion? Closer to 100 billion if my memory serves me - they forgot to take into account expansion. Journalists shouldn't guess scientific data...
I figured out the 2nd one (Score:2)
Over the past decade, however, the University of Tokyo's Akeno Giant Air Shower Array - 111 particle detectors spread out over 100 square kilometres - has detected several cosmic rays above the GZK limit. In theory, they can only have come from within our galaxy, avoiding an energy-sapping journey across the cosmos. However, astronomers can find no source for these cosmic rays in our galaxy. So what is going on?
Bird droppings.
Placebos: powerful or powerless? (Score:2)
Cold Fusion (Score:2)
Palladium will hold more deuterium per unit volume than the same volume of liquid deuterium will. This means that the nuclei are closer to each other than they are in liquid deuterium. With the proper molecular structure of Palladium this increased density is enough that the deuterium will fuse. This does not re
Re:Slashdot list?!? (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot list?!? (Score:2)
Well, if anybody is actually interested in compiling such a list, check this out [google.com].
Re:Dear New Scientist... (Score:3, Informative)
Physicists consider it embarassing when their existing theories make predictions that are off by more than a few orders of magnitude. The apparent effect of dark energy is something like 50 orders of magnitude larger than what current theories predict. I heard a cosmologist call this one of the most spectacular failures of modern physics, even if it doesn't have much bearing on our daily lives.
I am not a physicist, please cor
Re:Dear New Scientist... (Score:2, Informative)
Because you mistakenly think you know all the answers.
But physics isn't about answers, it's about questions, and far from being an embarassment this problem is simply a Nobel waiting for its recipient. The most famous opportunity in physics.
KFG
Re:Dear New Scientist... (Score:4, Interesting)
That's just for Guth's original work. Hawking tried to give some more backing to it, and had to postulate an unobservable second time dimension, an unobservable imaginary property to this second time axis, and as it turned out a way to apply a whole new form of math that involved rotation, ala trigonometry, without the negative quadrents existing to rotate through (since he dropped the negative half of the regular time axis fifty pages back). Even the totally mind boggleing concept of rotating vectors through dimensions that he had already rejected as non-existant didn't actually get rid of the infinite number of unobservable predictions problem, as Hawking finally acknowledged. Hawking was roundly criticized for treating imaginary in the mathematical sense as meaning imaginary in the common sense, and has since admitted he made both that and a few other mistakes in the papers behind "A Brief History of Time". If you know of someone who has done a better job, by all means, give a link, but all the ones I've seen seem to make the untestable predictions problem worse, not better.
That's precisely what's wild about inflation - it makes an infinite number of untestable predictions, and is still considered science for the testable ones. It does explain a few things very well (like homogeneity), so it's probably on the right track somewhere, but the real thory we need (IMNSHO) is going to explain why the universe looks superficially like the classic Big Bang model, deal with the ways the very early universe deviates from that classical model, fully (and not partially or selectively)include QM in the first few femtoseconds, and either prove that some physical constants are non-random, or show that they don't, at the least, have to be random and so don't have to spin off so many untestable predictions.
Re:Dear New Scientist... (Score:2)
No it doesn't. It simply says that any given region of the universe at the time of the big bang will expand hugely more with inflation than without inflation. In terms of unobservable universes beyond the limit of what we can see, inflation makes no difference at all. All you need is for the universe to be big enough and for expansion
Re: Dear New Scientist... (Score:2)
Is that really any different from our understanding of chemistry and gravity?
Re:Here is one more for the list (Score:2)
Re:Here is one more for the list (Score:2)
Re:Free markets make plenty sense... (Score:2)
Re:Free markets make plenty sense... (Score:2)
-russ
Re:Free markets make plenty sense... (Score:3, Funny)
Max
but some idiots say there is no such thing (Score:2)
-r
Re:but some idiots say there is no such thing (Score:3, Insightful)
EDIT: markets which are more free produce more wealth for some of the participants
A truly free market is like a sport without any rules. The winners are the people with bigger bats. It encourages participation to an extent; there is more to gain for the people who succeed. But eventually it bottoms out as people realize they don't really want to lose their arms wrestling with the 800 lb. gorilla who, without any competition, suddenly has no
Re: Free markets make plenty sense... (Score:3, Insightful)
a) I don't think he said or implied any such thing.
b) How much of the distribution of wealth in our society is the result of people "earning it", as opposed to some people getting opportunities that others don't? Has Bill Gates really worked any harder than the average sharecropper, or did his inherited wealth, lucky break, and stranglehold on the market give him a wee bit of a leg up?
Re: Free markets make plenty sense... (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder what would even qualify. Can it be a free market if the government (or some other organization) regulates coinage? Outlaws putting your thumb on the scale? Outlaws cartels?
OTOH, what if the government bugs out and companies do form cartels? Is it still a free market?
What's the definition of a free market? Where do we draw the lines on this kind of stuff?
Re:hmmmm . . . (Score:2)
Re:Er.... (Score:2)
Think about it, and then tell me who is ignorant.