About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Tuesday, January 10, 2012 - 5:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Incredible. 

Post 1

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 - 7:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nathan,

What a neat article on epistemology! This part ...
This assumption—that understanding a system’s constituent parts means we also understand the causes within the system—is not limited to the pharmaceutical industry or even to biology. It defines modern science. In general, we believe that the so-called problem of causation can be cured by more information, by our ceaseless accumulation of facts. Scientists refer to this process as reductionism.
... will soon be related to my upcoming article here.


Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/11, 7:18am)


Post 2

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 - 7:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If it is impossible to understand 'causes' as known, reliable, facts, then on what basis did Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins step onto that big tower of non-causality with any expectation at all that two of them would soon be walking on the Moon? The probability of them randomly arriving there and completing their mission without a stack of known causes as facts supporting that effort is infinitesimally small.

WIRED is often filled with totally nonsensical goop like this.

Science is failing us because of 'trials and errors?'

If there is no reliably knowable 'cause' then there is no 'why,' and one might wonder, what is that 'why' doing in the title of this piece of WIRED fluff?

Read things like WIRED enough, and you soon come to the conclusion that the underlying agenda is some kind of cachet boutique revolutionary nihilism.

Hey, people need jobs, and entertainment is certainly a job.

I wonder what MAD MAGAZINE has to say on the topic?





Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 - 9:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred asked:

"I wonder what MAD MAGAZINE has to say on the topic?"

What, me worry?



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 - 1:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm going to re-examine and post comment on stuff like this:
One study, for instance, analyzed 432 different claims of genetic links for various health risks that vary between men and women. Only one of these claims proved to be consistently replicable. Another meta review, meanwhile, looked at the 49 most-cited clinical research studies published between 1990 and 2003. Most of these were the culmination of years of careful work. Nevertheless, more than 40 percent of them were later shown to be either totally wrong or significantly incorrect. The details always change, but the story remains the same: We think we understand how something works, how all those shards of fact fit together. But we don’t.
... in order to show that you don't have to make a deal with the devil and go ahead and conclude stuff like this:
But a cause is not a fact, and it never will be; the things we can see will always be bracketed by what we cannot. And this is why, even when we know everything about everything, we’ll still be telling stories about why it happened. It’s mystery all the way down.
Ed


Post 5

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 - 3:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I read this article and thought to myself "hmm wonder what the scientists would have to say about this piece of mind denouncing drivel"

When I read it I thought wow I have not seen anything written lately that was so obviously nihilistic in a long time. If the scientists themselves embraced this defeatist mindset we are in twubbbble..

Ps lol @ luke's post.

Post 6

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 - 5:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
... still searching for the two journal articles mentioned by the nihilist ...

How come these nihilists never cite their references?

Ed

p.s. They probability think that the world is going to end by the time you get to the citation anyway (so that it won't matter whether you can check their "facts" or not).

:-)

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/11, 6:07pm)


Post 7

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 - 9:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
... yep ... still searching ...


Post 8

Thursday, January 12, 2012 - 6:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
... okay ... I'm giving up (for now).

What irks me is that here is a guy who throws evidence around like it is a basketball in order to get to the conclusion that evidence doesn't really help humans, and he doesn't even reference the evidence -- probably because he believes there's nothing out there but what HIS philosophy (existentialism) tells us, which is an amorphous and incomprehensible reality that we are all groping around in, while trying to get our personal needs and desires met.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/12, 6:33am)


Post 9

Thursday, January 12, 2012 - 4:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ya its pretty irresponsible "journalism" bet he does a great job of writing articles on invisible fairies too..

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Friday, January 13, 2012 - 12:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Why the humanities are failing us:


They are pumping out complete idiots who knowingly declare "There is no knowable cause/why" and assert that in an article with the word 'why' in the title.

Busted.



Post 11

Friday, January 13, 2012 - 4:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Balf eubanks are everywere..

Post 12

Saturday, January 14, 2012 - 9:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good eye, Fred.

Ed


Post 13

Saturday, January 14, 2012 - 11:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

Sometimes the safest place to hide complete nonsense is in plain sight.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Monday, January 16, 2012 - 3:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jonah Lehrer (in the article) said:
Furthermore, torcetrapib had already undergone a small clinical trial, which showed that the drug could increase HDL and decrease LDL. Kindler told his investors that, by the second half of 2007, Pfizer would begin applying for approval from the FDA. The success of the drug seemed like a sure thing.

And then, just two days later, on December 2, 2006, Pfizer issued a stunning announcement: The torcetrapib Phase III clinical trial was being terminated. Although the compound was supposed to prevent heart disease, it was actually triggering higher rates of chest pain and heart failure and a 60 percent increase in overall mortality. The drug appeared to be killing people.

That week, Pfizer’s value plummeted by $21 billion.

The story of torcetrapib is a tale of mistaken causation. Pfizer was operating on the assumption that raising levels of HDL cholesterol and lowering LDL would lead to a predictable outcome: Improved cardiovascular health. Less arterial plaque. Cleaner pipes. But that didn’t happen.

Such failures occur all the time in the drug industry.
But what he is guilty of is of a type of 'shoot-the-messenger' fallacy. In scientific parlance, an independent variable is something you deliberately change (it is a "cause"), and a dependent variable is something you hope to change (it is an "effect"). You try to change the dependent variable by changing the independent variable. In the experiment mentioned, researchers tried to change HDL levels by administering the drug, torcetrapib. But Lehrer 'shoots-the-independent-variable' here. He assumes that the looked-for effect (the raised HDL levels) of administration of the causal substance is precisely what it is that created the unintended consequence of increased overall mortality.

In other words, he is guilty of the very charges that he lays out against the researchers (or, against science, in general)!

After looking into the matter a little bit, I discovered that the drug, torcetrapib doesn't just do one thing in your body, such as raise your HDL levels, but instead it has side-effects (which is actually a very common thing, if not a ubiquitous thing). One of the side-effects of this drug, increasing your blood pressure, happens to be a great candidate for explanation of the negative results of the very torcetrapib study that Lehrer mentions. So, do you know what it would have taken to have made Lehrer happy in this regard -- to allow him to retain a conviction that science is progressing (rather than crumbling backward to the Stone Age)? I do, it would have taken a drug without side-effects. If a drug without side-effects were discovered and used, then Lehrer might be okay with continuing to believe in the progress of science.

In other words, he doesn't like to live in reality, where there are troublesome limitations -- such as pharmaceutical compounds that don't just do what they are supposed to, but also have side effects. In his intellectual laziness, he wants what the mystic wants: effortless certainty. What does he do when he doesn't get it? He lashes out at reality. If he finds himself in conflict with reality, then he claims that it is reality that is in the wrong. It is certainly not his fault. It is not due to his intellectual laziness. It is something that is wrong with reality (e.g., "It's mystery all the way down").

Ed

Reference:
The end of the road for CETP inhibitors after torcetrapib?


Post 15

Tuesday, January 17, 2012 - 7:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

Good analysis.

regards,
Fred

Post 16

Tuesday, January 17, 2012 - 1:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred:

Sometimes the safest place to hide complete nonsense is in scientific jargon, deliberately spewed onto a page with no citation of sources, in the hopes of snowballing potential critics by intimidation (banking that they won't check out the sources and find out that you are actually a complete idiot, who just happens to know how to type well).

:-)

Ed


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.