I just finished reading Michael Coe's "Breaking the Maya Code", the history
of the decipherment of Maya writing.

It turns out that one of the leading "scientists" researching Maya
inscriptions believed they were mostly decoration, not a representation of
Maya speech. By browbeating most of the other researchers, making them
afraid to disagree, he was single-handedly able to block the correct
decipherment for 40 years!

If you want to see real science, watch "Mythbusters" on The Discovery
Channel. (There's a new episode tonight.) Messrs. Hyneman and Savage
actually actually understand science -- in particular, how to ask the right
questions and how to set up valid experiments. "Mythbusters" is arguably the
best science show on TV, because it shows good science.

"William Sommerwerck"

I just finished reading Michael Coe's "Breaking the Maya Code", the history
of the decipherment of Maya writing.

It turns out that one of the leading "scientists" researching Maya
inscriptions believed they were mostly decoration, not a representation of
Maya speech. By browbeating most of the other researchers, making them
afraid to disagree, he was single-handedly able to block the correct
decipherment for 40 years!

If you want to see real science, watch "Mythbusters" on The Discovery
Channel. (There's a new episode tonight.) Messrs. Hyneman and Savage
actually actually understand science -- in particular, how to ask the
right
questions and how to set up valid experiments. "Mythbusters" is arguably
the
best science show on TV, because it shows good science.



** For once - I totally agree with WS.

Asking the *right question* always requires considerable insight.

Setting up * relevant * criteria for making a valid judgement of some
matter is even harder.

Messrs. Hyneman and Savage are both clearly very well of aware of these
facts, as a result constantly do their level best - within the limits of
time, budget and having to make an entertaining programme - get it damn
close to spot on nearly every time.

Give 'em both honorary PhDs if it were my say.




....... Phil

Phil Allison wrote:
"William Sommerwerck"

I just finished reading Michael Coe's "Breaking the Maya Code", the history
of the decipherment of Maya writing.

It turns out that one of the leading "scientists" researching Maya
inscriptions believed they were mostly decoration, not a representation of
Maya speech. By browbeating most of the other researchers, making them
afraid to disagree, he was single-handedly able to block the correct
decipherment for 40 years!

If you want to see real science, watch "Mythbusters" on The Discovery
Channel. (There's a new episode tonight.) Messrs. Hyneman and Savage
actually actually understand science -- in particular, how to ask the
right
questions and how to set up valid experiments. "Mythbusters" is arguably
the
best science show on TV, because it shows good science.



** For once - I totally agree with WS.

Asking the *right question* always requires considerable insight.

Setting up * relevant * criteria for making a valid judgement of some
matter is even harder.

Messrs. Hyneman and Savage are both clearly very well of aware of these
facts, as a result constantly do their level best - within the limits of
time, budget and having to make an entertaining programme - get it damn
close to spot on nearly every time.

Give 'em both honorary PhDs if it were my say.




...... Phil


We should apply some of this kind of science logic to the SACD and
preamp "debates"

Mark

"Mark"
Phil Allison wrote:
"William Sommerwerck"

I just finished reading Michael Coe's "Breaking the Maya Code", the
history
of the decipherment of Maya writing.

It turns out that one of the leading "scientists" researching Maya
inscriptions believed they were mostly decoration, not a representation
of
Maya speech. By browbeating most of the other researchers, making them
afraid to disagree, he was single-handedly able to block the correct
decipherment for 40 years!

If you want to see real science, watch "Mythbusters" on The Discovery
Channel. (There's a new episode tonight.) Messrs. Hyneman and Savage
actually actually understand science -- in particular, how to ask the
right
questions and how to set up valid experiments. "Mythbusters" is
arguably
the
best science show on TV, because it shows good science.



** For once - I totally agree with WS.

Asking the *right question* always requires considerable insight.

Setting up * relevant * criteria for making a valid judgement of some
matter is even harder.

Messrs. Hyneman and Savage are both clearly very well of aware of these
facts, as a result constantly do their level best - within the limits of
time, budget and having to make an entertaining programme - get it damn
close to spot on nearly every time.

Give 'em both honorary PhDs if it were my say.

........ Phil


We should apply some of this kind of science logic to the SACD and
preamp "debates"



** If Messrs. Hyneman and Savage EVER decided to turn their sights and
analytic powers onto the myriad audio and hi-fi myths - they would easily
have enough material to last them the rest of their productive lives.

However, I would never wish such a thankless, Sisyphusean task on my worst
enemy.

Hang on - yes I bloody well would actually .......





........ Phil

** For once - I totally agree with WS.

Oh, we've agreed before. In a few instances. grin


Messrs. Hyneman and Savage are both clearly very well of aware of these
facts, as a result constantly do their level best - within the limits of
time, budget and having to make an entertaining programme - get it damn
close to spot on nearly every time.

Actually, I suspect the program has a substantial budget. Which isn't
surprising, because it's one of those rare shows that holds up well to
repeat viewings.

Kudos also to whoever writes the narration. They have a comparable
understanding.


Give 'em both honorary PhDs if it were my say.

Agreed.

William Sommerwerck wrote:

If you want to see real science, watch "Mythbusters" on The Discovery
Channel. (There's a new episode tonight.) Messrs. Hyneman and Savage
actually actually understand science -- in particular, how to ask the right
questions and how to set up valid experiments.

Agreed.

The only one I ever had to yell at the TV about was the one where they
re-created the scene from "American Graffiti" where the rear axle is
yanked out from under the police car. Their results suggested that it
couldn't be done.

The car in the movie was a '62 Ford full size sedan. The MB car was a
late 90's-ish Ford sedan. The '62 had a perimeter frame and a relatively
fragile rear suspension. The late-model has a unitized body and totally
different rear suspension/drive line arrangement.

Having owned both '61 and '62 Ford full size sedans, and having yanked
the rear suspensions out of cars of that vintage back in more reckless
days (recreational destruction), the MB guys blew it. It certainly _can_
be done, and quite easily. I think they later recanted and said they'd
have to try it again with a properly vintage setup.

But that's one of the admirable aspects of their show. Not to mention
that they're just fun to watch.



TM

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
I just finished reading Michael Coe's "Breaking the Maya Code", the history
of the decipherment of Maya writing.

It turns out that one of the leading "scientists" researching Maya
inscriptions believed they were mostly decoration, not a representation of
Maya speech. By browbeating most of the other researchers, making them
afraid to disagree, he was single-handedly able to block the correct
decipherment for 40 years!

If you want to see real science, watch "Mythbusters" on The Discovery
Channel. (There's a new episode tonight.) Messrs. Hyneman and Savage
actually actually understand science -- in particular, how to ask the
right
questions and how to set up valid experiments. "Mythbusters" is arguably
the
best science show on TV, because it shows good science.




I saw a program last night about a "scientist" who was investigating
acupuncture use in China. In particular, a girl who was undergoing open
heart surgery while fully concious, using acupuncture techniques.
(including the now common electronic stimulation via the needles). What was
telling for me about some of the attitudes within Western science, was when
she said "I am a scientist and it makes no sense to me".

Now the Chinese have been doing this for 2000 years and I imagine they have
become rather expert in their field. If it didn't work, I think they would
have realised by now. Along comes a Westerner with a Western 20th century
mindset who cannot understand how this is possible, given what she thinks
she knows as absolute facts. It is this seeming inability, in some people
who should know better, to think beyond current knowledge that bemuses and
baffles me. Good science is when people are looking for new hypotheses, new
paradigms in the way we understand the world etc. Bad science is refusing
point blank to believe in this sort of "New Age Nonesense" because our
current "rules" won't allow it.




Gareth.

"Gareth Magennis"


I saw a program last night about a "scientist" who was investigating
acupuncture use in China. In particular, a girl who was undergoing open
heart surgery while fully concious, using acupuncture techniques.
(including the now common electronic stimulation via the needles). What
was telling for me about some of the attitudes within Western science, was
when she said "I am a scientist and it makes no sense to me".

Now the Chinese have been doing this for 2000 years ......


** Open heart surgery is only a few decades old & nothing to do with any
dumb**** Chow.

The science and technology that made it possible and very safe took
centuries to develop and perfect.

What YOU arrogantly claim YOU saw said on some ****ing whacko doco is not
worth a pinch of ****.

**** off.



......... Phil

"Gareth Magennis" wrote ...
I saw a program last night about a "scientist" who was investigating
acupuncture use in China. In particular, a girl who was undergoing
open heart surgery while fully concious, using acupuncture techniques.
(including the now common electronic stimulation via the needles).
What was telling for me about some of the attitudes within Western
science, was when she said "I am a scientist and it makes no sense to
me".

Now the Chinese have been doing this for 2000 years and I imagine they
have become rather expert in their field. If it didn't work, I think
they would have realised by now. Along comes a Westerner with a
Western 20th century mindset who cannot understand how this is
possible, given what she thinks she knows as absolute facts. It is
this seeming inability, in some people who should know better, to
think beyond current knowledge that bemuses and baffles me. Good
science is when people are looking for new hypotheses, new paradigms
in the way we understand the world etc. Bad science is refusing point
blank to believe in this sort of "New Age Nonesense" because our
current "rules" won't allow it.

OTOH, not everything "ancient", "traditional", or even
"alternate" is automatically good and true, either. We
have well-known examples of phony science and phony
history, and phony insert your favorite discipline here.

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Gareth Magennis"


I saw a program last night about a "scientist" who was investigating
acupuncture use in China. In particular, a girl who was undergoing open
heart surgery while fully concious, using acupuncture techniques.
(including the now common electronic stimulation via the needles). What
was telling for me about some of the attitudes within Western science,
was when she said "I am a scientist and it makes no sense to me".

Now the Chinese have been doing this for 2000 years ......


** Open heart surgery is only a few decades old & nothing to do with any
dumb**** Chow.



The science and technology that made it possible and very safe took
centuries to develop and perfect.


What YOU arrogantly claim YOU saw said on some ****ing whacko doco is not
worth a pinch of ****.

**** off.



It is the acupuncture that the Chinese have perfected over 2000 years, not
the open heart surgery, I thought that was bleedin' obvious. The Chinese
are using acupuncture instead of dangerous anaesthetics and expensive drugs,
and it appears, at least in the cases in this documentary, to be working.





Gareth.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
If you want to see real science, watch "Mythbusters" on The Discovery
Channel. (There's a new episode tonight.) Messrs. Hyneman and Savage
actually actually understand science -- in particular, how to ask the right
questions and how to set up valid experiments. "Mythbusters" is arguably the
best science show on TV, because it shows good science.

I love that TV show, but I disagree that it's good science. Their
show is filled with logical leaps and fallacies, inconsistent use of
control samples, and just plain missing the point.

One example: A recent episode tried to recreate a story about a
prison inmate who built a crossbow out of things like paper, glue,
and plastic, and then killed a fellow inmate with it. In evaluating
their homemade crossbows, one of them said something like, "The killing
potential of a projectile is a function of its kinetic energy." And
then they looked up kinetic energies needed to kill various animals,
and then calculated the kinetic energy of their homemade arrows.
They had scales and calculators and lots of scientific sounding stuff,
and probably had most of the audience fooled that this was a legitimate
comparison. However, it was based on a totally false premise. Yes,
the killing potential of bullets is largely (though not wholly) based
on kinetic energy. But ask any bowhunter and you'll learn the kill
scenario for bow and arrow isn't to deliver enough kinetic energy for
an instant kill, unlike rifle hunting. The idea is for the arrow to
pass through the target, slicing enough blood vessels and the heart
to cause death through (rapid) blood loss. So what they should have
been focusing on was cutting ability, not kinetic energy.

I don't mean to knock the show. Like I said, I watch every episode.
But I wouldn't hold them up as the role models for hard science.
(On the other hand, in an era where "intelligent design" is considered
by many laypeople to be valid science, Savage and Hyneman are relative
Einsteins.)


Todd.

I saw a program last night about a "scientist" who was investigating
acupuncture use in China. In particular, a girl who was undergoing open
heart surgery while fully concious, using acupuncture techniques.
(including the now common electronic stimulation via the needles). What
was telling for me about some of the attitudes within Western science, was
when she said "I am a scientist and it makes no sense to me".

She may have merely meant, "I see it but I don't understand it," and that
the traditional Chinese explanation of it didn't answer important questions.
Just because you see it working doesn't mean you have to swallow a folk
theory about how it works.

Phil Allison wrote:

"Gareth Magennis"


I saw a program last night about a "scientist" who was investigating
acupuncture use in China. In particular, a girl who was undergoing open
heart surgery while fully concious, using acupuncture techniques.
(including the now common electronic stimulation via the needles). What
was telling for me about some of the attitudes within Western science, was
when she said "I am a scientist and it makes no sense to me".

Now the Chinese have been doing this for 2000 years ......

** Open heart surgery is only a few decades old & nothing to do with any
dumb**** Chow.

The science and technology that made it possible and very safe took
centuries to develop and perfect.

What YOU arrogantly claim YOU saw said on some ****ing whacko doco is not
worth a pinch of ****.

This programme was on the BBC a couple of days ago.

I only saw the trailer but Gareth's description sounds correct to me.

Graham

In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

I just finished reading Michael Coe's "Breaking the Maya Code", the history
of the decipherment of Maya writing.

It turns out that one of the leading "scientists" researching Maya
inscriptions believed they were mostly decoration, not a representation of
Maya speech. By browbeating most of the other researchers, making them
afraid to disagree, he was single-handedly able to block the correct
decipherment for 40 years!

If you want to see real science, watch "Mythbusters" on The Discovery
Channel. (There's a new episode tonight.) Messrs. Hyneman and Savage
actually actually understand science -- in particular, how to ask the right
questions and how to set up valid experiments. "Mythbusters" is arguably the
best science show on TV, because it shows good science.



I've been a bit disappointed with TV's approach to science. Yes, Mythbusters is
quite entertaining and uses a scientific approach to answering questions, but it
is not science in the traditional sense. Science is not very entertaining to
watch. It is meticulous and tedious and not really a spectator sport. And the
answers are often still ambiguous.

Even Nova has swung in the direction of entertainment from where it started, but
since the main goal of these shows is entertainment that may be expected. I
think the Nova Science Now program comes closest to providing a real science
education, though.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

"Mark" wrote in message
oups.com


We should apply some of this kind of science logic to the
SACD and preamp "debates"

The results aren't pretty. ;-)

Todd Bradley wrote:

One example: A recent episode tried to recreate a story about a
prison inmate who built a crossbow out of things like paper, glue,
and plastic, and then killed a fellow inmate with it. In evaluating
their homemade crossbows, one of them said something like, "The killing
potential of a projectile is a function of its kinetic energy." And
then they looked up kinetic energies needed to kill various animals,
and then calculated the kinetic energy of their homemade arrows.
They had scales and calculators and lots of scientific sounding stuff,
and probably had most of the audience fooled that this was a legitimate
comparison. However, it was based on a totally false premise. Yes,
the killing potential of bullets is largely (though not wholly) based
on kinetic energy. But ask any bowhunter and you'll learn the kill
scenario for bow and arrow isn't to deliver enough kinetic energy for
an instant kill, unlike rifle hunting. The idea is for the arrow to
pass through the target, slicing enough blood vessels and the heart
to cause death through (rapid) blood loss. So what they should have
been focusing on was cutting ability, not kinetic energy.

I don't mean to knock the show. Like I said, I watch every episode.
But I wouldn't hold them up as the role models for hard science.
(On the other hand, in an era where "intelligent design" is considered
by many laypeople to be valid science, Savage and Hyneman are relative
Einsteins.)

Well... how about "They did the experiment, you did a peer review"? Did
the original (if real) projectile look like a "bolt" or an arrow
(hunting broadhead)? Apples/apples. --D-y

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Gareth Magennis" wrote ...
I saw a program last night about a "scientist" who was investigating
acupuncture use in China. In particular, a girl who was undergoing open
heart surgery while fully concious, using acupuncture techniques.
(including the now common electronic stimulation via the needles). What
was telling for me about some of the attitudes within Western science,
was when she said "I am a scientist and it makes no sense to me".

Now the Chinese have been doing this for 2000 years and I imagine they
have become rather expert in their field. If it didn't work, I think
they would have realised by now. Along comes a Westerner with a Western
20th century mindset who cannot understand how this is possible, given
what she thinks she knows as absolute facts. It is this seeming
inability, in some people who should know better, to think beyond current
knowledge that bemuses and baffles me. Good science is when people are
looking for new hypotheses, new paradigms in the way we understand the
world etc. Bad science is refusing point blank to believe in this sort
of "New Age Nonesense" because our current "rules" won't allow it.

OTOH, not everything "ancient", "traditional", or even
"alternate" is automatically good and true, either. We
have well-known examples of phony science and phony
history, and phony insert your favorite discipline here.


Very true. It seems a bit odd to me though that science is reluctant to
embrace something like acupuncture because it can't be explained by its own
defined terms, whereas anaesthetic use is ubiquitous in the West, and nobody
has a clue how they work, they just know that they do.



Gareth.

Gareth Magennis wrote:
It is the acupuncture that the Chinese have perfected over 2000 years, not
the open heart surgery, I thought that was bleedin' obvious. The Chinese
are using acupuncture instead of dangerous anaesthetics and expensive drugs,
and it appears, at least in the cases in this documentary, to be working.

There's plenty of hard eveidence from controlled studies which have
shown that accupuncture is no better than a placebo.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...opics/acu.html

In article .com,
wrote:

Gareth Magennis wrote:
It is the acupuncture that the Chinese have perfected over 2000 years, not
the open heart surgery, I thought that was bleedin' obvious. The Chinese
are using acupuncture instead of dangerous anaesthetics and expensive drugs,
and it appears, at least in the cases in this documentary, to be working.

There's plenty of hard eveidence from controlled studies which have
shown that accupuncture is no better than a placebo.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...opics/acu.html


However, since placebos are sometimes effective, what does that really mean?

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

William Sommerwerck wrote:
If you want to see real science, watch "Mythbusters" on The
Discovery
Channel. (There's a new episode tonight.) Messrs. Hyneman and Savage
actually actually understand science -- in particular, how to ask the right
questions and how to set up valid experiments. "Mythbusters" is arguably the
best science show on TV, because it shows good science.

I've also heard great things about Penn and Teller's "Bull****" and I
see they're even selling the DVD's in the back of Skeptic magazine. And
if you haven't already read it, Carl Sagan's book "The Demon Haunted
World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" is absolutely wonderful.

"Jay Kadis" wrote in message

In article
.com,
wrote:

Gareth Magennis wrote:
It is the acupuncture that the Chinese have perfected
over 2000 years, not the open heart surgery, I thought
that was bleedin' obvious. The Chinese are using
acupuncture instead of dangerous anaesthetics and
expensive drugs, and it appears, at least in the cases
in this documentary, to be working.

There's plenty of hard eveidence from controlled studies
which have shown that accupuncture is no better than a
placebo.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...opics/acu.html


However, since placebos are sometimes effective, what
does that really mean?

If you had cancer and there was a cancer medicine that was just as effective
as a placebo, would that be the one you want?

More to the point, if you were having open heart surgery, would you choose
the anesthetic that was just as effective as a placebo?

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jay Kadis" wrote in message

In article
.com,
wrote:

Gareth Magennis wrote:
It is the acupuncture that the Chinese have perfected
over 2000 years, not the open heart surgery, I thought
that was bleedin' obvious. The Chinese are using
acupuncture instead of dangerous anaesthetics and
expensive drugs, and it appears, at least in the cases
in this documentary, to be working.

There's plenty of hard eveidence from controlled studies
which have shown that accupuncture is no better than a
placebo.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...opics/acu.html


However, since placebos are sometimes effective, what
does that really mean?

If you had cancer and there was a cancer medicine that was just as effective
as a placebo, would that be the one you want?

More to the point, if you were having open heart surgery, would you choose
the anesthetic that was just as effective as a placebo?



Nice oversimplification, but that's clearly not the point. The placebo effect
shows that believing something will work sometimes leads to the desired effect.
Neuroimmunology is beginning to discover that the brain has some input to the
immune system.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

Arny Krueger wrote:

If you had cancer and there was a cancer medicine that was just as effective
as a placebo, would that be the one you want?

More to the point, if you were having open heart surgery, would you choose
the anesthetic that was just as effective as a placebo?

Placebo is the safest and most effective drug made. It's so powerful that
even a fraction of the standard dose is just as effective.

It also has the benefit of not having any side effects. I'm a huge fan of
placebo.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 25 Jan 2006 15:42:55 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

It also has the benefit of not having any side effects. I'm a huge fan of
placebo.
--scott

You've clearly never heard of the nocebo effect. I suggest a quick
Google.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Gareth Magennis" wrote:

I saw a program last night about a "scientist" who was investigating
acupuncture use in China. In particular, a girl who was undergoing
open heart surgery while fully concious, using acupuncture
techniques.


Forgive my skepticism (or possibly misunderstanding), but doesn't open
heart surgery require stopping the heart and running vital functions
like breathing and blood circulation through outboard devices? Don't
these conditions inherently preclude the possibility of consciousness?

Does this make the story suspect, or am I just missing something?

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

Don Pearce wrote:
On 25 Jan 2006 15:42:55 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

It also has the benefit of not having any side effects. I'm a huge fan of
placebo.

You've clearly never heard of the nocebo effect. I suggest a quick
Google.

Well, sure, that's how voodoo works. There are plenty of great calypso
songs about that.

But that's not really a side effect, it's a desired one. That's just why
you need to be careful with a drug as powerful as placebo. It can be
highly addictive. It's a wonder the government hasn't placed it on one
of the DEA schedules. Then again, with the Analog Drug Act, maybe they
have.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 25 Jan 2006 16:03:04 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On 25 Jan 2006 15:42:55 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

It also has the benefit of not having any side effects. I'm a huge fan of
placebo.

You've clearly never heard of the nocebo effect. I suggest a quick
Google.

Well, sure, that's how voodoo works. There are plenty of great calypso
songs about that.

But that's not really a side effect, it's a desired one. That's just why
you need to be careful with a drug as powerful as placebo. It can be
highly addictive. It's a wonder the government hasn't placed it on one
of the DEA schedules. Then again, with the Analog Drug Act, maybe they
have.
--scott

The nocebo effect is not a desired one. The cure is the desired
effect, nocebo causes adverse side effects.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Jay Kadis" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jay Kadis" wrote in message

In article
.com,
wrote:

Gareth Magennis wrote:
It is the acupuncture that the Chinese have perfected
over 2000 years, not the open heart surgery, I thought
that was bleedin' obvious. The Chinese are using
acupuncture instead of dangerous anaesthetics and
expensive drugs, and it appears, at least in the cases
in this documentary, to be working.

There's plenty of hard eveidence from controlled
studies which have shown that accupuncture is no
better than a placebo.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...opics/acu.html


However, since placebos are sometimes effective, what
does that really mean?

If you had cancer and there was a cancer medicine that
was just as effective as a placebo, would that be the
one you want?

More to the point, if you were having open heart
surgery, would you choose the anesthetic that was just
as effective as a placebo?

Nice oversimplification, but that's clearly not the
point.

Ironic given that the second situation relates exactly to the given example.

The placebo effect shows that believing something
will work sometimes leads to the desired effect.

I would change that slightly to read:

The placebo effect shows that believing something
will work sometimes leads to the perception of the desired effect.

Neuroimmunology is beginning to discover that the brain
has some input to the immune system.

Plan A when terrorists spread weapons-grade anthrax: Convince yourself
you'll stay healthy.

Plan B when terrorists spread weapons-grade anthrax: Convince yourself
you'll stay healthy and take the medicine.

Jay Kadis wrote:
Nice oversimplification, but that's clearly not the point. The placebo effect
shows that believing something will work sometimes leads to the desired effect.
Neuroimmunology is beginning to discover that the brain has some input to the
immune system.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

And there's also this perspective to consider:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/...ct/344/21/1594

"Conclusions We found little evidence in general that placebos had
powerful clinical effects. Although placebos had no significant effects
on objective or binary outcomes, they had possible small benefits in
studies with continuous subjective outcomes and for the treatment of
pain. Outside the setting of clinical trials, there is no justification
for the use of placebos."

I saw a program last night about a "scientist" who was investigating
acupuncture use in China. In particular, a girl who was undergoing
open
heart surgery while fully concious, using acupuncture techniques.

In Western Medicine I think they call what she was experiencing...
"shock".

Pass the demerol please...

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jay Kadis" wrote in message


[snip]


Neuroimmunology is beginning to discover that the brain
has some input to the immune system.

Plan A when terrorists spread weapons-grade anthrax: Convince yourself
you'll stay healthy.

Plan B when terrorists spread weapons-grade anthrax: Convince yourself
you'll stay healthy and take the medicine.


Arny, you're a master of oversimplification. Everything is black or white to
you, isn't it? Must be nice to have such a simple view of the world.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

The only one I ever had to yell at the TV about was the one where they
re-created the scene from "American Graffiti" where the rear axle is
yanked out from under the police car. Their results suggested that it
couldn't be done.

The car in the movie was a '62 Ford full size sedan. The MB car was a
late 90's-ish Ford sedan. The '62 had a perimeter frame and a relatively
fragile rear suspension. The late-model has a unitized body and totally
different rear suspension/drive line arrangement.

Having owned both '61 and '62 Ford full size sedans, and having yanked
the rear suspensions out of cars of that vintage back in more reckless
days (recreational destruction), the MB guys blew it. It certainly _can_
be done, and quite easily. I think they later recanted and said they'd
have to try it again with a properly vintage setup.

Then write and let them know. They've repeated experiments when viewers
complain. They WILL listen to you.

In fact, on tonight's show they're repeating the "Greek death ray"
experiment.

If you had cancer and there was a cancer medicine that was
just as effective as a placebo, would that be the one you want?

I'd want the placebo -- no side effects!

Plan A when terrorists spread weapons-grade anthrax: Convince yourself
you'll stay healthy.

Plan B when terrorists spread weapons-grade anthrax: Convince yourself
you'll stay healthy and take the medicine.

Arny, you're a master of oversimplification. Everything is black or white
to
you, isn't it? Must be nice to have such a simple view of the world.

Thanks.

The placebo effect is well-established. In fact, about a year ago it was
found that, for a particular type of knee surgery, simply opening the knee
then sewing it shut, was just as effective as actually performing the
surgery!

I love that TV show, but I disagree that it's good science. Their
show is filled with logical leaps and fallacies, inconsistent use of
control samples, and just plain missing the point.

One example: A recent episode tried to recreate a story about a
prison inmate who built a crossbow out of things like paper, glue,
and plastic, and then killed a fellow inmate with it. In evaluating
their homemade crossbows, one of them said something like, "The killing
potential of a projectile is a function of its kinetic energy." And
then they looked up kinetic energies needed to kill various animals,
and then calculated the kinetic energy of their homemade arrows.
They had scales and calculators and lots of scientific sounding stuff,
and probably had most of the audience fooled that this was a legitimate
comparison. However, it was based on a totally false premise. Yes,
the killing potential of bullets is largely (though not wholly) based
on kinetic energy. But ask any bowhunter and you'll learn the kill
scenario for bow and arrow isn't to deliver enough kinetic energy for
an instant kill, unlike rifle hunting. The idea is for the arrow to
pass through the target, slicing enough blood vessels and the heart
to cause death through (rapid) blood loss. So what they should have
been focusing on was cutting ability, not kinetic energy.

I don't mean to knock the show. Like I said, I watch every episode.
But I wouldn't hold them up as the role models for hard science.

I think you're missinterpreting. The point of having a sufficient amount of
kinetic energy is to guarantee the penetration that will cut the blood
vessels, damage the heart, etc. Clearly, large animals require more engergy
to penetrate and damage the creature.

By the way, note the Mr. Savage "killed" ballistics-gel dummy!

The placebo effect is well-established. In fact, about a year ago it was
found that, for a particular type of knee surgery, simply opening the knee
then sewing it shut, was just as effective as actually performing the
surgery!

It could be that the post-surgical care (staying off of it for a few days,
etc.) was what really cured it!

"Pooh Bear"


This programme was on the BBC a couple of days ago.

I only saw the trailer but Gareth's description sounds correct to me.



** LOL


**** off - pommy half wit.




........ Phil

Scott Dorsey wrote:

But that's not really a side effect, it's a desired one. That's just why
you need to be careful with a drug as powerful as placebo. It can be
highly addictive. It's a wonder the government hasn't placed it on one
of the DEA schedules. Then again, with the Analog Drug Act, maybe they
have.


Analog drugs rule!!!!!

Digital drugs suck!!!!

Digital prostate exams suck even worse!

wrote:
Well... how about "They did the experiment, you did a peer review"? Did
the original (if real) projectile look like a "bolt" or an arrow
(hunting broadhead)? Apples/apples. --D-y

They didn't know what the convict used, but it seemed like they did
their best to emulate a hunting broadhead out of plastic and paper.


Todd.

"Todd Bradley"

"The killing potential of a projectile is a function of its kinetic
energy."

** An undeniably correct statement !!

The crucial words are "potential " and "function - taken together and in
context, the statement says:

" With more kinetic energy, a *given* projectile can do more damage to a
living thing. "


And
then they looked up kinetic energies needed to kill various animals,
and then calculated the kinetic energy of their homemade arrows.
They had scales and calculators and lots of scientific sounding stuff,
and probably had most of the audience fooled that this was a legitimate
comparison. However, it was based on a totally false premise. Yes,
the killing potential of bullets is largely (though not wholly) based
on kinetic energy. But ask any bowhunter and you'll learn the kill
scenario for bow and arrow isn't to deliver enough kinetic energy for
an instant kill, unlike rifle hunting. The idea is for the arrow to
pass through the target, slicing enough blood vessels and the heart
to cause death through (rapid) blood loss. So what they should have
been focusing on was cutting ability, not kinetic energy.



** YOU are the one making the foolish logical error.

What the Mythbusters said was.

"The killing potential of a projectile is a function of its kinetic
energy."

What the Mythbusters did NOT say was.

"The killing potential of a projectile is a function of its kinetic
energy and nothing else."





........ Phil