Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

A good, if trivial, example why pseudo-scientific thinking MUST be challenged.

173 replies

BertrandRussell · 18/02/2016 10:28

This is a bit of a thread about a thread, but I hope it's allowed to stay- it illustrates perfectly why pseudo science can be dangerous and needs to be challenged, and why critical thinking is vital. Someone asked whether it was OK to have a child's bed positioned under a window. People reassured them that it was fine, so long as the window was properly secure and there were no blind cords to be a danger. There were still posters saying things like "I wouldn't- I don't know why, but I just wouldn't".

They have unconsciously absorbed the need to make sure the window is properly safe- but haven't absorbed that once you have done that it is safe. That there is something else going on that makes it dangerous. So an Old Husband's Tale continues.

I heard once of a family where they always cut the end off a joint of meat before roasting it "because that's what you have to do". When it was investigated, it turned out that 50 years ago, there had been a joint too big for the oven, so the end was cut off to make it smaller. 2 generations later, that had become just something you did when you roasted meat. Nobody questioned it.

If you feel uncomfortable putting your child's bed under a window, or like doing anything else superstitious, like greeting magpies or thinking that white feathers are sending you messages or chatting to robins because they make you think of your dead mother maybe that's just me that's fine. But do it in the clear knowledge that you are being irrational, and that it isn't real. Because once you stop thinking rationally about these things you are easy prey for charlatans and woo merchants.

OP posts:
SexTrainGlue · 19/02/2016 08:20

OP are you a NC for the poster who bumped several (zombie) psychic threads?

It's so convenient that you then cite them as top 10 in this topic. Or is there a scientific explanation for that?

MilkTwoSugarsThanks · 19/02/2016 08:22

scaevola - I do hope you're right, it's just that the OP's insistence that "these must be challenged" using such a trivial example (which she did admit to) comes across as rather, I dunno, draconian.

Although back to the window - what if the window got smashed? Your child would get covered in shards of glass!

BertrandRussell · 19/02/2016 08:22

I didn't even open them. I just noticed the titles.

OP posts:
lostinmiddlemarch · 19/02/2016 08:23

There is a misassumption in your thread title that you are infallible and something dreadful is going to happen if scientific measures are not adopted instantly. That is completely unscientific; after a brief objective analysis of the risks of (a) cutting the end off a joint of meat and (b) not placing a bed near a window, I have now concluded that it doesn't remotely matter if these gently eccentric beliefs are challenged or not. I would be more concerned about the potential for catastrophic consequences in connection with believing that you MUST have input into other people's interior design choices.

NewChristian · 19/02/2016 08:23

Re: panic attacks. Or anxiety for example. Your own experience through your eyes is reality at that time for you. So it actually makes no sense to say it isn't real. The impact it has IS real. I don't understand the point of this thread...

NewChristian · 19/02/2016 08:25

What I mean is, what is not real about a panic attack?

The feelings or the physiological effect?

MilkTwoSugarsThanks · 19/02/2016 08:25

OP - so must they be challenged, or do you accept that some people have feelings that can't be backed up by science (like the fact that I like pink)? Surely someone saying "... but I don't know why." is them realising that there is no rational explanation, which you seemed to accept in your last paragraph of your OP.

SexTrainGlue · 19/02/2016 08:29

"I didn't even open them. I just noticed the titles."

But still felt able to comment on their presence in this topic, and what sorts of posts they had attracted. That is not an adequate research methodology.

MilkTwoSugarsThanks · 19/02/2016 08:29

Actually, about the joint of meat - surely that was based on science? It didn't fit! Sure, the 'science' had moved on (bigger oven or smaller joint), but it was based on science!

BertrandRussell · 19/02/2016 08:33

It's knowing that you're being non rational that's important. I know that robins aren't actually my mother popping back to check up on us. But I like the idea of it and it makes me smile. If I started believing it was actually her then I would be opening myself up to any snake oil salesman or charlatan who wanted to sell me something or bullshit me about the reality of the world about me.

OP posts:
TheFallenMadonna · 19/02/2016 08:42

I believe in God, surely the ultimate irrationality! I do know it's not rational. I can think rationally about lots of things though. And do in fact. I would say that we need to recognise that we all have irrational biases that influence the way we see the world. Some we are conscious of, some we are not.

NewChristian · 19/02/2016 08:45

OP - your posts sound quite patronising.

I really doubt you started this thread because of your 'concern' for people who might be 'taken in' by snake oil salesmen. Many of the 'truths' that we have been raised on are actually things we accept without question or evidence including the reality of the world around us.

Nobody tells you what to believe, so why do you feel the need to pour scorn on others because they aren't the same as you? People who have a faith won't change their mind because of a thread like this.

MilkTwoSugarsThanks · 19/02/2016 08:52

OP - in your OP you said that people were saying "I wouldn't, but I don't know why." If that isn't accepting that your feeling isn't rational then what is? And that seems to be what you want people to do - accept that they're not being entirely rational.

What exactly is your point?

I'm an atheist, I don't think religion is rational. I wouldn't dream of "challenging" someone's belief, that would be seriously out of order!

Devilishpyjamas · 19/02/2016 09:08

But if I said 'I'm not putting ds1's bed under the window as it's dangerous' & nothing more you would assume I was being unscientific. In fact I'm just trying to avoid a dead son.

Devilishpyjamas · 19/02/2016 09:15

Of course a panic attack is 'real'. It's a physiological reaction. It might not be a heart attack but it's real.

Ds1 has seizures. He's had 2 full blown seizures in one month - unconcious for 3-5 mins, shaking, foaming at mouth, burst blood vessels under skin, slept for 24 hours afterwards, massive headaches afterwards. The specialist isn't convinced they're epileptic seizures. He thinks they might be psychogenic. That doesn't make them less 'real' or 'unscientific' or 'without reason' - it just means there's no medication for them & the 'treatment' is getting his support package right. He's still unconcious etc etc.

Devilishpyjamas · 19/02/2016 09:18

Anyway ds1's snake oil of 14 years ago (gluten & casein free diet) has now been suggested to me as worth a try by a peadiatrician & neurologist. Sometimes it does no harm to try something before a doctor gives you permission to do so Confused

headinhands · 19/02/2016 09:37

gluten & casein free diet

For me the definition of a snake oil is a cure that has no demonstrable evidence especially where the person proffering the snake oil would gain something by your trying it, such as money or status. It may be that studies have now shown some benefit to some patients in altering diets. Although I do see how you feel it could have been seen as snake oil previously. If you had read about it and made sensible trial and error changes in light of your research that wouldn't have made it snake oil.

headinhands · 19/02/2016 09:39

Sorry to hear about your ds devill, Thanks

BertrandRussell · 19/02/2016 09:41

"But if I said 'I'm not putting ds1's bed under the window as it's dangerous' & nothing more you would assume I was being unscientific. In fact I'm just trying to avoid a dead son."

No, I wouldn't. I'd say "That's interesting- why is it dangerous?" And you'd tell me.

OP posts:
BertrandRussell · 19/02/2016 09:43

And plenty of people were on gluten free diets 14 years ago. The first person I knew who had coeliac disease was diagnosed in 1976.

OP posts:
Devilishpyjamas · 19/02/2016 09:45

When we started gfcf (& probiotics) the evidence was anecdotal & mainly parent shared stories. Ds1's paediatrician rolled his eyes & said 'well if you will waste your money'. It was certainly very much lumped in the snake oil & 'preying on desperate parents' category by mainstream medics at the time.

Eventually some parent funded research bodies started commissioning research into diet & gut bacteria etc etc & the evidence is now sufficient for some paeds at least to be confident enough to recommend giving it a go.

Devilishpyjamas · 19/02/2016 09:48

Yes bertrand - but I'm talking about GFCF diets as a treatment for the symptoms of autism. That was very controversial (even suggesting some autisms were biomedical & potentially treatable was controversial). Believe me that has been a huge change in attitude amogst the medics on that in the last 15 or so years.

Devilishpyjamas · 19/02/2016 09:59

And incidentally the gfcf diet had not be 'proven' to work. Probably in part because no-one has actually got a grip on all the different autisms.

What I have found over the last 15 years is that senior doctors at least are very aware that they actually know bugger all about autism & so are more prepared to talk about what might help & how much they know. In the last appointment my son's specialist must have said 'I don't know' at least 20 times in the hour we were in there. I like that. I prefer it to someone thinking they're being scientific because they're basing everything on what has been published, rather than thinking about what hasn't been published.

As for white feathers - if a white feather is bringing comfort to someone why would you piss on it?

BertrandRussell · 19/02/2016 10:05

"In the last appointment my son's specialist must have said 'I don't know' at least 20 times in the hour we were in there"

Yep, that's what scientists do.

Unlike "pseudo" scientists.

"As for white feathers - if a white feather is bringing comfort to someone why would you piss on it?"

I refer you to my previous answers Grin Absolutly fine. Unless someone charges you 40 quid to get you in touch with your dead child and says "Keep an eye out for a white feather- that'll be proof that I got in touch with her. Come back next week with another 40 quid"

OP posts:
AlanPacino · 19/02/2016 10:07

I myself have experimented with my dcs diet for various issues. I didn't feel it was snake oily because I didn't expect it to cure and it didn't seem whacky. We know how important gut bacteria is, we know many people have trouble with gluten so it's not in the realms of science fiction to ponder if tweaking a diet might alleviate symptoms. I think the snake oil term is used when someone is desperate and vulnerable. And there's little evidence of a benefit and where another benefits from the desperate person in status, power money etc.