Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
blaeberry · 19/02/2016 10:09

Curtain cords can kill a child wherever their bed is put. Young children need supervision

Both these sentences are true but the second does not follow on from the first. Curtain cords can kill and therefore should be removed, wound up out of reach or tied down. Supervision is not enough as children cannot be constantly supervised at home (you have to sleep sometime) - the home must be made safe.

MilkTwoSugarsThanks · 19/02/2016 10:14

OP, do you dismiss people's religion in this way? Or is it only select things that you dismiss? Does the fact that your "challenges" could deeply offend or upset someone not matter to you? Even the head tilt and "why do you think that?" (who are you to question anyway?) could really upset someone. Does that not bother you?

As I said before - it would be an extremely unkind person who would do that with no care about the other person's feelings.

AlanPacino · 19/02/2016 10:18

I am very close to people who get comfort from seeing feathers/robins. I smile along with them when they tell me because it makes them happy and I feel happy to see them happy. I think it's patent nonsense of course and do have an inward chuckle but they have no idea because I would be a massive shit to trash it to them personally.

It's probably why I like to knock about here because here people are willingly opening up the issue and it's not likely to cause awkwardness at the next family get together. Grin

I do feel sad when they pay their cash to go to psychics but they can afford it. I don't think they're silly enough to cause themselves financial difficulty if they were struggling but I'm damn certain their are vulnerable hurting people who spend £££ they can't afford on psychic phone lines and so on. And that upsets me.

AlanPacino · 19/02/2016 10:23

it would be an extremely unkind person who would do that with no care about the other person's feelings.

I wouldn't start a discussion about the validity of these beliefs in RL when a friend tells me the robin they saw is their dad. But I am happy to look at the credence and causes of these, and all other beliefs on a debate forum. There is a big difference. Im not a shit, honest. Smile

BertrandRussell · 19/02/2016 10:23

"Even the head tilt and "why do you think that?" (who are you to question anyway?) could really upset someone. Does that not bother you?"

You're editorializing the "head tilt"

If somebody said to me "sleeping under a window is dangerous" of course I'd ask why. Because I don't assume I know everything. And for all I know I might be putting my own under the window sleeping childat risk.

OP posts:
BertrandRussell · 19/02/2016 10:25

"OP, do you dismiss people's religion in this way? Or is it only select things that you dismiss? "

Please can you stop saying I am dismissing anything? Because I'm not, you know. Can we try to be polite?

OP posts:
HaveIGotAClue · 19/02/2016 10:32

This isn't the tale of the bed and the window, correct? Hmm

This is the tale of the talking robin with the white feather.

Ok, now that I've cleared that up, as you were.

MilkTwoSugarsThanks · 19/02/2016 10:41

OP, there is nothing impolite about my question.

Your thread title says "MUST be challenged". To me that comes across as dismissal. If I say "I like seeing white feathers - it means my nan is checking I'm OK." would you really challenge that? Would you really feel it appropriate to question something that gives me comfort? Do you really think you or anyone else has the right to challenge that belief?

I won't deny that some irrational (to others) thoughts should be challenged, but not trivial ones, not all.

It's a giant leap from "I don't know why" to "I think this snake oil is well worth the £200 I'm being charged".

DioneTheDiabolist · 19/02/2016 10:53

When I was younger people, if they had the option, would not put beds under windows because there was a risk that the wondow would be smashed by stones, balls, explosions or gunfire. Good, solid reasons.

The risk from explosions and gunfire has thankfully reduced, but the memories remain and although not voiced, unease is still conveyed through non verbal communication. It's not pseudoscience and it's not as a result of superstion or old husband tales.

What are the superstitions and old husband tales that you are talking about OP?

BertrandRussell · 19/02/2016 11:06

"The risk from explosions and gunfire has thankfully reduced, but the memories remain and although not voiced, unease is still conveyed through non verbal communication. It's not pseudoscience and it's not as a result of superstion or old husband tales"

So what is it a result of, then? Those risks no longer exist. We no longer need to carry gas masks or wear tin hats. What is the perpetuation of this particular fear except a completely non-rational "old husband's tale"?

OP posts:
MilkTwoSugarsThanks · 19/02/2016 11:13

Windows can still break, even these days. My neighbour had a window put through a few weeks ago. I don't think that's an "old husband's tale", the fact that glass breaks is fairly well proven I think.

Devilishpyjamas · 19/02/2016 11:16

Alan Pacino - 15 years ago mainsteam medics saw no importance to gut bacteria on autism at all - certainly the suggestion they might play a role in autism was met with a lot of guffawing.

The research done in this area - which has revealed there may well be something going on in some autisms was originally parent funded because mainsteam finders would not touch it.

DioneTheDiabolist · 19/02/2016 11:21

There are many superstitions and OHTs. What are the particular superstitions and OHTs that you believe to be the root of this unease OP?

Real risks and memories are not superstitions or OHTs.

Devilishpyjamas · 19/02/2016 11:25

And I'm afraid those charging for advice on diets for autism 15 years ago were seen as sellers of snake oil. People were forced to pay for advice because the NHS would not provide the advice. It also turns out the so called snake oil they were peddling was actually potentially helpful.

12 years ago I paid a small fortune to have some tests to see whether my son may have mitochondrial dysfunction. Last month the NHS ran some (more accurate) blood tests to look at the same thing. They could have run the tests 12 years ago but his then paediatrician would not agree to it. He said it was a ridiculous idea. Actually he should have said he didn't know much about it & listened to my reasoning, but he was not someone who ever said he didn't know.

thecatfromjapan · 19/02/2016 11:25

Challenging trivial examples of non-scientific thinking must be quite exhausting. And a bit of a buzz-kill.

Devilishpyjamas · 19/02/2016 11:28

Windows are harder to break but certainly do break. I've had to call out emergency window repairs (always on a frigging weekend so ££££'s) enough times to confirm that they break.

AlanPacino · 19/02/2016 11:40

15 years ago mainsteam medics saw no importance to gut bacteria on autism at all

I get what you're saying. I don't know much about the various treatments that are suggested. How would you decide which ones to try? I appreciate that some treatments become more accepted over time by some professionals. But then some don't.

Just because a medical professional rejects the validity of a treatment doesn't mean that in 15 years time they will have to 'eat their hat'. You can't try all the treatments suggested. You must have read about one that you felt confident to disregard. How were you able to do so?

The point I'm making is that you can't use one example of a belief later appearing to be well founded in order to therefore believe all beliefs. It's preposterous.

If I said to you now that sticking cocktail sausages up your child's nose might help ease some of their symptoms of autism how will you determine if it's worth trying. Now consider there are 100's of 1000's of similarly unendorsed ideas on the net.

How do you wade through. I'll bet my house you don't try everything and that you are actually using a hell of a lot of logic and not just trying everything because 'hey, Drs used to laugh about the idea of pro-bacterial treatments'.

MilkTwoSugarsThanks · 19/02/2016 11:41

Wasn't it proved that the Placebo Effect actually works fairly recently? Even when people knew it was a placebo.

If something works for someone for whatever reason, should that really be challenged?

It's that MUST that is wrong.

AlanPacino · 19/02/2016 11:43

Windows can still break

Ceilings can fall down. Walls can collapse.

AlanPacino · 19/02/2016 11:53

Placebo effect can work well with things that are not life threatening. The problem is when people hold false beliefs that cause more suffering. Such as a mother feel anxious that a child is sleeping near a window, a Christian feeling their illness is a test to teach them something, someone spending their savings in psychic lines because they think their partner is having an affair. These are the things that upset me. I'm glad you tried some changes to your ds diet. I assume their was no harm to him in doing so and you felt better being more proactive in his treatments. But could we say the same of a Jehovahs Witness who refuses their child a blood transfusion because of their beliefs? If you say we are not to make assessments of people's beliefs then would you be happy with that child not getting that medical care?

MilkTwoSugarsThanks · 19/02/2016 11:54

AlanPacino - you're right, they can. My point was purely that not wanting to put a bed by a window is not as irrational (to me) as the OP personally believes.

Whole houses can collapse - perhaps we should all camp in our gardens. Ah. Sink holes......

MilkTwoSugarsThanks · 19/02/2016 12:00

Alan - it's the OP's idea that all irrational thinking MUST be challenged that I'm questioning. Yes, some beliefs and irrational thoughts can be harmful to oneself and others and possibly should be challenged. But in your example (JWs) how would you challenge it without causing upset or offense?

BertrandRussell · 19/02/2016 12:04

"But in your example (JWs) how would you challenge it without causing upset or offense?"

If they were doing something that was putting their child at risk, the last thing I would be bothered about is causing them upset or offense, frankly.

By the way, for me, the word "challenge" in this context is synonymous with "question".

OP posts:
thecatfromjapan · 19/02/2016 12:14

It's a bit like ticking someone off for their grammar though, isn't it? Context is so important. Otherwise you can come across as an insensitive, boorish know-it-all, with zero social skills.

MilkTwoSugarsThanks · 19/02/2016 12:16

Hmm, there's something else I disagree with - challenge being synonymous with question!