Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Philosopher offers six signs of “scientism”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Non-materialist neuroscientists must often deal with the claim that their work is “unscientific,” despite the fact that, for example, the placebo effect, for example, is one of the best attested effects in medicine and the fact that there Is mounting evidence for researchable psi effects. The problem arises because, as Susan Hack puts it, “scientism” enables assessors to avoid evaluating evidence in favor of evaluating whether the evidence “counts as science”. Here are her six signs: 1. Using the words “science,” “scientific,” “scientifically,” “scientist,” etc., honorifically, as generic terms of epistemic praise.

And, inevitably, the honorific use of “science” encourages uncritical credulity about whatever new scientific idea comes down the pike. But the fact is that all the explanatory hypotheses that scientists come up with are, at first, highly speculative, and most are eventually found to be untenable, and abandoned. To be sure, by now there is a vast body of well-warranted scientific theory, some of it so well-warranted that it would be astonishing if new evidence were to show it to be mistaken – though even this possibility should never absolutely be ruled out.

Always remember that Ptolemy’s model of the solar system was used successfully by astronomers for 1200 years, even though it had Earth in the wrong place.

2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc., of the sciences, irrespective of their real usefulness. Here, Hack cites the “social sciences”, quite justifiably, but evolutionary psychology surely leads the pack. Can anyone serious believe, for example, that our understanding of public affairs is improved by the claim that there is such a thing as hardwired religion or evolved religion? No new light, just competing, contradictory speculation.

3. A preoccupation with demarcation, i.e., with drawing a sharp line between genuine science, the real thing, and “pseudo-scientific” imposters. The key, of course, is the preoccupation. Everyone wants real science, but a preoccupation with showing that a line of inquiry is not science, good or bad – apart from the evidence – flies in the face of “The fact is that the term “science” simply has no very clear boundaries: the reference of the term is fuzzy, indeterminate and, not least, frequently contested.”

4. A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the “scientific method,” presumed to explain how the sciences have been so successful. ” we have yet to see anything like agreement about what, exactly, this supposed method is.” Of course, one method would work for astronomy, and another for forensics. But both disciplines must reckon with evidence, to be called “science”.

5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope. One thinks of Harvard cognitive scientist Steve Pinker’s recent claim that science can determine morality. Obviously, whatever comes out of such a project must be the morality of those who went into it.

6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than inquiry, such as poetry or art. Or better yet, treating them as the equivalent of baboons howling for mates, or something. It discredits both arts and sciences.

Here’s Hack’s “Six Signs of Scientism” lecture.

Comments
OT kairos and all; this video should be extremely interesting for you; Classical and Quantum Information in DNA - video lecture - 35 minute http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nqHOnVTxJE The lecturer (Gretchen) shows that quantum information is 'sandwiched' along the whole of the DNA molecule, as well as hypothesizing that quantum information must somehow be involved in protein folding to explain the 'increase of information' as the linear information from the DNA becomes linear plus '3-Dimensional' information in the final folded state of the protein. She also proposed a test and said that if proteins folded into different structures from the same linear information that this would be strong indication that quantum information was at work in protein folding because it is impossible for information to increase without a input from somewhere. and ,,,just happen to have that reference: The Gene Myth, Part II - August 2010 Excerpt: the rate at which a protein is synthesized, which depends on factors internal and external to the cell, affects the order in which its different portions fold. So even with the same sequence a given protein can have different shapes and functions. Furthermore, many proteins have no intrinsic shape, taking on different roles in different molecular contexts. So even though genes specify protein sequences they have only a tenuous influence over their functions. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/08/gene-myth-part-ii.htmlbornagain77
February 9, 2011
February
02
Feb
9
09
2011
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
@237: "It is a mindless objection." I should have been more clear and written, "It is a mindless objection on Daly's part." I did not mean to aim it at Acipenser.StephenB
February 9, 2011
February
02
Feb
9
09
2011
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
StephenB: That is like saying that if Moses had parted the waters of the Amazon River instead of the Red Sea, it wouldn’t be a miracle. ---"Yes, that is exactly that stance taken at Lourdes. Don’t you find that odd?" Either you missed my point or you didn't recognize the flaw in your argument. Bely's situation would be recognized as a miracle wherever it occurred. ---"Yes, A gap arguement. Additional information (i.e., MIR) could completely negate the miracle." Inasmuch as there was no MRI technology available at that time, the only way to perform a diagnosis was through other means. By Daly's standards [and yours] no miracle could ever be confirmed because the hyperskteptic can always say that the technology available at the time of the diagnosis was too primitive, just as the same may be said of an MRI in twenty years. Thus, a diagnosis would be confirmed with evidence from an MRI obtained in 2000 but the hyperskeptic says, "Sorry, but there was no MMM technology available like that which we have here in 2020, therefore we are going to reject the diagnosis because the MRI scan is too primitive. It is a mindless objections. Sorry. ---"Ah, that would only be a erronious assumption on you part. You have no idea what I feel or don’t feel." Ah, but I have evidence by your behavior. Clearly, you do not want miracles to be possible. That you would ignore the other 66 miracles and make impossible technological demands on the other 1 miracle makes this obvious. ---"Failure to acknowledge that Dennis Daly had valid concerns over the listing of ‘miracle’ reflects a lack of vigor in the search for truth, IMO." But Daly's concerns were taken into account, inasmuch as he was given a vote. You seem to think that one voice should override the other 19. [StephenB: What dramatic drop? As recently as 2005, the International Medical Committee examined forty spontaneous declarations of cures. Five of these were judged worthy of further examination. Another was confirmed as “exceptional” after 13 years of restored health. Sometimes they study these things for 10-15 years before making a determination.] ----"OK, so let me make sure I understand you. You feel that studying things for a long time, i.e., >20 yrs, would lend veracity and credibility to the claims of the folks doing the studying?" No, I was simply correcting your erroneous claim, dug up from who knows where, that the miracles reported and being studied have decreased significantly, as I clearly expressed in my first four sentences. On the other hand, I also made the point, which should be obvious, that a long investigation is generally more reliable than a short investigation. Your objections are becoming increasingly irrelevant, which is more evidence that you clearly do not like the idea of confirmed miracles. StephenB: There is no requirement that one must visit Lourdes to receive a healing. Sometimes, in fact, it doesn’t work out that way. On the other hand, it makes sense to me that if faith is a condition for healing, and if someone demonstrates that faith by making a pilgrimage, the site of that pilgrimage would be a likely place to receive the healing. ---"That’s pretty odd don’t you think. Same outcome, different geographical location, one= miracle, another =/ miracle." No, it does not seem odd to me that a miracle can occur at any place at any time. Nor does it seem odd that one would go on a pilgrimage for a special reason and have a favor granted on that account. Your point escapes me.StephenB
February 9, 2011
February
02
Feb
9
09
2011
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
Aci: First, despite the specific caution as linked at 214 above, you have clearly fallen into Cliffordian evidentialism, which is fundamentally a flawed form of selective hyperskepticism:
[Aci, 229:] and, of course, extraordinary claims require extraordinary [ADEQUATE] evidence.
In a nutshell, this error popularised by Sagan, is self-referentially incoherent via a vicious infinite regress: the evidence for an extraordinary claim must itself be extraordinary, inflating to infinity. That, in turn, shows that it is used to reject what one does not want to believe, as it cuts across one's worldview expectations, rather than as a serious position in thought. In short, it is selectively hyperskeptical closed mindedness, and is therefore irrational. The corrective above is therefore apt: our epistemic position should be that evidence for a position should be held to the relevant and accessible degree of warrant. In that context, it is no surprise to see you resort to a red herring, led away to a strawman, on the main issue at stake, in :
kairofocus: That backup shows, strongly how mental acts of expectation and belief trigger brain actions that lead to significant body consequences. [Acipenser:] And these significant body consequences are…..?
Aci [and onlookers], there is an entire discussion from yesterday, of the case of mind --> brain --> body, with backup references in the literature. Just cf 225 above, to see where I drew your attention to it. And, simply the triggering of internal opioids that reduce the impact of pain, is more than adequate to show the effect in action. But, if one is trapped in Cliffordian evidentialism, no adequate degree of evidence will suffice to be corrective. Similarly, given that --as 226 above shows -- I dug out the underlying major Journal review by Benedetti et al, who turned out to be running the leading research lab on placebo effects, it is utterly unwarranted and unjust on your part to claim: . . . hanging one’s hat on a news story. Obviously no citations are presented to verify the claims. That major article showed that Wired was accurate [multiplying the credibility of the news article as we have independent specific corroboration in a context where soundness is a habit], and the journal article sufficed to show that in fact the precise pattern of mental beliefs and expectations triggering brain functions that released somatic resources that synergised with medical interventions, is amply documented. In particular, observe the case of the Alzheimers patients who because of impaired cognitive function were unable to form the relevant expectations implied in the placebo effect, underscoring that it is indeed mind that is driving the causal chain. THAT PATTERN OF EVIDENT CAUSALITY IS ALL I NEEDED TO UNDERSCORE THE POINT THAT WE HAVE ADEQUATE EVIDENCE OF CAUSE FLOWING FROM MIND TO BRAIN TO BODY. (In that context, the onward debates on further impacts of the placebo effect are distractive, though the evidence is that there is a much wider range of impacts of beliefs, expectations, confidence etc on bodily function, intellectual performance, job performance, athletic performance [envisioning and imagining how it feels [i.e. projecting he bodily path and the proprioception sequence that will be the comparison path for control action: the right way "feels" right!] as one does it, then carrying out the perfect performance . . . as a key technique] etc. in addition, the credible existence of miracles, is a sign that there is much more in this world than is dreamed of in your philosophy.) Join that with the discussion already linked that shows that evolutionary materialism is self-referentially incoherent and necessarily false. Add to it the implications of the Smith model's architecture that allows us to see how we are not looked into the brain-body loop as a control system, but must bring to bear the implied supervision that obtains for a control loop. Add in the issue that informational and quantum-level interactions provide a plausible gateway and interface for bidirectional links. Multiply further by the implications of dark matter and energy that we do not understand even matter-energy to the level where we can make confident declarations about the nature of matter, energy and reality [between them, these mysterious entities are evidently 94% of the observable universe, and we have no sound conclusion on what hey even are]. Then, look at the evidence that the observed cosmos is fine tuned on multiple aspects, to facilitate C-chemistry, cell based intelligent life. That is, we have reason to infer to mind before matter, and as the ground of matter. In that overall context, we may freely and confidently accept that it is credible that mind exists, is prior to matter ontologically, and that mind is the means by which our experience of the world that we are self-caused, initiating beings that act into the external physical world, is credibly true. Both mind and matter are credibly real and distinct. Finally, it is almost amusing to see how your ever so confident calling on the Glasgow Coma Scale has now vanished without trace, once I showed the underlying inference to design [and to mind] that is embedded in it as a case of applied science in a literally life and death situation. GEM of TKI PS: It is also almost amusing to see how you will not touch the 65 of 66 cases at Lourdes, nor the Rex Gardner BBMJ article from December 1983, especially the postpartum bleeding case with Dr Rugh Coggan and Kamlo, where the woman in question on the evidence may well have lost her initial blood volume but survived in answer to prayer. In short, the evidence is that you are picking and choosing objections to suit yourself, and to dismiss what you cannot soundly object to. Cf 215 above, where I cited the classic case of a healing in the Temple in Jerusalem, where the early opponents of the Christian faith, even with the healed man standing in their midst, were unwilling to reconsider whether their position was warranted. FYI, just ONE actual healing in the name of Jesus in answer to prayer is enough to overturn the antisupernaturalist view. So, the proper response is that each case needs to be addressed on its own merits. And in fact there are literally thousands of cases.kairosfocus
February 8, 2011
February
02
Feb
8
08
2011
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT
StephenB: That is like saying that if Moses had parted the waters of the Amazon River instead of the Red Sea, it wouldn’t be a miracle. Yes, that is exactly that stance taken at Lourdes. Don't you find that odd? StephenB: Scientists do not declare miracles or affirm anything with apodictic certainty. They are in the business of measuring probabilities. Theiller’s report on Bely, for example, simply indicated that it is highly improbable that the cure can be explained through natural means. The Church takes that information and makes a determination Yes, A gap arguement. Additional information (i.e., MIR) could completely negate the miracle. StephenB: Only those who want to focus on 1 miracle they feel [mistakenly, I believe] can be attacked and ignore 66 others they feel cannot be attacked could possibly take that view. Such an approach would not seem to reflect an earnest search for the truth. Ah, that would only be a erronious assumption on you part. You have no idea what I feel or don't feel. Failure to acknowledge that Dennis Daly had valid concerns over the listing of 'miracle' reflects a lack of vigor in the search for truth, IMO. StephenB: What dramatic drop? As recently as 2005, the International Medical Committee examined forty spontaneous declarations of cures. Five of these were judged worthy of further examination. Another was confirmed as “exceptional” after 13 years of restored health. Sometimes they study these things for 10-15 years before making a determination. OK, so let me make sure I understand you. You feel that studying things for a long time, i.e., >20 yrs, would lend veracity and credibility to the claims of the folks doing the studying? StephenB: There is no requirement that one must visit Lourdes to receive a healing. Sometimes, in fact, it doesn’t work out that way. On the other hand, it makes sense to me that if faith is a condition for healing, and if someone demonstrates that faith by making a pilgrimage, the site of that pilgrimage would be a likely place to receive the healing. It only matters if you want the healing to be acknowledged as a miracle. That's pretty odd don't you think. Same outcome, different geographical location, one= miracle, another =/ miracle. ?Acipenser
February 8, 2011
February
02
Feb
8
08
2011
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT
---Acipenser: "They may or may not agree with the characterization but their vote is on the record." If we don't know why they refused his [Daly's?] requests, then we cannot know that they "ignored his points." To say otherwise is to make a value judgment that is not warranted by the facts. ---"What amazes me is that if Bely would have recovered any where else but Lourdes it would not be considered miracle material." That is like saying that if Moses had parted the waters of the Amazon River instead of the Red Sea, it wouldn't be a miracle. ---"One can read numerous reasons/rationals on why this might be….from demon cures out side of Lourdes (why couldn’t demons work within Lourdes?) to all manner of equally, IMO, weird rationalizations. Somehow a projection is made where being at Lourdes is the requirement for the miracle not the patient outcome. Odd that." There is no requirement that one must visit Lourdes to receive a healing. Sometimes, in fact, it doesn't work out that way. On the other hand, it makes sense to me that if faith is a condition for healing, and if someone demonstrates that faith by making a pilgrimage, the site of that pilgrimage would be a likely place to receive the healing. ---"Yes, consensus. That’s what I said." Yes, consensus, that's what I affirmed. If you were the one investigating the matter, which approach would you take? Would you have the Church render a verdict on the basis of one scientist's opinion after, say, a few months of inquiry? Or would you, as the Church decided, conclude that there is greater wisdom in numbers and more to be learned over a period of many years? Would you consult only Catholics, or would you, as the Church did, invite heavy input from non-Christians. ---"Delaring a miracle is declaring a miracle. Not much difference there and, of course, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Scientists do not declare miracles or affirm anything with apodictic certainty. They are in the business of measuring probabilities. Theiller's report on Bely, for example, simply indicated that it is highly improbable that the cure can be explained through natural means. The Church takes that information and makes a determination. ---"The goal is not to see how many times they may have been right but rather are they right all the time." Only those who want to focus on 1 miracle they feel [mistakenly, I believe] can be attacked and ignore 66 others they feel cannot be attacked could possibly take that view. Such an approach would not seem to reflect an earnest search for the truth. ---Telling the dramatic drop in declaration of miracles corresponding with increased diagnostic capabilities." What dramatic drop? As recently as 2005, the International Medical Committee examined forty spontaneous declarations of cures. Five of these were judged worthy of further examination. Another was confirmed as "exceptional" after 13 years of restored health. Sometimes they study these things for 10-15 years before making a determination.StephenB
February 8, 2011
February
02
Feb
8
08
2011
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
acipencer, once again It matters not one iota that the healing is 'limited' as far as the core issue of mind/brain is concerned! You seem to think that you have successfully dealt with the mind/brain issue by pointing to the continued limited mobility after placebo. But that just skirts the issue. What you must do is explain, in a strictly materialistic account why the brain is having such a pronounced change here,,,, “We were able to see that the endorphin system was activated in pain-related areas of the brain, and that activity increased when someone was told they were receiving a medicine to ease their pain. They then reported feeling less pain. The mind-body connection is quite clear.” ,, acipencer please do not ignore the core issue,,, Denial is not a river in Egypt!!!bornagain77
February 8, 2011
February
02
Feb
8
08
2011
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
kairofocus: That backup shows, strongly how mental acts of expectation and belief trigger brain actions that lead to significant body consequences. And these significant body consequences are.....? karo: And note for instance the remarks on effect on Parkinson’s disease patients’ motor function herein lies the problem with hanging one's hat on a news story. Obviously no citations are presented to verify the claims. In searching through the Pubmed literature on the subject trying to discern where this claim came from I found out several things. One the alluded to 'improvement of motor function' was only suggested in a study. Additionally, a follow-up study focusing on this issue found the following: Immediate Placebo Effect in Parkinson’s Disease – Is the Subjective Relief Accompanied by Objective Improvement? Felipe Fregnia,et. al. Eur Neurol 2006;56:222-229 (DOI: 10.1159/000096490) Background: A recent well-conducted meta-analysis showed that placebo effect is associated with a possible small benefit for subjective outcomes, but has no significant effects on objective outcomes. Objective: Herein, we aimed to investigate the immediate effects of two different types of placebo [placebo pill and sham transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)] in Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients and compared them to the standard treatment (levodopa) in a proper randomized, double-blind, crossover clinical trial. Methods: PD patients received three different interventions on different days: levodopa, placebo pill, and sham TMS. The motor function was assessed using simple and choice reaction time, Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), finger tapping, Purdue Pegboard test, time to button up, walking time and supination-pronation. The subjective motor function was measured by a visual analogue scale (VAS). Results: The results showed that there was a significant motor function in the motor function only after the treatment with levodopa, but not after treatment with placebo pills or sham TMS. However, patients reported a similar subjective improvement in motor function indexed by VAS following these three treatments. Conclusion: These results suggest that placebo interventions in PD may have an immediate subjective sensation of improvement but result in no significant objective motor changes compared with levodopa treatment. Although physiological changes are possible after a placebo intervention, our findings suggest that the acute placebo effect in PD may be the result of the subjective change in the motor rating only. Onlookers should note that there were no objective improvments in motor function were found with placebo treatment. However, the perception of improved motor function was present.Acipenser
February 8, 2011
February
02
Feb
8
08
2011
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT
acipencer, as well I have a question for you, how many confirmed miracles would it take for you to believe in miracles? Should it not be just one? And since only one miracle is enough, why are you so concerned with the myriad of fraudulent claims? You don't seem so concerned with fact that evolution is overflowing with fraudulent claims!!!,,, Please do the math on the 1948 Israel prophecy/miracle til you are satisfied that it is genuine.bornagain77
February 8, 2011
February
02
Feb
8
08
2011
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
acipencer you state: 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' Indeed they do and here is a movie by that name: The Bible: The Word of God? Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Evidence http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5539836792491778083# and here is a particular clip from that movie that should drive the point home for you; A ancient prophecy fulfilled within modern times: The Precisely Fulfilled Prophecy Of Israel Becoming A Nation In 1948 - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041241/ Before you just scoff at it, perhaps you would like to carefully check the math?bornagain77
February 8, 2011
February
02
Feb
8
08
2011
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
StephenB: What was the rationale of those who were accused of “ignoring concerns.” Perhaps they don’t agree with that characterization. They may or may not agree with the characterization but their vote is on the record. What amazes me is that if Bely would have recovered any where else but Lourdes it would not be considered miracle material. One can read numerous reasons/rationals on why this might be....from demon cures out side of Lourdes (why couldn't demons work within Lourdes?) to all manner of equally, IMO, weird rationalizations. Somehow a projection is made where being at Lourdes is the requirement for the miracle not the patient outcome. Odd that. StephenB: The whole point of consulting 20 people from different backgrounds is to cover all the basis and get a final result that is informed by a wide variety of opinions. From a medical perspective, getting a “second opinion” is always a good By the same reasoning, getting 20 opinions is a very good idea. If everyone is given a vote and a voice, then I think the process is fine. Yes, consensus. That's what I said. StephenB: Irrelevant. Each scientific report is different. There is no carry-over effect. In any case, many of those on the panel were invited precisely because they do not have a religious bent. I would be suspicious of the make-up of any group if everyone fell in line Delaring a miracle is declaring a miracle. Not much difference there and, of course, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. All that needs to be done to call into question the veracity of the process is to identify an example such as Bely's. The goal is not to see how many times they may have been right but rather are they right all the time. Telling the dramatic drop in declaration of miracles corresponding with increased diagnostic capabilities.Acipenser
February 8, 2011
February
02
Feb
8
08
2011
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
---"Acipenser: "the preponderence of evidence did not convince Dennis Daly (and others) that the diagnosis was correct. That the others voted against him (and the others) does not mean they were in error jsut that the other doctors on the board chose to ignore their concerns." What was the rationale of those who were accused of "ignoring concerns." Perhaps they don't agree with that characterization. ---"The evaluating board works by consensus which you think is fine. Do you apply that same criteria to other areas of science as equally as you do in this instance?" The whole point of consulting 20 people from different backgrounds is to cover all the basis and get a final result that is informed by a wide variety of opinions. From a medical perspective, getting a "second opinion" is always a good By the same reasoning, getting 20 opinions is a very good idea. If everyone is given a vote and a voice, then I think the process is fine. Now if we were talking about say, "expelling" anyone in the group who disagreed with the final opinion, slandering them, or refusing to grant them employment for failing to hue the party line, then you might be on to something, if you get my drift. ---"For the purpose of this conversation there is no need to consider more than one example. If one example can easily be called into question that is sufficient to demonstrate the point." Irrelevant. Each scientific report is different. There is no carry-over effect. In any case, many of those on the panel were invited precisely because they do not have a religious bent. I would be suspicious of the make-up of any group if everyone fell in line.StephenB
February 8, 2011
February
02
Feb
8
08
2011
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
that paper is an excellent find kf, I especially liked this part: Neurobiological Mechanisms of the Placebo Effect Excerpt: The placebo effect is a psychobiological phenomenon that can be attributable to different mechanisms, including expectation of clinical improvement and pavlovian conditioning. Thus, we have to look for different mechanisms in different conditions, because there is not a single placebo effect but many. So far, most of the neurobiological mechanisms underlying this complex phenomenon have been studied in the field of pain and analgesia, although recent investigations have successfully been performed in the immune system, motor disorders, and depression. Overall, the placebo effect appears to be a very good model to understand how a complex mental activity, such as expectancy, interacts with different neuronal systems (Colloca and Benedetti, 2005Go; Finniss and Benedetti, 2005Go). http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/25/45/10390bornagain77
February 8, 2011
February
02
Feb
8
08
2011
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
F/N: major paper by Benedetti et al explaining Mechanisms of Placebo effect: http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/25/45/10390 Quick clips: _______________ >> The placebo effect is a psychobiological phenomenon that can be attributable to different mechanisms, including expectation of clinical improvement and pavlovian conditioning. Thus, we have to look for different mechanisms in different conditions, because there is not a single placebo effect but many. So far, most of the neurobiological mechanisms underlying this complex phenomenon have been studied in the field of pain and analgesia, although recent investigations have successfully been performed in the immune system, motor disorders, and depression. Overall, the placebo effect appears to be a very good model to understand how a complex mental activity, such as expectancy, interacts with different neuronal systems (Colloca and Benedetti, 2005Go; Finniss and Benedetti, 2005Go). Recently, the placebo effect has reemerged in the public and scientific interest because of investigations of its biological substrates (de la Fuente-Fernandez et al., 2001Go; Mayberg et al., 2002Go; Petrovic et al., 2002Go; Lieberman et al., 2004Go; Wager et al., 2004Go; Colloca and Benedetti, 2005Go; Zubieta et al., 2005aGo). The public is interested in placebo effects because they promise increased self-control; the existence of placebo effects suggests that we must broaden our conception of the limits of endogenous human capability. Scientists are interested in placebo responses because the effects of belief on human experience and behavior provide an entry point for studying internal control of affective, sensory, and peripheral processes. The study of the placebo effect, at its core, is the study of how the context of beliefs and values shape brain processes related to perception and emotion and, ultimately, mental and physical health. The study of the placebo effect reflects a current neuroscientific thought that has as its central tenet the idea that "subjective" constructs such as expectation and value have identifiable physiological bases, and that these bases are powerful modulators of basic perceptual, motor, and internal homeostatic processes . . . . The neurobiology of the placebo effect was born in 1978, when it was shown that placebo analgesia could be blocked by the opioid antagonist naloxone, which indicates an involvement of endogenous opioids (Levine et al., 1978Go). By using this pharmacological approach with naloxone, several other studies have confirmed and extended this observation. For example, a placebo can reduce pain by both opioid and non-opioid mechanisms (Colloca and Benedetti, 2005Go) (Fig. 1). In the first case, placebo analgesia is typically blocked by the opioid antagonist naloxone, whereas in the second case it is not, depending on the procedure that is applied to induce the placebo analgesic response. In an experimental model of pain (Amanzio and Benedetti, 1999Go), the placebo response could be blocked by naloxone if it was induced by strong expectation cues, whereas if the expectation cues were reduced, it was insensitive to naloxone. In the same study, if the placebo response was obtained after exposure to opioid drugs, it was naloxone reversible, whereas if it was obtained after exposure to non-opioid drugs, it was naloxone insensitive. These data indicate that opioid and non-opioid mechanisms come into play under different circumstances . . . . In another recent study, some of the circumstances in which expectation and conditioning are involved have been suggested. In this study (Benedetti et al., 2003Go), the effects of opposing verbal suggestions on experimental ischemic arm pain in healthy volunteers and on motor performance in parkinsonian patients were analyzed. It was found that verbally induced expectations of analgesia/hyper-algesia and of motor improvement/worsening antagonized completely the effects of a conditioning procedure. In contrast, it was found that expectations of increase/decrease of growth hormone (GH) and cortisol did not have any effect on the secretion of these hormones. However, if a preconditioning was performed with sumatriptan, a 5-HT1B/1D agonist that stimulates GH and inhibits cortisol secretion, a significant increase of GH and decrease of cortisol plasma concentrations were found after placebo administration, although opposite verbal suggestions were given (Fig. 1). These findings suggest that expectations have no effect on hormonal secretion, although they affect pain and motor performance. This also provides some evidence that placebo responses are mediated by conditioning when unconscious physiological functions, such as hormonal secretion, are involved, whereas they are mediated by expectation when conscious physiological processes, such as pain and motor performance, come into play, although a conditioning procedure is performed. Thus, the placebo effect seems to be a phenomenon that can be learned either consciously or unconsciously, depending on the system that is involved (e.g., pain or hormone secretion). The role of conditioning in the placebo effect is also shown by studies on the immune responses (Ader, 2003Go). For example, repeated associations between cyclosporin A (unconditioned stimulus) and a flavored drink (conditioned stimulus) induced conditioned immunosuppression in humans, in which the flavored drink alone produced a suppression of the immune functions, as assessed by means of interleukin-2 (IL-2) and interferon-{gamma} (IFN-{gamma}) mRNA expression, in vitro release of IL-2 and IFN-{gamma}, as well as lymphocyte proliferation (Goebel et al., 2002Go). This study supports a conditioning mechanism in immunosuppressive placebo responses and is in keeping with the effects of sumatriptan conditioning on GH and cortisol secretion (Benedetti et al., 2003Go). It is worth pointing out that these placebo mechanisms have an important influence on the therapeutic outcome, and indeed they enhance the specific effect of a treatment. These additive effects have been demonstrated recently by studies that assessed treatment efficacy after the hidden administration of different therapies. In fact, the open administration of a treatment, in which the subject knows what is going on and expects an outcome, is more effective than a hidden one, in which the subject does not know that any therapy is being given and thus does not expect anything (Colloca et al., 2004Go). Likewise, the expected administration of a drug has a more powerful effect on brain metabolism than the unexpected administration (Volkow et al., 2003Go). These findings show that drug effects are reduced if expectations are absent and underscore how the knowledge about a treatment affects the therapeutic outcome . . . . Recently, Parkinson's disease has emerged as an interesting model to understand the neurobiological mechanisms of the placebo response. In this case, patients are given an inert substance (the placebo) and are told that it is an antiparkinsonian drug that produces an improvement in their motor performance. A recent study used positron emission tomography (PET) to assess the competition between endogenous dopamine and [11C]raclopride for D2/D3 receptors, a method that allows identification of endogenous dopamine release (de la Fuente-Fernandez et al., 2001Go). This study found that placebo-induced expectation of motor improvement activates endogenous dopamine in the striatum of parkinsonian patients. In addition, it has been found that expectations of poor versus good motor performance modulate the therapeutic effect of subthalamic nucleus stimulation in parkinsonian patients who had undergone chronic implantation of electrodes for deep brain stimulation (DBS). In fact, by analyzing the effect of subthalamic stimulation on the velocity of movement of the right-hand, the hand movement was found to be faster when the patients expected a good motor performance. These effects occurred within minutes, suggesting that expectations induce neural changes very quickly (Pollo et al., 2002Go) . . . . Major depression is another useful model to examine neurobiological mechanisms of the placebo effect, because placebo responses are common in antidepressant trials of many interventions, including medication, psychotherapy, and somatic treatments (DeRubeis et al., 1999Go, 2005Go; Kirsch and Sapirstein, 1998Go; Enserink, 1999Go; Khan et al., 2000Go; Quitkin and Klein, 2000Go; Quitkin et al., 2000Go; Walsh et al., 2002Go; Koerselman et al., 2004Go). As in clinical trials for other medical conditions, the effectiveness of a new antidepressant is determined by comparing an active treatment with a controlled comparison condition . . . . >> ________________ In short, the summary in Wired as previously linked is directly backed up from the per reviewed literature. That backup shows, strongly how mental acts of expectation and belief trigger brain actions that lead to significant body consequences. This should lead to a serious addressing of the implications of this on the issues. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
February 8, 2011
February
02
Feb
8
08
2011
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
Pardon Aci: Re: you, BA77, and kairo have provided no evidence to support your position that placebo effects result in objective outcomes in physical disease resolution. This is now looking like insistence on red herrings and strawmen. Please, please, please, let us not go down that road. Kindly cf 202 ff above, and 210 ff above, not to mention all the way back to 107 above. It would be helpful if you were to explicitly engage the Derek Smith MIMO cybernetic model, as well. (The specific context of the way the Glasgow Coma Scale which you raised illustrates the themes, is quite relevant.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
February 8, 2011
February
02
Feb
8
08
2011
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
acipencer, excuse me but evidence for direct physical response of placebo was established, that it is 'limited' does not subtract one iota that a physical event in the brain is established as OBJECTIVELY true. You have not even addressed how that could even be possible from a materialistic perspective. i.e. why is the brain responding instead of initiating??? It is simply inexplicable from a materialistic perspective. And is apparently one you will not even concede though shown in detail by kf what is happening. Why is this, Why do you pretend you are being forthright? Directly address the question put forth to you or concede that you have no answer for why the brain responds as it does!!! as for the miracles, I presented one case of a resurrected man with a signed Death Certificate, with a Mortician as witness to boot, and I have presented a case of a paraplegic man who was healed after 15 years od being in a wheelchair, who had his primary care doctor testify that it was inexplicable medically or scientifically how he could walk again,,, yet none of this is good enough for you??!!? Yet if I told you a lie that your great-great-0great grand-farther was actually primordial mud puddle and that that mus puddle slowly evolved by time and chance to become you, totally without any intelligent guidance, well this lie would be accepted by you hook line and sinker without even batting an eyelash!!! Why is this acipencer, why in the world would you be so gullible to choose to so quickly believe what is so blatantly false without even giving the other side a fair hearing?bornagain77
February 8, 2011
February
02
Feb
8
08
2011
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
markf, well let's look once again how well the evidence from physics lines up with the consistent testimonies of Near Death Experiences. In this video at the 3:22 mark,,, Traveling At The Speed Of Light – Optical Effects – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/ ,,, this video was produced from a purely scientific perspective of what we know will happen as we approach the speed of light, the 3-Dimensional is shown to 'fold into a tunnel' in direction of travel, with a 'light at the end of the tunnel'. This 'scientific fact' for what happens as we approach the speed of light, with no thought given to Near Death Experiences as the video was made but only to 'the science' of SOL, uncannily matches testimony from thousands upon thousands of Judeo-Christian Near Death Experience testimonies in which a tunnel is consistently describe by the Experiencers as they 'transition' to a higher dimension after dying; The NDE and the Tunnel - Kevin Williams' research conclusions Excerpt: I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn't walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn't really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different - the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven. (Barbara Springer) http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research16.html The NDE and the Tunnel - Kevin Williams' research conclusions Excerpt: I saw a pinpoint of light in the distance. The black mass around me began to take on more of the shape of a tunnel, and I felt myself traveling through it at an even grea...ter speed, rushing toward the light. I was instinctively attracted to it, although again, I felt that others might not. As I approached it, I noticed the figure of a man standing in it, with the light radiating all around him. (Betty Eadie) http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research16.html As well, special relativity (traveling at the speed of light) provides correlation for the 'eternal' effect noted in many Near Death Experiences: ..."I've just developed a new theory of eternity." Albert Einstein http://www.rd.com/your-america...-inspiring-people-and-stories/best-brainac/article37176-2.html "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." Richard Swenson - More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12 'In the 'spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it's going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.' Mickey Robinson - Near Death Experience testimony 'When you die, you enter eternity. It feels like you were always there, and you will always be there. You realize that existence on Earth is only just a brief instant.' Dr. Ken Ring - has extensively studied Near Death Experiences So markf, are you going to make the absurd claim that millions of Near Death Experiencers have conspired to make their testimonies match exactly what we know will happen, from a purely scientific perspective, as we approach the 'higher dimension' of the speed of light??? If you believe that then Perhaps you also believe these scientists, who have done extensive work on power scaling, have also conspired to deceive the rest of us into believing there is a primary 'higher dimensional' component to man that takes precedence of his 3-Dimensional body: “Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection." Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79 The predominance of quarter-power (4-D) scaling in biology Excerpt: Many fundamental characteristics of organisms scale with body size as power laws of the form: Y = Yo M^b, where Y is some characteristic such as metabolic rate, stride length or life span, Yo is a normalization constant, M is body mass and b is the allometric scaling exponent. A longstanding puzzle in biology is why the exponent b is usually some simple multiple of 1/4 (4-Dimensional scaling) rather than a multiple of 1/3, as would be expected from Euclidean (3-Dimensional) scaling. http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~drewa/pubs/savage_v_2004_f18_257.pdf You see markf, It don't matter if I present the most premier scientific research to you or if i present snippets from youtube, NO MATTER WHAT I PRESENT you will choose to believe any lie whatsoever rather than embrace the wonderful truth that there really is a God who created and sustains everything and indeed who conquered death! The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355 Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age - Pictures, Articles and Videos https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfgbornagain77
February 8, 2011
February
02
Feb
8
08
2011
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
StephenB: In this case, the term would be “the preponderance of the evidence.” The idea is to evaluate evidence, as they did, and then draw a conclusion. The idea is not to smuggle in materialistic conclusions into the evidence and then try to make the two components harmonize. No scientific study is perfect and anyone can find something to complain about, especially when they don’t like the results, as you obviously do not. No, the preponderence of evidence did not convince Dennis Daly (and others) that the diagnosis was correct. That the others voted against him (and the others) does not mean they were in error jsut that the other doctors on the board chose to ignore their concerns. The evaluating board works by consensus which you think is fine. Do you apply that same criteria to other areas of science as equally as you do in this instance? StephenB: What is interesting is the fact that you obsess over 1 case out of 66 and ignore the other 65. Can you explain that rather skewed attitude? for the purpose of this conversation there is no need to consider more than one example. If one example can easily be called into question that is sufficient to demonstrate the point. Attempting to move the goalpost by saying in essence,,,'but...but..what about the others'IMO represents a skewed attitude. StephenB: Your comments prompt me to ask you for your sources. Would you please provide them? I would think that you would be familiar with these examples since you brought them up. The information is readily available but if you still need the sources I;ll provide them to you after work. Of course I expect the same courtesy from you. StephenBL The formal definition is important because I intend to ask you a few questions about your materialistic perspective of the process, which is being put on hold until you accept the facts in evidence. I accept the facts in evidence. Placebo effects resut in no objective changes in physical disease. That is abundantly clear. You can ask questions all you like but as the list of my questions that have been ignored grows you can expect similar treatment of your questions. This is not an interrogation and it won;t be onesided in nature. Quid pro Quo and all that. StephenB: Because it is clear that you would reject the conclusions no matter what the evidence or source. So why don’t you simply answer the question? How would you explain miraculous healings from your materialistic perspective? Well you, BA77, and kairo have provided no evidence to support your position that placebo effects result in objective outcomes in physical disease resolution. As far as miraculous healings go none have been presented that would not come into question when current diagnostic methodologies were applied to the cases, i.e., Bely and a MRI. The key point in your post was 'if ' the cases are true. That has not been established.Acipenser
February 8, 2011
February
02
Feb
8
08
2011
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
#218 StephenB - I don't suppose they are Catholic stooges. But there is a big gap between a stooge and being truly disinterested. After all, according to the Wikipedia article, they are encouraged, but not obliged, to wear the credo badge. They also have to be interested enough to live near or visit Lourdes.markf
February 8, 2011
February
02
Feb
8
08
2011
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
BA77 - I am sorry but I am not going to study obscure videos by some Christian TV station I have never heard of claiming that faith or some such thing has brought people back to life. You can call it prejudice if you like - but if you don't make some decisions about the quality of your sources you can spend your whole life chasing obscure snippets on the Internet.markf
February 8, 2011
February
02
Feb
8
08
2011
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
markf, by chance if you are genuinely interested, the doctor's testimony starts around the 30 minute mark, while the formerly dead man's testimony starts about 5 to 7 minutes earlier at the 23 minute mark: The Lazarus Phenomenon – Death Certificate Resurrection – video http://www.premiertv.twofourdigital.net//Premiertv.aspx?AssetId=5475c14d-997a-48a3-a9ae-5c75ad6bf5dcbornagain77
February 8, 2011
February
02
Feb
8
08
2011
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
---markf: "I don’t think these doctors are disinterested. They apply for the job and are presumably paid by the Catholic church or whoever it is that runs Lourdes. It would be interesting to know how many are Catholics. I am not saying they are corrupt, but it may unconsciously affect their judgement." Many of them are not Catholics, although I don't know the proportions. I don't think they are prone to pandering. Apparently, they are so independent that they recently rebelled at the word "miraculous," and decided to replace it with the word, "remarkable." They are not Catholic stooges. That would defeat the whole purpose of their existence. Wikipedia has a pretty good article on the Lourdes Medical Bureau.StephenB
February 8, 2011
February
02
Feb
8
08
2011
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
well markf, did the Doctor lie (or self-deceive himself) in this video when he issued a Death Certificate for a man who was brought back to life?: The Lazarus Phenomenon - Death Certificate Resurrection - video http://www.premiertv.twofourdigital.net//Premiertv.aspx?AssetId=5475c14d-997a-48a3-a9ae-5c75ad6bf5dc I also like the formerly Dead guy's testimony in this video: Real Life Modern Day Miracles - Blind See; Dead Raised; Deaf Hear - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4596829/bornagain77
February 8, 2011
February
02
Feb
8
08
2011
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
---Acipenser: "OK, I get it. You believe consensus science trumps justified skepticism." In this case, the term would be "the preponderance of the evidence." The idea is to evaluate evidence, as they did, and then draw a conclusion. The idea is not to smuggle in materialistic conclusions into the evidence and then try to make the two components harmonize. No scientific study is perfect and anyone can find something to complain about, especially when they don't like the results, as you obviously do not. What is interesting is the fact that you obsess over 1 case out of 66 and ignore the other 65. Can you explain that rather skewed attitude? Your comments prompt me to ask you for your sources. Would you please provide them? Now back to the formal definition of the "placebo effect," which is clearly understood as a function of a doctor/patient relationship. "The placebo effect (also known as non-specific effects) is the phenomenon that a patient's symptoms can be alleviated by an otherwise ineffective treatment, apparently because the individual expects or believes that it will work." Or again, "The beneficial effect in a patient following a particular treatment that arises from the patient's expectations concerning the treatment rather than from the treatment itself." Or again, "A placebo ( /pl??sibo?/; Latin: I shall please)[2] is a sham or simulated medical intervention that can produce a (perceived or actual) improvement, called a placebo effect." Or again, "A placebo, as used in research, is an inactive substance or procedure used as a control in an experiment. The placebo effect is the measurable, observable, or felt improvement in health not attributable to an actual treatment." Or again, "A substance containing no medication and prescribed or given to reinforce a patient's expectation to get well." Are five definitions enough or do you need twenty five? The formal definition is important because I intend to ask you a few questions about your materialistic perspective of the process, which is being put on hold until you accept the facts in evidence. ---"Why don’t we establish that the reports [about the healings] are true so we don’t spend a great deal of effort on speculating about imagined outcomes." Because it is clear that you would reject the conclusions no matter what the evidence or source. So why don't you simply answer the question? How would you explain miraculous healings from your materialistic perspective? Can't you at least admit the obvious? If true, the reported healings would invalidate your materialist presuppositions.StephenB
February 8, 2011
February
02
Feb
8
08
2011
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT
F/N: perhaps the most classic case of all time: ________________ >> Acts 3 The Lame Beggar Healed 1Now Peter and John were(A) going up to the temple at(B) the hour of prayer,(C) the ninth hour.[a] 2And a man(D) lame from birth was being carried,(E) whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple that is called the Beautiful Gate(F) to ask alms of those entering the temple. 3Seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, he asked to receive alms. 4And Peter directed his gaze at him, as did John, and said, "Look at us." 5And he fixed his attention on them, expecting to receive something from them. 6But Peter said,(G) "I have no silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you.(H) In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk!" 7And he took him by the right hand and raised him up, and immediately his feet and ankles were made strong. 8And(I) leaping up he stood and began to walk, and entered the temple with them, walking and leaping and praising God. 9And(J) all the people saw him walking and praising God, 10and recognized him as the one who sat at the Beautiful Gate of the temple, asking for alms. And they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him. Peter Speaks in Solomon’s Portico 11(K) While he clung to Peter and John, all the people, utterly astounded, ran together to them in(L) the portico called Solomon’s. 12And when Peter saw it he addressed the people: "Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we have made him walk? 13(M) The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,(N) the God of our fathers,(O) glorified his servant[b] Jesus, whom(P) you delivered over and(Q) denied in the presence of Pilate,(R) when he had decided to release him. 14But you denied(S) the Holy and(T) Righteous One, and(U) asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15and you killed(V) the Author of life,(W) whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses. 16And(X) his name—by(Y) faith in his name—has made this man strong whom you see and know, and the faith that is(Z) through Jesus[c] has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all. 17"And now, brothers, I know that(AA) you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. 18But what God(AB) foretold(AC) by the mouth of all the prophets, that(AD) his Christ would(AE) suffer, he thus fulfilled. 19(AF) Repent therefore, and(AG) turn again, that(AH) your sins may be blotted out, 20that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ(AI) appointed for you, Jesus, 21(AJ) whom heaven must receive until the time for(AK) restoring all the things about which(AL) God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. 22Moses said, 'The Lord God will raise up for you(AM) a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen(AN) to him in whatever he tells you. 23And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet(AO) shall be destroyed from the people.' 24And(AP) all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days. 25(AQ) You are the sons of the prophets and of(AR) the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham,(AS) 'And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.' 26(AT) God,(AU) having raised up his servant, sent him to you first,(AV) to bless you(AW) by turning every one of you from your wickedness." Acts 4 Peter and John Before the Council 1And as they were speaking to the people, the priests and(AX) the captain of the temple and(AY) the Sadducees came upon them, 2greatly annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming(AZ) in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. 3And they arrested them and(BA) put them in custody until the next day, for it was already evening. 4But many of those who had heard the word believed, and(BB) the number of the men came to about five thousand. 5On the next day their rulers and elders and scribes gathered together in Jerusalem, 6with(BC) Annas the high priest and(BD) Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family. 7And when they had set them in the midst, they inquired,(BE) "By what power or(BF) by what name did you do this?" 8Then Peter,(BG) filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers of the people and elders, 9if we are being examined today(BH) concerning a good deed done to a crippled man, by what means this man has been healed, 10let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that(BI) by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified,(BJ) whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well. 11(BK) This Jesus[d] is the stone that was(BL) rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone.[e] 12And there is(BM) salvation(BN) in no one else, for(BO) there is no other(BP) name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." 13(BQ) Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus. 14But seeing the man who was healed(BR) standing beside them,(BS) they had nothing to say in opposition. 15But when they had commanded them to leave the council, they conferred with one another, 16saying,(BT) "What shall we do with these men? For that(BU) a notable sign has been performed through them is evident to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. 17But in order that it may spread no further among the people, let us warn them(BV) to speak no more to anyone in this name." 18So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19But Peter and John answered them,(BW) "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, 20for(BX) we cannot but speak of what(BY) we have seen and heard." 21And when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way to punish them,(BZ) because of the people, for all were praising God(CA) for what had happened. 22For the man on whom this sign of healing was performed was more than forty years old. [ESV]>> ________________ Did the healing, with the well-known formerly lame but now healed man standing there make a difference to the opposition of the determined oppositionists to the gospel? No, it was only an obstacle to their path of opposition, which would soon go to beatings and then to judicial murder. This is a very old story, and again, we should look at the case of the parable of the cave. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
February 8, 2011
February
02
Feb
8
08
2011
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
Onlookers: MF, sadly, just gave us a classic example of Cliffordian evidentialism, a manifestation of self-referentially incoherent selective hyperskepticism. Without knowing he person involved, he makes up a dismissive, ad hominem laced account to blunt the force of evidence he would not face. How would he like it if his statements were treated through the hermeneutic of suspicion, like that: should we now, on turnabout as fair play, assume that MF is lying or exaggerating, except where we can fully warrant otherwise? Let us see if he can dispose of the case of Dr Ruth Coggan and Kamro in Pakistan [massive post-partum bleeding of the latter on an underlying blood clotting defect, probably amounting to in excess of her normal blood volume] so easily as that. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
February 8, 2011
February
02
Feb
8
08
2011
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
#209 BA77 "Is this man lying markf or did he get healed:" How can I possibly tell? I would guess it is a bit of self-deception, a bit of exaggeration, and a bit of natural recovery given the exercise he had been taking over the years and which culminated into action with the excitement of the service.markf
February 8, 2011
February
02
Feb
8
08
2011
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
MF (and onlookers): Before brushing the miraculous aside, I suggest you work through this now classic BMJ, Dec 1983 article by Rex Gardner, especially the modern cases of healings beyond what placebo effects can credibly do. Notice, in particular, the discussion on evidence, testimony and documentation, regarding the missionary doctor in Pakistan, daughter of the bishop of York at the time. Selective hyperskepticism is a fallacy. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
February 8, 2011
February
02
Feb
8
08
2011
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT
4 --> On the Smith MIMO cybernetic model, the head is a major sensory turret, and hosts the front-end I/O processor. Damage to the head implicating that processor would therefore directly affect both sensor and effector capacity. 5 --> So, implications of such damage for a primary sensor suite, the eyes, and two major sensor effector suites, the auditory and vocal systems, would serve as a pattern of signs that can be assessed on the warranted inference model introduced as a background for my ongoing ID Foundations series:
I: [si] --> O, on W (I an observer, note a pattern of signs, and infer an underlying objective condition or state of affairs or object, on a warrant)
6 --> So, here we see inference to signified from sign, on a warrant. 7 --> Going further, let us observe behaviour at levels 2, 4 and 5 on the verbal scale, where the issue is whether the subject is able to utter speech that is coherent, accurate and contextually responsive:
2: Incomprehensible sounds 4: Confused, disoriented 5: Oriented, converses normally
8 --> Speech, especially when set in context as language and as a situationally aware response of an intelligent person, is a strong indicator of functionally specific complex organisation, and indeed, encodes verbal, symbolic code in phonemes composed on rules of language. Speech expresses FSCI. 9 --> Thus, where situationally responsive and well composed speech is present, we have good reason to infer that we are dealing with a functional intelligence. And that is the normal condition of fully conscious human beings. 10 --> So, from the degree of falling short of such, we may infer to a breakdown in the relevant systems, here, related to head or CNS injury. With certain other signs, we may go on to infer worse than mere unconsciousness, death. 11 --> All of this fits very well with a mind-brain-body view. Indeed, classically -- going even further, the spiritual view has been that "the body without the spirit is dead," and is subject then to the bondage of natural laws of decay. 12 --> Indeed, it has long been accepted that a sufficient trauma can not only impair [inducing unconsciousness] but sever the links between mind and body, inducing death. 13 --> So, the Glasgow scale is actually a case in point of how a design inference on a cluster of observable reliable signs, is routinely and reliably made in a life and death, applied science situation. 14 --> It is fully compatible with the 2-tier controller approach used by Smith, and onward, it is fully compatible with an understanding of reality that recognises conscious mind as the first fact of experience, and so accepts that mind and matter are credibly both key aspects of reality. 15 --> By contrast, and as already linked and excerpted above at 107, the evolutionary materialistic view stumbles over self-referential incoherence and leads on to a disturbing and historically destructive amorality of power. 16 --> So, evolutionary materialism is necessarily false and dangerously destructive. No responsible, informed person should adhere to it. 17 --> Its seizing the prestigious guise of the lab coat of science in our day, only makes it ever more more dangerous. For, the wolf in the lab coat may gain our naive trust . . . 18 --> I suggest that we should all read here and look at the embedded sobering video of Plato's parable of the cave, reflecting on how the shadow shows were sued to create a manipulative false enlightenment that was in reality an en-darken-ment. (The discussion in context will give much reason to think on what has really been going on in the name of science and science education, for maybe a century and more.) _______________ GEM of TKIkairosfocus
February 8, 2011
February
02
Feb
8
08
2011
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
Acipenser: Pardon a question to a question. As, presumably, a s[t]urgeon, I should ask you in turn: when you operate, is it just a pack of neurons firing off how they happen to have been arranged by chance and necessity across time, or a responsible, intelligent and educated, conscious and conscientious surgeon acting under the Hippocratic Oath's commitments? And, pardon a further one: when you write, do you credit a pack of neurons controlled by chance plus necessity through nature, nurture and psycho-social conditioning [with consciousness an empiphenomenon of no causal efficacy riding on the underlying reality], or do you like to think that it is a self-moved, rational minded individual? And what rights can such a pack of neurons claim as a binding obligation of duty towards its inherent value? or, do "right" and "rights" boil down to what Plato warned ever so long ago in The Laws: "the highest right is might"? If you are one forced into that sort of amorality and radical relativism by underlying self-referentially incoherent evolutionary materialism, then you will understand that I would be wise indeed to seriously hesitate before committing my body to your care. And, were you to take up politics (a common enough second career for doctors and other medical practitioners) I would have serious reason to think twice before lending you my vote or my support. (Onlookers, to see why, cf Plato's longstanding remarks as excerpted and highlighted here from his The Laws, Bk X; the very same context where Plato makes his cosmological design inference on the contrasting nature of chance, necessity and art. Please, do not overlook the onward link on the biography and career of the ever so clever Alcibiades, the chief example Plato seems to have had in mind.) Do you therefore see what is at stake in the issue over our being minded, self-moved, initiating, intelligent, rational and responsible creatures? Now, on the Glasgow scale, there may be a few surprises for you, as this is actually a case where applied science is routinely using a design inference. Now, a good first point of reference is Wiki:
Glasgow Coma Scale or GCS is a neurological scale that aims to give a reliable, objective way of recording the conscious state of a person for initial as well as subsequent assessment. A patient is assessed against the criteria of the scale, and the resulting points give a patient score between 3 (indicating deep unconsciousness) and either 14 (original scale) or 15 (the more widely used modified or revised scale). GCS was initially used to assess level of consciousness after head injury, and the scale is now used by first aid, EMS, and doctors as being applicable to all acute medical and trauma patients. In hospitals it is also used in monitoring chronic patients in intensive care . . . . The scale comprises three tests: eye [NB: 1 - 4, behaviourally anchored judgemental rating scale [BARS] applying the underlying Rasch rating model commonly used as a metric in many fields where a judgement or inference needs to be quantified, and familiar from the Likert type scale], verbal [1 - 5] and motor [1 - 6] responses. The three values separately as well as their sum are considered. The lowest possible GCS (the sum) is 3 (deep coma or death), while the highest is 15 (fully awake person).
1 --> This scale is exercised by responsible, ethically obligated and educated medical and paramedical practitioners. 2 --> It is applied to embodied intelligent creatures who under normal circumstances will be alert, verbally responsive and able to move their bodies at will, and whose eye pupils will respond to light, and whose eye-tracks betray a major current focus of consciousness. This is background knowledge. 3 --> In this context, we may make reference to the Smith Model, assessing the embodied human being as a MIMO bio-cybernetic system, where mind is viewed as higher order controller. [ . . . ]kairosfocus
February 8, 2011
February
02
Feb
8
08
2011
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
1 2 3 8

Leave a Reply