3 ms·

Ok, I get what you are saying now, but not how you could interpret this statement that way: > 'we’re beginning to think previously unthinkable thoughts like “w

by nonbel 8y ago

Ok, I get what you are saying now, but not how you could interpret this statement that way: > 'we’re beginning to think previously unthinkable thoughts like “what if the hypothesis the last 20 years of research was based on (beta amyloid plaques)is just totally wrong”.'

taeric 8y ago
I took the parent's claim to be more that most of the alternative research just didn't seem to be happening. It wasn't that people didn't think it Alzheimer's couldn't be virus/whatever related; but it was widely true that no funded research was looking into that. Instead, a large portion of the funding went into the "amyloid hypothesis." That make sense? I mean, yes, people could have thought this before. But, by and large, they didn't spend time throwing money down those thoughts.
- nonbel 8y ago
  I do understand what you are taking that quote to mean. It just seems like quite a stretch to me. Or at least, if you are correct, I would not trust myself to accurately interpret anything they say.
  - taeric 8y ago
    I was taking the quote to mean that not many people were researching causes/treatments of Alzheimer's that were not related to the "Amyloid hypothesis." If I am misinterpreting that, then it is my poor reading. (I have some excuses right now, but they would be just that. :) )
    - nonbel 8y ago
      Rather than speculate on alternative meanings, I'm just going to take the statement literally for now unless they show up to correct me.
      - taeric 8y ago
        Certainly fair. I've just taken, quite heavily lately, to the principal of charity. To that end, the most upvoted direct response to you is a better worded version of what I was getting at. Sunken costs and changing where you are spending your money is my speculation on why things went the way they did. I don't have a solid answer for why this is so, though. At least, not one that generalizes. To repeat what I think was the heart of your initial question: Why do people form strong beliefs? That is a very good question that I don't think anyone has a solid answer on. Just more beliefs that have strong proponents. :)

by nonbel 8y ago

taeric 8y ago

I took the parent's claim to be more that most of the alternative research just didn't seem to be happening. It wasn't that people didn't think it Alzheimer's couldn't be virus/whatever related; but it was widely true that no funded research was looking into that. Instead, a large portion of the funding went into the "amyloid hypothesis." That make sense? I mean, yes, people could have thought this before. But, by and large, they didn't spend time throwing money down those thoughts.

nonbel 8y ago
I do understand what you are taking that quote to mean. It just seems like quite a stretch to me. Or at least, if you are correct, I would not trust myself to accurately interpret anything they say.
- taeric 8y ago
  I was taking the quote to mean that not many people were researching causes/treatments of Alzheimer's that were not related to the "Amyloid hypothesis." If I am misinterpreting that, then it is my poor reading. (I have some excuses right now, but they would be just that. :) )
  - nonbel 8y ago
    Rather than speculate on alternative meanings, I'm just going to take the statement literally for now unless they show up to correct me.
    - taeric 8y ago
      Certainly fair. I've just taken, quite heavily lately, to the principal of charity. To that end, the most upvoted direct response to you is a better worded version of what I was getting at. Sunken costs and changing where you are spending your money is my speculation on why things went the way they did. I don't have a solid answer for why this is so, though. At least, not one that generalizes. To repeat what I think was the heart of your initial question: Why do people form strong beliefs? That is a very good question that I don't think anyone has a solid answer on. Just more beliefs that have strong proponents. :)