5 ms·

Yeah, it's kind of funny how we arrived at some of the right answers for totally the wrong reasons. The whole "bad air" concept? Total hokum, but an abundance o

by gascan 8y ago

Yeah, it's kind of funny how we arrived at some of the right answers for totally the wrong reasons. The whole "bad air" concept? Total hokum, but an abundance of fresh air will help control airborne transmission.

whatshisface 8y ago
You could argue that the entire human body along with every infections disease got invented in the same way.
fjsolwmv 8y ago
If you realize that experiment generally orecedes theory, it's completely sensible. Experiments are reproducible, theories are abstract. Making could decisions is more useful than having correct explanations.
- ItsMe000001 8y ago
  > Experiments are reproducible Not nitpicking (at least that's not my intent), just adding: Only if you know what the variables are. This occurred to me because I'm myself an interesting medical case beating even a professor of medicine's prediction, as well as independent ones from various doctors about other things that turned out to be symptoms of the same underlying chronic poisoning issue that I had to diagnose myself, and only then find the right specialist for it. There has been sooo much interesting stuff going on in my body during years of slow recovery (and a few "miracles" that left doctors literally speechless), but I would not be able to say how you could repeat the "experiment". Too little is known about any of what goes on inside me right now, my doctor (researcher at university clinic) has long ago admitted that we left the area of known study-supported medicine behind. I suspect a few mechanisms based on observing myself that I have no way and no idea how to prove. So I'm of course not certain what I can claim, or what exactly happened, but neither would I know how to repeat my personal experiment even if human experiments were possible. It's just too much unknown territory. And in the end my experiences will all be lost, unfortunately. An example for something I suspect: Some diseases like the common cold may not always be orthogonal and superfluous. In my case, over the years, I got more and more the impression that it actively helped my body to get rid of what was stored over decades. I suspect that everything is much more intertwined and connected and not separate. One prediction I could make based on this suspicion is that if we were to be able to eliminate mild diseases like the cold completely we would get more serious diseases or other issues down the road. That's not a practical experiment though, maybe some large-scale observational studies can get some hints one way or the other, but it will be too messy and too uncertain for anything even close to a definite proof or disproof. Another thing I suspect is that even very low level exposure (far below officially allowed levels) to heavy metals has very real consequences - it's just that on an individual basis we are almost utterly unable to show it. We can do it only on a population basis, and we all know how messy that is with all the known and unknown confounders.
trhway 8y ago
Many knowledge starts with noticing correlation.
- WorldMaker 8y ago
  Then disproving causation. A fascinating use of Mammoth Cave in its history was a "good air" study on tuberculosis patients, because caves have great, naturally tempered air. That airflow is also tightly enclosed and many tourists and the doctors themselves caught the disease. It was a terrible way to help prove germ theory, but at the same time its hard not to blame them for trying because it was such a serious disease and anything to help was more than they had.

by gascan 8y ago

whatshisface 8y ago

You could argue that the entire human body along with every infections disease got invented in the same way.

fjsolwmv 8y ago

If you realize that experiment generally orecedes theory, it's completely sensible. Experiments are reproducible, theories are abstract. Making could decisions is more useful than having correct explanations.

ItsMe000001 8y ago
> Experiments are reproducible Not nitpicking (at least that's not my intent), just adding: Only if you know what the variables are. This occurred to me because I'm myself an interesting medical case beating even a professor of medicine's prediction, as well as independent ones from various doctors about other things that turned out to be symptoms of the same underlying chronic poisoning issue that I had to diagnose myself, and only then find the right specialist for it. There has been sooo much interesting stuff going on in my body during years of slow recovery (and a few "miracles" that left doctors literally speechless), but I would not be able to say how you could repeat the "experiment". Too little is known about any of what goes on inside me right now, my doctor (researcher at university clinic) has long ago admitted that we left the area of known study-supported medicine behind. I suspect a few mechanisms based on observing myself that I have no way and no idea how to prove. So I'm of course not certain what I can claim, or what exactly happened, but neither would I know how to repeat my personal experiment even if human experiments were possible. It's just too much unknown territory. And in the end my experiences will all be lost, unfortunately. An example for something I suspect: Some diseases like the common cold may not always be orthogonal and superfluous. In my case, over the years, I got more and more the impression that it actively helped my body to get rid of what was stored over decades. I suspect that everything is much more intertwined and connected and not separate. One prediction I could make based on this suspicion is that if we were to be able to eliminate mild diseases like the cold completely we would get more serious diseases or other issues down the road. That's not a practical experiment though, maybe some large-scale observational studies can get some hints one way or the other, but it will be too messy and too uncertain for anything even close to a definite proof or disproof. Another thing I suspect is that even very low level exposure (far below officially allowed levels) to heavy metals has very real consequences - it's just that on an individual basis we are almost utterly unable to show it. We can do it only on a population basis, and we all know how messy that is with all the known and unknown confounders.

trhway 8y ago

Many knowledge starts with noticing correlation.

WorldMaker 8y ago
Then disproving causation. A fascinating use of Mammoth Cave in its history was a "good air" study on tuberculosis patients, because caves have great, naturally tempered air. That airflow is also tightly enclosed and many tourists and the doctors themselves caught the disease. It was a terrible way to help prove germ theory, but at the same time its hard not to blame them for trying because it was such a serious disease and anything to help was more than they had.