5 ms·

You just explained my point for me by giving a perfect example. We have no idea why any of these correlations hold or why they would lead to any particular chan

You just explained my point for me by giving a perfect example. We have no idea why any of these correlations hold or why they would lead to any particular change in pain experiences. For god's sake indeed. This explanation of "why" ibuprofen works is as good as the article's explanation of "why" exaggeration jokes work. It's so unfortunate that otherwise rational people have been made incurious by modern education, enough to believe that "there is a change in the level of one neurotransmitter" is a good explanation for "why a pain medicine works".

dpark 8y ago
You defend your claim that “we don't even know why/how Ibuprofen works” by pretending that Wikipedia’s incomplete description of COX mechanics are proof that we “have no idea” how any of this works. You’re not pointing out meaningful gaps in our knowledge. You’re passionately arguing that incomplete knowledge is equivalent to complete ignorance. Boo. This is lazy and anti-intellectual, akin to “debunking” climate change by claiming that since we don’t know everything that influences climate, we don’t know anything at all. Someone who complains of “incuriousity” should do better than this.
- southerndrift 8y ago
  I guess they mean that there is still the gap between molecules and perception. There is no concept for pain and thus no explanation of how Ibuprofen changes the perception of pain. That said, how do you exactly point out that an explanation is not sufficient? It's like describing a hole, you can only point at the borders.
  - dpark 8y ago
    “There is no concept for pain” is only true if you believe that human experiences do not map to the physical world. Otherwise pain is entirely a manifestation of physical chemical interactions. Pain is actually a pretty well understood phenomenon. Perfectly understood? No, but that’s typical of most things. As for pointing out that an explanation is not sufficient, it is perfectly reasonable to point out the gaps in our knowledge. If those gaps are extremely large, it’s reasonable to call that out as well. It’s not reasonable to claim that the knowledge we do have is meaningless simply because there are still gaps in our knowledge. We don’t understand the origin of the universe, and yet we still manage to fly rockets pretty well. We managed to predict eclipses with perfect accuracy long before modern astronomy existed. The gaps in our knowledge don’t prevent the existing knowledge from being useful or accurate.

dpark 8y ago

You defend your claim that “we don't even know why/how Ibuprofen works” by pretending that Wikipedia’s incomplete description of COX mechanics are proof that we “have no idea” how any of this works. You’re not pointing out meaningful gaps in our knowledge. You’re passionately arguing that incomplete knowledge is equivalent to complete ignorance. Boo. This is lazy and anti-intellectual, akin to “debunking” climate change by claiming that since we don’t know everything that influences climate, we don’t know anything at all. Someone who complains of “incuriousity” should do better than this.

southerndrift 8y ago
I guess they mean that there is still the gap between molecules and perception. There is no concept for pain and thus no explanation of how Ibuprofen changes the perception of pain. That said, how do you exactly point out that an explanation is not sufficient? It's like describing a hole, you can only point at the borders.
- dpark 8y ago
  “There is no concept for pain” is only true if you believe that human experiences do not map to the physical world. Otherwise pain is entirely a manifestation of physical chemical interactions. Pain is actually a pretty well understood phenomenon. Perfectly understood? No, but that’s typical of most things. As for pointing out that an explanation is not sufficient, it is perfectly reasonable to point out the gaps in our knowledge. If those gaps are extremely large, it’s reasonable to call that out as well. It’s not reasonable to claim that the knowledge we do have is meaningless simply because there are still gaps in our knowledge. We don’t understand the origin of the universe, and yet we still manage to fly rockets pretty well. We managed to predict eclipses with perfect accuracy long before modern astronomy existed. The gaps in our knowledge don’t prevent the existing knowledge from being useful or accurate.