4 ms·

The major and established beliefs in science usually have some fringe competition/opposition. You can only tell in hindsight whether it's "a cabal stifling vali

The major and established beliefs in science usually have some fringe competition/opposition. You can only tell in hindsight whether it's "a cabal stifling valid criticism" or "scientists refusing to waste time on distractions".

OneGuy123 7y ago
You are missing the point. The point is this: we do not have a cure for this dieases now. Therefore, we do not know where to look at all. Therefore the best approach is to look at everything possible, since we obviously have no idea where to look. If we knew where to look, we would have atleast a partial cure. But no cure works now, none.
- twic 7y ago
  > The point is this: we do not have a cure for this dieases now. > Therefore, we do not know where to look at all. This doesn't follow.
- gus_massa 7y ago
  There are too many possible alternatives that may lead to a cure. What about homeopathic cures? I think it is snake oil, but some people think it is useful. If you try everything possible, you should try it. But it would be a big waste of money and allocation of patients and medical doctors. And also, there are many homeopathic recipes, so which one(s) should you try? What about radiation? A huge amount of radiation may help or may he harmful. I think it's harmful, but at least it can cause a real effect. Should we include that in the list of everything possible? Antibiotics? I don't think it would work, but it solved stomach ulcers after year of traying other treatments. Which antibiotic? Exercise? There are some studies from time to time, but I think most of them have the causation link backwards. I think we should make less studies in this field, but nobody asked me. I can add more and more alternatives. Some are ridicules, like nuns prayers, some may be legit like CRISP9. There are more possibilities than the current level of funding and patients available for clinical studies, so someone has to choose the more promising alternatives and hope they made the correct guess.
- jmilloy 7y ago
  Resources are finite. A "depth-first" search is a poor choice because it takes a lot of resources fully test any given "cure". A "breadth-first" search (as you are suggesting) is a poor choice because there are simply too many things to try. It has to be something in between, and researchers use heuristics to decide which branches to pursue. Sometimes they focus too much on the wrong branch.
dhimes 7y ago
This is an extremely important point. Since I was a grad student, there have been at least 5 monumental "findings" in physics: 1. A spinning top weighs less if it spins one way than if it spins the other 2. A "fifth force," IIRC it was linked to baryons 3. The climate is warming, not (as people thought) cooling 4. Superconductivity can be achieved at high (liquid Ln2) temperatures 5. Fusion can be achieved at low (room) temperatures ("cold fusion"). 6. Homeopathic properties of water 7. Faster-than-light travel of neutrinos In each case there was a rush for confirmation- tons of excitement in the field, etc. Some were confirmed; some debunked; some remain controversial. I read somewhere that Google is working on cold fusion?
- adrianN 7y ago
  AFAIK at no point in time were there more publications predicting cooling than publications predicting warming. It was just the popsci media that almost exclusively predicted another ice age.
  - dhimes 7y ago
    I wasn't old enough to have access to original journals (nor the ability to understand them) in the 1970s, but Science News was considered a trustworthy source, as was Scientific American, for the layman. EDIT: Frondo's link (sibling comment) points out how Science News got it wrong.
  - Frondo 7y ago
    Thank you. Yes. The "they said global cooling" myth needs to be retired. I did just a quick google search because it's 5am and I need to sleep soon, but this looks like a good history of the global cooling thing: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-gl...
    - dhimes 7y ago
      Thank you very much for that link. It even points to the magazine my 10 or 12 year old self took to be authoritative as getting it wrong! Next you're going to tell me there's no Easter Bunny!
partyboat1586 7y ago
It's all a matter of degree. Exploitation vs exploration in search theory. How many failed clinical trials for amyloid reducing drugs does it take to see a significant possibility that we might need to explore other ideas? People will happily invest other people's money in trials that will likely fail if it's the leading academic theory since they can shift the blame (lack of skin in the game). Academics will have built careers on amyloid research and so will destroy opposition, subconsciously controlled by their egos looking to protect themselves. The incentives are not aligned to use the best exploitation, exploration ratio that might be used in the ideal case but instead heavily weighted towards exploitation ignoring negative results from clinical trials for extended periods of time.

OneGuy123 7y ago

You are missing the point. The point is this: we do not have a cure for this dieases now. Therefore, we do not know where to look at all. Therefore the best approach is to look at everything possible, since we obviously have no idea where to look. If we knew where to look, we would have atleast a partial cure. But no cure works now, none.

twic 7y ago
> The point is this: we do not have a cure for this dieases now. > Therefore, we do not know where to look at all. This doesn't follow.
gus_massa 7y ago
There are too many possible alternatives that may lead to a cure. What about homeopathic cures? I think it is snake oil, but some people think it is useful. If you try everything possible, you should try it. But it would be a big waste of money and allocation of patients and medical doctors. And also, there are many homeopathic recipes, so which one(s) should you try? What about radiation? A huge amount of radiation may help or may he harmful. I think it's harmful, but at least it can cause a real effect. Should we include that in the list of everything possible? Antibiotics? I don't think it would work, but it solved stomach ulcers after year of traying other treatments. Which antibiotic? Exercise? There are some studies from time to time, but I think most of them have the causation link backwards. I think we should make less studies in this field, but nobody asked me. I can add more and more alternatives. Some are ridicules, like nuns prayers, some may be legit like CRISP9. There are more possibilities than the current level of funding and patients available for clinical studies, so someone has to choose the more promising alternatives and hope they made the correct guess.
jmilloy 7y ago
Resources are finite. A "depth-first" search is a poor choice because it takes a lot of resources fully test any given "cure". A "breadth-first" search (as you are suggesting) is a poor choice because there are simply too many things to try. It has to be something in between, and researchers use heuristics to decide which branches to pursue. Sometimes they focus too much on the wrong branch.

dhimes 7y ago

This is an extremely important point. Since I was a grad student, there have been at least 5 monumental "findings" in physics: 1. A spinning top weighs less if it spins one way than if it spins the other 2. A "fifth force," IIRC it was linked to baryons 3. The climate is warming, not (as people thought) cooling 4. Superconductivity can be achieved at high (liquid Ln2) temperatures 5. Fusion can be achieved at low (room) temperatures ("cold fusion"). 6. Homeopathic properties of water 7. Faster-than-light travel of neutrinos In each case there was a rush for confirmation- tons of excitement in the field, etc. Some were confirmed; some debunked; some remain controversial. I read somewhere that Google is working on cold fusion?

adrianN 7y ago
AFAIK at no point in time were there more publications predicting cooling than publications predicting warming. It was just the popsci media that almost exclusively predicted another ice age.
- dhimes 7y ago
  I wasn't old enough to have access to original journals (nor the ability to understand them) in the 1970s, but Science News was considered a trustworthy source, as was Scientific American, for the layman. EDIT: Frondo's link (sibling comment) points out how Science News got it wrong.
- Frondo 7y ago
  Thank you. Yes. The "they said global cooling" myth needs to be retired. I did just a quick google search because it's 5am and I need to sleep soon, but this looks like a good history of the global cooling thing: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-gl...
  - dhimes 7y ago
    Thank you very much for that link. It even points to the magazine my 10 or 12 year old self took to be authoritative as getting it wrong! Next you're going to tell me there's no Easter Bunny!

partyboat1586 7y ago

It's all a matter of degree. Exploitation vs exploration in search theory. How many failed clinical trials for amyloid reducing drugs does it take to see a significant possibility that we might need to explore other ideas? People will happily invest other people's money in trials that will likely fail if it's the leading academic theory since they can shift the blame (lack of skin in the game). Academics will have built careers on amyloid research and so will destroy opposition, subconsciously controlled by their egos looking to protect themselves. The incentives are not aligned to use the best exploitation, exploration ratio that might be used in the ideal case but instead heavily weighted towards exploitation ignoring negative results from clinical trials for extended periods of time.