4 ms·

Some of the old-wives tales were descriptions of things that worked just like a lot of the herbal medicines. We didn't know why they worked so I agree it's har

by smoyer 7y ago

Some of the old-wives tales were descriptions of things that worked just like a lot of the herbal medicines. We didn't know why they worked so I agree it's hard to call them science. It's also possible it worked for you due to placebo effects, but you describe having a sample size of two! I hope we don't mock people for stating anecdotal evidence. I have seen mocking for statements that clearly contradict evidence (cough-cough flat-earth cough) or when people clearly have confused anecdotal evidence with fact. I'm curious now what you meant ... maybe it would work for others and if it falls into the category of "can't hurt", why not share it. NOTE: the coughing above is not a self-diagnosis on my part.

klodolph 7y ago
> We didn't know why they worked so I agree it's hard to call them science. Science doesn't always tell us why something works, but it may tell us "whether". The theory of whether something works is much easier to understand and test than the theory of why or how. It may not be rigorous science with good experimental design, that's all.
- e12e 7y ago
  One could argue that science is about falsifying hypothesis - and terby narrowing in on not just if something works, but how. But an important part of that process is trying to determine if something works or not. I'd say doing that well is difficult without at least some theory and hypothesis of how - because of the need to determine significant factors. To take a silly example, you could take a group of diarrhea patients and serve some copious amounts of green tea, and another group a limited amount of water; you'd probably observere severe dehydration in the group that is served water. But it does not follow that green tea is better than water for treating diarrhea - sufficient hydration is.
  - klodolph 7y ago
    What you've described with green tee and water is science, it's just that your conclusions aren't well supported by the evidence. > One could argue that science is about falsifying hypothesis - and terby narrowing in on not just if something works, but how. To clarify, are YOU arguing that? Because if you're not arguing that, if you're just playing devil's advocate, then I'm unhappy with the way the conversation is going. Testing "how" is not a requirement for science. There's been a lot of work on the philosophy of science over the past few centuries which I'm not going to try and summarize here (tl;dr: the idea of "falsifiability" is a bit outdated), but I'm going to copy and paste the first sentence of Wikipedia: > Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. There's no requirement in science that we understand a mechanism of action.
    - e12e 7y ago
      Your quote literally includes the phrase "testable explanations"? My point about tea vs water is exactly that having: "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge" helps with controlling for other factors when setting up and evaluating experiments? Ed: hm, we may be talking past each other here: > Testing "how" is not a requirement for science Indeed, 'testing "how"' isn't really possible, only testing "if". But testing "if" with no idea of "how" is very difficult? (because without an idea of "how" it's hard to even define the "what")
      - klodolph 7y ago
        > Your quote literally includes the phrase "testable explanations"? It says "and predictions". That is, both "testable explanations" and "testable predictions" are a part of science. > Indeed, 'testing "how"' isn't really possible, only testing "if". This argument is a dead end. If you construct your epistemology in such a fragile way that testing "how" is not possible, then take a closer look at the world you've constructed, you'll find that testing "if" is not possible either. Any modern philosophy of science has to reconcile with modern epistemology. If you try to construct a good definition for science but use your intuition about what "knowledge" is, then you're only going to discover that you need to go back and refine your understanding of epistemology. I claim that we can, in fact, test "how". Testing "how" and testing "whether" are both scientific endeavors.
        e12e 7y ago
        OK, I think I see where we talk past each other - I stated: > One could argue that science is about falsifying hypothesis - and terby narrowing in on not just if something works, but how. You read that as saying that we can only test how, not if. Now you read my comments as saying we can only test if not how. I think we're in agreement that they are two sides of the scientific process.
        klodolph 7y ago
        > You read that as saying that we can only test how, not if. Now you read my comments as saying we can only test if not how. The original sentence, "One could argue that..." is poorly worded and confusing. Maybe you could take this opportunity to clarify what you meant. I'm not really interested in litigating who said what. I'd rather understand what you actually mean, rather than try and attack the wording that you happened to use. To clarify what I'm saying: Testing "whether" can be science, without testing "how", and vice versa.
jmnicolas 7y ago
I met skepticism on HN when I said that mega-doses of vitamin C were helping with my hay fever symptoms and was literally insulted on YouTube when I advised to keep water in your mouth while cutting onions to avoid crying. Why would I care that these 2 things are not peer reviewed by some high level scientists ? I know it won't be a popular opinion here but there's too much emphasis placed on science nowadays. While science is perfect, scientists aren't, they can make mistakes, they can be bought, and more importantly there's not enough budget to prove everything. So I'm a pragmatist : if the thing makes sense to me and isn't costly or dangerous to try, I try it. In fact I whish the placebo effect was much more prevalent. Imagine if you could cure everything with a few drops of fresh squeezed lemon juice in warm water ?
- bmn__ 7y ago
  > was literally insulted on YouTube when I advised to keep water in your mouth while cutting onions to avoid crying The reaction is unsurprising. Anyone who has ever cut onions gained an understanding that irritating gas (http://enwp.org/Syn-Propanethial-S-oxide http://enwp.org/Syn-Propanethial-S-oxide) wafts up into the eyes. The hypothesis that water in the mouth is supposed to help runs counter to intuition. It affords testing. Devise an experiment and let us know the result.
  - jmnicolas 7y ago
    I don't need to experiment with it, I'm doing it every time I cut onions and I don't cry anymore. It works. If you want to try, next time you cut onions put some water in your mouth and keep it there until you've finished cutting. It will get a bad taste, spit it once you're finished.
- taylodl 7y ago
  I'm always interested in learning what works for others. People need to understand we're all different so what works for one group of people may not work for other groups of people. Modern medicine has only recently begun to realize there may be several things for which a one cure fits all approach doesn't exist.
pinkfoot 7y ago
> there's too much emphasis placed on science The site rules prevent me from making an appropriate reply.

by smoyer 7y ago

klodolph 7y ago

> We didn't know why they worked so I agree it's hard to call them science. Science doesn't always tell us why something works, but it may tell us "whether". The theory of whether something works is much easier to understand and test than the theory of why or how. It may not be rigorous science with good experimental design, that's all.

e12e 7y ago
One could argue that science is about falsifying hypothesis - and terby narrowing in on not just if something works, but how. But an important part of that process is trying to determine if something works or not. I'd say doing that well is difficult without at least some theory and hypothesis of how - because of the need to determine significant factors. To take a silly example, you could take a group of diarrhea patients and serve some copious amounts of green tea, and another group a limited amount of water; you'd probably observere severe dehydration in the group that is served water. But it does not follow that green tea is better than water for treating diarrhea - sufficient hydration is.
- klodolph 7y ago
  What you've described with green tee and water is science, it's just that your conclusions aren't well supported by the evidence. > One could argue that science is about falsifying hypothesis - and terby narrowing in on not just if something works, but how. To clarify, are YOU arguing that? Because if you're not arguing that, if you're just playing devil's advocate, then I'm unhappy with the way the conversation is going. Testing "how" is not a requirement for science. There's been a lot of work on the philosophy of science over the past few centuries which I'm not going to try and summarize here (tl;dr: the idea of "falsifiability" is a bit outdated), but I'm going to copy and paste the first sentence of Wikipedia: > Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. There's no requirement in science that we understand a mechanism of action.
  - e12e 7y ago
    Your quote literally includes the phrase "testable explanations"? My point about tea vs water is exactly that having: "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge" helps with controlling for other factors when setting up and evaluating experiments? Ed: hm, we may be talking past each other here: > Testing "how" is not a requirement for science Indeed, 'testing "how"' isn't really possible, only testing "if". But testing "if" with no idea of "how" is very difficult? (because without an idea of "how" it's hard to even define the "what")
    - klodolph 7y ago
      > Your quote literally includes the phrase "testable explanations"? It says "and predictions". That is, both "testable explanations" and "testable predictions" are a part of science. > Indeed, 'testing "how"' isn't really possible, only testing "if". This argument is a dead end. If you construct your epistemology in such a fragile way that testing "how" is not possible, then take a closer look at the world you've constructed, you'll find that testing "if" is not possible either. Any modern philosophy of science has to reconcile with modern epistemology. If you try to construct a good definition for science but use your intuition about what "knowledge" is, then you're only going to discover that you need to go back and refine your understanding of epistemology. I claim that we can, in fact, test "how". Testing "how" and testing "whether" are both scientific endeavors.
      - e12e 7y ago
        OK, I think I see where we talk past each other - I stated: > One could argue that science is about falsifying hypothesis - and terby narrowing in on not just if something works, but how. You read that as saying that we can only test how, not if. Now you read my comments as saying we can only test if not how. I think we're in agreement that they are two sides of the scientific process.
        klodolph 7y ago
        > You read that as saying that we can only test how, not if. Now you read my comments as saying we can only test if not how. The original sentence, "One could argue that..." is poorly worded and confusing. Maybe you could take this opportunity to clarify what you meant. I'm not really interested in litigating who said what. I'd rather understand what you actually mean, rather than try and attack the wording that you happened to use. To clarify what I'm saying: Testing "whether" can be science, without testing "how", and vice versa.

jmnicolas 7y ago

I met skepticism on HN when I said that mega-doses of vitamin C were helping with my hay fever symptoms and was literally insulted on YouTube when I advised to keep water in your mouth while cutting onions to avoid crying. Why would I care that these 2 things are not peer reviewed by some high level scientists ? I know it won't be a popular opinion here but there's too much emphasis placed on science nowadays. While science is perfect, scientists aren't, they can make mistakes, they can be bought, and more importantly there's not enough budget to prove everything. So I'm a pragmatist : if the thing makes sense to me and isn't costly or dangerous to try, I try it. In fact I whish the placebo effect was much more prevalent. Imagine if you could cure everything with a few drops of fresh squeezed lemon juice in warm water ?

bmn__ 7y ago
> was literally insulted on YouTube when I advised to keep water in your mouth while cutting onions to avoid crying The reaction is unsurprising. Anyone who has ever cut onions gained an understanding that irritating gas (http://enwp.org/Syn-Propanethial-S-oxide http://enwp.org/Syn-Propanethial-S-oxide) wafts up into the eyes. The hypothesis that water in the mouth is supposed to help runs counter to intuition. It affords testing. Devise an experiment and let us know the result.
- jmnicolas 7y ago
  I don't need to experiment with it, I'm doing it every time I cut onions and I don't cry anymore. It works. If you want to try, next time you cut onions put some water in your mouth and keep it there until you've finished cutting. It will get a bad taste, spit it once you're finished.
taylodl 7y ago
I'm always interested in learning what works for others. People need to understand we're all different so what works for one group of people may not work for other groups of people. Modern medicine has only recently begun to realize there may be several things for which a one cure fits all approach doesn't exist.

pinkfoot 7y ago

> there's too much emphasis placed on science The site rules prevent me from making an appropriate reply.