4 ms·

I guess I care. Yes it's beneficial if something works, but I want to know why it works too and not just believe in random pseudoscience. Also, determining if

I guess I care. Yes it's beneficial if something works, but I want to know why it works too and not just believe in random pseudoscience. Also, determining if something really works is hard. I want to understand the mechanism. If there's something true there then you may be able to use that directly, you can also avoid untrue things that are harmful (history is full of these harmful 'treatments'). [0] Without this people just end up wearing energy crystals, while dismissing real medicine for homeopathic nonsense that can lead to death [1][2]. Humanity has used the scientific method to barely rise above the collection of hocus pocus explanations. It's worth the effort not to fall back into that. [3] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs#Health_problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs#Health_problems [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23882029 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23882029 [3]: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/RgkqLqkg8vLhsYpfh/fake-causality https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/RgkqLqkg8vLhsYpfh/fake-causa...

brigandish 6y ago
There's a big difference between wearing crystals because you believe it improves your life, and doing a physical exercise that changes your mental state. If one can't confirm changes in their own mental state, especially profound changes, I'd suggest that's a far bigger and more pressing problem than anything you've listed.
- fossuser 6y ago
  I'm sure people believe they confirm 'profound changes in their own mental state' from energy crystals too. We can delude ourselves into believing anything. That's why we need to test things empirically in order to find out the truth.
  - brigandish 6y ago
    > I'm sure people believe they confirm 'profound changes in their own mental state' from energy crystals too. Not sure about you, but if someone tells me "I've been exercising lately and mentally I feel much better" I don't say "but does homeopathy really work" and wink at them.
    - fossuser 6y ago
      There's a lot of evidence that exercising is healthy and helps people improve their mental state so that analogy doesn't work. The point is if someone says they're getting a benefit from something that doesn't have a ton of evidence around it - my first instinct would be to be skeptical but curious. When someone takes that skepticism and implies that the "far bigger and more pressing problem" is that I can't determine the obvious benefits it makes me more skeptical, not less. How skeptical I am comes from how far it is from my priors. Breathing exercises being helpful seems likely, choosing energetic or restful based on which nostril you're breathing out of sounds like bullshit so I'm more skeptical by default. If someone tells me they're breathing out of their right nostril to become more energized - I'd probably tell them that sounds made up.
      - nonbirithm 6y ago
        It's weird though, because exercising physically can increase stress in the short term and can greatly elevate heart rate. Exercising is really unpleasant to me and I would really rather not do so. The only reason I choose to exercise anyway is because of the people online and the scientific evidence saying that exercise is better for you in the long term. I certainly don't feel like it in the moment, and in fact sometimes worry if my heart is going to give out as I exercise. But if I am going to believe that exercise is beneficial overall, but that you can't experience the benefits it brings until it's too late to change things, I don't really know what else to do except listen to them and keep exercising, while getting over the unpleasantness and complete draining of energy and motivation to do things I'd rather do that it causes. Maybe that's what some things in life come down to. It either comes down to eating diets like ones with plants prioritized and getting over the fact that they don't taste as pleasant as foods with refined sugars, or accepting the impact on your health by choosing the latter. Maybe some people just make their own peace with the taste of such foods, somehow.
        lvturner 6y ago
        I don't have a tactful way to say this - but perhaps you are exercising too hard? It might be wiser to take a progressive approach - i.e. start with a five minute walk, the next day/week/month increase it to a ten minute walk or increase the pace.
katzgrau 6y ago
Humanity has historically taken a trial and error approach to most things - medicine, engineering, cooking, etc. Advances in technology are usually the result of tinkering as opposed to directed research or science. The science usually comes later (if and when someone funds it) to explain why it works. It's ugly, but it's how we usually lumber along. And yes, many mistakes and pseudoscience take place along the way. I was recently reading how jet engines were developed even though no one really knew exactly how they worked (there were theories, of course). This is the closest thing I could find on the topic online: https://www.rutgers.edu/news/failure-leads-tech-advances-says-rutgers-camden-historian https://www.rutgers.edu/news/failure-leads-tech-advances-say...
- fossuser 6y ago
  I think we agree - trying things you think might work is a good place to start, then you can attempt to confirm that empirically. Predictions have to start somewhere. What bothers me about the comment I replied to was the hostility to trying to understanding the underlying mechanism. "As long as it does something beneficial who cares after all what the bias is?" is not a good position. That kind of thing leads to people doubling down when it turns out their pet hypothesis is actually shown to be wrong (not saying that's the case here). It can also lead to people thinking they see benefits where none exist (or where the activity is even harmful), it can lead to people making up explanations (most of human history). It's good to be willing to try new things, but also to have a healthy skepticism.
  - onemoresoop 6y ago
    I am usually a skeptical person and am aware that there is a lot of pseudoscience floating around. But, I think that is not necessarily a bad thing. People try things and what works is later scrutinized and better understood in a scientific way if you will. What doesn’t work will get itself out of the way eventually. You are free to practice whatever you think is understood(and also be aware that current understanding is bound to change, sometimes it does take 180’ turns). But you risk missing out on things that are not yet understood and yet beneficial. Sure, all people are at risk of wasting their time with a quack theory or practice. Again, I dont think that is a bad thing, more people may become skeptical that way
andi999 6y ago
Not knowing how it works does not make it pseudoscience. It is enough if you can show through double blind that it works. For quite a few established medications which work we do not known how they work. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/23/one-big-myth-about-medicine-we-know-how-drugs-work/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/23/one-b... Pseudoscience is if you do not test it scientifically if it works.
- fossuser 6y ago
  I think we agree? Just because you don’t know how something works doesn’t mean it’s pseudoscience. You just might not understand the mechanism. There’s a greater risk that something you think works actually doesn’t though if you don’t test it. There’s also a greater risk that claims people make about things in this untested space are more likely to be false. Part of the reason it’s important to test and understand the mechanism is that people are good at deluding themselves with all sorts of biases and made up false explanations.

brigandish 6y ago

There's a big difference between wearing crystals because you believe it improves your life, and doing a physical exercise that changes your mental state. If one can't confirm changes in their own mental state, especially profound changes, I'd suggest that's a far bigger and more pressing problem than anything you've listed.

fossuser 6y ago
I'm sure people believe they confirm 'profound changes in their own mental state' from energy crystals too. We can delude ourselves into believing anything. That's why we need to test things empirically in order to find out the truth.
- brigandish 6y ago
  > I'm sure people believe they confirm 'profound changes in their own mental state' from energy crystals too. Not sure about you, but if someone tells me "I've been exercising lately and mentally I feel much better" I don't say "but does homeopathy really work" and wink at them.
  - fossuser 6y ago
    There's a lot of evidence that exercising is healthy and helps people improve their mental state so that analogy doesn't work. The point is if someone says they're getting a benefit from something that doesn't have a ton of evidence around it - my first instinct would be to be skeptical but curious. When someone takes that skepticism and implies that the "far bigger and more pressing problem" is that I can't determine the obvious benefits it makes me more skeptical, not less. How skeptical I am comes from how far it is from my priors. Breathing exercises being helpful seems likely, choosing energetic or restful based on which nostril you're breathing out of sounds like bullshit so I'm more skeptical by default. If someone tells me they're breathing out of their right nostril to become more energized - I'd probably tell them that sounds made up.
    - nonbirithm 6y ago
      It's weird though, because exercising physically can increase stress in the short term and can greatly elevate heart rate. Exercising is really unpleasant to me and I would really rather not do so. The only reason I choose to exercise anyway is because of the people online and the scientific evidence saying that exercise is better for you in the long term. I certainly don't feel like it in the moment, and in fact sometimes worry if my heart is going to give out as I exercise. But if I am going to believe that exercise is beneficial overall, but that you can't experience the benefits it brings until it's too late to change things, I don't really know what else to do except listen to them and keep exercising, while getting over the unpleasantness and complete draining of energy and motivation to do things I'd rather do that it causes. Maybe that's what some things in life come down to. It either comes down to eating diets like ones with plants prioritized and getting over the fact that they don't taste as pleasant as foods with refined sugars, or accepting the impact on your health by choosing the latter. Maybe some people just make their own peace with the taste of such foods, somehow.
      - lvturner 6y ago
        I don't have a tactful way to say this - but perhaps you are exercising too hard? It might be wiser to take a progressive approach - i.e. start with a five minute walk, the next day/week/month increase it to a ten minute walk or increase the pace.

katzgrau 6y ago

Humanity has historically taken a trial and error approach to most things - medicine, engineering, cooking, etc. Advances in technology are usually the result of tinkering as opposed to directed research or science. The science usually comes later (if and when someone funds it) to explain why it works. It's ugly, but it's how we usually lumber along. And yes, many mistakes and pseudoscience take place along the way. I was recently reading how jet engines were developed even though no one really knew exactly how they worked (there were theories, of course). This is the closest thing I could find on the topic online: https://www.rutgers.edu/news/failure-leads-tech-advances-says-rutgers-camden-historian https://www.rutgers.edu/news/failure-leads-tech-advances-say...

fossuser 6y ago
I think we agree - trying things you think might work is a good place to start, then you can attempt to confirm that empirically. Predictions have to start somewhere. What bothers me about the comment I replied to was the hostility to trying to understanding the underlying mechanism. "As long as it does something beneficial who cares after all what the bias is?" is not a good position. That kind of thing leads to people doubling down when it turns out their pet hypothesis is actually shown to be wrong (not saying that's the case here). It can also lead to people thinking they see benefits where none exist (or where the activity is even harmful), it can lead to people making up explanations (most of human history). It's good to be willing to try new things, but also to have a healthy skepticism.
- onemoresoop 6y ago
  I am usually a skeptical person and am aware that there is a lot of pseudoscience floating around. But, I think that is not necessarily a bad thing. People try things and what works is later scrutinized and better understood in a scientific way if you will. What doesn’t work will get itself out of the way eventually. You are free to practice whatever you think is understood(and also be aware that current understanding is bound to change, sometimes it does take 180’ turns). But you risk missing out on things that are not yet understood and yet beneficial. Sure, all people are at risk of wasting their time with a quack theory or practice. Again, I dont think that is a bad thing, more people may become skeptical that way

andi999 6y ago

Not knowing how it works does not make it pseudoscience. It is enough if you can show through double blind that it works. For quite a few established medications which work we do not known how they work. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/23/one-big-myth-about-medicine-we-know-how-drugs-work/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/23/one-b... Pseudoscience is if you do not test it scientifically if it works.

fossuser 6y ago
I think we agree? Just because you don’t know how something works doesn’t mean it’s pseudoscience. You just might not understand the mechanism. There’s a greater risk that something you think works actually doesn’t though if you don’t test it. There’s also a greater risk that claims people make about things in this untested space are more likely to be false. Part of the reason it’s important to test and understand the mechanism is that people are good at deluding themselves with all sorts of biases and made up false explanations.