4 ms·

I'm always cautious about pieces like this, but still thought some of what they wrote to be interesting to think about, whether or not it's likely to be true. T

I'm always cautious about pieces like this, but still thought some of what they wrote to be interesting to think about, whether or not it's likely to be true. This is an area that we still know very little about. With that said, I find the author’s argument for epistemological anarchism overly simplistic. Yes, many big breakthroughs came from discarding mainstream schools of thought. But the era in which those discoveries occurred was an era where many of our ideas about the world were fundamentally wrong. As knowledge increases and our models of the world improve, such anarchism becomes harder and harder to distinguish from quackery. I suspect the author would point out that we might still be fundamentally wrong, but there is plenty of evidence to show that at least in some categories, we’re getting more things right than we used to. Whether the subject at hand is one of those areas is certainly debatable. The point I can concede is that we still know so little about mental health and the impact of biology on mental health, that this may still be a discipline that needs some of that anarchism. Recent studies linking gut bacteria to wellbeing at least hint at some potential legitimacy.

carlmr 4y ago
I think a huge issue we have is that we are now at a point where we know a lot. We even know there's some causation here between latent infections and plenty of neurodegenerative disorders. However, as the author pointed out, it's super hard to study. And with all the problems of the world, the ones that are almost impossible to study don't get studied. But the question is if we need these studies anyway. Maybe some of the latent infections don't cause as many issues as others, but we've gathered enough knowledge at this point that we should suspect all of them. A much better point is the one about vaccines. HPV is a prime example. It is already reducing cancer rates for boys and girls (one of the few cases where medicine ignored men - to much detriment, because a whole generation of boys could have been vaccinated already and they get cancer and spread it, too). We should put funding into getting rid of as many of these latent infections as possible. We desperately need Epstein-Barr, HSV-1, HSV-2, and Herpes Zoster vaccines. Making vaccines isn't anarchism to overthrow the medical establishment. Instead the problem is how funding gets allocated because the proof we have is less strong, but looking at all of the latent infections, the proof is plenty, we don't need those hard-to-do studies. Instead we need to start fighting these disease.
sdiacom 4y ago
I find the idea that we no longer live in "an era where many of our ideas about the world [are] fundamentally wrong" quite amusing. It's not even been twenty years since the UK's leading medical institutions were thoroughly convinced that vaccines caused autism. Not through epistemological anarchism, but through good ol' numbers fudging, conclusion skewing and mass media induced panic, in serious-looking, play-by-the-numbers-seeming research papers. The way you tell "epistemologically anarchist theories" from quackery is the same way you tell any other theories from quackery: you test them.
- collyw 4y ago
  What do you think is causing the massive increase in autism seen in the US over the last few decades? I did buy the "better diagnosis" line, until I saw how much it had risen by. It's one in 50 in the US. It's lower in Europe (as are the number of vaccines administered to children). Not saying vaccines are the cause, but better diagnosis doesn't cut it for me.
  - Cass 4y ago
    The phrasing of this question seems meant to imply that because one explanation doesn't satisfy you (better diagnosis), it must be the other (vaccines). This sets up a false dichotomy, though--there's no reason it would have to be one or the other. We know vaccines aren't the cause, because large-scale studies have been done that show that autism rates aren't higher in vaccinated children. This leaves us with basically every other possible cause, including not just better diagnostics (I personally find that explanation highly plausible), but also changes in nutrition, effects of some sort of virus, pollution, microplastics and everything else under the sun that's changed in the last decades.
    - collyw 4y ago
      You don't know that at all. There were no studies involving all the shots that kids in the US are getting together these days. You are in denial if you don't consider the correlation a possibility. Best take another booster and trust the $cience. Safe and effective. (Did you have any idea other than "anything but the vaccines"?)

carlmr 4y ago

I think a huge issue we have is that we are now at a point where we know a lot. We even know there's some causation here between latent infections and plenty of neurodegenerative disorders. However, as the author pointed out, it's super hard to study. And with all the problems of the world, the ones that are almost impossible to study don't get studied. But the question is if we need these studies anyway. Maybe some of the latent infections don't cause as many issues as others, but we've gathered enough knowledge at this point that we should suspect all of them. A much better point is the one about vaccines. HPV is a prime example. It is already reducing cancer rates for boys and girls (one of the few cases where medicine ignored men - to much detriment, because a whole generation of boys could have been vaccinated already and they get cancer and spread it, too). We should put funding into getting rid of as many of these latent infections as possible. We desperately need Epstein-Barr, HSV-1, HSV-2, and Herpes Zoster vaccines. Making vaccines isn't anarchism to overthrow the medical establishment. Instead the problem is how funding gets allocated because the proof we have is less strong, but looking at all of the latent infections, the proof is plenty, we don't need those hard-to-do studies. Instead we need to start fighting these disease.

sdiacom 4y ago

I find the idea that we no longer live in "an era where many of our ideas about the world [are] fundamentally wrong" quite amusing. It's not even been twenty years since the UK's leading medical institutions were thoroughly convinced that vaccines caused autism. Not through epistemological anarchism, but through good ol' numbers fudging, conclusion skewing and mass media induced panic, in serious-looking, play-by-the-numbers-seeming research papers. The way you tell "epistemologically anarchist theories" from quackery is the same way you tell any other theories from quackery: you test them.

collyw 4y ago
What do you think is causing the massive increase in autism seen in the US over the last few decades? I did buy the "better diagnosis" line, until I saw how much it had risen by. It's one in 50 in the US. It's lower in Europe (as are the number of vaccines administered to children). Not saying vaccines are the cause, but better diagnosis doesn't cut it for me.
- Cass 4y ago
  The phrasing of this question seems meant to imply that because one explanation doesn't satisfy you (better diagnosis), it must be the other (vaccines). This sets up a false dichotomy, though--there's no reason it would have to be one or the other. We know vaccines aren't the cause, because large-scale studies have been done that show that autism rates aren't higher in vaccinated children. This leaves us with basically every other possible cause, including not just better diagnostics (I personally find that explanation highly plausible), but also changes in nutrition, effects of some sort of virus, pollution, microplastics and everything else under the sun that's changed in the last decades.
  - collyw 4y ago
    You don't know that at all. There were no studies involving all the shots that kids in the US are getting together these days. You are in denial if you don't consider the correlation a possibility. Best take another booster and trust the $cience. Safe and effective. (Did you have any idea other than "anything but the vaccines"?)