6 ms·

Calling the "naturalistic fallacy" a fallacy is a bit of an overstretch IMO, sure natural=better is not a rule true 100% of the time, but nevertheless until suf

by stiff 14y ago

Calling the "naturalistic fallacy" a fallacy is a bit of an overstretch IMO, sure natural=better is not a rule true 100% of the time, but nevertheless until sufficient evidence has not been accumulated that some of the adjustments we make to our lifestyle are not harmful to us health-wise avoiding them is not an unreasonable heuristic to follow. One example is how it became clear in the last years in nutritional science that in general the more processed the food is the more harmful it is for us. There is also the reverse problem, illustrated by the condescending attitude toward herbalism in this article, of people who idealize modernity, and for example believe only medicine in the form of pills can be effective, even though plants may contain exactly the same chemical compounds. I am not saying there is no fraud in herbalism, sure there is plenty of it, but herbs in general clearly can have strong both positive and negative effect on physiology, which is really quite obvious if you consider the variety of herbs existing and that they all contain lots of different chemical compounds. In general I think it is ridiculous to ignore the thousands of years of experimentation and exploration of our ancestors just because it wasn't "science-based".

OmIsMyShield 14y ago
I think part of what the author sees as problematic is the loose definition of what "natural" means - to use your herbalism example, some people consider herbs to be automatically better than {mainstream_treatment_x} just because it is "natural", for a random value of "natural". So you are probably saying the same / a similar thing as the author with slightly different emphasis. edit: grammar, spelling mistakes, mainstream_treatment_x instead of "better tested"
klodolph 14y ago
I recently went to the doctor and got a recommendation to try one of three different medicines. Two were "supplements" and the third one was an off-label psychiatric medication. Each drug had its own set of side effects, and I chose one of the supplements because the off-label psychiatric drug required a prescription. I just didn't think "natural" versus "artificial" was relevant. The things that concern me about herbalism are simple: 1. The compounds in herbs are not tested as rigorously as "modern" drugs, at least by the FDA in the US. Knowledge of side effects and safe dosage is more limited. 2. Herbs are often subject to variation in dosages from pill to pill, because the source plant matter is variable and the actual yields are difficult to determine. It's not about ignoring thousands of years of experimentation, it's just that our standards are higher, and the old experiments were poorly conducted. We want to know the side effects and the interactions. We want to know the drug's mechanism. We want to know about the possible complications. We want to know the effective dose and the unsafe dose. And we want to be able to isolate things: herbs contain many chemicals: you might want one of the chemicals, but not want the side effects from one of the other chemicals. It reminds me of the almond extract you can buy at the store. The natural almond extract tastes the same as artificial almond extract, but the natural almond extract contains more cyanide. People pay a premium for things labeled "natural". The heuristic to use natural things works well for foods, but it's a harmful heuristic when considering drugs. It's also a bad heuristic for heating your home (wood fires), immunizing your children (let them die from whooping cough), family planning (pull out), et cetera.
- stiff 14y ago
  It's funny you mention family planning, it's actually a great example for what I am saying. Pull out might not be the best strategy for avoiding kids, but also effectively avoiding kids isn't something too heavily promoted by evolution ;) and in a sense you wouldn't do bad to stick to it if survival is the ultimate goal. You mention how modern drugs are rigorously tested, but just recently there was a big affair about Bayers contraceptive pills used by millions of women worldwide causing blood clogs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drospirenone#Adverse_effects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drospirenone#Adverse_effects So, being so incredibly lucky to be part of several thousands of years old lineage of people who managed to survive, it isn't unwise to stick to the traditional ways of living, when the new way wasn't tested for sufficiently long and/or when the old way wasn't proved to be harmful - remember I am talking about using it as a heuristic in situations where we don't have full knowledge. I am not saying that every single aspect of it will be beneficial, just that you will be unlikely to do very badly when following this strategy, simply because it was tested over a very long timespan. Nassim Taleb makes a similar point in his book "Antifragile". To be honest I hated the book and think much of it is crap, but this aspect I agree with.
  - klodolph 14y ago
    Yes, you can name a drug with bad side effects. FDA isn't 100% effective, my point is that the standards for herbal remedies are comparatively worse than those for "modern" drugs. Kava has been linked to liver failure, Comfrey causes liver damage, Chaparral causes liver damage, and Pennyroyal is basically toxic. St John's Wort has so many interactions it's basically unsafe to take in conjunction with anything. On top of this, herbal medicines are often poorly-sourced, and substitutions are made overseas. The regulations just aren't good enough. Then when you talk about the pull-out method of family planning, you say it's a good technique because you'll have kids. That's some impressive double-speak. Next you'll tell me that Caffeine is a good sleep aid because evolution wants you to be more productive. The FDA's regulatory tools simply work better on "modern" drugs. Look at how Thalidomide was never approved for sale in the US, because the FDA said that more studies were needed. By comparison, "dietary supplements" can only be removed from the market if they show "significant or unreasonable risk". If those standards had been applied to Thalidomide, the human cost would have been terrible. (Note: Apologies for the over-use of quote marks. "Modern" isn't quite the right term here, some of these drugs are quite old, but I'm not sure what is the right term.)
saalweachter 14y ago
The problem with herbalism is that it's the first place science-based medicine went looking for drugs. For basically any herb and effect someone ascribes to it, there have already been twenty rigorous studies, and either no statistical effect was found or the responsible chemicals were extracted, purified, concentrated, and synthesized and are now marketed under two brand names and three generics. Going to herbs directly isn't going where no science has been before. At best you're getting a known drug which is poorly dosed and mixed with a shotgun of other chemicals which may be harmful. At worst you've just got a cocktail of potentially harmful (remember, even most of the "good" effects come from poisons the plants produce to keep things from eating them) chemicals with no actual benefit.
- stiff 14y ago
  Yours is a very common response I get to this - I wonder why, since there is absolutely no evidence for it. You vastly underestimate the number of plants in existence and vastly overestimate the fraction we have been able to study rigorously. You also hugely simplify the chemistry of it all, the main advantage of plants over modern medicine in its typical form is that they contain complex compounds of chemical substances which show a synergy in a certain direction e.g. they interact with the body in a different way when they are administered together than if they would be ingested separately. Analyzing such compounds and the interactions between them is still often beyond the current state of science and is also not as well funded as traditional drug research, simply because traditional drugs are easier to sell. Please don't have the impression that I am somehow advocating herbs over traditional medicine, I don't, and there are surely problems with using herbs, but those are different problems that the one most often mentioned. The material you use has to be rather fresh because the concentration of active substances degenerates with time very quickly, the concentration also varies a lot from one area of growth to another so it might be difficult to come up with dosages, they can have serious side effects just like traditional medicine, they are inconvenient to store and use etc. You can find scientific references for most of what I said and anyway it would come to no surprise to a second-year biology undergraduate. Just reading the wikipedia page about herbalism would clarify a lot of misunderstanding on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbalism
papsosouid 14y ago
>sure natural=better is not a rule true 100% of the time It isn't even a loose correlation. It is no better than random. >One example is how it became clear in the last years in nutritional science that in general the more processed the food is the more harmful it is for us. That has not become clear at all, that is something people like to repeat, but is simply a misinterpretation of the recommendation that people "eat mainly unprocessed foods" to maintain a healthy weight. The recommendation is not due to some magical pixie dust inherent in unprocessed food, it is because processed foods are often very high in calories. >There is also the reverse problem, illustrated by the condescending attitude toward herbalism in this article, of people who idealize modernity, and for example believe only medicine in the form of pills can be effective, even though plants may contain exactly the same chemical compounds. Except the article had no such attitude, and said nothing like what you are suggesting it says. >In general I think it is ridiculous to ignore the thousands of years of experimentation and exploration of our ancestors just because it wasn't "science-based". It isn't ignored. It is studied, and if it is found to actually be effective, it is used. If it is found not to be effective, it is not used. The quack/fraud "medicine" crowd really need to grow out of lying about this. Scientists do not ignore old herbal remedies, they study them.
- stiff 14y ago
  It isn't even a loose correlation. It is no better than random. It depends what you mean by natural, I guess. Please read this in context, I am mostly talking about early adopting radical lifestyle changes vs. sticking to the status quo your ancestors followed, and the effects of doing so when employing exclusively one or the other strategy to all the choices. That has not become clear at all, that is something people like to repeat, but is simply a misinterpretation of the recommendation that people "eat mainly unprocessed foods" to maintain a healthy weight. The recommendation is not due to some magical pixie dust inherent in unprocessed food, it is because processed foods are often very high in calories. Oh yes, ridicule what I said to make your point, introduce the pixie dust despite me basing most of what I say on at least some evidence, this will make your reply so much more valuable. You are also actually only partially right, it is the amount of calories and the absence of fiber and vitamins and micronutrients (while those are used up during digestation) that makes processed foods unhealthy. I don't see how any of this has to do with what I said. Except the article had no such attitude, and said nothing like what you are suggesting it says. ... It isn't ignored. It is studied, and if it is found to actually be effective, it is used. If it is found not to be effective, it is not used. The quack/fraud "medicine" crowd really need to grow out of lying about this. Scientists do not ignore old herbal remedies, they study them. I didn't say any of this, this was a comment on the general attitude of some people.
stiff 14y ago
Thanks for all the downvotes, aggressive trolling, comments on "pixie dust", "spirit of the planet", "poultices" etc., very constructive discussion, very scientific...
- Nursie 14y ago
  You brought up poultices, or rather you linked to an article about them!

by stiff 14y ago

OmIsMyShield 14y ago

I think part of what the author sees as problematic is the loose definition of what "natural" means - to use your herbalism example, some people consider herbs to be automatically better than {mainstream_treatment_x} just because it is "natural", for a random value of "natural". So you are probably saying the same / a similar thing as the author with slightly different emphasis. edit: grammar, spelling mistakes, mainstream_treatment_x instead of "better tested"

klodolph 14y ago

I recently went to the doctor and got a recommendation to try one of three different medicines. Two were "supplements" and the third one was an off-label psychiatric medication. Each drug had its own set of side effects, and I chose one of the supplements because the off-label psychiatric drug required a prescription. I just didn't think "natural" versus "artificial" was relevant. The things that concern me about herbalism are simple: 1. The compounds in herbs are not tested as rigorously as "modern" drugs, at least by the FDA in the US. Knowledge of side effects and safe dosage is more limited. 2. Herbs are often subject to variation in dosages from pill to pill, because the source plant matter is variable and the actual yields are difficult to determine. It's not about ignoring thousands of years of experimentation, it's just that our standards are higher, and the old experiments were poorly conducted. We want to know the side effects and the interactions. We want to know the drug's mechanism. We want to know about the possible complications. We want to know the effective dose and the unsafe dose. And we want to be able to isolate things: herbs contain many chemicals: you might want one of the chemicals, but not want the side effects from one of the other chemicals. It reminds me of the almond extract you can buy at the store. The natural almond extract tastes the same as artificial almond extract, but the natural almond extract contains more cyanide. People pay a premium for things labeled "natural". The heuristic to use natural things works well for foods, but it's a harmful heuristic when considering drugs. It's also a bad heuristic for heating your home (wood fires), immunizing your children (let them die from whooping cough), family planning (pull out), et cetera.

stiff 14y ago
It's funny you mention family planning, it's actually a great example for what I am saying. Pull out might not be the best strategy for avoiding kids, but also effectively avoiding kids isn't something too heavily promoted by evolution ;) and in a sense you wouldn't do bad to stick to it if survival is the ultimate goal. You mention how modern drugs are rigorously tested, but just recently there was a big affair about Bayers contraceptive pills used by millions of women worldwide causing blood clogs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drospirenone#Adverse_effects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drospirenone#Adverse_effects So, being so incredibly lucky to be part of several thousands of years old lineage of people who managed to survive, it isn't unwise to stick to the traditional ways of living, when the new way wasn't tested for sufficiently long and/or when the old way wasn't proved to be harmful - remember I am talking about using it as a heuristic in situations where we don't have full knowledge. I am not saying that every single aspect of it will be beneficial, just that you will be unlikely to do very badly when following this strategy, simply because it was tested over a very long timespan. Nassim Taleb makes a similar point in his book "Antifragile". To be honest I hated the book and think much of it is crap, but this aspect I agree with.
- klodolph 14y ago
  Yes, you can name a drug with bad side effects. FDA isn't 100% effective, my point is that the standards for herbal remedies are comparatively worse than those for "modern" drugs. Kava has been linked to liver failure, Comfrey causes liver damage, Chaparral causes liver damage, and Pennyroyal is basically toxic. St John's Wort has so many interactions it's basically unsafe to take in conjunction with anything. On top of this, herbal medicines are often poorly-sourced, and substitutions are made overseas. The regulations just aren't good enough. Then when you talk about the pull-out method of family planning, you say it's a good technique because you'll have kids. That's some impressive double-speak. Next you'll tell me that Caffeine is a good sleep aid because evolution wants you to be more productive. The FDA's regulatory tools simply work better on "modern" drugs. Look at how Thalidomide was never approved for sale in the US, because the FDA said that more studies were needed. By comparison, "dietary supplements" can only be removed from the market if they show "significant or unreasonable risk". If those standards had been applied to Thalidomide, the human cost would have been terrible. (Note: Apologies for the over-use of quote marks. "Modern" isn't quite the right term here, some of these drugs are quite old, but I'm not sure what is the right term.)

saalweachter 14y ago

The problem with herbalism is that it's the first place science-based medicine went looking for drugs. For basically any herb and effect someone ascribes to it, there have already been twenty rigorous studies, and either no statistical effect was found or the responsible chemicals were extracted, purified, concentrated, and synthesized and are now marketed under two brand names and three generics. Going to herbs directly isn't going where no science has been before. At best you're getting a known drug which is poorly dosed and mixed with a shotgun of other chemicals which may be harmful. At worst you've just got a cocktail of potentially harmful (remember, even most of the "good" effects come from poisons the plants produce to keep things from eating them) chemicals with no actual benefit.

stiff 14y ago
Yours is a very common response I get to this - I wonder why, since there is absolutely no evidence for it. You vastly underestimate the number of plants in existence and vastly overestimate the fraction we have been able to study rigorously. You also hugely simplify the chemistry of it all, the main advantage of plants over modern medicine in its typical form is that they contain complex compounds of chemical substances which show a synergy in a certain direction e.g. they interact with the body in a different way when they are administered together than if they would be ingested separately. Analyzing such compounds and the interactions between them is still often beyond the current state of science and is also not as well funded as traditional drug research, simply because traditional drugs are easier to sell. Please don't have the impression that I am somehow advocating herbs over traditional medicine, I don't, and there are surely problems with using herbs, but those are different problems that the one most often mentioned. The material you use has to be rather fresh because the concentration of active substances degenerates with time very quickly, the concentration also varies a lot from one area of growth to another so it might be difficult to come up with dosages, they can have serious side effects just like traditional medicine, they are inconvenient to store and use etc. You can find scientific references for most of what I said and anyway it would come to no surprise to a second-year biology undergraduate. Just reading the wikipedia page about herbalism would clarify a lot of misunderstanding on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbalism

papsosouid 14y ago

>sure natural=better is not a rule true 100% of the time It isn't even a loose correlation. It is no better than random. >One example is how it became clear in the last years in nutritional science that in general the more processed the food is the more harmful it is for us. That has not become clear at all, that is something people like to repeat, but is simply a misinterpretation of the recommendation that people "eat mainly unprocessed foods" to maintain a healthy weight. The recommendation is not due to some magical pixie dust inherent in unprocessed food, it is because processed foods are often very high in calories. >There is also the reverse problem, illustrated by the condescending attitude toward herbalism in this article, of people who idealize modernity, and for example believe only medicine in the form of pills can be effective, even though plants may contain exactly the same chemical compounds. Except the article had no such attitude, and said nothing like what you are suggesting it says. >In general I think it is ridiculous to ignore the thousands of years of experimentation and exploration of our ancestors just because it wasn't "science-based". It isn't ignored. It is studied, and if it is found to actually be effective, it is used. If it is found not to be effective, it is not used. The quack/fraud "medicine" crowd really need to grow out of lying about this. Scientists do not ignore old herbal remedies, they study them.

stiff 14y ago
It isn't even a loose correlation. It is no better than random. It depends what you mean by natural, I guess. Please read this in context, I am mostly talking about early adopting radical lifestyle changes vs. sticking to the status quo your ancestors followed, and the effects of doing so when employing exclusively one or the other strategy to all the choices. That has not become clear at all, that is something people like to repeat, but is simply a misinterpretation of the recommendation that people "eat mainly unprocessed foods" to maintain a healthy weight. The recommendation is not due to some magical pixie dust inherent in unprocessed food, it is because processed foods are often very high in calories. Oh yes, ridicule what I said to make your point, introduce the pixie dust despite me basing most of what I say on at least some evidence, this will make your reply so much more valuable. You are also actually only partially right, it is the amount of calories and the absence of fiber and vitamins and micronutrients (while those are used up during digestation) that makes processed foods unhealthy. I don't see how any of this has to do with what I said. Except the article had no such attitude, and said nothing like what you are suggesting it says. ... It isn't ignored. It is studied, and if it is found to actually be effective, it is used. If it is found not to be effective, it is not used. The quack/fraud "medicine" crowd really need to grow out of lying about this. Scientists do not ignore old herbal remedies, they study them. I didn't say any of this, this was a comment on the general attitude of some people.

stiff 14y ago

Thanks for all the downvotes, aggressive trolling, comments on "pixie dust", "spirit of the planet", "poultices" etc., very constructive discussion, very scientific...

Nursie 14y ago
You brought up poultices, or rather you linked to an article about them!