42. Chris Carter, Parapsychology, Skepticism and Ideology (Podcast)

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

There are a huge number of anecdotes about the supposed connection between emotional attitude and cancer survival rates. It has almost become dogma that people with a positive outlook do better. However, well conducted studies find no independent effect due to emotional well-being.

'Well conducted'? These are also anecdotal IMHO. Chris these studies basically ask the patient how they feel? That is just an anecdotal opinion of the patient replying to a survey question. You can't have it both ways, you can't say unconventional reports are 'anecdotal' and untrustworthy but when reports match the conventional expectation these anecdotal reports are good science.

Furthermore it raises complex problems of how the question is asked in a survey too and whether the patient feels it is 'negative' to be honest and try to be 'positive', even if they don't feel so. So the problem again here Chris is how do you measure people's 'positive outlook' claim? How can any person diagnosed with cancer be that 'positive'?

Surely there are better ways of testing this? I might comment on this further ... busy at moment

[scomsjw]

I'm intrigued by the idea of telepathy. It seems that a lot of research suggests that it is possible. But I would expect that if telepathy is physically possible we would see more of it. I could think of lots of ways in which telepathy would confer a survival advantage. Is there some reason why evolution has not made more of telepathy? Has anyone speculated on this?

[Larry Boy]

Originally Posted by scomsjw

I'm intrigued by the idea of telepathy. It seems that a lot of research suggests that it is possible. But I would expect that if telepathy is physically possible we would see more of it. I could think of lots of ways in which telepathy would confer a survival advantage. Is there some reason why evolution has not made more of telepathy? Has anyone speculated on this?

Well, some people feel that the brain has evolved in order to filter out psychic impressions. They argue that we wouldn't be able to deal with too much information about what's going on around us, that we wouldn't be able to function as individuals in the here and now.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Well testing a real placebo effect against a fake placebo effect is bound to be challenging, isn't it

Seriously, the problem with just dismissing anecdotes, is that you can throw away too much. The collection of circumstances that lead to the account I gave you may be very hard to reproduce - particularly in the modern super-ethical context. People used to scoff at meteorites precisely for the same reason.

You seem to be skirting around the issue of how it is possible to test something.

A perfectly reasonable man I know, who has some heart problems, told me the other day that if he feels particularly bad, in addition to his standard medicine, he takes a double dose of his homoeopathic medicine. This apparently does the trick! There are millions like him - do we ignore them all as misguided, just because medicines are supposed to operate through the molecules they contain, and homoeopathic medicine doesn't contain any!! In fact I nodded my head and said nothing.

Does he subjectively feel better? Yes. Is he at a lower risk for heart disease? Almost certainly, not.

There is nothing wrong with making people feel subjectively better. I do have a problem with inflated costs and bogus claims such as homeopathic vaccines.

Fair Deal Homeopathy

Would my friend have benefited if I had carefully explained that after so many dilutions, his medicine was worthless - maybe even going through the calculation with him? If not, does Richard Dawkins actually help people by campaigning against such remedies? If the answer to both these questions is "No", then wouldn't it make sense to do some serious research to explore how to maximise the placebo effect (or other mind/spirit effects).

There are some studies which have demonstrated a placebo effect even when the patients were told that there was no active ingredient in the pills so you can be relatively honest. We do know however that the more theatre you put on the bigger the effect. Put on white lab coats or burn incense, tell them that it's expensive or involves quantum mechanics, it all helps. The question is whether doctors should learn theatre or try to learn what objectively works.

You also have to come to terms with the limitations of the placebo effect. Even with pain the effect is typically of the order of a few points on a hundred point scale. If you have serious pain then you are still going to have serious pain with a placebo.

The placebo effect is interesting and it is being studied but you aren't going to cure cancer or any other serious disease with it. I also find it completely unsurprising that one brain process can effect another brain process.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

'Well conducted'? These are also anecdotal IMHO. Chris these studies basically ask the patient how they feel? That is just an anecdotal opinion of the patient replying to a survey question. You can't have it both ways, you can't say unconventional reports are 'anecdotal' and untrustworthy but when reports match the conventional expectation these anecdotal reports are good science.

Furthermore it raises complex problems of how the question is asked in a survey too and whether the patient feels it is 'negative' to be honest and try to be 'positive', even if they don't feel so. So the problem again here Chris is how do you measure people's 'positive outlook' claim? How can any person diagnosed with cancer be that 'positive'?

Surely there are better ways of testing this? I might comment on this further ... busy at moment

OK. So you don't understand what an anecdote is.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

You seem to be skirting around the issue of how it is possible to test something.

Well I am not skirting round it - there is a real problem here, but just because something is difficult to test for, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist!

The gold standard for conventional medical research is the double blind trial, but not everything is, or can be tested on that basis. Think, for example about the relationship between exercise and health. We accept that relationship as real, but it is obviously impossible to test it by double-blind means!!

David

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Well I am not skirting round it - there is a real problem here, but just because something is difficult to test for, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist!

If it is difficult to test for then why are you so sure that a strong general placebo effect exists?

Where does your prior belief come from? Was it possible to measure the placebo effect in the past?

What is wrong with the study I gave you other than that it contradicts your beliefs?

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

If it is difficult to test for then why are you so sure that a strong general placebo effect exists?

Where does your prior belief come from? Was it possible to measure the placebo effect in the past?

What is wrong with the study I gave you other than that it contradicts your beliefs?

Why are you so belligerent about everything - can't you tolerate a scintilla of uncertaintity in your brain?

I guess the power of the placebo effect has roughly the same grounding as the assertion that exercise is good for you - as I just pointed out, neither can be tested by double blind methods, but in both cases there is a lot of other persuasive evidence.

The logic "X can't be tested by method Y, so I don't accept they X exists" simply is not valid, particularly if you accept the validity of some other phenomenon Z that also cannot be tested by method Y!!!!!!!!!!!!

Put more simply, some useful treatments obviously can't be tested by double blind methods.

David

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

OK. So you don't understand what an anecdote is.

I take it to mean a 'short account' . I don't think people trying to be positive with cancer are necessarily feeling positive, how they respond in a questionnaire isn't necessarily an accurate indication of their habitual mental state.

It is perhaps like talking into a tape recorder, our mental image of how sound when we spoke isn't necessarily that accurate match with playback. We try again and it still doesn't quite match our mental effort.

Reprogramming our habitual unconscious responses are not easy. I am sure many people think that 'fighting cancer' is the way forward, it may be a conscious effort but the unconscious feelings can remain negative. Also from a psi point of view I think such effects leak from the filtered unconscious into the conscious mind.

I think an authority figure like a doctor can have a great influence on the patient, their peace of mind and their health consequences above and beyond the medication ....just how much? No one knows, it never has been tested properly but Chris you might know, if you ever do my trial measuring the effects of the doctors expectations

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Why are you so belligerent about everything - can't you tolerate a scintilla of uncertaintity in your brain?

I guess the power of the placebo effect has roughly the same grounding as the assertion that exercise is good for you - as I just pointed out, neither can be tested by double blind methods, but in both cases there is a lot of other persuasive evidence.

The logic "X can't be tested by method Y, so I don't accept they X exists" simply is not valid, particularly if you accept the validity of some other phenomenon Z that also cannot be tested by method Y!!!!!!!!!!!!

Put more simply, some useful treatments obviously can't be tested by double blind methods.

I have no problem with uncertainty. It is certainty without supporting evidence that annoys me.

You have asserted that the placebo effect is strong medicine.
I responded with a study that suggests that the placebo effect is fairly weak and largely limited to subjective measures.
You responded by saying that it is difficult to measure the placebo effect but this simply raises the question of why you asserted that the placebo effect is strong in the first place. How can you know this if it can't be tested?

Science is simply a way of testing claims. There are a number of techniques such as randomised double blind trials that have been developed to help us not fool ourselves. I don't care about the exact techniques used as long as it can rule out things like confirmation bias and selective reporting. If you don't think the trials where placebo is compared to no-treatment then give reasons and come up with an alternative test. I still fail to see what is wrong with comparing a placebo group with a non-treatment group or how else you could possibly test to see whether a placebo was really doing anything.