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

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

I take it to mean a 'short account' .

[/quote]

The problem with anecdotes is that they are selective data. They are extremely susceptible to confirmation bias. You remember the occasions that support your claim and you forget the hundreds that don't.

Science is the art of not fooling yourself.

A systematic study where a chort of patients are tested on a stadardised test and followed over a period of time is not anecdotal.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

A systematic study where a chort of patients are tested on a stadardised test and followed over a period of time is not anecdotal.

Would you trust a standardized survey of the public asking whether they have had psi experiences, would you accept that as non-anecdotal that they did have such experiences? If not, why do you think, if you survey someone about how they are thinking about their illness, is that the truth?

Here is a post I made on the Randi forum on this topic a few years ago ...

By Open Mind

'.... These [studies] were mostly questionnaires on coping, how many did something much more active such as positive visualization several times a day?

Instead of that they do a survey getting people to judge things like 'denial of illness' .. how is that positive?

'fighting spirit' .... hmm is that active or just the occasional 'I'm going to win' .... followed by hours of subconscious anxiety?

Questionnaires are surely useless for this sort of thing, they monitor what people say they do rather than what they actually do. This analysis is of little more importance than a study of what people plan to do, hope to do or think they do.

Also this questionnaire technique views humans as only having one predominant attitude, peoples moods change all the time. So any study must be an attempt to actively influence peoples outlooks.

..... according to Alex J Mitchell of Leeds University critique of this report. It is of more than passing interest that there are at least eight prospective studies in early cancer that report a positive effect of some aspect of psychological outlook on survival or recurrence. These are Greer et al 1979, Greer et al, 1990 (follow-up data), Funch et al 1983, Diclemente & Temoshok 1985, Pettingale 1985, Wirschung et al 1988, Dean & Surtees, 1989, and Levy et al 1991.

....... Also another studies show increase of lifespan in optimists vs pessimists
Mayo Clinic - Mayo Clinic Study Finds Optimistic People Live Longer

Another factor is people with a positive active attitude will probably try to focus on eating a better diet, 1/3 of diet cases are cancer related, diet is a preventative.....'

My father died 3 weeks ago. He was told by a doctor he had months to live last year. The specialist felt it was his duty to emphasize it was terminal, no treatment (other than palliative care) could be given, there was no cure and sooner or later it would catch up with him....... how can one be truly positive after being told that?

Days before diagnosis, he was walking around the park twice a day and wasn't confused. Within a week of being told this, my father couldn't walk, was too confused to hold a conversation or put food to his mouth. Coincidence? He was put in a hospital ward with 4 probably terminally ill people, 2 died when there. how can one be truly positive in those circumstances?

The family took him home for a while, to everyone's surprise he improved, his mental sharpness returned. If someone had appeared with a questionnaire my father would have sounded positive, as he never mentioned the word 'cancer' once to family afterwards (this is what one trial measured 'denial of illness') - I am not convinced it is positive state of mind. He preferred less close relatives were not told how ill he was, they were told he had 'liver problems' which were not the main cause of his decline ......incidentally he died of liver failure, more so than the symptoms of lung cancer (which is also a bit suggestive of other people's beliefs affecting health outcomes? Of course this is 'anecdotal' not proper evidence).

Chris, do my suggested experiment someday Take nobody's word for anything, just don't try to debunk it, instead do the best experiment you can.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Would you trust a standardized survey of the public asking whether they have had psi experiences, would you accept that as non-anecdotal that they did have such experiences? If not, why do you think, if you survey someone about how they are thinking about their illness, is that the truth?

I would accept that a survey on "psi" experiences would give a reasonable indication of how many people believe that they have had "psi" experiences. In the same way I would accept a survey designed to measure mental outlook would be a reasonable indication of what people believe to be their mental outlook.

If you are going to claim that people's beliefs about their mental outlook have nothing to do with their "objective" outlook then this also renders any anecdotes you might have to be worthless too.

[David Bailey]

Chris,

Clearly testing whether a person's mood affects their chances of surviving cancer, is a very subtle matter. The experiment is very easy to do in a rather casual way - just ask them how they feel - and much harder to do in a meaningful way. I think the frustration that others have expressed here, is that a study which may have been somewhat naive, is quoted as if it were decisive.

Something similar applies to the question of the power of placebos. The fact that the only really acceptable kind of medical trial compares placebo vs drug, means that it is hard to test the power of a placebo on its own. However, at least part of the reason why medicine uses placebo controls is because the placebo effect is so powerful. We have discussed this before, but I am a bit dubious of your claim that researchers doing double blind tests are not trying to control for the placebo effect - just ensuring that they compare like with like.

Suppose that some shaman ceremony (say) is a really effective placebo for some condition. You are basically saying that you can't test the claim because it is impossible to do a double blind trial (I presume - how do you do a fake shaman ceremony?) I think you need to be careful not to build a wall of orthodoxy round yourself that you never challenge your own basis for rejecting evidence that you don't agree with - because you are already convinced no such evidence can possibly be valid!

David

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Chris,

Clearly testing whether a person's mood affects their chances of surviving cancer, is a very subtle matter. The experiment is very easy to do in a rather casual way - just ask them how they feel - and much harder to do in a meaningful way. I think the frustration that others have expressed here, is that a study which may have been somewhat naive, is quoted as if it were decisive.

Something similar applies to the question of the power of placebos. The fact that the only really acceptable kind of medical trial compares placebo vs drug, means that it is hard to test the power of a placebo on its own. However, at least part of the reason why medicine uses placebo controls is because the placebo effect is so powerful. We have discussed this before, but I am a bit dubious of your claim that researchers doing double blind tests are not trying to control for the placebo effect - just ensuring that they compare like with like.

All this does is raise the question of why you and others are so sure that the placebo effect is powerful and involves objective measures. What studies are you providing to support your assertions? If you are saying that comparing placebo to no treatment is not satisfactory then tell me what type of study you would accept.

Another reason for using placebos is that it allows the researcher to be blinded to who is receiving the treatment. Even the best scientists can fool themselves.

Suppose that some shaman ceremony (say) is a really effective placebo for some condition. You are basically saying that you can't test the claim because it is impossible to do a double blind trial (I presume - how do you do a fake shaman ceremony?) I think you need to be careful not to build a wall of orthodoxy round yourself that you never challenge your own basis for rejecting evidence that you don't agree with - because you are already convinced no such evidence can possibly be valid!

You've got it completely ass-backwards. You've backed yourself into a corner where no evidence can convince you that placebos do not produce strong effects in objective measures. You are the one saying that is is impossible to test a placebo treatment because a trial with a placebo arm and a no-treatment arm cannot be double blinded. Can you come up with an experiment that could falsify your assertion?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

(I presume - how do you do a fake shaman ceremony?)

Simple: You perform a ceremony that is similar to a real shaman ceremony, but leaves out the bits that actually effect the cure. We do know what those bits are, right?

The placebo acupuncture trials use a device that looks like an acupuncture needle, delivers a pinch, but does not actually pierce the skin. This is presumed to be a placebo because we know that piercing the skin and irritating a qi channel is what effects the cure. Or something like that. Maybe.

The easiest thing to test with placebo trials is, of course, homeopathy. The homeopathic preparation is its own placebo.

The hardest thing to test with placebo trials is prayer. It's tough to set up a controlled environment.

~~ Paul

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Simple: You perform a ceremony that is similar to a real shaman ceremony, but leaves out the bits that actually effect the cure. We do know what those bits are, right?

The placebo acupuncture trials use a device that looks like an acupuncture needle, delivers a pinch, but does not actually pierce the skin. This is presumed to be a placebo because we know that piercing the skin and irritating a qi channel is what effects the cure. Or something like that. Maybe.

I think David is assuming that the shaman ceremony invokes a strong placebo effect that cures the patient's cancer or whatever. He then argues that you can't do a double blind randomised trial because any convincing sham shaman ceremony would have the same placebo effect as the "real" shaman ceremony. All this does is render his assertion untestable and unfalsifiable.

You can test shaman ceremonies against no treatment. There is nothing wrong with doing this. You will quite probably find improvement in various subjective measures after the shaman ceremony. If anyone is going to argue that the shaman ceremony has any effect on objective measures such as survival I would like to see the evidence. A randomised prospective trial of shaman ceremony +standard care vs standard care would be able to test this. If anything the lack of blinding would favour false positives.