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

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I have a horrible feeling that this is another area where you have two sets of researchers that come to opposite conclusions and scoff at each other

This paper gives a different perspective but is not diammetrically opposed to the previous research I linked to.

Placebo-Induced Changes in fMRI in the Anticipation and Experience of Pain

The placebo effect is real. The most significant results are related to pain perception.

[David Bailey]

Chris,

I was only able to access the abstract, but as I understood it, they were testing placebo-induced pain relief - they did not seem to be stating that the effect was necessarily limited to pain relief. I rather hope one or two other posters would jump in here either to confirm your view of the placebo effect, or to put a contrary point of view. Sheldrake and Andrew Weil certainly seem to take a different point of view, and I am always reluctant to dismiss Sheldrake's views.

The cynic in me says that because conventional medical theory is more comfortable with the idea that placebos/alternative medicines affect subjective measures of welfare, that is the way they slant the facts - but I might be wrong.

David

[Topher Cooper]

In rational discussion any claim is subject to a request that it be supported. It doesn't matter whether or not the claimant believes that their claim is the "rational" or "scientific" position (which should just mean that the claim's support is easily available within those circles), such a request is always in order unless the support has already been provided. To call such a request a "game" denigrates rational discourse, real skepticism and the scientific enterprise which is, in principle, based on them.

It is, of course, a frequent characteristic of Skeptics (as opposed to skeptics) to reject this rule, and to feel that their beliefs are the "rational default" -- what should be considered to hold in the absence of overwhelming evidence. This is one of many ways that Skeptics, as a group, are anti-rational and anti-skeptical.

Of course, when one gets such a challenge, it is perfectly reasonable to answer by a reference to authority, or that you are quite confident about though you cannot put your finger on the reference. When such a response is made, of course, then it should be understood that the claim should reasonably treated as having very little support (there might be some, since, contrary to the all-or-nothing approach that some Skeptics use against people who hold contrary opinions to them, argument from authority does carry some weight -- if Albert Einstein says that Relativity is not incompatible with a modified concept of the ether than we can certainly give some weight to that opinion. Of course the Skeptics agree with this when it works on their side -- if Randi says that something could easily be accomplished by standard prestidigitation techniques then the matter is considered completely closed without any evidence beyond appeal to that authority). One could even choose not to answer at all, relying entirely on ones personal authority. Or you can mark time while you rush off to the Internet confident that since your opinion must be true that support can be found.

The argument, though, that anyone simply asking that a claim be supported, is thereby denying the claim and is therefore making a counterclaim that requires support superseding any requirement to ever support the original claim is such a bold piece of solipsism that I can only stand in awe of its utter freedom from any rational restraints. Maybe I should have left sleeping dogs lie, by I found this too very noteworthy for me not to take note.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Topher Cooper

In rational discussion any claim is subject to a request that it be supported.

I agree totally but I don't see Ian or David rushing to overwhelm me with supporting data.

I am perfectly willing to come to the table and support the modest claims that I have made. I am not going to play a silly game where the entire burden is shifted to me.

Quit your silly whining about Skeptics.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

I am perfectly willing to come to the table and support the modest claims that I have made. I am not going to play a silly game where the entire burden is shifted to me.

Quit your silly whining about Skeptics.

I don't come here to play 'silly games', I come here because I am interested in the nature of consciousness, and its potential relationship to Ψ.

This subject covers an awful lot of areas - QM, consciousness, psychology, statistics, various medical matters such as placebos and NDE phenomena, not to mention parapsychology. None of us can be knowledgeable in all these areas, and have to take some things on trust. My background is not medical, and while I could, no doubt, GOOGLE a variety of papers supporting what I THOUGHT was the accepted position regarding placebos, I would rather others came up with evidence to counter what you have claimed - i.e. that the placebo effect is mainly confined to pain relief and other subjective benefits.

I must admit that your claim surprises me - for example, although you have explained that controls are needed in medical trials to avoid the effects of intrinsic disease variability (and possible efforts by drug companies to cheat), if the placebo effect were not relevant, I would have thought that once the random selection had been performed, there would be no point in going to the trouble and expense of a double blind trial. Indeed, my impression WAS that the placebo effect was a real pain in the ass in medical and even animal research!

David

[Topher Cooper]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

I agree totally but I don't see Ian or David rushing to overwhelm me with supporting data.

I am perfectly willing to come to the table and support the modest claims that I have made. I am not going to play a silly game where the entire burden is shifted to me.

Quit your silly whining about Skeptics.

You are totally right of course. It is silly of me to point out when Skeptics are irrational, nonscientific and anti-skeptical (or, for that matter, rude). After all, Skeptics are the embodiment-in-flesh of Truth, and as such do not have to follow any of the rules of logic, evidence, rationality or non-fallacious argument. It's not as if those are ways at arriving at the truth (what would the point of that be since the truth is self-evident to any Skeptic, and one merely has to ask one, whatever actual knowledge they might have on the subject, to have an absolute and unquestionable answer) those are weapons to be used in smiting the unbelievers.

[David Bailey]

It would rather seem that the Hrobjartsson and Gotzsche paper is at one extreme of a spectrum. Here it is put into some context:

placebo effect

Here is a quote from that article:

"Doctors in one study successfully eliminated warts by painting them with a brightly colored, inert dye and promising patients the warts would be gone when the color wore off. In a study of asthmatics, researchers found that they could produce dilation of the airways by simply telling people they were inhaling a bronchiodilator, even when they weren't. Patients suffering pain after wisdom-tooth extraction got just as much relief from a fake application of ultrasound as from a real one, so long as both patient and therapist thought the machine was on. Fifty-two percent of the colitis patients treated with placebo in 11 different trials reported feeling better -- and 50 percent of the inflamed intestines actually looked better when assessed with a sigmoidoscope"

Of course, there is a problem in that people often recover anyway, and it is hard to compare a placebo treatment with a pretend treatment, but even so, I don't think the range of placebo treatments is as limited as Chris suggested.

Note that the Hrobjartsson and Gotzsche paper is a meta analysis of other papers in which they eliminated some research as being in their view flawed.

David

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Topher Cooper

You are totally right of course. It is silly of me to point out when Skeptics are irrational, nonscientific and anti-skeptical (or, for that matter, rude). After all, Skeptics are the embodiment-in-flesh of Truth, and as such do not have to follow any of the rules of logic, evidence, rationality or non-fallacious argument. It's not as if those are ways at arriving at the truth (what would the point of that be since the truth is self-evident to any Skeptic, and one merely has to ask one, whatever actual knowledge they might have on the subject, to have an absolute and unquestionable answer) those are weapons to be used in smiting the unbelievers.

Whine, whine, whine.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

It would rather seem that the Hrobjartsson and Gotzsche paper is at one extreme of a spectrum.

Their 2001 NEJM paper Is the Placebo Powerless?- An Analysis of Clinical Trials Comparing Placebo with No Treatment has been cited 405 times. This includes updates including more trials. At least in clinical trials that have both placebo and no-treatment groups the placebo effect is small to non-existent. There are some studies that have provided strong evidence that under certain conditions a real placebo effect can be produced. I gave you the reference fro one fMRI study which is probably the best example of this kind. I did this to give you an idea of the spectrum of results. Certainly you can read all 405 articles if you want.

Here it is put into some context:

placebo effect

Here is a quote from that article:

"Doctors in one study successfully eliminated warts by painting them with a brightly colored, inert dye and promising patients the warts would be gone when the color wore off. In a study of asthmatics, researchers found that they could produce dilation of the airways by simply telling people they were inhaling a bronchiodilator, even when they weren't. Patients suffering pain after wisdom-tooth extraction got just as much relief from a fake application of ultrasound as from a real one, so long as both patient and therapist thought the machine was on. Fifty-two percent of the colitis patients treated with placebo in 11 different trials reported feeling better -- and 50 percent of the inflamed intestines actually looked better when assessed with a sigmoidoscope"

Did any of these directly compare a placebo group with a matched non-treatment group?

Of course, there is a problem in that people often recover anyway, and it is hard to compare a placebo treatment with a pretend treatment, but even so, I don't think the range of placebo treatments is as limited as Chris suggested.

Note that the Hrobjartsson and Gotzsche paper is a meta analysis of other papers in which they eliminated some research as being in their view flawed.

David

As I stated above this paper has been cited 405 times and has been updated. Other researchers have checked the meta-analysis and have found it to be sound.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I don't come here to play 'silly games', I come here because I am interested in the nature of consciousness, and its potential relationship to ?.

I was mainly referring to Ian and his assertion that the burden of proof was on me and that he wasn't interested in any assertion that you had made.