PARADIGM: A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline. Since the 1960s, paradigm has been used in science to refer to a theoretical framework, as when Nobel Laureate David Baltimore cited the work of two colleagues that “really established a new paradigm for our understanding of the causation of cancer.”(new heritage dictionary)
This weblog is intended to be a podium from which conversation will occur about the factors that support the healthy evolution of scientific thought, practice, and research. Though the focus will be on the science of human medicine, many of the observations and conclusions will apply to other branches of science.
The author has thirty years of active practice in the medical arts and is an avid observer of what makes for “good” science (i.e. science with integrity and humility) and that which makes for “bad” science (dogmatic, prejudicial, driven by profit motive and/or political concerns).
Welcome. Tune in for at least weekly postings.
Tags: bad science, good science, homeopathy, scientific paradigm
November 26, 2007 at 4:57 pm
I like the title of your blog- yes, a new paradigm!
November 26, 2007 at 5:28 pm
I look forward to hearing more. A long overdue conversation. -G
November 27, 2007 at 9:31 am
I am interested in how you describe bad science as dogmatic. I think I would agree with you that a rigid adherence to dogma is unhealthy. Could you explain how adhering to the teachings of Hahnemann from 200 years ago is not dogmatic? Modern medicine has drastically transformed since that time while homeopathy remains almost unchanged.
November 27, 2007 at 10:33 am
Sounds interesting. I look forward to your weekly postings.
November 27, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Hello Gimpy,
I say, you do get around! I am not so sure modern medicine has changed so drastically. The technology has changed, but has allopathic medicine really come any closer to truely curing people? Much of what goes on is management of chronic conditions and through that management create more suffering. Yes, homeopaths carry on what Hahnemann started, but we have built upon it and are seeing cures in conditions that Hahnemann had never even encountered. Homeopaths adhere to principles of cure that were developed by Hahnemann, but were known by Paracelsus and Hippocrates way before Hahnemann’s time.
“Through the like disease is produced and through the application of the like it is cured.” Hippocrates 4th Century BC
November 28, 2007 at 8:44 am
You throw out allegations that the management of chronic conditions creates more suffering but do not back it up. “Allopathic” medicine is capable of curing ailments that were incurable half a centyry ago. Many seriously nast bacterial infections that at one time would have meant long term suffering or death now clear up with a course of antibiotics.
November 28, 2007 at 9:52 pm
I have a simple question for you (and for all other supporters of homeopathy). It’s this:
I can tell you, in one sentence, what it would take to convince me that homeopathy works; can you tell me what it would take to convince you that it doesn’t?
All I would need is this: a properly conducted, double blind, randomised controlled trial, published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal, with results that showed an inarguable difference between homeopathic treatment and placebo in both the original trial and repeats of the trial by other researchers.
Granted, it’s a long sentence. But that, just that, would cause me to change my mind completely and utterly about homeopathy (or indeed, any other contentious treatment). And I would expect it to change the minds of pretty much the entire scientific community too. Science is open-minded and good scientists are always willing to change their opinion totally if compelling evidence is presented that what they thought was true, isn’t.
There would be no need to prove that all homeopathic remedies work, or that homeopathy works for all conditions. Just one remedy and/or one condition would suffice. There would be no need to explain how it works; the fact that the results were positive, clear and reproducible would be sufficient.
You think homeopathy works. I think it doesn’t. We can’t both be right. This, above, is all that is needed to make me eat humble pie and admit that I was mistaken. If you have an open mind then you must be open to the possibility that you are in the wrong. What level of proof would be required for you to admit that?
November 29, 2007 at 9:56 am
As you quite rightly point out, Hippocrates did state that like cured like. Which makes homeopathy part of an old paradigm. One that has been tested and found wanting. Hahnemann and Hippocrates both lived before the discovery that germs cause disease. Their theories were based on what was known at the time. Medicine has moved on, while homeopathy still relies on outdated hypotheses that ‘like cures like’ and that ‘the smaller the dose, the more potent the treatment’. Incidentally, Hahnemann also lived and died (1755-1843) before the discovery of the Avogadro Constant (value first indicated in 1865).
November 29, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Hi, sounds like an interesting idea for a blog. I think it would be useful if you started out by giving us your definition of what you think science is and expanding a bit on your scientific / medical experience.
For instance, you talk about “good” science being science with ‘integrity and humility’ and “bad” science being ‘dogmatic, prejudicial, driven by profit motive and/or political concerns’.
Science is merely the method used to test a hypothesis. I think it would be a good idea to acknowledge that there is a difference between what a scientist would term bad science (poor methodology, incorrect interpretation of statistics, experimental bias etc) and perhaps what could be termed the bad application of science i.e. using the technology derived from science for purposes that you do not personally like, such as GM food, nuclear power, ‘conventional’ medicine etc.
I guess what I’m getting at, in a long-winded way, is that if you are going to argue that something is ‘bad’ science, you have to understand what scientists actually mean by that and present this argument to them in their own terms and to their own standards. If you present them with a flawed paper to back up an argument then you can’t compain if it is critiqued.
I’m interested to hear what you have to say but if you think that you have a ‘new paradigm’ for medicine then you are going to have provide a lot of science that the scientists can’t disprove.
November 29, 2007 at 8:23 pm
I am a scientist, not a doctor, and I have to admit I am not very concerned with making people well. Science is one of the two great pillars of our culture, the other being art. That science provides information that is useful to doctors is, for me, a happy side effect of a discipline I find fulfilling in its self.
My work is mostly concerned with measuring the amount of something present in a sample and deciding if there is on average more or less of it in this or that group of samples. This is technically and statistically challenging. I am therefore acutely aware of how difficult it is to work out what is going on in the world. To me humility in the face of such difficulty requires abandoning a hypothesis when it turns out to be wrong. This happens to me several times a week, though my hypothesis tend to be about less exalted things than the vital force!
It is psychologically difficult to recognise that a favoured hypothesis was wrong. So it is better to be ready to do so before you start an experiment by deciding what each out come of an experiment will mean and what you will do about it.
YOU need to test two key hypothesis:
1. Like cures like
2. Increasing dilution increases effect
To do this you need data, because science, good or bad, rests on data.
To get the data you need to enter into a research program developing step by step a robust system in which you can reproducibly differentiate between real homeopathic remedies and sugar pills or correct and incorrect homeopathic remedies by their efficacy in treating patients.
Then you need to demonstrate an inverse relationship between the number of successions and the efficacy experienced by the patient.
If you succeed you will change the face of science. I will also benefit as I will have the opportunity of working on brand new problems that no scientist has ever conceived of before, which is all I really want from life. It would be like being young in the earliest days of quantum theory or plastics or semiconductors or gene sequencing or …
But if you exhaust all your time and intellectual resources on the problem and still cannot devise that robust reproducible system will you abandon those hypotheses as humility demands?
November 29, 2007 at 9:13 pm
200 years ago – Average Life expectancy: 20-30
100 years ago – Average Life expectancy: 30-40
50 years ago – Average Life expectancy: 65
Current average life expectancy: 70
Life expectancy from birth (2005): 75-80
I’m hard pressed to think how homeopathy, or any other alt-med, has helped this nearly threefold increase of life expectancy.
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy_over_human_history
http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_profiles/pop_cou_826.PDF
November 30, 2007 at 4:00 am
JD……..So are you telling me that beause it is an “OLD” paradigm there is no thuth to it? Hmmmmm, that doesn’t make sense in light of other universal truths. A law of nature is a law of nature, it does not change. The fact that Hahnemann lived and died BEFORE the dicovery of the Avogadro constant only proves the point. And another little quote,
“The Micro-organism is nothing the terrain is everything”
Claude Bernard was a French physiologist. He was called by I. Bernard Cohen of Harvard University, “one of the greatest of all men of science”. He is considered as the “Father of Physiology”.
November 30, 2007 at 10:26 am
“So are you telling me that beause it is an “OLD” paradigm there is no truth to it?”
No. I’m saying that (1) Homeopathy is not part of a ‘new paradigm’ – it is old news. and (2) Homeopathy has been tested and found not to work. These are two separate statements that do not rely upon each other.
“A law of nature is a law of nature, it does not change.” The laws of nature do not permit homeopathy to work. Are you sure you don’t want to change the laws of nature? That Hahnemann lived and died before the Avogadro Constant was indicated simply provides an explanation for why Hahnemann may not have *known* that he was mistaken about higher dilutions being more potent.
I have to say that Wikipedia does have its faults, but the article on Paradigm Shift is quite interesting:
“A scientist, however, once a paradigm shift is complete, is not allowed the luxury, for example, of positing the possibility that miasma causes the flu or that ether carries light…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
November 30, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Claude Bernard also said,
“”When we meet a fact which contradicts a prevailing theory, we must accept the fact and abandon the theory, even when the theory is supported by great names and generally accepted””
November 30, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Hey Gimpy,
There is a difference between theory and natural law.
And by the way, why are you still be nice on this blog??
November 30, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Hey newparadigm, why are your censoring posts?
December 1, 2007 at 10:35 am
There is a difference between theory and natural law.
I don’t understand, could you explain this statement?
I only quoted Claude Bernard to point out that the person who you selectively quoted and stated was a great name had said that the support of great names was no proof of the validity of a theory, making your argument pointless.
December 1, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Oh I see, you just may have me there, but did you know that on his death bed Pasture admited Bernard was right about his quote;
The Micro-organism is nothing the terrain is everything”
Does that count?? Hmmmmmmm maybe not, but it was a good try you have to admit!
The difference between theory and natural law? Well, I thought it was obvious, a theory is something that in the end maybe proven incorrect. A natural law of the universe is an absolute.
December 1, 2007 at 9:54 pm
goodscience you may be interested in this correction to claims about Pasteur’s last words.
May I also ask how you know that a ‘natural law’ is absolute?
December 2, 2007 at 4:40 am
Hey Gimpy, how’s your weekend going??
So I get it. I have quotes to support my view and you have quotes to support yours. I am also getting the fact that I am a novice at this banter, but what you have to know is that I see homeopathy work everyday. I know you cannot accept that and you will come back at me with distain, but I will risk it. I wish you could, just for one day sit in my office and see the results of homeopathy. The lives that are changed and the suffering that is relieved. I know you think I am charlatan, but you will NEVER convince those, whom homeopathy has helped, of the same.
Something I wonder is about your web name “Gimpy”; “Gimp; offensive term: an offensive term for somebody with a physical challenge, especially somebody who has difficulty walking or who uses a wheelchair.”
Has your suffering made you bitter toward those that have a different view?
December 2, 2007 at 11:34 am
goodscience, don’t try and draw conclusions from a nickname I sometimes regret choosing. I don’t have any physical disability although I do have a dyslexia related specific learning disability which doesn’t cause me any problems and that I question whether should be considered a true disability (but that is a whole other argument).
For what its worth I don’t think you are a charlatan, I believe that you have adopted a faith based approach to medicine that prevents you from seeing the flaws in your beliefs and arguments. I bear you no personal ill will but I do regard your profession as ridiculous and potentially dangerous and the organisations set up to regulate it cowardly, dishonest and ineffectual.
Perhaps a good illustration of the flaws to your approach is in your quote
I have quotes to support my view and you have quotes to support yours.
this is quite correct and arguments over efficacy shouldn’t be tested by pitting rhetoric against rhetoric or anecdote against anecdote. They require the application of a impartial system of appraisal designed to ensure that external biases and subjectivity are reduced as much as possible and that results are reproducible. This is why scientists and philosophers have developed scientific method. Investigations of homeopathy using the principles of scientific method routinely fail to show a reproducible effect greater than that of a placebo. When biases and subjectivity are removed homeopathy does not work. This suggests that either consciously or unconsciously homeopaths are letting their belief that homeopathy does work influence the evidence they see. This is why M Simpson’s question about what it would take to convince you that homeopathy does not work is so important. By not accepting the possibility that it might not work prevents you from approaching evidence in an objective manner and thus makes it impossible for you to apply the scientific method to homeopathy.
December 2, 2007 at 2:27 pm
But this is where we come to an impass. All of the homeopathic scientific research that is out there and has been presented to you and your comrades, you refuse to accept. I know there is a better way to achieve cure other than allopathy. I have experienced it myself and I have witnessed it in others. Do I believe that there are times when homeopathy is not the best choice for health care? Of course I do, but in the majority of cases it is highly effective.
As far as your nickname is concerned, I am glad it is just that……a nickname!
December 2, 2007 at 4:08 pm
“The difference between theory and natural law? Well, I thought it was obvious, a theory is something that in the end maybe proven incorrect. A natural law of the universe is an absolute.”
Science doesn’t deal in absolutes – that’s religion’s job. ‘Natural laws’ are observed phenomena and relationships which remain constant no matter how we test them – until such time as we find an inconsistency. In which case, if that inconsistency can itself be shown to be consistent, the ‘natural law’ is abandoned or revised.
There is nothing in science, absolutely nothing, which is an absolute 100 per cent certainty for all eternity. Aristotle came up with some fine natural laws and they worked very well until Newton’s time, then Newton’s ideas could be successfully accepted as immutable until Einstein came along, and so on. That’s how science progresses.
December 3, 2007 at 4:27 pm
M Simpson: So following your train of thought could the principle of Avogrado’s constant be found wanting in the future? Has it actually been tested lately and how?
December 4, 2007 at 3:31 am
Hi, I am responding to Mongrel’s life expectancy quotes. A number of things have increased the life expectancy: Samulwiess’s handwashing idea was “alternative’ at the point he introduced it. (“alternative” really needs couching in the time frame). This saved babies, whre the life span is most vulnerable. Sanitation, another “althernative’ idea, really separating your sewer and water sources is another example of controversial public health methods that saved lifes, and last but not least, farm machinery safety saved many childrens’ lives. When more people live longer, you have a great average life expectancy. No “medicine” allopathic or homeopathic or other alternative, was involved in these NOW common sense ideas. Hydration, oxigen and ways to stop hemmorraging are other items that have saved countless lives. Antibiotics/vacines are way down on the list of extending the life span.
beth
December 4, 2007 at 7:23 am
“another “althernative’ idea, really separating your sewer and water sources is another example of controversial public health methods that saved lifes”
How would that have any effect if diseases are caused by miasms, as Hahnemann claimed?
December 7, 2007 at 2:20 pm
All of the homeopathic scientific research that is out there and has been presented to you and your comrades, you refuse to accept.
And herein lies the problem. Your statement should read:
All of the homeopathic research that is out there and has been presented to you and your comrades, you refuse to accept.
You really should refrain from using the ’s’ word because you don’t understand what it is and you certainly don’t practice it.
The ‘research’ homeopaths do seems to fall into the following categories:
Provings (which are just plain unscientific)
The collecting of anecdotes (which would be the starting point for a real scientific enquiry but for homeopathy are used instead of quiality experimental data, which is unscientific)
Attempts at trials (which have a superficial resemblance to real science but on closer scrutiny tend to have very poor methodologies, making them unscientific)
On second thoughts, your statement should really be:
All of the homeopathic research that is out there has been presented to you and your comrades. You have submitted it to the same standard of scientific inquiry as you would anything else and have found it to be of a poor standard and, until such time as good quality evidence is provided, you refuse to accept it.