Slashdot Mirror


13 Things That Do Not Make Sense

thpr writes "New Scientist is reporting on 13 things which do not make sense. It's an interesting article about 13 areas in which observations do not line up with current theory. From the placebo effect to dark matter, it's a list of areas in need of additional research. Explanations could lead to significant breakthroughs... or at least new and different errors in scientific observations. Now there are 20 interesting problems for Slashdotters to work on, once you combine these with the seven Millennium Problems!"

72 of 1,013 comments (clear)

  1. The Pacebo effect is controversial by Eric+Smith · · Score: 5, Funny

    There was a study not that long ago that concluded that the placebo effect doesn't really exist. How did they test that? Did they give some patients a placebo, and others (the control group) a fake placebo?

    1. Re:The Pacebo effect is controversial by Shachaf · · Score: 4, Funny

      Possibly they gave one group real medicine, and the other nothing at all, and got the same results as giving one group real medicine, and the other a placebo.

    2. Re:The Pacebo effect is controversial by Eric+Smith · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's the Slashdot story on the study that seemed to discredit the placebo effect.

    3. Re:The Pacebo effect is controversial by daveo0331 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Two groups of test subjects. Tell Group A the usual story, some people are getting placebos while others are getting the real thing and no one knows who's who. Tell group B everyone's getting a placebo. Give everyone placebos, and see if the pills being taken by group A have any effect.

      --
      Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
    4. Re:The Pacebo effect is controversial by Nasarius · · Score: 4, Informative
      Argh. No it doesn't. Why don't you try actually reading the Constitution?

      "Pursuit of happiness", a reference to Locke's "pursuit of property", was a principle stated in the Declaration of Independence, a document that has no bearing on US law.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    5. Re:The Pacebo effect is controversial by Martin+Blank · · Score: 5, Informative

      Methadone will get them high, just not as high, and the effects last longer, so a new high isn't sought quite as fast. It's also deliverable via tablet for the same effect, which is much safer and less expensive than intravenous delivery. However, it is, as you mention, extremely addictive, and it's important to watch patients closely, as withdrawal from it is still extremely painful, and can last longer than heroin withdrawal.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    6. Re:The Pacebo effect is controversial by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Give everyone placebos, and see if the pills being taken by group A have any effect.

      Also get Group C and tell them they are all getting placebos and give them the real pills and get Group D and tell them they are all getting the real pills and give them placebos. With Group A, the patients will have some uncertainty about what they are getting and that may affect the effect.

    7. Re:The Pacebo effect is controversial by dumdeedum · · Score: 5, Funny

      Two groups of test subjects. Tell Group A the usual story, some people are getting placebos while others are getting the real thing and no one knows who's who. Tell group B everyone's getting a placebo. Give everyone placebos, and see if the pills being taken by group A have any effect.
      ~
      Also get Group C and tell them they are all getting placebos and give them the real pills and get Group D and tell them they are all getting the real pills and give them placebos. With Group A, the patients will have some uncertainty about what they are getting and that may affect the effect.

      Then get Group E and tell them they are getting real placebos and give them random pills and then get Groups F through J and give them pills on the second Tuesday of every month and tell them you're uncertain about what the pills are and then get Group K to distribute fake placebos, real placebos and small slices of toast to Groups A, D and G respectively and then tell Group L they're not needed and should just take whatever pills they find at home or on the street. This ensures that Groups B, C, E and J but not C know what they're taking but not really and that people in Group A will think they're in Group D.

    8. Re:The Pacebo effect is controversial by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 4, Funny

      >> B - knowing that that they're not getting it.

      I think B would be the appropriate choice here for most /.ers.

    9. Re:The Pacebo effect is controversial by Eric+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh. In other words, there isn't any real reason. It's just that methadone is politically correct and heroin is not. That's basically what I expected.

    10. Re:The Pacebo effect is controversial by runderwo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Used to be delivered by bottle. As in cough syrup.

    11. Re:The Pacebo effect is controversial by FCAdcock · · Score: 5, Funny

      That and wrecks at 12MPH tend to do much less harm than wrecks at normal speeds.

      --
      --Forest C. Adcock--
    12. Re:The Pacebo effect is controversial by niittyniemi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > It's unclear to me exactly why that is considered an
      > improvement.[methadone over heroin].

      It is not seen as an improvement by honest doctors ie. doctors who take their hippocratic oath seriously and don't do their governments bidding.

      I was treated in a mental hospital about 10 yrs ago for alcoholism (UK) and there were a number of heroin addicts in there being treated with methadone. They said the methadone was disgusting in every possible way. (They became the living dead on it).

      The consultant psychiatrist wanted to treat his patients with heroin. People with a heroin addiction can lead perfectly normal lives, those on methadone can't. Yet the government wouldn't allow him for purely political reasons: red top newspapers screaming "Junkies get heroin on National Health Service Scandal!"

      The psychiatrist (Dr Marks) made a fuss about it, saw that he would make no progress in changing attitudes and then pissed off to Switzerland where they have an enlightened drugs policy:

      * Needle exchange (no Aids or hep)

      * Heroin prescription (no stealing or shitty side effects)

      The UK eventually solved all their mental health problems: it's called "Care in the Community" also known as "do fuck all for them and if they break the law chuck them in prison".

      I'm currently doing my bit by lobbying my MP but I feel I will make no progress either and will follow Dr. Marks' in going abroad to a country where mental health problems equates to a trip to hospital and not prison. One needs to protect ones family, right? (Alcoholism and other mental health problems have a genetic component).

      Sorry to be OT but people need informing of what is exactly going on in their name and the public disgrace that is mental health provision in large parts of the Western world.

      --
      The Machine stops.
    13. Re:The Pacebo effect is controversial by wpiman · · Score: 4, Funny

      I read an article about women who cook and eat the placebo after they give birth. Very, very gross.

    14. Re:The Pacebo effect is controversial by budgenator · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Normarly they take a population and tell them they will be divided into groups;
      1. one group get the test medication,
      2. one group get the "old-stand-by" medication
      3. one group gets an inert plecebo

      the meds are packaged to look the same and have the same taste as much as possible. Everybody knows and consents to be treated with the test med, the old med, and the plecebo med with out their knowege of what they'll really be getting.

      if the primary researcher knows what meds are given to who, it's called a single-blind experement because the patient is blind to what they are getting.

      if the primary researcher doesn't know, as well as the patient, it's called double-blind. who got what is only revealed after the experiment is over.

      There is usualy a mercy clause in the experiment where if it becomes obvious that one group is recieving irrefutable benefits from what they are taking, everybody gets it.

      I saw an interesting program on tv about homeopathic remedies, essentialy even when sceptical and respected researchers conducted homeopathic experiments, even on cells in vitro, the homeopathic remadies worked in every single blind experiment. When the same researchers repeated the same experiments in the double-blind method, they always failed. The researcher's knowelege of experiment and control groups even effect the results obtained in cell cultures in test tubes, and analysed with automated test equipment, very strange results in deed.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  2. And number 11.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with science? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with science! It does not make sense! Look at me, I'm posting on slashdot in response to an article about science, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense. And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests

    1. Re:And number 11.. by halivar · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh great. Now we can add the "Chewbacca defense" to the same illustrious group of overquoted "instant +5 funny" personalities as Yakov Smirnov, CATS, Kent Brockman, and the Beowulf cluster guy.

      I can't wait for someone to mention that in Korea, only old people use the Chewbacca defense. /me shoots self

    2. Re:And number 11.. by themusicgod1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh great. Now we are seeing add the guy making a smartass comment about a "guy complaining about how overquoted pop culture references that have something to do with the topic getting an instant +5 funny" getting modded as insightful" getting ignored by mods. What's next? Will we see the guy who makes a reference to the guy making a smartass comment about a "guy complaining about how overquoted pop culture references that have something to do with the topic getting an instant +5 funny" getting modded as insightful" getting +5 Insightful?! What is the world coming to?!

      --
      GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  3. Body Just needs to think it's getting morphine? by filmmaker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So what is going on? Doctors have known about the placebo effect for decades, and the naloxone result seems to show that the placebo effect is somehow biochemical. But apart from that, we simply don't know.

    That's really interesting. The body and/or the brain releases the THIQ (I would presume) as if herion were present, but only if the morphine blocker isn't used in combination with the placebo.

    This suggests that as long as we think we're getting morphine, our bodies will respond accordingly. If the phenomenon could be isolated...combine that with some VR, and you've got the opium dens of the digital age. But no opium.

    1. Re:Body Just needs to think it's getting morphine? by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Funny

      Great, then I will have to tell my boss I was missing for a couple of days because I thought I was on a bender.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    2. Re:Body Just needs to think it's getting morphine? by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Morphine works because it is an analog of some natural molecule in the body and affects the same receptor. Naloxone presumably works because either it binds morhpine or it binds the morphine receptor. Thus it might be reasonable to assume that naloxone would also inhibit the natural molecule as well. This does not explain why saline induces the same effect as morphine but I think it explains why naloxone could seem to increase the pain.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    3. Re:Body Just needs to think it's getting morphine? by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In this case, my totally uninformed guess is that the patients subconcious became trained to associate opiates with an IV. The brain gets its "time for opiates" call when the needle was inserted, and when it doesn't get any morphine, takes that as a cue to churn out some of its own opioids - which would then be blocked by the naloxone.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    4. Re:Body Just needs to think it's getting morphine? by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Funny
      This suggests that as long as we think we're getting morphine, our bodies will respond accordingly.

      I think I'm getting morphine... I think I'm getting morphine... I think I'm getting morphine...

      Shit, nothing!

  4. Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just great, like I really needed 13 more things to worry about.

    Hey, why wasn't my wife on that list?

  5. How about this... by templest · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have emough thimgs that dom't nake semse im ny life so as to worry about that. For exanple, why the fuck does ny keyboard type "n" whem I clearly hit the "m" ke... wait, mvn... forgot to put the keys back right. Okay, i'll give those problems a whirl now.

    --
    I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
    1. Re:How about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      For exanple, why the fuck does ny keyboard type "n" whem I clearly hit the "m" ke...

      Because you're a norom?

  6. Re:Maybe Saline is more powerful than we think by lambent · · Score: 5, Funny

    They should probably just use air in the syringes, then.

  7. Mind over matter. by gimpynerd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The brain is a very powerful thing. I don't know what is so hard to believe. Pain originates in the brain so it isn't that hard to believe that you can deceive it.

  8. The Placebo Effect by prakslash · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guess I might as well buy those enlargement pills after all.

    Hey, you never know...

  9. /. readers do the 14th all the time by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 4, Funny
    The 14th thing that makes no sense: Not reading the article that is posted right there in the submission and easily reachable to inform the reader, and yet feeling fully qualified to write something as a comment without that knowledge.

    Such as this comment...

  10. Belfast homeopathy study? by rdwald · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why not include the Columbia prayer study? Oh, yea, because it's been thoroughly discredited. Just like the Belfast study will be soon enough.

    One million dollars says homeopathy is a placebo. Do you want to argue with it?

    1. Re:Belfast homeopathy study? by vistic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't get how they can claim that stuff like spider venom can be diluted in water to the point where the sample likely doesnt contain a single molecule of spider venom... but that it left an "imprint" on the water, whatever the hell that is.

      If this were true, then what about the other things which got into the water and "imprinted" those water molecules over the years? Where do they get the water from to dilute in? How can they be sure the water they are using isn't "imprinted" with something bad... or is there some way to de-imprint the water before they imprint it with whatever they're selling...

      This is nonsense that requires very, very minimal thought to realize it's flawed very fundamentally. If this stuff which isn't even present in the water, imprinted it... then what about all the other stuff which has touched the water over the years?

  11. Yay, the placebo effect is biochemical. by porcupine8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Why do they make it sound like it's a suprise that the placebo effect is biochemical and that the "mind can affect the body"?? The mind is pretty much defined as the product/functions of the brain. The brain is biochemical and part of the body. This wouldn't surprise the middle schoolers I'm currently teaching psychology too, it shouldn't suprise any scientists.

    Yes, the placebo effect is still not completely understood, if it exists at all. But that article made it sound like things that are pretty common knowledge are new and shocking.

    --
    Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
  12. Assholes by Renraku · · Score: 4, Interesting

    14. Why Being An Asshole Gets You Chicks

    Its true. Go to any mall and you'll see a not-so-attractive man walking around with a beautiful, well-endowed lady in tow while he's making fun of her to his friends, or is putting her down. He never calls, he never does the dishes, he never puts the seat down, and most of all, he's getting some.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    1. Re:Assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Dude, that's easy. Chicks want to be mistreated (many of them, at least). I'm not trying to be funny or anything. I honestly suspect that it's some evolutionary hold-over from when we lived in caves. When you show her that you are in charge, it shows you have good genes and are a good choice for breeding. If you treat her right, she might keep you around, but she will fuck other guys behind your back and then make you take care of their children. I've read that that happens in at least 10% of all marriages.

    2. Re:Assholes by Renraku · · Score: 5, Funny

      I actually tested this theory one day. I dressed like a whigger (backwards baseball cap and all) and started talking to your typical overdone-tan chick at the mall and after an hour she was wanting me to come and hang out with her. Then I was like, "No, I'm actually a nerd. I just wanted to prove something. Sorry."

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    3. Re:Assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because he's confident, he doesn't put her on a pedestal, and doesn't let her walk over him, unlike the hundred other guys who turned into idiots when they saw her.

    4. Re:Assholes by XanC · · Score: 5, Funny

      So... You're an even bigger asshole than you were pretending to be. Is there a bell curve here? Is there an optimum level of asshole-ness?

    5. Re:Assholes by Renraku · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, that's what I see. I see there are two types of guys in a lot of women's eyes. The kind you fuck and the kind you go crying to when you can't get to a guy you fuck. The later type is also the one you put in charge of fixing your car, raising your kids, and providing general emotional support.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    6. Re:Assholes by thefirelane · · Score: 5, Informative

      Seriously, this is not a troll, read this:

      Why 'Nice guys' are such losers

    7. Re:Assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I actually tested this theory one day. I dressed like a whigger (backwards baseball cap and all) and started talking to your typical overdone-tan chick at the mall and after an hour she was wanting me to come and hang out with her. Then I was like, "No, I'm actually a nerd. I just wanted to prove something. Sorry."

      note: may not have happened

  13. Re:Homeopathy. by RollingThunder · · Score: 5, Informative

    I thought the homeopathic test was performed on white blood cells in a solution - not in a body, leaving no possibility for the mind to affect it.

  14. Re:The Placebo effect is controversial by shanen · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Yeah, we know you're in a hurry to post quickly, but the result is an entire thread with your hurried spelling mistake (not copied above).

    Anyway, the counterexample in the article is easy enough to explain, in that the counter-placebo actively prevents some secondary effect, where it is the secondary effect that is closer to the true cause of the perceived pain reduction. The the morphine or the original placebo are just acting somewhere higher in the chain. Given how little we know about the nature of the mind (including our perception of pain), the results are not nearly as suprising as they proclaim.

    The whole topic of "truth" just seems so passe these days. Faith-based politicians aren't going to worry about any of it, anyway. They don't need or want better science or more facts--they already know what they believe, and they're going to structure the world around their beliefs, no matter how crazy. The whole notion of truth is under attack.

    So many examples, it's hard to know where to start. The two that are on my mind right now are the new UN ambassador who is pledged to destroying the UN, and appointing the master planner of the Iraq fiasco to the World Bank.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  15. I remember once... by CaptainPotato · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...getting a guy completely trashed on water, because he thought he was drinking vodka. Sure, he'd had a few vodkas already (only a few), but once the bottle ran out, he still wanted more, so I filled up the bottle with water, and he and I sat down and kept drinking the 'vodka'.

    I acted as if I were drinking vodka (the flinching at the strength of it, and pretending to be feeling the effect), until he became so drunk on about 350ml of water (and the perhaps 100ml of vodka that he'd drunk earlier) that he couldn't stand and was passed out, and was out of action for almost a day.

    After this, with the d*ckh**d out of the way, I finished my good deed for the party, and everybody else had a great time from that point onwards at the party... it only took about 40 minutes for this to work.

    So, yes, I can believe that the placebo effect works - and even more effectively on fools like the guy in my anecdote.

    --
    I heard that your library burnt down and destroyed your only two books - and one was not even coloured in yet.
    1. Re:I remember once... by ultramk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A couple of thoughts... (possible complications)

      1. Maybe he had more actual booze than you were aware of. I remember at that age having a few *before* the party, to loosen up. Remember too, that alcohol takes a while to metabolize under some circumstances.

      2. Perhaps he was just a lightweight, all it took was a couple to push him over the edge. Case in point, my wife (this was last year, btw) went out for drinks and a movie with her mom, her aunt, and some ladies from her bookgroup. She's not a tiny thing, and she's not incapable of holding her drink. However, on this particular day, she hadn't had anything to eat, and was slightly dehydrated. She had 2 martinis, and literally passed out 30 minutes later at the theatre. Either because of her lack of eating that day, blood sugar weirdness, or whatever. (I picked her up, and drove her home. She didn't wake up for 2 hours. I would have taken her to the emergency room, but her mom's a nurse, and suggested that she just needed to sleep it off. She was right.) If you're wondering, she hasn't had a drink since.

      3. He could have been on some medication/recreational drug that amplified the effects of the alcohol he DID have.

      I'm not saying any of those things had to be the case, but the effects of alcohol vary so widely, from person-to-person, and even from day to day depending on diet etc, that it's hard to quantify an anecdotal account, and use it as proof of an actual physiological effect. Just a thought.

      What would be more convincing to me would be a double-blind study with a rigorous testing method. It would probably even be fun to do! Any volunteers?

      Interesting story, though.
      m-

      --
      You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
  16. An embarassment to physics? by munpfazy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the article:

    >IT IS one of the most famous, and most
    >embarrassing, problems in physics. In 1998,
    >astronomers discovered that the universe is
    >expanding at ever faster speeds.

    Embarrassing? Since when is being able to study something qualitatively new and unexpected an embarrassment? One would expect cosmologists to jump for joy at their luck. (And among those whom I know, everyone does!)

    If anything, dark energy is a triumph of experimental science. An experimental groups found something no one expected, and within a hand full of years, armed only with careful data analysis, they convinced not only themselves but everyone else that it was genuine and radically changed our picture of the universe. Since then we've accumulated even more convinging data, and found independant evidence to confirm the existance of dark energy. There is a vigerous community studying the problem and proposing new tests, and theorists everywhere proposing new and interesting ways to accomodate the data. One couldn't hope for a more perfect example of science working in the way we all like to believe it does.

    Cold fusion, on the other hand, is a *real* embarrassment for physics - dozens of seemingly reputable scientists have spent millions of dollars and decades of work and produced diddly squat. The experimental case isn't bulletproof - it's just so riddled with holes that no one notices when new bullets pass through it. The story is now so thick with poor experimental practice, unprofessional behavior, and overt fraud that few legitimate researchers will touch the subject for fear of being associated with all the hucksters and frauds who haunt it.

  17. lasers faster and slower than light speed. by hedley · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think these recent experiments are interesting and require some explanation.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/841690.stm

    and also

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/655518.stm

    Hedley

    1. Re:lasers faster and slower than light speed. by PxM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The part about sending something faster than light is just bad reporting. Einstein says that no information can travel faster than light. If I point a laser beam at the moon and move it quickly, the dot on the moon will move around faster than light. However, no information is sent so there is no problem. The same applies to this experiment except it involves group and phase velocities of light. The concept is very hard to explain in words so I'll just point you to this Java applet with a moving picture:
      http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/more _stuff/Applets/sines/GroupVelocity.html

      The part about light moving slower isn't anything special. It has been known for a while that light slows down in a medium (ie anything other than a pure vacuum) at a rate dependent on the type of medium. This includes normal glass.

  18. Paradigm shift? by wronski · · Score: 5, Insightful

    (one of) The exciting thing(s) about dark matter/dark energy/Pioneer anomaly is that they smell like new fundamental physics. A bit like in the early 20th century, when people had everything pretty much figured out, except for a few nagging problems such as the UV catastrophe and Michelson-Moreley's failure to detect changes in the speed of light. Which of course led respectively to quantum theory and relativity.

    We assume DM and DE are there because according to general relativity we need something to clump visimble matter, something to accelerate the universe today (and another something to accelerate the universe in the past if inflation is to be believed), and a bunch of something to make the universe (very nearly) flat. Postulating all these weird stuff is a bit contrived. Or we can heve some new physics.

    This probably what the Wow aliens were trying to tell us...

    PS: The 4neutron stuff and changing constant *are* new physics, if true. Right now they are just plain weird, IMHO.

  19. On cold fusion by Avumede · · Score: 4, Informative

    This article sort of looked like bullshit to me, especially the cold fusion part. Notice how they hint that cold fusion has been replicated, but don't actually go out and say so. Then they quote an "Engineer" saying the evidence is strong, like they couldn't find any scientist that would support their claim. So I asked at the Straight Dope Message Board about the cold fusion, and got some interesting answers. What I learned basically confirmed that (to the knowledge of that fairly well informed board), yes, cold fusion still is unlikely and unreplicated.

    1. Re:On cold fusion by Jace+Harker · · Score: 5, Informative

      I actually read the final report of the DOE committee that recently reviewed cold fusion research. Contrary to what this article implies, the committee concluded that most of the new research on "cold fusion", while of much higher quality, was still as inconclusive as the old evidence. They identified a couple specific physical phenomena that were both unusual and well-documented, and suggested further investigation of those.

      In all I thought the committee's conclusions seemed reasonable, pragmatic, and scientific, without being strongly prejudiced for or against the "cold fusion" effect. However, in the media (such as this article) the final report has been painted with much broader strokes. I find that disturbing.

      Slashdot covered the DOE report here.

    2. Re:On cold fusion by Ibag · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There have been recent, successful (i.e. highly reporoducible, statistically significant) experiments with cold fusion, or at least with something that doesn't seem explained by other known science. I know people at MIT who are currently working on cold fusion research, and apparnelty there are at least two commercial ventures that are underway to make products out of some of this research. However, nothing is going to be released till people are damned sure this is the real thinng, because the social and political risks are too big if it isn't.

      The probleme with cold fusion is not that it doesn't work (which it may or may not, as I haven't actually looked at the research), but that because of the bad science that has been done on cold fusion, there aren't many reputable scientists working on it. Of course, 90% of the crap you read might be completely irreproducible, so if you were to try to just look into the field you'd find a lot of crackpots and poor results. However, you should not confuse what you will most likely find with what you might find.

      Of course, on the other hand, if the results that people are finding really are examples of workinig cold fusion, the experiments should be at a level that cannot be ignored very soon. It follows that *if* this is the real thing, we will know soon, and if it is not, we will know that the current batch of research isn't fruitful. I trust my friends, so I think there is something to look forward to, but its really hard to say what will happen. Its imporant that we have people working on this kind of research, though, because the benefits will far outweight the costs if things do prove fruitful. The trick is keeping it in the realm of science.

  20. counter Proof that homeopathy works by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Funny

    1) take a slashdot comment
    2) reply to it
    3) reply to the reply
    4) each reply containing less information and insight
    5) ????
    6) profit!

    The final comment still has the same amazing powes of useless drivel the first had.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  21. Obvious by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I grow as weary of explaining this as I am of being an example of it*. "Assholes" get chicks because they go out there to meet women, with confidence and at least the illusion of interest. They don't stay in griping about being single on Slashdot, while thinking "no hot girl will ever like me".

    * an example of the latter, not the former

    --
    Freedom: "I won't!"
  22. Depend on the test by aepervius · · Score: 4, Informative

    For an a normal drug test there are two types of test. The one you do in labor (first on cells culture then later on cobaye animals) and later the one you do under hospital condition (on human). I am roughly simplyfying here. Those hospital test mostly consists in double blind experiment if possible (the patient do not know what they get, some get nothing (water/sugar) other get the substance, and neither the patient nor the experimentor at the starts know who is given what, only after the experiment is finished the experimentor can check from a reference number that this was the drug or sugar), or in the case where it is not humanly possible (for example cancer drug) where a live depends on it, then a simple hospital trial.


    In the case of homeopathy this NEVER depend on life, but since this is only sugar (for any dilution beyond Avogadro number) they do not need the labor trial and can be tested directly on double blind. Fact is, all study I know of in double blind , the group getting the drug and the group getting nothing did not show any statistical difference. In other word their body reacted as if they got nothing (which they did... Since beyond 20CH I think , you have no active molecule). In other word in double blind nobody has yet of today proved that homeopathy worked. Ever.


    Now there are a serie of controversial experiment where ONE attempt to dilue some allergen substance, and then after enough dilution to ahve nothing of the alergen in the end liquid, attempt to make it react with Basophile (the so called bevenist experiment). Up until now all of those experiment yelding positive result where either downright fraud, or sloppy experimental design (forget to clean up, or bad dilution processes). And seriously I doubt any new results will change that. This would be a MAJOR news for all physiker (physicist?)...

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  23. Re:When observation matches up with theory... by ErikZ · · Score: 4, Funny

    You know, jobs in the science would really open up if we started burning heretics again.

    #1 Skill for a successful career in science: Try not to look flammable.

    --
    Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  24. Re:Maybe Saline is more powerful than we think by izomiac · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder what would happen if someone injected saline solution into someone who thought they were getting a lethal injection?

  25. That's no mystery, by KalvinB · · Score: 4, Funny

    girls like dicks.

  26. BBC & James Randi & BBC & Dr. Ennis al by tlambert · · Score: 4, Informative

    The BBC program "Science and Nature" had an episode on BBC Two, which was called "Homeopathy: The Test" which first aired last year on Tuesday 26 November, 9pm.

    The results of a controlled, random, double-blind study were that the effect did not actually exist.

    Here's the link:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopat hytrans.shtml

    I think what we are seeing here is a six month editorial lead time on articles in New Scientist (giving their research department the benefit of the doubt).

    -- Terry

  27. Re:Missing option by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's a good question, and one I always find myself wondering whenever the usual Democrat VS. Republican arguments break out here. I think some, certainaly not all but at least a portion of it comes down to humans having some inate need to believe in a higher power. One which has a greater knowledge than the individual and can provide another group of people to hate. Couple hundred years back it would have been preachers telling of the danger posed by witches and heathens, now it's politicians preaching about the evil ways of their oposing party. A lot of folks would be quick to believe anything, provided it gave an easy target to explain why things are going wrong. It's them darn liberals/It's them darn conservitives! From what I've heard, even the politicians themselves are trapped in it, pretty quickly finding their former views lost and replaced by whatever their peers particular view is.

    --
    Everything will be taken away from you.
  28. Life was so much easier then by MavEtJu · · Score: 4, Funny

    1977, it was called the Wow! signal.

    2005, it would have been the WTF! OMG! LEET! signal.

    --
    bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
  29. Re:Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Alpha, Pioneer, Horiz by mbrother · · Score: 4, Informative

    The last test I saw for a time-variable alpha was John Bahcall looking at the ratio of [O III] 4959 to 5007 emission in Sloan Digital Sky Survey quasars, which found no change. The high-z absorption line studies by the Australian group failed to convince me anything was really going on. Shouldn't have been one of the 13.

    --
    Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
  30. Re:The Placebo effect is controversial by JavaRob · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hey, have you heard about Placebo Domingo, Placido's younger brother? He looks just like his brother and gets great press, but he actually can't sing worth a damn.

    Heh heh. Hoo, tough crowd tonight...

  31. The point being? by jesterzog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Go to any mall and you'll see a not-so-attractive man walking around with a beautiful, well-endowed lady in tow while he's making fun of her to his friends, or is putting her down. He never calls, he never does the dishes, he never puts the seat down, and most of all, he's getting some.

    Really, though, would you want a partner like that?

    I had one once, and it was awful -- she was so convinced that she was useless and constantly putting herself down. I felt really sorry for her because somewhere along the line she'd been seriously messed up, but I also wouldn't wish her on anyone. In any case it lasted for a matter of weeks before I dumped her (or she interpreted it that way) because I just couldn't stand it any more.

    The way that she acted a lot of the time suggested that she was expecting to be beaten for some of the things she did, no matter how much I constantly told her that there was nothing wrong and I wasn't going to treat her like that. She never actually listened to me, and all the time she was assuming I was someone I wasn't. Honestly, it wasn't until I'd met her that I understood how it's possible that some women put up with that kind of crap from guys. She was practically inviting it, and with someone else she would've gotten it. (No, I didn't oblige.)

    It took me a while to get over that, but my current girlfriend, who took a while to find, is very assertive. If she doesn't like something I say or do, she'll make sure I know straight away, and I do the same for her. It's a whole lot better.

  32. Homeopathy test results by Cycnus · · Score: 5, Informative
    I find it strange that they mention the Belfast homeopathy test in their list.

    Not long ago (in 2002), there was a very good, very scientific test done by Horizon on the BBC using the very same technique.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2512105.stm

    It seems that part of the problem in the Belfast findings may be due to the fact that the cells that had a reaction were manually counted, possibly introducting a bias known as "the experimenter effect", of which little is really known apart from the fact that it exists (a bit like the placebo effect).
    There is little doubt that the experimenter acted in good faith, but the fact was that the very controlled experiment commissioned by the Horizon (involving the Royal Society and a number of specialists in various relevant fields) ended up showing a statistical no-greater-than-chance result.

    Now, before you say "how can you trust a TV show", I'll say that Horizon is no ordinary TV show. It's probably the best, most balanced and scientific accurate show ever to grace the screen. Those who are lucky enough to be able to watch it will probably agree.

    There is another large scale experiment being done at the moment on homeopathy, invoving both homeopaths, scientists and people like James Randi.
    Randi predicted that the experiment will show no more than we already know today, that homeopathy is not worth much as a medical practice, but that most believer will be undeterred by any amount of evidence.
    The real question to test a practitionner of alternative medecine is to ask: what would it take you to admit that it doesn't work?
    For many, nothing will.

    But it's worth investigating anyway, I'm ready to consider that there is some benefit to it if tangible, undisputable proof was found. It would certainly help to use homeopathy if its field of action -if there is any- was actually well known, and if it is doing better there than other types of medecine. http://www.homeowatch.org/

  33. Re:Maybe Saline is more powerful than we think by fireman+sam · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was listening to JJJ the other day and Doctor Karl was talking about placebos. He mentioned that a patent had come in to the hospital in which he was working in great pain (kidney stones or similar). The nurse was sent to get the pain killers (morphine?) which were located about 10 minutes away at the other end of the hospital. Dr Karl (mad scientist he is) was about to flush the "whatever they flush" with saline, and decided to try a placebo experiement.

    Just before he injected the saline, he told the patient that he was giving him the pain killer. To the doctor's surprise, the pain went away quickly.

    The interesting thing was, the nurse returned with the medication and it was administered. The patient then showed the symptoms of an overdose. His heart rate plummeted, his breathing changed dramatically (can't remember if it was slower of faster). But after a short while, (about 20 seconds) his heart rate returned and the man slept the remainder of the night.

    Very interesting.

    --
    it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
  34. Re:2) The horizon problem - SOLVED! by nickco3 · · Score: 4, Informative

    You post is inaccurate because:

    * It invokes The "God of the Gaps" Argument.

    This argument has the form:

    * There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
    * Therefore, the things in this gap are best explained as acts of God.

    This is not based in logic. It is simply a statement of pessimism about the future progress of science.

    Down through the centuries, science has eliminated a great many of its gaps. People who had used the Gap argument were embarrassed, since their God shrank in power with each new scientific advance. For example, after the work of Galileo and Newton, it was no longer thought that angels pushed the planets across the heavens.

    --
    -- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as ... WEENdows"
  35. Full ANOVA Design by CedgeS · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You need to incorporate the product of the following conditions:

    Patient's certainty:
    Uncertain
    Certain and correct
    Certain and incorrect

    Getting the drug:
    Yes
    No

    This would leave us with the following groups:
    Not sure and recieving drug
    Not sure and not recieving drug
    Certain of recieving drug and recieving drug
    Certain of not recieving drug and not recieving drug
    Certain of not recieving drug and recieving drug
    Certain of recieving drug and not recieving drug

    Then you need many replicates, include all the interactions in your ANOVA (i.e. do it the simple, correct way with none of the monkeying around that bad statisticians will prescribe), and report the results that pass Ficher's LSD (the most powerful detector of significant difference), and possibly also include results passing more stringent significance tests.

    Then we will have the answer. Wait 4 years for people to do it with other drugs and make more complicated expirements with more degrees of freedom and it will be canon.

    And yes, you will have to LIE to and DECIEVE your patients. This is considered unethical, so this simple basic expirement will never be done in the "developed" world. There can be no waiver of "you may or may not recieve medication" because if introduced it would place everyone in the group "Uncertain." If the patients have a bias towards believing that a medical experiment does not medicate as stated then the patients must not know that they are participating in the experiment.

    1. Re:Full ANOVA Design by pla · · Score: 4, Interesting

      nice try, but the Milgram studies have generally been thought to be unethical.

      True, they do seem unethical in hindsight.

      But they also revealed an absolutely amazing area of human psychology that we couldn't have discovered any other way - That our normal concept of "conscience" completely vanishes in the interaction between an authority figure and a subordinate.


      Kinda funny that a lot of the most important findings in psychology (and medical science as well) count as "unethical" by today's standards.

      Myself, I interpret that as the entire human race having turned into a culture of whiners. "Oh, boo-frickin' hoo, I feel bad about having thought-I-did-but-not-actually zapped that guy"... "Oh, I feel violated, I must now sue you because you said you would give me caffeine but you actually gave me a sugar pill".


      At the risk of sounding like a Trekkie, sometimes the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. I say "sometimes" because you could use the same argument to justify torturing prisoners. When dealing with a minor inconvenience to the few, no problem. When "breaking" someone into saying whatever they think you want to hear, the criteria for "justifiable" become quite a lot more strict, if even possible to satisfy.

    2. Re:Full ANOVA Design by DarkSarin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I won't argue with any of that. Unfortunately, the sad truth is that you are right.

      Also, very sadly, there are certain advances in medicine that *might* not have happened as early as they did without the holocaust and Hitler's experiments on live humans. I don't think that we can safely say that they were worth it, however--and that is the crux of the problem.

      Sometimes the good of the many does outweigh the good of the few. The trouble is, however, that it becomes difficult, on occasion, to tell where that line is. Thus was born the Ethics Committees and Review Boards who object to some very strange things at times, but generally do good work.

      Are studies involving deception possible? Absolutely. Are they difficult to get approved? Yes, and with good reason.

      You do bring up a good point, though. It does, occasionally, seem as though all the major discoveries happened because a researcher (at least in psychology, and to a lesser extent, medicine) was willing to do things to subjects that were more than a little questionable.

      I would argue, however, that it simply requires more effort and ingenuity to set up an experiment to test the same thing without crossing that line. IIRC, the Milgram studies have been replicated to show that the effect exists, but in a more humane way.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
  36. Open questions in Physics by S3D · · Score: 4, Interesting

    John Baez, quantum gravity reseacher have an exellent list on his site of Open questions in Physics
    It includes:
    sonoluminescence - plasma core in the bubbles of liquid
    high temperature superconductivity
    turbulence and Navier-Stokes equations -mathematic of chaos
    what is meant by a "measurement" in quantum mechanics? Does "wavefunction collapse" actually happen as a physical process ?
    What happened at or before the Big Bang?
    Why is there an arrow of time; that is, why is the future so much different from the past?
    dark energy
    dark matter
    The Horizon Problem: why is the Universe almost, but not quite, homogeneous on the very largest distance scales
    When were the first stars formed, and what were they like
    Is the Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis true? Roughly, for generic collapsing isolated gravitational systems are the singularities that might develop guaranteed to be hidden beyond a smooth event horizon?
    Why are the laws of physics not symmetrical between left and right, future and past, and between matter and antimatter?
    Why is there more matter than antimatter, at least around here?
    Is there really a Higgs boson, as predicted by the Standard Model of particle physics?
    Why do the particles have the precise masses they do? Or is this an unanswerable question?
    Are there important aspects of the Universe that can only be understood using the Anthropic Principle?
    The Big Question(TM)
    This last question sits on the fence between cosmology and particle physics:
    * How can we merge quantum theory and general relativity to create a quantum theory of gravity? How can we test this theory?

  37. Re:The Pacebo effect is controversial-OT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    as a doctor working in the field of substance misuse i need to clarify this:
    Methadone does come in an injectable form but the oral preparation is safer in terms of number of fatal overdoses
    Methadone also doesn't give people the euphoria that heroin gives them.
    Some people develope an addiction to heroin specifically becoause they get addicted to the euphoria, others develop their habit because they don't like the withdrawal effects. This second group tend to achieve maintenance and reduction of the chaos in their lives on methadone and once they have achieved the necessary psychological and social infrastructure necessary to withdraw then they can have their doseage reduced to zero. Those who seek the euphoric affect tend to use methadone to remove the withdrawl effects but continue to use illicit drugs on top of this in order to achive their high. This group may well be able to have their addiction controlled more successfully with injectable diamorphine (heroin). Various european countries are exploring this option and 2 pilot projects have been set up in the UK in order to research this very point. Once the results of these have been audited then policy as a whole will change. Almost all substance misusing people who approach drug dependency services do so with the aim of coming off drugs but it has to be done in a safe and controlled manner to attempt to try and put mechanisms in place for them to address the reasons why they became addicted in the first place.