Slashdot Mirror


(Yet) Another Year End List

gordonb writes "New Scientist has yet another of those endless end-of-year lists, "13 things that do not make sense", including such topics discussed on Slashdot this year as the placebo effect, dark energy, and the ever-popular cold fusion. I know there are a lot more than 13 things that don't make sense, such as free markets, but, oxymorons aside, this is an interesting list, nevertheless."

17 of 346 comments (clear)

  1. Research mistakes or conundrums? by dada21 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The placebo effect does work! A friend of the family is a hypochondriac (I used to be a BAD one), and always has the same cold or disease as someone else. I told her that the trick to fending off hypochondria is to gently tap the underside of her chin 5 times slowly and the symptoms will go away.

    Guess what? It worked. I just made it up but I told her I heard about it on a medical show. The power of the mind is amazing, but it has taught me how easily duped we humans are. I guess this means don't trust anyone until you know what their end desire is.

    This is an interesting article, but it seems common for them to say that these unknown "problems" might all boil down to bad research -- and I believe that could likely be the answer for many. "Bad research" covers all science conundrums: either you misread the results, or previous bad research gave you an incorrect theory.

    Problems solved :)

    1. Re:Research mistakes or conundrums? by renoX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In the article they talk about pain relief by a placebo, so pain is not a totally real bullet either: pain is quite influenced by the mind even without placebo.
      Once I shielded me for the pain of a dying nerve in a tooth by reading a book, and a dying nerve in a tooth is *quite* painful, granted this is quite different from a placebo more similar with the use of hynosis to shield a patient from pain during a surgery.

    2. Re:Research mistakes or conundrums? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Mental illnesses are real illnesses and have hard, acute neurological expression in the brain.

      Certainly some people have strong difficulties in their lives. And certainly some people have deformities or injuries to their nervous system. But the idea that "mental illnesses" such as depression have direct neurological expression is not as supported as SSRI makers would like you to believe. (Another link: here.)

      Labeling psychological difficulties (other than neulogical illness or injury) is questionable. It has strong legal and social consequences that we ought to consider.

      The DSM, the official defintion of mental health and illness, has its roots in a military effort to decide who was too crazy (or not crazy enough?) to be a soldier. It's critera for listed condtions are famously vauge. And who decides which condtions are "illnesses"? Just a few decades ago, homosexuality was a "mental illness" according to the DSM.

      These illnesses are not merely coming from a person who is playing a casual game of make-believe who needs to get a grip.

      I agree, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we should use the word "illness" to describe these states.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    3. Re:Research mistakes or conundrums? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I don't think his point was that they weren't real just that there isn't proof that there is a direct neurological representation at this time for many of these "illnesses". There are certainly some mental illnesses that are obvious diseases with abnoramalities that affect a persons consciousness and self-awareness. Bi-polar with dilusions, extreme depression and schizophrenia come to mind, but we use mental illness as an excuse/explanation for people who are emotional by nature, people who are mentally weak, people who are irresponsible and people who simply don't match our ideas of what is "normal" or "acceptable". We need to be careful about designating all of this as mental illness because of the social, medical, and legal issues that arise from calling these "illnesses" without a scientifically sound understanding of an underlying pathology. Some of these illnesses are simply biological diversity and natural states and to treat them as illnesses is a diservice to both the sick and the healthy. Again I don't think his point was that mental illness isn't real just that there isn't direct evidence of many of them yet and that many are mis- over- and radomly diagnosed by the money machine that is our health care system. (note this isn't a totally idictment of the U.S. system...it's currently one of the best in the "civilized world" but to ignore the influence of money on the system is simple naive)

  2. Inflation caused by Higgs field? by dc29A · · Score: 2, Interesting

    FTFA: But is that just wishful thinking? "Inflation would be an explanation if it occurred," says University of Cambridge astronomer Martin Rees. The trouble is that no one knows what could have made that happen.

    I was under the impression that Inflation is caused by a certain energy value of the Higgs field. Did I miss something and Higgs field is no longer the savior of Inflation?

    1. Re:Inflation caused by Higgs field? by judmarc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Bit more complicated than that -

      Inflation could have been caused by a phase change in the Higgs field, but this is a necessary-not-sufficient part of the explanation for the observed features of the universe. Then one also has to find a reason for the phase change and why it happened to have the precise characteristics needed (there's some fine tuning of parameters required in order for what we see today to pop out the other end of this process).

      Then there's of course the root question of whether the Higgs field itself exists, though a lot of the Standard Model would have to be junked in order for it not to exist.

  3. Here is one more for the list by tcoady · · Score: 1, Interesting

    http://www.antilli.com/ - can anyone make sense of this?

  4. Slashdot list?!? by zsadiq · · Score: 0, Interesting

    The thought just occured to me, that if Slashdot is gonna be posting all these 'best of the year' type lists... then maybe Slashdot should compile its own 'best of' list?

    --
    Privacy is underrated!
  5. End of year list? by edgr · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Take a look at the date on TFA.
    13 things that do not make sense

    19 March 2005
    NewScientist.com news service
    Michael Brooks
    Doesn't seem so end of year to me.
  6. Placebo effect duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Doctors have known about the placebo effect for decades, and the naloxone result seems to show that the placebo effect is somehow biochemical.

    Well no duh. Did they think it was dancing angels? We only use morphine as a pain reliever because it is a analogue of some naturally occuring molecules in the human body. And the placebo effect also tells us that there is some messaging between the brain and body and that thinking about stuff can effect that messaging. We may not know much of the details, but these articles the keep feigning ignorance of the placebo effect borders on pseudo science.

  7. This whole article reminds me of Sagan's book by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Demon Haunted World"(well, techincally "Science as a Candle in the Darkness") which I am currently slogging through. He discusses a lot of there same "phenomenon" such as placebos and this, my personal favorite:
    IT WAS 37 seconds long and came from outer space. On 15 August 1977 it caused astronomer Jerry Ehman, then of Ohio State University in Columbus, to scrawl "Wow!" on the printout from Big Ear, Ohio State's radio telescope in Delaware. And 28 years later no one knows what created the signal. "I am still waiting for a definitive explanation that makes sense," Ehman says

    Actually, earlier than even the "WoW" signal(sometime in the 60s IIRC) a bunch of Soviet scientists convened a conference to discuss how they swore they found intelligent life because they found a long, continuous perfect sine wave somewhere out in space. Turns out it was a quasar, a hithero unkown phenomena, but the Soviets made laughing stocks out of themselves by assuming first it was aliens instead of a more mundane explanation...

  8. Re:Dear New Scientist... by Artifakt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Inflation actually solves several problems, at the expense of predicting an infinite number of unobservable phenomina (whole parallel universes with differing physical laws). By Occam's Razor, absolutely any alternate explanation to inflation is to be preferred - I can claim the Flying Spagetti Monster did it, right after He invented time travel, assisted by exactly 144,000 seraphim, whose names, in order of mightyness, start with Larry, Moe, and Curley Sue, and I've still proposed a theory that generates fewer unprovable hypothesi than an infinite number of undetectable "alternate' universes.
            That's just for Guth's original work. Hawking tried to give some more backing to it, and had to postulate an unobservable second time dimension, an unobservable imaginary property to this second time axis, and as it turned out a way to apply a whole new form of math that involved rotation, ala trigonometry, without the negative quadrents existing to rotate through (since he dropped the negative half of the regular time axis fifty pages back). Even the totally mind boggleing concept of rotating vectors through dimensions that he had already rejected as non-existant didn't actually get rid of the infinite number of unobservable predictions problem, as Hawking finally acknowledged. Hawking was roundly criticized for treating imaginary in the mathematical sense as meaning imaginary in the common sense, and has since admitted he made both that and a few other mistakes in the papers behind "A Brief History of Time". If you know of someone who has done a better job, by all means, give a link, but all the ones I've seen seem to make the untestable predictions problem worse, not better.
            That's precisely what's wild about inflation - it makes an infinite number of untestable predictions, and is still considered science for the testable ones. It does explain a few things very well (like homogeneity), so it's probably on the right track somewhere, but the real thory we need (IMNSHO) is going to explain why the universe looks superficially like the classic Big Bang model, deal with the ways the very early universe deviates from that classical model, fully (and not partially or selectively)include QM in the first few femtoseconds, and either prove that some physical constants are non-random, or show that they don't, at the least, have to be random and so don't have to spin off so many untestable predictions.

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  9. #2 by manavendra · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hmm, inflation eh? Here's another wild idea - What if during the big-bang the energy released was so much that it actually *increased* the speed of light itself, till it finally slowed down and settled..? :-)

    --
    http://efil.blogspot.com/
  10. Cosmic Rays by Detritus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd like to see someone explain the process that created a cosmic ray (reference) with energy (51 Joules) comparable to a brick being dropped on your foot.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  11. Re: Ooo, clever by yndrd1984 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Even at Wal-Mart, most people don't make minimum wage.

    Almost every person that make minimum wage now will make more in the future (teenagers) or has made more in the past (retirees).

    The poverty level is relative. The poverty level in the US would be solidly middle class in other places.

    The minimum wage puts people out of work, as supply and demand would suggest (labor costs go up, so businesses use less labor). Is it better to be poor or unemployed?

  12. Re: Uniform temperature by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > > Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so there is no way heat radiation could have travelled between the two horizons to even out the hot and cold spots created in the big bang and leave the thermal equilibrium we see now.

    > I don't get this. Maybe a Physics geek can clue me in. Why would we expect to see different temperatures? If the big bang exploded in a completely uniform way, I would expect the "shrapnel" to behave in a completely uniform way in every direction. What exactly would cause one direction to be hotter than another direction?

    AIUI, the distribution of the CMB radiation is a reflection - literally - of the distribution of matter in the universe when things cooled down enough for the universe at large to be transparent to radiation.

    If the universe had been perfectly isotropic at that time, then the radiation would in fact be isotropic as well. But then we'd have trouble explaining the clumpy distribution of matter. But matter is clumpy, and the CMB ratiation is anisotropic, so we feel safe in concluding that the initial universe was not.

    Then the question becomes, why is it exactly this anisotropic. Apparently our best model of the big bang says that the CMB should be somewhat more anisotropic than it is, and inflation solves the problem neatly.

    When I first heard about it I thought it reeked of epicycles (for fitting observations to an arbitrary theory), but from what I've read the inflation hypothesis explains a lot more stuff than just the CMB radiation anisotropy, so it's in good graces with most of the cosmology community.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  13. Re:Oh dearie, dearie me. by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Please go away until you actually learn to form coherent sentences.

    However, this 'And there has to be special circumstances', is exactly the kind of crap psychics got away with for fifty years 100 years ago.

    If homeopathy works, it is a medicine. Medicines have demonstratable effects on illnesses and the body. If a homeopathic medicine made from X has an effect on condition Y, it should repeatably have that effect.

    And, more to the point, there is no way to do a double-blind test when homeopathy 'doctors' refuse to accept others can do exactly what they are doing and end up with the same 'medicine', so patients can either be given that medicine or given water, and watched.

    Or, hell, just make a big batch of it and hand it over to a hospital for the study.

    And the reason they act like this is because they know that if that were to happen, it would be demonstrated that giving people pure water and telling them it's a homeopathic remedy produces exactly the same effect as giving them the homeopathic remedy.

    Which isn't the least bit surprising, because homeopathic remedies are pure water. But, hey, there are places willing to do the studies, and in fact have done the studies.

    And, no, the study in the article doesn't prove anything. A single study with a weird result isn't proof of anything. There have been 'guess which way the coin flip will go' studies where a person got 65% of them right, but that doesn't prove anything, because other studies have been unable to replicate them.

    Of course, now that a study has gone their way, they'll be even less likely to help with research that will prove homeopathy to be a big bag of crap.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?