 |
My friend Christian is married to my other friend Maria, who is a Skepchick. Christian just had his thyroid removed, and Maria, whom I love with all my heart, wrote a fantastic personal piece about how science has saved her husband.
The essay has some NSFW language in it, and I can’t blame her: if some garbage pseudoscience were on TV while I sat with my spouse who was recovering from a life-saving procedure made possible by centuries of disparate scientific achievement, I’d want to reach through the TV and throttle all the liars who advertise there too.
Maria, you done good. You too, Christian.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:18 am
Agreed. Read it on the weekend. Great post and well done to all!
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:37 am
Agreed. I felt the same when I had a laparoscopic appendectomy rather than having them slice me open, reducing my recovery time by weeks. And afterward, when I developed an infection, IV antibiotics saved my life.
The best part? This was completely routine.
The fact that I had an inflamed appendix was business as usual to the surgeons. The fact that I later developed an infection was a non-worrisome complication because we have antibiotics that are well-capable of fighting it off.
But to think about the alternative: If I had developed an infection and we didn’t have antibiotics, I would have died. If I had burst my appendix because we had no tools to discover the problem and no tools to fix it, I would have died. I would have died of something that, today, is considered a little over a minor inconvenience. And ignorant people taken in by these charlatans can very well die of the same thing if they are convinced that this or that tincture can cure their appendicitis instead. Vultures.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:49 am
Has Maria no faith? Obviously her husband’s recovery has nothing to do with science and is simply due to his being a good Christian.
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:06 am
One of Maria’s commenters mentioned another great medical advance – anaesthesia.
Can you imagine a procedure, no matter how minor, without anesthetic? Waking up none the worse for wear is simply fantastic.
In movies you see “operations” without anesthetic where the patient will pass out from the pain. Is anybody aware of this happening in real life? I had a couple of occasions in my life where I was wishing it would happen. But no, I felt every darned thing. Didn’t even come close to blacking out. I don’t know anybody who has.
All the best to Christian too.
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:08 am
*blush*
Phil loves me
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:08 am
I’m as big a proponent of science as you’ll find; but I think it’s mistaken to classify anyone who disagrees as a total arse. Science is made stronger by dissent, not by browbeating those who just don’t understand. What’s important is that, when she took her hubby to the hospital, they used successful methods. The doctors there knew how to get results. Scams being hawked on TV are beside the point.
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:08 am
Shane – that was actually Christian himself who mentioned anaesthesia
Romeo – I see what you did there.
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:46 am
Bendy Straws for the WIN!
I do worry about that scientists could get jaded by the crap out there and begin to ignore ANY (even legitimate) dissent. Science is built of questioning assumptions and challenging theories, but only in a legitimate way. I just hope the community doesn’t get so jaded that they ignore any and all dissent.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:22 am
Scams will always be there, but the ones where we know better are certainly both more annoying and possible to suppress more.
Also, they are more commercial and less enticing than what they used to be – no more “touch this unicorn horn and its magic will cure any ills” but instead “drink this diluted water and our homeopathic drug will cure any ills”. Where’s the fair fairies and tall tales?
Btw, there is another rather important reason to fight pseudotreatments in particular. AFAIK there is still a world mass market for organic implements for “treatments”, everything from ground fossils over rhino horns to rare herbs; stimulating poaching, animal cruelty and endangering unique resources.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:25 am
I used to know her, before she left the industry and went into nursing.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:40 am
I for one is certainly grateful for the advances in medical science.
As a child some rouge cells in my right middle ear began to produce bone dissolving enzymes. Some of the tiny bones that make up the vibration transfer chain was damaged and I was as good as deaf on that ear. Fortunately a new technique was in development at that time and my parents agreed to let the surgeons try that procedure on me.
To get access to the middle ear they lay a cut behind the ear from top to bottom and kinda opened it forward like a door on a hinge. Then they chiselled (their words) away the skull bone around the ear opening to reach the middle ear. They removed the damaged tissue and reconstructed the bones by cutting pieces of my skull into the right shapes and put them in place.
Today I got almost normal hearing, maybe even better than some people at the same age, this after all, is the era of the iPod.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:46 am
I would seriously consider “psychic surgeons” as a-holes. I had my appendix removed when I was a kid. It had burst by the time I got to the hospital. Without real surgeons and the fruits of science at the time (late-70s), I’d have been dead. Had I been treated by a “psychic surgeon” (these were a big phenomenon at the time), I’d have been dead.
Of course there’s always room for dissent in the scientific community. Some scientists right now see Dark Energy as a real thing but an artifact in a flawed theory (for which those particular scientists need further data to either bolster or disprove their theory). Scientists who deal with the Tree of Life are debating with species go with which branch. There is even emerging evidence that quantum mechanics plays a significant, yet previously unthought, role in life itself.
Ideas get shaken, ideas get stirred.
But pseudoscientists are still a-holes because they’re whiney little b*tches because, although they don’t bother to do proper research and all, they continually cry about not being placed into the legitimate science realm. (Of course, proper research tends to undermine their pet “theories,” so pitching a fit is the best that they can do to try to win a spot in the scientific communities.) Fact is, scientists in the scientific community don’t consider the process of peer review so much as a filter but rather a meat grinder. If you can’t get past this stage, then either poke your own holes then shore them up with real science (i.e., data, evidence, hypothesis, etc.,) and try, try again; or just throw in the towel and admit you pseudoscientific “theory” was wrong to begin with.
Sadly, that doesn’t happen and we continue to get the next documentary on how a “controversial theory” is either being ignored by science or is getting suppressed. My only question would be: How do you suppress a theory that explains nothing, or has not a bit of logic to hold it together?
@Torbjörn Larsson, OM Says
“touch this unicorn horn and its magic will cure any ills”but instead “drink this diluted water and our homeopathic drug will cure any ills”. Where’s the fair fairies and tall tales?
Frankly, my friend, I don’t see a difference. Homeopathy seems just real as unicorns. (Somehow I think that comment will send screeches from, you guessed it, unicorn believers.)
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:58 am
There is sound science on how proper nutrition and especially certain foods boost your immune system to very high levels and some that remove toxins in significant amount in your body.
If you do those two 100%, your system might just be strong enough to fight off diseases that many others cannot.
Is it not medical science that discovered that stress reduces the immune system more than anything else? Is it not their studies that show 70+% of diseases are stress related?
Science is amazing (your friend is still alive because of it!), but sometimes mother nature has the answer right in front of us.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:14 am
Feel free to download, rehost & use this image as you see fit: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v660/w_nightshade/forums/bendystraws_ftw.jpg
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:15 am
Terminally ill cancer patients who lean heavily on religion to deal with their disease are about three times more likely than others in their shoes to receive aggressive, intensive life-prolonging treatments during their final days, according to this study released last week: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/301/11/1140
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Peter F:
That’s just because they’re afraid if they die, they will have to pay the Piper so it makes sense to delay that payment as long as possible.
Which links to this joke:
“Dad! How come grandpa keeps reading the bible all day?”
“AH Son, he’s just cramming for his final exams,,,”
I’ll note: Cramming for finals did little to raise MY grades but paying attention throughout the class did result in better grades. Maybe religious types should remember that,,,
GAry 7
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:44 pm
@TEL: I don’t see Maria as condemning any thinking people; she’s against all those imbeciles who peddle their own worthless garbage and claim that it is better than what is established. Disagreement is only valid if you have alternatives which are demonstrably correct and in the case of two competing ideas, the simpler one wins unless there are obvious limitations which are addressed by the more complex explanation. Offering BS ‘alternatives’ which are provably ineffective or wrong is just criminal.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:15 pm
I went to college with Christian so I’ve known him over half my life and I have many times wanted to rip out his throat myself:)
Seriously, I’m all about science and research. Without it my husband would either be dead or suffer from permanent sever brain damage from a car accident 2 years ago. Not only did he survive, but he has almost fully recovered from the brain injury. I had people tell me all kinds of things about how to help his brain. Mostly stupid things. I’ve even had someone tell me to put a small piece of garlic in my daughter’s ear to get rid of an ear ache. I did not do this since I’m pretty sure there are no vampires in her ears.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
MadScientist:
You’re not quite correct: disagreement, in a free society, is always legitimate, even when you’re wrong. Contrary to myth, science per se isn’t all about making sure that everyone in society knows the correct answers. Science is something done by scientists; but not everyone is a scientist. I wouldn’t want to live in a civilization in which everyone has the same answers to the same questions.
I personally have gotten intellectually stronger precisely because of the abundance of BS in open discourse. By having to deal with other people’s nonsense, I have been steered to a more robust view of myself and the world than I surely would if I’d never been challenged by the sheer spectacle of it all.
Wishing for a world where everyone either is a scientist or trusts implicitly those who are is like Christians & Muslims waiting for their fantasy worlds in which their inerrant worldviews have become the one law of the land. But you know the old adage, “Be careful what you wish for…” Such homogenous civilizations would be as good as dead. The scientific community cannot afford to have a world where everyone is scientific. The scientists of the world are made stronger by others’ BS.
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Ah, Lisa… some of those nights in college when trying to teach you physics, I would have taken a good throat out-ripping
T.E.L., I think I know what you’re saying. And I agree that disagreement is important in keeping science moving forward. But I think that type of disagreement is different from what Maria was talking about.
Looking at a big pile of evidence and observations and reaching different conclusions is not what the faith healers, homeopaths, and Kevin Trudeaus out there are doing. They are preying on people’s ignorance about (and fear of) intimidating medical procedures. They are well aware that what they are pushing is a pile of crap, but are banking on their prey not doing their homework.
The scientific community can survive without wasting resources undoing what Jenny McCarthy has wrought. Unfortunately, the scientific community is the only group that can undo it.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:47 pm
TheManVersion Said:
“Unfortunately, the scientific community is the only group that can undo it.”
Do you have a robust scientific study to support this? Take care that you don’t throw out the science itself when claiming to be scientific. How scientific is it to claim to be the guardian of the one true way? Science isn’t always about being in possession of correct answers. It’s also not about saving everyone in society from themselves. As Feynman said, “Physics is like sex. Sure, it gives some practical results, but that’s not why we do it.” Scientists think scientifically because that’s what makes sense to them. They are question-askers and it fits their criteria as the box of tools to do the job of pursuing answers. Science is discipline. It is definitely not a database of correct knowledge, and it’s not a program of social reform and justice. Such things can come from thinking scientifically as corollaries, but that’s the fruit of science, not the roots.
My two dogs enjoy the fruits of science every day of their lives. Lotsa luck getting them to understand where it all came from. Humans can be the same way. Just because someone is of the lineage we call “homo sapiens” doesn’t mean they’re equipped to understand complex thought. Some are, some aren’t. There’s a certain amount of unpredictable good fortune involved in getting from a state of petty self-centered ignorance (birth) to one of enlightenment. If we knew how to make everyone meaningfully enlightened, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
March 24th, 2009 at 7:02 am
T.E.L. Says:
“Such homogenous civilizations would be as good as dead. The scientific community cannot afford to have a world where everyone is scientific. The scientists of the world are made stronger by others’ BS.”
Do you have a robust scientific study to support this?
March 24th, 2009 at 11:11 am
A. Gradstudent Said:
“Do you have a robust scientific study to support this?”
No. See what I mean? The gist of my argument stands.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Yes, skepticism is a complement (outside of science).
Science or real persons only have time for so much, so we won’t have knowledge around all matters human. Instead we will have to satisfy ourselves with learning about what happens, and use that learning to our best ability.
But I also don’t think science is knowledge without criticism or groups with the same opinion on facts, it is plenty opinionated and criticized from within as it must be.
Oh, Tempora! Oh, Mores! Where have all the flowers gone?
But FWIW, I agree on the important stuff.