SGU Episode 505: Difference between revisions
(→Clinical Science (14:25): make link text more sensible) |
(→Clinical Science (14:25): fix link) |
||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
=== Clinical Science <small>(14:25)</small> === | === Clinical Science <small>(14:25)</small> === | ||
* [ | * [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/basic-science-should-inform-clinical-science/ Basic Science Should Inform Clinical Science] | ||
S: Alright, let's move on, the next item I want to talk about, this is an interesting one, this is about the essence of the disagreement about the nature of medical research between science based medicine and alternative medicine proponents. If you recall, about six months or so, David Gorski and I had an article published where we essentially argued that doing clinical research on therapies that are essentially magic, they're so impossible that you might as well think of them as magic, is a waste of resources. | S: Alright, let's move on, the next item I want to talk about, this is an interesting one, this is about the essence of the disagreement about the nature of medical research between science based medicine and alternative medicine proponents. If you recall, about six months or so, David Gorski and I had an article published where we essentially argued that doing clinical research on therapies that are essentially magic, they're so impossible that you might as well think of them as magic, is a waste of resources. | ||
Revision as of 18:00, 18 March 2015
|
This episode needs: transcription, time stamps, formatting, links, 'Today I Learned' list, categories, segment redirects. Please help out by contributing! |
How to Contribute |
| SGU Episode 505 |
|---|
| March 14th 2015 |
 |
| (brief caption for the episode icon) |
| Skeptical Rogues |
| S: Steven Novella |
B: Bob Novella |
J: Jay Novella |
E: Evan Bernstein |
| Guests |
K: Kevin Folta |
M: Marc Randazza |
| Quote of the Week |
All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings... We must run roughshod over all these ancient puerilities, overturn the barriers that reason never erected, give back to the arts and sciences the liberty that is so precious to them. |
| Links |
| Download Podcast |
| Show Notes |
| Forum Discussion |
Introduction
You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.
Forgotten Superheroes of Science (5:47)
- Emmy Noether: Groundbreaking mathematician made significant contributions to Algebra and Theoretical Physics
News Items
Bright Spots on Ceres (9:37)
Clinical Science (14:25)
S: Alright, let's move on, the next item I want to talk about, this is an interesting one, this is about the essence of the disagreement about the nature of medical research between science based medicine and alternative medicine proponents. If you recall, about six months or so, David Gorski and I had an article published where we essentially argued that doing clinical research on therapies that are essentially magic, they're so impossible that you might as well think of them as magic, is a waste of resources.
E: How controversial.
S: Yeah, right, exactly. But obviously the alternative medicine proponents were not happy with our opinion because everything they do is essentially magic. If you accept the fact that you shouldn't research things like homoeopathy, the homoeopaths aren't going to like that. So there was a lot of push-back, a lot of criticism of our article, all nonsense, nothing that we hadn't heard before. Again, in my opinion, the alternative medicine community is intellectually bankrupt, they have nothing new or interesting to say, their ideas have been completely demolished long ago, they're on a par with the creationists, really. They're just recycling the same logical fallacies over and over again. As evidence for that, a recent article was published by Sunita Vohra and Heather Boon in an alternative medicine journal, once again criticising David Gorski's article, David Gorski's and my article, although they misspelled his name Gorki. Gorki and Novella. (laughs) David hates that.
E: Nice (laughs).
J: It's awesome, right?
S: In which they recycle the same tired, old arguments. But here it is. I just wanted to summarise, to use this as an opportunity to summaries the Science Based Medicine opinion and what they're saying. So fist they say that essentially you shouldn't use prior plausibility to determine what ideas in science should be researched.
B: Oh god.
E: How convenient.
B: Seriously?
J: What?
S: Essentially, their agument, this is their argument, this is their actual logical argument, although they're not as pithy as this, but it boils down to: we don't know everything, therefore we should behave as if we know nothing. That's their argument. Their argument is: we don't know everything. And then they erect a bunch of straw men about what our position is.
B: Logical fallacy.
S: Yeah, our position is not that we know everything. And they also, interestingly, flip one of our arguemnts, which again, they're not even following the basic logic of our argument. We would say that basic science, if a treatment looks promising from a basic science point of view, you still need to do high quality clinical studies because just looking promising in the test tube isn't enough and doesn't really predict what's going to work clinically, you still have to do the clinical research. They take from that the reverse argument that things which look impossible at the basic science level still may work.
E: Oh my gosh.
S: But you can't do that, I mean that doesn't make any sense.
E: So kabooki dances and voodoo are just as plausible as anything else out there.
S: Yeah, exactly. Yeah, why not spend money studying voodoo. Yeah, exactly. Which, homoeopathy is on that level, it's magic, it's complete magic. They actually pull the Galileo gambit, they mention Galileo by name.
E: Of course.
J: Oh, not again.
E: That old chestnut.
S: Yeah. So, that's number one, prior plausibility, scientific plausibility is right out, that's just bias and so we should act as if we know nothing, as if everything is a brand new question, it's a new day. Number two, and this is really, think about the combination of these two things. Their second big point is, it's like yeah, but we get, because our argument is, it's a waste of resources, we have limited research resources, we can't do definitive efficacy trials of every crank idea, we have to pick and choose which ones are likely to work out, you know?
E: Right, limited resources, hello?
S: So here's their solution.
J: Uh, oh.
S: You don't waste resources doing large, definitive efficacy trials, you could do smaller trials like n of 1 trials. N of 1. That's one person. Or you could do pragmatic studies. Pragmatic studies are designed for comparing the real world application of proven therapies, they're not placebo controlled, they're not efficacy trials. So get this: they want to simultaneously throw out prior plausibility and appeal to the weakest form of clinical evidence. So they want to support their treatments with low-grade clinical evidence without any appeal to scientific plausibility. That's their solution.
B: Well that's the only chance they have.
S: Of course.
B: Right?
J: Well they could change their freaking minds.
S: Yeah, or they could respond to the actual evidence. What we're saying is, you know. The other thing is, it's not as if these things haven't been studied, like for example, there was just yet another review of homoeopathy which I wrote about on science based medicine today.
19:45
Gravity Lensing (24:49)
Edison’s Plans to Record the Dead (31:14)
Who's That Noisy (36:17)
- Answer to last week:
Interview with Kevin Folta (40:23)
Interview with Marc Randazza (57:07)
Science or Fiction (1:06:27)
Item #1: A new analysis finds that the Milky Way is 50% larger than previous estimates, and has a rippled or corrugated shape. Item #2: Recent estimates indicate that the Milky Way contains more stars than the rest of the local group combined. Item #3: Astronomers have discovered nine new dwarf galaxies orbiting the Milky Way.
Skeptical Quote of the Week (1:22:08)
'All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings... We must run roughshod over all these ancient puerilities, overturn the barriers that reason never erected, give back to the arts and sciences the liberty that is so precious to them.' - Denis Diderot
Announcements (1:23:28)
- NECSS: www.necss.org
- TAM13: http://www.amazingmeeting.com/July 16-19, Tropicana, Las Vegas
- Podcast Awards: http://www.podcastawards.com/ Vote once per day per category until March 24th
- Occ the Skeptical Caveman: Episodes 1-2 now up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUca2-VFk6k
S: The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe is produced by SGU Productions, dedicated to promoting science and critical thinking. For more information on this and other episodes, please visit our website at theskepticsguide.org, where you will find the show notes as well as links to our blogs, videos, online forum, and other content. You can send us feedback or questions to info@theskepticsguide.org. Also, please consider supporting the SGU by visiting the store page on our website, where you will find merchandise, premium content, and subscription information. Our listeners are what make SGU possible.
References
|
|
|