A rant : Magic (possibly Spirituality to)

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

And I'm saying it again, correlation and causation are NOT interchangeable. You see a pattern, you investigate that pattern fully, and when all the available evidence is gathered, you make an inference based on your evidence, which is judged in both consistency and congruence. That inference is a hypothesis, which is either falsified or corroborated by further evidence.

You do NOT start with a process (causation) and try to apply the pattern (correlation) to it. These are not mutable, or interchangable. Those who think so are muddle brained, bad scientists with bad science, and any true understanding of reality that comes out of such things is merely a fluke.

I don't think they're interchangeable... I said they were mutable (changable). The definition of 'cause' depends on the perception of the individual. The simple view identifies a single CAUSE and ties it to a single EFFECT. However, 'cause' may be more correctly perceived as 'causes' and 'effect' as 'effects'.  Pattern Recognition is a very useful way to help identify these 'causes' and 'effects' which may stretch well beyond the singular cause and effect identified first.

I am in no way saying that pattern recognition = causation recognition. Sorry if I gave that impression.

[singer]

"Magic" is wish fulfillment fantasy.  It is not part of physics or any other science, it is the nemesis of the proper scientific method.  It is indistinguishable from creationism or "intelligent design", on a logical level.  It is monkeys retreating to caves to beat on a hollow log in an attempt to make the complexities of the universe go away.

Not entirely.  And this is where it get's interesting for me.

Shaman bakes a muffin and magically draws illness from his patient into the muffin, then eats the muffin thereby devouring the illness.  Patient experiences 'spontaneous remission' and walks away healthy.

20th Century physician inserts all sorts of jargon (including the term "ideopathic") to explain the result.
Shaman inserts all sorts of jargon (possibly including "abracadabra") to explain the result.

20th Century physician tries to debunk shaman's methods with all sorts of double-blind tests involving the examination of the ingredients of non-magical muffins proving only that too much examination of data may reduce efficacy of patient belief... and mistakenly reports that the correlation of data laden test failure points to the causal failure of magical muffin.

Shaman confronts unreliability and event failure with a reference to "higher power" or "stronger mojo" or "bad juju"

The monkeys also retreat to laboratories to beat on hollow logs hoping they will yield some way to reliably make the complexities of the universe go away.  Many of the complexities of the universe DO go away.  Many more complexities are revealed.

"Proper scientific method" has at one time or another yielded the fact that the earth is flat, salt causes high blood pressure, spraying DDT will make the neighborhood safer for our children to play in, and faster than sound speed is impossible.

So, I'm not likely to fall down and wet my pants just because "proper scientific method" was somewhere in the mix. Today's "fact" becomes tomorrow's "superstition" with alarming frequency  (Alvin Toffler said it would be like this...)  Does this mean I reject today's facts?  No.  I am just one person and I don't have the time to research everything.  I have to trust researchers to a great degree.  But, I stop trusting them when I believe their own fear of uncovering a complexity that tends to point toward something they cannot allow to be possible without undermining their entire understanding of the foundation of the universe eroding has caused them to abandon what might be an interesting area of research in order to serve their own bias.  Just as I don't trust the  'energy worker' who cannot point to a pattern of success with some sort of commensurate causal basis.  I find that I trust the findings of published researchers far more than the anecdotal evidence of energy workers, but I do not dismiss anecdotal evidence out of hand.  Because it may reveal significance to a pattern.

And if I am the patient with the spontaneous remission due to ideopathic cause?  I'm gonna be happy with the damn muffin and get on with my life.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And I'm saying it again, correlation and causation are NOT interchangeable. You see a pattern, you investigate that pattern fully, and when all the available evidence is gathered, you make an inference based on your evidence, which is judged in both consistency and congruence. That inference is a hypothesis, which is either falsified or corroborated by further evidence.

You do NOT start with a process (causation) and try to apply the pattern (correlation) to it. These are not mutable, or interchangable. Those who think so are muddle brained, bad scientists with bad science, and any true understanding of reality that comes out of such things is merely a fluke.

R-Prime in effect.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

"Magic" is wish fulfillment fantasy.  It is not part of physics or any other science, it is the nemesis of the proper scientific method.  It is indistinguishable from creationism or "intelligent design", on a logical level.  It is monkeys retreating to caves to beat on a hollow log in an attempt to make the complexities of the universe go away.

Not entirely.  And this is where it get's interesting for me.

Shaman bakes a muffin and magically draws illness from his patient into the muffin, then eats the muffin thereby devouring the illness.  Patient experiences 'spontaneous remission' and walks away healthy.

20th Century physician inserts all sorts of jargon (including the term "ideopathic") to explain the result.
Shaman inserts all sorts of jargon (possibly including "abracadabra") to explain the result.

20th Century physician tries to debunk shaman's methods with all sorts of double-blind tests involving the examination of the ingredients of non-magical muffins proving only that too much examination of data may reduce efficacy of patient belief... and mistakenly reports that the correlation of data laden test failure points to the causal failure of magical muffin.

Shaman confronts unreliability and event failure with a reference to "higher power" or "stronger mojo" or "bad juju"

The monkeys also retreat to laboratories to beat on hollow logs hoping they will yield some way to reliably make the complexities of the universe go away.  Many of the complexities of the universe DO go away.  Many more complexities are revealed.

"Proper scientific method" has at one time or another yielded the fact that the earth is flat, salt causes high blood pressure, spraying DDT will make the neighborhood safer for our children to play in, and faster than sound speed is impossible.

So, I'm not likely to fall down and wet my pants just because "proper scientific method" was somewhere in the mix. Today's "fact" becomes tomorrow's "superstition" with alarming frequency  (Alvin Toffler said it would be like this...)  Does this mean I reject today's facts?  No.  I am just one person and I don't have the time to research everything.  I have to trust researchers to a great degree.  But, I stop trusting them when I believe their own fear of uncovering a complexity that tends to point toward something they cannot allow to be possible without undermining their entire understanding of the foundation of the universe eroding has caused them to abandon what might be an interesting area of research in order to serve their own bias.  Just as I don't trust the  'energy worker' who cannot point to a pattern of success with some sort of commensurate causal basis.  I find that I trust the findings of published researchers far more than the anecdotal evidence of energy workers, but I do not dismiss anecdotal evidence out of hand.  Because it may reveal significance to a pattern.

And if I am the patient with the spontaneous remission due to ideopathic cause?  I'm gonna be happy with the damn muffin and get on with my life.

I'm going to use Orton Nenslo's Lobster Principle here...for every lobster that grows 200 feet long and attacks cities, there's 1000 that go in the pot.

So you have your magic muffin, or your sigils, or whatever, and one person goes into remission.  How many die a lingering death of cancer or whatever because they didn't seek real treatment?

As Kipling would put it, you can dance around and rattle beads, but when it's all said and done, reality remains.  And the reality is that you are most likely NOT going to go into remission from a magic muffin.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I agree with Roger... Magic Muffins are great, especially if they're made with Kine Bud. But I don't ever expect them to cure my cancer.

[Cain]

"Magic" is wish fulfillment fantasy.  It is not part of physics or any other science, it is the nemesis of the proper scientific method.  It is indistinguishable from creationism or "intelligent design", on a logical level.  It is monkeys retreating to caves to beat on a hollow log in an attempt to make the complexities of the universe go away.

Not entirely.  And this is where it get's interesting for me.

Shaman bakes a muffin and magically draws illness from his patient into the muffin, then eats the muffin thereby devouring the illness.  Patient experiences 'spontaneous remission' and walks away healthy.

20th Century physician inserts all sorts of jargon (including the term "ideopathic") to explain the result.
Shaman inserts all sorts of jargon (possibly including "abracadabra") to explain the result.

20th Century physician tries to debunk shaman's methods with all sorts of double-blind tests involving the examination of the ingredients of non-magical muffins proving only that too much examination of data may reduce efficacy of patient belief... and mistakenly reports that the correlation of data laden test failure points to the causal failure of magical muffin.

Shaman confronts unreliability and event failure with a reference to "higher power" or "stronger mojo" or "bad juju"

The monkeys also retreat to laboratories to beat on hollow logs hoping they will yield some way to reliably make the complexities of the universe go away.  Many of the complexities of the universe DO go away.  Many more complexities are revealed.

"Proper scientific method" has at one time or another yielded the fact that the earth is flat, salt causes high blood pressure, spraying DDT will make the neighborhood safer for our children to play in, and faster than sound speed is impossible.

So, I'm not likely to fall down and wet my pants just because "proper scientific method" was somewhere in the mix. Today's "fact" becomes tomorrow's "superstition" with alarming frequency  (Alvin Toffler said it would be like this...)  Does this mean I reject today's facts?  No.  I am just one person and I don't have the time to research everything.  I have to trust researchers to a great degree.  But, I stop trusting them when I believe their own fear of uncovering a complexity that tends to point toward something they cannot allow to be possible without undermining their entire understanding of the foundation of the universe eroding has caused them to abandon what might be an interesting area of research in order to serve their own bias.  Just as I don't trust the  'energy worker' who cannot point to a pattern of success with some sort of commensurate causal basis.  I find that I trust the findings of published researchers far more than the anecdotal evidence of energy workers, but I do not dismiss anecdotal evidence out of hand.  Because it may reveal significance to a pattern.

And if I am the patient with the spontaneous remission due to ideopathic cause?  I'm gonna be happy with the damn muffin and get on with my life.

[singer]

I'm going to use Orton Nenslo's Lobster Principle here...for every lobster that grows 200 feet long and attacks cities, there's 1000 that go in the pot.

So you have your magic muffin, or your sigils, or whatever, and one person goes into remission.  How many die a lingering death of cancer or whatever because they didn't seek real treatment?

As Kipling would put it, you can dance around and rattle beads, but when it's all said and done, reality remains.  And the reality is that you are most likely NOT going to go into remission from a magic muffin.

Yes... exactly!!!!   (I have never heard the principle, but I gotta say, I love it!).  Of course probability goes into it and weighs heavily on the side of chemotherapy and other 'real treatment' regimens.  But, physicians also know how important it is to share 'belief' with their patients.  "I wouldn't recommend this course of treatment if I didn't believe it was going to work for you, Mrs. Smith" is said not because the doctor is 100 percent certain that he will effect a cure.  He has loads of information about the significantly less than 100 percent probability of any course of treatment he offers.  But, if he isn't afraid of the implications, he will work to show his 'belief' thereby strengthening his patients 'belief' which may do something no one has as yet been able to replicate in a laboratory or reduce to a chemical equation.  He does this because there has been enough anecdotal evidence about 'belief' influencing survival rates, both positively and negatively,  to use the tool even though he has almost no way to explain it's potential, sometimes, not always replicable, efficacy.   He'll bake a muffin if that's what it takes because he is truly unafraid to act past the either/or mind-set.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yes... exactly!!!!   (I have never heard the principle, but I gotta say, I love it!).  Of course probability goes into it and weighs heavily on the side of chemotherapy and other 'real treatment' regimens.  

It isn't probability so much as chemistry.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

He does this because there has been enough anecdotal evidence about 'belief' influencing survival rates,

Rubbish.  Anecdotes are not evidence.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

He does this because there has been enough anecdotal evidence about 'belief' influencing survival rates,

Rubbish.  Anecdotes are not evidence.

Of course they are... they may not be evidence the kind of evidence accepted within scientific models or court cases... but thats only because those systems/models have specific definitions of evidence as it applies to their models.

There was evidence that rocks fell out of the sky in the 1700's. It was all anecdotal and therefore the royal Society called it rubbish and stated that there were no rocks that fell from the sky.

The anecdotes were evidence, but they ignored it.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

He does this because there has been enough anecdotal evidence about 'belief' influencing survival rates,

Rubbish.  Anecdotes are not evidence.

Of course they are...

Okay, I'm done.  If I wanted this level of discussion, I'd go to the John Edwards boards.

[singer]

He does this because there has been enough anecdotal evidence about 'belief' influencing survival rates,

Rubbish.  Anecdotes are not evidence.

No.  But they can indicate patterns.  Exploration of patterns can lead to evidence of causal factors.  Isn't recognition of patterns that lead to evidence that indicates causal factors pretty much the basis of scientific inquiry? (Newton, apple, etc?)

[The Johnny]

He does this because there has been enough anecdotal evidence about 'belief' influencing survival rates,

Rubbish.  Anecdotes are not evidence.

No.  But they can indicate patterns.  Exploration of patterns can lead to evidence of causal factors.  Isn't recognition of patterns that lead to evidence that indicates causal factors pretty much the basis of scientific inquiry? (Newton, apple, etc?)

Pattern "recognition" can mislead you to a law of fives situation too.

[Kai]

He does this because there has been enough anecdotal evidence about 'belief' influencing survival rates,

Rubbish.  Anecdotes are not evidence.

Of course they are... they may not be evidence the kind of evidence accepted within scientific models or court cases... but thats only because those systems/models have specific definitions of evidence as it applies to their models.

There was evidence that rocks fell out of the sky in the 1700's. It was all anecdotal and therefore the royal Society called it rubbish and stated that there were no rocks that fell from the sky.

The anecdotes were evidence, but they ignored it.

Anecdotes are crap. If anecdotes were still considered as good as physical evidence we'd still be back in the middle ages.

The royal society was misguided. They should have said, "There is currently no physical evidence to suggest rocks falling from the sky, but were we to be presented with  good evidence, such a claim would be acceptable." This was all before the philosophy of science really got going, so I'd go easy on them for that.

[singer]

Anecdotes are crap. If anecdotes were still considered as good as physical evidence we'd still be back in the middle ages.

I don't see any evidence in this thread that anyone suggested that anecdotal evidence was the equivalent of physical evidence.