Re: [Marxism] International Socialist Review on Pharmaceutical

[Jeff <meisner@xxxxxxxxx>]

At 13:35 26/04/09 -0400, you wrote:
>
>On Apr 26, 2009, at 12:18 PM, Jeff wrote:
>
>> ...
>> By casually referring to "statistical rigamarole", it appears you  
>> have no
>> idea how science is done. Almost every scientific result RELIES on
>> statistics, an essential part of scientific methodology.
>
>When, by this weird conception of science, was the first time--day,  
>month, year, please--
>when human beings first did anything that Jeff would recognize as  
>"science?"

It's almost not worth answering such a question but since you caught me at
the keyboard and not in a good mood, I'll bite the bait. No, I do not know
the very first time, but what you are surely getting at is whether there
was science before the development of probability and statistics (a branch
of math). Of course the answer is yes, and I'll just mention one instance
about 300 years ago (before statistics) but surely not the very first use
of "science."

So this refers back to the example in my last email with respect to a well
known scientific conclusion: Newton's recognition of gravitation pulling
objects toward the center of the earth. As we know from folklore, an apple
fell on Isaac Newton's head, which had been falling DOWN in the direction
of the center of the earth. If Newton had drawn a conclusion from that
particular apple, his conclusions would not have been "science." Instead he
thought "Look, ALL apples fall down, never up, for I have seen many. If the
direction of apples falling were random then I surely would have seen some
falling UP. Also I notice that most other things fall down every time they
are released, and I have seen this repeatedly and consistently. Therefore I
conclude, with a great deal of confidence (so much that I would bet lots of
money on it without fear), that there is a law causing objects normally to
fall toward the center of the earth."

Since Newton was no dimwit, he did the statistical analysis I just
described in a split second. I only wrote it out for the sake of Shane who
questions whether statistical analysis was involved. Yes it was, but not
using formal statistics, alright?

Also, there is a lot more to the scientific method than using statistics,
which I didn't address. And of course science was done in prehistory. But
it is greatly distinguished from religion and superstition. For instance,
Mary followed a friend's advice and drank some lemon juice which cured her
infection. After that, whenever she had an infection she drank lemon juice
and the infection (sooner or later) got better. Except for the very last
time when it killed her. 

My whole point was that many/most "alternative medicine" falls in the later
category, and Greg or anyone else cannot tell me that they are
"scientifically proven" without at least being able to cite statistics (and
a repeatable experiment) which would yield a scientific conclusion. I was
able to do that in my last email, in which I showed how Isaac Newton's
conclusion could be verified statistically by dropping 8 apples. Have I not
made my point?

- Jeff


>
>Shane Mage
>
>> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
>> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
>> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>>
>> Herakleitos of Ephesos
>
>________________________________________________
>YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
>Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Set your options at:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/meisner%40xs4all.nl
>
>

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu