+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 125
  1. #31
    lambjam's Avatar
    lambjam is offline Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    7,177
    Thanks
    2,062
    Thanked
    4,956
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Oi, @Atropos.. Clear your inbox!

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to lambjam For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (28-10-2013),beebs  (28-10-2013)

  3. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,848
    Thanks
    6,201
    Thanked
    16,895
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    I don't think science is absolute, methods are always evolving. I do however, place far more faith in peer reviewed science than stuff like homeopathy, or the anti vax stuff, which of course has no scientific basis at all.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to delirium For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (28-10-2013),Busy-Bee  (28-10-2013),risfaerie  (29-10-2013)

  5. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    273
    Thanks
    80
    Thanked
    204
    Reviews
    0
    I think Karl Popper sums things up for me as a scientist, "Our aim as scientists is objective truth, more truth, more interesting truth, more intelligible truth. We cannot reasonably aim at certainty."

    Of course scientists are not infallible, we are mere humans after all beset with all the faults and failings that go along the condition.

    Do I believe every piece of "scientific" research published...NO, do I believe in science...YES, WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

  6. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Euphrosyne For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (28-10-2013),delirium  (28-10-2013),lambjam  (28-10-2013),MrJones&Me  (28-10-2013),Witwicky  (29-10-2013)

  7. #34
    lambjam's Avatar
    lambjam is offline Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    7,177
    Thanks
    2,062
    Thanked
    4,956
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    I've been following along OP and considering how to answer your question.

    Facts and truth exist. Whether we discover them, whether we believe in them, whether we choose to believe something else... These facts and truths about ourselves and our world exist regardless.

    The question is then, what method do I most trust to uncover these facts? And to my mind, modern scientific methods are by far the most robust of any. No they're not fail safe, yes conclusions change as more information becomes available. But as a method designed for discovering truth, science allows for this. And leaves every other method wanting.

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to lambjam For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (28-10-2013),Busy-Bee  (28-10-2013),Renn  (29-10-2013)

  9. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    387
    Thanks
    182
    Thanked
    376
    Reviews
    0
    So is anyone going to address the paper that Benji linked to? It is a study in a peer reviewed journal showing a statistically significant impact of homeopathic treatment. Do we now believe that particular piece of science? It passes all the test; it's peer reviewed, has statistically significant results and of course, the authors of the paper know a lot more about the topic than most of us.

  10. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,848
    Thanks
    6,201
    Thanked
    16,895
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg2 View Post
    So is anyone going to address the paper that Benji linked to? It is a study in a peer reviewed journal showing a statistically significant impact of homeopathic treatment. Do we now believe that particular piece of science? It passes all the test; it's peer reviewed, has statistically significant results and of course, the authors of the paper know a lot more about the topic than most of us.
    The cohort was 53 people. That's a tiny sample size which IMHO makes it next to meaningless. Just from a very quick scan it doesn't look peer reviewed. Just several researchers.

    No one has said science is perfect or fool proof and this is an example....

  11. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to delirium For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (28-10-2013),beebs  (28-10-2013),Renn  (29-10-2013)

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    387
    Thanks
    182
    Thanked
    376
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    The cohort was 53 people. That's a tiny sample size which IMHO makes it next to meaningless. Just from a very quick scan it doesn't look peer reviewed. Just several researchers.

    No one has said science is perfect or fool proof and this is an example....
    The journal is peer reviewed. The study wouldn't be published in that journal if the methodology was flawed in the eyes of the independent scientific reviewers. So if the scientists who work in the field were happy with a sample size of 53, who are you to say that it is too small?

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,848
    Thanks
    6,201
    Thanked
    16,895
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg2 View Post
    The journal is peer reviewed. The study wouldn't be published in that journal if the methodology was flawed in the eyes of the independent scientific reviewers. So if the scientists who work in the field were happy with a sample size of 53, who are you to say that it is too small?
    You asked for comment on the study. I replied. To me 53 is meaningless. To you it might not be.

    I would also weigh up that a vast majority of studies say it's a crock.

    Each to their own, but that study certainly wouldn't sway my opinion that water has a memory, or that plain water has healing powers.

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to delirium For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (28-10-2013),beebs  (28-10-2013),Renn  (29-10-2013)

  15. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    19,776
    Thanks
    5,212
    Thanked
    7,063
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    The study was peer reviewed. I've never actually used homeopathy and would never use it in favour of any other sort of medicine I was just making a point that you can find any study to back up almost anything. I'm open minded re homeopathy. I'd give it a go. Would I use it in place of vaccinations or cancer treatment? God no. But I don't like hearing people dismiss people's experiences simply because a few studies conclude it was ineffective - this one did indeed conclude that it was effective in this instance compared to the control placebo.

    I do know a certain someone who should really wear a tin foil hat when it comes to Western medicine but I think completely dismissing and discounting alternatives is IMO just as bad. If people are happy to stick to conventional medicine I am 100% supportive of them. It'd be nice to have that same support in return though

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Benji For This Useful Post:

    Cdro  (28-10-2013)

  17. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,225
    Thanks
    1,507
    Thanked
    935
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    A study of n=53 is essentially meaningless because the sample size is too small ; in statistical terms this means the study lacks 'power'... Ie in a sample of that size the 'results' could have occurred by chance.....

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Butterfly39 For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (28-10-2013)


 

Similar Threads

  1. No science minister for the first time since 1931
    By Atropos in forum General Election Discussion
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 17-09-2013, 13:54
  2. Is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Anti-Science?
    By Maybelline in forum Immunisation & Vaccines
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-06-2013, 12:43
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-12-2012, 17:09

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Tambo Teddies
Visit our online store and select your individually handmade natural sheepskin teddy bear. Our soft and loveable bears come in a range of styles and colours. Created in Outback Queensland each bear is unique individual. 100% Australian made!
sales & new stuffsee all
True Fairies
True Fairies is the first interactive website where children can engage and speak with a real fairy through the unique webcam fairy portal. Each session is tailored to the child, and is filled with enchantment and magic.
Visit website to find out more!
featured supporter
Hunter Women's Health Centre
Hunter Women’s Health Centre care for women of all ages, in the full spectrum of their gynaecologic and obstetric health.
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!