Speaking of Flimsy Science and Karl Popper
If you have a free evening in which you're too sick to do anything more useful, spend a bit of time on Google Scholar looking up published, peer-reviewed papers in reputable medical journals concerning the acquisition, transmission and duration of cold viruses. You all scoffed at the paper I mentioned about psi research. That thing was a model of rigor and intellectual integrity compared to most of the stuff that's published about colds. Once you get to the next stage--journalists reporting what these papers say, introducing their articles with a breathless "scientists have discovered"--you may as well be reading the latest Edict from the High Council of Wizards and Warlocks.
Here's an example. Beyond the obvious--that every sentence contradicts the others--note how many assumptions are unsupported by anything but speculation. "Interleukin-8, a chemokine produced by macrophages and other types of cells, is believed to play a role in the pathogenesis of respiratory tract diseases caused by viral infection like common cold."
Got that? It's believed to play a role. What kind of role? Well, that's tricky. We don't know really. So why are we measuring it? Well, it seems like a good thing to measure. Yes, but what do we actually know because we've measured it? Well, we know how much Interleukin-8 there is.
- Comment (54)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments :
Sep '10
Re: Speaking of Flimsy Science and Karl Popper
Next you're going to tell me that the science behind global warming is flawed.
Dec '10
Re: Speaking of Flimsy Science and Karl Popper
My PhD thesis project works on blood clotting. Not IL-8 cytokine signaling, but the same basic intellectual and logical process.
The statement you're analyzing is one of basic research, not clinical research. An investigator would be interested in measuring IL-8 because it (supposedly) advances the sum of the world's knowledge on a particular scientific question. A translational or clinical researcher would only be interested in measuring IL-8 if he saw its production as a reliable marker for some particular condition (inflammation, viral clearance, etc).
But getting at your point, I think your premise is correct. There is a HUGE difference between the basic research of "climate scientists" (encouraged and funded according to political incentives) and the implementation of a particular policy like cap and trade. Put simply, it is impossible to do controlled experiments to understand a weather mechanism that may be occuring in the distant future. Common sense? If the same rigorous intellectual and legal standards that are applied to the FDA were applied to climate change, the field would hardly exist. In fact, you could say that for economics as a science as well (see: the Austrian school)
Re: Speaking of Flimsy Science and Karl Popper
Greg, just curious--does the production of IL-8 in fact seem a reliable marker to you? Given that pretty much every upper respiratory symptom (including asthma) seems to be associated with IL-8 elevation, why is this considered a reliable marker of infection by a cold virus, as opposed to a reliable marker only of reported upper respiratory distress--which you need no marker to measure?
Dec '10
Re: Speaking of Flimsy Science and Karl Popper
Claire, immunology is not my field. But here are a few thoughts on the philosophy of medical research as I see it:
The science that you seem to be overhearing is just that...science. There is nothing practical that comes from the practice of answering scientific questions. Basic medical research is nothing more than a market-like process of career-driven ideas that, on their own, merely answer questions. Language such as "it is believed" is appropriate since the sum of the ideas are provoked by small, independent experiments used to develop theoretical models. It's disappointing and sobering how non-clear-cut this process is.
Whether or not IL-8 or any other protein is a reliable marker for any CLINICAL inquiry is a matter of emipirical testing and practical outcomes. Even then it would still, appropriately, be said that IL-8 is "believed" to be so on and so on. All science is a matter of belief. It is a personal experience built on unique, individual intellectual skill. But unfortunately, science is also influenced by the source of funding. No need to fill in the blanks here on govt funding for climate research.
Dec '10
Re: Speaking of Flimsy Science and Karl Popper
Looking back, I may have overstated my defense of the word "believed." Is it appropriate in this case? sure. But it's also appropriate to simply state what the darn protein does...period. In the case you cite, I don't think the difference is worth making a fuss over. I think use of the word "believed" here is just a bad sell. Let's give Frank Luntz a call.
Re: Speaking of Flimsy Science and Karl Popper
We'd surely agree that why something is believed is important. It's also believed by many that the Evil Eye plays a role in the pathogenesis of respiratory tract diseases caused by viral infection like common cold, but that doesn't mean this belief is particularly useful in warding off viral infections. What I'm noticing in the literature is a startling lack of justification for many things asserted as beliefs and a notable blurriness at precisely the point of the account that might actually be useful or interesting: "play a role?" Like what? How? If we have no idea, why exactly are we measuring this?
I think we're agreeing. It's interesting that it seems that way to you, too.
Re: Speaking of Flimsy Science and Karl Popper
Or let me rephrase: Measure it if you're curious about how much Interleukin-8 is up these peoples' noses. That's a fine question. But it seems quite a stretch to use IL-8 levels as a surrogate for "cold symptoms" under the circumstances, and certainly to conclude from IL-8 levels that echinecea has or hasn't any therapeutic value for those suffering from those symptoms, particularly when you could use an obvious, common-sense marker (Hey, fella, you got any cold symptoms?)
(I note that they did do that, as well, and echinecea was apparently not especially useful. I'm just wondering why they bothered with the IL-8, and wondering doubly why anyone reported this part of the experiment as interesting or significant.)
Jul '10
Re: Speaking of Flimsy Science and Karl Popper
Do you think biology and medicine are science?
Edited on Dec 28, 2010 at 3:39amRe: Speaking of Flimsy Science and Karl Popper
Michael Tee: Do you think biology and medicine are science? · Dec 28 at 3:35am
Edited on Dec 28 at 03:39 am
Sure. When I had pneumonia, I relied on antibiotics, not Evil Eye amulets.
May '10
Re: Speaking of Flimsy Science and Karl Popper
Claire,
This reminds me of our little squabble over whether everyone should take courses in the predicate and the propositional calculus. I ended up asking you "What is science?"
Re: Speaking of Flimsy Science and Karl Popper
I say it's the spirit of scientific curiosity that's making me wonder what would happen if I ordered myself one of these and put it in my nose. Anyone know? Surely someone has tried this. Greg, what would you guess?
Amazing what you can buy on the Internet. Would that get held up in customs, I wonder?
Oh, wow, I just saw where it's made. Imagine trying to explain that.
May '10
Re: Speaking of Flimsy Science and Karl Popper
Michael Tee: Do you think biology and medicine are science? · Dec 28 at 3:35am
Edited on Dec 28 at 03:39 am
Biology is science and medicine is engineering. It is possible to build a steam engine without having a sophisticated theory of heat.
May '10
Re: Speaking of Flimsy Science and Karl Popper
Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting."
-- Ernest Rutherford
This is a typical arrogant statement by a physicist, but it does draw the distinction between collections of data, and the fundamental theories that underpin our understanding of the universe.
By the way isn't Interlukin a Russian figure skater?
On a cursory glance the IL-8 extract discussed, seems to have not clearly indicated anything concrete; that does not necessarily mean it is not an avenue of research to pursue, even if it ends up in a blind alley.
From where I sit, the science of climate change is not a science at all, at least in a Popperian sense, as it cannot be falsifiable. We are told high temperatures are the result of global warming, low temperatures are a result of global warming etc, so how can we obtain a falsified observation from such logic.
(I am leaving aside the obvious manipulation of data sets by the various leaders in the field, and the failure of many temperature measurement sites to meet basic standards of accuracy and precision)
Edited on Dec 28, 2010 at 6:10amMay '10
Re: Speaking of Flimsy Science and Karl Popper
Claire, I think what's going on is the desire to look as scientific as possible for publication purposes. Simply asking people how they feel does look very, well, you know, professional. The authors want to get past the referees so they add in some direct measurements. Note that with an n of almost 200 per group, they should have had plenty of power. "Higher than expected variability" of course could lead to a type 2 error, but it is hardly a legitimate comment since statistical testing is done precisely to factor in variability. Looking at the online summary, all results were non-significant, but the probabilities were fairly low (.09 or .075). I'll bet there is some confounding factor like age or sex.
Statistics ain't easy and I read somewhere that there are methodological errors in maybe 2/3 of medical research.
Re: Speaking of Flimsy Science and Karl Popper
outstripp:
Statistics ain't easy and I read somewhere that there are methodological errors in maybe 2/3 of medical research. · Dec 28 at 6:07am
And who knows how they came up with that statistic ...
Re: Speaking of Flimsy Science and Karl Popper
You think he's in my nasal mucosa? That would certainly explain my symptoms.
May '10
Re: Speaking of Flimsy Science and Karl Popper
My scientific analysis: Talleyrand is one of my top two guy names, and global warming is a buncha hooey. We now return to serious discussion of things we've not read.
Re: Speaking of Flimsy Science and Karl Popper
Speak for yourself. I believe I have now read everything, and I do mean everything, pertaining to leaking--from either the government or the nose. It's not as if I've had the energy to go out, after all. I must say that both the legal issues and the secretions in question seem to me increasingly opaque.
May '10
Re: Speaking of Flimsy Science and Karl Popper
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Speak for yourself. I believe I have now read everything, and I do mean everything, pertaining to leaking--from either the government or the nose. It's not as if I've had the energy to go out, after all. I must say that both the legal issues and the secretions in question seem to me increasingly opaque. · Dec 28 at 7:59am
I was reading another thread and saw this interaction on the sideline. I have no idea what this conversation is about but you two are hilarious and I have to go back and read this to see what started it. I'll just quickly let my three and eight year olds beat me at Candy Land. I'm good at cheating when I want a game to end. Be right back.
May '10
Re: Speaking of Flimsy Science and Karl Popper
Michael Tee: Do you think biology and medicine are science? · Dec 28 at 3:35am
Edited on Dec 28 at 03:39 am
Actually, biology is a science, but a messy one. Medicine is more art than anything--something that's been missed by med school entrance committees for several decades. That's why so many new docs are science nerds with no people skills. Gets a lot of them sued, too, unfortunately. But I digress...
Claire, you sound frustrated and uncomfortable and are looking for answers in not necessarily the right places. Try tea and chicken soup. Both are comforting and the steam is good for loosening secretions. There was a paper published years ago in, I think, The Annals of Internal Medicine, that looked at chicken soup's anti-inflammatory properties and found it an effective treatment. Either that or another paper named the active ingredient bubbymycin.
Interleukins, as has been mentioned, are bioactive compounds that appear in VERY small concentrations and mediate all kinds of biological actions and reactions. Most of what they do remains as yet unknown, though knowledge continues to advance.
For your cold, the chicken soup paper is more important.