NYTimes | There’s plenty of blame to go around for this mess. But broadening our definition of disease probably made all of this possible.
My friend and colleague Dr. Beth Tarini, a health services researcher at the University of Michigan, published a study
last year that examined how parents react when given a diagnosis of
GERD for their infants. Dr. Tarini and her colleagues randomly chose
certain parents to be told that an infant with symptoms of reflux had
GERD or, instead, “a problem.” Half of each of these groups were also told that medications were ineffective.
Parents who were told that their infant had GERD were significantly more
interested in having their child put on medication, even when they were
told that medication was ineffective. Parents of infants who were not
labeled with GERD were not interested in medication once they were told
it didn’t work.
Words matter. Studies have shown that once people with high blood pressure are labeled “hypertensive,” they are significantly more likely to be absent from work,
regardless of whether treatment was begun. Many diseases have become so
much broader in definition that they now encompass huge swaths of the
public.
When
statins were first approved, they were used to treat people with very
high levels of cholesterol. Their benefit was thought to be clear in
that population. Last year, however, the release of new guidelines meant
that more than 87 percent of all men
age 60 to 75 would be recommended to be on statins, and the same for
more than 53 percent of women in the same age group. Nearly every single African-American man over 65 would be recommended to be on the drug.
The American Academy of Pediatrics released guidelines
a number of years ago recommending that children as young as 8 years
old be treated with medication for an LDL cholesterol level above 190.
Many think this is going too far. No one knows the long-term consequences of being on such drugs for decades.
Allowing the medicalization of normal variations in physiology to be transformed into “treatable conditions”
is leading to unintended consequences. We’re spending billions of
dollars on treatments that might not, or don’t, work. We’re making
people worry when they don’t have to. And we may be causing actual
health problems in the process.
As Dr. Tarini puts it, “Our job as doctors is to make sick patients healthy, not to make healthy patients sick.”
27 comments:
He used to be a creationist. His attacks are coming from someone that knows the mindset. I'm convinced that the people on this site knew that creationists are trying to protect their turf long before this blog post.
Atheism is a philosophical position. It has nothing to do with evolution. Scientists aren't trying to disprove God, they're trying to understand the world. The idea of God is unfalsifiable. That means it can't be disproven. So a given scientist may have a belief about God but they keep it out of their work. We'll have a Neil Tyson speak his mind but he won't have it as part of his research. And if atheism were guiding the research, so what? God isn't in the fossil record.
If the macroevolutionist is mistaken and wrong about how we have different species, and the various life on earth, why is the creationist called "protecting their turf" by pointing out the problems of the evolutionist theory? Materialism is philosophical and you could safely categorize most evolutionist as materialist with their only problem trying to figure out how to materially explain conscience.
Had I provided you scientist from big oil who were trying to find out if man was causing global warming, would your position still be the scientist are just using the science to get to the truth? I doubt it would be, so even you change your assumptions based on if it agrees with you or not, why would you not think human scientist are making assumptions that fit their perspectives about the evidence they discover?
Now take for instance the evolution of the eye... this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ybWucMx4W8 was clearly a response to the pressure put on by how long it would take and how improbable for and eye to evolve. No science here, just an explanation to tell us how eye evolution maybe is faster than we all think. All an answer to an argument they have no scientific answer for, even the quote by the guy near the end..."And that is really exactly the way eye evolution must proceed" (5:56)....I guess so, because if the eye becomes to complicated to 1 in infinity chances to evolve, then what? Think of all the hardware and nerves and signal transmissions and brain development that went into the little proposal this guy made in the video. And each random improvement in the eye would have to have all the other lines of communication and upgraded brain to receive it. And to top it off first the eye has to end up in the right place. Then the transmission lines...
"And if atheism were guiding the research, so what? God isn't in the fossil record."
Would you consider an atheist anthropologist who is explaining and looking for evidence on why there is religion or why man has considerations of God could have a different interpretation of the evidence he uncovers compared to a creationist anthropologist? Or would the two individuals with come to the same conclusions with the evidence?
The creationist comes from a position that he won't budge from. Yes, they're protecting their turf. If one's position is that the Bible is the absolute truth, then to oppose anything contrary is suspicious. It's kind of hard to cover up when I see the religious right saying that they're fighting for Jesus. The video part of the post demonstrates Kenneth Copeland protecting his turf.
"Had I provided you scientist from big oil who were trying to find out if man was causing global warming, would your position still be the scientist are just using the science to get to the truth?" I would say that you are incapable of honesty. To trust a link from big oil would tell me you're a sucker. They're trying to maximize profits.
"...so even you change your assumptions based on if it agrees with you or not." You're projecting a set of character flaws onto me that aren't there.
"Materialism is philosophical and you could safely categorize most evolutionist as materialist with their only problem trying to figure out how to materially explain conscience."
Define conscience.
I didn't say a link, let's say the big oil scientist was just explaining where his science took him on CNN, my assumption would be is you would look at his science with skepticism. As for Kenneth Copeland I wouldn't consider him as the spear head of creationist argument.
why?
Materialists aren't the only ones who have difficulty with consciousness. I can only categorize an evolutionist as an evolutionist. I can't assume anything about their positions on anything else.
Kenneth Copeland is trying to keep his followers. He gets a generous compensation and he doesn't want anything getting in the way of those donations. Going after evolution is protecting the turf. It looks like the Copelands believe in what they're selling at this point. They've been at it for a long time. So anything outside of the Bible for them would be the work of Satan.
Creationism is Christian apologetics. That's all that it's about. No one's looking for the truth. The truth is already established.
I think the bruvva means consciousness. Conscience is a whole nother subject unto itself...,
lol@bigoilscientist..., if the individual is engaged in the good-faith application of scientific ethics - then her science will be above reproach. Your assignation "big oil scientist" means that by default, her science is contaminated with values having nothing whatsoever to do with a methodical quest for truth.
Vic already explained your misuse of a-theistic. Science cannot traffic in the unfalsifiable, rather, it seeks methodical, repeatable, value-free explanations of how the world works. Science can no more afford to be burdened with your favored fictions than it can with big oil's profit motive.
Funny how science can be explicitly, a priori indifferent to the unfalsifiable god-delusion, but the god-deluded just can't constrain themselves to keep their insufferable wattle out of science.
lol, what did Tom write upthread - I feel that Ken is not trolling. He knows all, and is gradually teaching it to us...,
"Science cannot traffic in the unfalsifiable, rather, it seeks methodical, repeatable, value-free explanations of how the world works."
True yes, you yourself have decided there is no evidence of mutation or fossil evidence to back a gradual development of species, its why you now embrace symbiogenesis. When do you think someone like Dawkins or Nye or someone from the consensus science world and actually admit this? I am betting you don't have that answer, and the reasons they won't isn't because of seeking the truth through science
Do you think it's only the creationist and intelligent design people who understand the mathematical chances sited in this article:
http://crl.i8.com/Evolution/Dna.html
Let's take the one evolutionary hope in the article: "As yet, evolutionism has not produced a scientifically credible explanation for the origin of such immense complexities as DNA, the human brain, and many elements of the cosmos."
Wouldn't someone engaged in good-faith application of science ethics say as of yet our theoretical ideas for diversity of species and the beginning of life itself is not able to explain DNA. Why can only intelligent design people bring this problem up?
Is evolution falsifiable, what would be the evidence that would finally call it that? Right now we have a problem of chance and probability, your symbiogenesis theory has basically told us we have no observable random mutations or gradual development of species out in nature or in the lab and we have no fossil evidence to prove gradual species development. In your opinion, what would be the smoking gun that would cause consensus science to say, macro evolution is false, life and species variety developed another way other than evolution?
I feel that Ken is getting at something genuine here.
You can't see the back of your head.
In order to do science on a lab bench, we assume that only repeatable experiments are meaningful. That is the scientific method. It works beautifully on the benchtop.
But what if we embrace a whole philosophy that says admissible facts consist only of repeatable experimental results. Now we've extended our grasp far beyond benchtop scientific practice.
Imagine this scenario. See it as a science-fiction story. Say God created cold fusion one time in Salt Lake City, then stopped doing it. Good scientists are generally going to describe that event, in the end, as "there is no such thing as cold fusion." I say "good scientists" meaning "people who can do science honestly and effectively."
That approach works -- or certainly it produces technical advances -- if all we're interested in is the benchtop. But there's a little glitch here. Miracles are not simply something we don't believe in. We don't believe, ok. You take a position. But we're making much more than a statement of belief on a point of fact -- I think without realizing it: Miracles are inadmissible in a purely scientific world view. A miracle is not repeatable. Studying miracles is like studying data that somebody has been fudging. We can't do anything but throw it away and get more data that hopefully doesn't have the problem.
I don't believe in miracles. But philosophically we're on really dangerous ground by making certain kinds of data inadmissible. Dangerous ground or even idiotic ground, if you think about it for long. We're not saying we're ignorant about the back of our head -- we're saying the back of our head doesn't exist.
Possibly our host would consider a post on this point? The Subrealist take on this possibly being: When you're a fly trapped in a bottle, getting to the best possible point within the bottle may be less critical than getting out.
Obviously one problem, once you say that the scientific method isn't the only way to know things, is how do you keep all kinds of dumbasses from dragging science through all kinds of worthless bullshit. Hopefully the answer is, "in science, the only way to know things is the scientific method." That would be more honest than what we say now. But it would create new problems too.
you yourself have decided there is no evidence of mutation
Wrong. There is no evidence of random mutation as the mechanism undergirding evolutionary change. Eliminate random genetic mutation, and voila, a whole bunch of idiot creationist obstructionist jibberjabber goes right out the window - like for example that piece of pseudo-scientific garbage article you linked.
you yourself have decided there is no fossil evidence to back a gradual development of species
I haven't expressed an opinion on fossil evidence one way or the other, at all.
its why you now embrace symbiogenesis
lol, where do you get the unmitigated gall to assert my motivations for embracing any theory? The fact of the matter is that you have no idea why I'm drawn to symbiogenesis.
Wouldn't someone engaged in good-faith application of science ethics say
as of yet our theoretical ideas for diversity of species and the
beginning of life itself is not able to explain DNA. Why can only
intelligent design people bring this problem up?
Of course you realize that the notion that "you know all, and are gradually teaching it to us" is strictly in jest?
Your so-called intelligent design crowd is onto the flawed thinking behind random mutation as an evolutionary mechanism, yawn..., mebbe one of these days, they'll catch up with the interested non-professionals like myself and get up on symbiogenesis?
As far as the rest of it goes, I've given every reasonable chance to come to a basic understanding of the problem of the 4th dimension. When we approach "complexity" in space-time, we're brought into reaches of scientific and mathematical speculation and inquiry - which you've demonstrated as being entirely beyond your ken, Ken.
Our conversation about this topic ends at the limits of your understanding. Period.
I feel that Ken is getting at something genuine here.
You can't see the back of your head.
Speak for yourself. Not only is it possible to see the back of your head, you can see all your internal organs, their innermost workings and interconnections, and their relationship to the embedding context of spaceland and higher spaceland http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/
Yeah none of this is made easier by Ken's habit of putting words in people's mouths. I think he believes his assertions about what people say are more accurate than their own words.
My other thread here is to the effect that there's a nugget among the things Ken has picked up. Not that he is communicating the nugget effectively, and not that he can necessarily tell the difference between the nugget of gold and the rest of his infallible lesson plan. Not saying that it's Ken's idea. But there is a point there.
lol, Sensei, when I say "back of your head" I mean that metaphorically.
My exclusive point being, that, there is a scientifically and mathematically sound - albeit phenomenally difficult - place to hang our hats when it comes to matters of complexity, negentropy, and the phenomena in dispute - but it's not for the fainthearted and it's not for the wattles...,
Alchemists, and those who hold to and sustain the curious and now mostly mysterious almaniacal/lectionary/sothic/sidereal knowledge and its associated methods - would say you're wrong about miracles Tom.
The problem is that you don't know how to look or when to look - and both of those are indispensable fundaments of this lost or occulted science.
Ok, alchemists are another can of worms then. I'm only talking about scientists.
"Of course you realize that the notion that "you know all, and are gradually teaching it to us" is strictly in jest?" No I can't really tell the difference, I thought you guys were taking notes as I talked, boy now I really feel kinda stupid.
"Wrong. There is no evidence of random mutation as the mechanism undergirding evolutionary change." Really? Are you that picky? I said: "You yourself have decided there is no evidence of mutation or fossil evidence to back a gradual development of species" you don't think I was talking about evolutionary change? Is it you just figured I thought there has never been a mutation ever witnessed in the world and I thought you agreed with me? Sorry about that, silly me, of course anyone would have thought that, my bad.
As for your fossil evidence, you are correct, you have not expressed your thoughts about fossil evidence, and I assumed because symbiogenesis theory has said there is lack of fossil evidence for gradual species development, that you would probably have the same thought.
However if it turns out you agree with the conclusions the symbiogenesis theorist have about the fossil evidence it seems a good portion of your post is semantics.
"Your so-called intelligent design crowd is onto the flawed thinking behind random mutation as an evolutionary mechanism, yawn..., mebbe one of these days, they'll catch up with the interested non-professionals like myself and get up on symbiogenesis?
Do you think the guy you posted at the top is going to call random mutation flawed? Random mutation is still the consensus science that is still being defended. Symbiogenesis, has been around since the early 1900's and it may not ever be able to unseat the flawed thinking behind random mutation as an evolutionary mechanism.
Ok, speaking for myself only then. I am unable to carry out the scientific method without ignoring a lot of stuff. For all I know, that stuff -- the excreta that emerges from my process without affecting my belief system -- might include miracles.
If some people have solved that problem, great. But working scientists haven't solved it, so far as I know.
lol, as long as you and the evolutionists are arguing about whether to open an egg at the big end or the little end - please carry on, secure in the knowledge that I have no dogs in that hunt.
Hah, woon't be no scientists without alchemists, and i'm not talking about puffery preceding chemistry. So much interesting and useful framework has been lost/upended...,
Once some of the defended truths are found to be not, it won't take long to ask what else is a long defended falsy, maybe questions like: what are the limits of how far that egg can deviate from it's mom and dad's species. I suspect the blood will be strong enough for your dog to smell it and want to join it too.
But then again the old theory might just morph into another with nobody ever wondering why the other ideas were defended so forcefully with so much claimed evidence. The more I think about, that's probably the way its going to go. We'll just move on to another one with the same arrogant confidence as the last.
um..., that would be the scientific enterprise and scientific progress at work. Now if the buy-bull buddies would just stay in their lane, keep their mitts off of science (or better still - perform the valuable work of vigorous policing of scientific ethics) instead of trying to put their own just-so stories in competition with the quest for truth....., nah!!!!
Got it, so if we could just shut up those who believe there is a creator, then the scientist would be better able to critique there own wrong headed thinking, rather than trying to cover it up, and we would have a better chance of knowing how the world really works. So it's not the questions or the problems found that is the problem, it's whose finding and asking. Your point is very instructive here, it's better and more conducive in weeding out wrong headed thinking and error in scientific interpretation if those who are pointing it out have the proper philosophical perspective.
Post a Comment