Errors in human thinking ...

RE: Errors in human thinking ...

J G Wray — Thu, 14 Sep 2017 11:22:33 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"][quote user="J G Wray"]Are Veterinary Surgeons tribal?[/quote]In a loose way yes. It is human nature.[/quote]

There aren't many of us. I'm worried now. Does this mean we're F**K*D? I suppose some might escape on their bicycles

RE: Errors in human thinking ...

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 14 Sep 2017 10:21:10 GMT

[quote user="Liz Barton"]Some of these conflicts are as much tribal as religious... Religion is an obvious tag, but since the dawn of time mankind will find common ground and gang together, then go and find an alternative group to attack...![/quote]There is no doubt, this is something I've been saying for a long time. It is a very basic survival instinct: stick together and have a strong personality to lead you and you are more likely to live to pass on your genes. The tribe will attack neighboring tribes to gain their resources. Like in any animal pack those leaders led through superior strength but with man's intellectual capacity they realised they could gain more influence and privilege through the power it gave them. Early man needed supernatural deities to make it easier to understand the inexplicable forces in the world around them and it was an easy step to religion to worship these deities. The leaders saw they could gain even more power by using religion as a tool of control and oppression. Fast forward to today and nothing has changed.

[quote user="J G Wray"]Are Veterinary Surgeons tribal?[/quote]In a loose way yes. It is human nature.

RE: Errors in human thinking ...

J G Wray — Thu, 14 Sep 2017 08:53:08 GMT

Are Veterinary Surgeons tribal?

RE: Errors in human thinking ...

Liz Barton — Thu, 14 Sep 2017 00:53:54 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Evidence? Not for the fact that it does happen, that's indisputable, but for it being "all too often" (a conveniently vague phrase). From modern history, please.[/quote]Erm, have you been living in a bubble for the past few years and not heard about Islamic extremism, ISIL for example? Sunni v Shia Muslim communities, Hindus v Muslims....need I go on?

[/quote]Some of these conflicts are as much tribal as religious... Religion is an obvious tag, but since the dawn of time mankind will find common ground and gang together, then go and find an alternative group to attack...!

RE: Errors in human thinking ...

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 12 Sep 2017 09:05:51 GMT

[quote user="mariette asselbergs"]Arlo, these figures are meaningless and manipulative use of statistics.[/quote]

mariette asselbergs, Niall has already said what I would have done. But one other thing ...

I didn't see any obvious reason to suspect the figures are manipulative, but you're right, they might be meaningless (as might be said of any research).

I am not personally qualified to interpret statistics or critique papers. I merely report findings. But the whole point of any published paper is that the detail is there to be scrutinised and challenged.

So I don't think it's right to just dismiss it as 'meaningless and manipulative' without explaining what flaws you see in the work that render it so.

The full paper is here.

RE: Errors in human thinking ...

Niall Taylor — Tue, 12 Sep 2017 06:38:11 GMT

[quote user="mariette asselbergs"]Arlo, these figures are meaningless and manipulative use of statistics.[/quote]

No, they're not! Just to clarify, the vetsurgeon.org news article Arlo linked to read as follows:

Overall, cancer patients who used alternative medicine were 2.5 times more likely to die within a 5 year period than those who chose conventional cancer therapy. However, people with breast cancer were 5.7 times more likely to die in the same period if they used alternative medicine rather than conventional medicine. This evidence flies in the face of the British Association of Veterinary Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons' claim that homeopathy cures cancer.

And the paper itself reads:

... alternative medicine (AM) use was independently associated with greater risk of death compared with conventional cancer treatment (CCT) overall and in subgroups with breast, and colorectal cancer. Although rare, AM utilization for curable cancer without any CCT is associated with greater risk of death.

On matched univariate survival analysis, AM was associated with worse five-year survival and remained an independent predictor of greater risk of death when controlling for clinical and sociodemographic factors. When stratified by cancer type, receipt of AM was associated with statistically significantly worse five-year survival for breast, lung, and colorectal cancer...

So, if a patient uses alternative medicine to treat their cancer they are up to 5.7 times more likely to die within the 5 years following treatment than if they used conventional, science-based treatment.

Niall

RE: Errors in human thinking ...

mariette asselbergs — Tue, 12 Sep 2017 00:57:48 GMT

"people who used alternative medicine instead of conventional medicine were between 2.5 and 5.7 times more likely to die in the following five year period, showed." Arlo

Arlo, these figures are meaningless and manipulative use of statistics. I am sure you can show that people who use oncologists have a much higher chance of dying in the next 5 years than people who use dentists (or GPs, or dermatologists, whatever).

Mariette

RE: Errors in human thinking ...

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 08 Sep 2017 17:16:40 GMT

[quote user="Jonathan Ruben"] But I'm afraid both devout homeopaths and the equally trenchant agnostics will twist the evidence to suit their views. [/quote]Its an interesting use of the word but, as you did use it, I believe the key here is the word 'agnostic'. My interpretation of this is: one who does not believe because there is no material evidence to show God (but in this case homeopathy) exists (is effective) but is prepared to if irrefutable evidence is presented to him. Homeopaths rely on blind faith with no recognition that they could be wrong and that is being generous that some are not cynically manipulating the desperate and vulnerable when they know its a load of tosh.

As it stands, there is no scientific evidence and no credible trials have been carried out to show homeopathy is effective, so I remain a homeopathic agnostic.

RE: Errors in human thinking ...

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 08 Sep 2017 16:36:28 GMT

[quote user="Jonathan Ruben"]They may be able to confuse clients with pseudoscience.[/quote]

Now I am confused about who you mean by 'they'. Homeopaths? Or the scientists that wrote the review.

[quote user="Jonathan Ruben"]But I'm afraid both devout homeopaths and the equally trenchant agnostics will twist the evidence to suit their views.[/quote]

Have you read the paper in full? It is not homeopathy-bashing, it's a comparative review. It talks about the weaknesses in science too.

[quote user="Jonathan Ruben"]There really is no point in this debate[/quote]

Absolutely there is. For far too long, people have been able to make wild, I would argue unethical claims about homeopathy, like it cures cancer, like it cures anything, without being properly challenged. I suspect that all too often, vets and doctors acquiesce to clients who say they are going to seek alternative medicine - on the basis that 'oh well, it's an opathy, perhaps there's something in it' or 'I can't be bothered', or 'well, it can't do any harm',.

Well, it does do harm, as this study, which showed people who used alternative medicine instead of conventional medicine were between 2.5 and 5.7 times more likely to die in the following five year period, showed.

So I think there is a point in the paper and the discussion surrounding it. It helps practitioners of conventional medicine explain to clients why homeopathy is not only a waste of their money, but might also consign them, or their dog, to an early grave,

RE: Errors in human thinking ...

Jonathan Ruben — Fri, 08 Sep 2017 16:09:34 GMT

They may be able to confuse clients with pseudoscience. But I'm afraid both devout homeopaths and the equally trenchant agnostics will twist the evidence to suit their views. There really is no point in this debate

You might find it easier to convince Jeremy Corbin that Jacob Rees Mogg is the best next Prime Minister or vice versa.

RE: Errors in human thinking ...

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 08 Sep 2017 16:06:50 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Jonathan Ruben"]This paper contains the usual unscientific nonsense dressed in pseudo-scientific language. Thank goodness the authors are not practising veterinary surgeons[/quote]

Jonathan Ruben

I'm surprised you could accuse a man with a CV like this of producing unscientific nonsense dressed in pseudo-scientific language.

But for the record, Danny Chambers is practising as a locum, and Martin Whitehead at the Chipping Norton Veterinary Hospital.

Would be helpful if could be more specific in your criticism. Which part or parts of the paper do you feel are incorrect?

[/quote]Are we all singing from the same song sheet here? Jonathan's post sounds like a description of a homeopathic paper not one showing it for the snake oil it is.

Confused of West Drayton.

RE: Errors in human thinking ...

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 08 Sep 2017 14:28:21 GMT

[quote user="Jonathan Ruben"]This paper contains the usual unscientific nonsense dressed in pseudo-scientific language. Thank goodness the authors are not practising veterinary surgeons[/quote]

Jonathan Ruben

I'm surprised you could accuse a man with a CV like this of producing unscientific nonsense dressed in pseudo-scientific language.

But for the record, Danny Chambers is practising as a locum, and Martin Whitehead at the Chipping Norton Veterinary Hospital.

Would be helpful if could be more specific in your criticism. Which part or parts of the paper do you feel are incorrect?

RE: Errors in human thinking ...

Jonathan Ruben — Fri, 08 Sep 2017 13:50:21 GMT

This paper contains the usual unscientific nonsense dressed in pseudo-scientific language. Thank goodness the authors are not practising veterinary surgeons

RE: Errors in human thinking ...

J G Wray — Mon, 04 Sep 2017 15:36:31 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Alas, how true. [/quote]

Errr, an error in thinking?

Perhaps a neat way to end this thread?

RE: Errors in human thinking ...

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 04 Sep 2017 15:27:38 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"] But I don't really care for bumper-sticker debate[/quote]

But........you're on vetsurgeon.org

[/quote]

Alas, how true.

RE: Errors in human thinking ...

J G Wray — Mon, 04 Sep 2017 12:47:51 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"] But I don't really care for bumper-sticker debate[/quote]

But........you're on vetsurgeon.org

RE: Errors in human thinking ...

Niall Taylor — Mon, 04 Sep 2017 08:02:46 GMT

[quote user="R Falconer-Taylor"]I have now had my own muttering and it's aimed at the general pet-owning public.[/quote]

Nice article, well reasoned and a most enjoyable read

Niall

RE: Errors in human thinking ...

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sun, 03 Sep 2017 21:11:37 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Hmmm, atheism is a belief as well of course. [/quote]

No it isn't. It is a lack of belief.

In the same way that not believing in anything isn't a belief system in itself!

For example - I don't believe in ghosts either... Is that a belief?

[/quote]

Yes.

By the way, if this discussion is going to stray off into a new topic of "the nature of belief and does it matter" what are your feelings on Chesterton's well-known quotable text "Atheism is, I suppose, the supreme example of a simple faith. The man says there is no God; if he really says it in his heart, he is a certain sort of man so designated in Scripture. But, anyhow, when he has said it, he has said it; and there seems to be no more to be said. The conversation seems likely to languish. The truth is that the atmosphere of excitement, by which the atheist lived, was an atmosphere of thrilled and shuddering theism, and not of atheism at all; it was an atmosphere of defiance and not of denial. Irreverence is a very servile parasite of reverence; and has starved with its starving lord. After this first fuss about the merely aesthetic effect of blasphemy, the whole thing vanishes into its own void. If there were not God, there would be no atheists.”

Of course the fact that Chesterton wrote well and thoughtfully does not mean he was right. Discuss.

Or if that's too heavy, try "You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything" (best known recently from Aaron Tipping, but of uncertain origin). But I don't really care for bumper-sticker debate.

RE: Errors in human thinking ...

Gillian Mostyn — Sun, 03 Sep 2017 20:09:58 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Hmmm, atheism is a belief as well of course. [/quote]

No it isn't. It is a lack of belief.

In the same way that not believing in anything isn't a belief system in itself!

For example - I don't believe in ghosts either... Is that a belief?

RE: Errors in human thinking ...

Robert FalconerTaylor — Sun, 03 Sep 2017 18:00:53 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

I know I'm banging an old drum here, but if you've got a copy of the Veterinary Record to hand, I do think this is worth a read (the paper it refers to, not my mutterings!):

[/quote]

Rolling right back to the beginning of this thread, I have now had my own muttering and it's aimed at the general pet-owning public. The only value of these fabulous articles is get the message out there, or they're just tomorrow's fish and chip paper. http://bit.ly/2xC28UM

RE: Errors in human thinking ...

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sun, 03 Sep 2017 16:32:28 GMT

[quote user="Phil Hyde"]

Take for example:

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"] "love thy neighbour as thyself".[/quote]

What a great example of cherry-picking. Why not another line from the Bible: "All who curse their father or mother must be put to death."

How do you decide which parts of your holy book are good and which to ignore?

[/quote]

"Take for example" you say. Your own example is cherry-picked.

Why do you say it is my holy book?

Anyway, upon that particular point, which is not really germane to the matter, my own guess is that there is considerable distinction between the Old and New Testaments, for a Christian. Maybe there's a proper Christian on vetsurgeon who'd like to take that up?

Here's another quotation (cherry-picked of course, but not from the Bible) "Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the soul".

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]I can think of only one religion (in a very strict sense) that of itself does harm. [/quote]

Were you thinking about Roman Catholicism and its position on contraception and abortion?

[/quote]

Absolutely not.

[/quote]

Well, you didn't rise to that one But I do think it is an example of religion doing demonstrable harm.

[/quote]

Actually I disagree. But I don't think there's much future in debating that particular point.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I just question whether the net effect of 'belief' is good or bad.[/quote]

Hmmm, atheism is a belief as well of course. But leaving that aside, one might feel that the moral or ethical compulsions or guidance of most religions are but the supposedly innate (not everyone considers that they are innate) morals or ethics of Homo sapiens, codified or organised.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"] I don't mean blinkered derogatorily, just in the sense that, for example, many people with faith find it impossible to accept anything other than a creationist view. [/quote]

Hmm, a good point there though it might count as cherry-picked ( ). My first reaction (I shall think about this and might come back to you) is that having a creationist belief does not do any harm to the believer or to those close to him. When he seeks to persuade others of the same, via quiet debate, that's fine too. It's only when he starts to try to force it upon others with loudness and aggression, that's when it gets bad.

RE: Errors in human thinking ...

Niall Taylor — Sat, 02 Sep 2017 16:22:49 GMT

[quote user="Phil Hyde"]We are billion year old carbon.[/quote]

Speak for yourself - you want to be using a bit more moisturiser

Niall

RE: Errors in human thinking ...

Phil Hyde — Sat, 02 Sep 2017 13:23:54 GMT

[quote user="ruths"]

'We are stardust, we are golden' Crosby Stills and Nash

[/quote]We are billion year old carbon.

RE: Errors in human thinking ...

ruths — Sat, 02 Sep 2017 11:18:48 GMT

'We are stardust, we are golden' Crosby Stills and Nash

RE: Errors in human thinking ...

Phil Hyde — Sat, 02 Sep 2017 10:39:33 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Yes, I only meant commandments illustratively. But it's an interesting point. Do people really need guidance for living a 'good' life[/quote]

Obviously not. To say we get our morals from a book is nuts. Take for example:

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"] "love thy neighbour as thyself".[/quote]

What a great example of cherry-picking. Why not another line from the Bible: "All who curse their father or mother must be put to death."

How do you decide which parts of your holy book are good and which to ignore?