Doubting is a good thing. Doubting with method is a better thing - Belief Hunter - 3/3
Good afternoon everybody!
Today, we are going to deal with Zététique and its practical applications to “daily life”. Zététique is seen by the biophysicist Henri Broch (1905 -) as “Art of doubt”. The latter, is equivalent to scientific skepticism (cf. first post 1) which includes scientific method (cf. Second post).
The goal of Zététique is distinction between knowledge and beliefs, that is to say distinction between science and pseudo-science.
The main mean to distinguish science and pseudo-science is falsifiability criterion (cf. Post 2). In fact, a scientific theory can be tested while a pseudo-scientific theory can not.
1- Similia similibus curentur or Principle of similitude: For example, If you have malaria the usual symptoms are; fever, shivering and joint pain. Moreover, eat sufficient quantity of bark and you will experiment same symptoms. Thus, Hahnemann tells us: Bark and malaria imply equals symptoms, eat bark and you will be cured of malaria.-1
2- Individualised treatment: “No universal homeopathic treatment/drug recommended to cure a specific disease/symptom. Each patient has his/her own specific homeopathic treatment.”-2
3- Infinitesimal dilution: Eating bark might be dangerous. Consequently, transform bark piece to bark powder and put the latter into water. Dilute this melange several times. Well done! You made your homeopathic treatment to cure malaria.-2
Have you found the criteria which makes homeopathy non-falsifiable?
It is the number 2, “individualised treatment”. Given that each patient gets his/her own homeopathic, whether the treatment work we are happy, or it does not work and that’s was the wrong cure. That is why we are not able to answer either YES or NO to the next question: “Does homeopathy work?”. In conclusion, homeopathy is a pseudo-science.
NB: The homeopathy was been tested without the second criteria and the conclusion is “homeopathy has no effect as a treatment for that condition unless there was sufficient reliable evidence to demonstrate otherwise.”-3
Those kind of premature judgment could lead us to a prejudicial situation (irrational or non ethic conclusion, etc).
There is a solution to this problem: Epochè (Greek word from the Greek philosopher Pyrrhon (cf. Post 1)).
When we don’t know and/or data are insufficient we suspend our judgment in waiting for new data.
That method protect against all kind of prejudices and premature judgments.
Revise
Another tool for better judging is “Plausibility/credence cursor”-4. Before I found it, I was thinking in Manicheism manner: YES / NO. Often, we exagerate our opinion to fit the "YES" ' position or the "NO" 's position. It can compel us to defend an opinion that we don't really want to fight for. Moreover, that way of thinking implies an expensive effort to move from YES to NO and vice versa.
Plausibility cursor
Now, you can understand that if I believe in something with a 80% credence, it is economical to move 80% from 20% instead 100% (=YES) to 0% (=NO). In addition, plausibility cursor tends to avoid (group) polarization -5.
_
In conclusion, I would say something about my state of mind which helps me to try to not be dogmatic. When you are debating, ask yourself this : "Do I want to win? Do I want to reach the truth?".
Finally, I would quote Lê Nguyen Hoang (from the youtube channel : Science4All):
"To know is to assign adequate credence to the different theories."
Skeptically !
Erwan Meunier.
Sources :
1- Wikipedia contributors. (2020, April 6). Homeopathy. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 07:56, April 11, 2020, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Hahnemann's_concept
2- Homéopathie. (2020, April 4). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Enquiry date 11:50, April 11, 2020 from http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hom%C3%A9opathie&oldid=169147835
3- NHMRC. (2015). Information Paper: Evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy for treating health conditions https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/file/14831/download?token=3fr8KHyd
4- Christophe Michel. Ep26 La Pensée Bayésienne. (Enquiry date 04.11.2020) https://skeptikon.fr/videos/watch/1b8eed10-6a52-47b2-bf69-28046e73913c
5- Wikipedia contributors. (2020, March 8). Group polarization. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Enquiry date 09:59, April 11, 2020, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Group_polarization&oldid=944512526
Today, we are going to deal with Zététique and its practical applications to “daily life”. Zététique is seen by the biophysicist Henri Broch (1905 -) as “Art of doubt”. The latter, is equivalent to scientific skepticism (cf. first post 1) which includes scientific method (cf. Second post).
The goal of Zététique is distinction between knowledge and beliefs, that is to say distinction between science and pseudo-science.
The main mean to distinguish science and pseudo-science is falsifiability criterion (cf. Post 2). In fact, a scientific theory can be tested while a pseudo-scientific theory can not.
Falsifiability criterion applied to... :
...Homeopathy:
Homeopathy is based on three major features provided by Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843):1- Similia similibus curentur or Principle of similitude: For example, If you have malaria the usual symptoms are; fever, shivering and joint pain. Moreover, eat sufficient quantity of bark and you will experiment same symptoms. Thus, Hahnemann tells us: Bark and malaria imply equals symptoms, eat bark and you will be cured of malaria.-1
2- Individualised treatment: “No universal homeopathic treatment/drug recommended to cure a specific disease/symptom. Each patient has his/her own specific homeopathic treatment.”-2
3- Infinitesimal dilution: Eating bark might be dangerous. Consequently, transform bark piece to bark powder and put the latter into water. Dilute this melange several times. Well done! You made your homeopathic treatment to cure malaria.-2
Have you found the criteria which makes homeopathy non-falsifiable?
It is the number 2, “individualised treatment”. Given that each patient gets his/her own homeopathic, whether the treatment work we are happy, or it does not work and that’s was the wrong cure. That is why we are not able to answer either YES or NO to the next question: “Does homeopathy work?”. In conclusion, homeopathy is a pseudo-science.
NB: The homeopathy was been tested without the second criteria and the conclusion is “homeopathy has no effect as a treatment for that condition unless there was sufficient reliable evidence to demonstrate otherwise.”-3
Suspend and revise your own judgement:
Suspend:
Usually, when we interact with other people we are pushed to give our opinion, our judgment about many things such as political system in this country, Hydroxy-chloroquine to cure COVID-19, etc. Sometimes we feel plagued between the Yes and the No, or we even don’t know what is the subject and we still formulate an opinion. Indeed, appearing to an ignorant person is frowned upon in our society.Those kind of premature judgment could lead us to a prejudicial situation (irrational or non ethic conclusion, etc).
There is a solution to this problem: Epochè (Greek word from the Greek philosopher Pyrrhon (cf. Post 1)).
When we don’t know and/or data are insufficient we suspend our judgment in waiting for new data.
That method protect against all kind of prejudices and premature judgments.
Revise
Another tool for better judging is “Plausibility/credence cursor”-4. Before I found it, I was thinking in Manicheism manner: YES / NO. Often, we exagerate our opinion to fit the "YES" ' position or the "NO" 's position. It can compel us to defend an opinion that we don't really want to fight for. Moreover, that way of thinking implies an expensive effort to move from YES to NO and vice versa.
Plausibility cursor
Now, you can understand that if I believe in something with a 80% credence, it is economical to move 80% from 20% instead 100% (=YES) to 0% (=NO). In addition, plausibility cursor tends to avoid (group) polarization -5.
_
In conclusion, I would say something about my state of mind which helps me to try to not be dogmatic. When you are debating, ask yourself this : "Do I want to win? Do I want to reach the truth?".
Finally, I would quote Lê Nguyen Hoang (from the youtube channel : Science4All):
"To know is to assign adequate credence to the different theories."
Skeptically !
Erwan Meunier.
Sources :
1- Wikipedia contributors. (2020, April 6). Homeopathy. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 07:56, April 11, 2020, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Hahnemann's_concept
2- Homéopathie. (2020, April 4). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Enquiry date 11:50, April 11, 2020 from http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hom%C3%A9opathie&oldid=169147835
3- NHMRC. (2015). Information Paper: Evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy for treating health conditions https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/file/14831/download?token=3fr8KHyd
4- Christophe Michel. Ep26 La Pensée Bayésienne. (Enquiry date 04.11.2020) https://skeptikon.fr/videos/watch/1b8eed10-6a52-47b2-bf69-28046e73913c
5- Wikipedia contributors. (2020, March 8). Group polarization. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Enquiry date 09:59, April 11, 2020, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Group_polarization&oldid=944512526
Zététique? Should I search its definition in a german dictionnary? It's so ridiculous. In addition, homeopathy work very well for me. You disrespect it because it doesn't work for you. You're a nasty guy.
ReplyDeleteWhat a comment!
DeleteIf homeopathy works well for you, try this blog too, it is a good drug. I mind that you did not read the part about sample size (cf. second post).
You won't have to use a german dictionnary, I promise you.
Best sketpics regards.
Erwan.