Subject: The "Science can't explain this" fallacy

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 23:55:36 +0300

Often us "science types" find ourselves talking to supporters of
"alternative medicine", to sellers of all sorts of "tosafei mazon" advertised
on TV and sold in pharmacies; We also talk to supporters of astrology,
to religious people, and all sorts of other "quacks" (as we see them).

When we ask them to justify their beliefs (or the product they have been
selling), and tell them that their claims have never been scientifically
validated, often they give a very short and, they think, conclusive, answer:
"Science doesn't yet understand everything. One day science will know
we're right".

Often, decisions maker (including, for example, journalists, pharmacy owners
and Kupat Cholim owners) accept this reply as valid. Therefore, they feel
they need to cover (sometimes even give "equal coverage") to these quackeries
in their newspapers, shops and clinics.

The logic in this reply is so flimsy, that there are a dozen ways to attack
it and show it to be a fallacy. But recently, I thought of one deep way
in which this reply is false. It simply shows a deep mis-understanding of
what science is.

We, the people who grew in the second half of the twentieth century, are
used to science having a full explanation for most scientific facts we know.
We know how atoms and molecules work, what DNA looks like, which germs cause
disease, how electricity and electronic works, how much of our body's systems
work, and so on. Nowadays, science can explain so much, that it's easy to
forget that most scientific discoveries started with a discovery of a fact,
before any plausable explanation was known.

For example, medicine knew that Scurvy and Beriberi was caused by some
deficiency in the food, long before Vitamin C and Vitamin B1 (respectively)
were discovered. Scientists proved, using the standard scientific testing
process, that certain foods (e.g., rice husks) cured Beriberi, before they
could explain why it cures it.
Similarly, Mendel discovered the rules of heredity before there was any
possible explanation (i.e., a century before genes and DNA were discovered).
Darwin discovered natural selection, also without being able to explain how
it happens (he was also unaware of DNA, of course, and was even unaware of
Mendel's discoveries). Mendeleib discovered the table of elements without
being able to explain it (the internal structure of the atom was discovered
later). Pasteur found a vaccine for rabies before the rabies virus, or any
virus for that matter, was known. Ways of producing various metals (iron,
copper, gold, etc.) were known millenia before chemestry was understood.
Various drugs (e.g., penecilin, quinin, etc.) were discovered before it was
understood why they work.

Even today, there are scientific facts the reason for which is not
understood. Why do the specific sub-atomic particles that we know about
exist? Why did the big bang happen? Why does the universe appear to
consist only of matter, not anti-matter? Why are there three spacial
dimensions? Why are there 4 basic forces in physics, and why are their
relative strenghts the way they are? Why does time run in one direction?
What causes cancer?

So science in no way demands that for something to be considered a "fact"
it needs to be understood. Science offers a rigorous process for validating
"facts", using experiments and looking at evidence. "explanations" are
a way to predict more facts, but are not necessary in order to know facts.

So it's true that "science can't be used to explain XYZ" (where XYZ is
homeopathy, astrology, or whatever). But it doesn't matter. What matters is
that science *can* be used to validate these claims. If we take a newspaper's
astrology section and find with a large survey that its description of Pisces
equally fits people of all birth dates, then this newspaper's astrology
section is crap, and disproved scientifically. It doesn't matter that science
can't explain *why* it's incorrect, or what does control human behavior.
Scince can say that this specific belief is crap.

So yes, science can't explain everything.
But no, don't use this as a defense when trying to sell me crap.

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |        Sunday, Jul 2 2006, 7 Tammuz 5766
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |In Fortran, God is real unless declared
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |an integer.

---

From: "Arik Baratz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 20:28:25 -0700

> "Science doesn't yet understand everything. One day science will know

Hi Nadav, all

I agree and share your distaste of this claim, that 'science still
can't explain'. "Science", however, needs a proper definition.

From the American Heritage dictionary:
Science n.

   1.
         1. The observation, identification, description, experimental
investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
         2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
         3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
   2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing
a suitcase down to a science.
   3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the
science of purchasing.
   4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
   5. Science: Christian Science.

I'm afraid that most people in this context refer to definition no. 4
- the knowledge attained from the scientific study. I would like to
concentrate on no. 1 - the process of "doing science".

The scientific method is a process in which you increase the amount of
knowledge that you have. The way you do it is by going through the
following steps:

1. Data collection. You collect the available data that you have, and
make it available to you.

2. Hypothesis. Here the scientist's creative mind comes into play. You
take this information and generate some new piece of information. One
way to do it is by applying DEDUCTION on the data you already have by
applying logic or inferring a necessary result. If X is true and X -->
Y then Y is true. This process is not creative in the sense that the
new information comes out of nowhere. The creativeness is in the
initiative for applying the correct logic and deducing the correct
result. If done properly, this kind of hypothesis is correct.

Another way to generate a new hypothesis is by induction. This is
really where the magic happens - where you say that if X is true, Y is
also true because "it looks like" it should be this way. There doesn't
need to be an explanation at this stage. The hypothesis can be, and
often is, a shot in the dark. Its existence is purely the result of
the intuition of the scientist, the creative human mind. It may rely
on some half-proven theory, it may rely on some gut feeling. It may
simply be the result of being hit on the head by an apple.

3. Test. Experiment. Look for proof - or, more often perhaps -
contradictory evidence that will either strengthen or weaken the
hypothesis.

Once you have enough evidence that the hypothesis is indeed true, you
can include it in the body of knowledge that you accumulated and treat
it as true data. You then go over the process, generating more
hypothesis and so on and so forth.

Using a hypothesis as fact after you think it has been sufficiently
proven does in no way mean that it is actually fact. It just means
that it is "good enough". Yes, a subjective, fallible BELIEF in your
ability to prove that it is true. Take for example Newtonian
mechanics. We learn them in school, they were considered true for
centuries, yet they are WRONG, they are just an approximation. We know
that today. This is also science. Challenge the "proven" hypothesis by
performing more and more experiments, which is what Einstein did. He
asked the question: What if what people believed for 200 years to be
true is in fact not true? Now go back and see how that affects the way
you view the world.

After this intro, let's go back to alternative therapy.

The affects of medicine are notoriously difficult to verify
scientifically. First, medicine affects different people differently.
Second, and perhaps more important, the body is a very complex
machine, and people's brain or mind participate what's going on.

That later aspect is both frustrating to scientists and hopeful to
people who seek healing. Frustrating, because results are more
difficult to replicate. Scientists have a name for it - the placebo
effect. The most you can say about a medicine today is that, in most
cases, it is more effective than a placebo. Granted, some medicines
are MUCH more effective than a placebo. But people can die from
placebo poison and can be cured by placebo antibiotics.

Now here's something that I find frustrating. I'll call it the
religion of science. Many people, and I have to admit that I belong in
this group more often than not, reject a hypothesis accompanied by
proof because they don't like it, because it goes against an existing
collection of facts that they believe in, because the hypothesis
involves fickle human factors like 'mood', 'belief' and 'feeling'.

I've seen many instances of research where it has been shown, in a
scientific method, double-blind, control group, the whole deal, that
people's immune system works better when people feel good, measured by
the T-cell counts in people's saliva. Not only that, doctors recognize
that, and they'll tell you that if you have a one-on-one conversation
with them, that people with a positive attitude to life have a higher
chance to get well than people with a negative attitude to life. That
keeping moderately busy and productive is better than being idle. That
people with depression are more sickly.

If CFC is found out to cause the ozone layer depletion, it's soon
phased out. Laws are made, manufacturers change processes, and that's
why today your air freshener doesn't contain greenhouse-containing
gasses. Instead it contains an energetic and flammable carbohydrate
(propane-butane) but that's a different story. All this - based on the
hypothesis, to which some evidence has been gathered, that CFC causes
ozone layer depletion.

Why don't we have mood clinics as part of the conventional medicine?
Why don't we have belief-change workshops subscribed like we have
physical therapy sessions?

I think that the religion of science is highly biased against these
forms of healing, because of the way they are applied, because they
are more difficult to measure, because they're "unscientific". I
believe that they are "scientific" in the sense that they can be
measured and quantified using the scientific method. I also believe
that scientists don't do it because the scientific community rejects
it on an emotional rather than a rational basis.

What's more, because conventional, science-based medicine rejects
these aspects of healing, it opens the door for quacks, charlatans,
astrologers and snake-oil merchants. The line of reasoning for the
non-scientific community is that the "conventional" medicine just
ignores it because it's "new", because the drug industry doesn't want
them to, because of some other conspiracy theory, and they turn to
these people. And you know what, sometimes it works, and in a
surprising number of the cases, because people believe that it works
and their mind takes part in their healing process.

I would like to see these methods put to the test, have the scientific
method applied to them. I heard about a study in acupuncture, where
people who were treated by a person taught the technique of inserting
needles and choosing the locations at random were experiencing
improvement in about the same number of the cases of people who were
treated by acupuncture experts, putting needles in their meridians or
wherever they put needles. So acupuncture is bunk... but the study
completely ignored the fact the some of the people showed marked
improvement. Hey, if I feel better, I don't care if it's the placebo
effect. My headache is gone.

I heard an interview on NPR, about the Caterina victims. Some group of
people treating with some technique called EFT was helping Caterina
victims get over some of the psychological aspects of having a
traumatic experience. Apparently it works. So they interviewed a
psychologist, and the psychologists said, on the air, that these
people who were treated are not better, they just FEEL better. Duh!

I believe we need to be more pragmatic in our approach to what works
and what doesn't.

-- Arik

---

From: Tal Kelrich <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 09:36:18 +0300

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 20:28:25 -0700

> people who were treated are not better, they just FEEL better. Duh!

Most psychiatric medication does nothing more than hide one's symptoms,
not cure one's underlying problems. This is probably much of the same.

-- 
Tal Kelrich
PGP fingerprint: 3EDF FCC5 60BB 4729 AB2F  CAE6 FEC1 9AAC 12B9 AA69
Key Available at: http://www.hasturkun.com/pub.txt
----
Serenity now. Insanity later.
----

---

From: "Arik Baratz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 00:02:37 -0700

> not cure one's underlying problems. This is probably much of the same.

Oh? Well, how do you "cure one's underlying problems"? or are they uncurable?

-- Arik

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 10:46:48 +0300

> placebo poison and can be cured by placebo antibiotics.

But this was also true when cures were found to Beriberi, to Rabies and
to Pneumonia. And still, somehow when these cures were found, it was not
hard to prove them using the scientific process. Nobody said to Flemming
(who discovered penecillin - and I'm saying this from memory so please
don't shoot me if I'm wrong), that "your medicine is herbal crap, just
mold. It's just quackery". They couldn't, seeing how it really killed
bacteria and really saved millions of lives.

So what makes modern "herbal" medicine (the kind of stuff you can buy
at your local superpharm) quackery isn't that it comes from herbs: there's
nothing wrong with medicine coming from herbs. It's the fact that after
decades of use, nobody can demonstrate that it works. If so many people
use it, and it works for all of them (or so the manufacturer claims!),
why not try to demonstrate that more convincingly? Because they can't.

Let me give you an example, from my new world as a parent to a baby :-)

Most parents of babies are familiar with "colic" [1], severe abdominal
pain that afflicts most babies up to three months old. There is no wildly-
accepted explanation of what causes Colic, and there is no wildly-accepted
medicine for it - some doctors just tell you to let nature run its
course, and the pains will disappear as the baby grows.
Still, if you go to a pharmacy, they will sell you a heap of (very expensive,
I might add) herbal medicines. If you ask mothers, each will swear to you
that one of these medicines worked wonders slash didn't work at all on her
baby. Do these medicines work at all? Do they work better than plain water,
water with sugar, or whatever placebo you can think of? (and note that the
patient is a baby, without much understanding of what is going on).
I find it utterly ridiculous that people accept these remedies, and continue
to sell them, without a trivially conducted experiment. For example, take
100 babies and give them nothing or sugar-water (or whatever placebo you want)
and count the number of times (or hours or whatever) they are in pain in
a month. Then take 100 more babies, give them some of these remedies, and
count the number of times or hours they are in pain. Is there any difference?
If there is no noticable difference - not on avarage and not on on the
distribution of pain across babies, then it isn't a case of "science can't
yet explain" - it's a case of a quack wanting to take money from you for
nothing.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_colic

> involves fickle human factors like 'mood', 'belief' and 'feeling'.

There is certain value in being skeptical. The problem is that it's not
hard to write a 10 page scientific article that ends with the conclusion
that 1=2, and then you have to spend hours looking for what has to be
a mistake in one of the arguments.
When the conclusion surprises you, you need to be extra sure that none
of the arguments in the article are false.

Stephen Jay Gould (the renowned zoologist) has a book "The Mismeasure of Man"
in which he explains how people, pretending to use scientific methods, used
them wrongly to "prove" things like blacks being dumber than whites, women
being inferior to men, and so on. He demonstrates in his book the errors
they did in their use of probability, statistics, and so on. So not every
study pretending to be scientific actually is, and when you find a study
that contradicts your knowledge, it doesn't hurt to be skeptical before
you throw away your existing knowledge and exchange it for what you read
today.

> physical therapy sessions?

Because, arguably that's something you don't need a doctor for - it's
something you can do yourself. Similarly, eating is essential for life -
if you don't eat, you die. And still, society knows that 99.9% of the
people can manage that on their own, and you don't need to go to a doctor
to feed you. Only the 0.1% who can't feed themselves (e.g., anorexic)
will get treated by a doctor. In the same way, most people can change
their mood on their own - they just need to decide to do so. Only a
minority have a disease (e.g., depression) that prevents them from doing
that, and in that case doctors do intervene.

> are more difficult to measure, because they're "unscientific". I

The question is, why should they be more difficult to measure?
Why is it difficult to take a control group, and compare it to a group
on which you applied any sort of "healing", include "belief change workshops"?
If you find that a certain workshop decreased the number of flu/cancer/
whatever patients by 10%, then you can declare it successful. If another
workshop made no difference, it is not working. You can't say that
"all workshops will work" any more than you can say that "every medicine
based on mold will work".

> these aspects of healing,

I don't agree with this. Science also thought once that the sun revolves
around the earth, or that bread mold is bad. When someone proved this
to be false, scientists were surprised, but then convinced. If any sort
of "alternative healing" is correct, I claim that it will convince
scientists and will no longer be viewed as alternative. If feeling good
does cure disease, why should scientists have a hard time to accept it
while they accept that peumonia is caused by a particle so small it can't
be seen, that gets killed by... bread mold?

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |        Monday, Jul 3 2006, 7 Tammuz 5766
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |You have the right to remain silent.
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |Anything you say will be used against you.

---

From: "Arik Baratz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 01:46:16 -0700

> bacteria and really saved millions of lives.

So? What's your point? Penicillin is better than placebo. So are the
other cures you mentioned.

> yet explain" - it's a case of a quack wanting to take money from you for

So, what's the point? That no one has done that test, or that a test
has been done and not found effective? You cannot prove it nor
disprove it without such a test, and for some reason or another, this
test was not yet performed. Why is no one doing this test? This is my
point - it MAY be effective, but the scientific community is for some
reason loath to test these claims. And mind you to test it you need
considerable resources.

Conspiracy theorists will say the large corporates don't want these
things to be tested because they don't make money from unpatented
mixtures of herbs.

> a mistake in one of the arguments.

Oh, do be skeptical, and work to disprove what is claimed, but do the
work and don't just ignore it.

> you throw away your existing knowledge and exchange it for what you read

That's the beauty and elegance about scientific study - it's published
and you can criticize it and recreate the experiment and publish your
results.

> that, and in that case doctors do intervene.

Oh I think you got the ratios wrong, and while being a minority it's
big enough to be considered. Add to that the fact that many people
tend to become depressed when they're told they have, say, cancer. I
disagree and think that a holistic (= treating a person as a whole)
approach for treating people will give better results.

> on which you applied any sort of "healing", include "belief change workshops"?

I can't explain it rationally, except that I think scientists just shy
away from these topics, believing them in the realm of religion or
new-age or whatnot.

> to be false, scientists were surprised, but then convinced. If any sort

Well, first they tried to suppress that opinion, and then they tried
the most vocal proponent for that opinion and found him guilty and
sentenced him not to express his hypothesis (that the Earth revolves
around the Sun). Scientists can be as conservative as anyone.

> be seen, that gets killed by... bread mold?

Like I've said, I don't think it's rational. I think that somewhere in
the process of becoming a scientist you learn to dislike these topics.
If you figure out why, let me know. The fact of the matter is, these
are subjects that receive much less scientific attention than bread
mold, and IMHO unjustly so.

-- Arik

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 13:19:44 +0300

> other cures you mentioned.

Indeed. And "better than placebo" is the only thing that matters what it
comes to quacks selling you stuff. Why should I buy 100 shekel "medicine"
when a 1 shekel "medicine" will work just as well (both will be placebos)?

>..

Who said nobody did this test? Maybe the manufacturer did it, and didn't
like the results. Maybe the manufacturer didn't want to do the test, because
he knew that he just invented this remedy (e.g., "let's take juice from some
fruits I have here on the table, and sell this as a cure to XYZ") and there
is no way in the world that the test will show it to work?

And even if nobody tried to test it, it doesn't give this product temporary
validity. It just proves the seller is a quack, as all decent sellers (not
just in the field medicine) make sure that their product works before selling
it.

> things to be tested because they don't make money from unpatented

That's like saying that any mathematical theorem is true, it's just that
the large universities conspired to call only the math theorems they invent
"true".

Most people don't care about the corporate's wishes. See, for example, free
software. People use it because it actually works - even if the large
corporates might wish that it never existed because they don't make money
from it.

> work and don't just ignore it.

The burden of proof is the other way around. The more outlandish your
results are, the harder *you* should work to convince others that you're
right. If your result is surprising *and* nobody can understand your
reasoning, don't be surprised if nobody believes you.

The problem is that it's much easier to invent false theorems, than correct
ones. Scientists don't - and shouldn't - spend their time discrediting all
the possible false theorems, but rather finding correct ones.

> away from these topics, believing them in the realm of religion or

I think you are confusing "scientists" with "scientific method". Ok, then
"scientists" - such as tenured professors and employees of billion dollar
drug companies - shy away from such research. Ok. But who cares? Whoever
does care about these subjects - such as the people who actually run such
workshops (for example) - can do the research themselves, using the scientific
method.
Why can't they say "1,000 people graduated from my workshop in the last 10
years; Let's see if the percent of them that got sick is smaller than that
in the general population"? They can. And if they want to convince me that
there's any truth to their method, this is what they need to do.

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |        Monday, Jul 3 2006, 7 Tammuz 5766
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |A computer program does what you tell it
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |to do, not what you want it to do.

---

From: "Arik Baratz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 09:55:55 -0700

> when a 1 shekel "medicine" will work just as well (both will be placebos)?

Personally if it works and it's a placebo I don't need any of it, it's
an indication that the problem can be taken care of by other means.

> is no way in the world that the test will show it to work?

Well, more likely than not the mfg didn't do the tests.

And that's my point. It sells without doing the tests, BECAUSE
scientists don't do these tests. Since scientists don't do these tests
all the quacks can sell it without doing tests because people are used
to the fact that alt. medicine doesn't go through tests and it is
effective to some degree, so they just buy it without the tests.

Perhaps if enough people use something someone will take it seriously
enough to test it. Echinacea is widely used today, and I've seen some
research about it, some of it claims that it's entirely ineffective.
That's a good start, when you have contrary opinions.

> just in the field medicine) make sure that their product works before selling

Why would they test it? What incentive do they have to test it? People
buy it anyway.

> corporates might wish that it never existed because they don't make money

I don't like your analogy to software. Software either works or
doesn't or is buggy to greater or lesser extent. You either can
complete a task with some software or you can't. A math theorem can be
verified by another mathematician. Medicine tests are subjective and
you need a large body of statistical data to show a trend. If I give
you the herb and you heal yourself with it, you can't claim anything
except that, for you, it worked.

> reasoning, don't be surprised if nobody believes you.

You left the incentive to prove it outside this equasion.

> the possible false theorems, but rather finding correct ones.

Well, if there's anecdotal evidence that doing some mental exercise 3
times a day cures cancer, I think it's worth a glance. How do you find
correct ones? Go back to the scientific process I described. The part
of it where you have to be creative, where you have to think up
something that has no basis so you can test it - you don't know it's
correct until you verified it.

> workshops (for example) - can do the research themselves, using the scientific

But they don't need to because again they have no incentive.

> there's any truth to their method, this is what they need to do.

Nope. It has to be reproducible and has to be reproduced. Remember cold fusion?

And regarding the workshop, that's just bad statistics, because there
might be something in common to the people who go to the workshop;
they chose to go there and they weren't selected in random, you did
not isolate the random variable you're testing, no control group, no
double-blind test. It proves nothing. It is, still, anecdotal
evidence. Very good one at that.

-- Arik