![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 13 of 13. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Cam W. on April 2, 2001, at 6:38:15
> > "Experience is knowledge"? Did you really think about this statement before typing it and how wrong it really is? Blind faith in one's experiential beliefs is dangerous.
>
> I appreciate what you're trying to do, but please keep your cool, especially when things get heated. Experience is in fact one form of knowledge, and "blind" has negative connotations.
>Dr.B - I stand by what I say in it's contextual meaning. I was going to let this slide, but I feel what is being talked about in this thread is far too important not to justify.
When saying that "experience is knowledge", I assumed that, judging from the thread, we were discussing "scientific knowledge" on a level beyond placing one's hand on a hot oven element and not doing it again.
When I was referring to experience not being knowledge, I was using this in the context of true science, as we can empirically know it, outside of our 5 senses. Francis Bacon (1561-1626) may not have been the first to follow this line of reasoning, but in a part of his "Distributio Operis" (in the preface to the "Magna Instauratio") which relates to his "Novum Organum" he says, "Now that we have coasted past the Ancient Arts, we will prepare the human Intellect for its passage to new lands of discovery. And so this second Part has for its end Instruction as to a better and more perfect use of Reason in discovery of things, and the true aids of the Intellect: so that (as far as the frail condition of humanity allows) the intellect may be raised by it, and enabled to scale the steep and dark ascents of Nature. This Art (which we term the 'Interpretation of Nature') is in kind Logical; although between it and ordinary Logic there is a vast, immeasurable difference. For the latter does indeed also profess to elaborate and provide help and guards for the Intellect; and so far only we agree. But ours differs from it chiefly in three ways: viz. (1) in its end; (2) in the order of its demonstrations; and (3) in the starting point of its inquiries."
Bacon does go into detail on each of these 3 points, but suffice it to say, he says that we cannot truly know through experience, but need to test that experience to gain true knowledge. This can be seen in "Novum Organon" when Bacon says, "The cause and root of almost all evils in the Sciences is this one; that while we falsely admire and exalt the powers of the human mind, we do not seek its true aids."
"The subtilty of Nature far surpasses the subtilty of sense and intellect; so that men's fair meditations, speculations and reasonings are a kind of insanity, only there is no one standing by to notice it."Further to this Rene Descartes' "Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason and Seeking for Truth in the Sciences" (1637) said, "I remarked, moreover, with respect to experiments, that they become always more necessary the more one is advanced in knowledge; for, at the commencement, it is better to make use only of what is spontaneously presented to our senses, and of which we cannot remain ignorant, provided we bestow on it any reflection, however slight, than to concern ourselves about more uncommon and recondrite phenomena: the reason of which is, that the more uncommon often only mislead us so long as the causes of the more more ordinary are still unknown; and the circumstances upon which they depend are almost always so special and minute as to be highly difficult to detect."
Descartes goes on from here to describe, in a slightly different way from Bacon, the methodology of scientific method and how it differs from experiential knowledge.
Sorry if I didn't fully describe what I meant by "experiential knowledge" and I hope now you can see why I so tersely rejected Fish's stance. If everyone follows their experiences as "the Truth" science shall never advance and we shall be thrown into another Dark Ages. The scientific method, although not perfect, is the best method we have for eliciting "the Truth".
"Blind faith" follows from the above, in that believing in something, just because you want to believe in it, can cause problems when trying to discover or interpret "the Truth". Therefore, the word "blind", as used in my original sentence, should not be construed as having negative connotations, but as having descriptive value. "Blind faith" was chosen by myself to show those with less of a scientific background how our experiences can mislead us to false conclusions and thus be mistaken as knowledge (in the true, scientific sense of the word).
I hope that this clears things up a bit. Actually for once I wasn't getting "heated", but used the exclamation points as descriptors. Sorry, it is hard to show emotion through the written word, especially when one isn't a Faubert or Shakespeare. I may be Don Quixote, tilting at windmills, but I like to think of myself as the plodding, ignorant Sancho Panza, pointing out "the Truth" when it stares me in the face.
Sincerely - Cam
Posted by gen on April 2, 2001, at 19:20:40
In reply to Re: please be supportive - reasoning explained » Dr. Bob, posted by Cam W. on April 2, 2001, at 6:38:15
>
Science is certainly an important tributary to the ocean of human experience. It is, however, as subject to abuse as are all the other tributaries. It is subject to the subjectivity of its practicioners, just as are all other human
activities. To claim that it is superior to other forms of knowledge can be as dangerous to the claimants as it is to those who allow themselves to be intimidated by the verbiage. To claim its object is "truth" is to misunderstand the nature of truth.
Posted by Cam W. on April 2, 2001, at 21:45:24
In reply to Re: please be supportive - reasoning explained, posted by gen on April 2, 2001, at 19:20:40
Gen - The objectivity of the scientific method is a result of the ability to reproduce the outcome by anyone using the same methodology. If the knowledge cannot be reproduced, then the truth behind that knowledge must be suspect. Subjectivity is hard to incorporate into an experiment that can be reproduced.
An important point behind any theory of science is that specific aspects can be modified as new knowledge and better testing of a hypothesis. As such, science is an approximation of absolute truth, which is possibly unknowable. I am sorry for not stating this in my previous post. Thank you for pointing out the flaw in my argument.
Is there any absolute truth? - Cam
Posted by Todd on April 2, 2001, at 23:33:33
In reply to Truth? » gen, posted by Cam W. on April 2, 2001, at 21:45:24
But then I would be inclined to think that the "objectivity" of the scientific method pretty much falls apart when you apply it to the realms of psychology. You might have a group of 25 people who have been diagnosed "bipolar," but that's just a comfortable way to 1) Pacify the patient by giving a name to their condition so that an appropriate treatment can be applied, 2) Satisfies the physician(s) involved by making them appear to be competent, and 3) Keeps the phamaceutical companies churning out all of their wonder meds in the hopes of finding the ultimate pill. Don't get me wrong, Cam, I am "bipolar" as well and have been taking Lithobid for a dozen years. It truly seems to stabilize me as I continue to explore my process.
But the fact of the matter is, each of those 25 people has a very unique condition that cannot be labeled with a common name. The outward manifestations of their illness may be similar, but the underlying processes and issues that contribute to their individual experiences of life is completely different. Lithium works with many bipolar patients, and is useless with others. Same applies to other drugs. What kind of "objective scientific method" contributes to those outcomes? Try as you might, you will never find a psychological pharmaceutical that will yield the same results in people displaying similar symptoms. So, here we are, looking for the truth again.
I submit that the "scientific method" is a desperate attempt to attain the unattainable. Truth is its holy grail, and any successes in duplicating the same experiment over and over add to the delusion that we as humans can hold onto safety and security and truly "know." I further submit that the only knowing is in the knowing of the self. I believe we create our own experiences of life, and the more we get to know ourselves and be compassionate with ourselves, the more we can create more enriching ones. Just my two cents. Peace and love.
Todd
Posted by Sulpicia on April 3, 2001, at 4:29:54
In reply to Re: Truth? » Cam W., posted by Todd on April 2, 2001, at 23:33:33
>Todd--
while very much like your position and wholeheartedly agree with self-knowledge as
valuable goal, the end result of your reasoning will quickly yield 5 billion totally
unique organisms [us] each with their own point of view. At this point culture disappears
and everything else with it.Yes science is imperfect but one of it's first and most important impulses is taxonomy.
It groups things together on the basis of similarities. It's of some use to think of
animals as vertebrates, or perhaps look at humans as a species.
Psychiatric diagnosis runs along similar lines. Bipolar shares enough characteristics
to be separated from schizophrenia for instance. Of course there is overlap in symptoms
like depression and psychosis but there is enough of a similarity to apply the label
bipolar. I've always thought psychiatric definitions are complicated and messy because
they describe complex behavior -- like friendship for example. Ever tried to define that?
It's a bear because it resists definition precisely because, like other complex behaviors,
it shares the characteristics of the behaviors with which it merges, like love etc.Is there such a thing as truth? Even Plato admitted there was -- though it took him enough
pages. There is certainly common agreement on analogous grouping. Perhaps this is truth?
Suggested reading [and guaranteed headache] Thomas Kuhn The Structure of Scientic Revolution.
Posted by Cam W. on April 3, 2001, at 7:40:52
In reply to Re: Truth? » Cam W., posted by Todd on April 2, 2001, at 23:33:33
Todd - The scientific method doesn't fall apart in the case of 25 people having 25 unique disease states, each with overlapping symptoms, thus categorized under one umbrella-like label. As humans, we find it easier to look for similarities, rather than differences; it makes categorization and stereotyping much easier (as well as being easier remember). Psychology (which, by the way is more of an art, than a science) uses labels, just as does medical science.
I was basing my argument on the post by Fish where he said, "experience is knowledge and medical research is wrong":
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010327/msgs/58040.html
The gist of what I was getting at, although deeper than just "medical knowledge" was that subjective experience is no replacement for reproducable experimentation (which I susequently referred to as not being ideal, but the best method we have to ferret out "the Truth"). I was corrected on this by Gen and "the Truth" should be changed to "that which is true in a majority of instances, which may result in different outcomes in different individuals due to variables unaccounted for in the experimental method that was used".
Hope this clears it up a bit more - Cam
Posted by JahL on April 3, 2001, at 9:54:31
In reply to Re: Truth? » Cam W., posted by Todd on April 2, 2001, at 23:33:33
> > But the fact of the matter is, each of those 25 people has a very unique condition that cannot be labeled with a common name. The outward manifestations of their illness may be similar, but the underlying processes and issues that contribute to their individual experiences of life is completely different. Lithium works with many bipolar patients, and is useless with others. Same applies to other drugs. What kind of "objective scientific method" contributes to those outcomes? Try as you might, you will never find a psychological pharmaceutical that will yield the same results in people displaying similar symptoms.And why shld you? You make the mistake, Todd, of assuming that any given disorder has a common aetiology. Given the complexity of the brain; the sheer scope for malfunction, this is probably unlikely.
Ideally we would want to see the production of individualised 'magic bullets', each designed to specifically rectify a given physiological fault. Once these 'faults' are recognised, the actual presentation of the illness will become less significant.
& Cam I agree the term 'blind faith' is not necessarily a pejorative one. It conveys a level of belief that's impervious to external influence or reason. Simple as that. FWIW yr posts on the scientific process make perfect sense to me. Personally I am mistrustful of anyone who is naturally mistrustful of science; I mean what do they anchor their reality in, if not in scientific fact?
J.
Posted by Cam W. on April 3, 2001, at 10:52:36
In reply to Re: Truth?, posted by JahL on April 3, 2001, at 9:54:31
Jah - One major mistake that I did make in my original post was not to clarify that science is an approximation of reality. I realize that this has to be a given. As we obtain better tools for analysis our approximations get better, but the core hypotheses and scientific method are very stable. Thus, I too believe, that while not infallible, scientific method is still the most accurate way of perceiving the world.
I have been giving my original post some serious thought since I hit the confirm button and realize that not everyone is trained in the sciences. Therefore I believe we have to give some lassitude to those who do not fully understand what we take as a given. We can try to educate, but this can't be done in the elitist manner of my original post.
People mistrust science because they don't understand it and I guess if we want people to understand it we must present it in a form where we talk to them and not down to them. I believe this is where my passion for science clouded my judgement and my original post had the opposite effect from what I had originally intended.
Thanks for your support Jah and let us try to keep educating, where we can. - Cam
Posted by dj on April 3, 2001, at 10:57:44
In reply to Re: Truth?, posted by JahL on April 3, 2001, at 9:54:31
Blind faith can apply to science as well as other 'realities', 'religions', 'dogma', however you want to call it. The 'truth' has many dimensions and the subjective is as valid as the so-called 'objective' oftentimes. Patients/peoples experiences are as valid as 'science' and sometimes more so, though they can be viewed through various prisms and distorted, just as science can be.
One only has to look at some of the barbaric experiments that took place in mental instituitions in Canada, with funding from the CIA, to realize that scienc(tists) have their quirks and quacks too. True story. A Dr. Ewan or something like that did brain-washing experiments with LSD and such on various institutionilized patients - including the wife of a former member of parliment from Winnipeg, I believe - back in the 50's or 60's. Been in the courts and the media over the past few years... And then there was lobotomy...and trepanning...,etc...
And then there's eugenics... However closer to home one can look at the fact that PDocs and MDs often den(y)ied the reality of the negative side effects of ADs on patients, when they are coming off or going on, because there was no literature on them. The good/better docs weigh and sift the patient's experience and the 'scientfic data' and make decisions based on both.
In places like the artic and the ocean some scientists are now paying attention to the 'folklore' and observations of natives and local fishermen and such, who've tracked patterns over generations and sometimes have oral histories that are more accurate than some of the 'scientific observations' in terms of climate change and such.
One only has to look at the ongoing debate by academics, writers, researchers, PB participants, etc. on the efficacy (sp) of different ADs on different folks to see that there are contending theories. Yes one can use the scientific method to tease through various alternative explanations, however there are alternative explanations and science doesn't necessarily explain them all well or accurately as sometimes the wrong questions are asked or the right questions aren't posed.
The NewYorker had a great article a few years ago about how the then widely accepted scientific dogma was that one's 'gut' was a completely sterile enviroment and that ulcers were purely the result of stress. An australian researcher believed that microbes (or viri or some such thing) in the gut were the source of ulcers (though likely triggered by stressors) and could hence be treated with simple, appropriate medication - in this case one of the inexpensive elements in Pepto-Bismal vs. expensive meds.
The dogma was that microbes (or such) could not exist in the supposedly sterile (because of all those stomach acids) gut. Testing this out on himself (by drinking a mix with the microbes (or whatever they were - why not on others, I forge..) the ozzie researcher proved out his thesis. According to the article others had seen but denied the existence of the microbes because then current theories did not support them being there... Now I may have gotten some of the details a bit wrong but the general thrust is bang-on.
Biases exist in all realms. We are all biased by our experiences and we all test out our own hypothesises in our own way. Some are just better and more thorough at doing so, sometimes using the scientific method, sometimes not. And then there's cold fusion, etc, etc, etc....
Posted by Todd on April 3, 2001, at 11:11:04
In reply to Re: Truth?, posted by JahL on April 3, 2001, at 9:54:31
I make the mistake of assuming any given disorder has a common aetiology? On the contrary, Jah. I am emphatically stating that any given disorder more than likely has a DIFFERENT aetiology. Which is why finding a magic bullet for each individual person would be akin to, as Sulpicia suggested, finding a unique magic bullet for five billion different people. I really don't think that's entirely realistic. If that's what you wish to research, there's nothing wrong with that. More power to you. But what is humanity to do while it waits for the magic bullet to be developed? We can never run away from ourselves.
I've read your replies to me, Jah, and there is one thing that I continue to notice. You always seem to react to what I say and assume I am taking sides by digging into the "opposite" viewpoint. You don't seem to realize that I am merely sharing my opinion and experience along with the rest of you in the hopes that we may all come to new understanding. Yet everything seems to boil down to "either/or" in your replies. Never something in between or even all-encompassing. Your hint to Cam above about people who do not ground their realities in the facts of medical science is a perfect example. What I am getting from this, and correct me if I am wrong, is that you think that because I hold medical science up to the light of scrutiny, then it also holds that I mistrust it. That's not the truth. In turn you mistrust and discount my viewpoints and react as if I am attacking yours. I am a bit insulted. Let's get back on the same page, here, Jah.
We ALL have a common goal, don't we? TO BE WELL. I trust medical science...to an extent. Much has been done by it to alleviate human pain and suffering, and it truly is a wonder. How far has that taken us, though? I'm certainly not going to put all my eggs in one basket. I believe that the pharmaceutical concept can only be taken so far. If you feel that it can be taken further, once again, more power to you. I am WITH you, not against you. But what are we to do while we all wait for the magic bullet? New areas of science need to be explored. I am a big advocate of bioenergetic research. To me, there is a lot more information to be mined in those realms than in the field of psychopharmacology, with a more "here and now" potential to bring about healing sooner. And it is becoming more and more accepted by the scientific community. Are we going to talk here, or are we going to continue to argue? Because if the latter is the case, I give up. Peace and love.
Todd
Posted by JahL on April 3, 2001, at 12:27:13
In reply to Re: Truth? » JahL, posted by Todd on April 3, 2001, at 11:11:04
> > I make the mistake of assuming any given disorder has a common aetiology? On the contrary, Jah. I am emphatically stating that any given disorder more than likely has a DIFFERENT aetiology. Which is why finding a magic bullet for each individual person would be akin to, as Sulpicia suggested, finding a unique magic bullet for five billion different people. I really don't think that's entirely realistic. If that's what you wish to research, there's nothing wrong with that. More power to you. But what is humanity to do while it waits for the magic bullet to be developed? We can never run away from ourselves.
Sorry if I come across as confrontational; I guess I am a little, but that's the nature of my disorder. I appreciate yr view on things but this is a subject I feel *v. strongly* about & I can't agree that 'finding' yourself' is any sort of real solution to the sort of medical disorders that feature on this board. I would similarly pull someone up if they were to suggest all-day chanting as a cure.
> > I've read your replies to me, Jah, and there is one thing that I continue to notice. You always seem to react to what I say and assume I am taking sides by digging into the "opposite" viewpoint.
No you assume I assume. I merely question the validity of the statements before me.
> > You don't seem to realize that I am merely sharing my opinion and experience along with the rest of you in the hopes that we may all come to new understanding.
I do, but maybe don't express it clearly. Apologies.
> > Yet everything seems to boil down to "either/or" in your replies.
I could say the same about you. Besides in some instances it is a case of either/or .
> >Never something in between or even all-encompassing.
This is rubbish Todd. You appear to have read 1 set of posts on one thread. Never is a strong word & I suggest you reconsider.
> > Your hint to Cam above about people who do not ground their realities in the facts of medical science is a perfect example. What I am getting from this, and correct me if I am wrong, is that you think that because I hold medical science up to the light of scrutiny, then it also holds that I mistrust it.
I'm correcting you. I can see why you thought that was aimed @ you but it wasn't. I merely meant that science is the surest foundation on which to base yr (anyone's) reality. I did *not* imply SCIENCE=REALITY & I did not imply that one's faith in science shld be to the exclusion of other influences. Science is by no means flawless & scrutiny is a must. Oh & who said anything about *medical* science? Not me.
& I said I find anyone with an *INNATE* (ie one that ignores reason) mistrust of science dubious. When I speak of science I'm talking physics, chemistry etc, disciplines which explain how the world works. It is hard to deny science's fundamental tenets.
> >That's not the truth. In turn you mistrust and discount my viewpoints and react as if I am attacking yours. I am a bit insulted. Let's get back on the same page, here, Jah.
This is just yr perception. Perception=subjective. I don't mean to insult. I'm insulted that you make so many assumptions about me.
> > We ALL have a common goal, don't we? TO BE WELL. I trust medical science...to an extent. Much has been done by it to alleviate human pain and suffering, and it truly is a wonder. How far has that taken us, though? I'm certainly not going to put all my eggs in one basket. I believe that the pharmaceutical concept can only be taken so far. If you feel that it can be taken further, once again, more power to you. I am WITH you, not against you. But what are we to do while we all wait for the magic bullet?I don't pretend to have the answers. I just believe that most serious mental illness is principally biological in origin & so can't see the point in pursuing non-physical treatments. It's just my point of view, nothing else. What's the problem with me expressing this?
> >New areas of science need to be explored. I am a big advocate of bioenergetic research. To me, there is a lot more information to be mined in those realms than in the field of psychopharmacology, with a more "here and now" potential to bring about healing sooner. And it is becoming more and more accepted by the scientific community. Are we going to talk here, or are we going to continue to argue? Because if the latter is the case, I give up. Peace and love.
Again, sorry to have gotten off on the wrong foot. I'm the archetypal angry young(ish) man & perhaps this explains my manner. I will continue to reply to yr posts as I see fit, but will try & be a bit more civil:-)
Sincerely,
J.Oh & deej, thanx 4 the history lesson, which I only skim read. What pisses me off about this board is that folks are apt to take yr words out of their context.
Blind faith in science is as dangerous as it is in anything else. I did *not* say SCIENCE=GOOD, I just stated that for the reasons given by Cam, scientific findings form the basis of my reality.
The tales you tell are of BAD, corrupt science, conducted by by bad practitioners/researchers. Where did I imply that everything done in the name of science is intrinsically virtuous? I didn't.
In the UK a disproportionally high proportion of clergy are paedophiles. Is this reason to abandon yr religious beliefs? I think not (tho I cld think of plenty of others;-) )
I wish I had never posted now...all I wanted to do was offer Cam a little moral support against the science-bashers. Cam seems to be getting a bit of unwarrnted grief lately, most of it coming from uninformed quarters.
My head is bad shape right now & I don't like the way this discussion is headed (ie descending into nit-picking) so I respectfully withdraw...cannot be bothered to continually state the obvious.
J
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 3, 2001, at 19:44:58
In reply to Re: Truth? » JahL, posted by Cam W. on April 3, 2001, at 10:52:36
> People mistrust xxx because they don't understand it and I guess if we want people to understand it we must present it in a form where we talk to them and not down to them. I believe this is where my passion ... clouded my judgement
Thanks for taking the time to reflect on what happened. Passion's great, but all things in moderation... :-)
Bob
Posted by Todd on April 3, 2001, at 23:18:58
In reply to Re: Science. » Todd, posted by JahL on April 3, 2001, at 12:27:13
Yeah, mon! We're back on the same page. Now that we seem to have proven to each other that we are both intelligent human beings with open minds, I think we can start going places. I think the difficulty of communicating on this board as opposed to face to face relates to the absence of non-verbal cues. Which of course, communicate far more than words most of the time.
I acknowledge that, try as I might to communicate my ideas while also communicating an open-mindedness about others, some of the words I choose may make myself come across as stubbornly digging my feet into my own position. I by no means intend this. I only intend to be heard, and when I feel that someone, who by the choice of their words, seems to be discounting my opinion because they are too attached to theirs, I get a little frustrated. The key word here is "seems," but some choices of words lend themselves more to question the open-mindedness of the writer than others. That's why I think we both must remember to be meticulously careful of the words we choose to express ourselves in our posts. Just like Cam said, we always have to be wary of talking down to our readers. I am full of experiences and ideas and theories that I want to share, and I do want to hear yours. You're right - let the others nitpick. That's not what I'm about either. Besides, I don't want a "Please Be Civil" from Dr. Bob. 8^)
Peace and love.
Todd
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.