When conspiracy theories turn out to be true

[The Butcher]

I don't know his sources, but over half of psychological studies are not reproducible,

Not a psychologist, but to the best of my understanding, the subjective nature of certain psychological outcomes makes experimental psychology a methodological fucking nightmare. Reproducibility is a failsafe. And if reproducibility studies are failing left and right, well, time to throw out the bath water. Just make sure you fish out the baby first.

the head of Glaxo admits his drugs don't work for most people, and I've certainly seen the like (with somewhat smaller percentages) for other fields.

He's talking about pharmacogenomics — the idea that different people react differently to the same drugs, and that we may be able to model individual response to drugs with enough knowledge of genetics/genomics.

At our current level of understanding, using population-based studies to guide treatment of disease is, for the most part, both ethically and methodologically sound. I expect and in fact hope such knowledge will be superseded in the future.

But when genomics really kicks in (i.e. gets cheap enough for widespread use) there's going to be a lot of "shit, I wish I'd known this 30+ years ago."

[rawma]

For more sinister, the Tuskeegee "experiments" where poor people were denied drugs just so scientists could watch them die in interesting ways, went on for some 50 years before being finally admitted.

"Poor people"? You really can't bring yourself to say the victims were specifically "African American", can you?

Wikipedia link.

The victims of the study, all African American, included numerous men who died of syphilis, 40 wives who contracted the disease, and 19 children born with congenital syphilis.

[Doom]

Well, Rawma the Liar (although not on this particular issue), I'm pretty sure they were taken advantage of more for being poor and than being black. Well, a case could easily be made it was their lack of education instead. But, yeah, they were African-American as well. Also, they were from Alabama, for the most part, and also American citizens, and also from planet Earth.

But, anyway, this was pure conspiracy theory for decades until the government finally admitted it was true, so no need for you to further threadcrap about details. You're welcome to start another thread for that.

[Doom]

Not a psychologist, but to the best of my understanding, the subjective nature of certain psychological outcomes makes experimental psychology a methodological fucking nightmare. Reproducibility is a failsafe. And if reproducibility studies are failing left and right, well, time to throw out the bath water. Just make sure you fish out the baby first.

There's a bit more to it than that, as these studies are supposed to be saying something about the human condition...and, well, they don't, despite being peer reviewed and all.

He's talking about pharmacogenomics — the idea that different people react differently to the same drugs, and that we may be able to model individual response to drugs with enough knowledge of genetics/genomics.

At our current level of understanding, using population-based studies to guide treatment of disease is, for the most part, both ethically and methodologically sound. I expect and in fact hope such knowledge will be superseded in the future.

But when genomics really kicks in (i.e. gets cheap enough for widespread use) there's going to be a lot of "shit, I wish I'd known this 30+ years ago."

Sure, things might get better, later, but the point was simply that much of the crap you buy off drugstore shelves, much of the crap you pay a fortune for to get from the legal drug dealer at the pharmacy is...useless, and, no, you won't get a refund. This has led people to then go off and try pseudo-science (and "pseudo" may be generous) like homeopathy and such...and, honestly, if it's just as useless and costs 5% as much, it's hard to criticize the choice.

[The Butcher]

There's a bit more to it than that, as these studies are supposed to be saying something about the human condition...and, well, they don't, despite being peer reviewed and all.

"The human condition"? Excuse me sir, but you seem to have your philosophy on my psychology.

Sure, things might get better, later, but the point was simply that much of the crap you buy off drugstore shelves, much of the crap you pay a fortune for to get from the legal drug dealer at the pharmacy is...useless, and, no, you won't get a refund. This has led people to then go off and try pseudo-science (and "pseudo" may be generous) like homeopathy and such...and, honestly, if it's just as useless and costs 5% as much, it's hard to criticize the choice.

Sure, knock yourself out. 🙄

[rawma]

Well, Rawma the Liar (although not on this particular issue)

Not a liar on any issue, but I understand that you are often unable to respond to posts except by name calling.

BedrockBrendan has expressed concern on this very forum about how racist some posts sound, and asked that other posters push back against blatant misrepresentations of history. So perhaps you shouldn't be sweeping one of the most notorious cases of racism under the rug so cavalierly.

, I'm pretty sure they were taken advantage of more for being poor and than being black. Well, a case could easily be made it was their lack of education instead. But, yeah, they were African-American as well. Also, they were from Alabama, for the most part, and also American citizens, and also from planet Earth.

Read the Wikipedia page; the belief was that syphilis advanced differently in African Americans, and that was where they aimed their study. There were no poor white people with syphilis in Alabama in the Depression? :rolleyes: Alternately, point out a similar medical study that treated poor white people as badly, withholding treatment for decades after an effective treatment was discovered.

[Doom]

Not a liar on any issue, but I understand that you are often unable to respond to posts except by name calling.

Rawma the Liar, stop threadcrapping, please. Anyone who thinks Rawma requires a relevant response can PM me. Rawma the Liar, if you honestly believe the things you say are relevant, start your own thread on it.

[Spinachcat]

Thank you Citizen Rawma. We have long suspected Doom of wrongthink, but you have finally unhooded this horrific villain.

theRPGsite shall be a safe space once again.

Excuse me sir, but you seem to have your philosophy on my psychology.

That was funny!


As for the popularity of pseudo-science, I blame the US education system. As a former educator, I can confirm that the US system does a truly terrible job teaching...anything. While there is a smattering of excellent educators, the system itself does not teach critical thinking skills necessary to adult life.

[rawma]

you have finally unhooded this horrific villain.

Well, the problem is that he keeps putting his hood on. Does anyone remember if there was a klansman smiley before the upgrade?

[Daztur]

For the percentage of studies that can't be reproduced I'm sure it's a huge number, just one concentrated in the Z-grade journals that nobody ever reads or cites. I know, I did copy editing for one of those journals (three cents a word adds up nicely when you can do during your morning subway commute) and we got all kinds of submissions (that were published after I fixed up their style a bit) that couldn't even check their spelling let along their statistics.

[Daztur]

For scientific conspiracies there's plenty of problems with science and I'm sure there's hundreds of things out there that the scientific consensus is wrong about but I can't think of much from history where:
1. The scientific consensus was wrong.
2. There was a large organized movement of (almost entirely) non-scientists who are right.

Usually it's more like:
1. The scientific consensus was wrong.
2. Some fringe scientist that nobody took seriously was right.
3. Laymen had no idea who that fringe scientist even was.

Scientists are wrong all the time, but movements of laymen who organize to oppose some bit of the scientific consensus have pretty much a 0 batting average since science really got organized in the 19th century.

[TristramEvans]

Here's the thing about psychology, and even more so, psychiatry.

It is a science in its infancy. Medical science took how many thousands of years to develop to the point its at now? And even so, were only a century past doctors raving about the health benefits of smoking. Psychology, as a science, only came into being at the beginning of the last century, prefaced by generations of torturing the mentally ill. Practically speaking, we're talking about a science that hasn't advanced past the dark ages. A modern day psychologist may as well be a medieval leech. And thats not even touching on the unethical practices and interactions between psychiatrists and drug companies.

Putting any faith into psychology as a science is basically worth about as much as trusting an astrologer to guide your life through star patterns or tarot cards.

[Doom]

Here's the thing about psychology, and even more so, psychiatry.

It is a science in its infancy. Medical science took how many thousands of years to develop to the point its at now? And even so, were only a century past doctors raving about the health benefits of smoking. Psychology, as a science, only came into being at the beginning of the last century, prefaced by generations of torturing the mentally ill. Practically speaking, we're talking about a science that hasn't advanced past the dark ages. A modern day psychologist may as well be a medieval leech. And thats not even touching on the unethical practices and interactions between psychiatrists and drug companies.

Putting any faith into psychology as a science is basically worth about as much as trusting an astrologer to guide your life through star patterns or tarot cards.

Very valid...but psychological pharmaceuticals are big, big business today. Guess we'll find out later if it's a conspiracy we're pumping people full of drugs based the infantile "science" of psychology.

[Elfdart]

Here's the thing about psychology, and even more so, psychiatry.

It is a science in its infancy. Medical science took how many thousands of years to develop to the point its at now? And even so, were only a century past doctors raving about the health benefits of smoking. Psychology, as a science, only came into being at the beginning of the last century, prefaced by generations of torturing the mentally ill. Practically speaking, we're talking about a science that hasn't advanced past the dark ages. A modern day psychologist may as well be a medieval leech. And thats not even touching on the unethical practices and interactions between psychiatrists and drug companies.

Putting any faith into psychology as a science is basically worth about as much as trusting an astrologer to guide your life through star patterns or tarot cards.

Very valid...but psychological pharmaceuticals are big, big business today. Guess we'll find out later if it's a conspiracy we're pumping people full of drugs based the infantile "science" of psychology.

Psychiatry IS a medical science. A psychiatrist can prescribe medicine and do surgery. A psychologist is more or less a philosopher who moonlights as a counselor. Confusing the two is like mistaking an astrologer for an astronomer.

[RPGPundit]

Not interested enough to keep this open.