Biology Article
For 80 years it has accepted that life began in a Japanese artist Kazuhiko Nakamura, aka. Almacan, displays his extraordinary paintings created with Photoshop and the 3D software "Shade" at the Mechanical Mirage Art Gallery. It may be that what Almacan presents us with strangely coincides with my current obsession with the biological in artwork, but I am utterly bowled over with Almacan.. Writing on his painting "Metamorphosis", Almacan says that he became engrossed in the 3D rendering of the worlds depicted in 16th century My favorite is the one scientific theory that says that the rings of Saturn are composed entirely of lost luggage by airlines. Professor of Alternative Medicine at the University of Exeter, E. Ernst, this biology article offers a brief guide to detect pseudoscientific claims in medicine. The article I found so interesting I decided to translate and bring to this medium for your knowledge. -The function of internal organs can be influenced by manipulating specific zones located in the foot (reflexology). These statements simulate a window where science shows, but really are not very different from the thoughts of primitive cavemen. In these cases the principle of Popper that hypotheses must be falsifiable can be useful. It is common to read between the advocates of the absurdity of the tools that science handles are not appropriate to discuss the findings. But that is clearly false, since all that alternative medicine sentence can be analyzed scientifically and all statements referred to above can be tested in one way or another. In fact it is rare that all those making absurd statements argue that their hypotheses have not been sufficiently tested, so it is impossible to say that are wrong. And is that the more absurd is a statement there is less chance of someone trying to prove it. So do not stop to say that the "lack of evidence is not evidence of absence". But something must be done in these cases. Perhaps one method would be to add two more criteria to the falsificationism of Popper: those involving the plausibility of it being true and the implications of pseudoscience. The plausibility match if the statements are made based on what is known about the matter at that time. If, for example, tells us that homeopathy is more or less nothing is something, is not difficult to show that it is not supported by what we know of the laws of nature. But homeopathy could counter the argument by saying that there is a working hypothesis and some experimental data could be explained by a "memory of water". Therefore, the plausibility of itself is not always sufficient, as our knowledge changes over time, what seems impossible today, tomorrow it could be possible. So we need more tools to analyze absurd claims. The second criterion is that for which a claim is signed by pseudoscience. Pseudoscience has different characteristics and different authors have cited several criteria to recognize (Skrabanek, 1986). In the field of alternative medicine there are some very easy to recognize. – Intolerance: Many alternative medicines are grown with an evangelical zeal and find it difficult to accept criticism or reasoned debate. Anyone who has tried a rational debate with someone who makes irrational statements will have suffered in the flesh that experience. As intolerance can occur in many places, the same discriminatory power is low, so we must resort to the following criteria. – Selectivity: Many followers of alternative medicine tend to ignore facts that contradict their views. Instead select a data series, although they are derived from abnormally, or anecdotal events. Clinical trials, for example, were designed to avoid the subjectivity associated with the unaided eye. At the time that these tests do not prove the claims of alternative medicine made his followers show their preference for some isolated cases they are right. In that sense their operating system is to formulate its conclusions first and then selectively identify those cases that fit these conclusions, ignoring all others, regardless of the number you have to refuse to do so. – Paranoia: Many followers of alternative medicine believe in conspiracy theories, why the powers that be trying to eliminate their views. For example, in Internet abound claims that the pharmaceutical industry is conducting a campaign against alternative cancer cures, such as the cartilage of the shark fin. Anyone seeking evidence for the curative effects on cancer that cartilage is struck immediately join the conspiracy. – Misuse: Some alternative medicines improperly used scientific terminology such as energy, chaos theory, quantum mechanics, or entangled in using these terms out of context, devoid of real meaning (Ernst, 2004). Quality standards are replaced by their own standards and if they do not work with, it is not unusual to see as directly appeals to fraud (Ernst, 2006). – Practical applications: How can we use the criteria we have to recognize the absurdities in practice? The history of science shows and will continue to spend billions of euros testing hypotheses that were already starting absurd (Mitka, 2008). Surely that money had been spent much better if it had been used to implement mechanisms to recognize absurd claims. When faced with a suspicious claim it would be best to ask if you can demonstrate in some way and if it has been shown already. For example, what is the evidence that a highly diluted homeopathic substance is a health benefit?. A PubMed search will give many results that can be complex to analyze and contradictory. When this first step does not generate a quick response is to seek the basis of the statement and ask whether it is plausible. Is it really reasonable to assume that diluting a remedy it becomes more powerful, as claimed by homeopathy?. In the event that the answer still is not final then we must seek the seal of pseudoscience. This will involve an exchange of arguments in defense of what may seem absurd. ¿Rationally defend their positions?, Do you not know the evidence that do not fit into your argument?, Do you use scientific terminology correctly?. This little guide may not be infallible, but at least increases the chances of detecting pseudo-scientific arguments of those who have chosen to do science. Interestingly, I have a question, the criterion of plausibility I think it was raised by Mario Bunge but not in what book or under what name. It happens that I have not read his books, I know their opinions from Wikipedia and various interviews and articles, and I was able to perform a brief interview at a seminar where he mentioned this criterion epistemology saying
