Profile

Cover photo
George Locke
Worked at Rutgers University
Attends Rutgers University, Tufts University, Commonwealth School
Lives in Edison NJ
217 followers|22,125 views
AboutPostsPhotosYouTube

Stream

George Locke

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
his getting that oracle... i guess he was hoping to activate his own cities? he was only going to win short, and I guess the oracle helps him do that, but it also helps you so much, so i really can't countenance that play.
1
Add a comment...

George Locke

Shared publicly  - 
1
Add a comment...

George Locke

Shared publicly  - 
 
"To show that homeopathy works would require evidence of approximately the same quality and quantity as the evidence* that concludes that it cannot work."  (the "evidence*" in reference is that underlying the basic physics and chemistry that describes liquids, solutions, etc..)

This point cannot be emphasized enough.  Homeopathy can't work unless basic findings in science are wrong.  We have mountains of evidence for those findings while the best evidence for homeopathy is a handful of studies showing small effects.  Anyone who says that a handful of studies showing small effect sizes is sufficient to move mountains is selling something.

The situation is much like a miracle claim, where the evidence necessary to prove a miracle must be such that "the falsehood of the testimony would be more miraculous than the event," to quote the Scot.  The evidence necessary for homeopathy must be stronger than the evidence for basic science.  I will explicate this idea in some detail.  I hope my little rant here will illuminate the way science works in general and provide a bit of innoculation against pseudoscience.

So what are the mountains I'm talking about, and why do we have to move them for homeopathy to be true?  (If you don't know what homeopathy is, I refer you to wikipedia or SBM http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/homeopathy/ .)  A homeopathic remedy is prepared by adding some solute to water then diluting the solution so much that the likelihood of a single particle of the initial solute being left is astronomically low.  Since there's no longer any solute in the treatment, homeopathic remedies are literally just water.  If you just want to know why homeopathy doesn't work, you can stop reading here.  It's just water.  

The homeopath has to quibble and say it's not "just" water.  They will argue that water has a memory: the former presence of the solute has left some persistent mark on the water.  But most data storage media (magnetic disk, DNA, brains) store data by making durable physical arrangements.  As far as we know, water cannot do this.  It's a liquid, which means the arrangment of its constituent H2O molecules is random.  "Randomness" can be defined using statistical mechanics, and many deviations from randomness could be observed macroscopically.  Even if the putative homeopathic non-randomness could not be detected experimentally, then how is it that stored information is carried to the human body and have health effects?  Maybe we could detect it if we did the right experiment,  Well, it's possible to invent ad-hoc rationalizations to answer this question.  For example, the non-randomness could be physically in some way we have failed to detect.  This could possibly be true, but we have no direct evidence to support it and considerable evidence to reject it.  If you can think of another way that homeopathy could work that is meaningfully distinct from "magic," please let me know.

Note that if water has a memory, the homeopath has to explain why it remembers only what s/he added but forgets untold millenia passing through dirt, worms, bearded pigs and what not.  Either that or explain why those memories don't matter.  Since there's no more solute in the solution, how do you decide how much of it to take?  Why do some solutions get diluted by a factor of ~10^-60 and others by ~10^-200?

What about the evidence claimed in support of homeopathy.  There are many studies on the health effects, where you give sick people the remedy and see if they improve.  (Here we can observe that if these people are sick, they should be given something that has some real chance of working.)  The effects are generally modest, and "better" studies show smaller effects (better meaning more subjects, better controls, clearly defined outcomes, etc.). There is no direct evidence to support any mechanism of action.  So okay, maybe there are health effects and we can study that.  Considered in aggregate, most researchers looking at efficacy data conclude that homeopathy is a placebo.  Some do not.  

Keep in mind that the placebo-concluding scientists do not generally consider the violation of physics inherent in homeopathic claims.  They just consider the evidence testing efficacy without considering the larger scientific context, which includes a much larger body of evidence that theories of homeopathy must explain.  Even without that context, the case for homeopathy is very weak.

But lets consider all the evidence, not just the efficacy studies.  On the one hand, we have mountains of evidence on basic physics and chemistry leading to unanimously accepted models suggesting that homeopathy cannot possibly work better than placebo, and we have the efficacy trial data that is ambiguous at best.  On the other hand we have these few studies/analyses that show small effects, about which the medical community is divided.  

So what theory better explains the evidence?  On the "homeopathy works" side:
* the observed minor health benefits are explained by a working remedy
* the disconfirming meta-analyses of these observations are methodologically unsound
* inconsistent water memory is explained by gnomes
* the basic science is explained by some combination of rampant groupthink among physical scientists and special pleading/ad-hoc rationalizations

On "physics works" side:
* the huge body of observations of water and solutions is explained by existing physics and chemistry
* the small effects are explained by bias
It is very easy to show that various forms of bias produce "statistically significant" results where there is no effect under consideration (see the readable and free JP Ioannidis, "Why most published research findings are false," PLoS Med 2005).

The case against homeopathy is stronger than, for example, herbal supplements.  There are many problems with supplements (notably, what's on the label may not be in the bottle), but, for example, pharmacologically active aspirin analogs are found in many plants.  Moreover, the mechanism of aspirin's action was mysterious until the 70s, so we shouldn't be too aggressive in attacking treatments without a known mechanism.  However, we know a lot about the body, and much, much more about isolated chemical interactions, so we can be pretty confident that, for example, homeopathy does not work.

Studies on homeopathy, reiki, etc. can only provide a veil of legitimacy to peddlers of snake oil.  Stop doing them.
4
Add a comment...

George Locke

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
1
Add a comment...

George Locke

Shared publicly  - 
 
I wonder who made this and why.  I guess the reason to single art out is that there are more people who will claim that art will save the world than, say, marketing.  I'm left wondering, what will save the world?  
2
Dave Burdick's profile photoGeorge Locke's profile photoKasper Brohus Allerslev's profile photo
3 comments
 
Good and courageous people.
Add a comment...

George Locke

Shared publicly  - 
 
The moral right to Freeze Peach

Responding to Ally Fogg's recent, shrewd post on offence, linked below.  

There's ambiguity around the term "rights".  I have a legal right to offend you, but I may or may not have a moral right to offend you.  For example, racial slurs - not ok; you getting offended b/c I'm attacking your privilege - ok.  Neither one should be a crime.

This confusion is not a merely academic issue.  When right wingnuts complain about boycots on Chick Fil-er trampling on the right to free speech or Brendan Eich forced resignation from Mozilla, they're trading on the ambiguity.  This rhetoric acquires power from the superficial reference the "right to free speech", which is universally acknowledged as a pillar of democracy.  The reference is bullshit because the "right to free speech" is a legal right, not a moral right.  There is no moral "right to freeze peach".  You don't have a moral right to bad speech - that's what the word "bad" means.

Boycotts like this put up barriers for people who make unpopular speech; that's the whole point, in fact.  So in this (irrelevant) sense, the boycott is contrary to the "right to freeze peach."  The problem, of course, is that free speech is a "legal right", not a "moral right".  I might not want the government to make your asshattery a crime, but that's not to say that I am going to shut up about it myself.

We are not ethically compelled to permit offensive, harmful speech even though we are ethically compelled to keep the state out of it.
4
Kasper Brohus Allerslev's profile photo
 
Great article!

I had a discussion about rights the other day with a friend of mine, and he formulated it like this; "The fact that you have a right is equivalent to stating that everyone else has an obligation towards you."

I never thought of it that way before, but it also show why the behavior mentioned in the article is so absurd; you have the right to say whatever you want (most of the time), but no one has the obligation to silently comply. Those are two completely separate statements. And the second one is completely mental.
Add a comment...
Have them in circles
217 people
Adina Luican-Mayer's profile photo
dan pribble's profile photo
Christopher Ayala's profile photo
AKINOLA NATHANIEL AKINDELE's profile photo
Anna Westerling's profile photo
Jim Sandoval's profile photo
Sarah Lynne Bowman's profile photo
Ajit George's profile photo
Avonelle Wing's profile photo

George Locke

Shared publicly  - 
 
"Trolls are getting kind of a bad rap." -- +Emily Care Boss  10-18-2014
4
Add a comment...
 
I've been thinking about Islamophobia recently. There's a lot of really crude rhetoric being thrown around by the likes of Bill Maher and Sam Harris (or Ayaan Hirsi Ali), and it does seem as though this irritating rhetoric belies some real prejudice. If I were to try and repair their rhetoric, I would center my arguments around this question: which religion causes the most suffering?

Is this a fair question? How would you go about answering it? Does the question hide assumptions that make a meaningful answer impossible?
1
Kasper Brohus Allerslev's profile photoFrancis Mortanian's profile photoGeorge Locke's profile photoRichard Jonas's profile photo
24 comments
 
Sir, if you are an atheist, I salute you! One of my tribe. Reason, not killing for imaginary gods.
Add a comment...

George Locke

Shared publicly  - 
 
Reading Bruno Latour's The Cult of the Factish Gods.  It's dense, so I'm only ~15 pages in after about 1.5 hrs of reading, but so far, the one word that sums it up best is "Sophistry."  Using reason to show that reason can't be relied upon is ultimately a losing game.  I am interested, but much of it seems like word salad.  (Full admission that I most definitely do not want him to be right.)
1
Bill White's profile photoGeorge Locke's profile photo
2 comments
 
Thanks for the encouragement.  Science in Action is on my shelf here.  In the meantime, I'm reading The Golem by Harry Collins.
Add a comment...

George Locke

Shared publicly  - 
Artist Steve Ellis and writer Fred Van Lente created this strip as a mini-comic for the 2000 Small Press Expo in Bethesda, Maryland. This is its first appearance on-line. Enjoy! Visit Fredvanlente.com for more free comix. "Why We're Here" copyright Fred Van Lente and Steve Ellis - All rights ...
1
Add a comment...

George Locke

Shared publicly  - 
 
#DexCon  
I'll be running two fantasy satire larps at DexCon.  

Thursday morning we'll run The Great After-Party, where larpers larp as larpers in a larp about a larp where you talk about the larp and your fellow larpers.  larp.  http://larpfactorybookproject.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-after-party.html

Saturday at midnight, I'll run D&D Speed-Dating, which was the highlight of my Dreamation and a great way to cap off the fun.  Silly characters competing to be the most desirable party member for two minutes at a time.  For the lulz.
4
1
Avonelle Wing's profile photo
Add a comment...
People
Have them in circles
217 people
Adina Luican-Mayer's profile photo
dan pribble's profile photo
Christopher Ayala's profile photo
AKINOLA NATHANIEL AKINDELE's profile photo
Anna Westerling's profile photo
Jim Sandoval's profile photo
Sarah Lynne Bowman's profile photo
Ajit George's profile photo
Avonelle Wing's profile photo
Work
Employment
  • Rutgers University
    PhD Candidate
Places
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
Currently
Edison NJ
Links
Contributor to
Story
Tagline
I want to be born again, but I can't find a woman willing to let me into her uterus.
Education
  • Rutgers University, Tufts University, Commonwealth School
    Physics, 2007 - present
  • Tufts University
    Physics, 2000 - 2005
Basic Information
Gender
Decline to State
Apps with Google+ Sign-in