CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > In Sickness and In Health > Health and Medical Issues
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Health and Medical Issues For other than injuries

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-06-2007, 07:56 PM   #71
Barry Cooper
Member Barry Cooper is offline
 
Barry Cooper's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisville  KY
Posts: 2,188
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

Brandon,

You have misunderstood the Black Box, and I now see that root failure is why you continue to participate as a self appointed ad hoc evidentiary referee, without feeling the same need Steven does to actually look at evidence.

You want people to give you reasons to believe, then you ignore the evidence presented, then you compare my claims, implicitly, to those made up on the spur of the moment. This is intellectually dishonest.

I have provided evidence, for example a Japanese study which showed positive results in the use of measured biophotons as a form of non-invasive biopsy.

You need to understand that I am not a run of the mill true believer, but someone who struggled through a very long, very detailed, very complex text written in another language.

I offer evidence, you offer none. You then claim that evidence should be the criteria for what is scientific. On that, we can agree. We also, in formulating it that way, can clearly place you in the zone of "non-scientific". Clarity in terms helps.

With respect to the Black Box, your misunderstanding is that the point is personal experience, and that the intrinsic merit of it is that it allows--does not consider a theoretical sin--small scale experimentation.

The merits of the Black Box are that

1) you do not have to believe something to find it interesting and worth learning more about. It is a fully agnostic system. You also, crucially, do not HAVE TO HAVE ANY REASON WHATSOEVER for conducting an experiment. We could, for example, test all of your theories. It would seem clear that far fetched ideas are less likely to be true, but the fact is we really don't know, and the process Edison described in his famous 10,000 ways NOT to build a lightbulb would apply here as well. Of all of the possible ways NOT to cure cancer, we have as far as I can tell explored very few. Self evidently, the moment you find a way which will not NOT cure cancer, you have a cure. That is the point.

You seem to think that our job is to convince you that theory xyz is CORRECT. I really don't care what you think, to be blunt, and in any event you are saying "convince me" in such a way that I can safely assume that whatever evidence might be presented, will not be enough. You have already shown that implicitly by ignoring what was presented, and not realizing the hypocrisy of this. You believe you are right, so whatever evidence there may be will be a waste of your time, and therefore you can skip that step, although you understand theoretically why it would be important for other people.

2) a clear understanding of Cause and effect is irrelevant to results. When Coach uses terms like "neuroendocrine response", what he is doing is palliating anxiety about the process we use. Technically, that term belongs in the Black Box, since we can't really say with certainty exactly what systems are affected and how.

But we know it works. Coach knew it worked when the Canadian military tested it, an lo and behold he was right. That added credibility, but ADDED NOTHING to the actual ability of the protocol to generate fitness, or our actual scientific understanding of that protocol.

We know what causes cancer--a genetic mistake. We can describe the process of cancer growth and metastasis in great detail. There are volumes and volumes of data showing the exact results of compounds x, y and z. We are not lacking in studies. We are not lacking in raw data.

But the data all centers in a very small area of intense activity, and better and worse are defined by a couple percentage points. At this hospital your chances of survival are 5%. At another, 7%. Great sums of money are spent understanding how they got that extra 2%, but nowhere do I see ANY efforts to look at fundamentally new paradigms that would yield a true cure. I see no possibility of large scale progress the way the issue is being treated today.

The Black box would test each and every purported cure available. Some may bring up ethical concerns. OK, we only do it with people who are almost certain to die anyway. It's not at all clear that survival rates WITHOUT chemo are not higher in any event. If doing nothing is safer, then surely we can risk doing things, like homeopathy, or acupuncture, or diet, or meditation, or whatever, that most mainstream doctors would argue amount to nothing anyway?

I am quite happy to agree with David in claiming that most doctors are entirely honest, and do genuinely want the best for their patients. However, I do see what I believe is a system which is unintentionally oriented around the perpetuation, with precision, of mediocrity.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2007, 08:04 PM   #72
Barry Cooper
Member Barry Cooper is offline
 
Barry Cooper's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisville  KY
Posts: 2,188
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

Actually, one other point, which I have cause to believe David will relate to.

There is a system of English called E-Prime, which omits all forms of the word "to be". "This is unscientific" necessarily becomes something like "This appears not to conform to what I believe constitutes science".

The perceptual shift this necessitates is subtle, but profound. It could be viewed accurately, I think, as a sort of suppository for the ideologically constipated.

You can read more about it at this link I believe to be WFS: http://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2007, 05:20 AM   #73
Brandon Oto
Member Brandon Oto is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Santa Cruz  CA
Posts: 3,001
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

Barry,

I do not know in how many more ways I can say that I am NOT TRYING to debate biophotons, spontaneous remission, or any of the other substantive issues here. Let me try once more, with capital letters: THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M HERE FOR. My interest in the topic is not really enough for me to engage in it actively, though I'll happily read the exchange if you and others want to discuss it.

If you reread the thread, you will notice that the only sources I actually demanded on the topic were in my first post, which led to digging up (well, actually led to me digging up) the Australian chemo study. Beyond that, I've been involved in a discussion of the importance of sources in general. Therefore, when you provide sources for biophotons or other issues, I applaud you, and I actually did skim them, but I do not feel obliged to peruse or address them. This is not a personal failing. This is me trying to focus on a specific issue, which I understand is not the one you want to focus on.

I disagree that your #1 is the key feature of the Black Box and agree with #2, which is part of what I was trying to describe. However, this is just a question of what the emphasis of the methodology is, so if we otherwise agree on what BB means then I think we're on the same page.

I like the E-Prime link.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2007, 06:45 AM   #74
Barry Cooper
Member Barry Cooper is offline
 
Barry Cooper's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisville  KY
Posts: 2,188
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

Brandon,

You have posted multiple times stating your opinion that there is no intrinsic value to new ideas, unbacked by supporting evidence. You then came up some mocking "theories" of your own. What was the point of that exercise, if not implicitly to criticize those of us actually attempting to have a substantive interchange of new ideas, which you have disrupted completely, and non-productively? I have not offered any ideas which could not be documented, but even so it doesn't matter if I couldn't.

The process of science involves conjecture. Conjecture is when you supposed something to be true, then go out and see if there is anything out there that supports it. In your clear misunderstanding of the process of science--and that of thinking more generally--you seem to feel that nothing should ever be said that cannot be backed up at that point.

In this, you clearly, categorically, and your own protests to the contrary, have shown that you don't understand that the Black Box is about trying things, and keeping what works. You don't have to have a reason for trying things, and in point of fact a great many scientific advances have occurred by accident, with Fleming's discovery of penicillin being one of the most obvious. This position allows the use of intuition, and most great discovery happens through intuition, which is to say non-linearly.

I came up with a definition of common sense the other day, which I like. It is "knowing what you know, and knowing what you don't know". I don't know that cancer results from a disruption in the biophoton field, and I know it. I merely suppose it, and would like to see further research continuing to be appended on to the 30 years or more already completed.

The opposite is "knowing things that aren't so, and not knowing what you don't know". You seem to feel you "know" that scientific claims must be backed by evidence to be made. This is patently untrue. There is a vast difference between asking that a claim be considered, and that it be believed.

Self evidently, there is a circularity between the demand that claims be backed by evidence, and that tests only be done on known phenomena. You do see at least that, don't you?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2007, 05:26 PM   #75
Brandon Oto
Member Brandon Oto is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Santa Cruz  CA
Posts: 3,001
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

Barry,

We seem to have reached a plateau where there's nothing I can do to better communicate my ideas or reconcile our points of view. I've run out of angles with which to get this across.

I hope that other readers, at least, were able to understand what I've been getting at in this thread, and I hope we can continue to interact in the future without any ill will. And despite this last handful of issues we're not agreeing on (conjecture, the nature of the BB), I hope that you at least see where I'm coming from with my earlier and more general points.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2007, 05:42 PM   #76
Aileen Reid
Member Aileen Reid is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Perth  Western Australia
Posts: 485
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

I have to say you lost me on this thread a long while ago!
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Running in the sand Blair Book Fitness 10 11-07-2007 08:46 AM
Sandbag sand? Jason Billows Equipment 14 03-14-2007 12:48 PM
Sand Bags Fiona Muxlow Equipment 16 07-26-2006 11:19 PM
Sand alternative for sand bag Eugene R. Allen Equipment 16 04-22-2005 04:55 PM
SAND BAGS Zach Even - Esh Equipment 4 03-09-2005 08:00 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.