h a l f b a k e r yViva los semi-panaderos!
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Common Sense Amendment
A simple proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution to legislate and enforce common sense | |
1. No entity, public or private, shall be permitted to engage in, perpetuate or give support to any public action, behavior, process or condition that violates the standard of common sense.
2. Where the principle of common sense and the letter of law contradict, all other factors being equal, the
principle of common sense shall prevail.
The Onion, Feb 28, 2008
http://www.theonion...u_know_whats_stupid
Recent article this post reminds me of: "You Know What's Stupid? Everything I Don't Understand" [jutta, Mar 05 2008]
Wikipedia: Common sense
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense
Remains a perennial topic for epistomologists. [jutta, Mar 05 2008]
[link]
|
| |
3. The whole of income tax law shall not be excluded from this amendment. |
|
| |
But I didn't want the joke in the idea... |
|
| |
Global, I see only three overwhelming
problems with this amendment. |
|
| |
(a) You have just outlawed Monty
Python, Buster Keaton and the N-prize.
On the plus side, though, you've also
outlawed religion and reiki. |
|
| |
(b) A consensus definition of common
sense is needed - please provide one
which is sufficiently robust to stand up
to legal challenge |
|
| |
(c) The capital of Botswana is not Kanye,
but is actually the more coastal
Gaborone. |
|
| |
(b) - That's for the courts to do (interpret) |
|
| |
(c) - "Common sense" is different from "common belief" |
|
| |
(b) So, an amendment saying everyone has
to follow the principal of heppity would be
OK too? |
|
| |
(b) - Certainly not. Too many differing interpretations of heppity are available and reasonable |
|
| |
(c) - so kept - see above. |
|
| |
<average person> If I've tossed a coin
four times and got heads each time, it's
common sense that I'm more likely to
get a tail next time. <average person> |
|
| |
<statistician> If I've tossed a coin four
times and got heads each time, it's
common sense that I've got a 50:50
chance of getting tails next
time.<statistician> |
|
| |
<gambler> If I've tossed a coin four
times and got heads each time, it's
common sense that it's likely to be a
phoney coin, and therefore I'm likely to
get heads again.<gambler> |
|
| |
Again, common belief differs from common sense. |
|
| |
It means "kill the entire lawyer". If you
leave part of a lawyer alive, it can
regenerate. |
|
| |
...and "William" goes in the blank. |
|
| |
It'll never pass. There's no money to be had. |
|
| |
But there is much money to be lost. As I indicated above, the entire IRS and the income tax industry would be declared unconstitutional. So would fossil fuel vehicles. |
|
| |
Oh god it's thin mind poice! Quick everybody act common! Nobody stand out from a common standard! |
|
| |
Somewhat like the evil of trying to enforce "common" moral values enforcing "common" sensabilites would have me throwing very senseless Moltov cocktails in a senseless and uncommon act of protest. |
|
| |
Apparently [jutta] is in a psychic struggle (that is to say, a struggle of the psyche as opposed to the more common paranormal definition of the term) to decide if this is mfd-able for "Rant". I have watched an annotation come, get edited and go over the issue. |
|
| |
Maybe it's a rant. I'm known for it. But the point of the idea is that the rule of law gets too specific. I have come from a jury trial in which, by the jury instructions, the accused was not guilty. By some order of "common sense", however, perhaps not. |
|
| |
That and the fact that corporations and government agencies get away with incredible nonsense via loopholes and technicalities that are simply winked at. |
|
| |
[I wouldn't call it psychic, but it definitely is a struggle.] |
|
| |
This is an attempt to disprove the old adage "You cannot legislate common sense"? |
|
| |
Ironically, "common sense" depends very much on the speaker - we all pretty much think we're normal, the other guy's nuts. So, relying on it to make decisions in disputes between people seems prima facie doomed; you might as well pass an amendment to let the judges make up whatever they like. I don't think that's what you're trying to do. |
|
| |
But yeah, Jury trials are weird. Especially when the jury is told to disregard some piece of clearly damning evidence. I'm not sure the problem with that is specificity, though. |
|
| |
Perhaps it's an attempt to prevent things like the tobacco industry executives declaring that they do not believe nicotine is addictive, simply because of the liability issues they face if they did not. There's a common sense issue we ought to be able to legislate. |
|
| |
Have to say a word in defense of reiki, [MB]. I've had some great massages where I wasn't touched. Amazing stuff, the body's electrical fields. |
|
| |
And then of course we have Treon's version of common sense. |
|
| |
[normzone] I'm going to guess that you are in hostile company here about that. If there are, say, eighty active users of the Half-Bakery, I would venture to say that, vis-a-vis so-called "alternative" medicine - much less all things paranormal/supernatural - the skeptics outweigh the believers by a factor of about 79 to 1. |
|
| |
The implication being that you would, um, be the one? |
|
| |
I still love you, of course. My own wife of 20 years is a Christian (non-liberal, mind you) and I am an atheist, so I'm not saying there isn't room for you and your nutty ideas. |
|
| |
//Amazing stuff, the body's electrical
fields.// Sp.: Amazing stuff, the power of
the human brain. |
|
| |
This is a horrible idea(-). The immediate reality is that it puts the Judges in charge to do whatever they want, but then it distroys everything. Yes, there are some things like religion that I wouldn't miss, but how about ownership, property & modern physics? On paper communism is common sense. Does it make sense that Bill Gates has billions and some people starve? Does it make sense that you have an empty extra bedroom while there are homeless people outside your door? |
|
| |
I can't convince my wife that brown is in the rainbow. She asked all her friends and they agreed with her. We NEED laws that make definite decisions. |
|
| |
// old adage// Tautology. |
|
| |
// I can't convince my wife that brown is in the rainbow.
Interesting. Why do you think this is unambiguous? |
|
| |
Common sense tells you that no law
attempting to enforce common sense
can ever work. |
|
| |
One must first, of course, define "the standard of common sense", which, judging by how things are now, is an oxymoron. |
|
| |
Common sense says the world is flat,
the sun goes round the Earth, that there
is a force contrary to gravity which pulls
things upwards, that heavier objects fall
faster than light ones and many other
easily disprovable things in physics.
More disturbingly, it might tell you that
your own group of people is superior to
others. Different people's common
sense might recommend communism,
fascism or capitalism. How would you
deal with that? |
|
| |
Oh, that would be up to judges. Blameless holy creatures that can do no wrong if the current US supreme court is any guide. |
|
| |
Incidentally, some of us *are* alternative medicine practitioners, however reluctant. |
|
| |
Yeah, you guys are right. This idea sucks ass. |
|
| |
Wow. I had no idea that I was experiencing alternative medicine. |
|
| |
[MaxwellBuchanan] [globaltourniquet], all I can tell you is that I've experienced being able to feel a person moving their hand next to my skin without their touching my skin. |
|
| |
Have you any experience with reiki or are you mocking from a distance? |
|
| |
How about creating an alternative "common sense" judicial system, whereby an individual who is sued may choose to have the case heard not in a traditional court but rather where the rules of common sense apply? |
|
| |
For example, let's say I have a pool in my back yard, and a neighbour comes over for a refreshing swim. Before he enters the pool area I tell him the water is not deep enough for diving, but he just laughs and dives in, head first. He hits his head on the bottom of the pool, breaking his nose. Soon, I get a notice from his lawyer that I am being sued for multiple millions of dollars due to my negligence in not posting signage around the pool indicating that the depth was insufficient for diving. |
|
| |
At this point, rather than take my chances with the traditional court system and have to pay outrageous sums of money to defend myself over months or even years of litigation, I may choose to bring the case before the Common Sense Court. Since common sense tells us we should never dive head first into water without checking the depth first, I would be absolved of all charges and the jackass, I mean neighbour would be responsible for all the costs (and never be invited to swim in my pool again). |
|
| |
The problem with your question, [normzone] (with respect) is that, when it comes to religious matters (and reiki is a religious practice, in case you were unaware), experience is a poor judge of the veracity of a thing. This is a stringently held principle of most atheists - despite some people apparently experiencing ESP, for instance, it as defined by its proponents still does not exist. |
|
| |
[MB] has the traditional atheist response to the buzz words of religious experience - it is in reality a psychological event (a placebo). This does not serve to diminish your experience, only to properly categorize it. |
|
| |
[Reiki]
// Wow. I had no idea that I was experiencing alternative medicine. |
|
| |
Really? It's so close to "laying on hands" that I find that conclusion hard to avoid. Of course, snake oil will, in about 25% of cases, still do the job - like any other placebo. |
|
| |
[What am I talking about: Reiki manipulation of "chi" or "energy flows" around the body, without pressure, sometimes without touch. As opposed to traditional massage that would be concerned with pressure, stretching, increasing blood flow through muscles. In answer to normzone's question below, I've had some kick-ass massages that felt very good as sensual experiences (as opposed to having long-term health effects, about which I know nothing).] |
|
| |
Oops. Inadvertent debate propagation |
|
| |
Hmmm. Are we discussing the same phenomena? |
|
| |
I guess it COULD be considered a religious experience. |
|
| |
Although in the context I first experienced it (most properly categorized as part of a brothel massage), I was unaware until now that there was anything other than a physical therapy context this could be viewed as. |
|
| |
I found it odd that something I took for granted as a readily replicated experience would invoke such skepticism among the 'bakers. |
|
| |
Okay, I guess my next question is, do any of the justifiably skeptical have any experience with skilled massage technicians? Have you ever had a good massage? |
|
| |
I'd wager most of your certified massage techs take the phenomenon for granted. As for any religious aspect, that's news to me. My spiritual beliefs don't fit comfortably in any available pigeonhole. |
|
| |
If nothing else, I recommend everybody find a skilled massage tech whose work you enjoy, and see them periodically. Certified non-brothel, of course. |
|
| |
Maybe it's an irregular verb, as in "I have reiki", "you have the laying on of hands", "s/he is experiencing alternative medicine". |
|
| |
Do i practice alternative medicine? I don't think so. I think i try to maintain and improve people's health. Presumably the patients have various views, but most of them are trying to improve their quality of life, i imagine. Whether i am practicing alternative medicine probably depends on what the other person thinks. They also get attention, someone to listen to them and a rapport, of course, and presumably the recipients of reiki get physical contact at least, and maybe they have skin hunger. I can't speak for them, but presumably [normzone] can. |
|
| |
// Maybe it's an irregular verb
Ha! Well put. |
|
| |
//all I can tell you is that I've
experienced being able to feel a person
moving their hand next to my skin
without their touching my skin.
Have you any experience with reiki or
are you mocking from a distance?// |
|
| |
Please, don't be offended. I'm not
doubting at all your ability to feel a
person moving their hand next to your
skin without their touching your skin.
All I am saying is that you
underestimate the powers of human
senses and the human brain. Can I ask
you a question? And another one? Was
it the case that you couldn't see their
hand, yet you felt it moving in exactly
the way in which it was, actually,
moving? |
|
| |
Yes, that was the case. If you experiment on your own with somebody else you'll likely find the same thing. |
|
| |
Of course, there's always the possibility that what makes my spine tingle and muscles relax could be chalked up to body heat proximity, but I lacked the test equipment and professional detachment to address that question. |
|
| |
(edit) I checked out the link. My exposure to what was called reiki was initially 25 years ago, before the current packaging of the product came to be. Strikes me as trying to trademark "bathing" or something. |
|
| |
//Yes, that was the case.// |
|
| |
OK, so, you couldn't see the hand moving,
yet what you felt corresponded perfectly
with the actual movement? |
|
| |
Common sense is often wrong here in the US because people have their religions to contend with, and they think it makes them exempt from all things logical .... like balancing their checkbooks with their income so they have net positive income. These things just don't make sense for folks when they are being told that their money belongs in the hands of an angry god or poor-boy Makeemalo Jamalahaha in Africa instead of putting it into a bank account where it can at least be withdrawn later (with little inflation effects), or investing in the stock market where at least it has the potential to grow. |
|
| |
... part of the reason why elections are a nightmare here. |
|
| |
I have no strong opinions on Reiki,
except for wishing the masseuse who
rents my practice room had more
clients. However, i have seen ray fish
following people's hands above the
surface of their water, ostensibly due to
the electrical activity in the latter, so it
seems possible that a vertebrate can
detect the presence of another
vertebrate separated from them by air.
I don't know either whether that's true
or if it is, whether it's relevant to Reiki. |
|
| |
There's another issue with Reiki and
other forms of alternative therapy which
are contentious apart from efficacy or
otherwise, which is the adoption of
public domain intellectual property for
profit. If one disapproves of a
particular approach, this is irrelevant,
but if one both believes in it and
approves, it is immoral anyway.
Reflexology diagrams are altered in
order to avoid violating copyright,
traditionally used herbal mixtures
patented and long-recognised
sequences of Yoga asanas copyrighted.
This is a bad thing regardless of
whether it works or not, and it affects
Reiki. This is one reason i practice
"open source" herbalism. People can go
and check the evidence out for
themselves if i tell them exactly what
they're given and why as well. |
|
| |
// it seems likely that a vertebrate can
detect the presence of another vertebrate
separated from them by air// |
|
| |
Do you know something? I can do that
too. |
|
| |
Well, I could be mistaken. If somebody makes a series of massage strokes from the lower back to your upper neck while in firm contact with your skin, then repeats those movements without touching your skin, and you can still feel something going on, it is of course possible that I could be mistaken or deliberately deceived. |
|
| |
And since that brothel experience I've had certified massage techs with full english skills duplicate the experience, and there was no religious or mystic subtext applied, just state licensing agency approved techniques demonstrated by a coworker I trusted. |
|
| |
I think I'm going to go back to my "have you ever been massaged by a skilled person" question. |
|
| |
My ability to perceive and think rationally seems to be in question here, and that's OK, but I have to wonder. |
|
| |
Is the body of skeptics here experienced massagees, or am I being questioned by people without much experience in non-sexual body contact? |
|
| |
I am mocking from a distance, though
with complete confidence. Yes, you felt
something. It is possible that it was
body heat, but much more likely to be
suggestion. And that is not meant as a
dismissal or an insult - it's just that the
power of suggestion is huge. |
|
| |
Try this experiment. Close your eyes,
and pass one hand over the back of the
other without touching, maybe an inch
or two away. |
|
| |
Did you feel the heat? The skin is a lot
more sensitive to infra-red that you
might imagine. Is what you felt similar
to your experience with Reiki or not? |
|
| |
I personally am not a sceptic but i have
avoided massages from people i don't
know. I am agnostic on the matter of
whether there is more to Reiki than a
placebo effect. I am also aware of a fair
amount of unethical CAM practices and
a variety of techniques which i find
really hard to believe, such as remote
colour therapy, EFT and kinesiology.
Other therapies seem more feasible to
me, such as osteopathy. |
|
| |
I just don't know what i think about
Reiki. I do believe the masseuse i
mentioned before believes in what she's
doing and has no intention of
misleading anyone. |
|
| |
Similar, but much stronger. Of course, I haven't been massaged into a state of near somnolence, which could help. |
|
| |
[jutta] has already voiced her feelings about massage, which mirror mine. |
|
| |
[MB], screw reiki. Go get a massage, and find out for yourself. At the worst it will unwind you some. |
|
| |
//Similar, but much stronger.// You
mean the heat from your hand was
similar to that from Reiki, but the Reiki
feeling was much stronger? |
|
| |
In fact, you probably didn't feel
anything objective from your own hand,
from a distance of a couple of inches.
But you expected to, and knew where
your hand was. |
|
| |
Suggestion is a glorious and non-trivial
thing. |
|
| |
And yes, I suspect a massage would
unwind me - no offense intended to
masseurs, Reiki or otherwise. I don't
doubt the perceptions, just their
physical basis. |
|
| |
Max - I have been both diagnosed and
cured by a kinesiologist. Try it, if you
are curious and open minded. All of this
is off topic of idea.. how did that
happen? |
|
| |
//Try it, if you are curious and open minded// |
|
| |
But, this (with some paraphrase) is very much like the suggestion that the Book of Mormon makes to us as we read it (there is a chapter and verse citation). The promise is that it will reveal itself to us as the truth. And for many, it does! Does this speak of its veracity? I think not. |
|
| |
By the way: Kinesiology as a science - just the study of human movement - no controversy. Truly a science and subject to the rigors thereof. |
|
| |
Applied Kinesiology as a diagnostic and healing technique - "alternative medicine" (look up the non-science of what they call the "viscerosomatic relationship"), controversial, quack-prone. It is this that is not verified by its anecdotal successes, including your own. |
|
| |
I think kinesiology tells the
kinesiologist what the patient or the
practitioner believes is wrong with
them. Since both are frequently wrong,
it is frequently wrong. The power of
suggestion leads the muscle weakness
to be manifested by the patient, due to
the kinesiologist's approach or the
patient's hunches about their own
health. They could be right, but the
way in which the concepts of health are
expressed is not in accordance with the
way the body works, being too
reductivist. So, if someone has a
relatively accurate grasp and knowledge
of health issues, perhaps intuitively,
kinesiology might show something, but
if they haven't it would be like buying
Echinacea OTC when they feel run
down. |
|
| |
I seem to remember a double-blind study on prayer awhile back. |
|
| |
Common sense would have told me not to anno on this idea in the first place. |
|
| |
//I seem to remember a double-blind
study on prayer awhile back.// Yes, by the
end of it, one of them could see again. |
|
| |
[UB], i haven't in any way taken what
you said personally and i respect your
views, which are substantially like mine
on these matters. I don't think you
intended to
include me in that list, and you indeed
have not, but most alternative
practitioners i know are on the bread
line, including myself. We frequently (in
the UK anyway) have no transport, can't
pay the rent and are living a hand to
mouth existence. This is not a line of
work to get into if you want to get rich.
There are a few wealthy people, but
many of us are about as poor as it's
possible to be without being homeless.
Maybe it's different elsewhere in the
world. I am getting out of doing this
ASAP because i just can't feed the
family doing what i do. |
|
| |
I am also as suspicious as the next
person about a lot of what's done in the
name of alternative medicine, and i
think people are buying into a lifestyle
a lot of the time. I also see it as parallel
to religious fundamentalism, i.e. an
abandonment of rationality for
gullibility. Some people will believe
anything. |
|
| |
And, of course, i'm a herbalist, and i can
provide hard data on the efficacy of my
remedies, such as pulse rates, blood
pressure and peak expiratory flow. It is
massively corroborated. Example: a
hyperthyroid patient on no orthodox
medication (her decision, not mine) had
brisk deep tendon reflexes, marked
benign essential tremor and a resting
pulse rate of a hundred and six BPM
before treatment.
Today, two weeks after starting
treatment, she had a pulse rate after
exertion of eighty-five BPM, no
discernable
tremor and tendon reflexes less marked
than yours truly. I could give hundreds
of other examples, and i'm doing
quantitative research right now. |
|
| |
However, it seems that people are not
interested in improving their health, so
we are basically starving. I have no idea
why. |
|
| |
//What I'm saying is that these
alternative "medicines" will cure nothing
but the empty pockets of the scurrilous
practitioners who peddle them.// |
|
| |
I"m sure you didn't mean to place
"prayer" in that group. Atleast not in the
sense of the non-televangilist(sp) sort. |
|
| |
"Common sense would have told me not to anno on this idea in the first place."
- [normzone] |
|
| |
I thought about making an annotation here before, wasn't going to, I knew getting involved in these kinds of debates is usually useless and hurtful. Oh well, here I am doing it anyway. |
|
| |
I personally dislike fundamentalist philosophies (although not necessarily the people who hold them): religious, atheistic, political, and every other sort I can't think of to list right now. |
|
| |
I wish we could all give people the courtesy of allowing them disagree with us. Debate with intent to alter another person's viewpoint, without a mutual agreement to engage in that kind of adversarial discussion, is not a courteous or friendly thing, in my opinion. |
|
| |
But then, simply by making this statement, I'm already violating my own principle. Hypocrisy can be very difficult to avoid. |
|
| |
My final comment: I think we've all adequately demonstrated with this discussion that "common sense" is something with definitions as varied as the people who use the term. |
|
| |
But UnaBubba, I'm referring to the "empty pockets" part. Often times I pray for peace. It's free and it's never time wasted. It makes me calmer and more centered and I feel I have sent out a positive vibe. And in the grand scheme of things, maybe that's all any of us can do anyway. I'm not talking about miracles, but miracles do happen, of that I feel pretty much certain. |
|
| |
So in regards to their being a "common" sense of things I am getting a concensus of "no". Paradoxical. |
|
| |
[Nineteenthly] while we're diverging
this much, can I ask you a question, as
a rational herbalist? |
|
| |
I have no problem at all with the idea
that plants can contain
pharmacalogically active compounds,
and that plants or extracts thereof can
treat disease. |
|
| |
However, I am genuinely puzzled by the
rationale that prefers plants over
purified forms of the same active
compounds. For example, if Foxglove
contains digitalis (or is it digoxin), then
it makes sense to use Foxglove to treat
some heart conditions. However, as
soon as you have isolated the active
compound, identified it, and found a
way to prepare it in pure form, why
would anyone persist with the plant? |
|
| |
If someone told me they had found a
herb that slowed the growth of a certain
type of cancer (as they doubtless have),
my response would be "Great. Start by
evaluating the plant as treatment, but
concentrate on isolating the active
ingredients. Then find a good source or
synthetic route. Then see if any
obvious chemical modifications can
improve their efficacy." |
|
| |
Plants don't produce pharmaceuticals
for our benefit, and they also produce a
very broad spectrum of compounds
which are either incidentally or
intentionally harmfull (plants don't want
to be eaten, and are full of their own
pesticides). So, why trust a plant? |
|
| |
(NB - I'm not talking about cases where
the active compound(s) are unknown -
clearly in that case you have no choice) |
|
| |
Sorry if the question seems naive, but I
am curious (if, admittedly, slightly on
the hostile side). |
|
| |
No, a lot of people ask that. I would
say there's an analogy between whole
remedies and whole food. White sugar
consists of almost pure sucrose. This is
processed through the Krebs cycle with
the use of magnesium and calcium in
coenzymes. Hence it occupies or
depletes magnesium. Sucrose as found
in plants is usually accompanied by
calcium and magnesium, and possibly
with the B vitamins which are eventually
used in the Krebs cycle. Therefore it's
healthier to use sugar as part of a plant
than in its refined form, and the same
applies to a lot of other compounds. |
|
| |
Many purified drugs are similar. The
classic example which is always given is
salicylates. Since it blocks
prostaglandin synthesis, aspirin can
cause usually mild stomach
haemorrhage. However, plants
containing salicylates are also high in
tannins, so the so-called vegetable
sources of aspirin, Salix nigra and
Filipendula ulmaria, will block
haemorrhaging because tannins
precipitate proteins, and they do the
same with the proteins in the blood
when it starts to enter the stomach. |
|
| |
Then there comes my leap of faith, but i
don't see it as any more dramatic than a
lot of other leaps of faith that people
who set store by scientific method
make, and it's this. We have evolved to
consume mixtures, not pure
compounds, with the exception of
water. Therefore, it generally makes
more sense to consume mixtures as
remedies than purified compounds. |
|
| |
Remember also that herbalism largely
addresses chronic conditions. I see it
as an extension of dietetics. However, i
do believe there's a role for purified
compounds in many conditions. It's
just that that role is currently occupied
by orthodox pharmaceuticals. |
|
| |
To some extent, plants do produce
things for the benefit of animals
because of the phenomenon of
symbiosis. For example, if they
produce nutritious fruit, it encourages
dispersal, and insect pollinated flowers
are another example. Leaving that
aside, however, one thing they definitely
do is synthesise compounds with a
marked physiological action. For
instance, they are often high in
oestrogenic substances because this
feminises male insect herbivores (and
consequently, aphids and stick insects
are parthenogenic). These oestrogenic
compounds are also more easily
converted to water-soluble compounds
than many synthetic and unintentionally
oestrogenic substances, so they are
sometimes easier to excrete. Similarly,
alkaloids are partly characterised as
nitrogenous heterocyclic compounds
with a markedly physiological action in
some animals. Their function in plants
is unclear, if there have any, but they
often have a use, just as wood has uses.
If you want to build a hut, it makes
more sense to make it out of wood than
purifying it to extract the cellulose and
make it out of cardboard. Same thing
with herbal remedies. |
|
| |
In any case, orthodox remedies are
frequently mixtures themselves. They
are often racemic, contain the
appropriate substances to form tablets,
can be flavoured or need to be a
specific colour so they can be identified
in an emergency, or they may need to
contain preservatives. |
|
| |
I don't trust plants per se. The herbs i
use, on the whole, have a tradition of
being used as food, of being indigenous
to this island, of having a tradition of
long term use, and are invasive. I also
try to avoid using barks and roots for
ecological reasons. |
|
| |
Having said all that, herbs are what
people get if they don't benefit from
less invasive measures, and i'm actually
trying to get out of herbalism because i
think people's problems are more
fundamental than herbalism can deal
with, even theoretically, and the point is
prevention. |
|
| |
There's a video on YouTube i've posted
about this whole issue, but the sound
quality is pretty poor. Search for
"nineteenthly" and you'll turn it up. |
|
| |
Hmm. I take some of your specific
points (though I think the instances you
cite are more fortuitous than
systematic). |
|
| |
I'd have to disagree, though, with some
of your general points. Yes, we
normally eat mixtures, but there's no
magic to be had from that. The other
compounds in a plant, if they have any
pharmacologic effect, are probably as
likely to be harmful as beneficial -
much like any randomly-chosen
cocktail of drugs. I'd also disagree with
the way you cite fruits as an example of
the benificence of plants. Yes, fruits are
a clear instance of plants "enticing"
animals to eat them, but again there's
no rationale to extend this to parts of
plants which the plant doesn't intend
you to eat. Most of the small-molecule
compounds in a strawberry would not
get approval as food additives or
pharmaceuticals; of the very few that
have been evaluated, many are
carcinogenic, teratogenic, or otherwise
harmful. Of course, it's nonsense
because ot the levels at which they are
present, which are too low to cause
anything more than "background harm"
(even though they are present in greater
amounts than man-made chemical
residues by orders of magnitude). |
|
| |
I take your point about many
pharmaceuticals being racemic, in
contrast to almost all plant compounds,
and this is a genuine concern (with
proven issues, of course). |
|
| |
I think there's another point in favour of
herbal sources which you didn't
mention explicitly, and that is that the
plant will probably contain a range of
similar molecules (given the fuzziness
and redundancy of biochemical
pathways), and often some of these will
have effects similar to the main
compound (which may the only
compound in a pharmaceutical
analogue). However, it's also fair to say
that these secondary compounds
include a wide spectrum of random
compounds, many potentially harmful. |
|
| |
The other thing that herbalism has
going, presumably, is a long history,
and hence a long basis of experience.
(However, if a natural painkiller was
carcinogenic in the long term, I'm not
sure folk medicine would have picked
this up). |
|
| |
Anyway, good luck, even if we disagree.
Personally, I'd like to get my new
pharmaceuticals out of the plant and
into the Eppendorf as fast as possible. |
|
| |
//There's also the argument that...//
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.
But it seems unlikely. Unless the plant
has set out to affect a specific pathway
in an animal (possible, if the aim is to
deter the eater, but unlikely in general),
then such a situation would arise only
rarely and by chance. As I mentioned, a
plant may well contain several beneficial
(and perhaps, rarely, synergistic)
compounds of which only one is
represented in a pharmaceutical
equivalent, but this is a different matter
(and the other compounds in the plant
are as likely to be harmful as helpful). |
|
| |
I think (and I speak from a great depth
of ignorance) that the main advantage
of herbalism is that it's often ineffective.
What I mean is that the relevant plant
compounds may be so dilute or non-
specific as to have relatively little
pharmacologic effect. This, in turn,
means that side effects will often be
less. This is seen as a great advantage
by patients, perhaps greater than the
disadvantage of lower effectiveness. |
|
| |
Take an example - antidepressants. St.
John's Wort is a popular herbal
antidepressant, and contains at least
two compounds believed to be effective.
It is not as good as synthetic
antidepressants in severe depression,
but it is beneficial. It also has very few
side effects (in contrast to most
antidepressants). Perhaps its lack of
side effects is simply because it is not
very potent. |
|
| |
//According to the news stories
released last week// Yes, and they're
bollocks, as any GP (let alone specialist)
will tell you. There is indeed a strong
placebo effect, and in at least 50% of
people on any one antidepressant, this
is all there is. But the placebo effect is
relatively transient (enough, sometimes,
of course). |
|
| |
About 30% of people respond well to
any given antidepressant, and the
effects are very far from placebo alone.
30% is a low hit rate, but not far off that
for other types of drugs. In the case of
antidepressants, the poor hit rate is
partly because different pathways are
screwed up in different cases; and
partly people differ hugely in their
ability to get some drugs across the
blood-brain barrier. In many cases, the
drug does nothing because it never
reaches the brain, so you have to try the
next one. |
|
| |
Claiming that antidepressants have only
a placebo effect is a bit like claiming
that antivenoms have only a placebo
effect: if you have to try several before
you find the appropriate one, then of
course most of them have no effect
beyond placebo. The people who did
that research (and some group does the
same study every 8-10 years, with the
same result each time) are basically
arseholes. |
|
| |
<looks up after a long session of
simultaneous walking and muttering>
Christ - how did I get here? </
luaalsoswam> |
|
| |
OK, thanks [MaxwellBuchanan]. I like a lot of the points [UnaBubba] has made. I'm trying to decide whether it's worthwhile to answer what you have to say because i actually wanted to make a more general point. Actually, i'll do both, i think. |
|
| |
There's an issue about what counts as a pharmacological action. The cephalic phase of digestion, i.e. anticipating eating, seems to involve something like the release of gastrin. When taste buds are stimulated, various processes seem to occur. For instance, the classic bitter taste, i.e. something interacting with the bitter receptors ennervated by the glossopharyngeal nerve (there are also other bitter receptors), seems to lead to a similar response to the cephalic phase of digestion, which again seems to involve the release of gastrin. I can't corroborate it, but i suspect that there are other similar reflexes linked to other tastes. It may not be so, but it would at least make sense for a sweet taste to stimulate the release of insulin before it is substantially absorbed, for example. There are apparently other processes, but i could go on all night. My point is this. In such cases, does it make sense to analyse these processes in pharmacological terms? It would be possible to look at the bitter receptors on the tongue in pharmacological terms, but perhaps not very helpful in terms of conceptualising it. |
|
| |
There is indeed a range of similar substances rather than single compounds involved a lot of the time, just as nutritionally speaking, for example, an edible oil contains a range of triglycerides with various fatty acid moieties. The oil considered as a whole would still be nutritious, and where it isn't used as a component of eicosanoids, it may be broken down bit by bit to provide energy whether it contains twenty carbons or eighteen. To that extent, it does something similar physiologically. |
|
| |
Again, there is a lot of variation in the constituents of herbs: the volatile oil component of lavender (as in Lavandula angustifolia, not spike lavender) only has a family resemblance-style composition and has no constituents in common for different times, conditions, places and races. My suppliers, with whom i'm in close contact because i make a point of sourcing herbs locally for ecological reasons, analyse the proportions of the constituents of the herbs i use and compose reports on them, which i have seen. Some herbalists would regard this as reductivist, though, so it isn't necessarily very popular. |
|
| |
Concerning harm, i have a strong tendency to use herbs which are currently or have persistently been used in food, and like food they will of course contain certain substance which are harmful, such as cyanogenic glycosides or excessive amounts of carotenoids. This is the same as food. |
|
| |
Concerning St John's Wort, it seems to have quite a dramatic effect on a lot of people who are depressed, but i don't think of it as an anti-depressant, and it isn't the only herb which can be used like that. The most suitable herb would depend on a lot of factors, but if, for example, someone was anaemic and depressed, it would make sense for them to take a herb high in iron and maybe another with vitamin C to aid absorption, so maybe nettles and chickweed, but it would make a lot more sense for them to increase iron-rich foods in their diet. |
|
| |
However, this is all tangential to the point i actually wanted to make, which is that i think everyone, myself included, will tend to select those arguments which help them to justify what they currently do, when the real reasons may be quite inaccessible to them, and as a philosopher, and to a small extent someone who has done a little psychology at degree level, i actually find that more interesting. I'm about to apply for a lecturing job in herbalism. If i get that, it will be easier for me to live with myself if i talk myself into believing in it. I'm not sure i would be doing anything drastically different than that if i chose a different line of work. People want their work to be congruent with their values and they will change one or the other to achieve this. |
|
| |
Wow. And to think much of this anno string is my fault. |
|
| |
I was going to let this fade away, but since pixels are cheap and it's still here on the front page, I will say something that I never bothered to point out in the first place, since it was self-evident to me. |
|
| |
Nobody ever told me about the reiki effect (feeling of proximity of hands without touching) and then demonstrated it to me. |
|
| |
The first time I experienced it it was simply applied without warning or discussion, and I felt it on my back, out of my sight and certainly outside of any "suggestion" or "belief". |
|
| |
The second time was the same, except this was followed up with some discussion. |
|
| |
So the whole argument that I felt it because I wanted to seems off track. |
|
| |
OK, thanks. I tend to go on and on a lot, in real life as well as here. |
|
| |
I suppose that what i have to say about that is that with herbalism, i started from a very sceptical position because it seemed too good to be true. How could there possibly be remedies which were just good, with no down side or side-effects? Well, this turned out to be an over-simplification. However, i took a sceptical position with every herb i used and it had to "prove" (impossible) itself to me. Eventually, this happened so many times i decided it was worth investigating, and here i am. In fact, there are a number of popular herbs in which i have no faith at all for various reasons. |
|
| |
Anyway, your sort of experience is sort of like that. You didn't start from a position of belief or wanting to be convinced, but you found there was an inexplicable experience. It's difficult to know how far to take that, but maybe not actually necessary. Pottery glazes, dyeing, paint and so forth all developed without knowledge of colour chemistry. You don't always actually need an explanation, just enough information arrived at by trial and error. |
|
| |
However, i do take the point about undetected carcinogenicity. I would also say that it's difficult to test drugs over several generations as well. There might be a drug which affects the oocytes of the foetus when given to the mother, so that her grandchildren will suffer, but it would be virtually impossible to test for that. I think this is part of the risk of everyday life. There is also, of course, a precautionary principle applied by both herbalists and more orthodox medics to pregnancy. |
|
| |
I'm absolutely in favour of this idea, if only as a jurisprudential spectator sport (provided they never play it in my jurisdiction). |
|
| |
It Would Be Nice If this happened, but it needs to be more specific. Common sense is highly subjective. |
|
| |
Absolutely. It isn't common and it doesn't make sense. Then again, it could keep lawyers very, very busy. |
|
| |