On 2012 MFómh 23, at 17:54, k.hopayian wrote:

With respect, Ronan, that is a roundabout way of saying the same thing. "Different paradigms of truth" means that all ways - measurements - means - techniques (or other synonyms and related concepts) of ascertaining truth are valid within their own frames of reference. Here you and I disagree. There are many ways of trying to describe and explain our observations of the world but that does not mean all are equally accurate or reliable.

Accurate and reliable are regarded as touchstones in science, but not, for example, in other paradigms. Truth in religion, for example, does not depend on the observed existence of a deity, but is used in the sense in which a true friend is true, or a knife cuts true. The truth of a religious teaching lies in its dependability.

You and I can both observe the same things: the sun in the sky,

We observe the sun sinking in the West too. Let's not over-privilege raw observation here!

tissue samples under a microscope, the clinical condition of subjects in a trial or patients in a clinic. To explain those observations, we have theories. Our theories lead to conclusions which we can put to the test of further observation. Science grows through this process. Medicine is based on science and evidence-based practice brings to bear scientific measurements on the claims made by its practitioners.

I agree that this is how science grows, but other paradigms grow in different ways. It's not the way, for example, Buddhism has grown.

Other models also claim to cure and diagnose. No matter what your "paradigm", the way - measurement - means - technique of ascertaining whether you succeed is once again observation. Apart from a few successes out of thousands of trials, homeopathy and acupuncture fail the test. Out with orthopolitia, let us name these things for what they are: false theories.

The problem with this reasoning is that it is statistical. The treatment that works best is the one that provides the greatest probability of benefit over a large number of patients. That is not to say that any individual patient will do better on it. For example, if the cholesterol levels on treatment A are 0.5 standard deviations lower than on treatment B (not uncommon in clinical trials), then the probability that any individual patient will do better on treatment A is 64%, so the probability that the patient would have done better on treatment B is 36%.

Visually impaired mice (N=3)

Were observed ethologically under free living conditions for spontaneous rapid locomotion behaviours

All animals were observed to exhibit spontaneous rapid pursuit behaviour in response to exposure to a female married agrarian operative

All animals were tail biopsied at the end of the experimental observation period by the operative, using a dedicated precision cutting instrument.

Although these results were observed over an admittedly small sample size, they have nonetheless not been previously reported to the investigators' knowledge.

Reviewer 1

1. The study is triple blind, but the procedure is not described.

2. The authors are clearly not aware of previous work in this field, showing rapid ascent behaviour in a chiming chronometer model which is completely reversible using a simple auditory stimulus (Hickory, Dickory & Dock)