cracking knuckles

[BoliverAllmon]

We were havng a discussion about cracking knuckles the other day somewhere on this site. Well, I got this report in my email today. thought I would pass it on.

if your mother constantly harps on you about cracking your knuckles, telling you that you should stop it so you don't get arthritis, take heart. Not only will it not give you arthritis, but also it seems to prevent it, reports Reuters of new research from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Md.


In an observational study of 100 men and women with an average age of 59, osteoarthritis occurred significantly more often in those who said they never cracked their joints than in those who did. "People who said they cracked their neck, or their back, hips or knees, had less osteoarthritis than those who didn't," study leader Dr. Tyler Cymet told Reuters Health. "There is no evidence," he concludes, "that cracking your joints does any damage" and it may be protective. It could be that cracking the joints works like stretching. He also conducted a study of 10 patients and took X-rays of their joints before and after they cracked them. "It looks like the joint space decreases after cracking, you have more motion and you're able to function a little bit better," he said.

boliver

[chopiabin]

That makes me really happy!! I always pop my knuckles and stretch my fingers and hands before I play. Sometimes, when playing intricate fingerwork passages, if I keep missing a note that I've never had a problem with, I can often crack my knuckle and it's all better.

I was always worried about getting arthritis even though my dad and some other people told me I wouldn't. Thanks for posting that!



P.S. Wonder if Ashkenazy ever did it? 

[BoliverAllmon]

don't know about Ashkenazy, but I can relate to being able to play better after cracking my knuckles.

boliver

[Jacey1973]

Yuck!! I hate it when people crack their knuckles it goes right through me!! I have to cover my ears.

[BoliverAllmon]

well don't listen around me. LOL

[xvimbi]

About 50% of all medical studies eventually turn out to be wrong.

[leahcim]

About 50% of all medical studies eventually turn out to be right.

[xvimbi]

About 50% of all medical studies eventually turn out to be right.

This is not correct. 50% of all medical studies are eventually refuted. Thus, 50% of them are indeed not refuted. This, however, does not mean that they are right. It only means that there may not be enough evidence to make a decision whether they are right or wrong, or whether they are useful. A lot of medical studies revealed correlation that are entirely meaningless.

To stick with the current example: there is an observation that there appears to be a correlation between knuckle cracking and less osteoarthritis. However, it would be wrong (although often immediately assumed by doctors as well as the general public) that there is a causal connection between the two. A lot more needs to be done to show that. Just as there is a positive correlation between the number of hurricanes and the decline of pirates over the past two hundred years does not mean that the decline of pirates in fact caused hurricanes to show up more frequently. Perhaps, people who crack their knuckles generally move their fingers more often than those who don't, and that is what reduces osteoarthritis; or they have a better diet, or...

[leahcim]

This is not correct. 50% of all medical studies are eventually refuted. Thus, 50% of them are indeed not refuted. This, however, does not mean that they are right. It only means that there may not be enough evidence to make a decision whether they are right or wrong

Bad logic. If 50% are refuted, then 50% are not. If some of that 50% which aren't refuted are refuted later, then your statistic is incorrect and more than 50% are refuted.

Simply put, refuted + not refuted = 100%.

To "stick to the current example" would have been to talk about cracking knuckles and the studies related to it - either to refute them or not rather than quote a statistic that was either pointless or was trying to make a point that the study might be incorrect

100% of studies are not refuted because of the statistical number of previous studies that were refuted. If a particular study is correct, it'll be correct even if every other study is refuted and vice-versa.

[prometheus]

The specific research indicates a statistical correlation. What the source of this correlation is is not clear. This research does indicate that there is a link between not having osteoarthitis and cracking knuckles. Diet has nothing to do with these two things. The other example is correct. The link does not merely suggest that the cracking itself is good. It can also suggest that healthy joints and cracking have something to do with it.

Actually, cracking might still damage the joins. But then people that crack have generally better joins and thus on average they still get less artheritis. But there is no evidence for it.

Xvimbi is still claiming it can be just as bad as it can be good. Why don't you supply us with an article that does claim it is bad? Like I said before, I have never heard research indicated that it was bad. If we apply statistics on this then it is now 25% likely that it is good, 75% that we don't know it for sure and 0% that it is bad.

[xvimbi]

Bad logic. If 50% are refuted, then 50% are not. If some of that 50% which aren't refuted are refuted later, then your statistic is incorrect and more than 50% are refuted.

Excuse my asking, but where is the "bad logic"? I didn't say that some of the non-refuted studies are going to be refuted later. I am only saying that "not-refuted" does not mean "correct". For many of the studies, it is completely unknown whether they are correct or not.

[prometheus]

Likewise, refuted doesn't mean they are incorrect per se either.

[BoliverAllmon]

Likewise, refuted doesn't mean they are incorrect per se either.

explain

[xvimbi]

The specific research indicates a statistical correlation. What the source of this correlation is is not clear. This research does indicate that there is a link between not having osteoarthitis and cracking knuckles.

No it doesn't. There is no mention of a link. It's an observational study that did not investigate causal relationships.

Diet has nothing to do with these two things.
...
Actually, cracking might still damage the joins. But then people that crack have generally better joins and thus on average they still get less artheritis. But there is no evidence for it.

That may or may not be the case. Proper scientific investigation, however, would take all possible causes into consideration (called hypotheses) and then assign probablities about their correctness (ideally based on experimental evidence). What you said above is one such hypothesis. I mentioned "diet" as another one. There is in fact quite some evidence that diet is a factor for arthritis.

Xvimbi is still claiming it can be just as bad as it can be good. Why don't you supply us with an article that does claim it is bad? Like I said before, I have never heard research indicated that it was bad. If we apply statistics on this then it is now 25% likely that it is good, 75% that we don't know it for sure and 0% that it is bad.

Just to make sure: I am not claiming that knuckle cracking is bad. I am trying to raise an awareness that studies as the one mentioned need to be checked very carefully, because they are often wrong. In fact, initially, I only wanted to mention the fact that 50% of past medical studies have been refuted by now. I didn't expect this fact would stir up such a commotion.

[prometheus]

Thats because you try to 'lecture' us normal people about scientific method while you don't really seem to understand it yourself.

The fact that something has been refuted doesn't tell anyone much. Newton's laws have also been refuted eventhough they were 'correct'. This is even more so the case in studied outside science.

I didn't say there is a causal link. I said this research shows a statistical correlation. That is something very different and still a link of some kind. Your first example reflects this very well. But your second is way off and suggests the group wasn't representative.

This may be the case but there is no reason to make this assumption. The fact that this correlation exists doesn't cause any problems as in conflicts with other observations made. And there is also no reason to question the integrity of the scientists because we have no idea who they are.

[leahcim]

Excuse my asking, but where is the "bad logic"? I didn't say that some of the non-refuted studies are going to be refuted later. I am only saying that "not-refuted" does not mean "correct". For many of the studies, it is completely unknown whether they are correct or not.

The bad logic is in several parts.

Firstly that your statistic meant something w.r.t this thread - unless you post random statistics it's clear you were trying to make a point about the correctness or not of a study mentioned. But the 1/2 empty glass is 1/2 full Next time say 75% or pull one of the many different "injured pianists" values you've used and it might not be so 50/50 that it's worth typing the 1/2 full part

Secondly in your maths. The 2 figures must equal 100%, if your figure is right, the other one must be.

Thirdly, that you imply "refuted" demonstrates something is "wrong" whereas "not-refuted" doesn't suggest the opposite - as though in the future a non-refuted study might be refuted whereas refuted is cast in stone as "wrong" for ever more.

This is compounded when you say above that you didn't suggest non-refuted studies would be refuted in the future - otherwise your 50% would be wrong, and that wouldn't do would it

If you're saying that non-refuted studies aren't correct you're basically refuting them - even if it's not in a way that someone serious about the subject would - but someone serious about the subject wouldn't quote a one-line statistic to make a point about a study on cracking knuckles

As Prom says, something that has been refuted is no more or less "wrong" than something which hasn't been is "right" - the choice of word was yours, I didn't refute what you said, I said the same thing. Dismissing what you said by pedantically arguing that refuted doesn't mean wrong, you've done admirably, why did you say it then?

Clearly, the next study might refute the study that refuted the study that refuted the study and so on.

[xvimbi]

The bad logic is in several parts.

Secondly in your maths. The 2 figures must equal 100%, if your figure is right, the other one must be.

I can't find any more arguments than the one I presented after your first post, saying that the statement in that post is not correct.

Thirdly, that you imply "refuted" demonstrates something is "wrong" whereas "not-refuted" doesn't suggest the opposite - as though in the future a non-refuted study might be refuted whereas refuted is cast in stone as "wrong" for ever more.

Well, indeed "refuted" = incorrect, wrong
"not-refuted" = either correct or incorrect

As Prom says, something that has been refuted is no more or less "wrong" than something which hasn't been is "right".

You must be living in a different universe. Please, people, a scientific theory that has been refuted has been shown to be wrong. There is no way out of it.

[xvimbi]

Thats because you try to 'lecture' us normal people about scientific method while you don't really seem to understand it yourself.

I'll leave this up to my peers who judge it every day.

The fact that something has been refuted doesn't tell anyone much. Newton's laws have also been refuted eventhough they were 'correct'. This is even more so the case in studied outside science.

Read my response to leahcim's post. You need to become clear about the concept of a "refuted scientific model". BTW, since when are Newton's laws correct?

And there is also no reason to question the integrity of the scientists because we have no idea who they are.

I don't want to rain on your parade again, but the less is known about the scientists who conducted a study the more reason to question their integrity

[leahcim]

Well, indeed "refuted" = incorrect, wrong
"not-refuted" = either correct or incorrect

No.
"refuted" - either correct or incorrect.
"not-refuted" either correct or incorrect.

Both can change with new knowledge.

However, at a particular time, it might be widely accepted that something is "right" or "wrong" based on studies and whether they have been refuted or not. To discuss that you'd need to look at why something was refuted - some studies are no doubt refuted absolutely, but some aren't so clear - not the least because a study is probably what refuted them and you've said they aren't absolute

Please, people, a scientific theory that has been refuted has been shown to be wrong. There is no way out of it.

Firstly we're not talking about scientific theories. We're talking about medical studies.
You didn't say "50% of all scientific theories eventually turn out to be wrong." after all.

There are studies after studies that refute each other and then back each other up.

There are no absolutes in medicine, although it's clear in the same way that you said "wrong" there are "right"s too - in the sense of what's accepted at the time - only the very pedantic would say "wrong" as an absolute and quote an actual figure and then claim "right" isn't so.

[xvimbi]

No.
"refuted" - either correct or incorrect.
"not-refuted" either correct or incorrect.

You are re-defining words. If you want to use the word "refuted" in this way, we'll have to stop here.

Both can change with new knowledge.

No.

However, at a particular time, it might be widely accepted that something is "right" or "wrong" based on studies and whether they have been refuted or not. To discuss that you'd need to look at why something was refuted - some studies are no doubt refuted absolutely, but some aren't so clear.

This is the problem with this discussion. something that has been refuted has been shown to be wrong, and nothing will change this, unless we discover new Universal laws. On the other hand, somethig that may be widely accepted or not is still under investigation.

Firstly we're not talking about scientific theories. We're talking about medical studies.
You didn't say "50% of all scientific theories are refuted and thus turn out to be wrong" after all.

The same rules apply.

There are studies after studies that refute each other and then back each other up.

That's a contradiction. Studies may back each other up or not, but once a study has been refuted, it needs to be withdrawn from consideration. Studies are refuted, because it has been shown that they were not conducted correctly. There is nothing that can resurrect those studies and make them valid (I'm sure there are some exceptions to this, but overall that is the case).

[leahcim]

This is the problem with this discussion. something that has been refuted has been shown to be wrong, and nothing will change this, unless we discover new Universal laws.

Look it's this simple

"About 50% of all medical studies eventually turn out to be wrong."
"About 50% of all medical studies eventually turn out to be right."

If either statement is true, both must be. They say the same thing.

They talk in absolute terms about something that isn't absolute.

But, the only way to reduce the 50% in the 2nd figure is to increase the first.

But as I said, you've admirably argued that your statement isn't correct.

Now you're talking about medical studies from the scientific pov - clearly if a study finds a link between, say, autism and MMR and another refutes it - if that's the wrong term it doesn't matter, the original stat and my reply don't use the word anyway.

Another finds a link and another refutes it. There's no clear answer. Absolutely not.

If "Refute" means something else - then medical studies probably aren't refuted at all, except in the sense that you could say the scientific method wasn't followed etc, but then you could hand-wave that it wasn't a scientific theory or medical study [if they are the same thing] in the first place.

So I don't see much point trying to boil it down to what "refute" means since it wasn't said.

[Dazzer]

erm yes... cracking knuckles are the cause of ... not arthritis. but forum flaming wars.

bah what is this... we're arguing over trivialities

Code: [Select]

re·fute   Audio pronunciation of "%Refute" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (r-fyt)
tr.v. re·fut·ed, re·fut·ing, re·futes

   1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony.
   2. To deny the accuracy or truth of: refuted the results of the poll.

there. we fixed that.

Now the other heated argument is regarding this 50 50 thing. i have no idea whose side i'm supposed to be on. But yes, if 50% of whatever is refuted, that would mean the other 50% isn't. I understand the other side's view on the interpretation however. Its just the way you put it. You could just say "half"... i mean... half is half. but it doesn't have to be 50%. (i sense a potential argument here as well so

Code: [Select]

half   Audio pronunciation of "Half" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (hf, h輎)
n. pl. halves (hvz, h銥z)

   1.
         1. One of two equal parts that together constitute a whole.
         2. One part approximately equal to the remaining part.
there. so half just gives us the general idea.

----
Just some random off topic quotes :

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they show is suggestive, but what they hide is vital"
and a little joke
"50% of all statistics turn out to be wrong"

[leahcim]

Now the other heated argument is regarding this 50 50 thing. i have no idea whose side i'm supposed to be on. But yes, if 50% of whatever is refuted, that would mean the other 50% isn't.

It would, but that turned out to be a red herring, see my last post.

If Xvimbi meant "50% of all medical studies are refuted" and "refuted" means something specific in science, like procedure not followed etc, rather than the usage in everyday English - that's not what was said.

50% of _all_ medical studies eventually must be wrong to make his statement true, which would leave 50% to be correct - otherwise there are more or less than 50% wrong of _all_ studies. Clearly we'd have a long wait to find out, but for the stat to make any sense I presume a trend exists [or that it's just completely bogus or  badly written and something else was meant or simply made up - which are the other alternatives ]

But yeah, a pointless stat caused a pointless argument

[Dazzer]

but according to dictionary... it isn't just specific to science. I for one know its used in the english language, and is not jargon exclusive to the science stream.

but yeh on topic

i crack my knuckles sometimes.... i can crack my knuckles without using both hands. and i have this habit of rubbing the sides of my fingers together. strange.

but not as bad as people who turn to the sides and crack their backs and everything.. now THAT is scary.

But what i heard is ... in between the joints there're these air bubble thingies. And when you pull, it pops the bubble. and it dissipates. hence the noise. so i think maybe getting rid of the bubble is a good thing?

But like all good things, too much will always be bad. probably wearing out the joint, and whatever ligaments are there. so don't do it too much.

[xvimbi]

Look it's this simple

"About 50% of all medical studies eventually turn out to be wrong."
"About 50% of all medical studies eventually turn out to be right."

Ah, I guess I finally see what you mean. And I can also see that one might think that way. However, this is not what is going on.

"About 50% of all medical studies eventually turn out to be wrong."

Indeed, they have been shown to be wrong. Basta!

The other 50%, though, have NOT been shown to be RIGHT. Some of them, yes, but for most of them it is not determined yet whether they are right or wrong. Some of them will be wrong, so, the percentage of wrong studies is in fact likely to be higher than 50%, but we can't be sure. This is a well-known feature in science that a model is refuted as soon as there is one solid piece of information that does not fit the model. However, the absence of such an incompatible piece of information does not prove the model to be correct (this logic should be called the "Rumsfeld Theorem"). We must search until eternity for something that doesn't fit. Until then, a model may merely be "accepted". That was the case, e.g., with Newton's laws until it was shown that they are merely good approximations for what is really going on and that they break down under certain circumstances. And the same is true for most medical studies.

[Dazzer]

and so it boils down to right/wrong to refuted/notrefuted.

[xvimbi]

and so it boils down to right/wrong to refuted/notrefuted.

Arrgh...

refuted       = wrong
not-refuted = either right or wrong

There is actually no "right" in science, but there sure is "wrong".

[zheer]

Cracking Knuckles, i crack all my body.

[zheer]

Actually have you tried cracking you chest, its great.

[leahcim]

Ah, I guess I finally see what you mean.

You mean you finally see what _you_ wrote? "Ah yes, it's at least 50%, it'll be bigger...so what I said is obviously more right than saying the same thing" If 50% have been shown to be absolutely wrong, why write "eventually"? Ah ha Not very scientific is it? I mean, if 50% of studies this year are absolutely wrong [name 3], why would 50% of next years be wrong because of that?

I wouldn't mind but you're still patronising with this idea that somehow anything I said was changing laws of the universe or demonstrating ignorance of the scientific method when you write stats like that

"One piece of solid evidence" is a simple way of saying something very complicated to get compared with the mathematical beauty and exactness of the theory - in medicine perhaps moreso.

If the theory is "does cracking knuckles cause arthritis" in a simple sense, a study will get
"yes or no" and thus 50% will be correct by definition, even if, in fact, they were complete hogwash to get that answer.

That says nothing at all about what arthritis is, nor why cracking knuckles does or doesn't cause it nor whether I'll get it if I crack mine. Medicine isn't absolute, because we aren't all the same like electrons are and because the machine is unbelievably complex. If you can't answer with science whether a piano hammer flexes differently and that affects the tone, you don't stand much chance refuting absolutely something about a big toe.

It's not a theory or model in the sense that physics has mathematical models which we use to make predictions from that has fundamentals. It's just a scientific way of statistical analysis to kill less people than they did with leeches and anecdotes. Although they are looking at how the human machine works, medical studies of the type that stick drugs on the market to treat condition x or that look for a link between 2 things aren't much to do with that. The theory generally comes later, if at all.

[xvimbi]

You mean you finally see what _you_ wrote? "Ah yes, it's at least 50%, it'll be bigger...so what I said is obviously more right than saying the same thing"

I know what I wrote. I said I finally see what YOU meant with what you wrote ("About 50% of all medical studies eventually turn out to be right"), and I explained now more than once why it is a fallacy to make that statement.

I wouldn't mind but you're still patronising with this idea that somehow anything I said was changing laws of the universe or demonstrating ignorance of the scientific method when you write stats like that

I am not patronizing at all, but forgive me if I get a bit impatient if you keep equating "not refuted" with "correct". That is a meaning that nobody else uses (except for prometheus perhaps). But it is clear that you two are simply arguing aboput something that was already settled after three posts.

"One piece of solid evidence" is a simple way of saying something very complicated to get compared with the mathematical beauty and exactness of the theory - in medicine perhaps moreso.

If the theory is "does cracking knuckles cause arthritis" in a simple sense, a study will get
"yes or no" and thus 50% will be correct by definition, even if, in fact, they were complete hogwash to get that answer.

That says nothing at all about what arthritis is, nor why cracking knuckles does or doesn't cause it.

It's not a theory or model in the sense that physics has mathematical models which we use to make predictions from. It's just a scientific way of killing less people than they did with leeches - although they are looking at how the human machine works, medical studies of the type that stick drugs on the market to treat condition x aren't much to do with that.

Frankly, I have no idea what you are talking about. I resign.

[leahcim]

I know what I wrote. I said I finally see what YOU meant with what you wrote ("About 50% of all medical studies eventually turn out to be right"), and I explained now more than once why it is a fallacy to make that statement.

Absolutely, it follows from the fallacy you made that said "50% of all medical studies eventually turn out to be wrong" because they are saying exactly the same thing. No amount of hand-wringing about refuted or not, or claiming it'll be bigger than 50% one day, or other BS, has changed its fallacy. The solid pieces of evidence for why are in your posts too.

[maul]

leahcim, you're a little lost.

[xvimbi]

Absolutely, it follows from the fallacy you made that said "50% of all medical studies eventually turn out to be wrong" because they are saying exactly the same thing. No amount of hand-wringing about refuted or not, or claiming it'll be bigger than 50% one day, or other BS, has changed its fallacy. The solid pieces of evidence for why are in your posts too.

Let me try again to make it clear what I mean:

"50% of all medical studies eventually turn out to be wrong. For the remaining 50%, it is not known whether they are right or wrong."

There is a clear distinction between that notion and the one you presented: "50% of all medical studies eventually turn out to be right".

[leahcim]

leahcim, you're a little lost.

I don't think so, you're either lost or you're not.

[leahcim]

Let me try again to make it clear what I mean:

No, you can't because all you're doing is what you've done before and saying something different from what you originally did. If reply one had said that, fair enough, but replies 1 through many just tried to hold onto the fallacy whilst saying the same statement was wrong.

Simply put, if some of those 50% that are unknowns are refuted then more than 50% are eventually refuted and your statement is still a fallacy.

I think it's clear what the situation is w.r.t the right or wrongness of medical studies now

If you want to say anything else I'll ask 2 questions

(a) what does that have to do with the thread? - i.e make it into a point. If you can't write one simple clear statement that's semantically clear, without later deciding it says something you didn't mean, its probably not a good idea to leave what you actually wanted to say unwritten.

and

(b) Prove your stat - your amended one if you like. I say it's still bogus.

[xvimbi]

No, you can't because all you're doing is what you've done before and saying something different from what you originally did. If reply one had said that, fair enough, but replies 1 through many just tried to hold onto the fallacy whilst saying the same statement was wrong.

Simply put, if some of those 50% that are unknowns are refuted then more than 50% are eventually refuted and your statement is still a fallacy.

I think it's clear what the situation is w.r.t the right or wrongness of medical studies now

If you want to say anything else I'll ask 2 questions

(a) what does that have to do with the thread? - i.e make it into a point. If you can't write one simple statement without writing something you didn't mean, its probably not a good idea to leave what you actually wanted to say unwritten.

I described my intention already in reply #13 (last paragraph)

and

(b) Prove your stat - your amended one if you like. I say it's still bogus.

Ever heard of Schroedingers Cat? Similar situation. For a given medical study, we have three possible states what concerns correctness:

a. correct
b. incorrect
c. unknown

The following requirement must be true: a+b+c = 1

If we find 50% of all studies wrong (b = 0.5), it follows that a+c = 0.5
a = 0.5 (your statement) is only true if c = 0, meaning we know exactly whether any study is correct or not. This is clearly not the case, thus: c > 0, from which follows: a<0.5. That's why we cannot say a=0.5, while we can correctly say b=0.5

[leahcim]

For a given medical study, we have three possible states what concerns correctness:

No we don't. A medical study is either wrong or right. The fact we don't know doesn't alter whether it is. Unless you're making an argument that if we observe a medical study then the probability wave collapes and the results of medical studies in the same pile change even if we move them across the universe, I can't see the point in dragging in physics fandom.

Besides, your maths above says "if we find 50% are wrong" whereas your stat says clearly that number. If we don't find 50% are wrong, then your statement is incorrect. Are you really saying that of all medical studies any that are unknown none of them will either be wrong or ever known about except 50%?

Besides, there's no real thing as a study, at least a non trivial one, being "right", there's always doubt - I didn't use "right" in absolute terms unless you use wrong in absolute terms. There is no "wrong" in absolute terms for all medical studies. We tried to discusss this but you waffled about the universe imploding - you allow things to be wrong, but never right iirc.

If, as you said, 50% of all [not "the ones we know about" - all] those studies are eventually [not "have already been shown to be Basta!" but eventually] found to be wrong, then the other 50% are correct. If they aren't then the statement about how many of _all_ studies that are _eventually_ found to be wrong is incorrect.

You've already said that, by saying that the 50% will increase in a hedging attempt to ignore that you say "Eventually" and "All" perhaps.

If it turned out to be 65% then the statement today might be

"65% of all medical studies are eventually wrong" and your argument seems to be
that

"65% of all medical studies are eventually wrong" and
"50% of all medical studies are eventually wrong"

are both right because you wrote the 2nd one earlier. Not even quantum mechanics is that bizarre I have a theory that says a solid piece of evidence that your statement is wrong won't do anything other than make you post more and more blather about why it isn't, which probably describes real world science more accurately than the textbooks might suggest

It's that simple. What you've said later is probably more true, although I don't believe for one minute that you wrote what you were actually trying to say anyway - but that's not because the statement needs caveats or clarification though it's because you weren't really just posting a statistic.

[BoliverAllmon]

wow this went differently tha planned.

boliver

[stevie]

 

[BoliverAllmon]

and the smileys are for what?

[xvimbi]

No we don't. A medical study is either wrong or right. The fact we don't know doesn't alter whether it is.

But the fact that we don't know whether a study is wrong or right puts limits on the kinds of statements we are allowed to make about it. This is the basis of Bayesian Statistics. Check out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_statistics
For an illustrative example, check out the Monty Hall problem: https://math.ucsd.edu/~crypto/Monty/montybg.html

In this case, we are allowed to say that 50% of all studies are wrong (because we know), but from that, we are not allowed to say 50% of all studies are right, because we don't know.

Unless you're making an argument that if we observe a medical study then the probability wave collapes and the results of medical studies in the same pile change even if we move them across the universe, I can't see the point in dragging in physics fandom.

If, as you said, 50% of all [not "the ones we know about" - all] those studies will eventually [not "have already been shown to be Basta!" but eventually] are found to be wrong, then the other 50% must be correct. If they aren't then the statement about how many of _all_ studies will _eventually_ found to be wrong is incorrect.

You've already said that, by saying that the 50% will increase in a hedging attempt to ignore that you say "Eventually" and "All" perhaps.

If it turned out to be 65% then the statement today might be

"65% of all medical studies will eventually be wrong" and your argument seems to be
that

"65% of all medical studies will eventually be wrong" and
"50% of all medical studies will eventually be wrong"

are both right. Not even quantum mechanics is that bizarre

It's that simple. What you've said later is probably more true, although I don't believe for one minute that you wrote what you were actually trying to say anyway - but that's not because the statement needs caveats or clarification though it's because you weren't really just posting a statistic.

We are talking about two different things. You are getting caught up in the absolute fact that right+wrong = 1. There is no denying that this is the case. My argument is not about that at all. My argument is whether it is allowed to make the claim that 50% of all studies are correct, given the observation that 50% of them are incorrect. If we knew the correctness of all studies, and my statement is correct, then your statement is indeed correct as well. However, we DON'T KNOW the correctness of 50% of the studies. Thus, we cannot make a statement about them. According to statistics, we are not allowed to make a statement at all, unless we have additional information in hand.

Schroedinger's Cat illustrates this scenario. Of course, the cat must either be alive or it must be dead, but we don't know. Say, we have 100 such cats, and we looked at all the boxes they are in. Let's assume that somehow, 50 of them give it away that they are dead (perhaps there is a smell coming from the boxes). Let's also say that for the other 50, we don't know the state of the cats. We can then make the following claim: 50% of the cats are dead, but I can't say anything about the others. This means: AT LEAST 50% of the cats are dead, it does not mean EXACTLY 50%. That is the scenario we have with the medical studies. Again, all this sounds peculiar, only because we are dealing with unknowns.

[thalbergmad]

A bit too complex for me, but i would like to Quote Arthur C Clarke.

"At a generous assesment, 50% of this book is rubbish. Unfortunately, I don't know which half and neither despite claims to the contrary, does anyone else"

[leahcim]

In this case, we are allowed to say that 50% of all studies are wrong (because we know), but from that, we are not allowed to say 50% of all studies are right, because we don't know.

Consider this then

(a) A link is proposed between autism and MMR and a study finds a link. This study has "hmm.." status, more studies need to be done etc as they always say.
(b) Several more studies later they don't find a link and they are used as a basis for "solid evidence" that the results of the initial study are wrong.

These studies cannot be "right" because there is no "right" - some solid evidence could refute it, yes? The same things that can't be called "right" are, according to you, it seems, adequate to have an absolute "wrong"

That's a parodox. That's, to quote someone earlier, bad logic.

I tried to explain why I think science in medicine is different from a body of experimental evidence and theory like physics has, but you claimed not to understand.

Consider that paracetamol might have absolutely zero affect on someone, yet kill another. No amount of medical studies that test paracetamol's effects by giving groups of people tablets to take and looking at the stats, and interviewing them about any side effects will answer that question when you take one. If it's "safe" it's because it's statistically safe. If it has an effect it's because it has a statistical effect. If you die then that's a 1 in a million, perhaps, or less, but it's still safe etc.

You'd have to look at the drug and the patient in a completely different way to actually find out how it works, what it does and to answer what conditions in a person affect the way it works, and that's generally not what medicine does with science when it looks for links between things in studies - although in more modern times, as they start to learn all about DNA etc, there might be researchers that find out why.

So I can't see where your absolute refutations are going to be found, in that kind of study. Who can say definitively that cracking knuckles does or doesn't do something if they only look at stats?

(c) A clever bloke years on finds out a lot of stuff about MMR and autism, way more than we know now or that any study looking at a population of MMR injections and autism incidents is even pretending to discover about it, and shows there is a link after all, given certain conditions etc etc. it might even shows why the studies didn't find it.

Now at this point it seems that study (a) wasn't wrong because the solid evidence used to refute, was refuted by solid evidence.

From what you've said, you don't accept any of that can happen - (a) has been refuted and by definition that means it's wrong, even if it's not. Or are you saying that (a) isn't refuted yet, there's some other kind of limbo reservered for things that are wrong, but not refutedly so?

When I said "right" I didn't mean anymore than I believe you can possibly mean when you say "wrong"

But yeah
(a) Some things might be trivially true - we accept them and the few that would argue they aren't, aren't considered seriously.
(B) Some things might be trivially wrong - we accept them and the few that would argue they aren't, aren't considered seriously.

I can't see many medical studies fitting into either (a) or (b) - why waste the money. As I said, people aren't electrons, and even physics doesn't have much that's trivially true or false within it.

(c) Some things might be accepted as wrong based on current evidence. Despite what you claim, they could change.
(d) Some things might be accepted as correct based on current evidence. You seem happy that this can change.

But this argument appeared before and you just didn't accept (c) and claimed that it was changing the definition of "refute"

TBH, I don't think anything you can say will change your previous post nor make it correct. The reply to it is bogus too of course, I'm not arguing otherwise.

[xvimbi]

Consider this then

There are several aspects wrong with your arguments:

(a) A link is proposed between autism and MMR and a study finds a link. This study has "hmm.." status, more studies need to be done etc as they always say.
(b) Several more studies later they don't find a link and they are used as a basis for "solid evidence" that the results of the initial study are wrong.

The fact that a link is not observed does not mean there is none (that's the Rumsfeld logic). It only means that it has not been observed, but it might very well exist. Thus, this cannot be used as "solid evidence".

These studies cannot be "right" because there is no "right" - some solid evidence could refute it, yes? The same things that can't be called "right" are, according to you, it seems, adequate to have an absolute "wrong"

That's a parodox. That's, to quote someone earlier, bad logic.

It's neither a paradox, nor bad logic. In science one can often be absolutely certain that something is wrong, for example because of flawed experiments, but one can never be absolutely sure if something is correct.

I tried to explain why I think science in medicine is different from a body of experimental evidence and theory like physics has, but you claimed not to understand.

I did understand what you said, but I did not agree. I said the same rules apply to a study in medical sciences as well as in the physical sciences. The difference is in how the data are being collected and how reliable they are. The general logic of how to interpret them does not change whatsoever.

Consider that paracetamol might have absolutely zero affect on someone, yet kill another. No amount of medical studies that test paracetamol's effects by giving groups of people tablets to take and looking at the stats, and interviewing them about any side effects will answer that question when you take one. If it's "safe" it's because it's statistically safe. If it has an effect it's because it has a statistical effect. If you die then that's a 1 in a million, perhaps, or less, but it's still safe etc.

You'd have to look at the drug and the patient in a completely different way to actually find out how it works, what it does and to answer what conditions in a person affect the way it works, and that's generally not what medicine does with science when it looks for links between things in studies - although in more modern times, as they start to learn all about DNA etc, there might be researchers that find out why.

So I can't see where your absolute refutations are going to be found, in that kind of study. Who can say definitively that cracking knuckles does or doesn't do something if they only look at stats?

I mentioned it before where refutations are found: they are found when the methods of a study are identified as being flawed. Refutations are not concerned with a particular outcome, but about how data are generated, how trustworthy they are, and whether drawing the conclusions is justified.

(c) A clever bloke years on finds out a lot of stuff about MMR and autism, way more than we know now or that any study looking at a population of MMR injections and autism incidents is even pretending to discover about it, and shows there is a link after all, given certain conditions etc etc. it might even shows why the studies didn't find it.

Now at this point it seems that study (a) wasn't wrong because the solid evidence used to refute, was refuted by solid evidence.

From what you've said, you don't accept any of that can happen - (a) has been refuted and by definition that means it's wrong, even if it's not. Or are you saying that (a) isn't refuted yet, there's some other kind of limbo reservered for things that are wrong, but not refutedly so?

Doesn't apply for the reasons outlined above.

When I said "right" I didn't mean anymore than I believe you can possibly mean when you say "wrong"

See above about right and wrong.

(c) Some things might be accepted as wrong based on current evidence. Despite what you claim, they could change.
(d) Some things might be accepted as correct based on current evidence. You seem happy that this can change.

But this argument appeared before and you just didn't accept (c) and claimed that it was changing the definition of "refute"

I described earlier the difference between "accepted" views and refutations. An accepted view is an opinion, a refutation is not.

TBH, I don't think anything you can say will change your previous post nor make it correct. The reply to it is bogus too of course, I'm not arguing otherwise.

I am devasted. You are telling me that I have wasted two decades where I have consistently used the methods I have outlined. So have my colleagues and numerous people before me. I have taught bogus science to scores of students. I will immediately retract all my publications and ask my colleagues to do so too. I might as well sell pianos from now on

[leahcim]

I did understand what you said, but I did not agree.

You said "Frankly  I have no idea what you are talking about." so now intellectual dishonesty has entered the thread, let's just agree to differ

Or if you must reply, you can explain at length by waving your hands and talking about differential geometry why "having no idea what you are talking about" doesn't mean you didn't understand it, but just disagreed, if you like for posterity's sake - it won't be any less interesting than why what you said about 50% of all medical studies actually meant something completely diffferent

I like the plea to authority too. State the authority if you want it to count, don't blather and hint about it and then appeal to it. It's like Chang's book where he talks about his published and peer reviewed papers etc If he'd published the claims he makes in the practise book, in those journals fair enough, but otherwise it means nothing. Similary, publish this thread, specifically your statistic line and get it peer reviewed - I wasn't and haven't said anything about your existing publications that have been peer reviewed, nor how good you are or aren't at your day job. Although if you're saying your posts are indicative of that published work and your teaching - what's your price for Gem digitals?

[xvimbi]

I like the plea to authority too. State the authority if you want it to count, don't blather and hint about it and then appeal to it. It's like Chang's book where he talks about his published and peer reviewed papers etc If he'd published the claims he makes in the practise book, in those journals fair enough, but otherwise it means nothing. Similary, publish this thread, specifically your statistic line and get it peer reviewed - I wasn't and haven't said anything about your existing publications that have been peer reviewed, nor how good you are or aren't at your day job. Although if you're saying your posts are indicative of that, what's your price for Gem digitals?

If you know me a little, then you will acknowledge that I am the first one to discourage "pleas to authority". I polemicized your own polemic remarks about "my statistics". Your remarks reveal that you have really no clue what this discussion is all about. This "statistic" that you don't seem to "buy" is very basic and fundamental. I have given you pointers where to read more about it. You are saying Bayesian Statistics is wrong ('bogus'). I don't have to be polemic about saying that you are making an utter fool out of yourself. Believe me - I say this with all my authority.

[leahcim]

If you know me a little, then you will acknowledge that I am the first one to discourage "pleas to authority". I polemicized your own polemic remarks about "my statistics". Your remarks reveal that you have really no clue what this discussion is all about. This "statistic" that you don't seem to "buy" is very basic and fundamental. I have given you pointers where to read more about it. You are saying Bayesian Statistics is wrong ('bogus'). I don't have to be polemic about saying that you are making an utter fool out of yourself. Believe me - I say this with all my authority.

I didn't say bayesian stats are bogus at all. I'm saying what you wrote in that message is wrong. I'm not using it to filter my spam - although the technique has its name, so I'm aware of it through that. The truth of bayesian statistics doesn't hinge on your wild badly worded statements about medical studies, so if you thought I was saying the technique was flawed, I wasn't.

I'm not sure wikipedia, although I use links to it myself, is the place to use if you want to start shouting "my authority" or ask folk to learn more, but that's by the by.

You made an appeal to authority - 2 now with this - although I have read lots of your posts and I have read how quickly you dismiss them from others, yes, I didn't realise you were the first person though.

I suppose you're the first to discourage ad hominen too? Nevertheless here it is. If I'm an idiot then you're arguing at your level afaict at least on this subject

You've said at least once that you didn't understand [and later lied about it - if I knew you better would you be the first person to discourage dishonesty or even in the top ten?] in yet another post that you saw my pov - which doesn't suggest that you saw it immediately. As I've said before, if your immediate reply had said 1/2 of what your later ones have picked off of wikipedia or, I'd have probably said fair enough at your clarification. It took too long coming, with too much hand-waving and fluff to start claiming authority at this stage though.

The wording of your stat is bogus, you changed it yourself. That stat itself, even with amended wording hasn't been shown to be true. Knowing your past stats as I mentioned earlier in the thread [number of injured pianists] rises and falls each time you mention it. I do doubt it's authoritive or accurate. You can always demonstrate it to be the case if you wish. OTOH, you can probably just peer review the fact that the statement was completely pointless in context, even if it had of been true. Since the discussion was about cracking knuckles [see, I'm not completely clueless, we haven't been talking about it, but I do know what it was about]

When you posted your stat, I presume you knew what the discussion was about too , but if you now state that our posts are supposed to show if we know what it was about, I can't see why you think yours showed you did

[xvimbi]

Ah, you are so funny. Now you are accusing me of changing my opinion. In general, I am not ashamed of changing any of my opinons if new evidence requires it. I'll change them ten times a day if necessary. I consider this the proper thing to do.

It's obvious, you are not willing to analyze "my stats" (reply #36, at least that's what I assume you are referring to). Possibly, because you already have a hunch that it's correct. You are polemicizing, and you are trying to split hairs, instead of showing rigorous logical and cogent thoughts. That's not how you can convince anyone. In order to settle this, you must show me the refutation of my 'bogus' approach to explain why your statement (reply #6) is not a correct statement to make, given my statement (reply #5). If you succeed, I can guarantee you a top spot in the historical development of the sciences.

[bernhard]

Ah, you are so funny. Now you are accusing me of changing my opinion. In general, I am not ashamed of changing any of my opinons if new evidence requires it. I'll change them ten times a day if necessary. I consider this the proper thing to do.

It's obvious, you are not willing to analyze "my stats" (reply #36, at least that's what I assume you are referring to). Possibly, because you already have a hunch that it's correct. You are polemicizing, and you are trying to split hairs, instead of showing rigorous logical and cogent thoughts. That's not how you can convince anyone. In order to settle this, you must show me the refutation of my 'bogus' approach to explain why your statement (reply #6) is not a correct statement to make, given my statement (reply #5). If you succeed, I can guarantee you a top spot in the historical development of the sciences.

100% of all theories (scientific, medical, philosophical, theological, etc.) will eventually be refuted.