Statistical inference - invalid research

[Guest guest]

Emmanuel,

I saw a TV program once where they showed an earthquake prediction

station in the PRC. It was filled with the most modern scientific

equipment. In addition, it had records extending back 2000 years,

since it had been in existence that long. These records included

things such as people reporting to the earthquake prediction office

that their chickens were behaving in a peculiar way. One might be able

to predict eathquakes systematically noting phenomena like this,

particularly with 2000 years of careful records.

 

Precise and careful observation is a feature of the Chinese mind.

In my CM practice, I'm often amazed at the accuracy and insight of

what the Chinese knew, and this can only have come to us from an

intricate process of experimentation, observation, collating,

theorising, communicating...

 

Perhaps we in the West need to enlarge our understandings of the

meaning of the word 'science' and 'research'.

 

Best wishes,

Wainwright

 

 

-

" Emmanuel Segmen " <susegmen

 

Wednesday, October 29, 2003 9:03 AM

Re: Re: Statistical inference - invalid research

 

 

> Rory writes: Have you considered the unintended consequences of not

doing research?

>

> Rory,

>

> As I understand it, these particular consequences have been going on

now for 3,000 to 5,000 years ... at least in the public record. So

can you share with us some of the highlights?

>

> Emmanuel Segmen

[Guest guest]

At 1:03 AM -0800 10/29/03, Emmanuel Segmen wrote:

>Rory writes: Have you considered the unintended consequences of not

>doing research?

>

>Rory,

>

>As I understand it, these particular consequences have been going on

>now for 3,000 to 5,000 years ... at least in the public record. So

>can you share with us some of the highlights?

--

 

I don't live 5000 years ago, I live now, and if I'm fortunate I'll

live for another few years. You suggest that what was done one or two

thousand years ago is the best way to act now, under very different

circumstances, and in the face of challenges that did not exist at

that time. In other words you propose that we should adopt a

conservative traditionalist response when confronted with difficult

and new challenges. I'm afraid that I'm too much of a pragmatist for

that, and I believe it is the pragmatism of it's innovators that has

enabled Chinese medicine to survive and evolve over the period of

it's history.

 

Rory

--

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

At 12:36 AM -0800 10/29/03, Emmanuel Segmen wrote:

>So here's my real bottom line question. Who here is going to do

>that research? It seem rather " precious " on the part of some people

>to demand research without either knowing how to do it nor being

>willing to learn enough to carry it out. Are the people who are

>demanding this research going to be the ones to do it? To pay for

>it? And if you decide to do it and/or pay for it, it's not clear to

>me from any discussion here what the mission is.

--

 

At the risk of being labeled precious by you, (well, no risk really,

you have already done so it seems) this is another red herring and

false characterization to add to your other ones about research

costing half a billion dollars, and that we'd all need to become PhD

statisticians.

 

First of all, no-one is " demanding research " . We are discussing the

implications of research in our field, and trying to understand the

potential costs and benefits. One of the first questions that started

this thread was whether we should include research in our education

of OM practitioners, so that our profession could become research

savvy. You argued against that idea. Now you are arguing that we

shouldn't do research because we don't know enough about it, because

we are uneducated. Perhaps you should try to reconcile these

inconsistent thoughts in your own mind before lobbing any more of

your highly educated opinions into the debate.

 

Rory

--