44 replies to this topic

[dopamine]

Likewise, neither is there isn't a reason to believe that it is false. Again, I think we can agree on that.

My presumption here is the attempted discovery of truth, i.e. "the way things work", including the human body. Since the Enlightenment, the primary method for discovery truth, again "the way things work", was/is the scientific method. This is the route that is most likely to lead to the discovery of truth. Now, someone could argue that, "you can scientifically prove the existence of love" or some other such argument. There is controversey there I am sure.

But something like medical practice must be based on science. If it's not based on science and verifiability, there would be no progress in the treatment of various conditions, including those of a mental nature. I guess the question is: do you reject science in your pursuit of truth? If yes, then I guess I don't have much more to say.

[scottl]

You are a theorist and I was trained as an engineer.

My goal (and nootropics are not something I work with) is to help patients not discover scientific truth.

I am not saying science and studies are not important. Only that reality i.e. what happens when you actually given patients/clients the supps doesn't always correspond to what the study says. But you cannot seem to accept that. And I have nothing more to add.

[dopamine]

Only that reality i.e. what happens when you actually given patients/clients the supps doesn't always correspond to what the study says. But you cannot seem to accept that. And I have nothing more to add.

Uncertainty and contradictory results are of course a part of scientific investigation. That's why there's almost always more than one study on any given drug.

The point here is that someone is claiming to have "special knowledge", unaccessible to everyone else. It is in effect saying "I don't need verifiable evidence, because I have already made up my mind based on my own personal experience." This is the claim made by psychics and parapsychologists, not scientists.

That being said, clinicial experience is certainly welcome into the discussion of various nootropics where perhaps research is lacking. But you can't put very much stock into a claim that can't be independently verified.

[scottl]

The point here is that someone is claiming to have "special knowledge", unaccessible to everyone else.

There is no special knowledge, no diety. What I speak of is available and usually common knowledge to anyone out working "in the field" rather then sitting at a computer theorizing as you are.

In theory theory and practice are not different. In practice they are. [don't remenber where I read that]

It is in effect saying "I don't need verifiable evidence, because I have already made up my mind based on my own personal experience." This is the claim made by psychics and parapsychologists, not scientists. .

Name calling does not become you.

In a few specific instances where I have a lot of personal experince in my body and in a number of clients, and a number of clients of others that is correct. Certainly there is the placebo effect, but just as certain dramatic repeatable evidence clearly ain't the placebo.

That being said, clinicial experience is certainly welcome into the discussion of various nootropics where perhaps research is lacking

how decent of you...

This is about as useful as arguing with you about politics...and the similarities begin to occur....

[Pablo M]

I would be interested in LifeMirage's and Scott L's response to Dopamine's claim that DMAE has some anti-cholinergic properties. I currently take centrophenoxine and was under the impression that DMAE is an effective choline precursor, centrophenoxine even more so.

[scottl]

Dante,

Lifemirage has addressed this before, but I forget the details. If you can't find it with the search engine here you can use google and put in this board as the web site to search.

[rfarris]

Since the Enlightenment, the primary method for discovery truth, again "the way things work", was/is the scientific method.

Indeed, however, if you look around you'll find out that "the way things work" as defined by the scientific method (including medicine) has turned out absolutely wrong. Today things defined by the scientific method will also end up wrong in many cases.

Have you heard the story about the five-year-old child that had a hammer? The whole world looked like a nail to him. You're wielding the scientific method like that five-year-old child with a hammer.

Once you get out into the real world and start to get some experience, you're going to be thinking "Gee, that LifeMirage was a smart guy."

-- Rick

[exigentsky]

"Indeed, however, if you look around you'll find out that "the way things work" as defined by the scientific method (including medicine) has turned out absolutely wrong. Today things defined by the scientific method will also end up wrong in many cases."

The scientific method does not define "the way things work" or anything of that sort. It is only a sound and systematic method of investigation. Your post confuses me.

How is the scientific method wrong? How does it define "how things work?" Also, why do you think the scientific method would not be applicable when evaluating nootropics?

[dopamine]

There is no special knowledge, no diety. What I speak of is available and usually common knowledge to anyone out working "in the field" rather then sitting at a computer theorizing as you are.

In theory theory and practice are not different. In practice they are. [don't remenber where I read that]

If it is "common knownledge" than it should be such because it has been published and researched. Where is this "invisible body of knowledge" that clinicians have that is so inaccessible to the rest of us? Is it in the experiences clinicians have with patients? Possibly. But those are often published in journals as well. The thing about clinicians reporting an effect of a drug/supplment from a patient is that they always say "this warrants studies in a double-blind, placebo controlled fashion", because they know individual reports are insufficient insofar as their validity as scientific statements. A drug/supplement may be discovered to be useful in the clinicians office, but it's efficacy is verified only through rigorous scientific study and review.

In a few specific instances where I have a lot of personal experince in my body and in a number of clients, and a number of clients of others that is correct. Certainly there is the placebo effect, but just as certain dramatic repeatable evidence clearly ain't the placebo.

Personal experience is evidence, it is just the lowest form of evidence in science. This is what needs to be recognized.

Edited by dopamine, 26 September 2005 - 01:25 AM.

[LifeMirage]

Hmm this conversation has definitely opened up several questions....

Dopamine: I sincerely appreciate your interest in nootropics and perhaps replied a bit defensively to your initial comment on pyritinol…….in part because I’ve talked about the safety issues way too many times. Your interest in seeking the best of research is a good goal however there are over 100 studies/or published mentionings on just pyritinol in medline in which the abstracts are not posted freely….when I have the chance to post some of this information and/or include it in my book I will. Surely you understand getting the full articles on these compounds took me a massive amount of time and cost.

Please take my comments as my experience and conclusions based on research rather than scientific fact….unless I either quote a study that 100% backs up my statement or I fund a study to confirm it then.

However concerning the subject matter of the poster I think Get Smart and Ortho-Mind are 2 of the top nootropic brain formulas out there.

[rfarris]

The scientific method does not define "the way things work" or anything of that sort. It is only a sound and systematic method of investigation. Your post confuses me.

I agree with you 100%, Sky. I was just trying to put things in the previous poster's terms. That's why it had quotes around it, to show that it wasn't my words.

How is the scientific method wrong? How does it define "how things work?" Also, why do you think the scientific method would not be applicable when evaluating nootropics?

I'm with you, pal. There is nothing wrong with the scientific method. I don't even think it's not applicable when evaluating nootropics. I wish I'd said it the way you did when you said that it was only a systematic method of investigation.

But if you're really interested in what I think, then here it is: I think that the scientific method does not assure that the results are valid, nor do other forms of investigation assure that they are invalid. Peace.

-- Rick

[wannafulfill]

"I think that the scientific method does not assure that the results are valid"
maybe not, but it's the only one that can

[rfarris]

"I think that the scientific method does not assure that the results are valid"
maybe not, but it's the only one that can

So...suppose that you watched ten people have their heads blown off and each one of them died. Since no scientific method was applied, would you not belive that having their head blown off kills people?

-- Rick

[wannafulfill]

I don't need to spontaneously generate and adopt a theory in that case... enough data is available, in the public historical record, and given our scientific understanding of human physiology, that people die when their heads are removed that way.

[rfarris]

I don't need to spontaneously generate and adopt a theory in that case...  enough data is available, in the public historical record, and given our scientific understanding of human physiology, that people die when their heads are removed that way.

So, are you suggesting that if there wasn't a public historical record, nor did you have a scientific understanding of human physiolology, then you would have to do some more experimentation before you would believe it?