User talk:SteveBaker/archive21

Private email request

Steve, would you be kind enough to email me because I have a bit of a problem that I think you can help me with and its too private to discuss here. If you dont want to I completely respect and understand your choice. Kind regards. Ribbonsrabbit (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I have emailed you per request. FYI, users that are willing to discuss things via email have the "E-mail this user" tag in the Toolbox menu off to the left. I have that setting enabled - so you could have simply emailed me directly. SteveBaker (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments on Asperger's Syndrome

(Moved to User talk:ACEOREVIVED)

Santilli

I think it's time we revisited Institute for Basic Research as non-notable vanity press. The article is mostly self-sourced and lacks indication of notability. Indeed, it's filled with cruft about its charter and properties. But basically, it's co-located with run by, and publishes primarily works authored by Santilli. It passed AfD a few years ago as a weak keep with only three participants. I think our experience with Santilli has given us a better perspective. Rklawton (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have that article on my watchlist - so I didn't notice the AfD - or even know the article actually existed. I would certainly have supported the AfD had I known that it was happening (or even that the article existed in the first place). Our standards for what is acceptable have toughened up considerably since 2007 - I definitely think a second AfD is called for. SteveBaker (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Link to the UV Bug model?

Since the reference says it, I don't doubt that the VW bug is an icon in the computer graphics. But do you know if there is a link to the model somewhere? That would be great! —Kri (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I did actually look for a copy of it - but didn't find one (aside from anything else, it would be nice to know how many triangles it consists of). I haven't given up yet though. It's on some dusty old FTP server someplace, I'm sure! SteveBaker (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That's great! :D —Kri (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: Homeopathy Talk Page

You made a comment on the homeopathy talk page that placebos only work when the patient isn't told they're being given a placebo. That isn't strictly true. This doesn't pertain to the article or discussion, but you might find it interesting. Here's one article on it: [1]. I've seen a variety of similar studies, some of which you may be able to track down on PubMed, discussing which kinds of placebos are most effective, and in which setting and context patients respond most. Anyway, thought you might be interested. See you around,   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not exactly true.

What Kirsch says in that paper is: "We told patients suffering from irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) that placebos have been shown to be effective for their condition, that their effects are induced at least in part by a well-known mechanism (that of classical conditioning)" - so he didn't say "Sorry, this sugar pill will have absolutely no effect whatever on your body." - he said "This pill will help you.". Besides, most patients will actually hear "blah,blah,blah,effective for your condition,blah,blah,blah,<something plausible and scientific-sounding>'". This isn't a good control. They need to test is these four options:

1. No treatment whatever and no reassurance that this will help.
2. No treatment whatever and an assurance that they'll get better faster without treatment than with it.
3. A sugar pill with Kirsches' assertion that it'll work due to classical conditioning.
4. A sugar pill with an explanation that it won't work.

Only if (3) does better than (2) and (2) does no better than (1) have you actually proved something.

SteveBaker (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

My only point was that patients can show signs of improvement on a placebo even when they've been told it is a placebo. As I alluded to above, studies have shown that some placebos are more effective than others (sometimes generally, and sometimes for specific conditions or in specific settings). (For instance, injecting a placebo generally shows stronger results than a pill, and a bigger pill generally works better than a smaller one. Even different colors of sugar pills work better for certain conditions than others.) You have to be careful what you're controlling for with your suggested method above; you're essentially testing "assurance of improvement", not the pill. Anyway, there are better sources than the one I provided which test this, if you're interested. The mbr study was just one I had easily at my disposal at the time. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The key point is that most people don't understand medical science - or indeed science in general. Someone who looks like a doctor says "blah blah blah" and gives you pills or a shot - and you assume it's a treatment. You feel like it should work and the placebo effect kicks in with the mind-over-illness phenomenon - and you do better. The more impressive the fake treatment, the better - so shots work better than pills. Duh. But the patient still THINKS they are getting real treatment. Not nothing at all. It's a bad experiment is all. SteveBaker (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It may be a bad experiment Steve, but the placebo effect has fairly widely been shown to have a real and positive effect on measured health outcomes. I'm not up on the latest research but last I saw the thinking was indeed that the mere act of focussing in a positive way on a health problem was productive in terms of outcome. If there is any basis to homeopathy at all, it seems to me to be the vary fact of the detailed analysis done by the "homeo-physician" based on an ostensibly quack method of diagnosis and treatment. It does seem that just having someone really care a lot may actually assist in health. There are even plausible known pathways where this effect could operate, such as cortisol. I'm less clear on how well the placebo affect is "subtracted" from efficacy studies on new drugs and treatments. So yes, the placebo effect seems real, but is ill-measured. There's likely not much profit in establishing Sugar Pills Res. Letts. as a journal. :) Franamax (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no doubt whatever that the placebo effect is real. The question is that if you tell the patient, clearly and unambigously in language the patient can understand: "These pills I'm giving you will do absolutely nothing to improve your condition." - will the placebo effect remain? I believe not. This is important because it provides another way to measure how ineffective a drug is. If the claim is that homeopathy does actually work - but at a level below that of placebo - then someone ought to do the experiment of giving patients homeopathic "treatments" and tellling them that "This liquid is just water and it won't help you at all" - and show once and for all that there is nothing - not even below the level of placebo - going on. To the extent that homeopathy works, it's just a bizarre and over-complicated placebo. SteveBaker (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, presuming the patient believes you. The patient may think you're part of a vast conspiracy to make money for doctors and drug companies. Looie496 (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As a relatively emotional respomse, my first thought is that if it produces a positive outcome, who cares how it works? Ontario has recently moved to license and regulate homeopaths, presumably on the same grounds. A very close relative of mine facea osteoporosis risk and was presented with a treatment alternative, a drug shown to be efficacious. Oh yes, there was a small risk of disintegration of the jawbone. Seriously, you could have somewhat stronger bones, you just wouldn't necessarily have a mouth. That really blew me away and I have to kind of queston why I wouldn't push instead for a treatment that I knew would do no harm whatsoever. but might help a little bit. Pretty much every small-molecule drug has a wide range of side-effects, since we know almost nothing about chemical biology. I'm a fairly quite rational person, but what I've learned leads me to start asking questions. For one, why do you propose testing homeopathy this way, without making a more broad study? Why not test every drug by relentlessly telling the patient it will definitely not work? Of course doing it that way takes all the "blind" out of the study too, so how do you do the statistics? Not trying to start an argument on homeopathy here, just musing... Franamax (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For improvements to a wide variety of engineering and technology articles. Guy Macon (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy! I shall carry it carefully over to my User: page and put it in a place of honor in my trophy cabinet! SteveBaker (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

YT videos on science "almost all" faked

In the discussion about improving the suppressed free energy article, I never suggested using a YT video as a reference in the article.

The flashlight going dim using low batteries was long known--a yawn.

Supporting malevolent monopolistic interests may equate to the immoral supporting of genocide and eugenics of the profane?

I don't think that it is logical or sane or productive to dismiss "almost all" science videos as faked.

Famous nay sayers. Oldspammer (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You have to be very careful with what you take away from that L-O-N-G 'Worst Predictions' list.

1. Cross off all of the statements made by non-scientists - we know that the popular press and pundits and politicians make ridiculous claims. This gets rid of about 70% of the entries.
2. Cross off all of the statements that are about engineering issues rather than science - if science doesn't actively deny the possibility, then it is always possible for engineering to solve the practical problems of implementation.
3. Cross off statements that don't talk about scientific impossibility, but rather what someone predicts society will do with it - for example, the claim that nobody will want a computer in the home - that's not a mistake of science, it's an error of understanding society. The claim that vacuum cleaners will one day be run by nuclear power...clearly they could be...but nobody in their right minds would buy one...but that's not a problem of science.
4. Cross off the many duplicates which makes the list look much longer than it is.
5. Cross off misquotes and statements taken out of context.

What you're left with is a very short list - by my count, just six out of the 115 entries. Those six include three people who knew that energy could be released by splitting atoms but failed to understand the power of a chain reaction in large and unstable atoms. The other three were all made in the 1800's before 'the scientific method' was well-established.

CONCLUSION: That L-O-N-G list contains only one example of a failure of science to correctly convey scientific truth. A better example of such a failure would have been Einstein's blunder over the gravitational constant.

Anyway, any claim whatever that some YouTube science video proves something must be ignored because no matter what, you have to admit that there are a hell of a lot of fakes out there and that you therefore need some kind of more reliable corroboration before you can believe what you are seeing. If you have that corroboration, then you don't need to mention the video. Hence, any claims (such as you most certainly made) about some YouTube video showing us something may be safely ignored.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Informal mediation

I just wanted to notify you about this as a courtesy. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks - I have replied there. SteveBaker (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)