We are a pattern seeking species. There was, long ago, a variation amongst some of our ancestors in their ability to recognize patterns. Variation being the impetus of evolution we began to slowly acquire this ability as each generation attempted to survive in the natural world. Why? Because recognizing patterns was of great importance to us. Where the shadows pointed when prey were grazing (i.e. time of day), the markings left by predators vs. those left by the more innocuous beasts, or the trails leading to or going away from camp, are all examples of recognizing patterns that were of great advantage to our ancestors, the result of which being that pattern seeking remains a very human trait. Traits such as these are the geists of our evolutionary history. These "ghosts" have produced some truly remarkable breakthroughs (atomic theory, the theory of gravity, and the theory of evolution itself to name a few). But the ghosts of evolution also haunt us. All too often we see patterns where none exist --
pareidolia is an excellent example. Subconsciously we reject elements that contradict the patterns we think we see, especially for the things we don't understand. Of the many things scientific experiment is it is a means of testing those patterns and seeing if they really exist.
I recently read
an Autisable post on whether antibiotics have a possible connection with autism. This is --in my opinion---a very good example of pattern seeking behavior.
"My nephew is autistic and my sister WAS definitely taking antibiotics while pregnant..."
The author of this post later went on to say that she began asking family friends with autistic children whether they had been taking antibiotics while pregnant. As you would expect (given the title of the post) they had.
Now, if a correlation (i.e. large numbers of cases outside of the authors circle of family and friends) were seen amongst mothers who had taken antibiotics while pregnant and gave birth to children who developed autism it
would be pertinent to test it more thoroughly. One way of doing that would be to look at those individuals who have autistic children and (through hospital records, not memory) see if the number of autistic cases have a significantly greater amount of mothers who did in fact take antibiotics during pregnancy. Being that the typical human pregnancy lasts about 3/4 of a year a problem arises. It may be that a disproportionate amount of mothers take antibiotics while pregnant compared to those who do not. A much better way would be to look at the number of mothers taking antibiotics while pregnant and see if those numbers correlate with the number of autistic children. Now, obviously we'd all (well I would) love to research anything and everything we can, but so little of our federal budget goes to research that we can't pour money into every anecdote we come across. We must first assess the observation. And a good way to start would be to consider the history of both antibiotics and autism.
Autism rates have only recently (1992) had a significant increase in numbers. I suspect this has more to do with doctors widening the spectrum of the disorder and less to do with a greater prevalence of it, and that seems to be the direction the scientific consensus is heading as well. Antibiotics, on the other hand, have been commercially available for over 75 years. If there were causation between antibiotics and autism wouldn't it be more likely for this spike in the rate to have occurred 75 years ago?
Going back to my original point, the thing about Autism is that it is currently an idiopathic disorder (i.e. we don't know what causes it). As a result that pattern seeking behavior within us begins to accept anything we can find as being the cause. Add any preexisting oppositions (like those against modern medicine) and you have a recipe for the most incorrigible misconceptions about the disorder --these misconceptions can, sadly, carry weight with those who do not know, understand or appreciate the scientific method. If we are to truly understand autism and perhaps someday have an effective treatment for it we need to exorcise our evolutionary demons and instead of letting theories based on zero evidence prevail (e.g. vaccines, antibiotics, etc. cause autism), let science, like a candle, light the dark for us.
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." ~Sherlock Holmes in A
Scandal in Bohemia by Aurthur C. Doyle
Recommend
Comments (47)
Once again, the medical student and Big Pharma apologist makes excuses to justify his greed.
@mathematicalbagpiper@xanga - How is the anti-vaccine lobbyist group paying you these days, piper?
@QuantumStorm@xanga - Zero. I get paid nothing to promote a natural lifestyle.
@mathematicalbagpiper@xanga - Sure, and the homeopathic/alternative medicine industries get paid nothing too. They just give out their products for free, don't they? *sarcasm*
At any rate, say hi to Rebecca Carley and the other Anti-Vac campaigners for me at the next fundraiser. I hope for your comfort, at least, that they're paying you enough.
@QuantumStorm@xanga - I'm a mathematician, that's what I do for a living. I don't get paid a dime for it.
I also don't ever hear of profits in the billions to trillions for natural medicine, unlike you do for Big Pharma. You know as well as I do pharmaceuticals are 10 times more expensive.
@mathematicalbagpiper@xanga - //I'm a mathematician, that's what I do for a living. I don't get paid a dime for it. //
Which is naturally why you'd get paid by anti-vaxxer lobbyists - if you're not being paid for being a mathematician then you'd need to get money from somewhere.
It doesn't matter if the profits are several hundred thousand or several trillion - a profit is a profit, and you have to start somewhere small before making it big. If natural (pseudo-)medicine had the corner of the market that conventional medicine does now, they'd be making serious profits too.
And 10 times? Where did you get that?
(As a side note, and something I've always wanted to ask - what sort of work do you do in mathematics? Teaching, actuary work, computation, etc? This is unrelated to the issue at hand)
@QuantumStorm@xanga - You misread my statement. I get paid to be a mathematician. I do not get paid a dime by the anti-vaccination lobby, and I can show you my tax returns to prove it.
A typical natural remedy costs about $20 for a month supply. A pharmaceutical? Try $200 on average for a month supply. $20 x 10 = $200.
I'm a teacher and a research mathematician.
@mathematicalbagpiper@xanga - I'll start taking your pugnacious little jabs a bit more seriously once you start exemplifying that "supreme intellect" I've seen you claim to have, by which I mean making logical arguments that are based on actual evidence. Look, I'm sorry you've had such a rough experience with various medical establishments. I had a similar experience that, because of my lack of insurance, put me in quite a bit of debt --though not nearly as large as the one I've seen you claim to have. It is because of that experience, and what followed in the free clinic, that I wanted to go into medicine, working with those who are uninsured (that and a love of science). So, go ahead and call me greedy all you want but you know nothing about me and claiming these things for which you have no evidence makes you come off as an impetuous child.
@Strangebrain@xanga - It's simple logic that I draw the conclusion.
Premise: All doctors are greedy.
Fact: You are a doctor.
Implication: Therefore you are greedy.
Surely it doesn't take a mathematician to explain how each implies the other.
@mathematicalbagpiper@xanga - Actually an implication (in logic) only has two propositions, what you attempted was a logical deduction. However, your deduction not only has one false premise "all doctors are greedy", but two as I'm not actually a doctor yet. Again, once you can start making logical arguments based on sound premises I'll take you a little more seriously.
@Strangebrain@xanga - When doctors start accepting teacher salaries to do their work, then I'll no longer believe that doctors are greedy.
@mathematicalbagpiper@xanga - //I do not get paid a dime by the anti-vaccination lobby, and I can show you my tax returns to prove it. //
Mmmmhmmmm. Photoshop FTW!!!
//A typical natural remedy costs
about $20 for a month supply. A pharmaceutical? Try $200 on average for
a month supply. $20 x 10 = $200.
//
The basis for these numbers is...?
Re: mathematician.
Cool. What sort of research do you do?
@QuantumStorm@xanga - No photoshop. I'd fax them to you unaltered, just with my SSN removed.
$20 and $200 are calculated averages. I've looked at prices of different things.
I'm a numerical analyst.
@mathematicalbagpiper@xanga - Oh don't worry about the photoshopped tax returns. I'll just take your word for it that you have them photo- er, available. (Just griefing you, don't mind me - and SEE!? You're taking the SSN's off them! PHOTOSHOP'D!!!
)
Averages based on what, though?
Re: mathematician
Do you do applied numerical analysis or mostly theoretical work?
@QuantumStorm@xanga - I calculated averages based on sample data collected at three local grocery store pharmacies and one local hospital pharmacy (price of drugs ranged anywhere from $10 to $1000 for a 30-day supply).
I'm more of the pure math side of things, though I do some work with the computer application/applied part as well.
@mathematicalbagpiper@xanga - Ah, so it's more of an estimate in your locality than it is a national or more widespread estimate.
Is there any specific area of num. analysis that you have interest or particularly focus?
@QuantumStorm@xanga - I like to do research on the numerical methods and absolute and relative error of numerical algorithms for calculating solutions to partial differential equations...so I pull a lot from functional analysis as well.
@mathematicalbagpiper@xanga - Do you use any particular computational software (say, I don't know, Mathematica or Maple or something even more high-end) to realize this goal or is it largely by hand? I'm assuming the former since it would be rather tedious but then again if you're examining the numerical methods themselves for error it may involve other, non-numerical approaches.
@QuantumStorm@xanga - I use Mathematica a little bit. I also have extensive training in Python programming (and that's a language especially useful to mathematicians). Most of my programs though are Python and written by myself, and I do a lot of hand calculation as well.
@mathematicalbagpiper@xanga - K, +10 coolness to you for using Python.
I use a little Python myself for modeling purposes but my background in programming is fairly orthodox (C++). I haven't done much other than use a few Py-based apps and tinker around with GUI interfacing for engineering model systems.
Excellent post. Not only are we a pattern-seeking species, we are also people who cannot tolerate the existential angst of chaos and must look for meanings, causes and remedies. If these turn out to be faith-based rather than factual, like the 'vaccination blamers', then those who do not accept the faith will be attacked. And just like a row in the family circle, those attacking will not stick to the point but will seek to attack from every angle. It is a mystery to me why people believe in discredited research that could not ever be duplicated rather than spending the funds and effort on searching in unexplored avenues that may prove fruitful.
People rarely stray from the religion of their birth because if they've believed it so long (and their parents did) it must be the right one... Same mental process.
Sorry you get so attacked for your pragmatism.
@mathematicalbagpiper@xanga - Before you can use "all doctors are greedy" as a suitable premise, you have to show how you came to that conclusion. That would require evidence of the personal motives of every single doctor in existence.
It might be difficult for you to understand, but there are actually people who perform high-paying jobs for reasons other than money. It is unreasonable for you to dismiss all of the doctors who spend significant amounts of time doing charity work as just another part of the conspiracy, designed only to make us think they're being charitable.
It is also unreasonable to dismiss the work doctors do because some of them are only in it for the money. The truth is that doctors, even greedy ones, save lives. I know you don't think any treatment at all is worth the trouble, and that you'd rather die than get a vaccine or undergo a treatment which you think is worse than any illness or injury you may suffer (though I doubt you've considered how agonizing something like tetanus can be), but there are many people who think it is worth it to undergo treatments in the hopes that one day, they will again be able to enjoy living.
Anyway, regarding the original post: correlation does not imply causation. That fallacy is also common among those trying to discredit evolution. It's disappointing that a species with so much potential for intelligent thought is often swayed by such worthless non-arguments. I think the people making the arguments in the first place often truly believe in what they're saying, and I think it is to be expected when the topic of debate is so emotionally-charged.
:(
Also, strangebrain, yours are about the only posts on autisable that I can actually respect.
:)
@freetheleafcutterants@xanga - Don't talk to me about agonizing pain. I live every day with a pain that's more agonizing than any other pain you can throw at me. I think I could handle just about any of it.
Furthermore, I think it's somewhat unethical to fight disease. Why? It gets in the way of "survival of the fittest," and if you claim that doctors save lives, then they are directly responsible for the overpopulation problem.
And no, treatments aren't worth it. Treatments for major illness always result in the loss of some sort of functionality, and I'd rather die than live not fully-functioning (thus compromising my quality of life).
great post, thanks for this