Last Sunday at 12 years old, Drake was apparently able to discuss with us the fairly sophisticated notion of whether to continue to do something for his health independently of adequate scientific evidence of its benefits. I think the specific thing in question was 'carbo loading' right before a basketball game.
The difference between Drake and many of the adults I have heard make this argument, however, was that he was actually able to see his error even before I was able to well-enough articulate it myself.
Doing something for the mind control factors, PRECLUDING its actual affect on the body, betrays the fact that we actually doubt it does anything significant one way or another to the body.
For instance, about one hundred years ago there were many natural remedies on the market to help calm babies from life's aches and pains. 'Grandma knows best' cough syrup and such things. Many people argued, very similarly to the way they argue them a century later, that such a natural remedy would be better than anything a physician would be able to offer. (Anything a physician would be able to do a hundred years ago might not be worth gambling on, I very much agree, but post-antibiotics I am not so sure...)
The problem about the 'natural' baby syrups is that most of them contained opium. After opium was banned most of them contained cocaine. Then at the very least they left in the whiskey. I suppose those substances ARE at least NATURAL, but whether they are entirely BENIGN in their action is different, and I think unlikely.
So turning to the question of a 'gazeebo' effect: if eating a diet of high carbs before physical exertion was KNOWN to be entirely neutral one way or the other for its practitioners, then I think it could be safely engaged in to only trick the mind that something useful was being done for the body. But the thing is that most people who are trying to in some way do something that changes the state of their body from minute to minute, are in actuality really hoping to do just that.
And the dangerous potential, as in the case of baby opium and maybe some of its modern equivalents, is that they ARE doing that. And the only way to know whether a substance/practice is actually helpful or harmful, is to approach that question in a somewhat traditionally scientific way.
(I just read something about the need to appeal to keyword searches so placebo effect placebo effect placebo erfecter effect placbo effect affect afect plerceeber erfect placeebo affect plaseebo effect placebo effect placebo effect, just kidding, but he really did say 'gazebo' effect, which was cute, and also, in a way, illustrative of something or other)
The difference between Drake and many of the adults I have heard make this argument, however, was that he was actually able to see his error even before I was able to well-enough articulate it myself.
Doing something for the mind control factors, PRECLUDING its actual affect on the body, betrays the fact that we actually doubt it does anything significant one way or another to the body.
For instance, about one hundred years ago there were many natural remedies on the market to help calm babies from life's aches and pains. 'Grandma knows best' cough syrup and such things. Many people argued, very similarly to the way they argue them a century later, that such a natural remedy would be better than anything a physician would be able to offer. (Anything a physician would be able to do a hundred years ago might not be worth gambling on, I very much agree, but post-antibiotics I am not so sure...)
The problem about the 'natural' baby syrups is that most of them contained opium. After opium was banned most of them contained cocaine. Then at the very least they left in the whiskey. I suppose those substances ARE at least NATURAL, but whether they are entirely BENIGN in their action is different, and I think unlikely.
So turning to the question of a 'gazeebo' effect: if eating a diet of high carbs before physical exertion was KNOWN to be entirely neutral one way or the other for its practitioners, then I think it could be safely engaged in to only trick the mind that something useful was being done for the body. But the thing is that most people who are trying to in some way do something that changes the state of their body from minute to minute, are in actuality really hoping to do just that.
And the dangerous potential, as in the case of baby opium and maybe some of its modern equivalents, is that they ARE doing that. And the only way to know whether a substance/practice is actually helpful or harmful, is to approach that question in a somewhat traditionally scientific way.
(I just read something about the need to appeal to keyword searches so placebo effect placebo effect placebo erfecter effect placbo effect affect afect plerceeber erfect placeebo affect plaseebo effect placebo effect placebo effect, just kidding, but he really did say 'gazebo' effect, which was cute, and also, in a way, illustrative of something or other)
No comments:
Post a Comment