Language... how do you take it?

[puddicat]

Heard something on the radio today which made me smile because it’s soo true and nicely illustrates a point that I argue from time to time on HHO. As part of a discussion on global warming and the reduction of CO2 emissions the radio programme considered the difference between political and scientific use of language. When scientists refer to a reduction of CO2 emission they mean exactly that – a quantitative reduction in the measured amount of CO2 liberated into the atmosphere. When politicians refer to a reduction of CO2 emissions it could mean anything because it is possible to stretch language in such a way to give the impression CO2 is being reduced when it isn’t. Obviously this complicates things somewhat if in response to scientists recommendations to reduce CO2 the international response is “we are” when in fact they’re not really. That’s a very difficult one to deal with given that it is unfeasible to expect everyone to use language in the same way.

So I thought the nice general point was that scientists stretch language in the direction of absolute unambiguous meaning, politicians and people in marketing and advertising stretch language in opposite direction to create deliberate ambiguity and vagueness of meaning. Each serves a purpose, for science it is the discovery of truths, for politics, marketing and advertising it is the persuasion of people.

This is a nice context from which to consider the difference between evidence-based medicine and quackery, both products and practitioners. The difference in their use of language is essentially the same as the example above: When a vet says a drug has a certain effect or an animal has a condition, that is a quantitative statement for which there is evidence. When a quack product or service suggests it has an effect, there is no reason to assume that it does. The advertising standards authority prohibits blatant untruths in product advertising but as anyone who has bought moisturiser knows, that still leaves lots of scope for clever use of language to give a false impression. It would be unfair to argue that the motivation behind the language used in quackery is simply for persuasion (although I could probably give it a good shot) BUT… and this is the big but…. It is worth pointing out that the use of language in quackery is the opposite of that required to establish truths, develop understanding, and propagate unambiguity. The difficult bit, as with the global warming example, is that the words used can be the same, eg “reduces pain”, “prevents joint damage”, “raises from the dead” etc but it is the context in which they are used that indicates the appropriate interpretation.

If I sold you a bottle of spring water with “helps your horse stay healthy and forms an essential part of a training programme for your horse” I wouldn’t being saying anything untrue. If charged you £20 for patting your horse for an hour and claimed it was improving his condition, that would be true too!

PS I have bottles of water available on special offer at £3.99 and my dial-a-pat service is currently only £15 for anyone within 30 miles of Church Stretton.

^..^

 

[piebaldsparkle]

What's your point???

P.S. How big are the bottles of water and will you deliver?

 

[puddicat]

Oh sorry was there meant to be a point, it's Saturday? OK well try these:

point 1 is that it is not what is said that is important but the basis for saying it.

point 2 is that if you want to know how to interpret something - find out the basis for the statement and that means asking questions.

point 3 is, it is genuinely difficult to resolve arguments or debates without making sure the use of language is consistent - if you look back to the debate on Chiros a while back the subject of "aligning the pelvis" got confused because people had different understanding of what the term actually meant.

point 4 is that there is no guarantee that things mean what you think they mean unless they are licenced medical/pharm products or the utterences of a vet in which case they probably do. If I had a cent for everytime someone said to me "but it says it works so it must do something" I'd have a pile of coins that I couldn't spend in this country.

PS 1 litre bottles and I'm sure we could come to an arrangement on delivery...

 

[piebaldsparkle]

[ QUOTE ]

point 4 is that there is no guarantee that things mean what you think they mean unless they are licenced medical/pharm products or the utterences of a vet in which case they probably do.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no guarantee full stop. Just because a product is licensed and proven to work in some cases, doesn't mean it will work in all cases. Medical science can't provide all the answers either, which is where alternative 'treatments' have a place. People just have to use their common sense, when judging what may or may not be worth trying. Case in point my mare has had diorreah since I got her (6yrs ago), vet has done various tests and all came back normal, but through process of elimination mare seems to be intollerant to sugar and grass. Restricted grazing and a fibre diet have improved her, but still really sloppy (like cow pats). Vets could offer not treatment, and were unconcerned as she was in good health and not getting dehydrated. Now have tried various herbal type supplements (none worked for her), now feeding Aloe Vera Gel and her dung is almost normal, now no medical evidence that this should work, but it does in her case. Should I stop as there is no medical reason for this product working?

 

[puddicat]

Well what you say is certainly common wisdom. It's flawed reasoning, and there is an abundance of evidence that it's not a sensible way of thinking. I'll try to explain what I mean using your argument in the order you gave it.

There is no guarantee full stop.
Simply not true, the nature of the gurantee is in the form of a probability or likelihood that something will work. That is a quantitative measure. Human nature is to deal in absolutes so typically the misunderstanding arises because people reason wrongly that "if you can't say something hapens for definite you don't don't know very much" or "you're just guessing".

Just because a product is licensed and proven to work in some cases, doesn't mean it will work in all cases.
So you say this - which of course is true by definition. But that was not the point I was making which was "the action or effect of drugs/ medical treatements is known". That doesn't mean they work every time, it means the nature and degree to which they have an effect is known.

which is where alternative 'treatments' have a place.
...and here's the flawed logic. What you're saying is that just because very smart, highly educated and skilled professionals working on the basis of knowledge accumulated for centuries using products that a multibillion dollar drugs industry has researched and refined can't come up with a cure, trying herbs is a reasonable alternative. No, that's human desperation and frailty but don't confuse it with sound reasoning or common sense. The word 'alernative' is misleading because it gives the impression that treatments outside conventional medicine are on a similar footing to medicine. It is naiive to believe this.

People just have to use their common sense, when judging what may or may not be worth trying.
No they don't, they can trust a vet/med profession whose entire purpose is to make those judgements from a position of knowledge and insight.

Should I stop as there is no medical reason for this product working
Yes of course, the sensible thing to do would be to stop and see if the horse was fine without. What you've done is no different from primitive man when he associated the weather with the temper of a god - humans can't accept coincidence because we're programmed to associate cause and effect when things happen together. Your horse probably recoved for some spurious reason but because you were looking for something to work, feeding it various supplements you assumed it did. It just happened to be aloe vera. In your mind you've seen it work, but that is a illusion due to the way humans are programmed to think. In reality there have been two events (you fed aloe vera, horse improved) and no evidence that they are connected. You will continue feeding aloe vera just as early civilisations continued sacrificing sheep because they thought the harvest depended on it, there is no difference in reasoning.

 

[piebaldsparkle]

Blimey your so black and white, what about all the grey? Life I'm afraid just isn't that simple.

[ QUOTE ]
Should I stop as there is no medical reason for this product working
Yes of course, the sensible thing to do would be to stop and see if the horse was fine without. What you've done is no different from primitive man when he associated the weather with the temper of a god - humans can't accept coincidence because we're programmed to associate cause and effect when things happen together. Your horse probably recoved for some spurious reason but because you were looking for something to work, feeding it various supplements you assumed it did. It just happened to be aloe vera. In your mind you've seen it work, but that is a illusion due to the way humans are programmed to think. In reality there have been two events (you fed aloe vera, horse improved) and no evidence that they are connected. You will continue feeding aloe vera just as early civilisations continued sacrificing sheep because they thought the harvest depended on it, there is no difference in reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]
Errrrrrr No. Obviously to prove it was the Aloe Vera which was having an effect, I stopped feeding it. Her diorreah started again within a couple of days, started fedding it again and the diorreah stopped (fairly conclusive I think as nothing else was altered during this period. Medical science doesn't hold all the answers. Plus this was not a new condition (it had been ongoing for 6 years).

[ QUOTE ]
People just have to use their common sense, when judging what may or may not be worth trying.
No they don't, they can trust a vet/med profession whose entire purpose is to make those judgements from a position of knowledge and insight.

[/ QUOTE ] And when the vet has no answers what do you suggest? Give up? Live with it? Believe me if you has a horse with constant diorreah for 6yrs you would be trying other routes.

Whether a product is licensed or not has more to do with someone having the money to pour into the testing/licensing process and less to do with it being the most effective product.

 

[Beanyowner]

The problem being with many products such as Aloe Vera etc is that people will not throw the money at it in order to conduct research! It is a natural product so does not need to undergo stringent checks before it can be sold...unlike ones such as some joint supplements etc (by the way I am referring to human medicine here as equine/animal is slightly more lax!!).
A vet will give you the tried and tested methods...and some may suggest alternative therapies for you, but they can not assure you that it will work as there is no tests to prove it, and even some of the time it may be against the veterinarians way of thinking in order to suggest something which has no foundation of research behind it.

 

[Beanyowner]

By the way...on the subject of language...how do I take it?!?

Usually with a pinch of salt and question it all later!

 

[monstermunch]

I agree. Life and answers are definately not that simple. yes vets and doctors are trained to hold the knowledge and expertise for us to use when we encounter iullness or problems. That does not however mean that they are right all the time or that they hold all the answers. In fact they have been wrong on many occassions in my experience and also offered no alternative or answers when all they know about a certain situation doesn't work.
It is not a sign of desperation to look for other answers or try different approaches when conventional treatment or tests fail you. Some may say that those who do not believe there may be an alternative are scared of the answers they may find which may be perceived as a fraility in itself.
Yes there are acts of desperation and the use of things which are clearly ridiculous, however there are also some fantastic things out there, which like beanyowner said, work but just don't have money thrown at it to prove it on a scientific basis.
I fully respect our medical profession and take on board there knowledge and expertise, but they are not God and certainly do not hold all the answers. Those who believe they do, have a somewhat blinkered outlook on reality.
There are facts but there are also a lot of unknowns leaving us to make educated decisions about ourselves and our horses with careful research and the process of elimination!

 

[brighteyes]

Were you listening to Radio 4? Not the snoring remedy article (if indeed you can have an article on radio) ?

It's ALL in the language.

 

[puddicat]

Yes it was radio 4, I don't remember anything about snoring but there might have been. It might have been 'costing the earth' but it was about global warming and how we're all doomed.