While I agree that there is no need for everyone to attend university to earn a degree, I do believe that it all depends on what someone plans to do as a profession for the rest of their life.

I have no interest in getting medical advice or having surgery performed by a self-taught "physician".

I also have no interest in taking medications designed and developed in the kitchen of a self-taught "biochemist".

If someone wants to be an autodidact and write an advice column for the newspaper that is fine... if they want to be an autodidact and become sports commentator you will hear no issues from me either. There are a multitude of professions where the absence of oversight in education results in essentially zero risk to other members of society.

That being said, for many professions it is insufficient to just have folks teach themselves and trust that everything will just be fine.

It would be irresponsible for example to just send people into the laboratory and have them teach themselves how to do chemistry... I don't care how many scientific journals they have read either. Just sending them in without oversight and guidance from a trained processional is asking for someone to blow their fingers off.

In short, whether or not guided education is necessary for a given profession depends entirely on what risks are associated with someone trying to figure out everything on their own.

This goes as much for vocational training as for university education. I am not very keen about someone attempting to teach themselves how to be an electrician all on their own either. I am certainly not going to hire them to practice on my home... that sounds like a fantastic way to end up with something unproperly grounded.

I don't think anyone's talking about self-taught surgeons here, Artemis. There certainly are many fields that require formal education and/or training, and I don't think you'd find too many people who would argue about that.

However, one could probably come up with a long, long list of fields that don't (or shouldn't) really require a sheepskin, where the degree itself represents more having passed the gatekeeper than having learned that much.

I've seen a longer version of Goldberg's column somewhere else (can't find it right now), and in the longer version, he makes it clear that STEM is a different category. A big part of the problem is that humanities and social sciences enrollment took a big upswing starting around 1990, at the same time that most universities were abandoning traditional humanities curriculums (curricula?) for postmodernism, grievance studies, and stuff that just plain isn't true. Half a century ago, a well-rounded humanities education had value in the job market; people with good humanities degrees were often sought out for business, management, and public relations, to name a few. Today, the humanities degree has little market value, both because the market is saturated, and because the value of the underlying education has declined; there is little you can do with a humanities degree other than be a professor of humanities.

I was trying to find some stats on different types of degrees, but it seems hard to find reliable data. I found one report from the National Science Foundation stating that 45% of entering freshmen in 2016 stated an intent to major in a STEM field, but from my own experience, less than half of students who start a STEM curriculum end up graduating with a STEM degree.

> he makes it clear that STEM
> is a different category

The other day, 'Hawk made the point as reflected in today's headlines.





BTW, Hi There, we're all totally old here. The kids today don't know how to handle a rotary-dial telephone. Does language like "headlines" betray my age as a reading glasses aficionado?

(Faves here. They got me laid once!)

(No, but they're good readers.)

I don't think anyone's talking about self-taught surgeons here, Artemis. There certainly are many fields that require formal education and/or training, and I don't think you'd find too many people who would argue about that. ~ Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at March 18, 2019 5:43 AM

Nor is anyone talking about self-taught electricians.

The point, Artie, is that some fields can be learned (and learned well) in trade school or through an apprenticeship and do not require a baccalaureate.

At the core of the issue is "what should college be?" Is it a professional training ground or a liberal arts education? Should it be one to the exclusion of the other? Can it be both?

To Artie's point, some fields require years of study and a vast store of applicable knowledge. We've already gone the apprenticeship route with doctors and it didn't work our terribly well - bleeding with leeches et al. Read The Great Influenza for more on the frighteningly-recent evolution of modern medicine.

Professional studies in a college environment are an organized way to pass on accumulated knowledge in a particular field and should not be casually discounted as mere superfluous accreditation.

There are degrees of certification to be considered as well. You may not need the electrician installing a circuit to be a degreed electrical engineer, but the person designing the circuit should be.

Here are a few mostly self-taught modern-day inventors who developed great things while still in high school.

I also have no interest in taking medications designed and developed in the kitchen of a self-taught "biochemist". ~ Artemis at March 18, 2019 4:02 AM

Why not? If they've been tested and found safe and effective, why wouldn't you take them.

Keep in mind that a great many early medical, and scientific, discoveries were made by self-taught researchers.

...that sounds like a fantastic way to end up with something unproperly grounded. ~ Artemis at March 18, 2019 4:02 AM

Unproperly?

Bit archaic, don't you think?

To those insisting that the cited author makes it clear that STEM is a different category... I AGREE with you.

The issue at hand isn't the cited author.

The issue at hand is this quote:

"I'm a lifelong nerd who doesn't need a grade to jam my nose into a book or pore over scientific journal articles."

The issue is that Amy has taken it a step further and insinuated that even scientific training should be in some sense optional.

The dividing line put in place by the cited article was blurred, as a result I felt it was important to clarify.

Thankfully, even if you DO go to college, you don't have to use the degree in only one way - or even live like a starving artist when you put variety into your life.

A nice example of that:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/small-business/his-parents-wanted-him-to-get-a-corporate-job-until-he-made-dollar154000-in-one-year/ar-BBUU3R1?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout

Just to add a bit of additional context here. The perspective that actual scientific training is unnecessary to form a qualified opinion regarding scientific fact isn't completely unusual.

Anti-vaxer and flat earthers all think they have a BETTER understanding than the professionals... all based upon their own autodidactic proclivities.

I have nothing against people learning on their own, but more often than not when it comes to complicated fields of study people get things really really wrong when left to their own devices.

I don’t think parsing the meaning of the word autodidact is particularly helpful here.

Humans are natural autodidacts. Did anyone formally teach you English? Or did you learn to speak it by listening to other people?

Conan Says:

"Why not? If they've been tested and found safe and effective, why wouldn't you take them."

Who tested them?... professional scientists and medical experts... or untrained snake oil salesman?

...even if you DO go to college, you don't have to use the degree in only one way - or even live like a starving artist when you put variety into your life. ~ lenona at March 18, 2019 8:30 AM

Michael Crichton started publishing novels while attending Harvard Medical School. Ken Jeong, actor and comedian, is also a degreed and licensed medical doctor.

One vibe that's always been odoriferously apparent when Art/Orion is around is that golly, certain people in our social structure aren't given the respect they deserve.

…Even though they've never had to subdue a drunk on a plane, and even though they've never tried to handle one on the ground, either.

Who tested them?... professional scientists and medical experts... or untrained snake oil salesman?

Artemis at March 18, 2019 8:36 AM

One of the beauties of real science as opposed to fake science, is that the construction, methodology, and replicability of a study, matter a great deal more than the credentials of the individuals running the tests.

Who tested them?... professional scientists and medical experts... or untrained snake oil salesman? ~ Artemis at March 18, 2019 8:36 AM

That's up to you. If you're buying over-the-counter medications sold as such, the FDA has a few requirements. If you're buying homeopathic remedies, then the testing is probably going to be somewhat less strenuous.

Isab Says:

"One of the beauties of real science as opposed to fake science, is that the construction, methodology, and replicability of a study, matter a great deal more than the credentials of the individuals running the tests."

That is all well and good... but someone without any training probably isn't qualified to actually run any of those tests.

That is the entire point.

Conan Says:

"That's up to you. If you're buying over-the-counter medications sold as such, the FDA has a few requirements. If you're buying homeopathic remedies, then the testing is probably going to be somewhat less strenuous."

Thank you for making my point for me.

Homeopathic remedies have absolutely no medical benefits beyond possible placebo effects whatsoever.

Artie,

A while back you argued strenuously against credentialism; stating that the arguer's argument should stand for itself. You argued that you should never have to divulge your fields of study or experience to validate the position you've espoused on an issue. Also, that we should trust that you have sufficient expertise on the issue simply because you'd never advance a view on a topic on which you have little-or-no expertise.

Now, you're arguing that only credentialed scientists should be allowed to practice science and certify results; that self study should not be considered as valid as university-sanctioned study.

Shouldn't the argument of whomever does the testing of this kitchen-brewed drug be sufficient without the tester divulging his or her credentials?

Conan,

I shouldn't have to argue anything... after all, the initial assessment following my comment was that everyone already agreed that STEM wasn't included in this discussion.

We should all be in agreement already, right?

Conan,

You also seem to suffer from a serious misunderstanding because you are engaging in black and white thinking.

Sometimes credentials are important... sometimes they are not.

When going into a surgical theater for example the credentials and certifications of the practicing physician are of great importance.

That same physicians credentials are completely unimportant when discussing their political opinion about the deleterious impact inadequate campaign finance laws.

Do you see the distinction here?... credentials matter sometimes... and sometimes they do not. It is all about context.

Sometimes on this blog personal questions are not asked to illuminate but rather to distract. I object to credentialism as a distraction. I certainly believe study, experience, and expertise matter in a wide variety of cases. I also believe that some credentials bare a positive correlation with study, experience, and expertise.

That is all well and good... but someone without any training probably isn't qualified to actually run any of those tests.

That is the entire point.

Artemis at March 18, 2019 8:56 AM

I would disagree here. Where the expertise is needed is in quantifying and interpreting the results. This is where replication and peer review come in.

Homeopathic remedies have absolutely no medical benefits beyond possible placebo effects whatsoever. ~ Artemis at March 18, 2019 8:58 AM

Not entirely true. Some traditional and homeopathic remedies have been found to be somewhat effective in certain cases - leading scientists (credentialed ones, I'm sure) to reevaluate them.

Scientists (credentialed ones, I'm sure) are even reconsidering bleeding with leeches; not as a cure-all, but as a specific treatment.

Picture this: You're chopping a steak with a big meat cleaver and—wham!—off comes your right index finger. Picture putting the finger in a jar and taking it with you to the hospital. Now picture a doctor carefully sewing the finger back on, and within hours the finger is blue and swollen with blood.

Grossed out yet? Good! Because now you can picture sticking a hungry leech on the end of that finger and—presto!—the finger returns to a nice healthy pink. As Lineaweaver explains, that's one of the leech's greatest talents. When a finger or thumb is reattached, it's relatively easy to hook up the arteries, because they're thicker and tougher. Veins, on the other hand, are fragile and crumple up easily. So, until new capillaries can grow to re-connect these damaged veins, what you end up with is blood with a one-way ticket into a reattached finger. With no veins to carry it back out, the finger swells up and chokes itself off with blood clots.

Leeches are ideal in this situation because they suck the blood slowly and steadily. (If you drain the blood too fast, you may as well not have bothered to reattach the finger.) To drain blood at just the right rate without using leeches, surgeons sometimes turn to an even more disgusting (and less effective) procedure that involves ripping off a fingernail and scraping the nail bed raw so it bleeds at a slow and steady rate. Given the choice, most doctors—and patients—opt for the leeches.

In fact, the homeopathic philosophy of like-treats-like is used today in allergy treatments. Small doses of diluted allergens are used to activate the body's defenses and acclimate the patient to exposure. Scientists (credentialed ones, I'm sure) are hopeful that exposure to minute amounts of peanut protein can be used to protect children with peanut allergies.

I have a friend who immigrated here legally. He is a plumber. He said when he was younger he made as much as $230,000/yr but now in his fifties he settles for $150,000 (work is hard for old guys). My other friend started a HVAC business. His 4 sons all got engineering degrees but decided to go work for him--they did not need the eng deg.
In my observation, very few successful musicians attended music school (Adele is one).

“When going into a surgical theater for example the credentials and certifications of the practicing physician are of great importance.”

Nope. More impressed with his track record on performing that particular procedure, and his hand eye coordination. I don’t read the diplomas and cents on the wall, because I don’t know what, exactly, the certification criteria is.

I also don’t know from those certificates if he has a drinking or drug problem that might manifest in the operating room.

Not impressed with your certificates Artemis, or mine either, for that matter. My degree has been totally devalued by the increasing number of nitwits that have graduated from law school over the last thirty years. Yours may be much the same.

Interestingly, there are no degree requirements to be a judge, even on supreme court, or to be a politician or CEO or realtor (just pass a simple exam) or developer or entrepreneur or coder or salesman. The demand for credentials is often for convenience of those hiring,due to snobbery.
Note that once someone has their college degree, they often end up doing something else entirely.

I certainly believe study, experience, and expertise matter in a wide variety of cases. ~ Artemis at March 18, 2019 9:10 AM

But you don't seem to believe in letting anyone know what your study, experience, and expertise is or where it comes from when discussing an issue on which you solemnly assure your fellow commenters that you have sufficient study, experience, and expertise to make learned and relevant commentary.

That same physicians credentials are completely unimportant when discussing their political opinion about the deleterious impact inadequate campaign finance laws. [sic] ~ Artemis at March 18, 2019 9:10 AM

True, but knowing the commenter on said campaign finance laws is not a high school drop-out sitting in his parents' basement or a political operative or a denizen of a foreign country can be important to furthering the debate, to letting other commenters know what weight to place on the commenter's expressed opinion far beyond the eloquence (or lack of eloquence) of the opinion provider.

While the physician's medical degree might be irrelevant to a discussion on campaign finance reform, knowing the physician once worked on a presidential campaign can, for instance, let other commenters know this person has experience beyond theirs. Knowing the physician also has a law degree or got his undergraduate in economics or political science can add weight to the expressed opinions - can help to put a frame around the expressed opinion.

While not important with every expressed opinion, additional information can also humanize the commenter, make others more willing to weigh the commenter's opinion.

But I wish the mainstream media would refer to trade schools more often AND in a positive way...here's an example of how they pretty much ignore them, instead.

https://www.gocomics.com/stonesoup/2010/09/19/

Here's what I said about that strip:

This is drastically incomplete, IMO.

That is, many, many young people go to trade school instead and do very well in life. (Bill Gates dropped out of college, but you don't even have to have HIS brains and drive to be successful.) Besides, many have no choice BUT to go to trade school, given the cost of the average college! So it's unfair to suggest that college is the only schooling that will get you where you want to go.

All Jan Eliot had to do was write: "He says I have to bring up my grades to get into college - or a trade school, if I want."

Aside from that, I think every parent of a teen should say something like: "If you don't EVER want to go to any kind of school after high school, you will have to move out immediately, get a job, and never ask me for money again. See? No matter what you choose in life, you'll have to get great grades to convince SOMEONE you're a real worker. So, get going."...

...I simply find it very tiresome - and very distracting - that someone as socially astute as she generally is could be so conformist when it comes to the not-so-subtle idea that everybody HAS to go to college to be financially successful. Colleges, sadly, are loaded with young people who really don't want to be there but who are not necessarily lazy or unambitious. There is no way to sift them out in advance unless they admit they don't want to be there. Plus, IIRC, well over a third of those who go to college do not get a degree. That's a big waste of money.

That said, I feel that slacker kids should also be told that it's OK not to go to college; what's not OK is using that as an excuse not to read real newspapers and challenging books.

Scientists (credentialed ones, I'm sure) are even reconsidering bleeding with leeches; not as a cure-all, but as a specific treatment.
________________________________________

I read about that, back in the 1980s, in Discover Magazine. It included a thank-you letter to a surgeon from a little boy whose ear had been ripped off by a dog. The doctor used leeches to make the reattachment surgery work better.

From that magazine's blog in 2016:

"...Medical leech therapy declined in the late 1800s, to be improbably revived in the 1980s by plastic surgeons as part of an ingenious method of treating the problem of entrapped blood that surrounds implanted or reconstructed tissue, “venous flap congestion” in medical parlance.(2) In this treatment, leeches relieve congested, stagnant blood around implanted tissues, thereby preventing clotting and tissue necrosis and allowing for the growth of tiny precious capillaries into delicately healing tissue.(7) Leech therapy has improved the outcomes for re-implantation of amputated fingers, ears, and toes; for enhanced healing following breast reconstruction surgery; and for the survival of compromised grafted skin flaps. Indeed, it has been reported in the literature that leeches improve the success rates of these procedures by 60 to 80%.(8)

"Though leeches have promising applications in modern plastic surgery, their use can also cause a very rare infection of the skin and soft tissues due to a gut-dwelling stowaway. Like any insect or mammal, the leech’s digestive tract can harbor a variety of bacteria..."

And here's more about that 1985 case:

http://discovermagazine.com/2001/dec/featblood

"...As medical science advanced, leeching died out, but with the advent of microvascular surgery and tissue transfer, surgeons rediscovered the creature's value. Two Slovenian surgeons pioneered modern medical leeching in the 1960s, describing how the worms assisted them in a tissue-flap transplantation. Then, in 1985, Harvard plastic surgeon Joseph Upton was called to care for a 5-year-old boy whose ear had been bitten off by a dog. Ears, which have very small blood vessels, had never been successfully replanted. Upton had no trouble with the boy's arteries, but as he worked through the night reconnecting the veins, clots began to form.

"Upton had used maggots to clean severe infections while serving in the Army, so the idea of a natural remedy came easily to him. He phoned Biopharm, a company in Swansea, Wales, owned by zoologist Roy T. Sawyer, who breeds Hirudo on the world's only leech farm. A box of leeches arrived overnight, and the boy's ear was saved. When Upton published his results in the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, leech sales soared. Nine years later, in a memorably bizarre case, leeches saved a life. During an operation for congenital facial abnormalities, an 8-year-old Dutch boy developed swelling so severe that his tongue filled with blood and protruded from his mouth, blocking his airway. Steroids and antibiotics didn't help. But six hours and 27 leeches later, the boy was out of danger, and leeches had been firmly reestablished as good medical science..."

Bill Gates dropped out of college, but you don't even have to have HIS brains and drive to be successful.

When people mention this, they fail to mention that he dropped out after taking every computer class Harvard offered at the time. He could not major in computers at Harvard then, so he did the next best thing.

But I wish the mainstream media would refer to trade schools more often AND in a positive way...here's an example of how they pretty much ignore them, instead.

Sometimes being ignored by mainstream media is a good thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_(TV_series)

Read The Great Influenza for more on the frighteningly-recent evolution of modern medicine.

They're barely past the stage were you couldn't tell the difference between a doctor and a witch doctor. This becomes painfully obvious once you start reading up on the research. This week eggs are bad for you. Next week, they're good for you.

https://youtu.be/1YT3erQZoq4

More impressed with his track record on performing that particular procedure, and his hand eye coordination.

This, right here. When my mom had her knees replaced, I suggested that she find someone who was in sports medicine because they work on knees a lot, and grokked them in ways someone who doesn't do it often may not. Once she worked thru rehab, those knees never gave her a lick of trouble.

"The demand for credentials is often for convenience of those hiring,due to snobbery."

Well, there are practical reasons... laws have made it pretty much the only information that employers can obtain about job applicants. Since Griggs v. Duke Power banned employers from administering competence tests, it's been a slippery slope of eliminating ways to vet applicants. In some states it's now illegal to check to see if a prospective employee has a criminal record.

"College Isn't For Everyone..."

I learned that the hard way. Pig Night at Om Mani Padme house. *shudder*

Isab Says:

"I would disagree here. Where the expertise is needed is in quantifying and interpreting the results. This is where replication and peer review come in."

This is where you are wrong.

Knowing HOW to run an experiment is just as important as knowing HOW to interpret the results.

The two go hand in hand.

It would be a pretty piss poor scientist who knows how to interpret a collection of data but not have the foggiest clue how to actually run the experiment.

You have to be able to do both and understand the details of both.

Conan Says:

"Not entirely true. Some traditional and homeopathic remedies have been found to be somewhat effective in certain cases - leading scientists (credentialed ones, I'm sure) to reevaluate them."

No Conan... a thousand times no.

Homeopathic remedies by definition function off of the "principle" that water has a memory that recalls the properties of toxins that it has been in contact with.

There is nothing about this that is effective or supported by any science.

Homeopathy is complete and utter bunk.

Sometimes scientists determine and isolate compounds from natural remedies that have some efficacy... but nothing useful ever comes from homeopathy.

Homeopathy is just diluted concentrations of water and/or sugar pills.

Conan Says:

"But you don't seem to believe in letting anyone know what your study, experience, and expertise is or where it comes from when discussing an issue on which you solemnly assure your fellow commenters that you have sufficient study, experience, and expertise to make learned and relevant commentary."

That is a lie Conan.

I bring up my expertise and background when I deem it to be appropriate.

The times I deem it to be appropriate is when I believe it till add something useful to the conversation. When it doesn't I just discuss the topic at hand.

What I try not to do is just trot it out at the drop of a hat to shove my education in other peoples faces.

Isab Says:

"Nope. More impressed with his track record on performing that particular procedure, and his hand eye coordination. I don’t read the diplomas and cents on the wall, because I don’t know what, exactly, the certification criteria is."

The part you keep missing Isab is that without the credentials there is no track record to investigate.

We don't let people build up a surgical track record without first training them and certifying that they are qualified to open people up with a scalpel.

The way you seem to believe the world works is we just have a bunch of folks try out doing organ removals and then just tally who succeeds and who fails.

This isn't how the world works.

First you get the training and earn the degree... then you are supervised in practice for a specialty... then you establish your own independent surgical career.

You want to act as if everyone starts out at the last stage.

Surgeons aren't born fully formed and educated... that training and education comes from somewhere and it isn't practice in the back alleys.

I bring up my expertise and background when I deem it to be appropriate. ~ Artemis at March 19, 2019 7:33 AM

No you don't. No one here knows what you do for a living, what your college major was, what level of degree you have, or even what gender you are. You have never deemed your experience, knowledge, training or anything related to yourself "appropriate" to any topic on this forum.

The most personal revelation you've made is that you might have an advanced degree - in what subject you've left a mystery.

No Conan... a thousand times no. ~ Artemis at March 19, 2019 7:29 AM

Yes, Artie, less-than-a-thousand times yes. Scientists (real ones) are starting to re-evaluate traditional, tribal, and even homeopathic remedies - instead of casually dismissing them. See my "leeching" example above and lenona's adjunct comments.

Lest you think I'm defending homeopathy, please note that I hedged my bet and caveated my comment with "not entirely true."

Does this mean homeopathy is more than "complete and utter bunk?" No, not at all. It is not a scientifically-proven philosophy of medicine. That something homeopathic might work in a given situation does not validate the entire practice.

Widespread theories of medicine, like homeopathy and chiropractic, are desperate for validation. Recently, an attempt was made by the Florida Legislature to establish a college of alternative medicine at Florida State University by a legislator who was also a chiropractor. It failed, and justifiably so. Those of us who have ties, even remote ones, to the state's university system are grateful it did.

Homeopathy is just diluted concentrations of water and/or sugar pills. ~ Artemis at March 19, 2019 7:29 AM

Artie, I'll be the first to admit that I know very little about homeopathy and, like you, am inclined to dismiss it as "complete and utter bunk." Certainly, I'll dismiss most, if not all, of the adherents of it I've ever met as utter morons or, if feeling charitable, merely deluded.

However, I did do some research to rebut an acquaintance's claim to its efficacy and learned a few things.

Homeopathy was founded in Germany in the late 1700s. It was based on the principle of "like cures like," and used diluted solutions of harmful materials to counteract the effects of exposure to larger concentrations of them. By itself, this is nonsense. However, the principle is proving to be somewhat effective in allergy treatments.

In homeopathy, the dilution process is sometimes continued until there is little or none of the original substance left in the solution - perhaps the source of your "water memory" comment.

Most, if not all, of the underlying principles of homeopathy have been disproven and debunked. At best, it can be called pseudoscientific; that pseudoscience pretense can fool some people into thinking it has real science behind it.

Homeopathic "cures" do have a placebo effect on some patients and, so, they remain popular with those who are not inclined to trust scientific medicine or find a modern medicine's scientific concepts incomprehensible; or those who just want to feel like they know more than those snooty "college people."

Keep in mind that when homeopathy was invented, the standard medical practices of the day included bloodletting, purging, mercury, cocaine, and other treatments that did more harm than good and often caused the patient great pain. So, any treatment methodology promising less pain had its attractions.

The prevailing underlying theory in standard medicine then was of "humors." Balancing the body's humors was the objective of medical treatment and "bad air" was believed to cause illnesses ("bad air" is where we get "malaria" or "malum aeris").

George Washington was tormented on his deathbed by professional doctors bleeding him and preparing near-poisonous tonics for him to drink.

In the 1800s, American patients with consumption (tuberculosis) were sent to the desert to "take the cure" and let the dry air dry out the phlegm in their lungs (e.g., Doc Holiday was sent by his doctors to Arizona). European patients were sent to high altitudes in Switzerland. Today, we use medication to cure tuberculosis.

That one principle of any non-scientific medical philosophy might prove useful in specific medical situations does nothing to validate the overall philosophy.

Like the anti-vaxxer movement, homeopathy is popular with people who embrace theories that the driving elements of the modern world are in conspiracy to conceal the truth from the masses; that the "noble savage" was somehow a purer expression of the human ideal - before he was corrupted by the industrial age (the allegorical serpent in a modern-day Garden of Eden myth).

Adherents of these theories envision themselves bringing truth to the masses; modern-day Cassandras doomed to be mocked and dismissed by a hoodwinked public.

Medical science, however, is examining many theories that had been dismissed out of hand and finding some elements of them that work in specific situations, even homeopathy.

Modern, science-based, medicine is barely 100 years old. Germ Theory took a long time to take hold in the minds of medical practitioners and had to prove itself over and over before gaining dominance over the humors doctrine.

"...that the "noble savage" was somehow a purer expression of the human ideal - before he was corrupted by the industrial age (the allegorical serpent in a modern-day Garden of Eden myth)."

The funny thing is, and a lot of people don't realize this, but that sentiment is actually the root of Marxism. The whole thing spawned for Marx' longing for his idealized image of feudal society, a century after it had disappeared (and good riddance IMO). The sentiment is more directly expressed (along with a whole bunch of English nationalism) in William Blake's poem "And Did Those Feet", which, perversely, became an Anglican hymn. (And then was stolen by Emerson, Lake & Palmer...)

"Just sending them in without oversight and guidance from a trained processional is asking for someone to blow their fingers off."

My friends, my brothers, and I stand with 10, 10 and 2 in falsifying your claim by direct counterexample. We built our own lab, and following old textbooks bought at garage sales, distilled our own liquor, made our own explosives and performed countless other experiments. Same for car repair, construction, electrical wiring, and many other safety-critical skillsets. Dad wasn't mechanically inclined and Mom was very pro-free-range-kids

There are tons of houses wired by self-taught electricians. I installed,wired, and gas-plumbed my own furnace, and the gas company tech who installed my new gas meter said declared the work better than he'd seen from any licensed contractors.

Conan Says:

"No you don't. No one here knows what you do for a living, what your college major was, what level of degree you have, or even what gender you are. You have never deemed your experience, knowledge, training or anything related to yourself "appropriate" to any topic on this forum.
The most personal revelation you've made is that you might have an advanced degree - in what subject you've left a mystery."

I hate to break it to you Conan... but like usual you are full of shit.

You were in the following thread ~9 months ago:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2018/07/im-smart-enough.html

Here is a relevant quote:

"My work involved collaboration across a variety of disciplines including but not limited to the following:
Materials chemistry
Organic chemistry
Surface science
Molecular Self-Assembly
Electro chemistry
X-Ray Crystallography
Electrical engineering
Low-dimensional physics... "

This isn't even the first time I have gone into detail about my background expertise when I felt it was useful to an ongoing discussion.

You are simply a liar.

That wasn’t detail, Artie, that was obfuscation. Your work involved collaboration across.... No actual detail or hint at your role or function, just a lot of technical jargon. Past tense, too.

Were you the scientist, the engineer, the manager, the technician, or the errand boy in this work? How much expertise did you actually bring to the table in this amazingly complex cross-disciplinary work you want us to be amazed that you were once involved with?

Not even a hint if it was corporate, government, or academic work. Just a lot of jargon to impress us rubes.

The one who’s full of shit here, Artie, is you.

Conan,

Perhaps your confusion is due to a lack of your own understanding and not a lack of sufficient detail on my part.

How much more clear do I need to be than the following from the same exact thread:

"When I earned my Ph.D. I published in areas of nanolithography, photovoltaics, lithium ion battery technology, low dimensionality materials, transistors, etc..."

The issue here is that you either do not read... do not comprehend... do not remember... or have an extremely loose relationship with the truth and honesty.

Conan,

The sad reality about all of this is that in a years time we shall be having the exact same conversation where you confidently declare that "No one here knows... what level of degree you have" despite the fact that I have stated such details directly for years.

When you continually do this you just look senile, foolish, or dishonest.

Conan Says:

"Widespread theories of medicine, like homeopathy and chiropractic, are desperate for validation."

There is nothing about the theories of homeopathy and chiropractic that have any scientific validity.

They have no more scientific validity than flat earth theories of cosmology.

That you even bring such things into a serious conversation about real medicine is very disturbing.

bw1 Says:

"My friends, my brothers, and I stand with 10, 10 and 2 in falsifying your claim by direct counterexample. We built our own lab, and following old textbooks bought at garage sales, distilled our own liquor, made our own explosives and performed countless other experiments."

I hate to break it to you... but distilling liquor doesn't require laboratory equipment.

You can also go to a toy store and purchase a "lab" for children that allows you perform "countless experiments".

Just for fun, can you provide some details on the experiments you ran?... what laboratory equipment did you construct and/or purchase?

What did your chemical inventory look like?... How did you segregate your chemicals?... What safety protocols did you follow?... what type of ppe did you have available?

Let's start there.

"When I earned my Ph.D. I published in areas of nanolithography, photovoltaics, lithium ion battery technology, low dimensionality materials, transistors, etc..." ~ Artemis at March 20, 2019 3:16 AM

PhD. Got it. Musta missed that the first time.

That you even bring such things into a serious conversation about real medicine is very disturbing. ~ Artemis at March 20, 2019 3:39 AM

Go back and read my post again, Dr. Artie. I never said those fields have validity. I said they were desperate to be validated; that a chiropractor who had been elected to the legislature tried to establish the country's first "college of alternative medicine" in order to give the study of homeopathy, chiropractic, and other fields the validation they were seeking as real and legitimate fields of study.

That the bill to establish such a college failed was a relief to most alumni and a fair number of the state's residents, who considered the establishment of a college of "alternative medicine" at taxpayer expense to be a waste of taxpayer money that would turn the state's university system into a laughing stock.

Conan,

Great... so we are aligned that the theories underpinning homeopathy and chiropractic have no established scientific merit.

That brings us back to my original point. We can't just expect untrained folks to develop pharmaceutical drugs with verified medicinal efficacy in their kitchen.

This is despite bw1's insistence that they have constructed a lab at home.

The laboratory equipment necessary to synthesize, develop, and test actual new pharmaceuticals costs in the millions... folks don't just go around constructing fume hoods, NMR chambers, HPLCs, X-ray crystallography machines, supercomputers to test chemical libraries for structural affinities to drug targets, etc...

Actual science on the frontier is VERY expensive and requires a ton of expertise to properly execute.

Academic, industrial, and government labs are not going to permit untrained folks to just learn how to use that equipment unsupervised and without prior training.

Just like you are unlikely to let a 15 year old learn to drive on their own, without supervision or training, in your new car.

Furthermore, many of the tasks required are inherently dangerous and require real expertise to navigate safely.

That expertise isn't gained by trial and error while teaching oneself the proper way to store and dispose of chemical waste to avoid an explosion. That knowledge already exists and is part of the introductory training of any lab environment.

Great... so we are aligned that the theories underpinning homeopathy and chiropractic have no established scientific merit. ~ Artemis at March 20, 2019 8:07 AM

We have been all along, Artie.

That brings us back to my original point. We can't just expect untrained folks to develop pharmaceutical drugs with verified medicinal efficacy in their kitchen.

This is despite bw1's insistence that they have constructed a lab at home.

~ Artemis at March 20, 2019 8:07 AM

Well, they can develop them. They can probably test them as well, although should the tests go wrong, they'd have some 'splainin' to do. However, they cannot sell them legally in the US without FDA approval if they make any claims to medical efficacy.

On the other hand, they can probably call them homeopathic remedies and sell them in many stores - with the disclaimer that the FDA has not verified any effectiveness of the concoction for any condition. Caveat Emptor.

Conan Says:

"Well, they can develop them. They can probably test them as well, although should the tests go wrong, they'd have some 'splainin' to do."

I don't feel like we are using the English language in the same way.

When I say that we can't just expect untrained folks to develop pharmaceutical drugs with medical efficacy in their kitchen I mean it in precisely the same way that I would say that we can't just expect untrained folks to construct a supersonic jet in their garage.

This isn't about the words "can" and "can't" in the way that children tend to use them... this is about something being so remote and unlikely as to have a probability of close to zero of ever occurring.

Untrained individuals wouldn't have the relevant skills to isolate and produce chemical compounds suitable for medical testing. They also wouldn't have the equipment necessary to do the work with even a remote chance of success.

When you say that they can develop them without training or equipment it has the same meaning to me as saying that if you toss a typewriter into a room with a racoon they could type out a beautiful sonnet.

Sure they may have fingers suitable to hit individual keys... but they have no understanding of language and don't have a working knowledge of the keyboard.

By pure chance something might happen in one out of a Nonillion cases... but that isn't what we mean by can in casual conversation.

By the same token anyone of us can walk trough a solid wall... it just isn't likely to happen over the lifetime of the universe.