Dogmatism in Science

[dlorde]

It appears too me that many people don't understand science. Science is a methdology used to examine/observe physical phenomena and produce tenative conclusions. It's that simple. It's the best system that man has come up with in order to base the known pysical world upon. It is a system that uses carefully organized systematic observation and statistical analysis to arrive at conclusions. As far as beleiving it to be close-minded-- that is ABSURD! Every conclusion is tenative in science, and if not considered as such, is not true science.

I agree with that, however there is a problem with science in practice, and that is that so many 'scientists' are (for whatever reason) close-minded. To a degree, this is part of practical science - not every hypothesis can be developed, not every theory tested. Severe scepticism can save wasting a lot of time, and only the most convincing theories get to be tested - unfortunately this means that many valid theories may never gain enough credibility to be tested. Scepticism also can turn into to close-mindedness when an hypothesis or a theory appears to contradict established doctrine (itself sometimes based on rocky assumptions), or when it threatens to question or invalidate existing work. Scientists are human and human emotions (jealousy, envy, contempt, fear, etc.) also come into play. Someone relatively unknown and without respected formal qualifications in the field stands little chance of being taken seriously even when they appear to have extremely strong evidence supporting their theory.

Another problem is that there have been discoveries made empirically that are subsequently explained in non-scientific terms (an unscientific 'theory'). The scientific establishment tends to examine such theories, reject them as nonsensical, and (incorrectly) infer that the evidence must therefore be flawed. Alternative medicine is one obvious example - the apparent efficacy of accupuncture was first ignored by the medical establishment because the theory behind it was incompatible with the established Western medical science. Only when the evidence for benefits became overwhelming was it scientifically evaluated and found to be effective for certain complaints (a very limited subset of those it was generally used for). Eventually a scientific theory was developed to explain the results - quite different from the original theory. So there is a danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water when rejecting unscientific theories put forward to explain empirical results.

There is a similar risk when judging potential snake-oil merchants, but it's usually possible to use probability to estimate the likelihood of their product being effective according to their theories - which generally claim a scientific basis. For example, it is possible (though very unlikely) that an individual might discover some energy field as yet unknown to mainstream science, that can influence the sound of your hifi components. It is also possible that if the effects of this field on those components could be adjusted, they might sound better. But how likely is it that the same individual, without the resources of a high-grade physics lab, could 'develop' a simple product (e.g. a piece of foil) that would be able to make an appropriate adjustment to this otherwise unmeasurable, unknown field wherever required?

Or are such products simply the result of serendipitous discovery subsequently wrapped in pseudo-scientific double-speak? Is it worth scientifically testing the effectiveness of such products, regardless of the theories proposed to explain them? Would we be throwing out the baby with the bathwater if we didn't?

And if you can't test them all, you have to use some criteria to prioritize the most deserving - do you pick the easiest to test, or the ones with the most convincing 'explanation', or some other criterion? It's not an easy decision.

If you're not in the position to scientifically test the claims or the product, do you risk the empirical test by listening to it (with all the complications that entails), do you trust the judgement of 'experts', or simply reject it out of hand?

 

[miklorsmith]

Mtrycrafts raises an excellent question - Would I continually enlist homeopaths, witch doctors, psychics, or other zealots to make me feel better?

Would I continue to take medicines not proven to work?

Would I follow any faith not proven factually to exist?

The answer to all three questions is yes, if they achieved their desired, perceptive effect. Of course, with medicines they would have to be proven safe, which is a different question than the corrolary to audio, which is that it makes you feel better.

If I had a problem that could potentially be addressed by "quackery", at some point I'd look into it. Of course, I'd start by looking at mainstream solutions (Cialis, Viagra, amps, CDP's). Once I had gotten the most from these approaches, I might see how to further enhance my experience by less-accepted means (karmasutra, cable-risers).

I'd make up my own mind about what works, from my research and experience. If I take some "placebo" that you "prove" won't make me feel better and it does, guess who I'm believing? Or, lack of proof should keep me from trying? I trust my experience.

The reason we debate these things, I think, is for the observers to make up their minds - not to convince each other. Clearly.

Try that cables off the carpet thing and tell me you can't hear.

 

[WmAx]

a problem with science in practice, and that is that so many 'scientists' are (for whatever reason) close-minded.

In the case one is actually closed-minded, this is not true science.

Severe scepticism can save wasting a lot of time, and only the most convincing theories get to be tested - unfortunately this means that many valid theories may never gain enough credibility to be tested. Scepticism also can turn into to close-mindedness when an hypothesis or a theory appears to contradict established doctrine (itself sometimes based on rocky assumptions), or when it threatens to question or invalidate existing work.

The fact that it is difficult to establish something non-conventional as *accepted* is a sign of the effectiveness of scientific protocol. If strong evidence is supported by proper research, then it has a strong chance of getting at minimum a review by peers.

Someone relatively unknown and without respected formal qualifications in the field stands little chance of being taken seriously even when they appear to have extremely strong evidence supporting their theory.

Please point to specific examples of this being a typical situation. Maybe you are thinking of cases that are *typical*: a collection of theories, speculations and non-compelling evidence.

Alternative medicine is one obvious example - the apparent efficacy of accupuncture was first ignored by the medical establishment because the theory behind it was incompatible with the established Western medical science. Only when the evidence for benefits became overwhelming was it scientifically evaluated and found to be effective for certain complaints

This is not a problem, it is scientific protocol doing it's job. The *truth* of the claim is irrelevant if properly conducted research does not demonstrate such. That is the point. If proper evidence is collected and is repeatable, then the issue can be examined logically.

So there is a danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water when rejecting unscientific theories put forward to explain empirical results.

If the baby has no compelling evidence in his diaper, then he's not wanted. Maybe there are ghosts? Let's say that ghosts exist; this is irrelevant if it can not be demonstrated with proper methdology to be true. When you abandon the scientific protocol, you are doing nothing more then playing a guessing game. It's the equivalent of playing roulette. You are guessing.

For example, it is possible (though very unlikely) that an individual might discover some energy field as yet unknown to mainstream science, that can influence the sound of your hifi components.

Possibility is vastly different from probability. It's possible that there really is a Casper.

But how likely is it that the same individual, without the resources of a high-grade physics lab, could 'develop' a simple product (e.g. a piece of foil) that would be able to make an appropriate adjustment to this otherwise unmeasurable, unknown field wherever required?

If person finds such a thing -- then the crux of this is the basic observation. If under repeatable controlled listening tests that is audible, then it's time to publish his tests anywhere that he can in detail. At that point, if the test methdology withstands scrutiny at the basic level, someone will probably attempt to repeat the test and it will proceed from that point. If it's a valid claim in the first place then it will be observable in repeated testing by additinal parties under controlled conditions. But if anyone want to get the ball rolling, it will take more than a "becuase I said so".

If you're not in the position to scientifically test the claims or the product, do you risk the empirical test by listening to it (with all the complications that entails), do you trust the judgement of 'experts', or simply reject it out of hand?

The solution depends on your specific objective. If you want to be certain that the X factor is real, then you can not absolve yourself from the burden(s) of evidence. If you are not interested in ultimate probabilities and are simply concerned with your personal experience(s) and there exist no other compelling/logical reason in your case to apply a scientific reasoning pattern, then be happy-go-lucky and believe what you wish. But if you intend to establish your idea(s) as more than just idea(s), you have a considerable burden on your shoulders.

In the grand scheme, science can be viewed as a stream-lined system of concluding accepted facts/probabilities. Let's sum up with this analogy: There are *truths*. You dilute these *truths* among a huge pool of shells. These shells look exactly the same from the exterior. The vast majority of shells contain nothing. WIthout considerable research/analysis(scrutinty to scientific prototocol) a truth can not be determined from an empty shell. How can science give every shell on equal chance? It can not due to the proportionate distribution of most being worthless. If someone finds(by whatever reason/means) what they believe to be a *truth* shell, then they can begin the process of evaluation: a long and difficult process but if it withstands this process you have found another good shell that will eventually be accepted. It's not efficient do things differently.

-Chris

 

[miklorsmith]

WmAx - Thanks for a most rational, unbiased, and sensible explanation of the role and importance of science in our hobby. I don't disparage or discourage the ideas you present, in fact I applaud them wholly in the context of science. I agree that in order to put something forward as fact, as opposed to observation, a tremendous burden is involved.

Which is precisely why I cannot subscribe to this approach in the pursuit of my own happiness in audio. I like to tinker. The happy-go-lucky attitude you refer to is an excellent description of how I play with my system. With little tweaks here and there, as well as significant purchases, I can easily try 8 - 12 adjustments a year without trying too hard. Most of these are pleasing and a few are not. This way, I can pocket a rewarding handful of upgrades each year. The more expensive the piece, the more research is warranted before investing. I never wait for objective comparisons and analysis, because this body of information does not exist.

For me, the burden of proof is too much burden to bear. I would lose at least 90% my alteration-production in the effort. My focus would go away from listening and assessing to proving through rigor and work. In the end, the only real product of this would be to try to convince others that I had a "significant" finding.

But, I'm not trying to convince anybody, only relaying my observations to those who are like-minded and might try to lift their cables off the carpet, just to see. Or, build some really effective, cheapo vibration dampeners. It's OK if many people don't believe me, because some people are interested.

I can't see how to reconcile an activist approach to my system with the scientific method without changing the focus to the method of science. Nobody else is doing the research, which means I'd have to do it all. I have another job and it would take at least 10 times longer to check each change. And, I would have to buy the part before testing it! So now I already bought it and can listen to it, why test it?!?!? And, if I already bought it to test it, what is the test going to tell me? I've already experienced it. I already know what I think about it. I'm not going to go through a bunch of work to try to prove to me that I'm wrong.

I could see the value if there was a magazine out there that was doing this sort of testing. You could get an idea of how things stacked up before heading down the road. Yet, nobody does it. Why is this? It seems that for as much value as could be had, people would be interested and would be willing to pay for the information.

But there isn't, which puts a tremendous, awful burden on anybody that's trying to get anywhere building a stereo system.

 

[dlorde]

In the case one is actually closed-minded, this is not true science.

Indeed - that's why I put the word 'scientists' in quotes. These are generally well-meaning people who have lost sight of the philosophical goals of their work.

The fact that it is difficult to establish something non-conventional as *accepted* is a sign of the effectiveness of scientific protocol. If strong evidence is supported by proper research, then it has a strong chance of getting at minimum a review by peers.

Yes. But who decides what is 'proper research'? In practice, 'proper research' tends to be agreed by journals and experts in the field as that which is reasonably familiar - i.e. emerges from known sources.

Please point to specific examples of this being a typical situation.

I don't recall suggesting that this is a typical situation - I don't believe the situation arises all that often. So I don't have any specific examples in mind - every now and then in the history of scientific discovery one comes across such a situation where someone previously unknown in a field comes up with an entirely new discovery or approach. Their lack of known 'context' often results in their discovery being ignored or ridiculed by the establishment. Obviously, the discoveries now acknowledged as correct were eventually accepted by the establishment, or they wouldn't now be acknowledged as correct... but I wonder how many other correct discoveries have not yet been tested and possibly accepted simply because the proponent is/was unknown.

Maybe you are thinking of cases that are *typical*: a collection of theories, speculations and non-compelling evidence.

I don't follow what you're suggesting here.

This is not a problem, it is scientific protocol doing it's job. The *truth* of the claim is irrelevant if properly conducted research does not demonstrate such. That is the point. If proper evidence is collected and is repeatable, then the issue can be examined logically.

True, but my point is that in practice, for various reasons, there are not the resources or motivation/inclination to demonstrate (or disprove) every claim. The evidence provided by the proponent alone is not usually sufficient - it must be replicated by an independent source to be accepted.

If the baby has no compelling evidence in his diaper, then he's not wanted.

The problem is in getting the establishment to look into the diaper.

Possibility is vastly different from probability.

Hmm, semantics. I mean probability as the statistical likelihood - e.g. if non-zero, there is a possibility.

If person finds such a thing -- then the crux of this is the basic observation. If under repeatable controlled listening tests that is audible, then it's time to publish his tests anywhere that he can in detail. At that point, if the test methdology withstands scrutiny at the basic level, someone will probably attempt to repeat the test and it will proceed from that point. If it's a valid claim in the first place then it will be observable in repeated testing by additinal parties under controlled conditions. But if anyone want to get the ball rolling, it will take more than a "becuase I said so".

The devil is in the detail - publication in a respected journal and consequent replication by respected researchers.

 

[mtrycrafts]

[mtrycrafts] So, you are testing the test then?

Twofold - I'm not closed-minded enough to write off testing, I'm just too lazy to figure out and execute a way to do it properly. CDR's represent a large enough sonic difference and will be so easy to do that I will accomplish a couple things:

If I hear the difference, I will change my opinion about testing and be able to make some proclamations about CDR burns.

If I fail to produce results, it will reinforce my position about testing.

A test within a test if you will.

Hypothetically, what if the DBT is cursed by our brains and small sample sizes? What if there truly is no way to equalize the playing field? Has any large-scale DBT ever been done that showed, unequivocally, that some hi-fi whatnots are different?

If the test doesn't work, where does that leave us? And, don't tell me it definitely works - this is my hypothetical.

I am on the road, late coming back

So, if you c annot hear a difference, why does it have to be the test and not the fact that the differencews have not reached your level of detection?

After all, we are able to test for this, known JND, with the most sensitive signals, test tones, and it is rather bleak for the golden ears to make claims as this JND varies with frequency, bredth of band, etc.
At 16 Khz, with this signal, JND is 3dB average.

JND with music, speech etc, is much larger that the test signals. This was recently published too.

Perhaps, one should stat by establishing their own JNDs before blaming the test protocol?

After all, industry leaders use it as the gold standard.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Alternative medicine is one obvious example - the apparent efficacy of accupuncture was first ignored by the medical establishment because the theory behind it was incompatible with the established Western medical science. Only when the evidence for benefits became overwhelming was it scientifically evaluated and found to be effective for certain complaints (a very limited subset of those it was generally used for). Eventually a scientific theory was developed to explain the results - quite different from the original theory. So there is a danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water when rejecting unscientific theories put forward to explain empirical results.

When was accupuncture established to be effective an in the mainstream of medicine?
Where is it published in a reputable peer journal?

 

[Yamahaluver]

So lets see here, anything which is not from the west is mere superstition, that goes for journals, science, theories, everything, all the medical journal of repute is only from the west, this is where sham medicine originated from butchers who wanted a different trade and till today remains so. Chinese and Indian medicine has served for generations and have been around far longer than anything in the west and yet all we see is disrespect. If you want proof, go there and see for yourself, what makes you think they are even interested in sharing their knowledge. Those who have discovered the ancient science in the west reap big benefits from it but like all science, nothing is infallible so dont expect immortality.

The saddest situation is that what has been around for thousands of years is called alternative medicine and the butchery and mental exploitation around today is considered to be actual medicine. Are you aware that surgery, mummification and other advanced practices including full knowledge of anatomy including bone structure was already in practice in this kind of medicine. I wonder why the west took the numerals, decimals, sub atomic theory and many other scientific theories from the same region whose medicine is considered alternative as well as superstition by some.

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

...Which is precisely why I cannot subscribe to this approach in the pursuit of my own happiness in audio. I like to tinker. The happy-go-lucky attitude you refer to is an excellent description of how I play with my system. With little tweaks here and there, as well as significant purchases, I can easily try 8 - 12 adjustments a year without trying too hard...

A lot of us scientific/objective types like to tinker, too. A number of people (not necessarily mklorsmith) seem to think that objectivists are denying themselves the pleasures to be had from the hobby (besides the music) of trying and futzing with gear. Not true! Some, like me, have gotten to the point where we actually build some of our own stuff. Many others spend money past the point where it makes any sonic difference simply for the looks, features, build quality, and pride of ownership. All perfectly defensible and understandable. If I could afford Bryston amps (for example) I'd buy them for just those reasons. I woudn't expect them to sound "different" or "better" but I'd enjoy them just the same and consider it money well spent. I probably could have spent $25 on a thrift shop receiver like Chris did and been perfectly happy with the sound -- but I just wanted a nice shiny new (albeit recently discontinued) one. That "new receiver smell", don't you know! It's just that I use the guidance offered by professional audio engineers and science to narrow down the stuff I mess with so that my time and money are more likely to bear fruit - to the things that really, demonstrably, reliably matter. So I sketch listening room designs, read up on acoustics, cobble together DIY room treatments for my current room, futz with speaker placement...and will be building not only my next speakers but the amps to drive them and the room to house them. Will the speakers sound different? Of course! Better, I hope, than my already very good current ones (specifically, lower bass and without the slight coloration I hear on certain material). Will the amps sound different? I hope not - an amp isn't supposed to have a "sound" at all by my lights - the old "straight wire with gain" ideal. But I'll still grin every time I switch them on knowing that I made 'em myself and got gobs of power for a low dollar/watt ratio. Who sez we take the fun out of the hobby?

But I hope hanging the drywall won't give me a hernia. Science and practical experience both tell us that that is a real risk!

And, as the primacy of personal experience is oft cited in this debate, my own personal experience has been that things like cable, spikes, CDRs, exotic/expensive electronics have done zilch for me. Yes, from time to time I have tried some tweaky stuff. But I have found that my personal experience jibes with the science.

 

[mtrycrafts]

But I hope hanging the drywall won't give me a hernia. Science and practical experience both tell us that that is a real risk!

You have friends, don't you? That is one reason to have them, help out

 

[mtrycrafts]

So lets see here, anything which is not from the west is mere superstition, that goes for journals, science, theories, everything, all the medical journal of repute is only from the west, this is where sham medicine originated from butchers who wanted a different trade and till today remains so. Chinese and Indian medicine has served for generations and have been around far longer than anything in the west and yet all we see is disrespect. If you want proof, go there and see for yourself, what makes you think they are even interested in sharing their knowledge. Those who have discovered the ancient science in the west reap big benefits from it but like all science, nothing is infallible so dont expect immortality.

The saddest situation is that what has been around for thousands of years is called alternative medicine and the butchery and mental exploitation around today is considered to be actual medicine. Are you aware that surgery, mummification and other advanced practices including full knowledge of anatomy including bone structure was already in practice in this kind of medicine. I wonder why the west took the numerals, decimals, sub atomic theory and many other scientific theories from the same region whose medicine is considered alternative as well as superstition by some.

You mean this Accupuncture was published someplace else? Lancet? Far East China? Who knows how good that Journal is, do you? Just because it is called a Journal is no guarantee of quality publication.

Why, even Temple University has one, something to do with Frontier Science Journal or something. So, no, not even some US journals quailify to be reputable . They don't.

Just because soemthing has been around for a 100 years doesn't mean it is factual, real, or worty of anything more than a belief system. If the alternative medicine was provable, it would not be alternative anymore, right?
In many instances, you see the power of placebo in work.

 

[pctower]

Hi Mtry

Mainly just passing through and wanted to say hello. I see you continue to carry on the good fight.

I don't know what happened at AR, but apparently you aren't around there much anymore.

I barely have time these days to listen, let alone get on the audio boards.

Looking at these discussions with somewhat of a fresh view, it seems to me most of the people are just talking past one another. The subjectivest are not satisfied to do what brings them pleasure - they seem intent on transforming their unscientific approach (nothing wrong with that from my perspective - that's how I approach my own personal decisions relative to audio) into claims posted on the web that they feel should be afforded some degree of scientific credibility.

That seems to goad the objectivists into positions that often make them seem as if they are dedicated to denying the subjectivists their pleasure-based approach to the hobby.

And nothing ever gets settled.

You are one of the few who seem to stay on point and avoid getting off into meaningless discussions between people who simply aren't listening to each other.

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

...Looking at these discussions with somewhat of a fresh view, it seems to me most of the people are just talking past one another...

...And nothing ever gets settled.

Quite so, and I fear I am sometimes guilty. I keep telling myself I'll stay out of this discussion. But I can't help myself!

BTW, yes mtry, I have friends who can be persuaded to help with bribes of beer and pizza!

 

[mtrycrafts]

Mainly just passing through and wanted to say hello. I see you continue to carry on the good fight.

I don't know what happened at AR, but apparently you aren't around there much anymore.

I barely have time these days to listen, let alone get on the audio boards.

Looking at these discussions with somewhat of a fresh view, it seems to me most of the people are just talking past one another. The subjectivest are not satisfied to do what brings them pleasure - they seem intent on transforming their unscientific approach (nothing wrong with that from my perspective - that's how I approach my own personal decisions relative to audio) into claims posted on the web that they feel should be afforded some degree of scientific credibility.

That seems to goad the objectivists into positions that often make them seem as if they are dedicated to denying the subjectivists their pleasure-based approach to the hobby.

And nothing ever gets settled.

You are one of the few who seem to stay on point and avoid getting off into meaningless discussions between people who simply aren't listening to each other.

Hi

About time you experimented with other places on the net

I left AR some time back, whatever my registration date is here. The management changes there was just not what I preferred so I left. So far I am sure I made the right choice

Hope you will bookmark this place, especially since you botheres to register
and make it a habit to be a regular place to spend some of your free time

Thanks for the complement too. One of these days I should look you up in Phoenix. I have interests there send me a pm message and when I notice it, I will be sure to contact you.

 

[Swerd]

Looking at these discussions with somewhat of a fresh view, it seems to me most of the people are just talking past one another. The subjectivest are not satisfied to do what brings them pleasure - they seem intent on transforming their unscientific approach (nothing wrong with that from my perspective - that's how I approach my own personal decisions relative to audio) into claims posted on the web that they feel should be afforded some degree of scientific credibility.

That seems to goad the objectivists into positions that often make them seem as if they are dedicated to denying the subjectivists their pleasure-based approach to the hobby.

And nothing ever gets settled.

Hi PCT
Glad to hear from you again . Yours was one of the points of view that I truely missed from the old AR forum. You tried (and occasionally succeded) to stake out a position that was neither objectivist nor subjectivist and certainly never neutral. It was not easy, but qualified you as the John Adams of Audio.

Alright, maybe I'm laying it on a bit too thick. Drop in from time to time. You'll find the atmosphere here a bit more civil and thoughtful.

 

[miklorsmith]

Should I eat margarine, or butter?

Answer: Depends on when you tune into the debate. The answer has vacillated at least 4 times since I've noticed the issue, and I'm 35. Trans-fatty acids have been recently shown to be really bad for you - points for butter, yet when I was a kid, margarine had been shown to definitely be more healthy. Reputed medical journals had shown this to the satisfaction of the American Medical Association.

I'll bet more money and high-end brainpower has been spent on the science of which buttery product is healthier than all the audio debates on what is audible and what sounds better. Yet, hindsight shows the issue to be unsettled.

Upshot? At any moment in time, science is (and almost must be) considered final. We don't have the benefit of studies not yet completed so what we (think we) know today is often touted as fact, even though it may be overturned tomorrow.

Ergo, it also must be true that nearly all science is transitory, i.e. not finished, incomplete. The quest for new knowledge is admirable and is the necessary backbone of science. Yet we must understand that nearly everything under scientific review is unknown in an absolute sense.

Studies from reputable journals, while important, should not be given the weight of truth. I'd bet even the authors wouldn't claim that. Further, absense of documented support should not equate to failure of an idea.

I try not to cast my observations as Fact, a term I believe is overused in the context of this post - audio and otherwise. I do not disparage science, I'm only pointing to one limitation that should not be overlooked.

Rip Van Woofer - Thanks for your comments on tweakery from the other side. I think its great your experience compliments your views on the matter. The debate rages on!!!

p.s. I really like my new speaker cables!

p.p.s. I eat butter 'cuz it tastes better.

 

[mtrycrafts]

BTW, yes mtry, I have friends who can be persuaded to help with bribes of beer and pizza!

Great! Now you don't have to worry about that hernia

And, you can just bribe them with a good movie, or many

 

[mtrycrafts]

The debate rages on!!!

p.s. I really like my new speaker cables!

p.p.s. I eat butter 'cuz it tastes better.

Not when one expresses a preference, right

 

[dlorde]

When was accupuncture established to be effective an in the mainstream of medicine?
Where is it published in a reputable peer journal?

I'm afraid I can't give you exact dates, but it's effects on pain, especially lower back pain, have been researched and published since the 70's (in 1997, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) stated that acupuncture is useful for muscular, skeletal, and generalized pain, as well as for anesthesia and post-operative pain. This was based on a critical review of over 67 controlled trials of acupuncture for pain control), although broader acknowledgement is fairly recent (within the last 3-5 years). I can't give chapter and verse on publications either, but several studies have shown that it can be very effective - e.g. The Journal of Reproductive Medicine: Use of Acupuncture for Managing Chronic Pelvic Pain in Pregnancy.

There's loads of stuff around:
Scientists Prove Acupuncture Works( )
Acupuncture Points to Post-op Comfort

Some random references:

Cheng. R.S.S. and B. Pomeranz. Electrotherapy of chronic musculoskeletal pain: comparison of Electroacupuncture and Acupuncture-Like Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation. Clinn J. Pain. 2: 143-149, 1987.

Coan. R.M., G. Wong, S.L. Ku. Y.C. Chan. L. Wang. F.T Ozer and P.l. Coan. The Acupuncture Treatment of low back pain a randomized controlled study. Am J. Chin. Med. 8: 181-189, 1980.

Edelist, G., A.E. Gross and F. Langer. Treatment of low back pain with acupuncture. Can. Anaesth. Soc. J. 23: 303-306, 1976.

Lee, P.K., T.W. Andersen. J.H. Nodell and S.A. Saga. Treatment of chronic pain with acupuncture. JAMA 232: 1133-1135. 1975.

Leung, P.C. Treatment of low back pain with acupuncture. Am. J Chin Med. 7: 372-378, 1979.

Macdonald, A.J., K.D. Macrae, B.R. Master and A.P. Rubin. Superficial acupuncture in the relief of chronic low back pain. Ann R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 65: 44-46, 1983.

Petrie, J.P. and G.B. Iangley. Acupuncture in the treatment of chronic cervical pain- A pilot Study. Clin. Exp. Rheumatol. 1: 333-335, 1983.

Thomas, M. And T. Lundeberg. Importance of modes of acupuncture in the treatment of chronic nociceptive low back pain. Acta Anesthesiol. Scand. 38: 63-69, 1994.

Thomas, M., S. Arner and T. Lundeberg. Is acupuncture an alternative in idiopathic pain disorder? Acta. Anaesthesiol. Scand. 36: 637-642, 1992.

Vincent, C.A. and P.H. Richardson. The Evaluation of therapeutic acupuncture: Concepts and Methods. Pain, 24: 1-13, 1986

 

[dlorde]

In many instances, you see the power of placebo in work.

That's why there have been studies using placebo needles as controls (they prick the skin but don't penetrate, sliding up into the needle holder like a theatrical dagger).