[extropy-chat] Re: Robin Hanson on Cynicism

[Brett Paatsch]

Robin Hanson wrote:

> At 10:16 AM 9/23/2005, Brett Paatsch  wrote:
>>>>>...  And the situation is much worse on topics where there are 
>>>>>certain positions that ordinary people typically *want* to 
>>>>>believe (such as the health effectiveness of medicine).
>>>>
>>>>You have grounds for thinking ordinary people are mistaken
>>>>as to the health effectiveness of medicine?
>>>I know that you responded to a thread in the last month which started
>>>from my posting this link: http://hanson.gmu.edu/feardie.pdf,
>>>wherein I outline my grounds for so thinking.
>>
>>In your essay you say
>>
>>"fear of death makes us spend  15% of our income on medicine from
>>which we get little or no health benefit, while we neglect things like
>>exercise which offer large health benefits".
>>
>>But I can't see where you answer the basic question what does Robin
>>mean by medicine? You seem to assume that *everyone* just knows
>>what medicine is. I think that is not a valid assumption. Your essay
>>surveys work done by others but it is not clear that *they* have defined
>>  medicine the same way as you or indeed as each other.
> 
> You baffle me.  The usual intuitive definition of medicine is "the stuff
> that doctors do".  

This isn't my intuitive definition of medicine. That would be like thinking
economics was stuff that economists do. Or music is what is produced
by those people that call themselves musicians. 

To me, intuitively, medicine is about treating ailments.

>You know going to them to get advice, some of which is
> to take drugs, undergo surgery, and so on.  The RAND experiment
> operationalized that in the obvious way - they gave folks money to 
> go to the doctor more.

That's poor method in my opinion.  Give money to go to the doctor
to uneducated poor people and of course they will use it. People like
getting attention (Hawthorne studies). 
  
>>I'm obviously missing something here Robin.  I can't see any real
> substance in the essay. To me you just don't cut down to anything
> substantive.
> 
> I find it hard to imagine what would count as substance to you.

Major things that people die of are heart disease, cancer and diabetes.
All these diseases have given ground to medicine since the Rand study
was done in 1979 or earlier. 

Insulin for diabetes. Angiograms then stents and bypasses for heart
disease. Chemo and radiation treatment followed by treatment
with stem cells. 

The Rand study didn't look at the young or the old. It excluded the 
frailest cohorts. The groups that would have been most likely to
benefit.

Brett Paatsch