Hub of Reason

Oddthinking

06:32

Just throwing in an aside: If a question is bad here, but good on another site, it will generally attract no upvotes and no answers here. In such a case, I am generally against migration, because of the effort for mods from two sites to get involved. Close it here. Let the OP cut-and-paste it at the new site if they want.

HappySpoon

@DikranMarsupial Er, I think the thought is apes and homo sapiens have a common ancestor. And not that we evolved from apes.

HappySpoon

07:18

I don't understand the point of the fibromyalgia question.

user35386

08:09

There needs to be a point?

user35386

I just want to know what the state of the research is.. Whether fibromyalgia is currently understood to be a discrete clinical entity.

user35386

People believe that it is. And I want to know if that is true.

user35386

And of course, the evidence behind what ever the conclusion is

HappySpoon

Yes, it's a state of dis-ease.

As I mentioned in the answer, people move from being normal to having fibromyalgia, and it can be induced as was done to some unfortunate medical students.

Whether you want to call it a disease or syndrome matters little to us who treat these things.

And I see enough of this condition.

user35386

Okay

user35386

08:15

So that's the answer then!

user35386

Thanks

HappySpoon

yep

user35386

I don't care whether the distinction matters

HappySpoon

the main issue is people claiming that the problem does not exist, diminishing people who suffer.

Just because they don't have a handy functional MRI scanner on hand.

user35386

No one claims that it doesn't exist. The country claim is that it doesn't exist as a discrete clinical entity

HappySpoon

08:17

No, not true.

Lots of people used to claim it does not exist.

user35386

They don't say the symptoms are not real

HappySpoon

You'd be surprised what people say.

user35386

Well thats a separate question and not the one I was interested in

user35386

But yes, I am surprised that people say the symptoms are not real

HappySpoon

Other people claim that it's a gradient of normal pain processing.

so there's no cut off from when normal and disease starts.

user35386

08:19

You are a rheumatologist right?

HappySpoon

But that's true for lots of things like hypertension, cholesterol, depression etc.

Yes, I'm a rheumatologist.

user35386

That wouldn't make it not real though.. There is no cutoff for lots of things

HappySpoon

exactly

user35386

Dyslexia, etc.

HappySpoon

And suicide rates are 5x higher in Fibro patients

So, there is both morbidity and mortality associated.

user35386

08:21

But the question is whether it's one thing, or the extreme end of several other conditions.

user35386

Your answer is that it is one thing

user35386

I I understood you correctly

HappySpoon

Yep, I have to disagree with Dr F Wolfe, world expert on the condition :)

It's just like other biological states.

user35386

Is there disagreement in the research field about this?

HappySpoon

Well not at the meetings I go to.

But the tools we have are now much more sophisticated to show the problems at the CNS level these people have.

user35386

08:24

And all are showing the same type of CNS pathology?

user35386

Is that being added into diagnostic criteria?

HappySpoon

I did provide references.

No, because you can't do these tests except in special laboratories, or imaging centres.

And the problem is so common.

So, it's not realistic to do unless you've got a Govt grant.

Any, why the interest? Got a female relative/friend suffering?

user35386

One thing.. I don't find the CNS work conclusive. They compared 18 fibromyalgia patients with 18 non-patients and hunted for differences. That is suggestive but not conclusive. Until they do a prospective study to see if those correlations they found are in fact robust.

user35386

Oh about why the interest?

user35386

Nobody I know

HappySpoon

08:30

The issue with research in this area, is finding funding.

Research that involves a new drug gets often funded by drug companies.

This type of condition for which drugs have a dismal record, are not easily funded.

user35386

But I had been reading about this and just had never been led through the types of questions and research necessary for settling a question like this

HappySpoon

Normal cholesterol is said to be 4 mmol/L.

When do you call a cholesterol greater than this a disease?

user35386

You would think that there would be incentive in determining whether fibromyalgia was a bunch of separate things, each best treated with separate drugs or treatments.. Vs. One drug or treatment.

HappySpoon

Actually most people are interested in things they can see and easily test.

Fibro is not one of those.

user35386

Scientists though...

user35386

08:34

:(

HappySpoon

And the patients tend to be hard to get on with. Pain everywhere.

Not fun.

user35386

Teasing out explanations and cause and effect. Should be worth it for its own sake

user35386

But yeah. I see why it would be difficuly

HappySpoon

Well, sure if you're a masochist.

user35386

Difficult

HappySpoon

08:36

It's clearly not a rheumatological condition but we treat it as no one else will.

Disorders of pain processing treated with cognitive therapies you would think are the domain of neurologists and psychiatrists. But they are not interested.

user35386

Guesses why?

HappySpoon

Anyway, gotta go. Left my battery charger at home, and in a motel room. So, it's TV for me instead now :(

user35386

K!

user35386

Thank you for the discussion!

user35386

13:53

I don't get why the fibromyalgia question is unliked. I put in the research effort. The question is clear. Clear enough that three people answered without misunderstanding the question. Its clear that there are people that believe both yes and no (so it's notable either way).

Ladadadada

17:16

Just came in to share this:

nbcnews.com/news/world/…

user35386

17:56

ha ya

user35386

my question is... what if it turns out he's dead when they take him out? his supporters claim he was alive when they put him in. so if he's dead when they take him out, did they murder him?

Geobits

I'm sure they'd label it suicide or accidental in that case. They claim he's doing it purposefully.

user35386

accidental is still negligent homicide

Geobits

Maybe. I guess it depends on the jurisdiction. Maybe the view is not that they're neglectful, but that as a guru, he's taken that responsibility into his own hands.

user35386

so i guess it would depend if assistance is suicide is against the law where they are

user35386

18:05

or if responsibility can be split amongst parties in a negligence law suit in their jurisdiction

user35386

i.e. does the guru commit some contributory negligence and thus lessen the liability on his followers for putting him in a freezer while alive

Geobits

Either way it seems like an injunction against spending/using his money/estate until the facts are determined is in order.

user35386

yeah. it looks like it's really all about money here

Geobits

Did the followers put him there? I assumed he went in on his own, and they just "don't want to disturb him".

user35386

no they put him in it

user35386

18:08

gawker.com/…

Geobits

Ah, so if they put him in there believing him to be alive, then I guess it boils down to whether they thought that would keep him alive.

Similar to a doctor operating on a patient. If he dies, it's not the doctor's fault if he was legitimately trying to prevent it.

user35386

or rather, whether a reasonable person would foresee that putting a person in a freezer would kill them

user35386

yeah, the doctor operating on a patient, if following the established standard of care, is not negligent for resulting injury

Geobits

Well, yea. I'm not sure how Indian courts work, but seeing as the Punjab High Court has said this is a spiritual matter, it's hard to say.

user35386

i don't think putting people in freezer is a standard of care

user35386

18:13

but you're right. the court has already shown itself to not match our expectations of how our courts would handle the case

Geobits

What about if a reasonable person, knowing that this guru has meditated in sub-zero temps before, would think it would kill them?

user35386

yeah, it would come down to a finder-of-fact determining what risks the reasonable person should foresee

Stack Exchange

0

Q: Should we insert "citation needed" notices in-line, as opposed to or in addition to referring to an entire post?

Wikipedia is famous for requiring references pretty much everywhere, not unlike Skeptics Stack Exchange. In particular, a poorly referenced Wikipedia article will soon be littered with small superscripted citation needed remarks. On Skeptics, moderators can add a notice that a post poorly refer...

Geobits

Maybe I should leave a clause in my will that says, "Do not assume I am dead, no matter what medical tests are run. I'm simply meditating, so put me in a freezer." That should hold off the courts here for, what, thirty seconds or so?

user35386

Only long enough to consider whether a reasonable person would believe your assertion :P

Geobits

18:17

So probably less than thirty seconds :)

user35386

likely :)

user35386

but actually, I think I'm putting too much weight on the followers' claims that he was alive to begin with. it would probably never reach a negligence suit or murder case because they wouldn't have actually caused any damage... he was already dead

Geobits

True. At that point it would be some sort of obstruction I imagine, or would be if the court hadn't determined that you can't force the followers to believe he's dead.

gerrit

I don't think this question is related to a rapidly changing event: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/22468/did-israel-steal-palestinian-lands
but there is a notice saying it is

The Israel/Palestine conflict has been going on for decades and is (in my opinion) not going to radically change any time soon, so the "rapidly changing event" notice is not correct here (in my opinion).

user35386

Especially because the question is whether or not something happened many years ago.

Geobits

18:35

I think the definiton of "steal" at the top means that basically all countries are stolen, so I'm not sure how meaningful the question even is.

user35386

yeah, that's a separate issue. I think the answer avoids a dependence on the definition of "steal" though, so that's good. it just describes the situation.

gerrit

@Geobits Well, would it be controversial to say that the land that is currently US and Canada is stolen land too? Would such a statement be denied by anybody?

user35386

it would become an argument about definitions

user35386

and meaningfulness of such definitions

Geobits

@gerrit No, I fully agree it was stolen land. That's what I mean, being "stolen" is meaningless. Maybe the question title should be changed and the definition removed?

user35386

18:40

well, it's not meaningless Geobits, if you can answer "yes" to a question as to whether US and Canada are stolen, you have assumed a meaning

Geobits

More or less what I mean is "Yes it was stolen, but basically every land throughout human history was." Attaching a label so wide that it applies to nearly everything doesn't hold much meaning, even if it technically conveys some meaning.

user35386

it holds meaning that is inconsistent with the pejorative nature of the word "steal"

user35386

anyway... how can we improve the question?

Geobits

I'm not really sure. At first glance, it seems better suited for History, but I'm unsure. If the question is "Is the modern state of Israel on lands that were previously Palestinian?", then it just seems general reference. If the question is "Are those lands 'stolen'?", then it just seems subjective.

Obviously the Israelis will say it's not stolen, just "retaken", as they were settled there well over two thousand years ago.

user35386

so I guess given the definition of "steal", the question turns on whether being settled there well over two thousand years ago gives a "legal right" to the land

gerrit

18:52

Personally I wouldn't say land is stolen if no humans lived there when current humans arrived.

But my point here was just that it's not a rapidly changing event at all. (I wish it was)

user35386

@gerrit I agree, the question is about what happened a long time ago

user35386

it's not about what is happening these past few decades

Sklivvz

22:24

@gerrit well there's a war so, yeah, there's a rapidly changing related event.

At least in my social timelines I read tons of accusations and wild accusations, so there's clearly a heightened interest on this question due to that

Regarding to whether it was stolen, I believe it makes a lot of sense in relation to international treaties. Have they been respected? That's what makes the question not obvious.

Also, it's got a strongly referenced answer so I hope it won't go downhill

gerrit

22:45

@Sklivvz But the question does not relate directly to the war. The war is in Gaza. I don't think anybody claims that Israel stole Gaza in particular.

Although I realise that the war in Gaza causes an increased interest in the Israeli-Palestinian question *overall*, this increased interest doesn't make the question itself about a rapidly changing event.

Sklivvz

the question is related to an event, not about an event

gerrit

I interpret the related to a rapidly changing event as being relevant only if changes in this event would affect the contents of the question or the answer. The answers are valid regardless of the war in Gaza, and are not affected by it. What is the function of this tag, then?

user35386

23:49

Yeah, how does the relation to the war affect the question and/or answers?

Transcript for