I don't think that anyone has made the evolutionary argument. In short, if we only used 10% of our brains, our brains would have shrunk by natural selection to eliminate the 90% that we do not use. Brains are expensive organs.

I first ran across the idea that we use only 10% of our brains in a book about improving your memory by a psychologist. I was a kid and I accepted the word of authority without thinking about it.

But there is a kind of truth that is hidden in the saying, which is that we do not make full use of our brainy potential. You could say the same about our muscles. People only use 10% of their muscles. But I doubt if people would accept that statement as readily. Several years ago Sports Illustrated ran an article about human potential in sports, and showed graphs of world records in a number of different sports over time which showed no signs of approaching a limit. In addition, the numbers for women's sports were improving more rapidly than for men's sports. I doubt if we have maxed out at anything yet.

I think what it comes down to is learning. We are learning organisms, and our brains are learning organs. The Flynn effect indicates that we as a group are learning, over time, the skills that we call intelligence, that are adapted for life in modern societies. Again, without any indication of reaching a limit. Will future humans be more intelligent than we are? I think that the answer is yes, except that their memories will be worse. Why remember something when you can look it up in a database?

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I believe we've touched on that point very briefly. The idea that the brain has stored up magical powers over tens of thousands of generations in wait for just the right combination of factors to make us supermen is ludicrous at best. The brain truly is an expensive organ, and using every scrap of ability one has is what evolution does best.



Indeed. Neuroplasticity is the key to our survival, as the brain adapts to new circumstances and knowledge. I believe this is because it's all we have as far as evolutionary advantages go. But as far as learning has taken us, it can also become problematic if not handled properly. 'Smarter' is an odd, undefined yardstick of little value. We claim to be much smarter than our ancestors were, but we're still warring and mass murdering and destroying our own ecosystems. This is because knowing 'more' is not knowing 'better'.

I personally have friends who are quite intelligent, but miserable and unmotivated. Knowledge and learned patterns of thought and behavior can only go so far until you learn to take charge and aim the resources at your disposal in the right direction. I believe it's important for us as a species to learn to live fuller, happier, more sensible lives and leave this legacy for the coming generations.

How exactly is this achieved, you ask? Step one is not to limit ourselves from the get-go with unnecessarily damaging beliefs. Step two, when we decide to go in that direction, will be answered by science. Only when the communities with the resources to make these studies decide that it's a worthwhile direction to go in.

I totally agree with that argument. But then: Why did biologists claim for decades that most of our DNA is just junk without function?

I used to think the brain was the most wonderful and interesting organ in the body; but then I realized, hey, look what's telling me that.

If we used 100% of our neurons all the time, our heads would fry to death in about five minutes. It's not about use, it's about quantity and efficiency.

I think, most people look at science, and scientists, the same way they used to look at magicians and magic. They don't really understand it, but they can argue about it.

Most biologists said that most DNA was "junk", because most biologists, as in most of any group, are idiots.

"I don't think that anyone has made the evolutionary argument. In short, if we only used 10% of our brains, our brains would have shrunk by natural selection to eliminate the 90% that we do not use. Brains are expensive organs."

Indeed. I saw an article about declining IQ scores the other day. With computers doing so much of our thinking for us, IQ scores may be falling due to that. Who really needs math anymore? Very few people. But, I put it down to the test's needing a re-design. Besides, in twenty years, you can augment your brain to death anyways. What will happen to Go then, when the champion is the guy who could afford the latest brain mods?

How we use (or refuse to use) our rational faculties is more interesting to me than mapping out the boundaries of those capacities. Dawkins points out that as a species our sensibilities have evolved for a middle-sized world. The scientific world of atoms, quarks, time, space, and probabilities are lost on such middle-world perspectives. This may help explain why some people unflinchingly hang on to certain beliefs despite the science, but it doesn't quite get at the reasons for that tenacious refusal to accept what seems by most accounts so obvious...at least to us.

One of my favorite case studies on this question was Leon Festinger's, "When Prophecy Fails." He found that in the face of undeniable, disconfirming evidence -- like the end of the world not taking place on the date and time predicted -- the resolve of true believers was actually strengthened rather than weakened. The key factor in managing their cognitive dissonance was the ability of the faithful to rally one another around the prophetic beliefs despite their being demonstrably false. Two basic things had to happened according to Festinger (he cites five in total):

1. Employing social supports which reassert and reinforce to one another that such disconfirming events actually reaffirm the beliefs that lead to the failed predictions in the first place.

2. Recruiting new members under the (fallacious) assumption that increasing the number of believers thereby bolsters the validity of the beliefs.

When confronted with disparities between facts and beliefs, the rational thing to do is abandon the discredited belief, but we tend not to do that. The social and personal costs are too high given our initial investments. It's like trying to save a weak group you've committed a bunch of stones to when it's strategically better to give it up.

Anyway, I think we too often overestimate the power of logic and evidence to persuade. Besides, few of us are skeptical enough (in the true sense of skeptical) to avoid the propensity to allow beliefs to take root first before having sufficient evidence to warrant our assent. It's what William James called, "the will to believe."

_________________
"This is a game that rewards patience and balance. You must think like a man of action and act like a man of thought."
-Jonas Skarssen

A number of reasons, I believe. My study of that was second hand. However, one reason I recall is that if crossover of chromosomes during mating is random, if you do not have redundancy in one form or other, then crossover would destroy functionality. Junk DNA would provide cheap protection against that.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Some topical anecdotes:

Some company built a Wifi radio tower South Africa and people started complaining about health issues:






Actually, I find fear of radiation to be vastly more rational than believing in homeopathy, astrology or any of that bullshit, given that fear of radiation is at least grounded in the modern physical world model. Certain types of radiation certainly are harmful to humans. The physical principles on which homeopathy is grounded on however are just batshit crazy. If you could prove that it works you would surely get the Nobel prize in physics (or chemistry).

Here's a little experiment regarding dowsing:

What's interesting is not that dowsing doesn't work, it's the explanations the dowsers come up with after being objectively proved wrong.

More anecdotal evidence:

Belgians are proud of their beer. We have many varieties, including "pils" and many brands for "pils", like Stella. Our archenemy is Heineken, a Dutch pils sold all over the world. Belgians have all kinds of pet names for Heineken, from cat urine to dish water. We are indignant that our brands are beaten around the world by this commercial drivel.

In a recent study a Swedish test group couldn't tell which instances of either beer tasted alike or different. The conclusion of the experiment had to be that the two beers tasted alike, or that, where there were differences in perceived taste, they were not significantly higher than when all beers were the same brand. The reaction in the Belgian press was most interesting: "The test group was Swedish. Surely a Belgian would have tasted the difference"
...

No news paper or beer club cared to do the test for themselves, under controlled circumstances.

When people are emotionally attached to something, no rational or scientific argument will convince them.

I absolutely agree with this except for one small problem. I have seen it work first-hand on several pets over the years. My wife believes it and I think it sounds crazy, but how can you explain that homeopathic concoctions have provided almost instant relieve on multiple occasions and save the live of at least one cat in our family? With humans you can claim it is the placebo effect, but these pets didn't even know they were getting it.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

That's what the cat wants you to believe... Douglas Adams was wrong, it wasn't mice, it was cats.

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

Maybe the cat needed some water?

Very droll. If that were the case then it would not recover without water. The cat in question was within 24 hours of being euthanized for seizures the vet said were incurable. The cat was our son's and in desperation he called my wife, who didn't have much hope but made some recommendations. There was almost instant relieve, the cat rest for the first time in days, and lived another twelve years.

As I said, I am not a big believer, and I have no explanation for it. But I have seen it work and it is hard to argue with that.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Well first of all: No one knows what would have happened if the cat did not get homeopathic treatment, and the vet could have erred, too.

And then there are several reasons why there is a placebo effect in animals. One reason is conditioning: Ther is a famous experiment where rats got fed a sweet solution of cylcosporin, a immune supressant. After some time the rats would respond with a supressed immune system after being given just sweet water.

Then there is an effefct that does not affect the animals: Humans just cannot be unbiased observers if they expect an effect. There is e.g. a veterinary thesis (in german) that investigated mineral supplements for horses in a randomized controlled fashion. The author reported that the placebo effect was so strong that it essentially prevented all other analyses. The riders had to judge the effect of the treatment.

There is also a famous experiment that I read somewhere. Unfortunatley I don't find it, if someone could point me to a link a wouold be grateful: They recruited people that then had to watch rats mastering a maze challenge or something. If the observers were told that the rat in question was specificlal trained or bright, they would confirm that based on their observations, even if all rats were the same.
There is a lot to observe in random fluctuations.

I think both these examples would not apply in the case of your cat, but I belive it is just a case of natural recovery. Without knowing how many cats would not have responded to the treatment and how many cats would have survived without treatment one cannot draw a conclusion.
Interestingly: Whenever one studies such things in a randomized controlled fashion, the effect is gone.

Unfortunately the human brain seems to work exactly opposite as science when it comes to judging the reliability of information:
One first hand experinece or a single example usually seems to be more convincing than the collected statistcial evidence of many cases.

It's tongue in cheek of course, but I've been speculating for a long time that the effect of medicine (homeopatic) or not, is magnified by the installed habit of regular ingestion of water. How many people actually drink a couple of glasses of water each day? Let alone at regular times? Many among us drink coffee and get the rest of our water supply through food.

I wouldn't underestimate this effect at all. Even with cats.

No, but your wife did. Presumably she administered the concoctions or was present when they were administered, and the pets could have reacted to her.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

_________________
"This is a game that rewards patience and balance. You must think like a man of action and act like a man of thought."
-Jonas Skarssen

From this point on, a large-scale argument to disprove that homeopathy works has taken place.

I would simply like to present these condensed quotes as an interesting caveat.

I take my homeopathic infusions in brandy, thank you very much. It enhances the effect.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Personally, I already become sicker when I just read the patient information leaflet of regular medicine.
It's actually a good thing about homeopathy that it has no medically effect (scientifically speaking), so no side effects as well. And I can be a happy chap because it still works for me =)

By the way, I find these arguments about homeopathy always a bit misplaced. Homeopathy harms no one to my knowledge. Freedom of choice, anyone?

_________________
My "guide" to become stronger in Go

I'm all for the freedom of personal choices. However, the personal health choices we all make are never isolated and affect others in ways we may never anticipate. Communicable and infectious diseases don't respect the personal boundaries that we set for ourselves. Using homeopathic remedies to treat the flu can have disastrous effects far beyond the infected individual. Believing that Ebola is a punishment from God kills people.

If there's one realm where pseudoscience can produce its most lethal consequences, it's without a doubt in the realm of medicine. Another link:

http://www.1023.org.uk/whats-the-harm-in-homeopathy.php

_________________
"This is a game that rewards patience and balance. You must think like a man of action and act like a man of thought."
-Jonas Skarssen