Knowledge From Practical Experience

Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
239
Ray Peat said:
If knowledge is derived deductively, rather than from practical experience, it is likely to be empty and mistaken, rather than a true refinement of knowledge.

from Mind and Tissue, 1976
 
OP
CellularIconoclast
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
239
Two other quotes from Mind and Tissue:

Ray Peat said:
Both metabolic and social events (and development, which is both social and metabolic) can influence the wholeness and intensity with which we interact with the world, and can promote an energy-wasting state, or a condition of growth towards greater wholeness and intensity.

Ray Peat said:
As familiarity and experience increase, the world becomes ampler for the organism, it's range increases. This is exactly the opposite of a view that says that the animal, with each increment of learned behavior, becomes more specialized and limited. Learning is not a closing, but an opening of possibilities. The "motor" theory, which neglects the fact that the organism is always oriented with regard to its environment, must see every learned precision as a restriction of the organisms freedom.
 

Blossom

Moderator
Forum Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
11,031
Location
Indiana USA
Kasper said:
I don't understand what he means with practical experience.
Practical experience is what we observe in our life. I may observe that I develop a rash when I eat a certain food. My caring family member thinks it is sad that I should have to avoid this food and recommends I go see a doctor. The doctor doesn't understand my observation or acknowledge my observation as valid and gives me a pill so I can continue to eat that particular food. The doctors education has taught him or her that through deductive reasoning the rash could be many things so it is better to try to prevent all rashes with medicines that block the bodies reaction. Now my observation has been subtly discounted and I stop paying attention to my body and listening to its signals. I think Peat wants us to value our own observations over some authorities opinion. We are empowered to make our own health choices by valuing our own practical experience rather than running to an authority figure to fix everything for us. My goal for myself is usually not to start with the most expensive and powerful drug that may or may not be safe but will make someone else a lot of money. I think Peat's work encourages us to find sensible solutions whenever we can by valuing our practical experience.
 

Kasper

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
671
Age
33
I understand what you mean Blossom.
But the thing that goes also to my mind is... but if Ray Peat derives his knowledge mainly from (his own ?) practical experiences, how likely is it that all his knowlegde applies to me?
I mean, maybe he has some special genetics so that exercise is not good for his health.
But maybe I have some special genetics that makes exercise crucial for me to get good health.
 

Blossom

Moderator
Forum Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
11,031
Location
Indiana USA
I think that is why he values true science as well as practical experience. He has provided us with ample scientific research for his general perspective but we always have the responsibility to keep our own context in mind when we make our health choices. At least that is my understanding.
 
OP
CellularIconoclast
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
239
As Blossom mentioned, I believe Ray prefers to integrate scientific knowledge with practical experience. There are many sources of information, and we can create a more accurate view of reality if we learn from all of them. This is only possible if we also consider that some sources of information are less reliable than others, but can still provide useful information if this fact is kept in mind.

For example, if a theoretical idea about the human body is correct, it should also agree with observations in daily life and make meaningful predictions about how humans will respond to real events.

Consider this quote from Ray:

Ray Peat said:
Once we accept that knowledge is tentative, and that we are probably going to improve our knowledge in important ways when we learn more about the world, we are less likely to reject new information that conflicts with our present ideas.

This is the essence of 'bayesian thinking' which is a more logically rigorous way to understand reality than by looking at a few scientific studies only. Instead, all of the evidence (both weak and strong) is considered when constructing an opinion, and new information can either strengthen or weaken an existing belief.

Here is a video with an introduction to thinking this way:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za7RqnT7CM0

And a more detailed explanation:
An Intuitive Explanation of Bayes' Theorem by Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
 

Blossom

Moderator
Forum Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
11,031
Location
Indiana USA
When I discovered Peat's work suddenly all of my prior experiences made sense. We have many impressive scientific minds on the forum as well as many people with much practical experience to share. It seems to be a perfect blend of science and practical experience imo. I don't think something this valuable could be planned out and developed. It seems more of an expansion on one man's dream of people coming together with positive intentions to help and support one another in healing. There will always be a few bumps in the road because we are human but I've personally rarely witnessed this level of goodwill between humans. Thanks for bringing up this topic CellularIconoclast!
 

Philomath

Member
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
775
Age
54
Location
Chicagoland
It seems perfectly circular to me... Ray used his scientific education to understand his own biology and physical experiences. Dr. peat then used his scientific and practical knowledge to improve his own (and others) physical system. Now he uses other people's scientific studies to prove his conclusions.
 

Kasper

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
671
Age
33
Ray used his scientific education to understand his own biology and physical experiences. Dr. peat then used his scientific and practical knowledge to improve his own (and others) physical system. Now he uses other people's scientific studies to prove his conclusions.

The problem is, that I think everybody does this.

I mean, I think mercola and co, feel freaked out when they eat a lot of sugar. I don't they base it only on deductive reasoning.
But they search for studies, and yes, after a while they feel like they proved that fructose must be bad.

Ray Peat feels great on sugar, and tries to find study, and yes he will feel like he proved that sugar must be good.

Some people feel great on vegetables, people such as Dr. Wilson, and they will give you bunch of studies why 80% of your food should be vegetables. Well.. and some other guys, like people from the wai diet for example, feel bad on vegetables, and they are going to prove to you why all vegetables should be removed from the diet...

And so on, and so on... And everybody feels like they are completely right, and other people surely don't understand it. I get completely tired of it.

I would like, if those "experts" would just say, "hey, you know what, I tried to eliminate sugar in my diet, and since than my skin improved, and I feel so more relaxed, so, I think this must be really healthy, and I've also found some studies, that may indicate that fructose may be indeed bad for you, you may give it a shot as well !"
 
J

j.

Guest
Kasper said:
Ray Peat feels great on sugar, and tries to find study, and yes he will feel like he proved that sugar must be good.

That's maybe just partly of what goes on. People don't just say, hey, I'm going to go on a low PUFA diet for 4 years, feel good, and then look for scientific arguments. There would be no way to down a bunch of vitamin E supplements if the science that explains its anti-oxidant role weren't developed first.
 
J

j.

Guest
An observation of how we react to some food isn't unscientific. There is nothing unscientific about noticing positive effects after eating sugar and then using that event to generate a conjecture and investigate.

Part of science is generating conjectures, and there are no rules that limit what can be your inspiration to generate them. What matters is whether they can be validated scientifically. The word "scientifically" I'm using in a more strict sense than the bunch of "scientific" studies which are often propaganda or sloppy thinking.
 
OP
CellularIconoclast
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
239
Ray Peat said:
To read either poetry or "scientific" writing, it is useful to know what was going on in the writer's life. For example, if you know that Albert Einstein's family's business was ruined by the German electric-machine monopoly, his attitude toward the German-dominated physics establishment and its ideas will be seen in that context. The nature of communication and of meaning itself makes a certain consideration ("ad hominem") of the communicator's general attitudes necessary for a clear and full understanding.
 
OP
CellularIconoclast
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
239
j. said:
An observation of how we react to some food isn't unscientific.

I agree, personal observation is a powerful tool for both generating and testing hypotheses- because it's impractical or unethical to test many medical ideas in a laboratory setting. However, it does open the door for serious cognitive bias if not done carefully and rigorously.

Literature searches in particular need to focus on finding evidence that conflicts with the hypothesis, rather than supports it. Almost any wrong medical idea will have some seemingly supportive evidence, and will seem reasonable if the conflicting evidence is never found or considered.
 

Kasper

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
671
Age
33
An observation of how we react to some food isn't unscientific. There is nothing unscientific about noticing positive effects after eating sugar and then using that event to generate a conjecture and investigate.

Sure.

What matters is whether they can be validated scientifically. The word "scientifically" I'm using in a more strict sense than the bunch of "scientific" studies which are often propaganda or sloppy thinking.

I find your term "validated scientifically" rather vague.
You only tell what it is not, but not what it is.

Do you think Ray Peat has validated scientifcally that eating a diet high in sugar is healthy/optimal (for everyone) ?

And do you think that people like Paul Jaminet (perfect health diet) , Dr Natasha Campbell McBride (GAPS diet) are "sloppy thinking" if they claim that it is better to eat starches or fat instead of sugar ?

You know I eat a diet high in sugar, just because I feel good with it. Better then with starches or high fat. But I didn't study it in detail. And I just think... hmm.. Dr Natasha Campbell McBride has a PhD in Biology and Nutrition, Paul Jaminet has surely studied it better and spend much more hours in it than me. I'm not sure, maybe they do have some points. Maybe pure sugar should be avoided completely if you have gut issues... maybe.. or maybe I do feel better with sugar because it increases adrenaline or whatever, or maybe Ray Peat is right, for all his reasons. I don't know.

But I just keep with sugars in the maintime.
 

Kasper

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
671
Age
33
Besides that, "validated" scientifically, sounds like, if it is validated, you can check box it, and you are sure it is true.
Like it is a proof in mathematics, which you can validate with a computer program.

I don't think that science works that way. I learned that in science, you work with models, and you test if those models represent reality.
And so you experimentate, until you find, "hey, this experiment proofs our model is wrong, we need to make a better model."
And you are like "hm... what could be wrong about our model... ", and you try to find a new model and test it again.

You never know if your model truly represents reality, but the more you test, the more likely it is that it does represent reality in some way.

Or as Einstein put it:
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
 
J

j.

Guest
Kasper said:
I find your term "validated scientifically" rather vague.
You only tell what it is not, but not what it is.

Do you think Ray Peat has validated scientifcally that eating a diet high in sugar is healthy/optimal (for everyone) ?

And do you think that people like Paul Jaminet (perfect health diet) , Dr Natasha Campbell McBride (GAPS diet) are "sloppy thinking" if they claim that it is better to eat starches or fat instead of sugar ?

You know I eat a diet high in sugar, just because I feel good with it. Better then with starches or high fat. But I didn't study it in detail. And I just think... hmm.. Dr Natasha Campbell McBride has a PhD in Biology and Nutrition, Paul Jaminet has surely studied it better and spend much more hours in it than me. I'm not sure, maybe they do have some points. Maybe pure sugar should be avoided completely if you have gut issues... maybe.. or maybe I do feel better with sugar because it increases adrenaline or whatever, or maybe Ray Peat is right, for all his reasons. I don't know.

But I just keep with sugars in the maintime.

Having a PhD by itself is fairly worthless, because the standard to call something scientific is so low. I don't think there is a book called something like "The Epistemology of Medicine" that lists all types of possible arguments and ranks them according to their level of rigor. So it's something probably people do just as they study, without ever developing a full, formal explanation. I don't think even Ray Peat wrote that. But it nevertheless exists, and he and others probably use it to dismiss arguments all the time.

What I find reprehensible is that arguments with a ridiculously low level of rigor are considered "scientific".
 
J

j.

Guest
If you were to develop a standard to judge types of arguments, you would start I think with things that have a lot of evidence, for example, that vitamin A is a vitamin. Then you would compare how other types of arguments and comprehensiveness of evidence compare to that, and that's how you could judge an argument.
 
J

j.

Guest
Kasper said:
Besides that, "validated" scientifically, sounds like, if it is validated, you can check box it, and you are sure it is true.
Like it is a proof in mathematics, which you can validate with a computer program.

Yes, physics and chemistry are better models for rigor in medicine than math.
 
OP
CellularIconoclast
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
239
j. said:
I don't think there is a book called something like "The Epistemology of Medicine" that lists all types of possible arguments and ranks them according to their level of rigor.

This is something that really doesn't make any sense to me. Epistemology should be, in my opinion a central subject in science education. I had to study it on my own and I don't think it's reasonable to do 'science' without it.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom