Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

Title: “I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience

Bruce this is absolutely BS - and hopefully you know it. Science did not tell us Vioxx was okay nor did it take Vioxx away. Science is a process that is used to falsify hypothesis on the working of nature. Nothing more - nothing less. What we saw with Vioxx was data being suppressed. Over time that data came to light - unfortunately it came to light as people died of the risk of Vioxx.

Wikipedia has a fairly good discussion of the scientific method. The scientific method is directed in differentiated "truth vs. belief." Historically we have to go back to the Arabs to the development of the scientific method Ibn al-Haytham. The Greeks tried to tie science to belief and later Sir. Issac Newton and many others were not satisfied basing science on "belief and religion" - Galileo was imprisoned because his observations were in conflict of the Catholic Church's contention that the earth was the center of the universe - and developed the scientific method we know today. Then Karl Popper ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper) wrapped the logical foundations under Newton's scientific method. 

What you seem to be proposing is pseudoscience approach to the AERC durg policy. Is that sufficient? It is not. Plant hormones are ingested by horses daily - they have been since there has been a horse and a plant. However, why are plant hormones on the AERC "banned list" unless the concentrations are specified? The first screw up was the Mag Sulfate which has been proposed by endurance vets for years in homemade electrolyte mixes. Now the AERC tells us it is a banned substance. Yep there was a lot of tap dancing over that one.

My contention and critique is that the AERC drug policy was not developed by "experience, education, training, discernment, and knowledge of the endurance horse." It seems more so it was a policy developed as former President Harry Truman once defined "a camel is a horse designed by committee." It's time to base a drug policy on good science - this one clearly isn't. Sure it has parts that are good - but all in all it's probably worse than the one it replaced.

My recommendation would be for the AERC to get back to work and refine this drug policy and base it on science rather than fear, superstition, wives' tales, preconceived notions and pseudoscience.

Truman

--

“I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true.” Carl Sagan