Ear Coning/Candles

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
101

Isn’t the leap of logic made in the first paragraph exactly the same spurious reasoning and post hoc fallacy decried in the second paragraph? No where in the cite you gave does it say that removing the earwax alleviates the symptoms. It is an inferrence to logically juxtapose these claims and a fallacy in and of itself to presume that the claimed mechanics are 1. The accurate mechanics of performance and 2. The assumed mechanics when no such statement is directly made.

I do understand how the material for the leap of logic has been provided by the claimant (huckster) for those who wish to feel good about themselves by putting two and two together either for or against the product. But, this misdirection aside, specific claims are specific claims and there are plenty of examples of obviously false specific claims on the web w/re. ear candling.

As to the mechanics of ear candling themselves, I have already mentioned treatment with smoke (not with suction) as a possibility. The resulting effects could easily be due to the smoke, or the warmth, or one of the constituants of the smoke. Another possibility is inducing sensitization and returning to a state of resting hearing during the process. This can be duplicated by going through a normal day with normal exposures and getting a hearing test done, then lying quietly on a table with ear plugs (or fingers or whatever) in each ear for about 10 minutes at a time, then retaking the test and noting the difference. It might be heat (doubtful, there is not much heat involved, at least not as much as the candlers wish us to believe). It might be a mental process induced by spending time relaxing and focusing on the ears and the hearing.

Neither I nor anyone else knows the exact mechanics of ear candling because the hucksters are not interested in truth and the researchers are not interested in quacks. I’m just saying that to disavow the entire practice based on bias against the presentation is a fallacy that could lead to travasty if some quick, cheap, effective and non-pharmacological treatments exist but are disregarded. This is the basis of general bias against alternative medicine and, in my opinion, is detrimental to progression of medical treatment itself.

102

If anyone is still in doubt as to the claims made about the purported mechanics of ear candling, can’t they just read the OP of this thread? - wherein it is stated:

Or do we have to try to cloud the issue by teasing some ambiguity out of that too?

103

My only question was about the purported mechanics versus the actual mechanics. Knee jerk cynacism irritates me about as much as viewing photo forums where 90% of the posters shout Fake!!! for every single photo posted. I would like to think that the SDMB rises above that sort of behavior and weeds out the posers (or converts them to one of us, whichever comes first).

As I mentioned: I’ve tried it, something happened, it’s obvious that what was purported to happen did not happen but the suggested effect did. Was hoping for insight on exactly what it was that did happen. Actually, with the Google crawling I have done as a result of this thread I have uncovered quite a bit of insight on my own.

104

I hear what you’re saying on this and I really do resonate with it… I have had a couple of GQ threads where I asked questions on topics that are at least tangentially associated with the wingnut crowd. People fell all over themselves with the joyful cry of “tinfoil hatter!” without even processing the question factually. Eventually, as it turned out, there was a documented, factual answer to both questions.

I don’t think this is one of those cases. In every single case where I’ve seen ear cones marketed, they’ve been sold primarily as an earwax removal tool. The other claims (hearing improvement, headache relief, etc) are presented as additional inducements as to why you might want to remove earwax… as you can tell, because it’s typically worded in cautionary language like “may” and “might”. In other words, it’s marketing. And it’s extremely good ploy, because now their product’s value doesn’t hang precariously on the truth of an objective, falsifiable benefit (wax removal) but on the perception of subjective phenomena that are more attributable to bias and placebo effect (unmeasured improvement in hearing, etc).

105

I was having so many problems with SDMB yesterday (timeouts, etc.), that when I made a coding error and the post got trashed, I blamed it on the hamsters. This explains my seemingly blank post #96.

I’ll try again. This is directed primarily at Alex_Dubinsky:

As I am reading this thread, a PBS show is playing on the TV that is very appropriate. It is discussing the Philosopher’s Stone and the pursuit of it in the Middle Ages.

This magical substance was

Certainly that was a good reason to hope for it.

AFAIK, to this date, it has never been found. Why not continue to search for it? It could happen. Science doesn’t know everything. They laughed at Galileo, right?

Because as science has progressed, the chances of the Philosopher’s Stone existing has become increasingly dim. It doesn’t fit what we know about the elements or chemistry. It didn’t look likely in the 19th Century, and the 20th Century didn’t improve its chances, either.

So what science does is assign relative possibilities to things. Could we design a more efficient motor? Travel to Mars? Good chances, because we can build on prior knowledge and as we build, we get closer to our goal. Celestial mechanics? Not only do they work according to our computations, but we are getting better at the computing – now we’re adjusting for such things unthought of by Newton, like aberrations caused by the speed of light.

Alchemy did the opposite – nothing worked, nothing got better. It has been completely discarded.

Before you grab onto some idea or believe some new claim, consider: What are the chances of it being true, based on all available evidence to date? High? Low? Very, very low?

So let’s assign a relative chance of ear candling performing in any beneficial way. Tests are negative, theories don’t make sense, and no new evidence is coming forward to support proponents.

It’s time to let go of a dream, as all hope is fading. Put your energies and talents into something that has a better chance of generating a rewarding ending. Pick your battles where you have at least an even chance of winning. Our world can make good use of smart people to help improve our lot. It doesn’t need more alchemists.

106

Actually, the standard of care in mainstream medicine for earwax removable is cheap, relatively quick and non-pharmacological. And besides that, unlike car candling it works, by a logical, uncomplicated and clinically demonstrated mechanism - i.e. irrigation.

There are lots of non-pharmacologic approaches to treatment in mainstream medicine, including application of heat, cold, dietary manipulation, and various forms of exercise/physical therapy.

Conversely, there are lots of drugs touted for various purposes in alternative medicine (they are generally referred to as herbs or supplements, but they are drugs just the same). Alt med relies heavily on purported magic bullets that are largely useless and/or potentially dangerous (either through toxic effects or since their use distracts patients from seeking effective care).

The “basis of general bias against alternative medicine” in the medical/scientific community is that far too much of it relies on folklore, testimonials and appeals to prejudice against mainstream medicine, while pretending to be exempt from evidence-based standards.

107

I know what you mean, but knee-jerk cynicism isn’t necessarily an entirely bad thing - sure, it means people tiresomely yell ‘photoshopped!’ at the sight of any and every slightly unusual image on the internet, but it also stops people sending money to religious Nigerian widows, stops people forwarding dumbass emails claiming that Bill Gates is going to pay them money for forwarding dumbass emails, etc. Kneejerk cynicism, for all its faults, is the first line of defence against an ocean of stupidity, ignorance, malice, fraud and trickery. Let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I don’t mean to be glib at all here, but have you considered the placebo effect?

108

Yeah, I understand the self-preservation aspect of cynicism, it would be nice though to approach an ear candler who is testifying about the wonders of light suction (e.g. the OP) and say:

“You know, the effect you are getting is caused by sulfides and oxides in the smoke acting as a minor analagesic combined with the soothing effect of the slight warmth and the resensitizing effect of spending 20 minutes in a relaxing environment with limited noise exposure. You could get the same thing by taking a couple of asprin, dropping a little olive oil in your ears and lying down with some ear plugs for about a half hour then gently rinsing them out.”*

Rather than:

“You put a what in your ear? And set fire to it? Dipshit.”

Besides, where would we be without Nigerian widows? In a world without The Spork, that’s where. And where would we be in a cynical world where someone with no prior experience tries to build his own boat or thousands of miles away someone else with no prior experience tries to build a didgeridoo without ever having seen one. Not to get too personal but when it comes to thinking outside of the box, I highly doubt that any cynic could stop you from making a mountain out of a molehill or me from making a compact solar pool heater out of a cooler, some copper pipe and a fresnel lens (guess what my summer project is).

Yeah, I hold dopers to a higher standard.

*Please note that this statement is purely hypothesis and is intended as an example only. It is equally probable that the whole thing is, as mentioned, a placebo effect.

109

Well, there’s your problem! :stuck_out_tongue:

110

Let’s just say we know a lot more about transmutation of elements than you know about the effects of candles on ears. Probabilistic thinking is valid thinking. It’s just hugely swayed by bias. You’ve convinced yourself that the probability is very high that ear candling is bs. I claim it’s only your bias that gives you confidence. There’s a very high probability that ear candles do not remove wax, but other things, such as the effect of smoke or of factors we don’t understand, are more like toss-ups. Ultimately, no studies directly testing the most general relevant result (“do ear candles do something good?”) have been conducted (especially studies whose probabilistic weight is high). Other, indirect studies have, and again it is a judgement call how applicable they are. Your probabilism feels they have very high relativism, but maybe you’re just thinking that out of bias. The popularity and testimonials of people points to candles doing something good. That observation has a certain weight in a probabilistic argument. You’ve assigned that weight a big fat 0.

Simple as that. You give your own weighings to probabilities, I disagree with them. Absolutely nothing else to be said.

Just don’t bring the fucking thrust of history into this. Don’t justify it as if you have the insurmountable high-ground. As if you’re not basing your thinking on probabilities. As if your cynicism doesn’t affect, even somehow, them.

111

You claim that the claim of ear wax removal is implicit in the claim that it alleviates listed symptoms.

To be less facetious, what is your cite that the only way to help ears is to remove ear wax? Hell, there’s good reason to think removing ear wax hurts the natural microfauna and increases risk of infection.

112

I don’t need to supply such a cite since I made no such claim. You are simply making shit up at this point.

113

Btw, Musicat, the scientific method doesn’t imply that the default assumption is negativity. There’s no cynicism clause in there. It may seem like it does, but that’s an illusion. The default position under the scientific method is always neutrality. It’s just that getting beyond “i know nothing” with most claims one can think of quickly leads the probabilities align with negativity. It’s true, it’s something that happens. It’s why most scepticism is on the mark. But it’s not a law of science! It’s no justification for you to use in any argument. It’s basically racial profiling for ideas: applying the average to the particular because you enjoy to discriminate or because you’re too lazy to think.

114

No, ok, you never said removing ear wax is the only way to help ears. You just kept saying we should only talk about removing ear wax. I was just trying to insert a bit of logic.

115

To be completely fair to your post, an often-repeated claim is improvement of balance/vertigo. Earwax has nothing to do with the inner ear.

116

That’s not quite the apology you should be making.

In the OP of this thread, claim was made that ear candles remove excess ear wax. A claim was made as to the mechanism by which this allegedly happens. Both claims have been examined and found wanting. You’ve gamely prolonged the discussion, but is there much more to talk about regarding ear candles?

117

No, the problem is you have convinced yourself that ear candling has some merit. Nothing will sway your conviction, not even good evidence.

Of course I am basing my thinking on probabilities. That’s my point. If all the evidence for something is based on wishful thinking, and all the evidence against is based on various tests, all of which corroborate each other, what are the odds?

Let’s try this from a different angle. What kind of evidence would be sufficient for you to come to the conclusion that ear candling, as described by its proponents, is BS?

118

Of course. Then evidence is gathered, tests are performed, and tentative conclusions are drawn. Then more evidence is gathered, more tests are performed, and if they all point in the same direction and corroborate each other, those tentative conclusions become less tentative and more definitive.

I have a book published ca. 1955, a collection of articles about the Big Bang Theory vs. the Steady State Theory. In 1955, they both had strong proponents. Both had convincing arguments, and some proposed tests to answer the question. So over the following few decades, most observations and tests suggested the Big Bang Theory was more likely to be correct. How often nowadays do you hear a reputable astronomer defend the Steady State Theory?

Science should always start neutral, but if there is evidence to be had and tests to be done, the whole point of science is to discover the truth, not remain neutral perpetually.

119

Amen, brother.

Drives me nuts too… I notice this with herbal medicine in particular. Plenty of plants contain compounds that have an effect on human physiology.

But the Herbalists reject any such discussion 'cos it’s too redolant of “conventional pharma, and we’re more interested inna holistic approach, yeah?”, and the hardcore cynics snort and say it’s all mumbo-jumbo.

I’d love an approach that says "Yellow Snotwort contains smegacylic acid, which is known to disrupt mucus secretions… that why it’s traditionally been used to treat colds ".

120

It appears that you haven’t checked out the link I provided on the scientific method.

In terms of this discussion, a much better summary of the “default position” is “Show me the money”.

What you want re ear candling is for the scientific community to say “well, it could be so, even with the ludicrous physiologic explanation provided and the clinical evidence showing it’s bunkum, so let’s hold off on any conclusions pending a huge clinical trial which would be a total waste of money and never convince the hardcore woo-ists, and meantime refrain from any negative comments”.

Sorry, that isn’t going to happen. Waste your money and your time as you see fit.