Posted: Jun 12, 2010 7:15 am
by TMB
Shrunk wrote:
DST70 wrote:
Huh?


anecdotal evidence is no substitute for actual peer reviewed scientific analysis


What I was trying to say is that personal testimony covers a huge range of experience. There's the kind of reporting that you can correct with reference to an error in perception/memory e.g. eyewitness testimony. But there's also more direct and intimate first person accounting that's not always easily explained with reference to generalised data.

It counts as weak evidence though in the sense that the scientific data is not supportive. So there's a discrepancy between the two types, at least it seems to me. The placebo effect is obviously not always plausible to many of those with certain strong cases of non-scientific testimony.

David


Overwhelmingly convincing personal experience told us the earth was flat. Science told us it was spherical. Which was more reliable?


Actually what passed as science of the time, told us it was flat and we all wnt along with it without needing personal validation of the data. Then science told us it was a speher, and once again we went along with what we wer told because we are good at absorbing social opinions. Once again we did not rely upon personal validation of the primary data. Have a look at the other threads on this forum, and all the peole who belive in evolution (ie. science) who have no idea what it actually is in principle and certainly no direct validation of the evidence - this makes it hearsay.

My point is that scientific method might be a good system, but people stil rely upon hearsay to form opinions. Medical science (allopathy) has changed mostly because of pressure caused by ineffective or destructive remedies. We can only wait to see just what fallout there is with the use of antibiotics (we have some inkling, vaccinations because the weight of conventional wisdom is that rules us, not scientific method.