Dudely 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

There are a few problems with that kind of thinking.

There is no reason why a very convincing, unexplained event is proof of anything. It could very well be a fluke or a mistake. The ONLY things that matters are those that you can repeat- if I said there were gnomes in my garden you would expect that you could come over and see them yourself- if you can't then what's to say I'm not lying, crazy, or simply mistaken?

The most convincing and bizarre personal experience in the world is still not proof or even evidence. Sometimes, however, it can be a very good clue to something that that could be proven, or evidence that has yet to be found. But without that evidence it is no better than claiming the moon is made of cheese.

So in regards to medicine it doesn't matter who says they were cured by some strange means, how convincing their experience was, or even their reasoning for why it happened. What matter is if it can be repeated.

TMB wrote: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.

TMB wrote: This misses two points.

The first is that nothing is exactly repeatable in every way, meaning that there are always factors of unreliable in the process. Even science method cannot ensure that everything can be exactly as it was. This means that science itself is subject to its own critique of method. This means that regardless of how good the fidelity of repeat is, it should always be viewed as possibly flawed.

The second point exists because of the first. As with the evidence based legal systems, we are simply not in a position to repeat the past with exact fidelity. This means that real stuff that did happen, cannot be proven, although logically we know it is not because the past did not happen in a certain way, just that we are unable to effectivly repeat history. This means that we are forced by the method to dscount things that do not pass this test. This does not mean these things exist or are effective, just that SM is not effective in assessing them.

Dudely wrote:Indeed. I understand perfectly where you are coming from. Your explanation was not needed. I am asking if the effect of stimulating the homeostatic mechanism can be observed upon successful delivering of homeopathic medicines.

It is my thought that, just as the immune system can be observed, if it exists and is a valid theory, the homeostatic mechanism can be observed as well. If so, it stands to reason that its stimulation by homeopathic medicines can also be observed, validating homeopathy as we know it (and earning you a cool 1 million from James Randi).

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

TMB wrote:
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.

Shrunk wrote:
Right. Hence the need to repeatedly try to falsify a hypothesis even once it has seemingly been confirmed experimentally. Technically you're correct; no theory can be said to be correct with 100% certainty, as you never know if the next observation will falsify it. However, after a sufficiently large number of falsification attempts have failed, it can be said for all practical purposes that the theory is correct with a certainty that approaches 100%.

Shrunk wrote:

TMB wrote: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.

So you're saying my "belief" that the planet Neptune exists is invalid because I have not verified it personally, whereas someone's belief that fairies are real is valid because it is based on personal experience?

Ridiculous.

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote: If a person were to walk out of their house to the town centre and witness someone having their bag snatched or witness a car accident, then when they relay this information to the Police or to their friends and family, it is anecdotal evidence.

TMB wrote: Your extrapolation is ridiculous. Consider how much faith pateints have in medicine of any form. Doctors diagnose and prescribe and patients mostly have no idea whatever of what anything means. I have questioned medical people enough times to get them to change their minds and approach simply because they too accept what they are given as medical protocols without question. What I will say is that your belief in Neptune is certainly based upon what you have been told. This does not make it wrong, it just means you are not qualified on the reality of Neptune, unless you understand the methods, the primary data etc. You might retort that it is impossible for people to know all of this, and I would agree, but it still means that they are then not qualified. Take the recent view that Neanderthals interbred with Cro Magnon, this revelation changes the previous held view that said they went extinct and did not interbreed. Did you believe both therories although different, and I imagine you took expert opinions at face value without questioning them. No issue with that, it just means you need to belive what people tell you without question.

Right. Hence the need to repeatedly try to falsify a hypothesis even once it has seemingly been confirmed experimentally. Technically you're correct; no theory can be said to be correct with 100% certainty, as you never know if the next observation will falsify it.

However, after a sufficiently large number of falsification attempts have failed, it can be said for all practical purposes that the theory is correct with a certainty that approaches 100%.

Which is precisely the error Nancy Malik continually makes in this thread: Accepting isolated, uncorroborated observations as evidence even when they have been refuted by further, more systematic and reliable observations.

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:

Dudely wrote:Indeed. I understand perfectly where you are coming from. Your explanation was not needed. I am asking if the effect of stimulating the homeostatic mechanism can be observed upon successful delivering of homeopathic medicines.

It is my thought that, just as the immune system can be observed, if it exists and is a valid theory, the homeostatic mechanism can be observed as well. If so, it stands to reason that its stimulation by homeopathic medicines can also be observed, validating homeopathy as we know it (and earning you a cool 1 million from James Randi).

Homeopathic medicine’s main action is through taste buds, esophageal canal, stomach and intestine (part of immune system), and in response to antigenic attack on body very specific antibodies are released which destroys the antigenicity of the organisms and there is no drug resistance as such, because own defense systems comes into action each time there is an attack of organisms.

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:What if someone witnessed a car accident and the Police wanted them to make a statement? Would the statement in court be dismissed as anecdotal evidence? Would the police, even if they arrived at the scene of the accident to find the person still there comforting the passengers or trying to help, say they had not been there and their evidence is non existent?

TMB wrote:As with the evidence based legal systems, we are simply not in a position to repeat the past with exact fidelity. This means that real stuff that did happen, cannot be proven, although logically we know it is not because the past did not happen in a certain way, just that we are unable to effectively repeat history. This means that we are forced by the method to discount things that do not pass this test.

DST70 wrote:

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:What if someone witnessed a car accident and the Police wanted them to make a statement? Would the statement in court be dismissed as anecdotal evidence? Would the police, even if they arrived at the scene of the accident to find the person still there comforting the passengers or trying to help, say they had not been there and their evidence is non existent?

That's a good analogy to make.

TMB wrote:
I am not in a position to comment about homeopathy in terms of how it works etc, except for the fact that it works for me and my family and has done many times. You might ascribe this to placebo, and perhaps you are correct, but thats just anecdotal to.

Dudely wrote:I don't think you guys understand. The hand waving and the talk about subjectivity towards evidence misses the point COMPLETELY.

Homeopathy is said to have an effect. If it indeed has an effect then that means it has a cause. If it has a cause this can be found through study. No "external/objective and internal/subjective categories" bullshit. Just hard-up causes and effects. THAT is science, and that is why people have such a problem with stuff like homeopathy- it's a medicine with NO study of its causes (because none can be found) and very little testing.

Hey guys, I've got some crazy chemical cocktail I brewed in my fucking sink last night. Some guy down the road whiffed it and felt better so it can cure fucking cancer. Here, I'll give you some for 50 bucks. Sound like a good idea?