Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Corwin · 09-19-2002, 11:47 AM

From dictionary.com:

anecdote

n : short account of an incident (especially a biographical one)
Source: WordNet � 1.6, � 1997 Princeton University

From CancerWeb's medical dictionary:

1. Unpublished narratives.

2. A particular or detached incident or fact of an interesting nature; a biographical incident or fragment; a single passage of private life.

Origin: F. Anecdote, fr. Gr. Not published; priv. + given out, to give out, to publish; out + to give. See Dose.

Source: Websters Dictionary

(01 Mar 1998)

Now.... you were saying?

[Edited to add]

You're misusing the term anecdote in the same way creationists misuse the term theory. (As in treating the word 'theory' as something one comes up with after a hard night of drinking...)

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Corwin ]

Pseudonymph · 09-19-2002, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
Sirenspeak

No, it is Quackwatch and I am afraid your opinion carries little weight when it comes to science and skepticism. Now, acupuncture may very well cause the release of endorphins or have some effect on the brain and nervous system, but the doctrine behind it is false and its claims are excessive.

Fair enough....

<a href="http://www.acupuncture-online.com/nih.html" target="_blank">What about this?</a>

I'd like to hear some opinions on what is mentioned there...

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: SirenSpeak ]

galiel · 09-19-2002, 12:00 PM

SirenSpeak, you are a classic irrational zealot who uses the same tactics that the religious fundamentalists use to push creationism or other BS: Yell as loud as you can, shout people down, ridicule them, ridicule scientific research, imply conspiracies by scientists to repress the truth, present NO evidence except anecdotal evidence, ignore ALL evidence that does not affirm your dogma, quote scientific studies when they suit you and dismiss them when they do not, take advantage of the open-mindedness and evolutionary nature of science while preaching the eternal values of some mythological ancient wisdom and, above all, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER answer a direct challenge with any kind of substantiation of your claim. Just yell. Loud.

Feh. Reading this thread makes me feel like I just sat through a guest appearance of John Edwards on the 700 Club.

Corwin · 09-19-2002, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by galiel:
SirenSpeak, you are a classic irrational zealot who uses the same tactics that the religious fundamentalists use to push creationism or other BS: Yell as loud as you can, shout people down, ridicule them, ridicule scientific research, imply conspiracies by scientists to repress the truth, present NO evidence except anecdotal evidence, ignore ALL evidence that does not affirm your dogma, quote scientific studies when they suit you and dismiss them when they do not, take advantage of the open-mindedness and evolutionary nature of science while preaching the eternal values of some mythological ancient wisdom and, above all, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER answer a direct challenge with any kind of substantiation of your claim. Just yell. Loud.

Feh. Reading this thread makes me feel like I just sat through a guest appearance of John Edwards on the 700 Club.

Yeah.... the NIH is so unscientific...

</sarcastic drawl>

tronvillain · 09-19-2002, 12:11 PM

Here is that <a href="http://odp.od.nih.gov/consensus/cons/107/107_statement.htm" target="_blank">NIH Concensus Statement</a>, if anyone is interested. Your link fails to mention this vitally important statement:

Quote:

According to contemporary research standards, there is a paucity of high-quality research assessing efficacy of acupuncture compared with placebo or sham acupuncture. The vast majority of papers studying acupuncture in the biomedical literature consist of case reports, case series, or intervention studies with designs inadequate to assess efficacy.

Not especially impressive. Still, I think that there may very well be something to acupuncture, but as I said before I think many of its claims are too strong, and the mystical mechanisms proposed for it are laughable.

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]

Pseudonymph · 09-19-2002, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by galiel:
SirenSpeak, you are a classic irrational zealot who uses the same tactics that the religious fundamentalists use to push creationism or other BS: Yell as loud as you can, shout people down, ridicule them, ridicule scientific research, imply conspiracies by scientists to repress the truth, present NO evidence except anecdotal evidence, ignore ALL evidence that does not affirm your dogma, quote scientific studies when they suit you and dismiss them when they do not, take advantage of the open-mindedness and evolutionary nature of science while preaching the eternal values of some mythological ancient wisdom and, above all, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER answer a direct challenge with any kind of substantiation of your claim. Just yell. Loud.

*drumroll......

And the most drawn out run-on sentance of the day award goes to....TA-DAAA Galiel!!

But seriously...are we reading the same post? I have been fairly civil, although a bit heated. But this is something I feel passionatly about. I'd venture a guess to say that most people here who deny any useability are relying on the fact that it looks like junk science(which I admit it does) and are not even willing to give it a try. There are no risks(for the vast majority of people) and most insurance companies will cover it now. So what's the problem?

NialScorva · 09-19-2002, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Corwin:
You're misusing the term anecdote in the same way creationists misuse the term theory. (As in treating the word 'theory' as something one comes up with after a hard night of drinking...)

Is this in reply to me? I'm going to assume it is.

I must say that it never ceases to amuse me when people flout dictionary definitions like it's the be-all and end-all of word usage. Dictionaries are a starting point, not the final arbiter.

In either case, we're talking about anecdotal evidence, not just anecdotes. The validity of making truth claims based upon arbitrarily remembered anecdotes versus the validity of making truth claims based upon scientific methodologies. How does this definition relate to this?

Corwin · 09-19-2002, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Not especially impressive. Still, I think that there may very well be something to acupuncture, but as I said before I think many of its claims are too strong, and the mystical mechanisms proposed for it are laughable.

Please bear in mind tron, that like chiropacty and evolutionary theory.... many of these 'too strong' claims are not actually made by proponents of acupuncture...

MortalWombat · 09-19-2002, 12:23 PM

Tron, your link didn't work. <a href="http://odp.od.nih.gov/consensus/cons/107/107_statement.htm" target="_blank">Here</a> is another link to the NIH acupuncture consensus statement.

And <a href="http://www.hcrc.org/contrib/sampson/acup.html" target="_blank">here</a> is a critique of the NIH consensus conference. Note that the NIH panel was largely composed of people who were already favorable towards acupuncture, and that:

Quote:

The first question that arose after viewing the speaker program was why there was an absence of speakers known to have done acupuncture research but who had obtained negative results. In 1986, a review of acupuncture research by Vincent and Richardson revealed that a majority of evaluable research papers showed essentially no significant effect from acupuncture for pain, when compared to placebo or inactive methods1. Two analyses of the research in 1988 and 1990 showed that the best quality papers were almost uniformly negative, and the weakest or most poorly performed studies were mostly positive2,3. The Consensus Conference did not invite or present authors of those studies. Not much had changed since that review, although a number of studies were subsequently done for other conditions, such as asthma and nausea. Yet even those studies showed mixed results.

Corwin · 09-19-2002, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NialScorva:


Is this in reply to me? I'm going to assume it is.

I must say that it never ceases to amuse me when people flout dictionary definitions like it's the be-all and end-all of word usage. Dictionaries are a starting point, not the final arbiter.

In either case, we're talking about anecdotal evidence, not just anecdotes. The validity of making truth claims based upon arbitrarily remembered anecdotes versus the validity of making truth claims based upon scientific methodologies. How does this definition relate to this?

And how do you determine if pain is relieved? Simple. You can do one of two things: You can set up an invasive procedure to monitor brain chemistry, endorphin levels, EEG and EKG readings, and body language...

Or you can ask the patient 'does this hurt?'

Of course since the latter is anecdotal... I guess it's just not kosher.

09-19-2002, 11:47 AM	#51
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	From dictionary.com: anecdote n : short account of an incident (especially a biographical one) Source: WordNet � 1.6, � 1997 Princeton University From CancerWeb's medical dictionary: 1. Unpublished narratives. 2. A particular or detached incident or fact of an interesting nature; a biographical incident or fragment; a single passage of private life. Origin: F. Anecdote, fr. Gr. Not published; priv. + given out, to give out, to publish; out + to give. See Dose. Source: Websters Dictionary (01 Mar 1998) Now.... you were saying? [Edited to add] You're misusing the term anecdote in the same way creationists misuse the term theory. (As in treating the word 'theory' as something one comes up with after a hard night of drinking...) [ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Corwin ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-19-2002, 12:00 PM	#53
galiel Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Eastern Massachusetts Posts: 1,677	SirenSpeak, you are a classic irrational zealot who uses the same tactics that the religious fundamentalists use to push creationism or other BS: Yell as loud as you can, shout people down, ridicule them, ridicule scientific research, imply conspiracies by scientists to repress the truth, present NO evidence except anecdotal evidence, ignore ALL evidence that does not affirm your dogma, quote scientific studies when they suit you and dismiss them when they do not, take advantage of the open-mindedness and evolutionary nature of science while preaching the eternal values of some mythological ancient wisdom and, above all, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER answer a direct challenge with any kind of substantiation of your claim. Just yell. Loud. Feh. Reading this thread makes me feel like I just sat through a guest appearance of John Edwards on the 700 Club.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.