Kinross

See now this makes sense and I can go and independntly verify that said ingredients inhibts the groths of the yast and no dandruf is found.

This is how science works, and I can change my opinion in light of new information.

Until more info is given on accupuncture and there is a repeatable study to prove the effectiveness I will remain skeptical of it.

Corwin

** gets out the clue by four **

And, my dear Doctor....

Without the anecdotes.... the information to analyze comes from... where exactly?

Yeah.

Pseudonymph

I would say BS becuase nothing was actually DONE TO THE PATIENT. This analogy is horribly flawed. Acupuncture has at the very least a medical idea behind all the crap that some people would have you believe.

Corwin

Speaking for myself, since the described relief isn't physically impossible, I'd be looking for a reason WHY it worked, rather than simply dismissing the entire thing out of hand just because of an inaccurate explanation.

Dr Rick

Yeah, you don't have clue.

Collected evidence in a study is refered to as "data;" not anecdotes. Data is objectively analyzed and its collection and reporting controlled in a scientific study to filter-out confounding variables and bias; anecdotes are not.

Rick

Corwin

Semantics. You're using your own biased definitions of 'data' and 'anecdote.'

A survey of 'did this given drug/technique/surgery relieve your pain' is by defintion a collection of anecdotal evidentiary statements. These data are then collected and analyzed.

Now... maybe YOU don't analyze all available data, positive, negative, neutral and otherwise.... but you're supposed to.

But then I guess you only feel obligated to look at whatever neutral or negative data you have access to concerning areas of study that aren't 'traditional.' Makes things a lot easier, no?

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.

tronvillain

Noise:
While it has a nasty smell, the effect on washing your hair is not so terrible (I had to use Neutrogena T-Gel while I was taking Acutane).

Dr Rick

It's not just sematics to point-out that valid studies are more than just collections of anecdotes and that you don't have a clue.

Rick

NialScorva

Corwin, you're not just wrong, you're Rosie O'Donnell lapdance wrong. Even if you want to equivocate "anecdotal" with "empirical data", you *still* have no comparison between anecdotal evidence and a scientific study.


Pick a neutral term: "event". One person receiving acupunture and reporting the result is a discrete "event". You are correct in that anecdotal and scientific evidence both start from events, but beyond that, there is no comparison. The difference is in the selection procedure for reporting and recording those events. Anecdotes are reported based upon what people remember, and what people remember is largely based upon what people want to remember and their biases. Scientific evidence is set up such that it is not based upon memory.

You're point is a trivial nitpick crossbread with equivocation and a composition fallacy. You take anecdote as not just the event of interest, but as the selection process for interpretting that event (equivocation). If we accept the equivocation of "anecdote" to a piece of evidence in a study, then you make a composition fallacy, assuming that because the parts of a scientific study are anecdotes, then the scientific study is an anecdote. This is clearly not the case.