Comments on: Andrew Weil Attacks EBM

By: titmouse

titmouse — Tue, 17 May 2011 12:13:28 +0000

CAM bitches don’t know about Bayes’ Theorem.

By: ccbowers

ccbowers — Sun, 15 May 2011 17:18:43 +0000

Steve-

I am of the opinion that plausibility enters the equation when a given researcher decides what he or she is interested in exploring. A logical person will gravitate towards the more plausible explanations that they are interested in (and on average this happens). Certainly there are people who are interested in things that are not plausible, but this should be viewed as poor quality research. In practice research dollars has a greater effect than it should ideally, and this is one major way how plausibility gets pushed to the side.

By: Steven Novella

Steven Novella — Sun, 15 May 2011 16:16:56 +0000

Oh – I was confused because I never said that EBM proponents decry plausibility, only that CAM proponents do.

EBM proponents play lip-service to plausibility, but in practice do not adequately (if at all) incorporate proper consideration.

By: ccbowers

ccbowers — Sat, 14 May 2011 18:44:13 +0000

Steve-

You didn’t read your own quote carefully. I was referring to EBM proponents, not quacks or CAM proponents.

By: daedalus2u

daedalus2u — Sat, 14 May 2011 17:49:30 +0000

I think you don’t ask for “evidence that it works” but instead ask for “evidence that distinguishes it from placebo”.

By: Steven Novella

Steven Novella — Sat, 14 May 2011 16:31:48 +0000

cc. Yes they decry plausibility all the time. In my live debate on homeopathy Rustom Roy referred to it as “Novella’s law of plausibility” – suggesting that I invented the notion of plausibility as a trick to argue against CAM.

This comment recently appeared in the topics thread:

“Dr. Novella, it’s ironic that you claim to be of “science-based” medicine when you in fact sherk the principles of science, and by your own admittance, by tryting to create your own new scientific paradigm: “plausibility.” “

By: BillyJoe7

BillyJoe7 — Sat, 14 May 2011 08:59:53 +0000

ccbowers,

“…how is tap water not the most powerful homeopathic medicine ever created?”

Because it hasn’t been succussed.

By: nybgrus

nybgrus — Sat, 14 May 2011 07:21:04 +0000

The thing is this guy is pretty slick. He angrily pounds the desk and yells that there is evidence goddamnit! for CAM. And he eschews those that don’t have evidence – at least during class. It was only in our private conversation he brought up reiki. He stated to me he thinks homeopathy is BS. He walks that line and promulgates the false dichotomy and pulls a few of the less crazy things under the tent. I need to bust him on his “evidence” – my real question is, how can I do so, in front of a class of 300 people, without making myself look like a foolish student just making waves for the sake of it?

By: ccbowers

ccbowers — Sat, 14 May 2011 02:38:25 +0000

I think that second question gives them an out. Perhaps you are better off raising a glass of tap water and declaring it the most powerful homeopathic medication in the world

By: ccbowers

ccbowers — Sat, 14 May 2011 02:31:45 +0000

In addition to what d2u said, how is tap water not the most powerful homeopathic medicine ever created? Or do all the different dilute chemicals cancel each other out?