Guest guest Posted March 20, 2001 Report Share Posted March 20, 2001 Greeting to all, I have followed the ``making things up'' thread with interest because it is a part of the larger question of what composes authority and validity in CM. I distinguish authority - the assertion that something can be attributed to an authentic Chinese source - from validity - an assertion that something leads to an expected and successful clinical outcome. Authority is the simpler of the two because in both East and West there are standards that can be similarly followed. To determine the authority of a statement, we need the references that allow our peers (anyone possessed of the same skills and information) to examine our claim. Whether by traditional means such as the use of phrases that quote or linguistically echo a particular known, typically classic, text, or by means of reference footnotes, bibliographies and glosses, we are doing more or less the same thing. In other words, authenticity is a scholarly issue for which we have useful practices. Validity, on the other hand, is more complex because the quantification of statistical validity testing obscure the similarities. For example, the test-of-time is understandable as an assertion that an outcome has reliably occurred over such a substantive experience (a sample over time) that it can be expected to happen reliably (is valid). Certainly the math is modern but the essential expectation that what has happened reliably in the past will happen reliably in the future is shared by both the traditionalist and statistician. What I would like to add to this thread is the idea that, once authenticity and validity are clearly noted, validity claims can usefully exist in a variety of contexts which we can usefully distinguish. ``Making things up'' - clearly labelled as speculation and clearly explained as such and discussed among clinical colleagues who share an interest seems to me to be a part of the creative process that is both useful and necessary. Since everyone understands the speculation to be speculation, we can look at things through other's eyes and develop both as individuals and as a group. On the other hand, the same speculation labelled as theory in a text book, or as a claim for some product, would surely misdirect naive readers who assume that textbooks are based on a field-wide set of evidences or agreements. In the case of ``it works for me'' claims (so-called anecdotal information) there are more responsibilities than with theoretical speculations. For example, to make a claim of validity based on personal experience you cannot provide ``proof'' - literally by definition. A single inquirer can no more prove a clinical issue than can a single case. However, you can provide evidence. For example, there is no reason why the colleagues to which you make your assertion should not know the number of cases you have seen, the diagnostic criteria you have used, the outcome measures you employed, etc. In other words, even in the assertion of personal clinical experience, there are some basic peer responsibilities. Since these can be quite simply stated (e.g.: I saw 25 people; all had the following symptoms and signs, and I discharged the patients when the following symptoms were remediated), something like this might fit into even fairly informal discussions of clinical experience such as here on CHA. At the level of culturally-accepted truths there are of course more formal evidence demands but in terms of discussions among ourselves there are reasonable standards for making claims that do not put any undue burden on the exchange of information, or the ability to speculate freely. bob Paradigm Publications www.paradigm-pubs.com 44 Linden Street Robert L. Felt Brookline MA 02445 617-738-4664 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2001 Report Share Posted March 20, 2001 Certainly the math is modern but the essential expectation that what has happened reliably in the past will happen reliably in the future is shared by both the traditionalist and statistician.>>>Very nicely put email. Thanks,. But, if we look at western medicine for example, we now find that many drugs and procedures that have been thought to be effective, do not pass the test of good evidence based studies. Every day we can read studies that question decades of so called clinical experience. Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2001 Report Share Posted March 21, 2001 Bob: In a message dated 3/20/01 1:07:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, bob writes: I have followed the ``making things up'' thread with interest because it is a part of the larger question of what composes authority and validity in CM. I distinguish authority - the assertion that something can be attributed to an authentic Chinese source - from validity - an assertion that something leads to an expected and successful clinical outcome. Authority is the simpler of the two I appreciate your thoughts on this matter and include below the Mirriam Webster citations on the use of the terms authority and validity. It appears that you are using the narrow definition (1) related to citations. I certainly find the distinctions you are rendering useful, however they should be clarified as distinct usage for this forum. Will Main Entry: au·thor·i·ty Pronunciation: & -'thär- & -tE, o-, -'thor- Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ties Etymology: Middle English auctorite, from Old French auctorité, from Latin auctoritat-, auctoritas opinion, decision, power, from auctor 13th century 1 a (1) : a citation (as from a book or file) used in defense or support (2) : the source from which the citation is drawn b (1) : a conclusive statement or set of statements (as an official decision of a court) (2) : a decision taken as a precedent (3) : TESTIMONY c : an individual cited or appealed to as an expert 2 a : power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior b : freedom granted by one in authority : RIGHT 3 a : persons in command; specifically : GOVERNMENT b : a governmental agency or corporation to administer a revenue-producing public enterprise <the transit authority> 4 a : GROUNDS, WARRANT <had excellent authority for believing the claim> b : convincing force <lent authority to the performance> Main Entry: val·id Pronunciation: 'va-l & d Function: adjective Etymology: Middle French or Medieval Latin; Middle French valide, from Medieval Latin validus, from Latin, strong, from valEre 1571 1 : having legal efficacy or force; especially : executed with the proper legal authority and formalities <a valid contract> 2 a : well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory> b : logically correct <a valid argument> <valid inference> 3 : appropriate to the end in view : EFFECTIVE <every craft has its own valid methods> 4 of a taxon : conforming to accepted principles of sound biological classification - va·lid·i·ty /v & -'li-d & -tE, va-/ noun - val·id·ly /'va-l & d-lE/ adverb synonyms VALID, SOUND, COGENT, CONVINCING, TELLING mean having such force as to compel serious attention and usually acceptance. VALID implies being supported by objective truth or generally accepted authority <a valid reason for being absent> <a valid marriage>. SOUND implies a basis of flawless reasoning or of solid grounds <a sound proposal for reviving the economy>. COGENT may stress either weight of sound argument and evidence or lucidity of presentation <the prosecutor's cogent summation won over the jury>. CONVINCING suggests a power to overcome doubt, opposition, or reluctance to accept <a convincing argument for welfare reform>. TELLING stresses an immediate and crucial effect striking at the heart of a matter <a telling example of bureaucratic waste>. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.