Recent criticism of Prince Charles support of CMA by Prof Baum at BMA

[Guest guest]

, " sammy_bates " <sammy_bates@b...>

wrote:

 

> all primary knowledge is based on anecdotal experience.

 

this is indeed correct. Scientific hypotheses are often postulated based upon

uncontrolled

observations. so anecdote is the starting point. But it is incorrect to suggst

that anecdote

alone is adequate to produce valid knowledge. Many anecdotal observations turn

out to

be incorrect when submitted to controlled experiment. Some might suggest this

is

because the scientific process disrupts the integrity of the phenomena being

studied and

thereby makes the expereiment invalid. This is a ludicrous position. Research

can easily

be done that embraces the TCM methodology and quite a few experiments have done

this

and proved the validity of the modality. No chinese herbal practitioner need

fear in the

slightest that properly done reseach will reveal our quackery. However I

believe many

other forms of alt med are indeed just that. In fairness, I do not consider the

practitioners

of said quackery to be knowing charlatans, just ignorant believers.

 

One's intuitive view of the workings of the world are often wrong. the sun does

not rise or

set. The orbits of planets are elliptical. And these ideas hold sway for

centuries just like

many unproven medical therapies. But the reason they hold sway is not because

of

valdidity as much as the adherence to doctrine (whether church or confucian). I

am sure

you could easily find numerous anecdotes over hundreds of years supporting

massive

bloodletting or the use of mercury to treat syphilis, practices that continued

by diehard

believers long after science proved them dangerous and ineffective. The obtuse

language

and tortured logic of the post you forwarded may seem erudite to some, but it

belies a

complete failure to ntoice the endless litany of premodern anecdotes that have

just turned

out to be flat wrong and have impeded science, medicine and culture for all of

history.

While the neijing is a rejection of mysticism, the use of anecdotes as sole

evidence is truly

the refuge of magical thinking. It embraces the bogus postmodern idea that

anything

anyone perceives to be valid is. All lasting nowledge is actually based upon

consensus of

the expert communities which study a given subject. But that consensus must be

free of

doctrinaire thinking or it ends being the just the parroting of authority, which

is not true

consensus at all.

 

[Guest guest]

At 4:13 PM +0000 7/10/04, wrote:

>the use of anecdotes as sole evidence is truly

>the refuge of magical thinking.

--

 

 

 

Anecdotes (eg case reports) are evidence, albeit with a modest level

of quantitative power. If so, how can reliance on them in the absence

of more powerful evidence be magical thinking?

 

Or is your definition of anecdote different than mine?

 

Rory

--

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Jul 10, 2004, at 3:42 PM, bcataiji wrote:

 

> Todd said that:

>

> magical thinking takes refuge in the use of anecdotes as sole evidence

>

> You are claiming that Todd said:

>

> reliance on anecdotes in the absence of more powerful evidence is

> magical thinking

> --

 

Ah! thanks

 

While I agree with the statement, I cannot think of anyone I've

encountered in the 20 odd years of my involvement in Chinese herbal

medicine who takes refuge in the use of anecdotes as sole evidence. Do

such people exist among us?

 

Rory