Posted by Squiggles on October 26, 2006, at 11:05:14
In reply to Re: Evidence and civility » Squiggles, posted by Lindenblüte on October 26, 2006, at 10:32:09
> > It would be nice if there were
> > resources on this board, where a
> > medical falsehood posted could be caught
> > and reprimanded as uncivil -- much
> > like being impolite, or making
> > racist remarks.
>
> what's a falsehood?
>
> 1) in the literature there are often conflicting studies. One study finds a positive result of X drug on depression. One study failes to find result of X drug.
>
> 2) what does it mean when X drug and placebo both cause reduction in symptoms? I'd rather take X drug than nothing (my doctor won't prescribe me placebo)
>
> 3) sometimes a "truth" is nothing more than a small study that has been over-interpreted.
>
> 4) sometimes there is a big complicated study, and a poster (or even another researcher in the field) takes a tiny snippet of their results or conclusions and then extrapolates. This happens when I read fashion magazine articles trying to give me medical advice- "drink red wine- you'll live 7 years longer!" whatever.
>
> 5) sometimes we know a treatment works, but there is rampant speculation about the mechanism involved. one paper publishes in vitro studies of mouse hippocampal cells and reports that drug X binds to these receptors. Another study presents PET scans of live humans doing spatial tasks and says that drug X impairs map reading, but not mental rotation- and then finds a relation between map reading impairment and drug X dosage, and wow- there is little evidence that drug X even binds to the hippocampus of humans.
>
> I could go on and on...
>
> My point, squiggles, is that science is incremental. Every study builds on what we know, but no study is really so perfect that it can tell us anything with certainty.
>
> I am guilty of having a bad memory. I don't trust my own recollection of mechanisms, results, studies, for the most part. And I take other peoples' interpretations with a grain of skeptic salt.
>
> I don't think this is uncivil though, it's just advancing science and understanding. increments. 1 step forward. .0003 steps back. margin of error. confidence interval. variability.
>
> there is no "truth" in the biomedical sciences. There are only some theories that have strong empirical support (like evolution perhaps, or the central dogma of molecular biology DNA-> RNA-> protein) and other theories that have weaker or antithetic empirical support.
>
> -Li
>
>
> civility has nothing to do with it- unless you think that one poster is *deliberately* trying to POISON another one! well, that's why better talk to a doctor before following advice you get on pbabble.Yes, of course you're right mostly; maybe
i should get some of that sceptic salt.
GULP :-)Sorry, I guess i believe that all scientific
or medical statements must be true or false.
I'm just an old-fashioned romantic. I seem to
have upset you a bit -- sorry.Squiggles
poster:Squiggles
thread:697727
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20061020/msgs/697887.html