Posted by dbc on March 30, 2008, at 10:54:29
In reply to Re: Inductive versus Deductive Reasoning, posted by Phillipa on March 30, 2008, at 10:34:16
I always favor empirical evidence but do not always assume its correct with newer substances. Why? Because control group studies are rigged to favor whatever the company wants the outcome to be. They very selectively choose people for their studies and conduct them in a clinical environment with rigid guidelines. This does not translate well to the real world. Of course this is where peer review comes into play but its much harder to fund an indepdent study than one backed by a major pharm corp.
Certain substances have been studied so intensely that theres very little we dont know about them. Benzos, Amphetamine, Phenobarbital, Prozac. We can predict the outcome of ingesting these substances pretty well.
I dont feel comfortable telling people what they should take but if a certain circumstance comes up ill make a purely ancedotal post and reccomend a course of action to try based on my ancedote. But these have to be specific situations.
As you pointed out even in a clinical environment psychiatrists run on ancedotal evidence and dont sit there and tell you the facts about control studies. Most of medicine is like this, if every doctor told their patients 1 in 1000 people that take penicilian goes into anaphylactic shock no one would take it.
poster:dbc
thread:820639
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20080330/msgs/820659.html