Conventional Med

Anecdotal Evidence: The Basis of All Knowledge

April 11, 2012 by admin in Science with 50 Comments

by Heidi Stevenson

Whenever someone expresses an opinion based on personal experience, especially in the field of medicine—and that opinion varies from the view held by the listener—the usual response nowadays is, “Well, that’s just anecdotal. The science doesn’t agree with you.” That statement sounds so convincing. After all, we can and do make mistakes in our observations. We make connections that aren’t there.

But, does that make anecdotal evidence invalid? And are science-based answers necessarily correct? In a word, No.

Doctors effectively and necessarily use anecdotal evidence every day. These bastions of evidence-based medicine actually base most of their practices on anecdotes. Sound crazy? Consider:

If you tell your doctor that a drug he’s just given you is causing a terrible headache, the chances are that you’ll be believed, and your treatment will be changed. He’s basing that decision on the anecdotal evidence you’ve just given.
Doctors tell each other stories of experiences during surgeries. If one doctor tries a new technique in surgery, it is almost never tested. Other doctors simply try it themselves if it sounds interesting. They’re basing those decisions on nothing but anecdotal evidence.

So, what is scientific evidence that makes it so important that one’s personal experience can simply be ignored, tossed aside as if it holds no value? In this age of science for sale—science co-opted by multinational corporations in virtually every arena—it has come to mean less and less in terms of providing real information on which to base health decisions.

Science in Medicine

In point of fact, anecdotal evidence is routinely provided in medical journals. They frequently produce articles of individual cases. If such anecdotal evidence weren’t of value, then why are such stories printed? It’s because they are evidence. Each case matters. Each case counts. The anecdotal evidence is of value.

Science can be a wonderful tool for gaining knowledge. It is not, though, the be-all and end-all of knowledge—especially in terms of health. Medical science studies tend to be one of two types:

The blinded placebo-controlled study, with variations on blinding and placebo-control.
The population-based epidemiological study.

Both are useful, but neither tells the whole tale. The blinded, placebo-controlled study attempts to eliminate anything the researchers deem to be irrelevant or likely to skew the results. That, though, narrows the focus to such a degree that it cannot account for all the variables that affect each individual person who might be subjected to the product, usually a drug, under investigation.

Population-based studies provide information about what’s true across enormous groups of people. They provide averages and ranges. However, they tell us nothing whatsoever about each individual.

Ultimately, the only evidence that truly matters is anecdotal: what a treatment does to the individual. It matters not if some nonexistent average person might benefit from it. That has little bearing on the individual’s reaction. It matters not if a large proportion of people tolerate a treatment well, if the individual is made ill by it.

The only medical evidence that truly counts for each person is anecdotal.

Modes of Learning

Does this imply that there’s no place for science? Of course not! Science is a fabulous tool for gaining knowledge. It simply isn’t the only one. Logic, which is distinct from science, is obviously of great value in coming to conclusions about what is and is not real. Einstein himself used logic in his famous thought experiments. It wasn’t until later that they were demonstrated to be true.

Unfortunately, those who promote science in medicine to the exclusion of all other means of learning miss the most significant fact of all: Humans are individuals, complex beyond comprehension. Life itself is something more than the interaction of chemicals and the laws of Newtonian physics.

The nature of life goes beyond chemistry and physics. Life exists because of something that doesn’t exist in anything inanimate: the struggle to survive and reproduce. Life has volition, and that makes it complex beyond the ability of any science experiment to predict with surety what will happen when any treatment is given to any individual. Yes, science can predict fairly accurately what will happen, on average, in large groups—but not what happens with each person within that group. Yet, medicine must treat the individual. That is obvious.

And that is why so-called evidence-based medicine fails. It ignores the most salient point of all: No person is average.

Anecdotal evidence combined with logic is how most knowledge was developed throughout most of humanity’s existence. How best to grow food was generally figured out by seeing what worked, exchanging information, and using logic. If it hadn’t been effective, we wouldn’t be here today. We know there are seasons because of observations. No studies needed to be done to discover that.

We learned that certain herbs had beneficial effects by trying them and passing on the information of what resulted: pure anecdotal evidence. But that’s how we know, for example, that milk thistle is good for the liver and hawthorn is good for the heart. No studies needed to be done. We learned through experience and anecdote.

Now, though, anecdotal evidence is deemed inadequate. It isn’t suggested that the methods of science can add to our knowledge. Instead, we’re told that the only acceptable means for learning is science, in spite of its obvious limitations when applied to individual people.

Reason for the Science-Only Focus

Why does this bull-headed blindness about science exist? Why is it so often used to bully people, especially those who espouse medical views that run counter to what’s accepted by modern mainstream medicine? The reason is really quite simple and crass: money.

Science has become the tool of corporations to get what they want. The more money they have, the better they’re able to control the outcomes. The better they control the outcomes, the more readily they can force their products on the masses of people. This alone should clarify that science is not the perfect tool so often presented.

The truth of this is readily apparent in medical science:

Those studies that have so-called negative results, meaning they conclude that the hypothesis is incorrect, are rarely published, in spite of the fact that such information is every bit as valuable as the results from a study that confirm the hypothesis.
Studies that don’t get the results the sponsoring corporation wants are almost never published.
Studies are routinely twisted with statistics designed to provide skewed results.
When results are not what was desired, the conclusions are often spun to give the impression they were.
Even the goals designed into studies are often not what we need to learn, such as investigating whether a drug lowers cholesterol but not whether it reduces heart attacks.

All these tricks are used to skew science, making it a tool of the sponsoring corporations. The stranglehold of these corporations goes so deep that studies sponsored by government agencies are often every bit as corrupted as those produced directly for corporations, because their people are infiltrated within the agencies, and their money often controls what the agencies choose to support.

It all comes down to money. Science, a wonderful tool, though not a perfect one, is held up as the only way we can get to the truth. It simply isn’t the case. Nonetheless, it’s been crammed into the public consciousness that nothing is to be believed unless it’s been proven by science.

The real joke here, though, is that the statement, “proven by science”, contradicts the very nature of science. Nothing is ever treated as absolute and true. That is, nothing is absolutely proven in science. Especially in the arena of medicine, the best that can be stated is that the preponderance of scientific evidence shows that something is probably true. That’s all. And it never says that something is true for any individual person.

Anecdotal evidence is meaningful. To ignore it is to court the dictatorship of science taken out of its moorings and twisted to the purposes of corporations with no interest beyond profits. Anecdotal evidence is the only sort that holds any meaning in terms of medical treatment for each individual. Anecdotal evidence is the basis of all knowledge. Science has no place to start without anecdotes and reason. It’s a tool of those two methods of learning, not their replacement.

Tagged anecdotal evidence, anecdotal evidence knowledge, anecdotal evidence learning, anecdotal evidence logic, anecdotal evidence reason, anecdotal evidence science, conventional medicine, modern medicine, pharmaceutical drugs, pharmaceuticals, science

Guest

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/04/a_homeopath_lectures_scientists_about_an.php
Guest

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/04/a_homeopath_lectures_scientists_about_an.php
You should read it.
HeidiStevenson

Please note that posts placed for the purpose of advertising something are labeled as spam for Disqus and deleted.
- Iduckles
  
  Also, apparently, disagreeing with the author or pointing out her lack of understanding of logical fallacies is grounds for being banned.
Guest

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/04/a_homeopath_lectures_scientists_about_an.php
This link is not advertising, it deals with the faulty and misleading arguments presented here. Everybody who read this article should read this link too.
Pingback: NeuroLogica Blog » Alternative Medicine’s Attack on Science
Brs04wsc

Wow. I’m really not trying to be mean or a troll, but it would seem that the author has literally no scientific training whatsoever. That would be fine is that same author didn’t want to write about science. As a scientist, I really hope too many people are not mislead by the points above – this is scientific illiteracy, and I’m being kind.
- HeidiStevenson
  
  You have offered nothing but ad hominem attacks. That’s hardly a scientific point of view.
  - http://www.facebook.com/people/Ian-Duckles/100002476898377 Ian Duckles
    
    I disagree, accusing someone who writes a science article of having no scientific training is not an ad hominem as it is clearly relevant to an evaluation of the arguments made. If someone who knew nothing about auto repairs wrote an auto repair manual, pointing out that that person has no idea what she is talking about is clearly a legitimate objection.
    - HeidiStevenson
      
      Of course it’s ad hominem. It’s discussing the author, not the words written.
      
      If a person writes something on auto repairs without being a trained mechanic, but does a good job, who cares if he’s not formally trained?
      
      What matters is what’s written, not who wrote it. And to accuse someone of an ad hominem attack for stating that someone else has used such an argument is … well, bizarre describes it nicely.
      
      If the best someone can do is claim that the author isn’t knowledgeable, rather than discussing the commentary, then that person has nothing of value to say about it.
      - iduckles
        
        This is a very common error people make in understanding the ad hominem. Not every personal attack qualifies as an ad hominem. The characteristic of an ad hominem is that it is an unreasonable or irrelevant personal attack. For example, if someone recommends homeopathy and makes a great deal of money off of it, but then gets sick and goes to a traditional doctor for normal medical care, it is not an ad hominem to note that fact the next time a person writes an article in support homeopathy.
        
        On an unrelated note, I am very surprised to see that I was banned from commenting on this article.
      - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003850281846 Earl Dickinson
        
        That’s funny. I linked an article which deals with the arguments made here very thoughtfully. And you deleted that link.
      - HeidiStevenson
        
        Links aren’t arguments. They’re spam. Comments that consist of links and nothing (or virtually nothing) else are routinely deleted.
        
        What’s funny is the suggestion that such comments deserve any other treatment.
      - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003850281846 Earl Dickinson
        
        So you still refuse to deal with legitimate criticism. Of course you refuse, that’s what a real scientist would do.
      - HeidiStevenson
        
        In point of fact, you have not made an argument – you have merely claimed that someone else has, and expect me to go there to read it.
        
        Then, you attack me claiming that I cannot deal with criticism. I don’t have the time for this sort of ad hominem attack, as opposed to real discussion. You clearly have nothing to offer
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=549888564 Roslyn Ross
  
  Are you really suggesting that only scientists can write about science; doctors about medicine; poets about poetry; politicians about politics; car mechanics about cars? It is not only lacking in common sense it would lead to a world where everything which was written was subjective and prejudiced and open debate and freedom of speech were denied.
Dfg

This article is complete rubbish
Dfg

This article is complete rubbish
ROFLCOPTERY

Anecdotal evidence isn’t worthless (it’s partly what the scientific method is based on), it’s only comparatively worthless when compared to scientific evidence. The scientific method is one of the most important developments in human history and it’s THAT which decides whether your anecdotal evidence is just a random event or something of potential causal value.

Anecdotal evidence could be something like “my father used his mobile phone all the time and has now got a brain tumour”, “my brother lived near a nuclear power station for 10 years and now has cancer”, “the drunkards at the end of the street aren’t getting cholera” or “milkmaids never seem to get smallpox”.

In order for any of those anecdotes to be taken seriously, the scientific method has to be applied to your reasoning. From the above evidence (and any other available supporting/contradictory evidence) form a hypothesis along the lines of “mobile phone use causes brain tumours to develop”, “living near a nuclear power station gives you cancer”, “drinking nothing but beer stops you getting cholera” or “sitting on a milkmaid’s stool makes you immune to smallpox”.

Test that hypotheses with carefully controlled, reproducible experiments and draw conclusions from the results. Other people need to repeat the experiments if they show anything important, to ensure that it’s not a defect with the experimenter.

This is the basis of the scientific method, and it’s largely contradictory with what’s in this article. I assume that it’s for this reason Brs04wsc refers to scientific illiteracy; the fact he hasn’t outlined it explicitly might make you think (possibly legitimately) that it’s an ad-hominem attack.
- HeidiStevenson
  
  What you’re not addressing is that no one has said that science is invalid. Just that it has limitations, and that there are times when anecdotal evidence trumps science. The application of science indiscriminately is as wrong as dismissing anecdotal evidence out of hand.
  
  To suggest that something must be put to a scientific test to know whether it’s true is simply not reasonable. We don’t need to test whether the sun comes up every day. We know it by anecdotal experience. To put it to a scientific test is ludicrous, just as it’s ludicrous to suggest that every observation a patient makes should, or could, be put to a scientific test. Nor is it reasonable to assume that the specific results of a random placebo-controlled trial is even reasonable applicable to any individual, or that the averages across populations have much bearing on the individual. It’s anecdotal evidence about that person in concert with scientific evidence that’s of value.
  
  The point is that there is no single best way to know the world.
  - ROFLCOPTERY
    
    When has anecdotal evidence trumped the scientific method?
    
    By making your statement “The Sun comes up every day” you have applied the scientific method, albeit subconsciously. You’ve asked “Does it rise regularly?” You’ve used past experience to formulate some kind of hypothesis: “The sun rises regularly every day.” You’ve tested it by validating that it does indeed rise with each 24 hour period over a couple of days. On analysis, you’ve concluded that your hypothesis is valid.
    
    Thing is, someone else somewhere has a superior hypothesis, going beyond yours, which states that the sun doesn’t rise every 24 hours, it varies depending on your position on the earth and the time of year.
    
    Someone else, with even more reliably collected data to analyse has hypothesised that the sun and earth only have a limited lifetime and the process will not continue indefinitely.
    
    Your anecdotal experience might be enough to get you through the day, but it doesn’t stand up against the greater scientific rigour applied by someone else. (Remember I said that “Anecdotal evidence isn’t worthless, it’s only comparatively worthless when compared to scientific evidence.”)
    
    “…it’s ludicrous to suggest that every observation a patient makes should, or could, be put to a scientific test.”
    
    – Every? I agree, most patient complaints aren’t worth investigating but the important ones that are a big deal are important for science to look into. Take “My aunt has lots of wifi in her house and now she gets regular headaches”. If someone passing that anecdote is suggesting that one is causing the other, then it’s important to find out if the link is real – because there’s vast numbers of people who might also be in danger due to their similar use of wifi technology. Is auntie Maggie’s sore head a coincidence or a result of the wifi in her house? How will we ever know? By scientific investigation.
    
    “The point is that there is no single best way to know the world.”
    
    – There is. The scientific way. It’s simply a far more organised collection of anecdotes, under controlled conditions where possible. It’s not perfect, but it’s the single best way we have.
    - HeidiStevenson
      
      Anecdotal evidence can – and often does – save lives. By applying one’s personal experience with the adverse effects of a treatment and using those personal experiences to refuse to continue that treatment, one is using anecdotal evidence. No studies – no science – required.
      
      The sun comes up every day. We know it from anecdotal experience, and that knowledge has been passed down through the generations. It never required any sort of scientific experiment to know that. Going on to discuss what has been learned through scientific methods changes that fact. All it changes is the topic of discussion.If I find that being near wifi causes me headaches, I don’t need to do an experiment to figure it out. I know it anecdotally. If every member of my family has the same experience, that anecdotal evidence has value. If a large number of the people I know have that experience, it’s anecdotal evidence, but it’s certainly valuable evidence – and may be worth acting upon. To wait for science to prove it to me is ridiculous. In such a case, anecdotal evidence may trump the scientific approach.You misunderstand the patient complaints point. It has nothing to do with whether each one is worth investigating. It has everything to do with the individual – which is the point here. One’s personal anecdotal evidence trumps any science in such cases. No formal study needs to be done to accept that the individual’s personal experience is meaningful. No results from any study, either random-blind, meta, or any other variation holds one whit of meaning in those cases. And the results of all those studies did nothing to predict the results in a single person.To say that there is one single best way to know the world is equivalent to saying that there is only one truth, and that sounds rather religious in nature.
      - ROFLCOPTERY
        
        The thing is, it’s not that you should “wait for science to prove it”, as if you need permission from someone else in order to act on something, it’s that it’s already been investigated and no causal link has been demonstrated – the science will beat anecdote every time. If there’s still something unusual happening, apply your observations of anecdotal evidence in a scientific way (I mentioned the example of the birth of epidemiology earlier which is an example) and the statistics will out, you’ve turned your small sample into a much more representative sample. That’s not anecdote trumping science, it’s science being bettered by better science – the only difference is the understanding of the statistics.
        
        You can act and behave however you wish (within reason obviously), but it’s not enough for medical professionals and people who make decisions which affect the lives of others to rely on anecdotal evidence; the evidence needs to be there. For every person you can find who gets headaches near wifi, I can find ten who don’t – so what public health decisions can be made on the back of that? None (certainly not that it’s safe). What’s needed is an objective and impartial study to determine if the link is causal and/or statistically significant. The tricky thing is identifying what is objective and impartial and what isn’t.
      - HeidiStevenson
        
        Not true. Science will not necessarily be able to prove a causal link in a few cases, even if it’s there. Even if it could. it still would not change the fact that, when the individual needs to know – now – the available evidence is anecdotal. And none of that means that the anecdotal evidence is anything but correct.
        
        Yes, it obviously is enough for medical professionals to use anecdotal evidence. As pointed out in the article, they do so every single day.
      - ROFLCOPTERY
        
        Your point in the article is flawed. The first such point (the doctor and the patient with the headaches, supposedly brought about by the medication) seems to infer that the doctor believes without immediately the patient when he says it has given him a sore head. I don’t think that’s the case.
        
        The doctor probably won’t fall into the trap of assuming an automatic causal link between the two (possibly independent) events, but that doesn’t mean he can convince the patient that [the patient’s] assessment is flawed. A disgruntled patient would probably not take the medication if the doctor ignored the patient’s claim, so it is in everybody’s interest for the doctor to simply prescribe an alternative treatment and send the patient away happy.
        
        It may of course be true that the headache is cause by the medication, however this will be documented in the trials conducted in the name of science-based medicine (i.e. 10% of people showed a side effect of a headache compared to 1% in the control group would suggest that the patient’s claim is plausible).
        
        A relationship between a patient and a GP is not a scientific relationship (compared to a doctor-doctor relationship). You cannot always pacify a wrong patient who insists he is right – so providing a placebo of some description to pacify the patient while his body gets better all on its own is a common tactic. Negotiation is sometimes as important as clinical expertise at times.
      - HeidiStevenson
        
        It’s rather humorous how you fall back on your belief in science uber alles in an attempt to prove your point. You seem to think that the fact a relationship between a patient and doctor isn’t scientific somehow helps your claims – but that’s just the point made in the article.
        
        You’re calling a doctor-doctor relationship scientific? That’s ludicrous! A relationship as science? That’s the sort of argument that comes from magical thinking.
        
        You seem to believe that doctors are entirely rational in their treatment of patients. That’s ludicrous. Your belief – emphasis on the term “belief” – in science, no matter what and in all situations, belies a certain religiosity in your belief system.
      - ROFLCOPTERY
        
        I’m struggling to get your point. What kind of professional relationship do you think doctors (in any field) have with each other if it’s not a scientific one? They sit about and discuss the weather over cups of tea? The thing that medical practitioners have to deal with which other science practitioners do not is that they have to deal with the public on matters which are very important (i.e. the patient’s own health). That’s a definite skill, most scientists don’t interact with the public at all on matters within their field (unless they choose to), but almost all will interact with others in their field as an important scientific exercise.
        
        You’re the one trying to associate “science” with “religiosity”, not me. That is a complete nonsense, and it’s a pure attempt to diminish the stature of evidence based observation and rational thinking to the level of faith which can then be seen as equal alongside other faith-base treatment (allowing you to pick and choose at will from any of these treatments as you outline in this “ludicrous” article). I think you need to have a proper look at what the scientific method really entails, because I don’t think you understand it at all.
      - Dea Syria
        
        What you’re not getting is this equation:
        
        Homeopathy works = Science doesn’t work.
        
        They’re mutually exclusive.
        
        Your statement about anecdotal evidence sometimes trumps science is just a lie you’ve made up to fool the ignorant (I hope you’re proud of yourself).
        
        The Aztecs beleived that the sun would not rise each morning unless a certain stone burried under one of their temples was washed with huamn blood every night. And no one could be sure that the sun would come up until Galileo and Kepler explained how c lestial mechanics works. Otherwise they wouldn’t ahve iamginde things like Yahweh stopping the sun so one his sycophants could murder a few more Baal worshippers before sundown.
      - HeidiStevenson
        
        If you believe that, then you have no idea what science is. Science does not prejudge what does and doesn’t work.
        
        What the Aztecs believed or the ancient Greeks and Romans in their bloody sacrificial rites or anything else you want to bring up from religious histories are not relevant to this topic.
        
        Accusing me of lying has earned you banishment. That’s is not an acceptable way to debate – and you’re wrong.
      - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=549888564 Roslyn Ross
        
        If you read the article carefully you will see it does not say that science does not work. It simply says it does not have all the answers and is only one method of finding the answers and that anecdotal evidence, while villified by science in general, is an invaluable part of medical science.
        
        By the way, while it is a digression, homeopathy does work which is why millions of people around the world use it and numbers are increasing and have continued to do so in the three hundred years it has been around. I am guessing you have never tried homeopathy, but if you have and it did not work for you, rest assured it works for most and particularly well with children and animals who are less likely to have rigid belief systems which consciously or unconsciously prejudice them against things which are not lauded by science.
        
        Re: your comments on the Aztecs, Hebrews and others, I think you could do some more reading both of history, religion, myth and spirituality. The fact is that there are spiritual teachings thousands of years old which explain very well how the cosmos works long before Galileo and Kepler.
  - Helena
    
    Actually you are saying science is invalid. If Homeopathy were real–instead of a fantastic form of magic–then everything science knows about the physical world would be wrong. How do you account for the fact that the technology produced by science since Hahneman’s day obviously works, as well as the fact that human lifespan has more than doubled thanks to vaccines and other scientific medical interventions?
    
    By the way, I think I may have spelled Haneman’s name wrong–that doesn’t refute my argument.
    - HeidiStevenson
      
      What a strange argument! You claim something that isn’t stated or implied in the article, and then go on to reference science since Hahnemann (correctly spelled, by the way), as if it has anything whatsoever to do with the topic.
- TomSparc
  
  It’s always fun watching someone who has demonstrated deep ignorance of how science works – e.g. your belief that “anecdotal evidence is partly what the scientific method is based on” – lecture everyone else on how science works.
  
  >> “living near a nuclear power station gives you cancer”
  
  Childhood Leukemia in Germany: Cluster Identified near Nuclear Power Plant – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892120/
  New study links childhood leukaemia to nuclear power plant radiation – http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1235795/new_study_links_childhood_leukaemia_to_nuclear_power_plant_radiation.html
  - ROFLCOPTERY
    
    Tom, perhaps you’d like to say WHY what I’ve said about the scientific method is so ignorant? The comment you mention isn’t simply my “belief”, it’s a statement of fact. I always thought the scientific method was a simple concept to grasp, but it appears that it’s not necessarily the case for everyone.
    
    I don’t see the relevance of your links, though based on past experience I’m sure that rather than explain their relevance you’ll simply call me an idiot instead.
    - TomSparc
      
      Sorry, I don’t provide free lessons on the basics of how science works. Google will help you!
      
      The fact that you cannot understand why the peer reviewed papers have been introduced suggests your reading comprehension is also deficient. It’s becoming clear why you are struggling to understand seemingly every subject you offer opinion on!
- HeidiStevenson
  
  As you’ve done with all your prior comments, you completely ignore the points made in the article. Significantly, you ignore the point that anecdotal evidence is often the only available evidence in individual instances, such as the one-on-one doctor-patient relationship.
  
  Reasoning is a tool of science – and also of the application of anecdotal evidence.
  
  You are completely ignoring the fact that science is not dissed in the article. It is merely pointed out that it’s not the be-all and end-all of knowlege and that it cannot be applied in all situations – most notably on individual humans in medicine.
  
  As to ad hominem attacks: They are a focus on the author, rather than what the person has to say. They are a misdirection away from the issues brought up by the author. Though they tend to be scurrilous in nature, they aren’t necessarily. The point is that they redirect focus from the subject to the author.
  - ROFLCOPTERY
    
    No I haven’t ignored the points in the article. I’m simply saying that the article is flawed to the point of redundancy.
    
    My first words in the post to which you replied are “anecdotal evidence isn’t worthless”. I appreciate the significance of anecdotal evidence. The thing is that you seem to be trying to elevate its importance far beyond what is appropriate (and crucially, necessary, considering the vast breadth of evidence out there). The one-on-one doctor patient relationship isn’t simply a meeting of two people, one of whom is sick, the other fumbling around for an explanation based solely on what’s in front of him; the doctor has many years of experience in diagnosis behind him, and it’s from this experience (which is NOT anecdotal, but evidence based) which the doctor draws to help make his assessment.
    
    I can’t fully comprehend what your problem is with accepting that evidence based science is FAR superior to anecdotal evidence. Presumably it’s because it’s an essential argument in pushing homeopathy as a viable alternative to real medicine. “Dissing” science as you mention would be too damaging to homeopathy, as the benefits of real science are there for all to see, so it’s obvious which side would win out if the two were in direct conflict. Instead, I presume the tactic is to take the line of “science works, but this works too”. If this is true, then this is a damaging way to proceed.
    - HeidiStevenson
      
      A doctor’s evidence of previous patients is the epitome of anecdotal. It’s ridiculous to suggest that anecdotal evidence is anything but evidence-based. You’re trying to use the term evidence-based as if it can apply only to science. That’s absurd.
      
      You don’t understand my point of view because you choose not to. And now, you’re trying to bring other topics into the discussion in an attempt to smear me, the author, rather than discuss the issue. That is ad hominem – making the author the issue is a digression from the topic.
      
      By the way, “flawed to the point of redundancy” makes absolutely no sense.
      
      You obviously don’t appreciate the significance of anecdotal evidence as long as you refuse to acknowledge that most of what doctors are using with individual patients is the anecdotal evidence brought by that patient combined with the anecdotal evidence of previous patients.
      - ROFLCOPTERY
        
        “A doctor’s evidence of previous patients is the epitome of anecdotal. It’s ridiculous to suggest that anecdotal evidence is anything but evidence-based.”
        – A doctor’s expertise extends beyond their own personal experience.
        
        “You’re trying to use the term evidence-based as if it can apply only to science.”
        – No I’m not.
        
        “You don’t understand my point of view because you choose not to.”
        – I understand your point entirely, and I think that it’s wrong. It’s not lack of understanding, it’s disagreement.
        
        “you’re trying to bring other topics into the discussion in an attempt to smear me, the author, rather than discuss the issue.”
        – We have been discussing the issue at length, don’t try and act as though I’m trying to avoid a discussion by throwing insults, as this is untrue.
        
        “That is ad hominem – making the author the issue is a digression from the topic.”
        – No it isn’t, it’s relevant. It’s an attempt to understand the motivation behind the flawed reasoning in the article. It’s not part of my logic in refuting the article, so no logical fallacy exists.
        
        “By the way, “flawed to the point of redundancy” makes absolutely no sense.”
        –It does. An article can be flawed, yet still have some value. I believe yours is flawed to the point where it is meaningless.
        
        “You obviously don’t appreciate the significance of anecdotal evidence as long as you refuse to acknowledge that most of what doctors are using with individual patients is the anecdotal evidence brought by that patient combined with the anecdotal evidence of previous patients.”
        –”You don’t understand my point of view because you choose not to.”
      - HeidiStevenson
        
        If you bring a discussion of the author into your argument, then you’re using an ad hominem attack. It is a redirection from the issues. Slippery slimy comments like “It’s not part of my logic in refuting the article…” do not change the fact of having used the author as an argument against what the author has written. The author’s motivation is irrelevant in terms of whether the arguments are valid.
        
        You have tried to smear the author as a means of debate. Doing so at any point is a redirection away from the issues in discussion. Claims to the contrary or length of the debate don’t change that fact.
      - ROFLC0PTERY
        
        You’re the one steering things away from the issue, not me. Your post is now solely focused on what you see as yet another “ad hominem attack”.
        
        As I said, the point about the author’s possible motivation does not form part of the argument, it is an aside, which I think is relevant to the discussion as a whole. If an author’s article is flawed, WHY it is flawed is clearly of most importance (as you rightly say). HOW the flaws might have come about is also of interest, albeit of secondary importance to WHY.
        
        Example:
        Person A: “All swans are white.”
        Person B: “That’s not true, because person A is unqualified to make such a statement.”
        
        This is an example of an ad hominem logical fallacy. B is trying to refute A’s statement based on nothing but a personal attack on A. The logic and thus the argument is flawed because there is no logical refutation of A present.
        
        What has happened here is different:
        YOU: “All swans are white.”
        ME: “No they are not, for resaons X, Y and Z. By the way, I think the reason why YOU thinks that all swans are white is because of W.”
        YOU: (ignores X, Y and Z) “W is an ad hominem attack, your argument is therefore invalid (inferred).”
        
        Now the logical flaw is with YOU not ME. W is an aside, it doesn’t make up part of the argument of X, Y, and Z. This is what the “slippery slimy” comment “It’s not part of my logic in refuting the article” means. I’ve put a line in below with pointers to help you see this in action again.
        
        *above this line is the logical argument against your previous post*
        —————————————–
        *below this line is another aside which must not be viewed as the sole reason for disputing your previous post*
        
        I think that the reason you regularly accuse people of smearing you is because your arguments are flawed and you are trying to deflect attention away from the issue at hand because you know you’re on a losing argument (the Galloway defence I call it). By portraying yourself as a victim of a smear attack you’re avoiding answering more difficult questions put to you. The irony now is that it is YOU who is trying to undermine MY argument with a single statement with no relevance to the initial argument.
dond0010

In case anyone would like an alternative viewpoint from that presented by the author:

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/alternative-medicines-attack-on-science/
ROFLC0PTERY

Heidi, I could discuss the limitations of anecdotal evidence and logical fallacies with you all day, however seeing as you’ve gone to the effort of blocking me from posting here, I’ll stop.
R0FLCOPTERY

Now you’ve not only blocked me but are now removing comments you don’t like? I think the extent of your integrity is evident now.

Doesn’t suppressing discussion like that go against the fundamentals of free research and journalism? Or is that particular part of intellectual courtesy not taught as standard practice at the British Institute of Homeopathy?

I appreciate it’s important to keep your page free of spammers and trolls, but I hardly think I fit into either category. It’s obvious your reasoning simply does not stand up to any serious scrutiny, so it’s easier to silence people.

I don’t expect this comment will remain here very long, you’re too much of a coward to leave it up.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=549888564 Roslyn Ross

I thought and felt this was a balanced and sensible article. Not only was it fair and reasoned in regard to science but it offered provoking thoughts which are in everyone’s interests if we are not to see science turned into a religion which is beyond question.
- HeidiStevenson
  
  Thank you very much, Roslyn. It does seem that most readers simply made assumptions about what the article states. It simply discusses the very real value of anecdotal evidence. In no way does it denigrate science. It simply points out that science is not the only means to knowledge and is not always the best approach.
  
  Science is a wonderful tool, but when applied blindly, as if it’s the only means to knowledge, then it’s being treated as if it were a religion, which is to no one’s benefit. You nailed it.
http://razzwell.blogspot.com/ Razwell

A scientific law can be changed just as easily as a scientific theory. Scientific laws could be changed tomorrow with new evidence, perspective or realization of past mistakes. There is no heirarchy whatsoever between a scientific theory and a scientific law – NONE. They are completely different animals serving very different roles.
Did you know that Newton’s three laws of motion are actually WRONG ,speaking in the very strictest sense? That is why we have Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity.
Newton’s laws are not in fact, NEVER strictly true. In most cases they are just very good approximations.
Nothing about a scientific law makes it more true than a theory. If somebody believes that a scientific law is more true than a scientific theory, then they have a fundamental misunderstanding of what scientific laws and theories are.
NOTHING in science is 100 % absolute. NOTHING.
The author of this article is correct. Medicine is not only a science, it’s an ART. What doctors see in clinical practice is often different than what science finds in the laboratory. Human physiology is extremely complex and there is tremendous uncertainty. We must recognize this.
Genuine science always admits to vast oceans of unknowns and much uncertainty. What we know abut human physiology is a glass of water. What we DON’T know could literally fill the vast oceans of the world.
Nobody commenting on here is scientifically literate. Richard P Feynman was not 100 % sure of ANYTHING. In science, all we can be is “less wrong.”
In science, we don’t know what is true, we are trying to find out. In science, we are supposed to doubt. In science, we START OUT by saying “EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLY WRONG, LET US SEE.” We work from there.
- HeidiStevenson
  
  Thank you so much for such a thoughtful response.
  
  The sad thing about so many of these comments is that they are treating science as if it were a religion, whose priests must be obeyed, rather than a wonderful tool that, like all tools, has limitations. Science is fabulous, but it must be understood for what it is: a tool that can help us understand and extrapolate, but not an absolute way of knowing. It is, after all, man made – not divine.
http://www.facebook.com/mmorelli04 Michael Angelo Morelli

Every proposition must have greater evidence in support of the proposition than against it in order to be considered a true proposition. What the author seems to be presenting is a classic appeal to pity on behalf of those outliers who don’t represent the sample of a particular study. The second is an appeal to conspiracy, which again, provides little support in the way of evidence rather than “trust me, because I said so.” This, lastly, is an appeal to authority. I don’t find any concise, conclusive or factual statements made to verify the validity of your proposition that “anecdotes are the basis of all knowledge.” Furthermore, making that statement clearly disregards the entire discipline of Philosophy – much less empirical data.
Pingback: The Plural of Anecdote IS Data! | Gaia HealthGaia Health