What's the Harm...to believe in pseudoscience!

(1/3) > >>

Brian (January 29, 2012, 10:43:13 AM):
Here's and interesting site I found; don't know if you're aware of it but it provides a nice framework of reference to debunk the rubbish people talk when it comes to miracle cures etc.http://www.whatstheharm.net/

according to the site:
Quote
368,379 people killed, 306,096 injured and over $2,815,931,000 in economic damages
I assume in the US alone....think about deaths in our own country re withc burnings, circumcision etc.
Faerie (January 30, 2012, 07:40:21 AM):
Lovely, I'm blocked:

Quote
Security Event (S058IPS00100F.absa.co.za)
Access to this URL is currently restricted because of its classification.

URL: http://www.whatstheharm.net/
Content classification: Cult/Occult


BoogieMonster (January 30, 2012, 10:02:57 AM):
Hrm, while those of us who are on this side of the argument may think this is cool, I think not very.

I could take some of the stories about quack medicine and apply it directly to modern medicine and see how an opposing entity could use just such a story against modern medicine too:

"Timmy got cancer, timmy went to get chemo and radio therapy, timmy died. Science cost timmy his life".

Proof by anecdote doesn't work.
Hermes (January 30, 2012, 11:32:53 AM):
Hrm, while those of us who are on this side of the argument may think this is cool, I think not very.

I could take some of the stories about quack medicine and apply it directly to modern medicine and see how an opposing entity could use just such a story against modern medicine too:

"Timmy got cancer, timmy went to get chemo and radio therapy, timmy died. Science cost timmy his life".

Proof by anecdote doesn't work.

I agree that anecdotes alone are inadequate to assess the efficacy of remedial procedures or medication and that scientific testing is required. What www.whatstheharm.net does is to illustrate the ill effects of practices which do not comply with such scientific standards.
Brian (January 30, 2012, 14:00:37 PM):
You're right of course Boogie...it was not the intention to use the anecdotes loosely to validate claims for/against cures but to further illuminate the lack of scientific rigor when such claims are made: it would however IMHO seem that anecdotal evidence if validated is a good spot to begin the process that normally inter alia incorporates statistical trends that support/reject the original hypothesis.

@Faerie: Did your employer block it 'coz I cam access it anytime???

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page