Jul 9, 2025
Оfftopic Community
Оfftopic Community
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Featured content
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
OffTopic Community
Offtopic Forum
Poll: Belief in pseudoscience/paranormal phenomena
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="hachikopa" data-source="post: 3056490" data-attributes="member: 95116"><p>Everyone is bias. They key is to be at least bias as possible.</p><p></p><p></p><p>No, this is dogma. Pseudoscepticism. Any legitimate sceptic will change their mind given sufficient evidence.</p><p></p><p></p><p>What do you mean here? Of course I am bias towards authentic scientific studies! The scientific method is the proven best method of establishing what is true.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Well these are all claims which cannot be verified by me. However the latter claim is completely understandable… to not become emotionally attached to a patient. That makes perfect sense. Doctors constantly see patients and their family suffer and patients die. Establishing a professional relationship rather than an emotional one, while it might be difficult to do, is probably the best thing to do. If a patient dies, the doctor literally has to ‘move on’ to other patients. This might seem callous but it is his job. That is why, I would think, councillors would be available to handle this aspect emotion side.</p><p></p><p></p><p>What does this have to do with my comment?</p><p>I wasn’t talking about now; I was talking about after it potentially being proven.</p><p>If it is proven it will be free in social health care countries. In non-social healthcare countries the alternative practitioner could and probably would charge much more, or at least as much as the MD.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I have looked into the claim, and yes, it makes perfect sense that doctors can, for example, identify potential heart problems or blood flow problems due to the pulse, however it is something else entirely to suggest you can diagnose all sorts of different conditions and diseases such as cancer just via a pulse check! That is what I was questioning. Even in western medicine I highly doubt a diagnosis is made just by a pulse check. </p><p></p><p></p><p>I’ve checked out the link you’ve posted as like CKava has stated, these are not conclusive. And yes, I do state overall that it tends to be negative because it is true, and ultimately this is what is important. Yes, there are many positive studies however when you look at all the studies you tend to see an overall negative result. I see no problem in mentioning this as a valid reason for being sceptical. You on the other hand tend to keep mentioning personal experience/anecdotal accounts and while I don’t doubt your personal experience on these matters, there are many reasons for doubting anecdotal ‘evidence’. Often the success that people report are a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, which is to say A then B, therefore A caused B. For example, people may visit an alternative practitioner or take an alternative medicine and find the illness is improved or healed, and therefore they credit the practitioner or alt medicine as the reason for the cure when any number of things could be the cause, including, no less, time itself. This is precisely why we have double-blinded testing as it removed these types of possibilities.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Repeated clinical significance under properly controlled well design blinded studies. We need to be sure that the medicine or therapy does what it says it does (i.e. beyond the placebo effect) and that it is safe (i.e. we know the dangers, etc). As for what continues significant, well I gather this would depend on the individual medication/treatment be tested and the claims being made. While there may be a minimal line for any treatment, I would imagine some studies put in place specific conditions as to what continues significant.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I would imagine that a doctor would be well within his rights not to recommend a treatment procedure or medication which has not proven. While he cannot stop the patient from going ahead with such treatment on their own accord, I’m sure, for example, a doctor would want to know the potential dangers involved before recommending and/or agree to it. Otherwise he could be placing himself in potential legal danger. The dangers of a treatment are part of the clinical studies, another reason why they are important. If I were a doctor I may tell them there is not enough evidence for me to recommend such treatment, but that I cannot stop them from going ahead with it at their own choice.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="hachikopa, post: 3056490, member: 95116"] Everyone is bias. They key is to be at least bias as possible. No, this is dogma. Pseudoscepticism. Any legitimate sceptic will change their mind given sufficient evidence. What do you mean here? Of course I am bias towards authentic scientific studies! The scientific method is the proven best method of establishing what is true. Well these are all claims which cannot be verified by me. However the latter claim is completely understandable… to not become emotionally attached to a patient. That makes perfect sense. Doctors constantly see patients and their family suffer and patients die. Establishing a professional relationship rather than an emotional one, while it might be difficult to do, is probably the best thing to do. If a patient dies, the doctor literally has to ‘move on’ to other patients. This might seem callous but it is his job. That is why, I would think, councillors would be available to handle this aspect emotion side. What does this have to do with my comment? I wasn’t talking about now; I was talking about after it potentially being proven. If it is proven it will be free in social health care countries. In non-social healthcare countries the alternative practitioner could and probably would charge much more, or at least as much as the MD. I have looked into the claim, and yes, it makes perfect sense that doctors can, for example, identify potential heart problems or blood flow problems due to the pulse, however it is something else entirely to suggest you can diagnose all sorts of different conditions and diseases such as cancer just via a pulse check! That is what I was questioning. Even in western medicine I highly doubt a diagnosis is made just by a pulse check. I’ve checked out the link you’ve posted as like CKava has stated, these are not conclusive. And yes, I do state overall that it tends to be negative because it is true, and ultimately this is what is important. Yes, there are many positive studies however when you look at all the studies you tend to see an overall negative result. I see no problem in mentioning this as a valid reason for being sceptical. You on the other hand tend to keep mentioning personal experience/anecdotal accounts and while I don’t doubt your personal experience on these matters, there are many reasons for doubting anecdotal ‘evidence’. Often the success that people report are a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, which is to say A then B, therefore A caused B. For example, people may visit an alternative practitioner or take an alternative medicine and find the illness is improved or healed, and therefore they credit the practitioner or alt medicine as the reason for the cure when any number of things could be the cause, including, no less, time itself. This is precisely why we have double-blinded testing as it removed these types of possibilities. Repeated clinical significance under properly controlled well design blinded studies. We need to be sure that the medicine or therapy does what it says it does (i.e. beyond the placebo effect) and that it is safe (i.e. we know the dangers, etc). As for what continues significant, well I gather this would depend on the individual medication/treatment be tested and the claims being made. While there may be a minimal line for any treatment, I would imagine some studies put in place specific conditions as to what continues significant. I would imagine that a doctor would be well within his rights not to recommend a treatment procedure or medication which has not proven. While he cannot stop the patient from going ahead with such treatment on their own accord, I’m sure, for example, a doctor would want to know the potential dangers involved before recommending and/or agree to it. Otherwise he could be placing himself in potential legal danger. The dangers of a treatment are part of the clinical studies, another reason why they are important. If I were a doctor I may tell them there is not enough evidence for me to recommend such treatment, but that I cannot stop them from going ahead with it at their own choice. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Verification
Please enable JavaScript to continue.
Loading…
Post reply
Top