Is anecdotal evidence dangerous?

[everlasting]

Sorry, I'm not sure if you were referring to Catherine or I with that comment, Thal. But although there are some MDs that are doing medical research, the vast majority of medical researchers are PhDs (so trained scientists).

 

[Cacia]

go back a few rungs and leave the truth finding to the pros.

I think when you do that, you are late to the party. I'd rather cast a bigger net and get some poor data, but more information, overall, on which to make life decisions. (I am not waiting until science proves you should eat broccoli)

 

[Thalassamania]

Sorry, I'm not sure if you were referring to Catherine or I with that comment, Thal. But although there are some MDs that are doing medical research, the vast majority of medical researchers are PhDs (so trained scientists).

While you may know better than I, in my experience the problems in medical science are rarely in the basic research that is usually conducted by PhDs, it tends to be in the clinical trials that are usually supervised by MDs.

 

[everlasting]

Science is not perfect and people are not perfect, if you live out on the edge of science you need to be prepared for some disappointments. If you are not, "intimately familiar with the methods and standards of the particular field," then I do not suggest that you attempt to participate at that level, go back a few rungs and leave the truth finding to the pros.

That IS kind of my point. Most people can't participate at that level (I'll be the first to admit that there are times that I can't, especially when it comes to diving) and are forced to "go back a few rungs" and take the "truth" that scientists discover on faith. We choose to trust science just like we choose to trust some anecdotes. Blind faith in ANYTHING is dangerous, whether it's in someone who says he's done a bounce dive to 165' on air with no safety stop and was fine or whether it's in science and USN tables that tell you that the aforementioned profile is safe.

(Please don't get me wrong with the above statement, I'm not judging your dive profiles or saying anything about the safety of USN tables, just that blind faith in either anecdote or science is dangerous)

 

[Thalassamania]

That IS kind of my point. Most people can't participate at that level (I'll be the first to admit that there are times that I can't, especially when it comes to diving) and are forced to "go back a few rungs" and take the "truth" that scientists discover on faith. We choose to trust science just like we choose to trust some anecdotes. Blind faith in ANYTHING is dangerous, whether it's in someone who says he's done a bounce dive to 165' on air with no safety stop and was fine or whether it's in science and USN tables that tell you that the aforementioned profile is safe.

(Please don't get me wrong with the above statement, I'm not judging your dive profiles or saying anything about the safety of USN tables, just that blind faith in either anecdote or science is dangerous)

To start with, I done MANY bounce dives to 165 and deeper, one air, with no stops and a 60 FPM ascent rate. And whilst there is no such thing at a "safe" (e.g., no risk) profile, that one has minimal risk. This comes not from anecdotal data (such as I just provided) but from theoretical exercises, confirmatory experiments, peer review and publication followed by extensive field trials. That's how science is suppost to work. The problem is not with "blind faith" its with jumping in too early in the game with inadequate knowledge and preparation. If you read a paper in the early days and used that to cut a set of tables you'd have been in deep bantha po-du at several depths that had to modified during the confirmatory experiments. If you started diving the newly minted tables the same would have happened because operational experience resulted in still further modifications. But in any case, 5 minutes on air at 165 with a 60 fpm, uninterupted, ascent to the surface is very unlikely to hurt you, at least from a bends standpoint.

 

[Cacia]

Good science take a lot of time--until scientists can crack that nut, often the results will be apparent before the science gets in--if you are willing to observe it in a rational way. (meaning, what are the consequences if I am wrong, factoring in what I stand to GAIN vs what I stand to lose)

You cannot have this discussion without identifying what the likely negative outcome would be if you are wrong in making an assumption, and what benefit or gain you stand to lose by discounting the anecdotal suggestions of the evidence.

I have rarely seen so little understanding of the scientific method and actual practices.

And I am constantly amazed at how many bright scientists can't see some very basic things outside of their little corner of the world. (not YOU, necesarily )

How do you account for all the practices in the field of trauma care that precede any science? Do you think they wait around for a study to figure things out, in combat? Debakey did not have anything but his own "anecdotes" when he invented or improvised in the OR.

No..they take a jab at their best guess, and often the science follows.

I'm sure the first guy to tie a rope around a bleeding limb did not have a study from Harvard. Some people must function in a vacume of science....explorers included.

This debate is why there will always be a rub between people in the laboratory and people who are not.

 

[everlasting]

Sorry, Thal. The 165' foot dive profile was just an example. Personally, that's not a profile I would do but not because I believe it's inherently unsafe. I'm not criticizing you for it, I'm not saying you're doing something extremely reckless and dangerous when you do it. That wasn't my intention. I'm sorry if you interpreted my comment that way.

 

[Cacia]

Come on Thall, where did you go? I want to fight. You are such a scientist. xoxox ... maybe Hawaii and Pele will compensate for that, lol.
You need to address my point about that plane called *time*.

Everlasting, are you a UCSD resident or medical student in La Jolla? ..cause that is my guess. If you are, I hope you keep your integrative perspective, we need physicians that surf that wave. Personally, I think UCSD has an oustanding bunch of very progressive doctors, on the cutting edge. Scripps too, of course. That community is my first choice for health care, mostly because they do sound science but don't have their heads up their butts.

And Thall: why do you think the "Ivory Tower" is called that?

or are they just a bunch of dummy's that don't understand the scientific process?

or do intellectuals engage in pursuits that are disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life? Academic elitism, if not outright condescension is addictive.

Actually, I love your diving posts because you are very good at applying science to practical situations. I just wouldn't be to quick to write off the value of direct observation, as long as too many dangerous assumptions are not made.

 

[Thalassamania]

Direct observation with an N of 1 is anecdotal. Direct observation with an N of more than one is indicative. Direct observation with an N that is defined by the confidence interval required is statistics (and usually science).

 

[Cacia]

I had not heard that in awhile.