Why "proof" is on the claimant?
in [Alternative]
|
From: Peter Moran on 11 Jul 2006 18:29 This question crops up all the time. Medicine is a very practical affair. There is little benefit to mankind from a good treatment if you cannot convince others of its benefits. That and the fact that there are a zillion possible claims but so little time is mainly why in medicine the onus for "proof" always lies with the claimant. I have put "proof" in inverted commas because "building up the evidence" is a better expression. In medicine we only approach true "proof" once findings are found to be replicable (i.e. others get the same results). So in the first instance the evidence merely needs to be enough to make others take an interest in the proposition and test it for themselves. If the evidence is not enough to achieve that, then it is by definition not enough. Mind you, another consideration commonly arises with alternative treatments and is worth a mention, and that is that the question may be of too little practical medical importance. We don't necessarily need a dozen new ways of treating anxiety or tiredness, for example. And we know people enjoy being treated. They will value and respond positively to any kind of medical nurture, whether it really does anything physiologically or not. We don't need to devote funds into researching that over and over again. Peter Moran www.cancerwatcher.com
From: Rich on 11 Jul 2006 22:49 "Peter Moran" <pmoran(a)bordernet.com.au> wrote in message news:44b4265b$0$22362$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > This question crops up all the time. Medicine is a very practical > affair. There is little benefit to mankind from a good treatment if you > cannot convince others of its benefits. That and the fact that there are > a zillion possible claims but so little time is mainly why in medicine the > onus for "proof" always lies with the claimant. > > I have put "proof" in inverted commas because "building up the evidence" > is a better expression. In medicine we only approach true "proof" once > findings are found to be replicable (i.e. others get the same results). > So in the first instance the evidence merely needs to be enough to make > others take an interest in the proposition and test it for themselves. > > If the evidence is not enough to achieve that, then it is by definition > not enough. > > Mind you, another consideration commonly arises with alternative > treatments and is worth a mention, and that is that the question may be of > too little practical medical importance. We don't necessarily need a > dozen new ways of treating anxiety or tiredness, for example. And we > know people enjoy being treated. They will value and respond positively > to any kind of medical nurture, whether it really does anything > physiologically or not. We don't need to devote funds into researching > that over and over again. > Do you mean to tell us that an undocumented online video with a claim that it shows a virus turning into a bacterium is not absolute proof that "Darwinism" is wrong, and that Revici and Rife were right afterall about pleomorphism? Awthrawthr will be stunned! ;o) Rich
From: Marcia on 12 Jul 2006 10:01 Peter Moran wrote: > This question crops up all the time. Medicine is a very practical affair. > There is little benefit to mankind from a good treatment if you cannot > convince others of its benefits. That and the fact that there are a > zillion possible claims but so little time is mainly why in medicine the > onus for "proof" always lies with the claimant. > > I have put "proof" in inverted commas because "building up the evidence" is > a better expression. In medicine we only approach true "proof" once > findings are found to be replicable (i.e. others get the same results). So > in the first instance the evidence merely needs to be enough to make others > take an interest in the proposition and test it for themselves. > > If the evidence is not enough to achieve that, then it is by definition not > enough. > > Mind you, another consideration commonly arises with alternative > treatments and is worth a mention, and that is that the question may be of > too little practical medical importance. We don't necessarily need a dozen > new ways of treating anxiety or tiredness, for example. And we know people > enjoy being treated. They will value and respond positively to any kind of > medical nurture, whether it really does anything physiologically or not. > We don't need to devote funds into researching that over and over again. > > Peter Moran > > www.cancerwatcher.com "Inverted commas" are called quotation marks. :)
From: Mark Probert on 12 Jul 2006 10:17 Marcia wrote: > Peter Moran wrote: >> This question crops up all the time. Medicine is a very practical affair. >> There is little benefit to mankind from a good treatment if you cannot >> convince others of its benefits. That and the fact that there are a >> zillion possible claims but so little time is mainly why in medicine the >> onus for "proof" always lies with the claimant. >> >> I have put "proof" in inverted commas because "building up the evidence" is >> a better expression. In medicine we only approach true "proof" once >> findings are found to be replicable (i.e. others get the same results). So >> in the first instance the evidence merely needs to be enough to make others >> take an interest in the proposition and test it for themselves. >> >> If the evidence is not enough to achieve that, then it is by definition not >> enough. >> >> Mind you, another consideration commonly arises with alternative >> treatments and is worth a mention, and that is that the question may be of >> too little practical medical importance. We don't necessarily need a dozen >> new ways of treating anxiety or tiredness, for example. And we know people >> enjoy being treated. They will value and respond positively to any kind of >> medical nurture, whether it really does anything physiologically or not. >> We don't need to devote funds into researching that over and over again. >> >> Peter Moran >> >> www.cancerwatcher.com > > > "Inverted commas" are called quotation marks. :) > Peter is from Australia, and his perspective is 180 degrees different. :)
From: awthrawthr on 12 Jul 2006 10:56
Rich wrote: > "Peter Moran" <pmoran(a)bordernet.com.au> wrote in message > news:44b4265b$0$22362$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > This question crops up all the time. Medicine is a very practical > > affair. There is little benefit to mankind from a good treatment if you > > cannot convince others of its benefits. That and the fact that there are > > a zillion possible claims but so little time is mainly why in medicine the > > onus for "proof" always lies with the claimant. > > > > I have put "proof" in inverted commas because "building up the evidence" > > is a better expression. In medicine we only approach true "proof" once > > findings are found to be replicable (i.e. others get the same results). > > So in the first instance the evidence merely needs to be enough to make > > others take an interest in the proposition and test it for themselves. > > > > If the evidence is not enough to achieve that, then it is by definition > > not enough. > > > > Mind you, another consideration commonly arises with alternative > > treatments and is worth a mention, and that is that the question may be of > > too little practical medical importance. We don't necessarily need a > > dozen new ways of treating anxiety or tiredness, for example. And we > > know people enjoy being treated. They will value and respond positively > > to any kind of medical nurture, whether it really does anything > > physiologically or not. We don't need to devote funds into researching > > that over and over again. > > > > Do you mean to tell us that an undocumented online video with a claim that > it shows a virus turning into a bacterium is not absolute proof that > "Darwinism" is wrong, and that Revici and Rife were right afterall about > pleomorphism? Awthrawthr will be stunned! Please explain how a virus morphing into a bacterium supports mutational evolution? It's now up to you to prove that the findings of the Grayfield microscope are false other than baseless accusations. While it's fine to be skeptical, the company accepts slides sent to them that they will evaluate with their microscope. > > ;o) Rich |