PD.COM: Now Installing Death Panels!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
No. Anecdotes don't cut it. But they may provide the genesis of pattern recognition. For that reason alone they may have value.
They can indicate patterns, but how well? All I have to work on is someones word, no physical measurements.
Exploration of patterns shows evidence of patterns, period. It takes INFERENCE (hypothesis) to go beyond that. A cladogram doesn't indicate evolutionary relationships, it only indicates a pattern of homologies, which are all individually hypotheses of sameness. From that, I generate a hypothesis of the reality, but that may not be the reality at all. The point is, you can never really KNOW the causal factors, which means you want the best fucking pattern evidence you can get to derive your inferences. Anecdotes don't cut it.
AND: Is it true that you can never really know the causal factors? (again, not being a smart-ass, I just found that sentence jarring.)
News reports say that the Taliban is receiving less drug money than previously thought. Which means the poppy eradication strategies we've been using don't really hurt them all that much.
Not quite sure what that means going forward, but I thought I should bring it up.
But only anecdotal.
Bullshit. I, and the other graduate students in my department with research assistantships, are evidence.
Honestly cannot see why anyone would want to go to Mexico.
All my neighbors, who expended serious time, energy and risked life and limb trying to escape from mexiico have been telling me horror stories about Government death squads, warring drug lords and rampant poverty.
Sounds like Somalia to me.
But, if he isn't afraid of the implications, he will work to show his 'belief' thereby strengthening his patients 'belief' which may do something no one has as yet been able to replicate in a laboratory or reduce to a chemical equation. He does this because there has been enough anecdotal evidence about 'belief' influencing survival rates, both positively and negatively, to use the tool even though he has almost no way to explain it's potential, sometimes, not always replicable, efficacy.
I think that's what I like so much about the law of fives. It is one of the tools that can be used very successfully when following LMNO's advice to "cut it out". But so much of scientific advancement is sparked from intuitive leaps that further the collective understanding... all the testing and proving comes after the formulation of a hypothesis, so it seems a little counter-productive to stagnate by endlessly replicating the provable when the next big chunk of the puzzle is more likely to be out there with all the other black swans, just beyond present comprehension.
Pattern "recognition" can mislead you to a law of fives situation too.
No. But they can indicate patterns. Exploration of patterns can lead to evidence of causal factors. Isn't recognition of patterns that lead to evidence that indicates causal factors pretty much the basis of scientific inquiry? (Newton, apple, etc?)He does this because there has been enough anecdotal evidence about 'belief' influencing survival rates,
Rubbish. Anecdotes are not evidence.
Think for yourself? Why bother to think at all? Replication. Consumption. Expiration. Maybe flatworms are smarter than to try to "win" when there is no game being played. Maybe it takes a monkey to fool themselves into believing there is more. The dim hope of a dumb ape.
I know I'm not a robot or a cabbage...