Steve Novella har en gave for å si det enkelt og tydelig. I dette tilfellet burde det vært selvfølgelig: Man kan ikke dikte nye regler for bevisføring bare for å tilpasse dem konklusjoner man gjerne vil nå:
Andrew Weil wants to relabel anecdotes he favors as «uncontrolled clinical observations.» This is a way of getting to choose after the fact which observations count, rather than letting the rules of science decide.
Dr. David Katz from Yale’s «Integrative Medicine» Program wants to allow for «a more fluid concept of evidence.» This way modalities he favors, such as homeopathy, that have failed by the generally accepted rules of science can still win with his more «fluid» rules. …
The rules of science and evidence exist for a reason – they maximize the reliability of the conclusions we reach. In medicine, an applied science, this has immediate implications for the health of the public. We cannot have two systems of rules in medicine, one for»mainstream» medicine, and a second set of «fluid» rules for everything that fails to meet these rigorous mainstream rules. That is equivalent to having no rules at all. In fact it is worse, because it gives the false impression that there are rules, and this engenders a faith in the system that is not justified.
Unless there is one set of rules the entire system fails. We should not acquiesce to those who want to let the ball bounce once and still count.
Les hele. Det er en nytelse.