Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!sun!amdahl!ems
From: ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: Placebos CANNOT cause cancer!!!
Message-ID: <1631@amdahl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Jun-85 14:06:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdahl.1631
Posted: Fri Jun  7 14:06:54 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Jun-85 00:37:33 EDT
References: <1589@aecom.UUCP> <1273@hammer.UUCP> <1550@amdahl.UUCP> <1685@aecom.UUCP> <1592@amdahl.UUCP> <2522@randvax.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Circle C Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, Ca
Lines: 41

> Methinks he doth protest too much.
>
Perhaps, but this *IS* the net ... :-)

> Science would never progress if it expended all its energy trying to
> rule out one-in-a-million chances.  Granted, a few things might get
> missed over the years, but if we spent our time straining at gnats, no
> progress at all would occur--which in the long run may have a far
> worse effect than prematurely accepting a discovery as fact.  At least
> in the latter case the mistake will probably come to light eventually.
>
Very good points.  I would add, though, that the 'probably come to light'
depends to some extent on a willingness to re-examen old ideas
and to overturn accepted dogma.  These traits have not come easily
to the academic professions, medicine in particular.

> It's the old economic law of diminishing returns, and isn't peculiar
> to science or medicine.  There is no such thing as a ``perfect''
> study, and no such thing as statistical certainty.  The idea is to
> reach reasonable certainty, and then move on, trying to build on what
> came before.

SO TRUE!  But we need to remember that we are only dealing with
'reasonable certainty' and not with *FACT*.  We need to keep our
eyes and minds open for the anomalies that give the lie to our dogma.

>               We don't have forever, and at least in medicine, lives
> depend on timely solutions.
> 
An excellent point. While using that solution, though, we
need to keep asking our selves: What are we assuming that may be wrong?
Remember how many years science was set back by folks who
would not believe what Galilaeo (sp?) could see.  There are
many more examples.

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems

This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but
not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)