The problem, of course, is that a great majority of the population has little idea of how science works. (That majority must include nearly the Republican presidential candidates most of whom do not believe in evolution, think the great flood happened, and that the earth is 6 000 years old.) One of the very best books I have read on how science works to formulate and test hypotheses is: "Snake oil science: the Truth about Complementary and Alternative Medicine," R. Barker Bausell, Oxford University Press. Although the author is primarily interested in the testing of CAM therapies, what he says applies to other kinds of scientific investigations as well. He establishes a credibility scale, which gives one an idea of how much confidence one should place in any scientific testing protocol. The chapter on judging the credibility and plausibility of scientific evidence is beautifully written, and very clear. This is surprising since experimental design is, mathematically, a very sophisticated endeavor, utilizing abstract mathematical tools (measure theory, number theory, probability, regression analysis, approximation theory)., I think it's worthwhile to quote the 6 levels of confidence that describe any experimental set: 1) Randomized clinical trials are more credible than nonrandomized trials. 2) Large RCT's (those with at least 50 patients per group and preferably more than 100) are more credible than small ones. 3) Large double-blinded (neither the patient nomre the experimenter knows) RCT's employing placebo control groups are more credible than RCTs not employing placebos. especially for CAM trials. 4) Large double-blinded randomized placebo-controlled trials with relative minor attrition (preferably less than 20% but certainly with less than 25%) are ore credible than large randomized placebo-controlled trials with high experimental attrition. 5) Large double-blinded randomized placebo controlled clinically trials published in high quality journals have even more credibility. 6) Trials such as no 5) above which have been independently validated have the most credibility of all. Thus when evaluating an experimental set, look for trials that are randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, large, low attrition rated, published in reputable refereed journals, and independently validated. A very useful yardstick. The trials in France which purported to prove that water has a "memory," and were quickly seized upon by homeopaths to validate homeopathic remedies were, when closely examined, found to suffer from grave experimental defects. They were not double blinded (the workers doing the testing knew which samples were which. (Wouldn't you like to keep your job, too?) The lack of independent validation put the nail in the coffin of this experiment. Speaking of homeopathy. I think it is a scandal that homeopathic remedies which promise cures can be sold. How were the House and Senate bamboozled into approving the sale of such remedies? I happened to be in a CVS drugstore the other day, looking over their stock, and my eye fell on 5 different remedies for earache. All of the products were homeopathic remedies, which means that they contained not a single molecule of any active substance. And they were not cheap. I inagine parents spending $10 bucks for a vial of water for a baby with an earache and my blood boils. Maybe one of our skeptics is a lawyer who can explain how this outrage happened. Karen Daskawicz wrote: > > On Dec 12, 2007 11:12 AM, Barbara Meissner <Barbara.Meissner@utsa.edu> > wrote: > > > > > > > Had to apologize for being rude but wouldn't apologize for what I said. > > > > This is more difficult when one is in a situation where one is NOT rude but > the person reacts poorly to what one is saying. I recently was in a > conversation with a relative and was trying, calmly and politely, to analyze > the claims she was making (which had to do with bogus health claims). She > quickly found out that she had made an unfortunate choice since I know quite > a bit about the topic due to my interests in herbal supplements, gardening, > and treatments for mental illness. When things didn't go her way and I was > able not only to counter all her claims but add new information that > contradicted her position, she tried to side-step or change the topic, etc. > I tried to (politely and calmly) insist on sticking with the topic at hand, > which only made her more frustrated. > > Finally, I agreed that we could abandon that topic and she chose another > topic. When, again, I tried to stick to the well-established basics of > analyzing claims, she blew up, told me I was trying to trick her and > manipulate her, and stormed out of the room and up the stairs. > > I have no regrets for anything I said. I have no regrets for how I acted. > I don't even want an apology. All I can do is learn from the experience and > refuse to engage with her in such discussions. > > -Karen Daskawicz > _______________________________________________ > Skeptix mailing list > Skeptix@lists.opn.org > http://www.lists.opn.org/mailman/listinfo/org.opn.lists.skeptix -- _________________________________________________________________ Censorship is a juggernaut that cannot be fine-tuned Jet Foncannon 4516 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19139