Baloney Detection Kit

[Ms. Toad]

21. Good advice -

particularly if one applies it equally the "anti-woo" side of the current discussions. The label "woo" as it is being used on DU relies heavily on the excluded middle, the slippery slope, straw men, and observational selection (to the extent it applies different criteria to categorize alternative medicine as "woo," than it applies to traditional medicine).

Top more specifically address the last point, I would add applying different standards to evaluate the validity of a position based on whether you agree with it or not.

I evaluate all medical care by the same standards - and am fully aware that much of my traditional medical care is not evidence based (in the sense of being supported by double blind placebo based research). Much off label use of drugs isn't, much surgery isn't, much of the treatment for rare conditions isn't, participation in clinical studies certainly isn't. The majority of the anti-woo arguments seem completely unaware of this reality yet treat traditional medical care as presumptively supported by the evidence (requiring proof that it is not safe or effective before rejecting it as "woo&quot and alternative care as presumptively not supported by the evidence (requiring proof that it is safe and effective before treating those who use it with respect).

The two are not equal in terms of the availability of evidence supporting the efficacy and safety - mostly because there is more money to be made in traditional medicine (availability of insurance to pay for it, the price of medication, etc.), and money pays for research. That makes my personal default, most of the time, traditional medicine - because I do significant research on any out-of-the-ordinary condition and treatment before treatment (aside from emergencies), and trustworthy research is easier to access with traditional medicine and, in most instances, there are quality controls which govern the contents of traditional medication - and even if the medication hasn't been proven effective for the particular condition for which it is being prescribed - it has been for some other condition.

Whether or not there is not scientifically rigorous proof the suggested treatment (traditional or alternative) is effective and safe is an important factor to consider. But even in traditional medicine, the answer inquiry is often that there is not - and when there is not, you have to do the best research and reasoning you can about what evidence there is. That often means that you move forward without solid proof. You might be moving forward with traditional medicine - you might be moving forward with alternative medicine - or you might be moving forward with a combination. All of those choices, in the presence of responsible scientific inquiry but the absence of absolute proof, ought to be treated respectfully - and not met with cries of "Woo kills" when "woo" is only applied to the choice to move forward with alternative medicine without solid evidence but not the choice to move forward with traditional medicine without solid evidence.