It's tempting to talk about the human psychological urge to do something in the face of a problem -- an urge that serves us well in many situations, though it may also serve us poorly. And it's tempting to talk about how double-blind statistical studies are, at most, a few hundred years old, are nonintuitive for most people, and are often poorly understood even by those who are supposed to be experts.
But let's put that aside and ask: Do humans even care about the "effectiveness" of this ritual? Perhaps the use of acupuncture to improve fertility is a social signal. I can well imagine that infertile Chinese women feel one hell of a lot of social pressure to demonstrate that they're doing everything possible -- including all sorts of financial and physical hardship -- to get pregnant. Acupuncture is a dramatic statement of purpose, especially if it costs "hundreds of pounds". But if the alternative is for your husband and his family to grow unsympathetic, or even suspicious...
Scientists have also shown quite convincingly that smoking, wearing high heels, and being anorexic are very bad for your health, and yet many women do all of these things, at great physical and financial expense. Heck, there was a time within living memory when a well-bred Chinese woman would have had her feet bound in childhood, crippling her for life, in order to enhance her marriageability. Compared to that, the fact that some women feel compelled to undergo acupuncture is a sign of tremendous progress.
Robin Hansen speculates that a lot of behavior concerning medicine is about social signaling rather than desire to alter medical outcomes. In particular, people push medicine onto others as a way of showing that they care.
Why people can't accept evidence? What do you know as "truth"? Just look at the title of the article: "Acupuncture 'no help for IVF'"
See the single quotes around the key statement? Even the reporter does not want to endorse the truthfulness of the statement. Wise choice, since the content of the article states something that is, at least up to a point, opinion.
Rather your question should be: "Why do some people, like myself, so readily accept incomplete facts as absolute truths?" Take heed and listen to bdfh42's comments about assessing evidence. He is right on the money, no need for me to repeat what he stated.
The single quotes are very common on the BBC in headlines and are used inaccurately for direct quotes. Don't ask me why they do that. It's in no way suggestive that the reporter is or is not endorsing the statement.
And it's not opinion. Looking at 2000+ women over 50 years is not merely opinion. It's a lot stronger evidence than "I'm really surprised by this result", which most certainly is opinion. Statistical anlysis does not care about experience, and when done properly it speaks in the cold hard truth that any effect we may have observed previously is spurious.
For myself, I'll happily accept the stats that the article talks about now as the best objective evidence we have now, and will happily change my mind when new evidence emerges.
Because the BBC is funded by a mandatory licence fee (TV tax) and so it must appear even-handed and balanced. If they're not, people complain that "I pay my licence fee but the BBC is mocking my deeply-held beliefs." It really annoys me sometimes ("Islamist terrorists" rather than "Muslim terrorists") but in other respects they are an excellent source of information.
That's fine, no one is trying to convince you. I personally have no stake at all in changing your mind, nor did I imply so. Don't feel threatened.
I was just trying to say that people identify themselves with a viewpoint and then their ego silently but consistently defends the viewpoint since defeating the viewpoint diminishes the ego's self-worth. Reading an article, for example, then becomes an analysis, "friend or foe." It is either something to agree with and reinforce the ego's stance or something to attack since the ego is being threatened.
When my Mom is trying to discuss something that she thinks I should be doing, I don't disagree, I always agree. It's kryptonite to parental worries. Statements like "if I truly wanted to be like that, I would be doing that. And since I'm not, it's obvious that I'm not committed"
Because, in our society, rhetoric has become accepted as evidence. So, when Sally says "I used acupuncture and it helped me conceive", that counts as evidence. When a creationist says "well, a banana fits nicely in my hand which shows an intelligent designer", that's evidence.
This combined with the fact that the scientific community seems bent on publishing even when they have studies with no statistically significant result. I'm reading more studies of 50 people in two cohorts where one had 10 do something and the other had 11 do something touted as a breakthrough. In fact, it's evidence of nothing.
So, the value of rhetoric has grown in people's minds and the value of evidence has diminished because people are publishing crap.
The most fundamental problem is that we are talking (in this instance) about belief systems. People seem programmed to reject even positive evidence that conflicts with their belief systems - just as they ignore the complete absence of evidence supporting things like religious faiths, fairies at the bottom of the garden etc.
The second problem is that very few of us are taught how to assess evidence. Most lack the skills required to judge the relevance and likely accuracy of what is presented. Evidence (I know) to support this hypothesis can be gleaned from almost any daily newspaper - most items are written by intelligent human beings but the results lack any analysis that reflects an ability to process evidence properly.
I agree 100%. My initial question was from the final quotes from Paul Robins who seems to assess the evidence correctly ("This study has shown that there's no proof that acupuncture can help") and then pivots into close-mindedness by saying "that suggests that there should be lots more studies to examine the question. I'm convinced it can help."
I want to see him come up with well-controlled studies to support his conviction.
As I understand it, when the original article was published there was a huge uproar in the academic community about the findings and intentions of the study. Those concerns were addressed in a reply from the author:
"The purpose of the article was to ask the following question: Would you believe in a study that looks methodologically correct but tests something that is completely out of people's frame (or model) of the physical world---for example, retroactive intervention or badly distilled water for asthma?
There are three ways to deal with this question:
(1) To answer in the affirmative. But this leads to such paradoxes (some described by those who responded to this article1) that it is incompatible with scientific work or even daily life.
(2) To look for methodological or statistical faults. Here an obvious one was that the duration of fever and the duration of hospital stay are related. But what if the next study sports perfect methodology and statistics?
(3) To deny from the beginning that empirical methods can be applied to questions that are completely outside the scientific model of the physical world. Or in a more formal way, if the pre-trial probability is infinitesimally low, the results of the trial will not really change it, and the trial should not be performed. This, to my mind, turns the article into a non-study, although the details provided in the publication (randomisation done only once, statement of a wish, analysis, etc) are correct.
The article has nothing to do with religion. I believe that prayer is a real comfort and help to a believer. I do not believe it should be tested in controlled trials."
"Evidence based" has recently become a popular ideology/buzzword in the medical community. Although it is always comforting to have a tangible set of numbers to reference, "evidence-based" findings are often adopted without legitimate consideration of experience-based/anecdotal data.
It is the current culture to accept anything with the label of science as indisputable truth. As a rule, I don't think it is ever a good idea to blindly follow. Even the most well designed studies are worth debating. The more you question, the more you discover.
