
Why can't people just accept evidence? - pierrefar
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7495837.stm
======
mechanical_fish
_Why can't people just accept evidence?_

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.

~~~
yummyfajitas
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.

<http://hanson.gmu.edu/showcare.pdf>

------
gm
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.

~~~
pierrefar
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.

~~~
m0nty
"Don't ask me why they do that."

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.

~~~
pierrefar
I 'almost' 'wrote' a 'joke' blog 'post' about their 'stupid' "headlines".

------
bdfh42
Two problems here.

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.

~~~
pierrefar
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.

------
mdasen
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.

~~~
hugh
_Because, in our society, rhetoric has become accepted as evidence._

How do your examples count as "rhetoric"?

Also, can you provide examples of any other societies, present or past, where
this was different?

------
wustl07
I would like to refer everyone to this study for a minute -->
[http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/323/7327/1450?maxtos...](http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/323/7327/1450?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=prayer&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=11)

Yes that is a serious experiment.

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.

------
wallflower
I've had acupuncture before. It can help.

It's all about what you believe. The power of the mind.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo>

~~~
pierrefar
Absolutely it can help in some ways through a placebo effect, but placebo has
known link to increasing fertility.

