Anecdotal evidence is not science!

I think it's obvious that I have been steeping myself in skeptic and science blogs lately. I admit, I had no idea how bad it had gotten in medicine and science in terms of people pushing pseudoscience on doctors, government, friends, family, even strangers. Obviously, if you live in the world, you're bound to see some pseudoscience, but it doesn't make a huge impact until you delve in a little further. I have a strong opinion on this topic, as you will no doubt infer from this overly long winded post.

In 2005 when I was having totally intractable headaches my mom found this "doctor" that she begged me to try. My mom pleaded and begged, so I agreed to go. The woman who called herself a doctor was some sort of Chinese methodology practitioner. First, she prayed over me; that doesn't bother me as much as it would bother some because I tend to think of people who pray for you or who say "bless you," or anything of the kind are simply wishing you well in the best way they know. Anyway, after praying for me she listened to my pulse, did something else I can't remember, then decided that my headaches were being caused by problems in my kidneys. If I would take these supplements she just happened to be selling I would be all fixednewlike!

As many of you know, I had had several strokes caused by a genetic blood disorder. Ironically, since that time I have had bad test results or events for every organ in my body except my kidneys. The woman had the gall to call me a couple of months later telling me she had some new ideas for treatment for me. Yeah, no. The fact that it was legal for her to sell her treatment is simply appalling. I know that in some states it is illegal for doctors to sell prescription medications from their office. The logic is obvious: profit often leads to greed which leads to bad judgment and corruption. Why on earth don't we have the same laws for so called "natural" practitioners? There is reason I've told this little anecdote that we'll get to later.

The thing that I find so enduringly disturbing are the contentions that, 1. science does not equal fact, 2. anecdotal evidence is as good as empirical evidence, and 3. The government/big pharma/anyone who doesn't agree with them are all in on a vast conspiracy to keep the natural medicine people down and/or keep their profits up by way of suppression of the "truth." Let's go through these separately:

Science does not equal fact: I suppose some people want the world to be in a constant state of deconstruction. If we assert that we know that we know nothing (Socrates) then, the thinking goes, we admit that everything is based on faith and fact is something that may or may not exist. Even Descartes took a stand and chose a foundation from which to view the world. The more you deconstruct reality, the world, perception, the more it appears not to exist. That's silly. Yes, I said it, it's silly. It's silly because it isn't workable. What happens to the necessity of perception, life and being if we assert that it is questionable in its existence? Let me say it again: it isn't workable and it never will be workable; you can't build anything on a foundation of nonexistence or even questionable existence. The point is, if you accept existence, then you have to accept fact. How else would you define fact without science? it is the very cause, nature and progression of science. What people who want to make this argument are really trying to state is that belief and science are the same thing. No. Just no. We'll deal with that another time.

The anecdotal contention is probably the more disturbing of the three because it implies that there is no such thing as a wrong answer; everything is based on perception. If anyone is able to draw a conclusion based on experience and call it the equal of empirical evidence then we're going to have all manner of nonsense shoved down our throats. We can make things seems any way we choose to make them appear and it's relatively easy to convince ourselves and others that what they are seeing or have seen is one way rather than another. It's my all time favorite fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc, correlation does not prove cause. That is not to say that anecdotal evidence is totally useless, but it does have its specific place. Can you imagine what would happen if all that was necessary to call a thing science is for two or more people to have noticed a correlation? It would go something like this: the last two times I drove down Mockingbird Lane I got a headache as soon as I reached Greenville Avenue. Therefore, something at Mockingbird and Greenville is causing my headaches. It really is that simple, that nonsensical. We see it all the time in society: I took a class at a community college ten years ago and everyone in that class was a dumbass, therefore community college students are dumbasses. Come on. If it's ridiculous in logical thinking, imagine what it means to science. I'll say it again: using a fallacy to "prove" anything is silly. It's silly for more reasons than just that it doesn't work.

As for the conspiracy of greed theory: I find it incredibly cynical to believe that a large portion of, at the very least, the United States is so intent on greed that they would sell out the people they are supposed to be caring for. Yes, people do it. I would even go so far as to say the current administration and people in higher management jobs at insurance companies do it. But ask yourself: could you? So, which is more likely? That people are generally horrible and willing to do anything for profit as a general rule, or people fall somewhere in the middle of the scale with the extremes taken up by the totally selfless and the totally selfish? It's a simple mean! Buffalo could do it. The problem with extremes is that they only work for, well, extreme cases. You can't apply them to the generality. It is unbelievable to me that anyone could believe that people are so unified in a cause (vaccines) that they would be able to pull off a conspiracy that has lasted eighty years and involved thousands of people. We're people! we disagree and fight and have falling outs and generally have a difficult time coming to a consensus on anything. Yet, we are supposed to believe that thousands of people spread over eighty years were able to do just that? I have no response to that. Wait, yes I do: here's a little video for those of you who see conspiracy around every corner:

Drama Prairie Dog

OK, the purpose of the anecdote related above: Just before I saw the Chinese practitioner I saw an internist. He missed all of the obvious signs of autoimmunity, too. I could just as easily conclude that "western" medicine is as bogus as the Chinese practitioner if I believed in the absolute value of anecdotal evidence,right? The truth is, and I do mean truth, that anecdotes, or experience of the common person in every day life have their place in how we understand and process and live our lives, but they do not constitute fact or science. Also, correlation does not equal cause. If two things that are observed to correlate do end up being related, hey! happy coincidence.

We're almost finished, I promise. My interest in all of this is more than the difference between science and philosophy; it is in the responsibility we have to other people and the truth. This blog post is what got my knickers in a twist. I admit it, I have mad and sudden love for the writer of that blog, but his point is without qualification: asserting something as true because someone else said so, heard so, or you just want it to be so does not make it true. Further, asserting its truth and trying to convince parents to be afraid of something that does not exist instead of the very real threat of diseases for which we have vaccines is contrary to your social responsibility. Anyone can have an opinion, this is true. Anyone can disseminate that opinion, also true. What you do not have a right to do is lie to yourself or others in your attempt to make opinion appear to be fact. If it is not fact, it is opinion and you have no right to call it truth. And that, my friends, is just my opinion.

Not my opinion: there is credible evidence that vaccines or mercury or thimerosal do not cause autism.
My opinion: my red jammy bottoms with the plaid Scottie dogs on them are cuter than yours.
Not my opinion: gravity exists and will cause all earthbound bodies to proceed downwards.
My opinion: this is the longest blog post ever! Wait, that might be true...