Is skepticism unhealthy?

Blutoski,
The other problems are all those associated with correlational studies. For example, directionality. Living a long time may prompt people to start going to church. Anecdotally, I've noticed that a lot of men who used to line up for tee time while their wife and kids went to Mass started going back to church.
Possibly to pray for their golf game to improve.
 
saizai said:
Titan & Cuddles - Skeptics can certainly believe in modern medicine, but need still be distrustful of argument from authority even from MDs.

After all, MDs promote quackery too y'know.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

"There are two basic forms of appeal to authority, based on the authority being trusted. The more relevant the expertise of an authority, the more compelling the argument. Nonetheless, authority is never absolute, so all appeals to authority which assert the authorities' claims are definitely true are fallacious.

The first form of the appeal to authority is when a person presenting a position on a subject mentions some authority who also holds that position, but who is not actually an authority in that area. For instance, the statement "Arthur C. Clarke recently released a report showing it is necessary to floss three times daily" should not convince many people of anything about flossing, as Arthur C. Clarke is not a known expert on dental hygiene. Much advertising relies on this logical fallacy in the form of endorsements and sponsorships.

The second form, citing a person who actually is an authority in the relevant field, carries more weight in that the authority is more likely to be correct. However the possibility of a mistake remains."

Argument to authority is not always a bad thing. It is usually called out as a fallacy when the first form is invoked. This seems to happen with a lot of mindless celebrities using sCAM, and if they do it it must work.

In this case though, only the second form applies. Of course we shouldn't believe everything a doctor says just because they are a doctor. However, any qualified doctor has spent many years learning about medicine and they are likely to know what they are talking about. As I said, if I go to a doctor and they prescribe a drug, I won't argue with them because I know they are likely to know what they are talking about. This isn't argument to authority, it is simply their job. If they are doing it wrong they will be investigated for malpractice and probably lose their job and end up in jail.
 
Cuddles - True enough.

But I would make the distinction between "it's true 'cause I say so" and "it's true 'cause there've been studies blah blah here look at the standard drug info form".

I require the latter from my doctors, FWIW.
 
russingram said:
As a kid, I had a wart on my hand. My mom told me clear nail polish would "smother" it. I painted it on the wart for a week, and it fell off. My Dad explained the placebo effect to me. The next time I got a wart, clear nail polish did not work. My skepticism ruined the placebo effect.
Click to expand...
So your second wart was sceptical whereas your first one wasn't. Do you have any more information on the ability of warts to think independently of the host body?

Yuri
 
saizai said:
Skeptics, one could reasonably conclude, should be less likely to experience placebo effect in most cases.
Click to expand...
Let's not overrate the placebo effect:
The Amsterdam Medical Disciplinary Tribunal has struck off one doctor and suspended two others for their exclusive use of complementary treatments— including “vegatests,” homoeopathic medicine, and food supplements—to treat Sylvia Millecam, the Dutch actor and comedian who died from breast cancer in 2001 at the age of 45
Click to expand...
Credulity is not a survival factor.

Yuri
 
Yuri Nalyssus said:
So your second wart was sceptical whereas your first one wasn't. Do you have any more information on the ability of warts to think independently of the host body?

Yuri
Click to expand...

it was the host body that believed the treatment would work, and therefore rejected the wart - once the host body was convinced the treatment was actually a placebo, it was no longer able to reject the wart.
 
Last edited:
Yuri - I'm not arguing in relation to the exclusive use of 'complimentary' treatments, only about its additional effect or lack thereof in conjunction with clinically proven treatment.
 
saizai said:
Cuddles - True enough.

But I would make the distinction between "it's true 'cause I say so" and "it's true 'cause there've been studies blah blah here look at the standard drug info form".

I require the latter from my doctors, FWIW.
Click to expand...

You really ask your doctors for supporting trials and evidence every single time they diagnose something or prescribe something? They must absolutely hate you.

The whole point of having professionals is that they spend time learning about their subject so that they can be trusted to know what they are talking about. Anyone could prescibe a medication if they spent time looking up all the available facts and evidence. We have doctors so that we don't have to do that every time, they already know the answer. This is not to say you should blindly believe everything they say, but you should certainly not question every descision they make.
 
Cuddles said:
You really ask your doctors for supporting trials and evidence every single time they diagnose something or prescribe something? They must absolutely hate you.
Click to expand...

I ask them to tell me how tested and well supported it is, and absolutely every time I ask the pharmacist for the full-info package insert so I can review the details myself. So, yes actually. :D

Response is generally pretty positive.

Sometimes I respond with my own suggestions and we discuss the various options. I much prefer to have a personal hand in it.

Of course, having some neuropharmacological training does help. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom