Right, the gems in this topic
Aparte, zogler. Please enlighten me on your thought process (kind of following fufe's comment somewhere else) :
- Are you starting from those doi / nature / scientific litterature (maybe at work / studies / for fun ?) then coming here with some gems / nuggets?
- Or you're starting from here, then want to dig more?
Either way, like I've already said, I greatly appreciate your contributions, and that's coming from someone, like fufe, who doesn't usually like too long / dense articles.
Still a pleasure to go through these. Would never have thought there'd be scientific discussions / research on all those subjects, all adding on to / starting from the state of the art knowledge already there
I usually come across interesting and relevant studies on Twitter, and then search the forum for the right topic to post them. But there are times like the recent topic
by peregrinus that pique my interest, often reminding me of something relevant I have stumbled upon and then I have to do my research.
They say the plural of anecdote is not data but I beg to differ. All of history is nothing but a collection of anecdotes, so I guess we can't learn from it after all...
Although we never know how generalizable they are, anecdotes are not worthless as scientific evidence imho.
There are problems with anecdotes ofc, including the statistical phenomenon of regression to the mean; the fact that most ailments improve on their own; the fact that many people use multiple treatments simultaneously, which confuses the precise source of symptom improvement; reporting biases; the cognitive phenomenon of confirmation bias; use of vague outcome measures; the placebo effect; and the fallibility of human memory.
Unlike much of the world today, peregrinus and Kidd are rational, nonconformist and analytical people. Their stories are plausible, they make sense, and they are consistent with our own observations. Peregrinus often cites studies himself as well.
But there are problems with bad science too, including small sample sizes; tiny effects; invalid exploratory analyses; and flagrant conflicts of interest. Not to mention sensationalized headlines; misinterpreted results; unsupported conclusions; unrepresentative samples; selective reporting of data; and unreplicable results.
In my view, most anecdotes and studies we have posted here are high-quality. Hopefully