People who don't understand the burden of proof

[bara]

If I show you, say, a photograph, or show you some fossilised remains that seem to show a pixie, then you are required to refute somehow... BOTH sides need to provide evidence! You don't get to just say "That's not a pixie in that photo" and leave it at that... and, I'm sure you'd agree, just saying that is not evidence!.

'seems to show' is the phrase to look at.

Just because I have a blurry photo of some lights in the sky does not mean I have proof of aliens.
All it means is I have a blurry photo of some lights in the sky.

Something that 'seems' to show a pixie does not show a pixie. Nor is it any proof.

Now, if you show up with Tinkerbell in a bottle you'd have proof. Having a fragment of a really old bone doesnt mean it was a dino bone unless you have the rest of the bone to go along with it.

Just means you have a fragment of a bone. Now, if after study the composition is consistent with known dino bones you have evidence.

[BlaqueKatt]

The models and theories of disease... yeah, that's always going to be an issue. I use those mostly as a 'guide' to treatment. Do I believe that there is a real external influence called 'Cold', or 'Damp' that can invade the 'Spleen'? Not per se... but it's a useful analogy, and so I work with it It came from a time long ago, and while it seems effective, it's worth using.

by that leap of logic, treating syphilis sores with mercury seems effective, the sores heal up, does that make it an effective treatment, or worth using? it's from a long time ago. as was arsenic which was in the form of Arsphenamine, developed by Sahachirō Hata. Just because something "seems effective" doesn't mean it actually works, the plural of anecdote is not data. Codene can "seem effective" for treating (pain caused by)cancer or a toothache, but in reality it does nothing to actually help. And chloraceptic "seems effective" against strep throat, as does plain saltwater, but my scarlet, and later rheumatic fever suggested it actually did nothing, and I had a grand time in the hospital actually getting better.


and this since you wish to bring up "TCM" this was a part of it

The line between alchemy and medicine was not always clear. In 2nd century China, the study of mercury centered on a search for an elixir of life to confer longevity or immortality. The prominent Chinese alchemist Ko Hung, who lived in the 4th century, believed that man is what he eats, and so by eating gold he could attain perfection. Yet, he reasoned, a true believer was likely to be poor, and so it was necessary to find a substitute for the precious metal. This, in his estimation, could be accomplished by making gold from cinnabar. Ko Hung’s other uses for cinnabar included smearing it on the feet to enable a person to walk on water, placing it over a doorway to ward off thieves, and combining it with raspberry juice to enable elderly men to beget children

corrosion doctors

[Seshat]

Does herbal medicine work:
Yes and no. In the absence of modern chemistry, I would use willowbark tea (which contains salicylic acid AKA aspirin) to treat a headache, and lemons (vitamin C) to treat scurvy.
However, I would vastly prefer to use refined aspirin of known dosage, and free of possible contaminants.
The lemon vs a vitamin C tablet? Well, fresh lemons are a good food, so if they were available, I'd probably go with those. If I lived in Siberia: the vitamin C tablets.

In other words:
SOME herbal medicines are actually the non-refined, uncertain-dosage equivalents of modern drugs. And herbal medicines are worth studying; scientists discover heart drugs in foxglove, and painkillers in marijuana and willowbark.
Are herbal medicines better than refined, certain-dosage medications? Only in very, very specific cases; such as lemons vs vitamin C tablets. If the lemons are available fresh* and in quantity, use the lemons. Otherwise, use the tablets. In severe cases, use both.
(The fresher the better - vitamin C in its natural form degrades quickly. Got a lemon tree in your front yard?)
But other than those very specific cases, use the refined medications of certain dosage.

I don't happen to have citations handy, but if challenged for them, could quickly google for foxglove, willowbark, and lemon/ascorbic acid/vitamin C.

Oh: and I plan to NEVER plant foxgloves in my gardens. Far, far too dangerous. Digitalis (the chemical refined for heart treatments) is present in most parts of the plant. In prescription form, it's used in milligrams - I'd hate to have a child ingest any sap.


Massage:

Massage has also been shown to help with venous return of blood (it's purely mechanical: push a fluid in a given direction, through channels that have valves in them, and the fluid goes in that direction and can't go backwards through the valves). Ditto with massage moving lymphatic and interstitial fluids; also through mechanical means.
Are these good things? Depends on the patient, on their condition, etc.

Can massage treat injured muscle? Depends on the injury, and the type of massage.

Can massage be a sensory experience? Yes.
Can massage provide positive touch? Absolutely: and touch has been shown to assist babies suffering 'failure to thrive'. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7982860
There are also studies about touch in the wellbeing of adults.



Exercise:

I doubt I need to put any citations - or even anything much at all - here. Exercise has been proven to be helpful to just about everyone.


Acupuncture:

This one, I'm 'agnostic' on. Willing to be swayed either way.

[Andara Bledin]

Acupuncture:

This one, I'm 'agnostic' on. Willing to be swayed either way.

I was actually on the positive side on this one, originally. But in my desire to have an actual citation before suggesting that it was beneficial, I found nothing but a lot of questionable methodology, testing for a conclusion, and outright lies. At this point, I strongly believe that if it were effective in the manner often claimed, there would be less need to have "dirty" trials.

^-.-^

[Slytovhand]

Sigh....

It is clearly defined

Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")
Description of Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
Examples of Burden of Proof

Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

Holder of the burden

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.[2][3]
In public discourse

Burden of proof is also an important concept in the public arena of ideas. Assuming both sides have agreed to reasoned discourse,[4] the burden of proof can serve as an effective tool to ensure that all relevant arguments from both sides of an issue are introduced. After common assumptions are established the mechanism of burden of proof takes over to keep those engaged in discourse focused on providing evidential warrant and cogent arguments for their positions.[5][6][7]

(sorry, China is having an anti-google episode again).

Burden of proof

"Burden of proof" is the obligation that somebody presenting a new or remarkable idea has to provide evidence to support it. In a scientific context evidence is experimental or empirical data (although in some branches, well thought out mathematics may suffice). Once some evidence has been presented, it is up to the opposing "side" to disprove the evidence presented or explain why it may not be adequate. For example, in identifying a chemical compound, an analyst may present a spectrum to support their hypothesis but a reviewer may point out that it is insufficient, explain why by offering an alternative interpretation and state more data is needed, usually suggesting specific data that would be required. This sort of procedure happens constantly in the scientific method, repeating until everyone is happy that the data and explanation match.

Null hypothesis

If someone has presented you with an idea and says that the burden of proof is on you to disprove the idea, work out what the null hypothesis is and then put their evidence for the idea against it.

The person claiming something is possible or has happened needs to produce evidence to refute the null hypothesis.

If they have considerable and well-tested evidence, the burden of proof may reasonably be considered to be on the person claiming that the evidence does not hold.

Yep - Burden of Proof has been clearly defined... where am I so wrong on this??? Is there another definition you've been working with?


So, from this we get - Burden of proof is NOT ALWAYS with the person making the positive claim! (especially from the first quote...). NB - on the argument of TCM, I have NEVER used an argument from ignorance (nor tradition, I'll get to that shortly). The third quote begins with 'new or remarkable claim', which TCM is neither (although, idiots will make such remarkable claims!)

Bara - no, a photo showing a 'pixie' isn't 'proof'... it is, however, given as evidence. After showing that photo, the burden then shifts to the other side to say why it's not a real photo of a pixie. Same with the bones... Hence, why we have the middle ground of 'the jury is still out'... a perfectly legitimate stance to take!

First one
Second
Third
fourth
Fifth

Didn't take a lot, really....


Ok - Qi... I've just said that, with current technology, the concept of Qi (not to mention Yin and Yang) are as ethereal as trying to search for God... and then you say 'Irrelevant - prove it!" WTF is that??? From what I'm reading here, you are of the opinion that nothing exists until science has proven it - and we're not allowed to believe otherwise... correct? (FTR, Qi is not our discussion point... using the concept of qi is! two very different arguments).\


Andara - did you also hear about the food scares over here? Recently, there was a problem with a pharmaceutical manufacturer that was using the gelatine-type material from old leather, and using that instead of normal edible gelatine for capsules... many not happy!!! Other dangerous chemicals in baby formulae, etc etc "adulterated", "adulterated", "contaminated"... none of this is even remotely against teh effectiveness of TCM - it is 100% proof positive of the greed and unscrupulousness of TCM manufacturers

And I love this one!!!

Now.ALL of the above articles are recent. Prior to this type of research, there was thousands of years of research which went into TCM (You may not like it... you may not agree with it... you may say it's all a pile of baloney, lacking acceptable methodology, irrelevant, biased, unscientific, but it happened!!!) Thus, after knowing this (as anyone who's already looked at TCM would know) means the burden of proof has moved! (yes, it can do that, you know!) And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I'm NOT committing the fallacy of Appeal to Tradition (Link 1 Link 2) - because it has been researched! Very large, and significant difference to what I said (except when I quickly glossed over that, and didn't support the statement - my bad!)

Shifting the burden of proof when nothing is given to support it is a logical fallacy... Shifting the burden of proof when it has been researched, cited, examined, etc is NOT a logical fallacy... it's what is supposed to happen! (Again, you may not like this fact, but TCM was researched! It was tested (and yes, people did suffer for it!!!). But it's not a stand-alone "Oh, what the hell - let's see what happens if I do this"...).

Who is currently using logical fallacy after logical fallacy to try and support his position. >.>

Such as...??? I've just expounded a few points, and proven why I haven't been using logical fallacies (sure, I left out the citations in my first couple of posts, but hey - we were discussing the idea, not the specifics, so I feel that's not really a problem). I am, however, not seeing much argument (on the specific subject of TCM - not that this TCM is on trial in this thread) against... only on the concept of Burden of Proof (using TCM as one example).

FTR - when I did google "Burden of Proof", it gave me 3 different links in Wiki - legal, scientific and philosophical... which one do you want to go by??

[Andara Bledin]

The third quote begins with 'new or remarkable claim', which TCM is neither (although, idiots will make such remarkable claims!)

Actually, quite a number of claims made by proponents of TCM are quite remarkable. Many others are not, but aside from those that are also found in western medicine, they have also proven to either be false or otherwise unsupported by acceptable trials.

Bara - no, a photo showing a 'pixie' isn't 'proof'... it is, however, given as evidence. After showing that photo, the burden then shifts to the other side to say why it's not a real photo of a pixie. Same with the bones... Hence, why we have the middle ground of 'the jury is still out'... a perfectly legitimate stance to take!

Not quite. You've missed part of your very own quote in which it states quite plainly that if the other side can give a reason why the evidence presented is insufficient or unacceptable as proof, the burden once more rests upon the person making the positive assertion. In the case of the fairy hoax, the ease with which one can make compelling fakes of that sort (as the ones responsible for the hoax proved) makes photographs absent any other evidence utterly useless for the purposes of shifting the burden of proof.

As for your acupuncture citations:
First one

Sham-controlled trials show statistically significant benefits; however, these benefits are small, do not meet our pre-defined thresholds for clinical relevance, and are probably due at least partially to placebo effects from incomplete blinding.

Note that the abstract itself notes the fact that the study was not fully blinded. This type of lack of proper control is one of the many problems with such studies. One of the reasons that incomplete blinding taints clinical trials is that it has been found that those administering such tests will choose which subjects get which treatments as opposed to proper randomization, which taints the results.

Second
I'm having trouble figuring out some of the terminology in this one, but going by the very slim commentary regarding specifically the double-blinded tests, it appears that several of the tests came back with similar results for both the acupuncture and the control group, and at least one of the ones that had any significant result was also using non-traditional acupuncture versus effectively nothing at all, meaning that the additional input other than the acupuncture could very well be causing the positive outcome.

Third
This is a description of a collation of data for use in determining whether acupuncture is truly effective or not. There is no data at all about the outcome, so I have no idea why you linked it.

fourth
This one follows a lot of different studies, accepting only those that are completed with appropriate methodology for the treatment of chronic tension headaches. However, it's notable that while they believe that there is some evidence that acupuncture may be beneficial, it is far from clearly indicated and often shows no better advantage than sham acupuncture or other physiotherapy options.

While more positive than others, it still fails to pass muster as "proof" of anything other than the fact that we need better trials.

Fifth

There is no evidence for an effect of ’true’ acupuncture over sham interventions, though this is difficult to interpret, as exact point location could be of limited importance.

Right at the top of the report they state outright that there appears to be no benefit for true acupuncture versus sham acupuncture.

They further state that there needs to be trials of acupuncture versus other physiotherapy methods of treating migraines as that was not covered in this report.

Didn't take a lot, really....

You still haven't provided any proof of anything other than the fact that there is something that happens when people think they're getting acupuncture. What that mechanism is, however, is still unidentified.

It is possible it's the acupuncture, but considering that similar results are found for both sham acupuncture and other forms of physiotherapy, there's also just a high a possibility that it's something else in the treatment that leads to the positive conclusions that has nothing to do with sticking needles into people.

The burden is still yours.

Shifting the burden of proof when nothing is given to support it is a logical fallacy... Shifting the burden of proof when it has been researched, cited, examined, etc is NOT a logical fallacy... it's what is supposed to happen!

Citations have to meet a certain level of quality before they should be considered valid. The research out of China is so biased as to be almost completely useless. And research outside of China is practically non-existent.

You are claiming that TCM works and we are claiming that there is no clinical proof that TCM works. You have yet to provide any, so thus the burden is still yours.

Again, if you're going to go dredging through the clinical trials database, please do us all the favor of actually reading the abstracts of the trials before using them as citations. That third one in particular is really embarrassing.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

Yep - Burden of Proof has been clearly defined... where am I so wrong on this??? Is there another definition you've been working with?

Did you even read what you yourself just quoted?

Cripes, man. You're making the title of this thread ironic.

FTR - when I did google "Burden of Proof", it gave me 3 different links in Wiki - legal, scientific and philosophical... which one do you want to go by??

This is not a legal nor philosophical discussion. =p Though the basic concept of the burden of proof is the generally the same regardless.

I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp. You're making a positive claim. The burden is yours. Period. Shifting it to us is an appeal to ignorance, saying it works because hey look, its been used "successfully" for hundreds of years, is an appeal to tradition.

The burden is yours.

[crashhelmet]

Did you even read what you yourself just quoted?

Cripes, man. You're making the title of this thread ironic.




This is not a legal nor philosophical discussion. =p Though the basic concept of the burden of proof is the generally the same regardless.

I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp. You're making a positive claim. The burden is yours. Period. Shifting it to us is an appeal to ignorance, saying it works because hey look, its been used "successfully" for hundreds of years, is an appeal to tradition.

The burden is yours.

you're wrong

[Andara Bledin]

you're wrong

Support needed.

Seriously? Your only post in this entire thread is all of two words of almost no substance. Why did you even bother?

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

Support needed.

Seriously? Your only post in this entire thread is all of two words of almost no substance. Why did you even bother?

^-.-^

Oh no. It's plenty of substance. I believe GK is wrong. Now, by his own words, he must prove why he is right. The burden of proof is on him

[crashhelmet]

I'll explain myself now.

What I did was take GK's and others' stance that anyone can disagree without having to provide proof. That the burden of proof was on the one making the affirmative claim.

The truth of the matter is that the burden of proof is on anyone that makes any claim, positive or negative.

Otherwise, when you do what I did, you're either trolling or you're involving yourself in a debate that you don't have the standing to be in.

Sure, you can say that you don't have an opinion on something and ask for proof. There's nothing wrong with that. But to come out and say "You're wrong" lays upon you the burden of proving why they are wrong.

[Gravekeeper]

The truth of the matter is that the burden of proof is on anyone that makes any claim, positive or negative.

That's not how it works. Especially scientifically. No matter how much you or Sly might wish it otherwise.

[Nekojin]

I'll explain myself now.

What I did was take GK's and others' stance that anyone can disagree without having to provide proof. That the burden of proof was on the one making the affirmative claim.

The truth of the matter is that the burden of proof is on anyone that makes any claim, positive or negative.

Otherwise, when you do what I did, you're either trolling or you're involving yourself in a debate that you don't have the standing to be in.

Sure, you can say that you don't have an opinion on something and ask for proof. There's nothing wrong with that. But to come out and say "You're wrong" lays upon you the burden of proving why they are wrong.

So you're saying that I can't say, "There are no fairies, dragons, mermaids, or gryphons," without being able to support such a claim with evidence.

How do you propose I get such evidence?

There's no such things as fairies, there's no such things as fairies, there's no such things as fairies!

[draco664]

That's not how it works. Especially scientifically. No matter how much you or Sly might wish it otherwise.

I feel I should point out that the scientific method is a magnificent way of disproving things. It is not about proving things.

Basically, you have a question. You devise a hypothesis. You then design an experiment that would disprove your hypothesis. The experiment must have a control, and must (as reasonably practiable) isolate a single difference fundemental to your hypothesis.

If the results are successful - then your hypothesis is wrong. Go to step 1 and start again.

If the results are unsuccessful - then your hypothesis may be correct. Devise a new experiment to test a different aspect of it, or to test the same aspect in a new (or broader) way.

Eventually, if after many experiments all unsuccessful in disproving your hypothesis, it gets upgraded to a theory.

Scientific studies porporting to prove something are not 'scientific' in that they follow the scientific method. They are 'statistical'. There need to be hundreds of studies before a new drug or something is considered "safe". There need to be hundreds of studies before a new medical technique is considered "mainstream".

Anyone in the pharmecutical industry will tell you horror stories of the red tape, regulations and hoops to jump through to get a new drug on the market. Until TCM goes through that sort of rigor, it will be considered 'quackery'.

One study, ten studies, twenty studies, it doesn't matter. If you are trying to prove something works, you need decades of research before it will be accepted.

[draco664]

What I did was take GK's and others' stance that anyone can disagree without having to provide proof. That the burden of proof was on the one making the affirmative claim.

The truth of the matter is that the burden of proof is on anyone that makes any claim, positive or negative.

No, he's saying that if you make a positive claim, then you must support it with evidence. Saying something does not exist is not a positive claim. It is (or should be) the accepted default (or the null hypothesis)

Claim - XXX does not exist / is not effective (null hypothesis - no proof necessary. Burden is on others to prove otherwise)

Claim - XXX exists / is effective (provide proof, or at least outline an experiment that would disprove such a claim)