From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Subject: Re: Xanax
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:50:27 GMT

In article <Uefy3Z_00Uh_Q8ng50@andrew.cmu.edu> sean+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sean McLinden) writes:
>>In article <16420@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes:
>>>In science, it is the person making the claims of the cure that
>>>is obligated to provide the evidence, not the skeptic.
>> 
>>This is true; however readers should note that it is equally true if
>the claims
>>are that the cure is ineffective as well as effective.
>
>Bzzzt! Wrong! To do what you say would permit cyclic reasoning. You must
>*always* prove that something is effective. When you have done so, you have
>evidence to answer the objections of people to the contrary. Until you do,
>they (the skeptics) are correct, at least insofar as what is required as
>a rationale for treatment.

What I stated did not allow cyclic reasoning.  There is a difference between
the truth state of a statement and it's *known* truth state.  Any statement
which is either true or false has one of three *known* truth states:

   o The statement is known to be true
   o The statement is known to be false
   o The statement is not known to be either true or false.

One cannot correctly assume that a statement not known to be true is known to
be false.

>>Thus, for example, both the claim that "X is effective in dealing with Y," and
>>"X is useless in dealing with Y," may not reasonably be made without
>>substantiation; however the statements "I am not convinced that X is effective
>>in dealing with Y" or "The evidence presented does not demonstrate that X is
>>ineffective in dealing with Y" do not require such evidence.
>
>Are we talking science, here, or Miss Manners? Either evidence exists for the
>efficacy of a treatment or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then those that say the
>treatment is ineffective are clinically correct.
>

I am speaking of the tri-state nature of statements.  If I state "P" without
any evidence as to its truth or falsity, the known truth state of "P" is that
it is not known to be either true or false.  The claim that "'P' is not known
to be true therefore 'P' is false" is an error in reasoning.

As for such a statement being "clinically correct," if that is indeed the 
definition given, then there is clear flaw in the clinical definition of
"correct."

>>While it is frequently pointed out that unssubstantiated claims of
>>effectiveness
>>are not "scientific", unfortunately many of those who attack such claims err
>>in claims of actual ineffectiveness without substantiation.
>
>Anyone can be wrong (read "uninformed") in claiming that something is not an
>effective therapy but the burden of proof is *never* on them to prove it. How
>could it be? Suppose that no record of a study ever having been done existed.
>How could you prove ineffectiveness on the basis of no evidence! The best that
>you can do is say that no evidence exists to say it is effective, in which
>case, claims to the contrary are fradulent or misguided.

Again, the claim that "X is not an effective therapy" does require proof.  It
is a far stronger statement than "X is not proven as an effective therapy."

The truth or falsity of a statement is independent of whether or not evidence 
has been gathered to determine its truth state.  Aspirin was an effective
analgesic prior to any evidence to that fact.

>It would be of benefit to this group if the advocates of any therapy limited
>themselves to what evidence exists and try to separate that evidence from
>anecdote, personal experience, wishes, dreams, and idle and fanciful
>speculation. All of the latter have their role in science, but they do not
>carry the same weight as a well-designed experiment.

Anecdotes and personal experience are empirical evidence, and speculation
(i.e., extrapolating the model) is rational evidence.  They are not, however,
proof (or disproof).  As implied, they do not carry the same weight as a well-
designed experiment; however their weight is non-zero, and do have value if
correctly identified and not misconstrued as proof.

>Sean McLinden

                                 James A. Parker
                                 jap@cb1focus.att.com