iCEBREAKER, always nice to have you back.
Tell me how RCTs are considered as narrow. RCTs are the standard in modern, evidence based medicine. You should also know that "Evidence of the Senses" is basically anecdotal evidence, and therefore not reliable.
Also, whether or not RCT results can be reproduced outside of RCTs does not have anything to do with the reliability of non-RCT results.
>implying all RCTs are funded by drug manufacturers
>implying all RCTs are done solely for the purpose of getting regulatory approval for a drug
>implying universities don't do RCTs for the purpose of advancing human knowledge
case in point: acetylsalicylic acid, an out-of-patent drug has recently shown to reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes.
Thanks grue, we do have lots of fun around here don't we?
I didn't imply anything about "all RCTs." My HS English teacher taught me to avoid 'always and never' statements.
Your academic research edge cases are the exception not the rule, and do not dispute my reasoning regarding the results of lack of profit motive meeting exorbitant expense.
Also, many research institutions are highly dependent of corporate benefactors. These 'commonize cost, privatize profits' games are euphemistically called 'public-private partnerships.' (I call them fascism, but that's another topic.)
As you know, there are different types of evidence, with varying qualifying requirements and standards. IE: Statistical, testimonial, anecdotal, and analogical evidence.
Your myopic fixation on only one kind (statistical) and unwillingness to accept the others is motivated solely by your malicious negative prejudice towards colloidal silver.
If I get a burn (especially sunburn
) I don't need RCTs to tell me that applying aloe vera is a good idea. I learned that from my grandma, and it's common sense.
RTCs may help ascertain the efficacy and agents of aloe's action over a large groups of people, but there's no reason for any individual to suffer while waiting for them to be designed/approved/funded/executed/analyzed/reviewed/published/etc.
You may, but I do not live in a socially-constructed reality. My epistemology is based on rational individualism, which does not discount (and indeed exalts) the evidence of the senses:
In this highly original defense of realism, Atlas Society founder David Kelley argues that perception is the discrimination of objects as entities, that the awareness of these objects is direct, and that perception is a reliable foundation for empirical knowledge. His argument relies on the basic principle of the "primacy of existence," in opposition to Cartesian representationalism and Kantian idealism.
In the first part of the book, Kelley discusses the nature and validity of perception. He argues against classical sensationalist and modern computational theories, according to which perception involves inferences from sensory input. Unlike most realists, he also offers an in-depth consideration of the problems of perceptual relativity. His theory incorporates a key distinction between the object and the form in which it is perceived. This distinction provides insights into the status of phenomenal qualities, the nature of perceptual constancy, and the difference between primary and secondary qualities.
In the second part of the book, Kelley is concerned with the way we distinguish conceptual knowledge from perception. His theory of non-propositional justification shows how perceptual judgments are supported by the direct awareness of objects, and it allows a novel defense of empiricism.
http://www.atlassociety.org/david-kelley-evidence-sensesAgain, trusting the FDA's medical advice (RCTs be damned) is like trusting the SEC for investment advice ("Madoff? Sure, he's a great guy. A real mench!").
Or like trusting public schools to educate your children.
Or like trusting the Fed with the power to print money.
Or like trusting the FEC to ensure free and fair elections.
Or like trusting the Post Office to deliver mail. Oh, wait. That one is actually in the Constitution so NVM.