[extropy-chat] Effectiveness of Medicine (was: RobinHansononCynicism)

[Brett Paatsch]

Robin Hanson wrote:

> At 12:17 PM 9/25/2005, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>>>The personal policy decision people face is whether or not to
>>>go to the doctor and do what he says. People do not face
>>>the decision of whether or not to treat a real ailment or to
>>>treat an imaginary ailment, because they do not know at the
>>>moment of decision whether the aliment is real or imaginary.
>>
>>It would be possible though for governments to decide not to
>>provide subsidies for some of the categories of treatment that
>>some people would be willing to buy thereby having more funds
>>to allocate to medical treatments that are actually going to be
>>effective. I don't want to see iridology consults and shakra
>>realignments subsidised.
>
> You complain that I cite studies that define "medicine" in the
> standard way because you can imagine some government creating
> a bureaucracy to distinguish effective from ineffective treatments?

No, I didn't know how, or if those studies defined medicine at all,
I hadn't read them. I wondered if you knew. I didn't think I was
complaining.

> Doctors already have mechanisms to make such distinctions.  HMOs
> also have mechanisms to make similar distinctions.  These
> mechanisms are already included in the standard data.  Until
> you can actually create this imagined new system, the existing
> systems are the right ones to collect data on.
>
>>Your source for the RAND study isn't the RAND study directly its
>>(Newhouse & Group, 1993).  Do you have the actually RAND
>>study? Can I see it?
>
> That book is the best single source on the experiment.  There is
> no other.
>
>>On the other hand in fairness to your readers as a writer when
you make
>>a claim in the title of an essay or in the abstract of it you are putting 
>>a flag
>>in the ground and asserting something to be true. Don't you agree that
>>the reader should be entitled to expect that the essay that follows will 
>>be
>>about the writer accepting responsibility for make the case for the truths
>>he is asserting?
>
> What you have done is set a very high standard of evidence,
> and when no data meets that standard, decided that you can then
> keep your initial opinions, even if you have no basis for them.

No what I have done is note that you have raised an interesting issue
and identified a possible prejudice of mine but then not lept to gratuitous
belief without chewing.

> You complain that I make an argument based on the best available
> evidence, because that evidence just isn't good enough for you.

You said it was the best available evidence I didn't. I said I'd keep
a look out for evidence for and against the proposition that medicine
is effective and bear your interest in the topic in mind.

> By your standards no one should ever speak on the subject.

I never said that :-)

Brett Paatsch