[photon]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

It doesn't. I was asking you a different question.

You quoted my question which usually means what follows the quote is a reply to what's quoted.

Do you have an answer for the question?

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

Do you ever get a headache?

Do you have the scientific proof that it is a headache or do you just think it is a headache?

Sure I get headaches, and usually I don't need scientific proof of the headache no.

So I've answered the leading questions, what relevance were they?

Originally Posted by zuluking

If the means of measuring something that is not intended to operate locally but holistically with hundreds or thousands of uncontrollable elements (like within the human body,) the "counting" is fraught with errors in respect to how or what to count.

Evidence? Like a specific example where the counting was in error but the procedure/product/whatever was demonstrated to have been effective?

Originally Posted by zuluking

There is a likelihood that the statistical evidence is meaningless or inconclusive - which is the result that most of these related studies end up at.

Just because you say there is a likelihood does not make it so, evidence please.

Originally Posted by zuluking

So, if you don't currently have the means to count statistical evidence or measure detectable causes, it does not mean that that which you are attempting to count or measure does not exist or occur.

People get better or they don't, what's so mystical about measuring that?

Originally Posted by zuluking

The possibility of something existing but not measurable exists.

Nonsense. If something exists but is not in principle measurable, then it can be ignored, because if it is not in principle measurable then it does not have an impact on anything in reality. If it is in principle measurable but not yet actually measurable because of limitations in the tools, if it has any sort of impact on reality it is still measurable by inference. History is filled with examples of things being discovered not by direct observation, but by inference.

Originally Posted by zuluking

A lot of people (most, likely) prefer to only believe in what is scientifically proven; others will seek to build their own personal anecdotal evidence (which may or may not align with the scientific results.)

So after all that you still haven't answered the question, how do you determine what's effective and what isn't?

Appealing to anecdotal evidence is just an easy way to wave one's hands and pretend something is real without having to actually show it. But I guess it's the only thing I've got when the thing I'm selling has the same effect as doing nothing at all (well almost the same effect, it has the additional effect of moving money from the patient's pocket to mine).

Originally Posted by zuluking

It's mildly annoying to have the science purists tell people with solid anecdotal evidence (beyond the overused "placebo effect") that they did not or could not have experienced what they most obviously experienced.

It's not scientific purists, it's just simple reason. If B follows A, you seem to be under the impression that A causes B. This is a logical fallacy and the basic flaw of anecdotal evidence. There are far too many cognitive biases having an impact on a person's experience and beliefs for anecdotal evidence to trustworthy.

Are people being abducted and anally probed by aliens? Anecdotal evidence tells us yes. Demons forcing people to commit evil acts for which they aren't responsible? Anecdotal evidence tells us yes. Has the queen and other world leaders been replaced with a race of lizard-men? Anecdotal evidence tells us yes. Can you declare yourself a free man on the land and not be subject to Canadian law? Anecdotal evidence tells us yes.

Since anecdotal evidence is all that's required, you will admit you accept all the above?