3 ms·

Alright then let me clarify my opinion. I don't think anecdotes and intuition are useless. They're appropriate for every day decision making where stopping to d

Alright then let me clarify my opinion. I don't think anecdotes and intuition are useless. They're appropriate for every day decision making where stopping to do a controlled study isn't an option. When it comes to actually looking for broader truth though all they can do is point you in potential directions to study. Theres no better option than scientific method for that so far as I know. So if you want to know broadly of CBT works then science is your only realistic option.

erikpukinskis 10y ago
So if I spent an afternoon each talking to five people who all had done CBT, your expectation is that I would have learned nothing about the "broader truth" about CBT's effects?
- baconner 10y ago
  Not zero, but what you learned is highly subject to bias and error from your small sample of individuals. You are likely to have drawn conclusions from your conversation that are not broadly applicable or possibly even true for those individuals because in 5 informal conversations likely: * you didn't interview enough people from different backgrounds * you didn't control for the specific psychological conditions of your interviewees or what treatments/medications were in play at the same time or before / after the program * you didn't test your question set to ensure that it doesn't have leading questions or questions can otherwise influence the results * and so on. I could go on, but the point is anecdotes are not _nothing_ but they pale in comparison to a well built scientific study. If you want to really know if a type of treatment works well and who it works well for with a minimum of bias then science is by far the best option. It's normal and fine to use anecdotes to guide personal day to day decisions in life, but if you want to make broad claims that are taken seriously by professionals trying to say help folks manage mental health issues then we have a higher standard than anecdote and rightly so.
orblivion 10y ago
I realized that I unnecessarily came off like I was getting on your case specifically about this. It's just a concept that's crossed my mind in general lately about people's views on the place of science.
- baconner 10y ago
  no worries! i can see how what i said originally could be read that way and suspect we may agree that there's a bit of an unhealthy tendency amongst some of our peers to overstate how well science works and underestimate everyday reasoning that we all must do. Science is messy too. The world we're measuring is messy. I say - use the best method that you reasonably can use and see where it gets you. If that's science then great, but often you need to get by with a lesser method and that is ok.

erikpukinskis 10y ago

So if I spent an afternoon each talking to five people who all had done CBT, your expectation is that I would have learned nothing about the "broader truth" about CBT's effects?

baconner 10y ago
Not zero, but what you learned is highly subject to bias and error from your small sample of individuals. You are likely to have drawn conclusions from your conversation that are not broadly applicable or possibly even true for those individuals because in 5 informal conversations likely: * you didn't interview enough people from different backgrounds * you didn't control for the specific psychological conditions of your interviewees or what treatments/medications were in play at the same time or before / after the program * you didn't test your question set to ensure that it doesn't have leading questions or questions can otherwise influence the results * and so on. I could go on, but the point is anecdotes are not _nothing_ but they pale in comparison to a well built scientific study. If you want to really know if a type of treatment works well and who it works well for with a minimum of bias then science is by far the best option. It's normal and fine to use anecdotes to guide personal day to day decisions in life, but if you want to make broad claims that are taken seriously by professionals trying to say help folks manage mental health issues then we have a higher standard than anecdote and rightly so.

orblivion 10y ago

I realized that I unnecessarily came off like I was getting on your case specifically about this. It's just a concept that's crossed my mind in general lately about people's views on the place of science.

baconner 10y ago
no worries! i can see how what i said originally could be read that way and suspect we may agree that there's a bit of an unhealthy tendency amongst some of our peers to overstate how well science works and underestimate everyday reasoning that we all must do. Science is messy too. The world we're measuring is messy. I say - use the best method that you reasonably can use and see where it gets you. If that's science then great, but often you need to get by with a lesser method and that is ok.