4 ms·
That's not how science works. The onus isn't on someone to "prove it doesn't work" - the onus is on the person making the claim that it does work.
by chadgeidel 10y ago
That's not how science works. The onus isn't on someone to "prove it doesn't work" - the onus is on the person making the claim that it does work.
- imaginenore 10y agoWhoever makes the claim, has to present the evidence. If I claim your brain doesn't work, it's not your job to prove me wrong. Science (natual ones) can't prove anything, only disprove the hypothesis. Science's default position is "we don't know" or "there's no evidence", not "it doesn't work".
- pharrlax 10y agoScience's default position -- the null hypothesis -- is that there is no relationship between two phenomena. In this case, the phenomena are "administering treatment" and "seeing positive results". If the null hypothesis is accurate, and there is no relationship between treatment and outcomes, then it doesn't work. So yes, that is indeed science's default position.
- imaginenore 10y agoNo, in this case, the phenomena are "administering treatment" and "seeing results" (not just positive). You start off with "we don't know if it makes humans better or worse or does absolutely nothing, let's do a bunch of tests". Also, when it comes to clinical tests, you almost never do simply control/placebo vs treatment. There are usually a few groups with various degrees of treatment.
- JshWright 10y agoNo, you start off with "we assume it does nothing". "Clinical tests" is a wide range of studies, and initially may indeed be 'simple' placebo controlled studies. If an effect is seen, then testing will be done with 'various degrees' to determine a dose response, etc.
- ktRolster 10y agoThe onus is on whoever cares enough to figure it out. If no one cares enough, then no one will figure it out. Sometimes people do the work to prove things wrong.