3 ms·

I fully agree. But dismissing the option that something unproven could have helped me is the same fallacy as not trying it because it's unproven. I mean, there

I fully agree. But dismissing the option that something unproven could have helped me is the same fallacy as not trying it because it's unproven. I mean, there's also conclusive evidence that eg homeopathy does not work better than a placebo. I'm talking about the cases where there's no conclusive evidence for either outcome (1). Ars calls those snake oil and I think they're jumping to conclusions too fast. (1) admittedly I don't know whether such evidence exists for acupuncture but I know that no such evidence exists, either way, for the particular giant pile of pills I've been eating.

coldtea 9y ago
>But dismissing the option that something unproven could have helped me is the same fallacy as not trying it because it's unproven. It's not about dismissing it. It's that the burden on proof is on that side, not on those that are not convinced. It might very well have been a case of self-healing, the kind that happened many times (often thought as miraculous, etc), and whose exact mechanism is not known. >I mean, there's also conclusive evidence that eg homeopathy does not work better than a placebo. I'm talking about the cases where there's no conclusive evidence for either outcome (1). Ars calls those snake oil and I think they're jumping to conclusions too fast. Well, the burden on proof is not on Ars side though. They can legitimately call snake-oil anything that has not been proven but is nonetheless sold.
- skrebbel 9y ago
  > They can legitimately call snake-oil anything that has not been proven but is nonetheless sold. I agree with the rest of your comment, but I think this is a very liberal application of the term "snake oil". When I see that word, I expect it to apply to obvious nonsense. Jars of water with special labels, etc. Prettily painted bracelets that help you lose weight but are actually recycled curtain hangers. Stuff like that. But ok, we got on the same page I think. If all we disagree about is what the term "snake oil" means then I think we can agree to disagree :-) Thanks for your insights!
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >I agree with the rest of your comment, but I think this is a very liberal application of the term "snake oil". When I see that word, I expect it to apply to obvious nonsense. Jars of water with special labels, etc. Well, even if it was an actual drug, e.g. penicillin, if it was sold in a bottle as something it is not, e.g. 'cancer cure', it would still be snake oil.
mikeash 9y ago
There are an infinite number of potential treatments which have not been conclusively proven to be either effective or not effective. How do you choose from that infinite field?
- skrebbel 9y ago
  Just like enterpreneurs navigate the infinite number of potential ideas and approaches: you go for the next best thing, non-conclusive indicators. And this is the danger too, because there can be many non-conclusive indicators that are plainly wrong or even dangerous (e.g. the anti-vaxxer movement). But if there are no conclusively proven effective ways to solve your problem, of course you're going to try some others, right? Is that snake oil by definition?
  - mikeash 9y ago
    It's only snake oil when you start trying to convince other people that it works when you haven't demonstrated it, and especially if you start selling it.
Chris2048 9y ago
Can you quote the post that "dismiss[ed] the option that something unproven could have helped [you]"? Perhaps Snake Oil does work - but if you don't have reasonable evidence, selling it on that basis (explicit or otherwise) is unreasonable.

coldtea 9y ago

>But dismissing the option that something unproven could have helped me is the same fallacy as not trying it because it's unproven. It's not about dismissing it. It's that the burden on proof is on that side, not on those that are not convinced. It might very well have been a case of self-healing, the kind that happened many times (often thought as miraculous, etc), and whose exact mechanism is not known. >I mean, there's also conclusive evidence that eg homeopathy does not work better than a placebo. I'm talking about the cases where there's no conclusive evidence for either outcome (1). Ars calls those snake oil and I think they're jumping to conclusions too fast. Well, the burden on proof is not on Ars side though. They can legitimately call snake-oil anything that has not been proven but is nonetheless sold.

skrebbel 9y ago
> They can legitimately call snake-oil anything that has not been proven but is nonetheless sold. I agree with the rest of your comment, but I think this is a very liberal application of the term "snake oil". When I see that word, I expect it to apply to obvious nonsense. Jars of water with special labels, etc. Prettily painted bracelets that help you lose weight but are actually recycled curtain hangers. Stuff like that. But ok, we got on the same page I think. If all we disagree about is what the term "snake oil" means then I think we can agree to disagree :-) Thanks for your insights!
- coldtea 9y ago
  >I agree with the rest of your comment, but I think this is a very liberal application of the term "snake oil". When I see that word, I expect it to apply to obvious nonsense. Jars of water with special labels, etc. Well, even if it was an actual drug, e.g. penicillin, if it was sold in a bottle as something it is not, e.g. 'cancer cure', it would still be snake oil.

mikeash 9y ago

There are an infinite number of potential treatments which have not been conclusively proven to be either effective or not effective. How do you choose from that infinite field?

skrebbel 9y ago
Just like enterpreneurs navigate the infinite number of potential ideas and approaches: you go for the next best thing, non-conclusive indicators. And this is the danger too, because there can be many non-conclusive indicators that are plainly wrong or even dangerous (e.g. the anti-vaxxer movement). But if there are no conclusively proven effective ways to solve your problem, of course you're going to try some others, right? Is that snake oil by definition?
- mikeash 9y ago
  It's only snake oil when you start trying to convince other people that it works when you haven't demonstrated it, and especially if you start selling it.

Chris2048 9y ago

Can you quote the post that "dismiss[ed] the option that something unproven could have helped [you]"? Perhaps Snake Oil does work - but if you don't have reasonable evidence, selling it on that basis (explicit or otherwise) is unreasonable.