4 ms·

"we" - the entire scientific establishment (a.k.a. the scientific method). "It does however mean that in at least one case the drug worked and it worked very w

"we" - the entire scientific establishment (a.k.a. the scientific method). "It does however mean that in at least one case the drug worked and it worked very well." - unsubstantiated. Ironically, you've (again) drawn a conclusion based on only your own experience. Which is why, as pointed out above, "we" don't run single patient clinical trials. Your recovery after using the drug simply cannot be attributed to the drug. In addition, it should be obvious (considering the contents of the comment chain to which you are responding) that it likely was not the drug that accelerated your recovery in this case. Does that makes sense?

huhtenberg 9y ago
> "we" - the entire scientific establishment Obviously. It was a rhetorical question. This is getting meta, but as an old Internet adage goes "Try and not speak on behalf of others", meaning that throwing around "we" in a discussion is counter-productive. It automatically pits a person against this implied "we" group, be it actually applicable or not. The above comment is the perfect example of that - by using "we" the "refurb" person put me and the rational scientific community on the opposite sides of a line, implicitly invalidating whatever it was that I said. This is not an acceptable way to phrase arguments or even to express an opinion. "We" has no place in a public discussion unless there is in fact a group of people that one's qualified to represent. PS. And don't put words in my mouth - I've drawn no conclusions except for the fact that based on _my_ prior experience with _my_ flu infections, this case was resolved in a very prompt manner and the only difference was the presence and the timing of taking in an antiviral med.
- Xylakant 9y ago
  And your conclusion mistakes coincidence and correlation, which is the cardinal sin in medical trials. Quote “in at least one case the drug worked”. This is not a valid conclusion. All you can conclude from your singular experience is that in at least one case, taking the drug was followed by speedy recovery, but other factors were not controlled for.
  - huhtenberg 9y ago
    Ah, you again. Yes, "correlation is not a causation". I am aware of that one too, believe it or not.
    - Xylakant 9y ago
      I really wonder why you’re so hellbent on defending “but it worked for me” if you’re acutely aware of “I tried it once and at the same time I go better” does indeed bear all hallmarks of falling into the classic human trap of mistaking correlation for causation. It’s literally one of the easiest mistake to make. We humans are just wired for it. I’m certainly guilty of making that same mistake at least a thousand times and more. I’m actually glad if people point out to me when I make that same mistake.
    - jtmcmc 9y ago
      You say you are yet you make a strong definitive claim above that seems at odds with it.

huhtenberg 9y ago

> "we" - the entire scientific establishment Obviously. It was a rhetorical question. This is getting meta, but as an old Internet adage goes "Try and not speak on behalf of others", meaning that throwing around "we" in a discussion is counter-productive. It automatically pits a person against this implied "we" group, be it actually applicable or not. The above comment is the perfect example of that - by using "we" the "refurb" person put me and the rational scientific community on the opposite sides of a line, implicitly invalidating whatever it was that I said. This is not an acceptable way to phrase arguments or even to express an opinion. "We" has no place in a public discussion unless there is in fact a group of people that one's qualified to represent. PS. And don't put words in my mouth - I've drawn no conclusions except for the fact that based on _my_ prior experience with _my_ flu infections, this case was resolved in a very prompt manner and the only difference was the presence and the timing of taking in an antiviral med.

Xylakant 9y ago
And your conclusion mistakes coincidence and correlation, which is the cardinal sin in medical trials. Quote “in at least one case the drug worked”. This is not a valid conclusion. All you can conclude from your singular experience is that in at least one case, taking the drug was followed by speedy recovery, but other factors were not controlled for.
- huhtenberg 9y ago
  Ah, you again. Yes, "correlation is not a causation". I am aware of that one too, believe it or not.
  - Xylakant 9y ago
    I really wonder why you’re so hellbent on defending “but it worked for me” if you’re acutely aware of “I tried it once and at the same time I go better” does indeed bear all hallmarks of falling into the classic human trap of mistaking correlation for causation. It’s literally one of the easiest mistake to make. We humans are just wired for it. I’m certainly guilty of making that same mistake at least a thousand times and more. I’m actually glad if people point out to me when I make that same mistake.
  - jtmcmc 9y ago
    You say you are yet you make a strong definitive claim above that seems at odds with it.