Posted by dr. dave on October 9, 2002, at 4:20:07
In reply to Re: evidence, posted by Dr. Bob on October 4, 2002, at 19:03:18
> > I'm getting a bit concerned about the Lexapro thread. Statements are being made, not as opinions, but as statements of fact from an authoritative source which just aren't remotely justifiable by the evidence. I have no problem having robust discussions about the interpretation of data, and doing my bit to give an alternative point of view, but vulnerable people are turning for advice to a sales representative who is saying things quite at odds with the research.
>
> What I like to see is discussion that's open enough to include alternative points of view. Whom then to trust can be a hard -- and subjective -- question:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#trust
>
> But on a site like this, that's the reader's prerogative -- and responsibility.
>
> As far as evidence, I think there's a continuum from (1) lots of evidence for to (2) not much evidence one way or another or evidence both ways to (3) lots of evidence against. The more towards (3), the more problematic the statement. If you think misinformation like that has been posted, please let me know (in addition to posting an alternative point of view). How does that sound?
>
> BobThat sounds extremely sensible. I've posted an alternative point of view and a request for back-up of some claims that have been made. I realise it's not your responsibility to check the validity of every last thing anyone says, but I just wanted to register my concern that this was happening.
poster:dr. dave
thread:6905
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7676.html