Welcome back to Dizzy Daisy.
And she's barely back with us when she's pounced on by the Great Sceptic of MW!
That's your academic intellectualising at work James. Why can't you accept that there might
just be some truth in anecdotal, i.e. unpublished, evidence? If man had had to wait until evidence, theoretical or empirical, could be set down in writing or in print, and the results testified to several times over before it could be considered valid, then he would never have evolved.
It has nothing to do with "academic intellectualising", so spare me the ad hominems. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, Aileen.
Moreover, anecdotal evidence is notoriously unreliable. Do you realise what we would have to consider as fact if we simply accepted anecdotal accounts? I'm interested in what's true. I am not interested in giving people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to things that run contrary to all available evidence.
Do you think the people in the video I posted are any less sincere about their beliefs than Daisy?
Also how do you explain why much published scientific or medical evidence is debunked and in some cases found to be enitrely incorrect and therefore misleading?
You'll have to be more specific. Mistakes are certainly made. However, they are corrected as a result of further research, not by anecdotal evidence. I'm open minded, but why should I believe claims that have been debunked consistently? And it's not just about any scientific evidence. It depends on the type of evidence. Double blind testing is inherently unbiased and is very reliable. Little in the way of interpretation is required.
A claim doesn't have to be set down in writing and tested empirically for me to decide whether it is plausible. If there is no available evidence or the evidence is sketchy, I'll remain open to the possibility. There is a difference between being open minded and being gullible. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, I like to be open minded, but not so open minded that my brain falls out.