|
|
What's this fallacy - using the wrong tool/methodologyA homeopath offered a study which proves homeopathy works because they gave it to people and they got better. So far, so Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. But the homeopath says they showed the improvement was caused by the treatment using the 'Modified Naranjo Criteria'.
The Modified Naranjo Criteria is used to determine how likely it is that an adverse drug effect is due to a particular drug, not to test the efficacy of a drug. Is this just a non-sequitur, or is there a more specific fallacy in deliberately using an entirely inappropriate tool or methodology and claiming it proves something? |
| asked on Friday, Jan 24, 2020 11:11:14 AM by Jim Cliff | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Part one is about how science works even when the public thinks it doesn't. Part two will certainly ruffle some feathers by offering a reason- and science-based perspective on issues where political correctness has gone awry. Part three provides some data-driven advice for your health and well-being. Part four looks at human behavior and how we can better navigate our social worlds. In part five we put on our skeptical goggles and critically examine a few commonly-held beliefs. In the final section, we look at a few ways how we all can make the world a better place.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
This appears to be more a deliberate lie than a fallacy.
|
| answered on Friday, Jan 24, 2020 11:14:26 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
A homeopath offered a study which proves homeopathy works because they gave it to people and they got better. Okay, fair enough. It's a reasonable hypothesis that would require further study, replication and falsification, but it is hardly a proper Post hoc fallacy. We'd have to look at the placebo effect, evidence, further study, statistics, and medical scrutiny. Similar to the anti-vaxx movement, Homeopathy is proven pseudoscience. Millions of children are vaccinated very year. Every year many children are diagnosed with autism Therefore, vaccines cause autism. There's a full moon every month A disproportionate number of people are admitted to psychiatric hospitals during the full moon Therefore, the full moon makes people insane. (Lunacy) What you've identified as logical fallacies are more accurately described as the teleological cognitive bias of false agency The psychology of (pseudo)science: Cognitive, social, and cultural factors. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-05598-002<> |
| answered on Friday, Jan 24, 2020 11:58:30 AM by mchasewalker |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
Yes. Wrong methodology. One study can not "prove" homeopathy (or anything else). It may only (questionably) prove other things are not the cause of the improvement.
|
| answered on Saturday, Jan 25, 2020 12:27:15 AM by Steven Hobbs |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
I suspect he did not expect you to know what the Modified Naranjo Criteria was.
Ask him to provide a copy of his questions, which may actually be a "modified" Modified Naranjo Criteria questionnaire. The example that wikipedia shows looks like it could be edited to enable some sort of positive answers to buttress claims of treatment Without that (copy of his questions), the homeopath is simply "baffling with bs" - non sequitur the nicest named fallacy for the fob-off and more likely Dr. Bo's assessment of lying is correct. |
| answered on Saturday, Jan 25, 2020 01:55:30 PM by DrBill |
Comments |
|
| |
