Posted by Cam W. on June 15, 2000, at 0:13:06
In reply to Re: lithium vs. placebo - An opinion, posted by BBob on June 14, 2000, at 22:36:20
>
> Unsubstantiated declarative statement, the logical foundation of which is based on the presumed authoritI of the speaker.Is this an unsubstantiated critique of a presumed authority without offering a reasonable scientically- based explanation to the contrary? If so, the critique might be presumed argumentative.
>
> Growing evidence of need to rebut findings. What is the writer defending? A popular drug?Again, perhaps opinion of the critic? A guess on the part of the critic without substantiating why he/she came to the assumptions he/she is positing? If so, this can be ignored.
>
> Obvious? Kindly submit evidence, please, refering to sources other than personal authority.Kindly submit evidence to the contrary if you feel that the critiqued statements are totally out of line with scientic reason.
>
>
> Decades of clinical experience demonstrate that lithium is indeed superior to placebo in the treatment of bipolar disorder. I had a conversation with a scientist over the weekend about this article and its inferences. He thought it likely that it was a "failed" study, and that it shows some potential problems in its designs and results. But that is opinion.
>
> Indeed. Opinions previal.Unsubstantiated declarative statement, the logical foundation of which is based on the presumed authority of the reference used (ie the scientist). Rebuttal should be ignored. Opinions prevail.
>
> Something? What? What does the writer mean by wrong? Per chance does that mean does not concur with personal perceptions of personal experience?Or does it mean that the orignal writer's personal experiences do not prevail over that of the personal perceptions of the critic?
>>
> How does a stude the show Prozack "works" differ from a study that shows Prozak is associated with increased suicidal or violent ideation?Studies need to be scientically reproduceable using the identical methods of the original study. Please show us evidence of this with any non-retrospective studies of suicidal or violent ideation. Critics own views are introduced into critique, again.
>>
> Ridicule is indeed simple.Yes, it is.
>
> another writer posted: would not it be intersting if lithium worked because of placebo affect (paraphrase)
>
> Just another opionion, reflecting curiosity rather than conviction.Posited as such. No need to restate the obvious.
>Ya know. It is easy to pick apart statements made by non-journalists. Everything on this board is heresay or opinion. The disclaimer at the top says as much. Us illiterate, non-English major types express ourselves the best way we know how. To pick apart our statements just for the sake of doing so, I believe, is mean and is meant to hurt another's feelings, rather than further science. A good rebuttal offers alternative theories and references. It does not just try to show the superior ability of the critic to twist the English language for the satisfaction of his/her own motives.
Can't we all play nice?
- Sincerely (really) Cam (not any of the Bobs).
;^)
poster:Cam W.
thread:36179
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000610/msgs/37338.html