Pre-trial beliefs in complementary and alternative medicine: whose pre-trial belief should be considered?
Subjective probabilities play a significant role in the assessment of evidence: in other words, our background knowledge, or pre-trial beliefs, cannot be set aside when new evidence is being evaluated. Focusing on homeopathy, this paper investigates the nature of pre-trial beliefs in clinical trials. It asks whether pre-trial beliefs of the sort normally held only by those who are sympathetic to homeopathy can legitimately be disregarded in those trials. The paper addresses several surprisingly unsuccessful attempts to provide a satisfactory justification for ignoring the pre-trial beliefs of the homeopathic community. The ensuing diagnosis of the difficulties here emphasizes that the reason the arguments for choosing the pre-trial beliefs of the conventional community seem insufficient is not the arguments per se. It is rather that there is no cogent argument for choosing the conventional stance which would at the same time rationally persuade a member of the homeopathic community. The paper concludes that, once we understand that this is the predicament, there is no genuine reason to doubt the reasoning that leads us to reject the pre-trial beliefs of the homeopathic community.
Hansen
Kirsten
K
Department of Public Health, Section for Health Services Research, Unit of Medical Philosophy and Clinical Theory, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, Building 5, P.O. Box 2099, 1014 Copenhagen K, Denmark. kirstenhansen100@gmail.com
Kappel
Klemens
K
D001294:Attitude to Health; D000529:Complementary Therapies / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000523:psychology; D003469:Culture; D006705:Homeopathy / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000523:psychology; D006801:Humans
J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Jul;52(7):631-6
10391656
J Altern Complement Med. 2000 Feb;6(1):49-56
10706236
J Med Philos. 2010 Feb;35(1):7-18
20026527
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2002 Dec;54(6):577-82
12492603
Lancet. 1997 Sep 20;350(9081):834-43
9310601
Lancet. 1986 Apr 26;1(8487):960-1
2871250
Lancet. 2005 Aug 27-Sep 2;366(9487):726-32
16125589