Re: Well controlled t-2, yet neuropathy beginnings?

outsider <outsider@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 1/8/2011 6:25 AM, Chris Malcolm wrote:

Yes and no. It depends what you mean by "vetted". Let's be more
precise in our language. Since any anecdotal report here is about a
specific personal experience, the only way of checking its validity
would be to visit the person and repeat the reported occurrence.
That's hardly practical. So its not practicable to check these reports
by repeating the reported experience, and in that specific sense they
therefore cannot trump a published report of a scientific experiment
in a peer-reviewed journal.

But an anecdotal report often contains the implied suggestion that
it might be something that would happen to you.

Suppose for example that a published research study claims that T2
diabetics should be able to drink a Starbucks Tall Mocha without their
BG ever rising above 150. Suppose I then claim that a Starbucks Tall
Mocha sends my BG well over 150 at one hour. Nobody will ever know
whether that is true. But it contains the implied suggestion that it
might happen to other T2s. Although they will never know whether or
not it really happened to me, they can easily find out if it happens
to them by testing themselves.

Each person who carries out that test on themselves and gets a one
hour pp reading of over 150 has discovered as a matter of experimental
fact that it happens to them. That of course does not trump the
findings of the published research, because that was an
epidemiological study which would not be invalidated by a few
exceptions. But that research carried the implied suggestion, the
hypothesis if you like, that the T2s in asd could safely drink a Tall
Starbucks Mocha. That is a hypothesis that each T2 in asd can test for
themselves. If they find it false, then their experiment has trumped
the implied hypothesis of the research study that it would be true.

In that sense the implied suggestion of my anecdotal report of Mocha
drinking that it would also happen to others can be individually
checked by each T2 here who cares to try the experiment. What each
person discovers by their own experimental testing always trumps any
hypothesis that the result of a published research study applies to

So there is a very useful and important sense in which personal
experiment DOES trump science, just as there is an important sense in
which it doesn't.

Ironically, the self
proclaimed diabetes experts in here use selective science research and
studies to support their opinions unless proven wrong. If no selective
research or studies that back them up can be found, or if someone
posts research and studies that contradict their opinions, they they
put their fingers in their ears and shout their anecdotal findings.

Most diabetics are T2s, so it is not surprising that most of the
conversation in asd is about T2 experiences, otherwise known as
anecdotal reports. Many T2s here have discovered by personal
experiment that some of these anecdotal reports apply to them, and
some do not. They have noted that some T2s here report experiences
which they are seldom able to experience for themselves, whereas
others often post experiences they can replicate. So by means of
personal experiments we can form estimates of the reliability of
posters to asd of posting things which apply to us personally.

In other words we can learn to trust the reports of some posters and
distrust the reports of others, in the specific sense of being likely
to apply to use individually.

Being a T1 Kurt of course can't do this. So from his point of view all
the anecdotal reports of all the T2s here could all equally well be
fabrications. Since most of the conversation in this newsgroup is
about T2s, arguing that most of it is lies is therefore the only way a
T1 could be in the top league of postings per month to asd.

You should realize that for readers like myself your article was worth
reading till that final paragraph which was unnecessary to the points
you made above. Or perhaps the final paragraph was the entire point
you wanted to make? Is my earlier understanding, that you live to
argue correct after all? Enquiring minds want to know! :-)

In the sense in which argument is the collaborative linguistic process
by which people iterate towards publicly agreed approximations to
truths about the world, yes I do.

Chris Malcolm