Why can't people just accept evidence?

It's tempting to talk about the human psychological urge to do something in the face of a problem -- an urge that serves us well in many situations, though it may also serve us poorly. And it's tempting to talk about how double-blind statistical studies are, at most, a few hundred years old, are nonintuitive for most people, and are often poorly understood even by those who are supposed to be experts.

But let's put that aside and ask: Do humans even care about the "effectiveness" of this ritual? Perhaps the use of acupuncture to improve fertility is a social signal. I can well imagine that infertile Chinese women feel one hell of a lot of social pressure to demonstrate that they're doing everything possible -- including all sorts of financial and physical hardship -- to get pregnant. Acupuncture is a dramatic statement of purpose, especially if it costs "hundreds of pounds". But if the alternative is for your husband and his family to grow unsympathetic, or even suspicious...

Scientists have also shown quite convincingly that smoking, wearing high heels, and being anorexic are very bad for your health, and yet many women do all of these things, at great physical and financial expense. Heck, there was a time within living memory when a well-bred Chinese woman would have had her feet bound in childhood, crippling her for life, in order to enhance her marriageability. Compared to that, the fact that some women feel compelled to undergo acupuncture is a sign of tremendous progress.

See the single quotes around the key statement? Even the reporter does not want to endorse the truthfulness of the statement. Wise choice, since the content of the article states something that is, at least up to a point, opinion.

Rather your question should be: "Why do some people, like myself, so readily accept incomplete facts as absolute truths?" Take heed and listen to bdfh42's comments about assessing evidence. He is right on the money, no need for me to repeat what he stated.

The most fundamental problem is that we are talking (in this instance) about belief systems. People seem programmed to reject even positive evidence that conflicts with their belief systems - just as they ignore the complete absence of evidence supporting things like religious faiths, fairies at the bottom of the garden etc.

The second problem is that very few of us are taught how to assess evidence. Most lack the skills required to judge the relevance and likely accuracy of what is presented. Evidence (I know) to support this hypothesis can be gleaned from almost any daily newspaper - most items are written by intelligent human beings but the results lack any analysis that reflects an ability to process evidence properly.

This combined with the fact that the scientific community seems bent on publishing even when they have studies with no statistically significant result. I'm reading more studies of 50 people in two cohorts where one had 10 do something and the other had 11 do something touted as a breakthrough. In fact, it's evidence of nothing.

So, the value of rhetoric has grown in people's minds and the value of evidence has diminished because people are publishing crap.

Yes that is a serious experiment.

As I understand it, when the original article was published there was a huge uproar in the academic community about the findings and intentions of the study. Those concerns were addressed in a reply from the author:

"The purpose of the article was to ask the following question: Would you believe in a study that looks methodologically correct but tests something that is completely out of people's frame (or model) of the physical world---for example, retroactive intervention or badly distilled water for asthma?

There are three ways to deal with this question:

(1) To answer in the affirmative. But this leads to such paradoxes (some described by those who responded to this article1) that it is incompatible with scientific work or even daily life.

(2) To look for methodological or statistical faults. Here an obvious one was that the duration of fever and the duration of hospital stay are related. But what if the next study sports perfect methodology and statistics?

(3) To deny from the beginning that empirical methods can be applied to questions that are completely outside the scientific model of the physical world. Or in a more formal way, if the pre-trial probability is infinitesimally low, the results of the trial will not really change it, and the trial should not be performed. This, to my mind, turns the article into a non-study, although the details provided in the publication (randomisation done only once, statement of a wish, analysis, etc) are correct.

The article has nothing to do with religion. I believe that prayer is a real comfort and help to a believer. I do not believe it should be tested in controlled trials."

"Evidence based" has recently become a popular ideology/buzzword in the medical community. Although it is always comforting to have a tangible set of numbers to reference, "evidence-based" findings are often adopted without legitimate consideration of experience-based/anecdotal data.

It is the current culture to accept anything with the label of science as indisputable truth. As a rule, I don't think it is ever a good idea to blindly follow. Even the most well designed studies are worth debating. The more you question, the more you discover.

It's all about what you believe. The power of the mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo