zlacker

Would you care to show the math on your "probably" here? Because I suspect it's not an actual mathematical estimate, but a way of puffing up your personal guess. Which is a weird thing to guess about given that this person has orders of magnitude more data about their experience than you do.

>>wpietr+(OP)
Sure thing! A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials found that when disorders are amenable to placebos, the placebo effect is robust and approaches the treatment effect[1]. For psychological disorders, particularly depression, it's been shown that placebos are nearly as effective as active medications[2].

[1]: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.psych.5...

[2]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jclp.20129/full

>>wpietr+(OP)

  person 1: Aliens have visited our city.
  person 2: Is there proof of that? 
            Probably just an optical illusion or something.
  person 1: Can you prove aliens didn't visit? 
            What is your math for optical illusion?

I'm sorry, but the burden of proof lies with the person making a claim, not with detractors.

>>DenisM+Bj
Yes, and applecore made a claim that David Chapman's observed experience of having his brain slow down was caused by the placebo effect. I asked for proof of that.

Also, when people assert that UFOs are probably just an optical illusion, they are (or at least should be) doing that based on the long observational baseline of many investigated incidents which indeed turn out to be optical illusions. That is to say, it's legitimate to say that perceived UFOs are probably optical illusions it's because there's real data demonstrating that perceived UFOs really are optical illusions.

The illegitimate version of that would be saying it based on general arrogance, which is frequently a barrier to scientific progress. See, e.g., the story of Nobel Prize winner Barry Marshall.

>>applec+37
You're asserting a nocebo effect, not a placebo effect, so I don't believe your links are relevant. Further, this person is talking about a perceived correlation between an experience and a natural change, not an intervention, which means it may not even be a nocebo effect, but a different category of issue altogether. Given that, I again suggest you cannot actually demonstrate any math on your claim of probability. Again, I think you're dressing up your feelings in sciencey talk.

Further, your request is nearly tautological. The way that one gets to a big, statistically robust test of a hypothesis is via small stepping stones. E.g., this sort of self-experimentation. If you scoff at everybody doing something small and say, "you're probably wrong because there's no big evidence", you decrease the chances of getting the sort of proof that you claim to want.

I don't think there's anything wrong with saying, "personally, I'd like to see convincing measures of the effect of bright light therapy on mood and intelligence before I adopt this." But that's frustratingly different than your apparent attitude that in 2 minutes of thought you know more about this guy's experience than he does.