Pre-trial beliefs in complementary and alternative medicine: Whose pre-trial belief should be considered?

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 15-21

  Hansen, Kirsten ^a   Kappel, Klemens ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Alternative medicine; Complementary medicine; Homeopathy; Pre trial belief; Subjective probabilities

Indexed keywords

ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; HOMEOPATHY; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT;

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES; CULTURE; HOMEOPATHY; HUMANS;

EID: 84855960232     PISSN: 13867423     EISSN: 15728633     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11019-010-9279-7     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Ernst, E. 2002. A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 54: 577-582.
2. Hansen, K., and K. Kappel. 2010. The proper role of evidence in complementary and alternative medicine. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35: 1.
3. Hróbjartsson, A., and S. Brorson. 2002. Interpreting results from randomized clinical trials. In The role of complementary & alternative medicine, ed. D. Callahan. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
4. Hume, D. 1902. Section X, part 1 'Of Miracles'. In An enquiry concerning human understanding, ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge. London: Oxford University Press.
5. Linde, K., N. Clausius, G. Ramirez, D. Melchart, F. Eitel, et al. 1997. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. The Lancet 350(9081): 834-843.
6. Linde, K., M. Scholz, G. Ramirez, N. Clausius, D. Melchart, and W. B. Jonas. 1999. Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 52(7): 631-636.
7. Lord, C. G., L. Ross, and M. R. Lepper. 1979. Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37(11): 2098-2109.
8. Kuhn, T. 1977. The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9. Rawls, J. 1996. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
10. Salmon, W. C. 1998. Rationality and objectivity in science or Tom Kuhn meets Tom Bayes. In Philosophy of science. The central issues, ed. M. Curd, and J. A. Cover. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
11. Shang, A., K. Huwiler-Muntener, L. Nartey, P. Juni, S. Dorig, et al. 2005. Are the clinical effect of homeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy and allopathy. The Lancet 366(9487): 726-732.
12. Shimony, A. 1970. Scientific inference. In The nature and function of scientific theories, ed. R. G. Colodny, 79-172. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
13. Singh, S., and E. Ernst. 2008. Trick or treatment? Alternative medicine on trial. London: Bantam Press.
14. Skrabanek, P. 1986. Demarcation of the absurd. The Lancet, April 26.
15. Strevens, M. 2006. Bayesian approach to philosophy of science. In Encyclopedia of philosophy, 2nd ed. D. M. Borchert. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA.
16. Vickers, A. J. 2000. Clinical trials of homeopathy and placebo: Analysis of a scientific debate. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 6(1): 49-56.