= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Nick_Tarleton comments on Fallacies of reification - the placebo effect - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (55)
If and only if the 'placebo effect' is real, we should anticipate the existence of some mechanism for belief in treatment to lead to improved outcomes (e.g.).
Right, but I would say "a particular kind of placebo effect ____" to distinguish between the two meanings:
a) "expecting to heal makes you more likely to heal due to psychosomatic effects"
b) "the general stuff they do to you in conducting a trial (the regimentation, the social contact, the clinical environment) is likely to cause some healing regardless of the specific treatment being tested"
To the extent that Morendil is claiming we have to be careful to distinguish these meanings, which both go under the name "placebo effect", I agree. Beyond that, I don't see what kind of reification is going on; you don't have to reject reductionism or naturalism to believe there are psychosomatic effects of the kind in a), especially in the realm of sensations of pain and well-being.
To repost skeptical lurker's link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/dec/22/placebo-effect-patients-sham-drug
The placebo effect could be driven by mechanisms unrelated to whether or not you believe you're being treated and still mean pretty much the same thing - similar to priming, it could just be that mentioning the right words before giving people a sugar pill is enough, you don't have to actually make them believe you're giving them a painkiller.