The degree to which we have to accept PartSkeptic's anecdotes, or even to pay attention to them, is the degree to which he has based any cognizable argument on them. Some of them are just plain irrelevant. But he intends them in some cases to establish his authority as an experimenter. They are meant to create confidence in the reader that the investigation into the causes of his headaches, or the effects of electromagnetic field energy, is being conducted responsibly.
As Pixel42 so adroitly put it, that's irrelevant. Unverified anecdotes are not evidence of competence. And evidence of competence is not empirical data obtained under justified controls that render it evidence that tests a hypothesis. The overarching problem with PartSkeptic's argument is that it's a giant non sequitur as far as skeptics are concerned.
If the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, then to what extent does it matter whether the premise is true? We can believe every word of PartSkeptic's anecdotes and still be disobliged to consider it evidence for a conclusion that can only be drawn on the basis of experiment. And a lawyer writing a persuasive brief will always argue the alternatives, because you never know how a judge will want to decide. The desired decision might be, "The proponent is not judged to be competent, so it doesn't matter what is alleged to follow from claims of competence." Or it might be, "The conclusion being drawn does not follow from the proffered premise, even if the premise were true." Both are correct reasoning.
But inasmuch as some of the anecdotes are patently false, and that he doubles down on them when challenged, ignoring the anecdotes altogether leaves us with the wrong impression that this is an good-faith debate with sound-minded participants. If PartSkeptic legitimately believes in the things he says which cannot be true, then there is something going on that we can't resolve in this venue. And yes, trying to talk sense into people who didn't reason themselves into the delusions they express is a losing battle every time.
Whether PartSkeptic's medical claim can be tested blindly with the resources at hand is still a viable, open question in my opinion. But what is evident to me is that the role he wants us to play in that exercise is not that of advisor. I believe he either wants us to accept his anecdotal findings -- his vague recollections of whether the wifi corresponds to his headaches -- or dismiss them in a way that he can consider inappropriate.
|