Has anyone done the research on the health benefits of rubbing broken glass in your eyes twice a day? Somehow I doubt it. Would you say that we know nothing about it? Personally, I am quite happy to accept based purely on common sense and intuition that this is unlikely to be healthy.

Research is just another tool. It happens to be a really good one, and when research contradicts common sense and intuition, research usually wins. ("Usually" because it can be flawed, just like anything else.)

But in the absence of research, we can still do better than just saying "uh, I dunno" in many cases.

The alternative isn't reasoning based on buzzwords, it's based on thought and available evidence. No, that's far from perfect, but it's also not going to lead you into homeopathy, reiki, psychic surgery, or acupuncture. Flossing has a plausible mechanism of action, unlike any of your examples. If it turns out that this plausible mechanism of action doesn't actually have any long-term benefits, then that sucks, but it doesn't mean we should give up on thinking about anything that hasn't been researched.

> health benefits of rubbing broken glass in your eyes twice a day?

I'm sure there are plenty of medical journals documenting the effects of getting abrasive substances in your eyes.

Broken glass isn't abrasive so much as pointy and sharp.

Also, I doubt any of those documented effects are from properly designed studies, nor do they examine a long-term daily treatment regimen. Are you just assuming that daily treatment would be bad based on what happens after one instance, plus common sense and intuition?

Your argument is a slippery slope to discarding intuition :).

I don't think it's much of a slippery slope. I think most of us would (or at least should) agree, up front, that intuition isn't worth much. Even when investigating topics that are considered obvious.

"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."

--Socrates

intuition can be easily swayed by emotions... harder to do with facts

Devil's advocate: slippery slopes are only slippery if they slip both ways.

So I could argue that even research results aren't sufficient proof for efficacy. For example, why should a "significant result" be a better argument than personal experience?

Meh, 2/10. Not that slippery.