wanion
For example, homeopathy states that a remedy becomes stronger the more dilute it becomes - i.e. the lower the dose, the stronger the effect. This defies the dose-response relationship between an active ingredient and its effect. Further, it states that even when no more of the active ingredient remains, it can still have an effect.
SBM would say homeopathy isn't worth studying because it has no plausibility based on what we know of medicine and physics.
EBM would say let's test it and see what we get.
The problem is that if you test the same thing enough times, or measure enough variables, and then discard the ones that don't meet your desired outcome, you can gather "evidence" for basically anything.
SBM would say weak evidence for a claim like homeopathy is meaningless, as the claim is extraordinary (it overturns physics), so you need stronger evidence than you might accept for a less exceptional claim. EBM doesn't make that judgment, it treats all evidence as equally valid.
To quote the SBM blog's about page:
"Good science is the best and only way to determine which treatments and products are truly safe and effective. That idea is already formalized in a movement known as evidence-based medicine (EBM). EBM is a vital and positive influence on the practice of medicine, but it has limitations and problems in practice: it often overemphasizes the value of evidence from clinical trials alone, with some unintended consequences, such as taxpayer dollars spent on “more research” of questionable value. The idea of SBM is not to compete with EBM, but a call to enhance it with a broader view: to answer the question “what works?” we must give more importance to our cumulative scientific knowledge from all relevant disciplines."
You can find the original Science Based Medicine announcement on their blog http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/hello-world/ and there's a decent bit of background on Pain Science https://www.painscience.com/articles/ebm-vs-sbm.php as well.
Virtual processors: 2
Virtual machine: Yes