@EyeDentist Thanks. I agree with you. I am aware of the study evaluation criteria you laid out, the scientific method in general and epistemology, and have undergrad education in statistics. But, I am certain that I have nowhere close to your education and knowledge.
I have been reflecting on the intersection of logical/scientific analysis and living. Living requires decision making.
The problem is that in many (actually most) cases we have to make decisions in life when uncertainties exist.
That is, we have to make decisions about thing where there are no many-times replicated, multi-center, double-blinded, peer-reviewed studies that have been published in respected journals.
Well, statistics and probability theory facilitates “decision making under conditions of uncertainty.” But, often, we don’t even have enough data to use those tools.
Sample question: Should I marry Betty or Jane? Even if “what you are looking for” was clear in your mind, there are no scientific studies of Jane vs. Betty.
So, at best we are left with making a decision based on our general experience.
My understanding is that much of the practice of medicine is conducted in a somewhat similar manner - based on “clinical experience,” not solid, replicated, multi-center studies. I understand “clinical experience” to be a mass of anecdotal experience which itself has often not been subjected to any formal analysis.
I think these forums are, in part, the sharing of “clinical experience” with a view to “review” by other self-clinicians (people taking an active role in their own treatment, hopefully in consultation with an interested doctor).
Among the many flaws in the process is that the participants are self-selected, which biases the anecdotal evidence we are working with.
And, we, largely untrained, are in truth many times relaying our impressions or interpretations of our experiences, and sometimes those of others!
Yes, that flawed process can and does lead to what later turns out to be incorrect ideas and non-optimum protocols.
However:
My impression is that endocrinology - let alone andrological endocrinology - is a relatively young science. I would be surprised if andrological endocrinology receives much funding.
Until it and associated sciences are adequately funded and the subject is sorted out, and then the relevant doctors educated, we are left with what we have: these forums and a very small number of doctors trying to figure out what to do as best we can.
Hopefully in that process we will bring all the rigor we can… But, in most cases it will not get anywhere close to scientific standards … It can’t in most cases…heck, we are for the most part missing a foundational aspect of scientific work: starting off with controlled conditions.
My 2 cents.