'If something would work consistently (or well above chance) not knowing why it works wouldn't be a good reason not to use it. Though to know why something works is always better, for it gives us more control about the situation.'

Well, I thought that's what I said. What I meant to say, anyhow.

"...and was finally cured of it --instantly-- by a chicken-sacrifice ceremony (my emphasis). That is the post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking leading to a feeling of validity. The correct word would be after (in the eyes of a scientist) because we can never be sure (from one case alone) that the cure was in any way responsible for the healing. The doctor you cite tries his best to give an explanation in terms of placebo effect (and he does it well)."

The writer, and the doctor are the ones who said the man in the anecdote was cured. The doctor said essentially that the cure was due to the placebo effect and, as I said, I agree with him, and with you thus far.

What I want to know is why the doctor, with all his knowledge, was not able to help this man, and the 'superstitious savage' could.

I'm not pushing for chicken-blood cures or psychic surgery, I'm pushing for what works. "Placebo effect" is a name, not an explanation. It's like the line that sopoforics put you to sleep because they contain a "dormative quality."

My-daughter-the-pharmacist had some literature on Rogaine; it seems Rogaine (at that time) appeared to be restoring hair better than anything but the placebo in the tests. The placebo was second best. I think anything that can make a sugar pill (or whatever) grow hair on the head of someone with male-pattern baldness is rather amazing. I talked to my doctor about it, and he just dismissed it, as though "placebo effect" may exist but it doesn't count.

clint