The two posts above, from Wolfgang and Daylia, demonstrate a major rift between the scientific and New Age communities. The New Age accepts and often seems to prefer anecdotal evidence. A trained scientist may find it interesting but won't accept it as proof or even evidence, necessarily. Why? Because the better the story, the more heavily filtered it is. Affected by the tellers cultural bias, expectations, and pleasure that the thing worked (One finds relatively few negative reports.) The better the story is, the more convincing it is at an emotional level. It doesn't matter that the condition being treated may have been mis-diagnosed, may have gone into normal remission, or may actually remain the same even though the patient feels better. A trained scientist, on the other hand, will try very hard to eliminate all personal, psychological elements from an experiment/test.

So the New Ager is often resentful when the scientist rejects his 'proof' and the scientist disdainful when the New Ager fails to understand his.

You know which side I'm on.