The studies in Section 1.2 suggest a first-pass guess that 65% of the population [that those studies were drawing from] is “non-orthodox”.
…But then you’d need corrections, like if there’s an “orthodox” subset of the population, then some of them might heal by coincidence despite being in the non-orthodox treatment group, and in the other direction (maybe more importantly) there could be non-orthodox people who didn’t respond to the non-orthodox treatment. Actually, the latter would hardly be surprising, particularly given that I think the non-orthodox treatment providers are very confused about what they’re doing and why it works. I think “95% of the population are non-orthodox, or even more” should remain on the table as a possibility. Much lower numbers are also on the table. I don’t immediately know how to narrow it down.
As for subjective confidence, umm, I’m 95% confident that if I spent more time and did more research I would want to make at least minor edits to the model I’m proposing, and 25% that I would want to make major edits. But I don’t really expect that my probabilities are calibrated on this anyway, so maybe those numbers are a bit meaningless.
Hope that helps.
For what it’s worth, I share your general skepticism towards “alternative medicine”. As mentioned in the post, I thought the Healing Back Pain book had a bunch of baloney in it, even at the very moment that I was benefiting so much from it. I continue to have no interest in alternative medicine apart from this one topic.
The studies in Section 1.2 suggest a first-pass guess that 65% of the population [that those studies were drawing from] is “non-orthodox”.
…But then you’d need corrections, like if there’s an “orthodox” subset of the population, then some of them might heal by coincidence despite being in the non-orthodox treatment group, and in the other direction (maybe more importantly) there could be non-orthodox people who didn’t respond to the non-orthodox treatment. Actually, the latter would hardly be surprising, particularly given that I think the non-orthodox treatment providers are very confused about what they’re doing and why it works. I think “95% of the population are non-orthodox, or even more” should remain on the table as a possibility. Much lower numbers are also on the table. I don’t immediately know how to narrow it down.
As for subjective confidence, umm, I’m 95% confident that if I spent more time and did more research I would want to make at least minor edits to the model I’m proposing, and 25% that I would want to make major edits. But I don’t really expect that my probabilities are calibrated on this anyway, so maybe those numbers are a bit meaningless.
Hope that helps.
For what it’s worth, I share your general skepticism towards “alternative medicine”. As mentioned in the post, I thought the Healing Back Pain book had a bunch of baloney in it, even at the very moment that I was benefiting so much from it. I continue to have no interest in alternative medicine apart from this one topic.