Talk:Medical Scientism/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Medical Scientism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Please see Talk:Medical Scientism/Delete for a discussion of whether this article should be deleted.

If this entry appears oddly slanted and opaque, review the userpage User:Mr-Natural-Health for revealing context. Wetman 05:07, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

See User:Mr-Natural-Health for a list of my accomplishments. -- Mr-Natural-Health 13:23, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Your principal accomplishment here has been to reveal yourself to be a complete fool, IMHO. Adam 13:53, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I leave that distinction to you, the person most deserving of that honor on this talk page. -- 12.77.35.38 15:51, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That's not a very loving attitude. OTOH, any link in Wikipedia to naturalhealthperspective.com ("a not-for-profit informational web site operated by a single individual" [1]) may be worth inspecting as to whether it's basically an ad or attempt at POV. - David Gerard 14:00, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)

I leave the expert opinion on loving attitude to you. I remain your humble servant, the expert on the scientific basis of alternative medicine. Free, quick, easy sign-up for my weekly newsletter. -- 12.77.34.165 15:11, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just in case you don't know!

You science people now have another opportunity to defend your position. -- Mr-Natural-Health 07:11, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A lot of the stuff from old versions of the article has been added to Evidence-based medicine. - David Gerard 12:32, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

My apologies for marking my last revert as minor. I t was not intentional. theresa knott 14:24, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Here is the stuff I deleted: Medical Scientism is the belief that there is one and only one method of science that applies to medical research and that it alone confers legitimacy upon the conduct of medical research. Scientism is the religion of reductionist scientific materialism. The mantra of medical scientism is randomized clinical trials, double-blind, peer reviewed, studies published in respectable journals.

Medical scientism is the position held by the scientific community.

The established theory of medical scientism, or of the scientific community, is automatically assumed to be backed by science, while any other competing theory, such as from alternative medicine, has to show evidence to support their position. Medical Scientism is a term that has a similar meaning to Evidence-Based Medicine. But, whereas evidence-based medicine encourages research, medical scientism has a stifling influence on the progress of medicine.

Medical Scientism is a pejorative expression used by some in the alternative medicine movement to describe scientific or evidence-based medicine, particularly the belief that all treatments should be subject to randomized clinical trials and double-blind, peer reviewed studies published in respectable journals. Its implication is presumably that a non-science-based form of medical knowledge is both possible and preferable.

Overview

Issues of clinical validity are being challenged by the burgeoning evidence-based medicine movement. A culture of medical scientism is developing whereby clinicians seen not to be assessing the validity of their assumptions and actions by evidence-based medicine criteria are deemed to lack credibility by their peers. Professional judgement according to evidence-based medicine is categorized as the lowest form of evidence, even superseded by methodologically flawed clinical research evidence. The issues raised are whether the evidence-based medicine evidence criteria are solely capable of legitimizing clinical practice, or are other perspectives on evidence necessary and equally valid? These issues affect physicians just as much as they affect alternative medicine.

The question being considered here is how do physicians know what is an effective medical treatment? Or, how do physicians apply good science without turning it into junk science? In other words, how many different ways are there to conduct valid medical research? Medical scientism answers: There is only one acceptable way -- randomized clinical trials, double-blind, peer reviewed, studies published in respectable journals.

According, to the scientific community there are no other acceptable alternatives. Any other kind of research, is simply not not considered valid according to medical scientism. Research not published in a handfull of prestigious respectable journals is discounted as not being valid. Case-studies likewise are not considered to have any value. Nor, is the clinical judgement of a physician considered to have any evidentiary value.

Support and criticism for medical scientism

Support

The science community argues that it is impossible to use testimonials, hearsay and mystical arguments as proof, because observer bias distorts recollection. The only way to counter observer bias is to run a double blind experiment, where neither the patient nor the practitioner knows whether the real treatment is being given or if a placebo has been administered.

Concerns

Those who believe that there is more than one way to do medical research can point to a number of different general arguments.

Belief in only one way of doing medical research totally trashes the branch of medicine called epidemiology. Epidemiological studies have been of great value in the science of nutrition. Diet has been shown by published research to be equally effective as drugs in a number of different medical conditions.
The primary problem with this one method of medical research is that it was clearly developed to test the effectiveness of drugs. Trying to force this method of drug testing on non-drug forms of treatment is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
Further, peer reviewed respectable journals like NEJM, Lancet, JAMA, and BMJ have been unable to prevent biased papers ghostwritten by pharmaceutical companies from being published (Flanagin 1998, Larkin 1999). These same pharmaceutical companies are a primary source of funding for medical/drug research. In some cases, doctors listed as authors on ghostwritten research papers never reviewed the raw data, just tables compiled by a medical writing company.
Another problem with medical scientism is that its one way of science seems more concerned about the job security of researchers than it is about solving the mysteries of health. This is because medical research, just like science, is designed to go on forever. No single piece of research is ever considered conclusive or final. Medical scientism is about a never ending drive for more and more reductionism.
An argument can, also, be made that what an individual needs in order to improve their own health is more synthesis rather than further reductionism. Hence, what might benefit the progress of immortal science is not necessarily helpful for the mortal individual.

Research articles cited in the text

Flanagin A, Carey LA, Fontanarosa PB. Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):222-4. Abstract
Larkin M. Whose article is it anyway? Lancet. 1999 Jul 10;354(9173):136. Editorial

External Links

I'm sorry to delete such a lot in one fowl swoop but it's far too POV. If it stays in the article will be deleted, which in is on ones interest. Plus reverting more than three times is against policy, so those who are against having POV rants can voice their objections here instead.

Sorry, but wholesale deletion of text is strictly prohibited. -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:49, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Where? And by whom? I'm afraid that you seem to have totally missed the point of Wikipedia, which is that articles can be edited by anyone provided they are not using the article to promote a single point of view. As your text does not meet this condition, other users are free to edit it our IMHO. If you can point me to a Wikipedia convention that disproves my position, I'd appreciate it. Bmills 14:56, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Stopping deleting my improvements

I cannot improve the article without editing it! -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:47, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Neither can you by engaging in a reversion war. Cool down, talk about the page, and reach a consensus. Then ask for unprotection. Kosebamse 14:51, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You cannot improve an article that you cannot edit. This is plain common sense. This talk page is uneditble!!! -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:11, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What are you going on about? You had to edit this talk page in order to write the above. I suggest you discuss the article here. Reach a consenses with everyone else, then the article page can be unprotected and we can add it in. theresa knott 16:22, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Discuss what? Talk about what? You don't reason with vandals! The medical scientism people practice their prohibited POV on Wikipedia everyday, and you are enabling them! -- Mr-Natural-Health 16:33, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Lets start with the first paragraph of the overview section. Issues of clinical validity are being challenged by the burgeoning evidence-based medicine movement. A culture of medical scientism is developing whereby clinicians seen not to be assessing the validity of their assumptions and actions by evidence-based medicine criteria are deemed to lack credibility by their peers. Professional judgement according to evidence-based medicine is categorized as the lowest form of evidence, even superseded by methodologically flawed clinical research evidence. The issues raised are whether the evidence-based medicine evidence criteria are solely capable of legitimizing clinical practice, or are other perspectives on evidence necessary and equally valid? These issues affect physicians just as much as they affect alternative medicine.

The second sentence " A culture of .... " is POV. Who says that a culture is developing?

So is the third sentence "professional judgement ..." This is just your opinion.

The third sentence is poorly written - I can't really make out whay you are trying to say.

The first and last sentences - I happy with ~

Now what say you ? theresa knott 16:48, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me, but culture is anything but POV. Check out anthropology. Culture is a part of the definition of mankind. Culture is what prevents the weak from being left to die, on the streets per Darwinian evolution. -- Mr-Natural-Health 17:03, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Are you trolling here ? Me thinks you must be, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the time being. It's not the word culture that is POV it's the whole sentence. I only wrote " A culture of .... " is POV. to save copying out the whole sentence again. Do you anderstand now.

Here is my re-write:

Issues of clinical validity are being challenged by the burgeoning evidence-based medicine movement. The evidentiary value of clinical judgement is ranked lower than that of even methodologically flawed research, by the new rules of evidence-based medicine. The issue being raised is whether the new evidence criteria of evidence-based medicine is solely capable of legitimizing clinical practice, or are other perspectives on evidence necessary and equally valid? These issues affect physicians just as much as they affect alternative medicine.

Now what? The article cannot be edited!!! -- Mr-Natural-Health 17:21, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Here is my rewrite of the paragraph:Issues of clinical validity are being challenged by the burgeoning evidence-based medicine movement. The value of anecdotal evidence is ranked very lowly. The issue being raised is whether the new scientific criteria of evidence-based medicine is solely capable of legitimizing all clinical practice, or are other perspectives on evidence valid? These issues affect physicians just as much as they affect alternative medicine.

Do you like ? Can you live with it? theresa knott 17:35, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

YES -- Mr-Natural-Health 17:51, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Excellent! I have to go home know but I'll work with you on the other paragraphs by next week. I'm glad we are making progress.

If using the word 'culture' is POV than why is your use of 'scientific' not POV? Are you saying that your POV is better than my POV? Are you not proving my point that the so called established position of the scientific community is automatically assumed to be correct, while my use of culture is automatically assumed to be wrong? -- Mr-Natural-Health 17:51, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

&la;bangs head on the table&ra; Please read what I wrote again. I never said the word culture was POV. I sad that A culture of medical scientism is developing whereby clinicians seen not to be assessing the validity of their assumptions and actions by evidence-based medicine criteria are deemed to lack credibility by their peers. was POV. Do you understand now? (I'll see you again next week) theresa knott 17:58, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, Right ... "A culture of medical scientism" is automatically assumed POV while "the new scientific criteria of" is automatically assumed correct. While the criteria is obviously new, nowhere is their proof that it is scientific. It is not scientific per arguments provided in Medical Scientism.

Is Epidemiological research Quackery?

The mantra of medical scientism is randomized clinical trials, double-blind, peer reviewed, studies published in respectable journals. Epidemiological research is not the randomized clinical trials and double-blind stuff that drug research is made of.

If any one element of this mantra is missing, then that published research study is classified as being invalid research. This kind of decision is made quite arbitrarily by the medical scientism people. And, their mantra clearly renders the vast majority of all published health research invalid and virtual quackery by implication.

The primary treatment method of medicine is medication. And, their mantra is clearly designed for drug testing. So, forcing a drug testing paradigm upon other kinds of health research is patently absurd. Unfortunately, people like RK don't see it that way.

This phenomenon of medical scientism is quite real because it dominates all science newsgroups, mailing lists and of course the health related articles in Wikipedia.-- Mr-Natural-Health 21:03, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is in the Dictionary!

The one way, or the highway, definition of 'scientism' is in the dictionary! There is actually one real dictionary that uses the correct definition. I use this dictionary definition on my web site because it particularly applies to the anti-science phenomena of medical scientism. The actual definition is as follows.

scientism: "the belief that there is one and only one method of science and that it alone confers legitimacy upon the conduct of research."

I shall repeat. My definition of scientism is actually in the dictionary. While I am sure that it is valid in other areas of science, it is particularly valid in the area of medicine. Hence, my usage of the perfectly valid phrase: medical scientism.

You cannot develop an article with an actual dictionary definition, when you cannot edit the article. -- Mr-Natural-Health

What is this supposed to prove? Everyone involved here knows that the term scientism exists, and there's a lengthy Wikipedia article on it. What you have yet to prove is that the slanted view of medical scientism you have tried to force into this article is anything more than your own subjective POV, which is by itself unworthy of an encyclopædia article. It is a far leap from "there is one and only one method of science" to "The medical establishment doesn't believe anything that isn't proven by double-blind clinical trials". — No-One Jones (talk) 02:24, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point, with your last sentence. It is not just my opinion. See direct quotes below. It applies even in the field of economics! -- Mr-Natural-Health 03:46, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You're not proving anything by cutting and pasting these definitions. The article already has a definition of medical scientism, and nobody is disputing that the term exists. What is under dispute is your lengthy, completely-unsupported POV rants on the topic, and simply giving more definitions does not prove anything. I can give half a dozen definitions for the planet Mars, but that does not entitle me to excogitate wildly about how the little green Saucer Men are plotting to invade and destroy the Earth; if I wanted to do that, I would have to provide photographs of the saucer launching pads, intercepts of Martian telepathic communications, speeches by the Supreme Overlord of Mars, and so forth. If you want to have anything more than just definitions in this article (and note that it already has a definition), you'll have to provide more than just definitions: something that is not solely your own opinion and that critiques specific aspects of medical scientism. — No-One Jones (talk) 03:57, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

More of 'the one way' or the highway? -- Mr-Natural-Health 04:01, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If that's what you want to call it. . . yes. There is a right way to write an encyclopedia, and there is a wrong way. This comment of Adam Carr's (from Talk:Wahhabism) explains it well (emphasis is mine):

Historically the encyclopaedia is a characteristic project of the Enlightenment intellectual (Diderot, Voltaire etc). It rests on the assumption that there is an objective truth about all subjects, which can be known to humans and discerned through scientific inquiry', and written about dispassionately by the enlightened intellectual. WP reflects this ideology as much as any other encyclopaedia, and so it should.

If you cannot or will not accept the epistemological assumptions of the encyclopedia, may I suggest that you should not write for that encyclopedia. If all you want is a forum for your subjective rants, go somewhere else. — No-One Jones (talk) 04:26, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There is NO discussion about whether the policy of NPOV applies to the articles you add your stuff to. NPOV is the rule you have to abide by. You are free to fork wikipedia or to join (for example) an existing fork if you don't want to abide by this policy. --snoyes 04:49, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Definitions of scientism

In a second dictionary definition:

"1. The collection of attitudes and practices considered typical of scientists."

This definition supports the above precise definition of scientism. -- Mr-Natural-Health 03:06, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Although science is not an enemy of chiropractic, scientism most certainly is. Scientism limits all fields of human inquiry to contemporary technology. Smith states that scientism "...refers to an uncritical idolization of science -- the belief that only science can solve human problems, that only science has value." Holton observed that "Scientism divides all thought into two categories: scientific thought and nonsense." (4,5)

4. Smith RF: "Prelude to Science." Charles Scribner's Sons. New York, NY, 1975. P. 12.

5. Holton G: "The false images of science." In Young LB (ed): "The Mystery of Matter." Oxford University Press. London, UK, 1965.

Ergo, there is only the 'one way of science,' or the highway! -- Mr-Natural-Health 03:21, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"The ascendancy of the natural scientific community in controlling much opinion , such as through the media, publishing, employment and lobbying - has a narrowing and deleterious effect on culture. Adherents of the pseudo-philosophies of objectivism or positivism try to dictate what is 'sensible', what can be believed or not and even what are acceptable terms or languages to describe the world. Their success in steam-rolling intellectual debate with their short-term pragmatism and naive belief in the neutrality of 'objective theory' and scientific expertise is a major danger to society. They would exclude other world-views quite rigorously and even ridicule as virtually pathological all radical dissent to the hegemony of scientific thinking, ..."

"Steam-rolling intellectual debate ... the hegemony of scientific thinking" is another way of saying: 'the one way' of scientism or the highway! -- Mr-Natural-Health 03:28, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"economics scientism monopolised by a single approach to the explanation and analysis of economic phenomena."

Here we see 'the one way' of scientism, or the highway, in the field of economics. -- Mr-Natural-Health

In my concluding comment:

Scientism is the enemy of Science.

Medical Scientism is the enemy of both Medicine and Alternative Medicine.

-- Mr-Natural-Health 03:59, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

All the above reinforces my view that this article ought to be deleted, or at most confined to the one-paragraph article that I sugegsted last night (my time), and also that Mr NH has no interest in creating an acceptable Wikipedia article. Adam 04:05, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

More of 'the one way' or the highway? -- Mr-Natural-Health 04:07, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's a pity you are too stupid to see the damage that your idiotic behaviour here is doing to the cause you claim to be upholding. You merely reinforce the view that "alternative medicine" is the belief of fools. Adam 04:34, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If Nudity, SEX, Hollywood, and 100's of other bizarre articles belongs in Wikipedia then an objective presentation of the phenomena of Medical Scientism deserves to be included, too.

The present stub is full of POV.

If I lose, I still win!

You know Adam as well as I do that my next edit / or original article will be even more traumatic to the Medical Scientism people. So, stay tuned in.

PS: I do not believe in Alternative Medicine. Nor, do I promote it. I just love playing with the Medical Scientism people.

-- Mr-Natural-Health 05:07, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that you are a troll. I look forward to deleting your next article too. Adam 05:18, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"I just love playing with the Medical Scientism people." Straight from the troll's mouth. We, on the other hand, are busy building an encyclopedia. --snoyes 05:21, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia deserves an objective presentation of the phenomena of Medical Scientism. And, it will be addressed one way or the other. -- Mr-Natural-Health 05:24, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why are you adding this to other people's talk pages? It sounds a bit like a threat. --snoyes 05:33, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why are you so paranoid? -- Mr-Natural-Health 05:37, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Medical Scientism can be addressed in a lot of different articles, either directly or indirectly. -- Mr-Natural-Health 05:39, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Alternative medicine comes to mind. Ha, ... Hah, ... Ha! Hmn, some people have suggested Scientism. I am already working on that angle. Then there is research. How about the scientific method? There is always the philosophy of knowledge.

So, much to do and so little time. While others destroy Alternative medicine I will work on improving Medicine. -- Mr-Natural-Health 05:45, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Playing with the ....

For the benefit of the brain-dead medical scientism people (who obviously exist only in my own mind), I should clarify a few of my previous comments.

First, there happens to be a major difference between a talk page and an article. In case, you don't already know, POV belongs on talk pages. So, there should be no surprise that I am still using the word 'mantra.' In the article, I could refer to the 'one-and-only-one way' of medical scientism. Mantra, however, painfully highlights the overt stupidity of medical scientism.

Second, there is no secret that my only interest is in Natural Health. Much to the shock of the imaginary medical scientism people natural health is a natural philosophy, soundly grounded in science, just like conventional medicine is.

If my living a drug free lifestyle of excellent nutrition, plenty of healthy exercise, and a good night's sleep classifies me as a Quack, so be it. I take that classification as a badge of honor.

Third, the imaginary medical scientism people are in fact advocating a lifestyle of drug dependency. In short, they want everybody to be a druggie! The primary treatment method of medicine (as opposed to surgery) is medication. So, much to the shock of the imaginary medical scientism people you cannot advocate conventional medicine without advocating the use of prescription medication. If your life long drug use doesn't kill you, a visit to your friendly hospital surely will.

And, last but not least, my playing with the imaginary medical scientism people is a natural byproduct of my editing activities. Every word that comes out my mouth much to the shock of these imaginary medical scientism people reinforces the fact that you guys are fundamentally W-R-O-N-G. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:09, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This looks like an excellent candidate for redirection to scientism. Jamesday 18:56, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

After googling for this name, it seems like "Medical Scientism" isn't a very widely used term. But the topic, criticisms of western medical science, definitely exists and deserves an article somewhere as it is currently attacked from many directions. MNH:s opinion exist and is legitimate, although probably not expressed as cathegorical. BL 08:19, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether there can or cannot be an article called Medical Scientism. The expression exists, there are things to be said about it, so there can be an article about it. That's the easy part. The hard part is Mr NH cannot be the person to write such an article, or any other on present evidence, because he is only interested in setting out his opinions about science and medicine. Until he agrees to stop doing so, or better still leaves Wikipedia altogether, no article on this subject can exist. The problem, Mr NH, is not the subject, it is you. Adam 10:50, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't want him to leave - he produces a lot of useful material, once the grossly overwhelming POV is removed. The hard part is his proprietary inclinations - if I create an article on Wikipedia, it's not 'my' article any more. It's Wikipedia's. - David Gerard 12:08, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

To those who can read!

Try reading paragraph #1. With my limited intelligence, I understand that this dicusssion started with this concept.

A wiseman once wrote: "100% deletion of text is Anti-Wikipedia. And, I agree completely.

Per my comments in Page History, it was my expectation from the start that you guys would work to improve the article rather than delete the text 100%.

It is indisputable that I added text, while all you guys did was delete the text 100%. And, prevented the one quy who was adding text from improving the article. You guys are playing dirty. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:13, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Who was it who said "100% deletion of text is Anti-Wikipedia"? - David Gerard 17:00, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

Alternative medicine: Revision history

09:04, 15 Jan 2004 . . Fubar Obfusco (Reverting deletion of "Comparing alternative medicine to conventional medicine" section. Wholesale deletion of meaningful text is anti-Wikipedian.)

-- Mr-Natural-Health 05:30, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I turned up another definition of Medical Scientism from a fairly reliable source (emphasis mine):

"Medical scientism could be defined as an approach to medical practice that regards the scientific understanding of the disease as the only relevant issue, whilst ignoring any other factors."

And on the next page:

"Many philosophers have therefore wrestled with the central question which now confronts the medical profession, can there be unity which reflects diversity?

If not, there are two possibilities. First, we may ignore the evidence of uniformity, arguing that, since each patient is unique, statistics cannot apply. The result is non-scientific quackery [reference to diagram snipped]. Secondly, we may ignore individuality and treat solely according to statistically-determined parameters. This, therapeutic totalitarianism, is the essence of medical scientism." (J. M. Leggett,Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 90; Feb. 1997, pp. 97-101.) Unfortunately the JRSM online archives only go back four years, so you'll have to find a paper copy.

This is somewhat different from both Natty's definition and the supposed alternative healer's definition that's currently in the article. This article, and some supplementary material I dug up, might be worthwhile for a new version (or at least a section of Scientism) that isn't blatantly slanted agenda-pushing. (Natty H will have to either reform his ways or be . . . dealt with . . . before any such rewrite can go through, though.) — No-One Jones (talk) 23:05, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Medical scientism is about the one-and-only-one correct way of doing valid medical research. -- Mr-Natural-Health 19:32, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Mr NH's comments above show that he still doesn't have the faintest understanding of why everyone else finds his behaviour here so stupid and objectionable. The problem as I said before is not Mr NH's ideas (silly though I think they are) but his complete lack of interest in writing an encyclopaedia article instead of a rant. I suggest that Mirv have a go at a fuller and more nuanced article than the short one I wrote, and we can discuss it here. It can then be placed as the new article and protected against further nonsense from Mr NH. Adam 12:46, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Fine by me. Bmills 13:07, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Stolen from Talk:Medical Scientism/Delete

- This is an amusing thread. Clearly, modern medicine does not fit the definition of scientism. Modern medical knowledge benefits from studies using multiple scientific disciplines, ranging across the multitude of basic sciences to clinical work that ranges from case reports to case series to controlled trials. There is a nice article on scientism in http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AA74F-FF5F-1CDB-B4A8809EC588EEDF If there is an article on scientism it ought to be filled with examples of how adhering to medical dogma blinds medical sciences to advances, with attention paid to the paradigm shifts when someone figures out how to demostrate what was once not known. In my field, gastroenterology, the discovery of the infectious nature of peptic ulcer disease offers a modern example. Stephne Holland, M.D. Kd4ttc 15:12, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There is another interesting paper at:

Susan Haack.

Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism.

Skeptical Inquirer magazine, Vol. 21, No. 6, November/December 1997.

-- Mr-Natural-Health 19:19, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

- - I did find an article which described just such an instance, regarding the first discovery of dietary treatments for coeliac disease and the ways in which the discovery was rejected: Absolutism's Hidden Message for Medical Scientism (Ronald Hoggan; published in Interchange, vol. 28/2 and 3, 183-189, 1997). It's worth a read, though it's more about educational theory than medical philosophy. — No-One Jones (talk) 12:06, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Losing time for Wiki

Holders of two doctorates in medicine need not lose time with baby sitting. But they do it, for the sake of "quality" : ) For Wiki is recently heading towards the general direction of insignificance, thanks to the tyranny of dyslexic cranks. Look at the level of debate with empowered ignarrogants, perpetrators of cut-and-paste culture, paragons of kakocracy : )
I don't care what you degrees or education are, you're full of **** all the same. I shall aide Theresa in her battle against your ignorance. - Lord Kenneth 12:23, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC) : )
Sincerely, irismeister 09:12, 2004 Feb 4 (UTC)
Editor of 13,000+ pages in three months - and growing with each new baby-sitting assignment :)