3 ms·
Another child post has addressed your concerns about the lack of scientific training in journalism, so I won't address it other than to say I was incredibly amu
by L_Rahman 10y ago
Another child post has addressed your concerns about the lack of scientific training in journalism, so I won't address it other than to say I was incredibly amused to see this charge levied at Gawande of all people.
But on your point, this is exactly the thing that Gawande was mystified by in this article. He noticed a trend of people with better primary care relationships having better outcomes despite there not being an immediately identifiable causal link.
Knowing his style, Gawande will probably start testing this pretty soon with his Ariadne Labs group and publish into a high impact journal when they identify causal explanations.
- jessriedel 10y agoObviously, the modified criticism is that the author knows better than to appeal to this kind of anecdote. It doesn't even play a role in hypothesis generation. He's persuading the reader without teaching them, a mistake that can and is made by the even most accomplished people.
- hudibras 10y agoThe article is about how primary care physicians help people, and so the author includes a section about a person who thinks that a primary care physician helped him. This form of the written word is generally known in English as "journalism."