The minimalist attitude to reading in medicine was a disaster. For centuries "doctors" only studied the classic texts (inaccuracies and all) and reading widely

The minimalist attitude to reading in medicine was a disaster. For centuries "doctors" only studied the classic texts (inaccuracies and all) and reading widely or seeking new medical knowledge was discouraged or made illegal. Medicine was correspondingly stagnant. The history of mankind isn't a straight line of progress, but if you're pointing to the past to show why we should be doing things differently today, you better make a way more convincing case than the one presented here about why that aspect of the past was better. At least try to argue the scholarship of the days past was better than the scholarship of today (not an easy argument to make). Otherwise, its just like an argument for a paleo diet - why would I want to adopt a diet for health reasons based on an idea that said diet was consumed by people that lived short, brutal lives?