3 ms·
We should be distrustful of medicine, of all science in general. Ignoring flawed methodologies or inconclusive results just means it's no longer science, it's i
by bowsamic 3y ago
We should be distrustful of medicine, of all science in general. Ignoring flawed methodologies or inconclusive results just means it's no longer science, it's ideology. I'm a physicist though so perhaps I could be overly jaded about science and peer review compared to most scientists
- dekhn 3y agoYou simply can't apply the rules of publication in physics to medical biology research. Even highly quantitative biology is noticeably different in terms of standards of proof and quality of models.
- bowsamic 3y agoAre you saying that we should be less distrustful of medical biology than of physics? I don’t see why that should be so
- dekhn 3y agono, the other way around (obviously?)
- bowsamic 3y agoBut, that’s my point. I’m telling you that you should be distrustful of physics, so you should be really distrustful of medical science
- dekhn 3y agoI haven't seen any real serious replication problems in physics that didn't get cleared up, or anything else that would make me doubt the results. I would generalize the statement: assuming a reductive order of sciences (medicine->biology->chemistry->physics), if one cannot trust a layer, it seems even more likely that layers above it should be trusted even less.
- bowsamic 3y agoI personally don't believe in a reductive order of sciences