5 ms·

Because physicians don't get much if any training in evaluating evidence and research, they generally believe what they're told by scientists. Which is a shame,

Because physicians don't get much if any training in evaluating evidence and research, they generally believe what they're told by scientists. Which is a shame, they should be taught critical evaluation of literature They also don't have time because of the artificial limits of physicians graduating every year, combined with more bureaucracy being pushed on them day by day

tracker1 2y ago
"trust the science" edit: it's meant in sarcasm, mostly.
- alan-hn 2y ago
  We can trust the process of science but we need to be mindful of how to critically examine a body of literature. When I see most lay people examine literature all they do is cherry pick what they like and discard the rest and ignore any analysis or methodological concerns
  - tracker1 2y ago
    This generally seems to be true. It doesn't help that poor reporting methods exacerbate the issue.
    - alan-hn 2y ago
      Oh absolutely, science journalism is absolutely terrible for the most part. That's why I always try to find the original paper they're reporting on to see what's actually going on Most journalists don't understand research either and I've even seen some PhD science writers get things wrong too but usually less often. Science journalism is filled with incredible sweeping claims and jumps in logic that boggle the mind and are nothing like what's in the research being reported on, it truly makes me disappointed
      - tracker1 2y ago
        I've seen a lot of research around nutrition, where the abstract/summary for the paper itself makes claims not reasonably backed in the paper itself. Then again, I think pharma, food and agriculture in particular have bent to financial forces over everything else.
  - BobaFloutist 2y ago
    It's incredibly hard to do anything else, since it's pretty easy to cherry pick methodological concerns for any given conclusion you don't care for, since it's incredibly rare for a given body of work to be free of methodological flaws.
    - alan-hn 2y ago
      Something I have noticed is that non scientists don't understand the methods so when they do try and critique the methods those critiques don't make sense because they lack the understanding of the underlying principles There is a lot of basic science that is quite solid and is replicable yet people tend to throw it out with nonsense complaints
SoftTalker 2y ago
> physicians don't get much if any training in evaluating evidence and research I find this surprising, if true.
- alan-hn 2y ago
  Well I work at med school, grad students get far more training on research, med students can take an optional research elective. This elective isn't a formal course either, what happens is a med student comes to our lab and we put them on a small project as an assistant doing data analysis or a simple experiment. They don't get formally taught how to evaluate research You have to remember med students are training to be clinicians not researchers. They have to diagnose and treat patients based on information taught to them by clinicians and basic scientists This is also why it annoys me when lay people refer to the opinions of physicians on some new research that just came out, like with covid stuff. They are not research experts, they're clinicians. They treat people and make diagnoses
- HDThoreaun 2y ago
  It is largely true. Evidence in medicine widely exists but most doctors arent keeping up with it. There has been a bit of a movement toward evidence based medicine in the last decade but most docotrs are still relying on what they learned in med school instead of keeping up with literature.
  - alan-hn 2y ago
    Many physicians also tend to be very conservative in terms of adopting new treatments. They tend to stick with what they know "works" and don't want to take risks to try something new

tracker1 2y ago

"trust the science" edit: it's meant in sarcasm, mostly.

alan-hn 2y ago
We can trust the process of science but we need to be mindful of how to critically examine a body of literature. When I see most lay people examine literature all they do is cherry pick what they like and discard the rest and ignore any analysis or methodological concerns
- tracker1 2y ago
  This generally seems to be true. It doesn't help that poor reporting methods exacerbate the issue.
  - alan-hn 2y ago
    Oh absolutely, science journalism is absolutely terrible for the most part. That's why I always try to find the original paper they're reporting on to see what's actually going on Most journalists don't understand research either and I've even seen some PhD science writers get things wrong too but usually less often. Science journalism is filled with incredible sweeping claims and jumps in logic that boggle the mind and are nothing like what's in the research being reported on, it truly makes me disappointed
    - tracker1 2y ago
      I've seen a lot of research around nutrition, where the abstract/summary for the paper itself makes claims not reasonably backed in the paper itself. Then again, I think pharma, food and agriculture in particular have bent to financial forces over everything else.
- BobaFloutist 2y ago
  It's incredibly hard to do anything else, since it's pretty easy to cherry pick methodological concerns for any given conclusion you don't care for, since it's incredibly rare for a given body of work to be free of methodological flaws.
  - alan-hn 2y ago
    Something I have noticed is that non scientists don't understand the methods so when they do try and critique the methods those critiques don't make sense because they lack the understanding of the underlying principles There is a lot of basic science that is quite solid and is replicable yet people tend to throw it out with nonsense complaints

SoftTalker 2y ago

> physicians don't get much if any training in evaluating evidence and research I find this surprising, if true.

alan-hn 2y ago
Well I work at med school, grad students get far more training on research, med students can take an optional research elective. This elective isn't a formal course either, what happens is a med student comes to our lab and we put them on a small project as an assistant doing data analysis or a simple experiment. They don't get formally taught how to evaluate research You have to remember med students are training to be clinicians not researchers. They have to diagnose and treat patients based on information taught to them by clinicians and basic scientists This is also why it annoys me when lay people refer to the opinions of physicians on some new research that just came out, like with covid stuff. They are not research experts, they're clinicians. They treat people and make diagnoses
HDThoreaun 2y ago
It is largely true. Evidence in medicine widely exists but most doctors arent keeping up with it. There has been a bit of a movement toward evidence based medicine in the last decade but most docotrs are still relying on what they learned in med school instead of keeping up with literature.
- alan-hn 2y ago
  Many physicians also tend to be very conservative in terms of adopting new treatments. They tend to stick with what they know "works" and don't want to take risks to try something new