One of my "pet peeves" (that has actually caused me a fair amount of aggravation and "expense", personally): Absence of evidence is taken (or, insisted upon) a

One of my "pet peeves" (that has actually caused me a fair amount of aggravation and "expense", personally): Absence of evidence is taken (or, insisted upon) as evidence of absence. I've encountered this particularly in the medical community. As sort of a TL;DR: Many medical practitioners seem at best to be... "technicians" who are not much capable of more that following the "current script" that is handed down to them from blessed authority figures (including particularly if not only the pharmaceutical companies). P.S. I'll add insurance companies to the mix of authority figures, particularly in the U.S. They categorize and dictate what they will and won't pay for. Better doctors sometimes spend a lot of time finding ways around these restrictions in order to provide the treatment they think is actually appropriate and optimal. I would understand using statistical evaluation to help determine the best treatment approach. But when the profit motive enters, combined with a more or less fungible population of insured, the number crunching seems often to put cost ahead of outcome.