Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob_K
"Medical science" is a pseudoscience,
|
We need to be clear about what is meant by "Medical Science". I have attempted to specify the areas I have reservations about. I don't believe I'd call Medical Science a pseudoscience.
Steven's distinctions for detecting pseudoscience are:
Quote:
(1) The non observation of a prediction made by science is proof that the science is wrong.
(2) An anomaly proves the science is wrong.
(3) Then there are the usual conspiracy theories against mainstream science.
|
Medical Science is famous for the "double blind, randomised trial" technique. Items (1) and (2) are very clearly taken into consideration throughout this process and the results are analysed thoroughly. Where Meta-Analysis is solely used however, one needs to understand parameters like 'Relative Risk Factor', in order to understand the outcomes and therefore, is subject more to interpretation.
Item (3) is also rampant in the public perception when discussing some aspects of Medical Science. There may be some evidence to support the conspiracy theories, where corruption of officials is proven, say, in court. Mostly, this is very limited in terms of cases and areas.
I would say that overall, mainstream Medical Science does not fit into the 'pseudoscience' category when one applies tests (1) and (2) above. One needs to look into the specifics of the topic in order to prove/disprove the various conspiracy theories. Most conspiracy theories I've seen come from those in the recognised pseudo science areas (eg: faith healing etc), who bear a vested interest in propagating them.
The big problem I see with the areas I have isolated in my previous post, revolves around translating the actual clinical trial results and passing these results onto the Doctors we all visit.
I do believe the latter point may be the intent behind Rob_K's post (?).
(Over to you Rob).
Cheers & Rgds.