Science and EBM vs. theory

[mordantcarnival]

I've actually been trying to write something about this for years now--literally years, like 7 or 8. But every time I come back to the topic, I feel like I'm drowning. Suffocating. About a month or so ago I came across a PDF on the topic which I thought might make a good jumping-on point, as it specifically tries to use the tools of post-

Comments

[janinazew]

I took a quick look, skipped the Deleuzian stuff as I've never studied any (though I could get someone to tell me if they think it's an accurate reading of the philosophy). Then I got to the Derridean stuff and realised that essentially the reading of society in the article is wrong. These people have no place for specialism, they practically state that they're treating the privilege of body over mind in these circumstances as negative which is unholy crap practically speaking. All we require from medicine (which you've pretty much said in your response above) is that it recognises, on an individual level, that it doesn't know everything. This article is naive theory, it has its place but it's not a good argument societally speaking.

They stress post-modernism as well so it's no wonder I'm not a fan. I think of post-modernism as equivalent to processed whipped cream from a can.

[mordantcarnival]

What gets me about this whle thing is that I had a reasonably good grasp of the basics of the scientific method and the basic concepts underpinng EBM, as well as some of the specifics (how vaccination works, and so on) by the time I was 10. Theory claims to open things up and be more egalitarian ultimately but you can't understand a word of it w/o at least 5 years of specialised study.

[janinazew]

I got the philosophy checked out- citations are accurate but it was pointed out that no scholar can work without evidence so the discourse isn't really supported by the theory.

[mordantcarnival]

Well my point is that I don't understand the theory. Any of it. I don't get what exactly is wrong with EBM according to these authors, or what we are supposed to put together instead of it.

[janinazew]

That's philosophy for you- completely opaque unless you've read the source text 5 times.