“Is the medical model wrong?” is a bad question. One of the main idea of evidence-based medicine is that treating people based on pathophysiological reasoning (that means based on what a model says) is bad and that you should instead look at evidence about whether certain treatments have an effect or don’t have an effect.
If we would have trustworthy models that we could depend on in medicine we wouldn’t need the expensive stage three medical trials.
Creating good models in medicine is hard. Just because you manage to show that one model is wrong doesn’t mean that you have a model that’s correct or that the evidence in the clinical trials for given treatments is invalidated.
The CIA has a lot of information they don’t want the public or even Congress to know. After 9/11, the CIA stone-walled a lot of investigations. Conspiracy theorists argued that the CIA behaves as if it has something to hide and therefore 9/11 was an inside job. They ignore that the CIA has all sorts of secrets to hide whether or not 9/11 was an inside job, which in turn means that the CIA stone-walling isn’t evidence of there being an inside job.
It’s a typical pattern in conspiracy thinking to try to search for evidence to invalidate a hypothesis instead of seeking evidence for whether an alternative hypothesis is true.
In medicine there are maybe three important questions:
What do you do as a patient?
What are valuable research paradigms to pursue?
For what should health insurance be required to pay?
Even if you learn “the textbook on the subject is filled with errors” that doesn’t give you a clear path to answer either of those questions. Knowing things is hard, that’s true both within the existing structures and outside of it.
“Is the medical model wrong?” is a bad question. One of the main idea of evidence-based medicine is that treating people based on pathophysiological reasoning (that means based on what a model says) is bad and that you should instead look at evidence about whether certain treatments have an effect or don’t have an effect.
If we would have trustworthy models that we could depend on in medicine we wouldn’t need the expensive stage three medical trials.
Creating good models in medicine is hard. Just because you manage to show that one model is wrong doesn’t mean that you have a model that’s correct or that the evidence in the clinical trials for given treatments is invalidated.
The CIA has a lot of information they don’t want the public or even Congress to know. After 9/11, the CIA stone-walled a lot of investigations. Conspiracy theorists argued that the CIA behaves as if it has something to hide and therefore 9/11 was an inside job. They ignore that the CIA has all sorts of secrets to hide whether or not 9/11 was an inside job, which in turn means that the CIA stone-walling isn’t evidence of there being an inside job.
It’s a typical pattern in conspiracy thinking to try to search for evidence to invalidate a hypothesis instead of seeking evidence for whether an alternative hypothesis is true.
In medicine there are maybe three important questions:
What do you do as a patient?
What are valuable research paradigms to pursue?
For what should health insurance be required to pay?
Even if you learn “the textbook on the subject is filled with errors” that doesn’t give you a clear path to answer either of those questions. Knowing things is hard, that’s true both within the existing structures and outside of it.