Agreed but I think I’m more willing to call lifestyle choices, and in particular the means by which medical experts can guide the lifestyle choices of their patients, ‘cultural technology’ or something similar. One can know that some exercises will fix the patient’s back pain, but not know how to get the patient to do those exercises. (Even if the patient is you!)
Strechting the meaning of the term technology that way is baily-and-moat. For large parts of the medical community “technology” refers to something you can in principle patent.
Even if you see the notion more broadly the mental model of medical experts using cultural technology to get patients to comply isn’t the only way you can think.
You can also practice the values of what Kant called enlightenment where individuals engage in self-chosen actions because they can reason. With enlightment values it becomes important to educate people but how the body works. If you think as patients as subjects that benefit from eduction you have a different health system then if you think of them as objects to forced into engaging in certain actions.
If easy to make the moral argument that what Kant calls enlightment is good but it might also be in practice the paradigm that produces better health outcomes.
If you care about radical process in medicine than it’s important to be open for different paradigms to produce medical progress.
Scientific paradigms are in flux and it’s important to be open for the possibility that different paradigms from how we do medicine might have advantages. I think ideally we have pluralism in medicine with many different paradgims getting explored.
How can different paradigms lead to a different science?
Take an area like the question whether a single sperm is enough to get a woman pregnant. You will find a lot of mainstream sex advice from sources like WebMD say that a single sperm is enough. That’s likely wrong.
If you believe that the point of sex education is to get people to always use condoms it can be helpful to teach the wrong fact that a single sperm is enough. A system that however would focus on true eduction would rather teach the truth. Knowing the truth in this instance isn’t a “technology” that does anything specific. I don’t trust biology to progress if it doesn’t care for the truth and just tries to find out facts that get people to comply with what their doctor tells them.
I seriously engaged with NLP and it’s “change is what matters, truth of statements is secondary”-ideology. NLP is actually much more honest about this but once you accept the technology frame, you get there. I think that relationship to the truth is flawed.
Agreed but I think I’m more willing to call lifestyle choices, and in particular the means by which medical experts can guide the lifestyle choices of their patients, ‘cultural technology’ or something similar. One can know that some exercises will fix the patient’s back pain, but not know how to get the patient to do those exercises. (Even if the patient is you!)
Strechting the meaning of the term technology that way is baily-and-moat. For large parts of the medical community “technology” refers to something you can in principle patent.
Even if you see the notion more broadly the mental model of medical experts using cultural technology to get patients to comply isn’t the only way you can think.
You can also practice the values of what Kant called enlightenment where individuals engage in self-chosen actions because they can reason. With enlightment values it becomes important to educate people but how the body works. If you think as patients as subjects that benefit from eduction you have a different health system then if you think of them as objects to forced into engaging in certain actions.
If easy to make the moral argument that what Kant calls enlightment is good but it might also be in practice the paradigm that produces better health outcomes.
If you care about radical process in medicine than it’s important to be open for different paradigms to produce medical progress. Scientific paradigms are in flux and it’s important to be open for the possibility that different paradigms from how we do medicine might have advantages. I think ideally we have pluralism in medicine with many different paradgims getting explored.
How can different paradigms lead to a different science? Take an area like the question whether a single sperm is enough to get a woman pregnant. You will find a lot of mainstream sex advice from sources like WebMD say that a single sperm is enough. That’s likely wrong.
If you believe that the point of sex education is to get people to always use condoms it can be helpful to teach the wrong fact that a single sperm is enough. A system that however would focus on true eduction would rather teach the truth. Knowing the truth in this instance isn’t a “technology” that does anything specific. I don’t trust biology to progress if it doesn’t care for the truth and just tries to find out facts that get people to comply with what their doctor tells them.
I seriously engaged with NLP and it’s “change is what matters, truth of statements is secondary”-ideology. NLP is actually much more honest about this but once you accept the technology frame, you get there. I think that relationship to the truth is flawed.