Hmm. The field is too ‘hip’ thus bloated, and the more imaginative of us don’t have the time for dicking around with art beacuse of increased knowledge requirement and competition?
Nobody, in their right mind who critically thinks about medicine would choose a term like placebo-blind over the more accurate placebo-masked to describe common mechanisms the process.
A person who cares about epistomology can take a book like The Philosophy of Evidence-based Medicine by Jeremy H. Howick which explains why placebo-blind is misleading. The term makes claims about perception when the process that’s used has nothing to do with measuring the perception of patients and many patient do perceive differences between placebo and verum due to side effects of the drug.
The marketing department of Big Pharma that prefers the misleading term placebo-blind seems to win out over people who care about epistomology.
Not art so much as philosophy. The average scientist today literally doesn’t know what philosophy is. They do things like try to speak authoritatively about epistemology of science while dismissing the entire field of epistemology. Hence you get otherwise intelligent people saying things like “We just need people who are willing to look at reality”, or appeals to “common sense” or any number of other absolutely ridiculous statements.
That leaves the question about whether they have a good sense of what art in the sense of previous times actually is.
Art is often about playing around with phenomena that have no practical use. It allows techniques to be developed that have no immediate commercial or even scientific value. This means the capabilities can increase over time and sometimes that leads to enough capabilities to produce commercial or scientific value down the road.
A lot what happens in HackerSpaces is art in that sense.
Hmm. The field is too ‘hip’ thus bloated, and the more imaginative of us don’t have the time for dicking around with art beacuse of increased knowledge requirement and competition?
Nobody, in their right mind who critically thinks about medicine would choose a term like placebo-blind over the more accurate placebo-masked to describe common mechanisms the process.
A person who cares about epistomology can take a book like The Philosophy of Evidence-based Medicine by Jeremy H. Howick which explains why placebo-blind is misleading. The term makes claims about perception when the process that’s used has nothing to do with measuring the perception of patients and many patient do perceive differences between placebo and verum due to side effects of the drug.
The marketing department of Big Pharma that prefers the misleading term placebo-blind seems to win out over people who care about epistomology.
Not art so much as philosophy. The average scientist today literally doesn’t know what philosophy is. They do things like try to speak authoritatively about epistemology of science while dismissing the entire field of epistemology. Hence you get otherwise intelligent people saying things like “We just need people who are willing to look at reality”, or appeals to “common sense” or any number of other absolutely ridiculous statements.
That leaves the question about whether they have a good sense of what art in the sense of previous times actually is.
Art is often about playing around with phenomena that have no practical use. It allows techniques to be developed that have no immediate commercial or even scientific value. This means the capabilities can increase over time and sometimes that leads to enough capabilities to produce commercial or scientific value down the road.
A lot what happens in HackerSpaces is art in that sense.
That’s true. I shouldn’t have discounted the role of art so heavily.