Talk:Medical Scientism

If this entry appears oddly slanted and opaque, review the userpage User:Mr-Natural-Health for revealing context. Wetman 05:07, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just in case you don't know!

You science people now have another opportunity to defend your position. -- Mr-Natural-Health 07:11, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A lot of the stuff from old versions of the article has been added to Evidence-based medicine. - David Gerard 12:32, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

My apologies for marking my last revert as minor. I t was not intentional. theresa knott 14:24, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Here is the stuff I deleted: Medical Scientism is the belief that there is one and only one method of science that applies to medical research and that it alone confers legitimacy upon the conduct of medical research. Scientism is the religion of reductionist scientific materialism. The mantra of medical scientism is randomized clinical trials, double-blind, peer reviewed, studies published in respectable journals.

Medical scientism is the position held by the scientific community.

The established theory of medical scientism, or of the scientific community, is automatically assumed to be backed by science, while any other competing theory, such as from alternative medicine, has to show evidence to support their position. Medical Scientism is a term that has a similar meaning to Evidence-Based Medicine. But, whereas evidence-based medicine encourages research, medical scientism has a stifling influence on the progress of medicine.

Medical Scientism is a pejorative expression used by some in the alternative medicine movement to describe scientific or evidence-based medicine, particularly the belief that all treatments should be subject to randomized clinical trials and double-blind, peer reviewed studies published in respectable journals. Its implication is presumably that a non-science-based form of medical knowledge is both possible and preferable.

Overview

Issues of clinical validity are being challenged by the burgeoning evidence-based medicine movement. A culture of medical scientism is developing whereby clinicians seen not to be assessing the validity of their assumptions and actions by evidence-based medicine criteria are deemed to lack credibility by their peers. Professional judgement according to evidence-based medicine is categorized as the lowest form of evidence, even superseded by methodologically flawed clinical research evidence. The issues raised are whether the evidence-based medicine evidence criteria are solely capable of legitimizing clinical practice, or are other perspectives on evidence necessary and equally valid? These issues affect physicians just as much as they affect alternative medicine.

The question being considered here is how do physicians know what is an effective medical treatment? Or, how do physicians apply good science without turning it into junk science? In other words, how many different ways are there to conduct valid medical research? Medical scientism answers: There is only one acceptable way -- randomized clinical trials, double-blind, peer reviewed, studies published in respectable journals.

According, to the scientific community there are no other acceptable alternatives. Any other kind of research, is simply not not considered valid according to medical scientism. Research not published in a handfull of prestigious respectable journals is discounted as not being valid. Case-studies likewise are not considered to have any value. Nor, is the clinical judgement of a physician considered to have any evidentiary value.

Support and criticism for medical scientism

Support

The science community argues that it is impossible to use testimonials, hearsay and mystical arguments as proof, because observer bias distorts recollection. The only way to counter observer bias is to run a double blind experiment, where neither the patient nor the practitioner knows whether the real treatment is being given or if a placebo has been administered.

Concerns

Those who believe that there is more than one way to do medical research can point to a number of different general arguments.

Belief in only one way of doing medical research totally trashes the branch of medicine called epidemiology. Epidemiological studies have been of great value in the science of nutrition. Diet has been shown by published research to be equally effective as drugs in a number of different medical conditions.
The primary problem with this one method of medical research is that it was clearly developed to test the effectiveness of drugs. Trying to force this method of drug testing on non-drug forms of treatment is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
Further, peer reviewed respectable journals like NEJM, Lancet, JAMA, and BMJ have been unable to prevent biased papers ghostwritten by pharmaceutical companies from being published (Flanagin 1998, Larkin 1999). These same pharmaceutical companies are a primary source of funding for medical/drug research. In some cases, doctors listed as authors on ghostwritten research papers never reviewed the raw data, just tables compiled by a medical writing company.
Another problem with medical scientism is that its one way of science seems more concerned about the job security of researchers than it is about solving the mysteries of health. This is because medical research, just like science, is designed to go on forever. No single piece of research is ever considered conclusive or final. Medical scientism is about a never ending drive for more and more reductionism.
An argument can, also, be made that what an individual needs in order to improve their own health is more synthesis rather than further reductionism. Hence, what might benefit the progress of immortal science is not necessarily helpful for the mortal individual.

Research articles cited in the text

Flanagin A, Carey LA, Fontanarosa PB. Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):222-4. Abstract
Larkin M. Whose article is it anyway? Lancet. 1999 Jul 10;354(9173):136. Editorial

External Links

I'm sorry to delete such a lot in one fowl swoop but it's far too POV. If it stays in the article will be deleted, which in is on ones interest. Plus reverting more than three times is against policy, so those who are against having POV rants can voice their objections here instead.

Sorry, but wholesale deletion of text is strictly prohibited. -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:49, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Where? And by whom? I'm afraid that you seem to have totally missed the point of Wikipedia, which is that articles can be edited by anyone provided they are not using the article to promote a single point of view. As your text does not meet this condition, other users are free to edit it our IMHO. If you can point me to a Wikipedia convention that disproves my position, I'd appreciate it. Bmills 14:56, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Stopping deleting my improvements

I cannot improve the article without editing it! -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:47, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Neither can you by engaging in a reversion war. Cool down, talk about the page, and reach a consensus. Then ask for unprotection. Kosebamse 14:51, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You cannot improve an article that you cannot edit. This is plain common sense. This talk page is uneditble!!! -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:11, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What are you going on about? You had to edit this talk page in order to write the above. I suggest you discuss the article here. Reach a consenses with everyone else, then the article page can be unprotected and we can add it in. theresa knott 16:22, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Discuss what? Talk about what? You don't reason with vandals! The medical scientism people practice their prohibited POV on Wikipedia everyday, and you are enabling them! -- Mr-Natural-Health 16:33, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Lets start with the first paragraph of the overview section. Issues of clinical validity are being challenged by the burgeoning evidence-based medicine movement. A culture of medical scientism is developing whereby clinicians seen not to be assessing the validity of their assumptions and actions by evidence-based medicine criteria are deemed to lack credibility by their peers. Professional judgement according to evidence-based medicine is categorized as the lowest form of evidence, even superseded by methodologically flawed clinical research evidence. The issues raised are whether the evidence-based medicine evidence criteria are solely capable of legitimizing clinical practice, or are other perspectives on evidence necessary and equally valid? These issues affect physicians just as much as they affect alternative medicine.

The second sentence " A culture of .... " is POV. Who says that a culture is developing?

So is the third sentence "professional judgement ..." This is just your opinion.

The third sentence is poorly written - I can't really make out whay you are trying to say.

The first and last sentences - I happy with ~

Now what say you ? theresa knott 16:48, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me, but culture is anything but POV. Check out anthropology. Culture is a part of the definition of mankind. Culture is what prevents the weak from being left to die, on the streets per Darwinian evolution. -- Mr-Natural-Health 17:03, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Are you trolling here ? Me thinks you must be, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the time being. It's not the word culture that is POV it's the whole sentence. I only wrote " A culture of .... " is POV. to save copying out the whole sentence again. Do you anderstand now.

Here is my re-write:

Issues of clinical validity are being challenged by the burgeoning evidence-based medicine movement. The evidentiary value of clinical judgement is ranked lower than that of even methodologically flawed research, by the new rules of evidence-based medicine. The issue being raised is whether the new evidence criteria of evidence-based medicine is solely capable of legitimizing clinical practice, or are other perspectives on evidence necessary and equally valid? These issues affect physicians just as much as they affect alternative medicine.

Now what? The article cannot be edited!!! -- Mr-Natural-Health 17:21, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Here is my rewrite of the paragraph:Issues of clinical validity are being challenged by the burgeoning evidence-based medicine movement. The value of anecdotal evidence is ranked very lowly. The issue being raised is whether the new scientific criteria of evidence-based medicine is solely capable of legitimizing all clinical practice, or are other perspectives on evidence valid? These issues affect physicians just as much as they affect alternative medicine.

Do you like ? Can you live with it? theresa knott 17:35, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

YES -- Mr-Natural-Health 17:51, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Excellent! I have to go home know but I'll work with you on the other paragraphs by next week. I'm glad we are making progress.

If using the word 'culture' is POV than why is your use of 'scientific' not POV? Are you saying that your POV is better than my POV? Are you not proving my point that the so called established position of the scientific community is automatically assumed to be correct, while my use of culture is automatically assumed to be wrong? -- Mr-Natural-Health 17:51, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

&la;bangs head on the table&ra; Please read what I wrote again. I never said the word culture was POV. I sad that A culture of medical scientism is developing whereby clinicians seen not to be assessing the validity of their assumptions and actions by evidence-based medicine criteria are deemed to lack credibility by their peers. was POV. Do you understand now? (I'll see you again next week) theresa knott 17:58, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, Right ... "A culture of medical scientism" is automatically assumed POV while "the new scientific criteria of" is automatically assumed correct. While the criteria is obviously new, nowhere is their proof that it is scientific. It is not scientific per arguments provided in Medical Scientism.

Is Epidemiological research Quackery?

The mantra of medical scientism is randomized clinical trials, double-blind, peer reviewed, studies published in respectable journals. Epidemiological research is not the randomized clinical trials and double-blind stuff that drug research is made of.

If any one element of this mantra is missing, then that published research study is classified as being invalid research. This kind of decision is made quite arbitrarily by the medical scientism people. And, their mantra clearly renders the vast majority of all published health research invalid and virtual quackery by implication.

The primary treatment method of medicine is medication. And, their mantra is clearly designed for drug testing. So, forcing a drug testing paradigm upon other kinds of health research is patently absurd. Unfortunately, people like RK don't see it that way.

This phenomenon of medical scientism is quite real because it dominates all science newsgroups, mailing lists and of course the health related articles in Wikipedia.-- Mr-Natural-Health 21:03, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is in the Dictionary!

The one way, or the highway, definition of 'scientism' is in the dictionary! There is actually one real dictionary that uses the correct definition. I use this dictionary definition on my web site because it particularly applies to the anti-science phenomena of medical scientism. The actual definition is as follows.

scientism: "the belief that there is one and only one method of science and that it alone confers legitimacy upon the conduct of research."

I shall repeat. My definition of scientism is actually in the dictionary. While I am sure that it is valid in other areas of science, it is particularly valid in the area of medicine. Hence, my usage of the perfectly valid phrase: medical scientism.

You cannot develop an article with an actual dictionary definition, when you cannot edit the article. -- Mr-Natural-Health

What is this supposed to prove? Everyone involved here knows that the term scientism exists, and there's a lengthy Wikipedia article on it. What you have yet to prove is that the slanted view of medical scientism you have tried to force into this article is anything more than your own subjective POV, which is by itself unworthy of an encyclopædia article. It is a far leap from "there is one and only one method of science" to "The medical establishment doesn't believe anything that isn't proven by double-blind clinical trials". — No-One Jones (talk) 02:24, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point, with your last sentence. It is not just my opinion. See direct quotes below. It applies even in the field of economics! -- Mr-Natural-Health 03:46, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You're not proving anything by cutting and pasting these definitions. The article already has a definition of medical scientism, and nobody is disputing that the term exists. What is under dispute is your lengthy, completely-unsupported POV rants on the topic, and simply giving more definitions does not prove anything. I can give half a dozen definitions for the planet Mars, but that does not entitle me to excogitate wildly about how the little green Saucer Men are plotting to invade and destroy the Earth; if I wanted to do that, I would have to provide photographs of the saucer launching pads, intercepts of Martian telepathic communications, speeches by the Supreme Overlord of Mars, and so forth. If you want to have anything more than just definitions in this article (and note that it already has a definition), you'll have to provide more than just definitions: something that is not solely your own opinion and that critiques specific aspects of medical scientism. — No-One Jones (talk) 03:57, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

More of 'the one way' or the highway? -- Mr-Natural-Health 04:01, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If that's what you want to call it. . . yes. There is a right way to write an encyclopedia, and there is a wrong way. This comment of Adam Carr's (from Talk:Wahhabism) explains it well (emphasis is mine):

Historically the encyclopaedia is a characteristic project of the Enlightenment intellectual (Diderot, Voltaire etc). It rests on the assumption that there is an objective truth about all subjects, which can be known to humans and discerned through scientific inquiry', and written about dispassionately by the enlightened intellectual. WP reflects this ideology as much as any other encyclopaedia, and so it should.

If you cannot or will not accept the epistemological assumptions of the encyclopedia, may I suggest that you should not write for that encyclopedia. If all you want is a forum for your subjective rants, go somewhere else. — No-One Jones (talk) 04:26, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In a second dictionary definition:

"1. The collection of attitudes and practices considered typical of scientists."

This definition supports the above precise definition of scientism. -- Mr-Natural-Health 03:06, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Although science is not an enemy of chiropractic, scientism most certainly is. Scientism limits all fields of human inquiry to contemporary technology. Smith states that scientism "...refers to an uncritical idolization of science -- the belief that only science can solve human problems, that only science has value." Holton observed that "Scientism divides all thought into two categories: scientific thought and nonsense." (4,5)

4. Smith RF: "Prelude to Science." Charles Scribner's Sons. New York, NY, 1975. P. 12.

5. Holton G: "The false images of science." In Young LB (ed): "The Mystery of Matter." Oxford University Press. London, UK, 1965.

Ergo, there is only the 'one way of science,' or the highway! -- Mr-Natural-Health 03:21, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"The ascendancy of the natural scientific community in controlling much opinion , such as through the media, publishing, employment and lobbying - has a narrowing and deleterious effect on culture. Adherents of the pseudo-philosophies of objectivism or positivism try to dictate what is 'sensible', what can be believed or not and even what are acceptable terms or languages to describe the world. Their success in steam-rolling intellectual debate with their short-term pragmatism and naive belief in the neutrality of 'objective theory' and scientific expertise is a major danger to society. They would exclude other world-views quite rigorously and even ridicule as virtually pathological all radical dissent to the hegemony of scientific thinking, ..."

"Steam-rolling intellectual debate ... the hegemony of scientific thinking" is another way of saying: 'the one way' of scientism or the highway! -- Mr-Natural-Health 03:28, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"economics scientism monopolised by a single approach to the explanation and analysis of economic phenomena."

Here we see 'the one way' of scientism, or the highway, in the field of economics. -- Mr-Natural-Health

In my concluding comment:

Scientism is the enemy of Science.

Medical Scientism is the enemy of both Medicine and Alternative Medicine.

-- Mr-Natural-Health 03:59, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

All the above reinforces my view that this article ought to be deleted, or at most confined to the one-paragraph article that I sugegsted last night (my time), and also that Mr NH has no interest in creating an acceptable Wikipedia article. Adam 04:05, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

More of 'the one way' or the highway? -- Mr-Natural-Health 04:07, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's a pity you are too stupid to see the damage that your idiotic behaviour here is doing to the cause you claim to be upholding. You merely reinforce the view that "alternative medicine" is the belief of fools. Adam 04:34, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)