Politics and science; is science being corrupted? (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, February 14, 2010, 14:26 (5192 days ago) @ xeno6696


> Your point about your specialty coincides with my own view that I tend to prefer surgeons to internal medicine... surgeons can actually FIX something. In this I'M jaded by having worked at a teaching hospital and sometime getting to listen in on differentials. No offense, but it often seems like doctors only have a slightly better idea of what's going on than the patient. -Surgeons only think they fix things. I'm an internist at heart, and we always point out to them where and what to fix. ) They are mainly hand skills, not brain skills.
 
> 
> All cardiologists have to agree on certain explanations and on a central framework, yes? Are you suggesting that they always agree? If two cardiologists disagree on a diagnosis, what method can you use in order to definitively prove one correct?-Again: an EKG interpretation, a CAT scan of ventricular volume, a cath for flow rates, an ultra-sound, etc. Technical hard science. You are right however, lots of it is Arthur Conan Doyle, which is why Holmes is such fun and a great story to tell.-> 
> My point about peer review is still something to consider; you'll *never* get rid of bias. -Then why enter a large dose of it by committies of people who think the same? In a sense Kuhn warned of this.