Medical scientists and philosophers worldwide appeal to EBM to expand the notion of ‘evidence’, BMJ Evidence Based Medicine 2020

Jonathan Edwards said:
The main point is that the great majority of scientific effort (at least what I get to see) is wasted on testing internally inconsistent theories.
Click to expand...

By internal inconsistent theories do you mean something like continuing to propose autoimmunity in ME even after the null results from Rituximab trial, without being able to explain how it could still be autoimmunity?

Or is it more like the CBT/GET illness model that contradicts itself by proposing that patients are excessively fearful of exertion and do too little while simultaneously saying they also have a tendency to overexert themselves?
 
strategist said:
By internal inconsistent theories do you mean something like continuing to propose autoimmunity in ME even after the null results from Rituximab trial, without being able to explain how it could still be autoimmunity?

Or is it more like the CBT/GET illness models that contradicts itself by proposing that patients are excessively fearful of exertion and do too little while simultaneously saying they also have a tendency to overexert themselves?
Click to expand...

It is more the latter - that the theory contradicts itself even before you have any results.

So for instance with a theory of consciousness. You propose a theory that it has an explanation that follows the rules of physics. But then you say that the events involved have no specific location in time and space. Physics can only ever make predictions that are linked to a location in time and space. (It is no good predicting an apple will fall four million miles east of Uranus.) So your theory cannot follow the rules of physics. So you can forget it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom