Hello all and thanks for so many insights.
Steve, you are right to caution us to pay attention to criticism from which
we can learn. However, I think that we are in danger of missing the point.
Richard Smith in the article you quote warned against the corruption of
science for ulterior motives. Post-modernists, on the other hand, deny the
very validity of the scientific method.
Sadly, some post-modernist concepts have crept into otherwise sensible
research endeavours, such as qualitative research. Even some evidence-based
practice advocates have not been immune. Postmodernist positions have been
given prominence in journals such as the Lancet and BMJ.
I have elsewhere argued that:
*Medical science stands accused of providing an incomplete understanding of
health because it is supposedly founded on linearity, reductionism, and
positivism.
*These criticisms misrepresent the scientific method.
*The alternatives offered by complexity theory, postmodernism, and
qualitative research risk falling into the traps that the scientific method
avoids.
*The hypotheticodeductive model of science provides both a coherent
description of the growth of scientific knowledge and a prescription for the
conduct of good science.
The documents can be viewed at:
Why medicine still needs a scientific foundation: restating the
hypotheticodeductive model ‹ part one
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1266185
Why medicine still needs a scientific foundation: restating the
hypotheticodeductive model ‹part two
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1266186
That was back in 2004 and maybe it is time to take up the argument again.
--
Dr Kevork Hopayian MD FRCGP
GP Leiston, Suffolk, England
Hon Senior Lecturer
School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice
University of East Anglia
-------on 06/01/2009 18:03, Steve Simon at [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> I think that the arguments [of post-modernism] are definitely worth listening
to, as this
> concept in postmodernism that seemingly objective methods can be
> manipulated to reinforce the prevailing perspective of those in power is
> almost certainly true. Witness the attempts (largely successful, sad to
> say) of pharmaceutical companies to promote their products through
> manipulation of the peer-reviewed literature.
>
> Smith R. Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of
> Pharmaceutical Companies. PLoS Medicine. 2005;2(5):e138 EP -. Available
> at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020138 [Accessed January
> 6, 2009].
>
> If you believe Dr. Smith's article, then you have to accept at least
> part of the premises of post modern philosophy. The problem, of course,
> is that post modern philosophers take the argument to such an extreme.
> They also seem to believe that they are the only ones capable of
> recognizing the flaws in these seemingly objective methods.
>
|