Richard Keatinge recently quoted the following:
as Paul Feyerabend puts it in "Against Method": "Neither blatant internal
inconsistencies, nor obvious lack of empirical content, nor massive
conflict with experimental results should prevent us from retaining and
elaborating a point of view that pleases us for some reason or another."
Excuse me, I think this is anti-evidence. Don't inconsistencies, lack of
empirical content, and conflict with experiment mean that reasoning is
invalid and that the evidence is sufficient to refute a point of view?
Is it logical to believe in EBH on the one hand and to subscribe to a
philosophy that espouses that theory can ignore evidence on the other?
Feyerabend's philosophy applied to medicine would allow statements like: I
don't care what the evidence says, I know what I am right because medicine
is an art/it is my clinical impression (delete whichever pleases you).
--
Kev Hopayian, Seahills, Leiston Rd, Aldeburgh, Suffolk IP15 5PL, England
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|