 |
 |
Michael You make really good points. I see this in the patient v science v medicine climate also. The critics try to make research answer to patients as if it was an intervention and then the critics extol science inability to treat. It is good to be dynamic and flexible within the remit of the discipline and to be multi collaborative but to still retain the focus and not allow it to be defined by others but rather build it from within. Sadly with Tannhauser those new on the scene may never know the beauty of the music because it is eclipsed by the taboos associated with the production. Amy On 5/10/13 4:54 AM, "Michael Power" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >Thanks Amy and Hilda > >I was trying to clarify the difference between evidence on "the effects >of EBM systems" and evidence on "EBM". > >To use a musical analogy, this is the difference between evaluating a >performance and evaluating the music - hitting headlines this morning is >the cancellation of a new production of Richard Wagner's Tannhauser. The >problem was not with the music, but with the Nazi overtones in the >production. > >Critics of EBM point out problems with the performance and make it seem >that there are problems with the music - examples available on request. > >There is a similar problem with defining and explaining EBM. If you >define or evaluate EBM by outcomes or applications, you are assuming that >the performance IS the music. How will you improve your performance or >develop a totally new production for your show? > >Changing the metaphor, I prefer to think of EBM more as a journey guided >by the aspiration to make optimal decisions (our fixed star) than an >itinerary with route and destinations that must continually evolve even >if they were initially predefined. > >Michael >