On 11/11/2014 10:53, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 11/11/2014 08:45, Brian Gaff wrote:
Yes he was quite cutting edge for his day. There was a scientist on the
radio only the other day saying that if you went against the trend in
most
sciences, it was far harder to get your papers published due to what he
termed, orthodoxy bias.

This is the classic case; a theory that was roundly rejected by the
establishment, but ended up getting Nobel prizes for the chaps who
persevered despite all the naysayers:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4304290.stm


I have come to the conclusion that much medicine should not be taken to
be scientific. At its intellectual peaks there are people who try very
hard to relate observations, theories and "hard" science together
properly. In the quotidian lowlands much seems to be a collection of
mnemonic phrases learned in training, adherence to questionable
"guidelines" and guesswork.

In the area of interest to me the most quoted UK guidelines contain
basic factual errors (e.g. unit prefixes of pico and nano confused), an
assertion that they would be updated in three years (now 8 years old and
not revisited), and no mechanism whatsoever for control or correction.

--
Rod

"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 11/11/2014 10:53, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 11/11/2014 08:45, Brian Gaff wrote:
Yes he was quite cutting edge for his day. There was a scientist on the
radio only the other day saying that if you went against the trend in
most
sciences, it was far harder to get your papers published due to what he
termed, orthodoxy bias.

This is the classic case; a theory that was roundly rejected by the
establishment, but ended up getting Nobel prizes for the chaps who
persevered despite all the naysayers:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4304290.stm

I have come to the conclusion that much medicine should not be taken to be
scientific.

More fool you.

At its intellectual peaks there are people who try very hard to relate
observations, theories and "hard" science together properly.

And it isnt hard to work out who they are.

In the quotidian lowlands much seems to be a collection of mnemonic
phrases learned in training, adherence to questionable "guidelines" and
guesswork.

And it isnt hard to work out who they are.

In the area of interest to me the most quoted UK guidelines contain basic
factual errors (e.g. unit prefixes of pico and nano confused),

Have fun listing those.

an assertion that they would be updated in three years (now 8 years old
and not revisited), and no mechanism whatsoever for control or correction.

Bull**** on that last.