Re: (Fwd) Re: guidelines/ethics
Lee Daniel Crocker (lcrocker@calweb.com)
Mon, 23 Dec 1996 00:17:29 -0800 (PST)
> > > Obviously, you misunderstood. I was referring to good science, while
> > > medicine does not qualify as science at all.
> >
> > Am I missing sarcasm here, or do you really think there is some
> > connection between that slander and reality? I think the /millions/
> > of lives saved by good, rational, science in medicine over the
> > last few decades, despite the public's continued fascination with
> > mystical bullshit like astrology, homeopathy, and "alternative"
> > medicines are more than sufficient evidence.
>
> What has the fact that medicine is (mostly) (very) useful to do with its
> scientific status? Granted, medicine has a higher status than domestic
> science, but still _distinctly_ lower than e.g. chemistry, which is not
> good science at all.
Usefulness has nothing to do with it at all. If you are using some
peculiar definition of the term "science" that does not include all
the good double-blind drug and treatment studies that doctors have
been doing for decades, then please enlighten us as to its definition
so that we may argue the same propositions.