That pyramid is funny. They think actual DIRECT EVIDENCE is the weakest form of evidence;-)
At the top is basically just "authority." Can you imagine if this was how criminal murder trials were conducted? The bloody knife with his fingerprints and a dozen direct eyewitnesses all saying they saw him stab the victim, would be tossed out as "weak" evidence;-)
There's a parallel there between anecdotal evidence and how individuals interact with the 'healthcare' system and their doctors. People are constantly told to distrust their read on their own bodies--'Doctors know better'. Also, the under-appreciation for the uniqueness of each of our physiologies (and psychologies) puts individuals at odds with the valuing of the generalized over the specific.
I am happy to summarize. Having been in the rank and file for 35 years mostly as a promoter of the
"peer review" process. It is pay to play and has little credence. Not throwing the baby out with the bath water. Strongly suggesting that most have zero ability to navigate these treacherous seas.
There fore in general its more and more about less and less. Invert the pyramid. Develop some skills.
Just throwing this out there: perhaps inversion is not adequate. Evidence of all kinds has potential value, in theory. Perhaps it is the application of formulaic and heirarchical structures which contributes to a kind of intellectual laziness, and downstream confusion.
Skills are certainly important. More of the public needs to have a measure of literacy in this realm.
Excellent points. I would fully agree with Rische. We cannot fully rely, without adequate deli beration, on models of thought. Paradigm and structure are guides. Couple that with the fact that research has been corrupted for many years lending to the needs of special interests. Smart and individualistic appraisal must always be coupled with algorithmic determinants.
There's a need, I'd offer, for placing the 'objective' inquiry of science (in theory) in the frame of human endeavor; that is, subject to human limitations, motivations, and decidedly non-objective interests.
Models are just that: models. Some like to treat them as 'truth' because they demonstrate some sort of track record in a particular context, and follow with over-generalization.
One of the persistent challenges is staying rooted in discernment and critical thinking.
That pyramid is funny. They think actual DIRECT EVIDENCE is the weakest form of evidence;-)
At the top is basically just "authority." Can you imagine if this was how criminal murder trials were conducted? The bloody knife with his fingerprints and a dozen direct eyewitnesses all saying they saw him stab the victim, would be tossed out as "weak" evidence;-)
Thank you for the comment.
There's a parallel there between anecdotal evidence and how individuals interact with the 'healthcare' system and their doctors. People are constantly told to distrust their read on their own bodies--'Doctors know better'. Also, the under-appreciation for the uniqueness of each of our physiologies (and psychologies) puts individuals at odds with the valuing of the generalized over the specific.
I am happy to summarize. Having been in the rank and file for 35 years mostly as a promoter of the
"peer review" process. It is pay to play and has little credence. Not throwing the baby out with the bath water. Strongly suggesting that most have zero ability to navigate these treacherous seas.
There fore in general its more and more about less and less. Invert the pyramid. Develop some skills.
Thank you for the comment.
Just throwing this out there: perhaps inversion is not adequate. Evidence of all kinds has potential value, in theory. Perhaps it is the application of formulaic and heirarchical structures which contributes to a kind of intellectual laziness, and downstream confusion.
Skills are certainly important. More of the public needs to have a measure of literacy in this realm.
Excellent points. I would fully agree with Rische. We cannot fully rely, without adequate deli beration, on models of thought. Paradigm and structure are guides. Couple that with the fact that research has been corrupted for many years lending to the needs of special interests. Smart and individualistic appraisal must always be coupled with algorithmic determinants.
Thanks for the comment.
There's a need, I'd offer, for placing the 'objective' inquiry of science (in theory) in the frame of human endeavor; that is, subject to human limitations, motivations, and decidedly non-objective interests.
Models are just that: models. Some like to treat them as 'truth' because they demonstrate some sort of track record in a particular context, and follow with over-generalization.
One of the persistent challenges is staying rooted in discernment and critical thinking.