Guest guest Posted April 5, 2005 Report Share Posted April 5, 2005 Jack, You are a treasure! I enjoyed your elegantly stated argument very much. Consensus is not science! Yet it is foisted upon us as though it is science, hoping that most will roll over and accept it. Yours, DR. COBY L. HANES 991 NE THIRD STREET PRINEVILLE, OR 97754 voice: 541.447.7230 fax: 541.447.5775 dochanes@... another idea.... We have been discussing 'outcome based treatment' and 'evidence based science'.....Mercy guidelines and our own beloved Triumverate of the Chiropractic Written Word (Oregon Chiropractic Practice Utilization Guidelines; Oregon Administrative Rules and Oregon Revised Statutes) seem to casually refer to the concept of 'professional consensus'... I'm sure there are differences between 'consensus science' and 'evidence based science'.... according to Crichton: ....I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases. In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compellng evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent " skeptics " around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women. ... cheers... J. Pedersen DC Sargasso Navigation Company Ltd. OregonDCs rules: 1. Keep correspondence professional; the purpose of the listserve is to foster communication and collegiality. No personal attacks on listserve members will be tolerated. 2. Always sign your e-mails with your first and last name. 3. The listserve is not secure; your e-mail could end up anywhere. However, it is against the rules of the listserve to copy, print, forward, or otherwise distribute correspondence written by another member without his or her consent, unless all personal identifiers have been removed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2005 Report Share Posted April 5, 2005 Coby, I would agree with you except for the fact that " science " has historically been used to demonstrate a lack of support for chiropractic care for a variety of conditions, with consensus being the only support for such treatment in many cases. Should we use the blinded randomized trial from the NEJM that showed that chiropractic was no more effective for low back pain than an exercise booklet as a rationale for preventing DCs from seeing LBP patients? The fact is, unless a bunch of folks get together to figure out what all of the scientific study means when it is all thrown together then the rest of the profession who don't do literature reviews on a regular basis don't have any guide to help sort the wheat from the chaff. Additionally, if science is good and consensus is bad, then a practitioner's clinical judgment is even worse and should be disregarded at all times, right? D Freeman Mailing address: 205 Liberty Street NE, Suite B Salem, OR 97301 503 586-0127 fax 503 586-0192 cell 503 871-0715 drmfreeman@... another idea.... We have been discussing 'outcome based treatment' and 'evidence based science'.....Mercy guidelines and our own beloved Triumverate of the Chiropractic Written Word (Oregon Chiropractic Practice Utilization Guidelines; Oregon Administrative Rules and Oregon Revised Statutes) seem to casually refer to the concept of 'professional consensus'... I'm sure there are differences between 'consensus science' and 'evidence based science'.... according to Crichton: ....I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases. In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compellng evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent " skeptics " around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women. ... cheers... J. Pedersen DC Sargasso Navigation Company Ltd. OregonDCs rules: 1. Keep correspondence professional; the purpose of the listserve is to foster communication and collegiality. No personal attacks on listserve members will be tolerated. 2. Always sign your e-mails with your first and last name. 3. The listserve is not secure; your e-mail could end up anywhere. However, it is against the rules of the listserve to copy, print, forward, or otherwise distribute correspondence written by another member without his or her consent, unless all personal identifiers have been removed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2005 Report Share Posted April 5, 2005 ,I should have known that it would be you who would come up with an equally compelling argument. When I think of "science" I think of the never-ending curiosity for and pursuit of truth. I think most of us, on this egroup at least, understand that you can make statistics look just about any way you want. Just throw in some selection bias, a little slight of statistics here and viola, chiropractic is not effective. I do not hold the peer-reviewed, double blinded and randomized studies to the same esteem that some do. Both consensus and science can be used inappropriately. Consensus as you demonstrate can be very useful for a profession such as ours. However, when one group of folks get to gather and say this is our consensus as to how chiropractic care should be delivered, it can also be quite bad for our profession. Les has also suggested that our colleges can use consensus to decide which techniques are legitimate, which can stifle progress in the art of chiropractic. Thanks for keeping me on my toes... DR. COBY L. HANES991 NE THIRD STREETPRINEVILLE, OR 97754voice: 541.447.7230fax: 541.447.5775dochanes@... another idea....We have been discussing 'outcome based treatment' and 'evidence based science'.....Mercy guidelines and our own beloved Triumverate of the Chiropractic Written Word (Oregon Chiropractic Practice Utilization Guidelines; Oregon Administrative Rules and Oregon Revised Statutes) seem to casually refer to the concept of 'professional consensus'...I'm sure there are differences between 'consensus science' and 'evidence based science'....according to Crichton:...I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compellng evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women. ...cheers...J. Pedersen DCSargasso Navigation Company Ltd.OregonDCs rules:1. Keep correspondence professional; the purpose of the listserve is to foster communication and collegiality. No personal attacks on listserve members will be tolerated. 2. Always sign your e-mails with your first and last name. 3. The listserve is not secure; your e-mail could end up anywhere. However, it is against the rules of the listserve to copy, print, forward, or otherwise distribute correspondence written by another member without his or her consent, unless all personal identifiers have been removed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.