Paul Anderson wrote: > On 2/9/07, Gerhard Fiedler wrote: >> Add to that the very basic, principal problem in applying the scientific >> method to human health issues, and we see right were science became some >> sort of belief system (rather than a tool with limitations). >> > I really don't understand your meaning. What is the problem of > applying the scientific method to biology? I don't know what Gerhard meant, but to me, the problem is that science seeks general laws, while human health depends on individual circumstances. Or: A scientific approach to medicine relies on statistics - what treatment produces a beneficial effect in a substantial percentage of a population while producing harmful effects in a small percentage of a population. But a single person represents a very complex system, and it's generally difficult to predict what the effects of a given treatment will be on that complex system. You can predict what the *average* effect will be, or what the effect *usually* will be, but not what the *specific* effect will be this time. Medical science has already plucked a lot of low-hanging fruit, and so we're all grateful for pain-killers, first aid, sterile surgical techniques, antibiotics, vaccines, etc. But a lot of the problems we're left with are complex systems problems, which don't respond well to the scientific tendency to analyze and factor out. E.g., John Doe keeps getting sick, and lots of drugs have been tried to no avail, or they've made it worse, or perhaps caused it, and either nobody can name the problem or they call it "Doe's Syndrome" but don't know what can be done about it. I know at least four people who fall into that category, with either life-threatening or significantly debilitating conditions. Now, you could say that just shows there are areas science hasn't yet figured out; it doesn't mean it's broken. But I think some of these complex-individual-systems problems won't ever be solved by science, because they're simply not amenable to large-scale, long-term studies. I.e., you'll never know what specifically was wrong with John Doe, and unless there is a sufficiently large population with identical symptoms, you may never even recognize a pattern. The anomalies just fall through the cracks. "The plural of anecdote is not data" is an essential scientific aphorism. So what do you do if all you have is one anecdote? How do you perform a controlled study on one subject? -- Timothy J. Weber http://timothyweber.org -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist