Sums things up perfectly
Does at least show though that your view is not all-pervasive. With the Sci Am author on this one.
'The term lacks a coherent meaning and leads to unnecessary polarization, mistrust, disrespectfulness, and confusion around science issues.'
-
-
Replying to @AMC_Signpost @jonathanstea and
So, replace it with what? Quackery? Bugnuttery? Brain-dead inanity? Fractal wrongness? Anti-science? Witchcraft? Lots of choices.
1 reply 0 retweets 33 likes -
Replying to @kevin_kehres @jonathanstea and
Perhaps replace it with respectful discussion rather than juvenile insult?
3 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Exactly. This cannot be turned into a game of ‘use this word’ There are real life consequences to real people.
1 reply 0 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @MaryFernando_ @kevin_kehres and
Yes. They're called patients, some of whose choices (hard won) would be removed if those with a particular worldview had their way.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @AMC_Signpost @MaryFernando_ and
Ethical standards of practice demand consultation of the evidence base. Evidence-free (and crystal clear pseudoscientific) therapies cannot ethically be recommended. Patients are free to decline recommendations. Professional duty is to promote evidence-based health care.
1 reply 2 retweets 38 likes -
Replying to @jonathanstea @AMC_Signpost and
Precisely. A physician is ethically obligated to recommend treatments with good scientific evidence of efficacy. However you define pseudoscience and quackery, by definition pseudoscience and quackery fail the test of good scientific evidence of efficacy.
3 replies 1 retweet 31 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @jonathanstea and
A competent adult patient is free to decline any therapy he chooses, as long as the consequences of doing so are understood. The problem with quackery is that it involves what I like to call misinformed consent.
2 replies 3 retweets 40 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @jonathanstea and
What I mean by "misinformed consent" with respect to quackery is that consent is given on the basis of misinformation, the claim that a pseudoscientific treatment will be efficacious and safe, when there is either no evidence to support that claim or evidence that it causes harm.
4 replies 2 retweets 10 likes
The adoption of pseudoscience in medicine can't happen without the use of misinformed consent by physicians. This is usually unwitting, because usually the doctor mistakenly believes that the pseudoscience works, but it is misinformed consent nonetheless.
-
-
Replying to @gorskon @jonathanstea and
Extraordinary thing to say. Doctors unwittingly believing pseudoscience. You mean a therapy of which you personally don't approve?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @AMC_Signpost @jonathanstea and
It's not at all extraordinary. There is an entire specialty of medicine rooted in pseudoscience mixed with some science. It's called "integrative medicine."
0 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.