Flossing and the Art of Scientific Investigation - The New York Times - 1 views
-
the form of definitive randomized controlled trials, the so-called gold standard for scientific research.
-
Yet the notion has taken hold that such expertise is fatally subjective and that only randomized controlled trials provide real knowledge.
-
the evidence-based medicine movement, which placed such trials atop a hierarchy of scientific methods, with expert opinion situated at the bottom.
- ...2 more annotations...
-
This article talks about the bias within Scientific method. As we learned in TOK, scientific method is very much based on experiments. Definitive randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for scientific research. But as argued in this article, are randomized controlled trials the only source of support that's worth believing? Advise and experience of an expert is also very important. Why can't machine completely replace the role of a doctor? That's because human are able to analysis and evaluate their experience and the patterns they recognize, but machines are only capable to organizing data, they couldn't design a unique prescription that fit with the particular patient. Expert opinion shouldn't be completely neglected and underestimate, since science always needs a leap of imagination that only human, not machines, can generate. --Sissi (1/30/2017)