Comment by bashwizard | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bashwizard | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I had an anaphylactic shock a few years ago and started googling the symptoms (no, I didn't have cancer after all) and ended up realizing very quickly that I should probably go to the ER and get some antihistamine, so I did. The day after I booked a meeting with a doctor and while sitting there talking about my symptoms and reasons for getting the anaphylactic shock the doctor was on google and even the same web site I was looking at the day before.

So I told him "I already know that because you're basically just reciting the very same web site I was looking at yesterday before going to the ER but I felt that I should see an actually doctor about it. So do you have any clue what could have caused the shock or should I just pay close attention to what I eat, drink etc just like it says on that web site and hope for the best that I find the food that I'm allergic to?"

He had no clue. Thank god for free healthcare (oh well, tax paid universal healthcare) in Sweden.

I find one common misconception that programmers have is "everything in the world has a root cause that we can understand". In the programming world that's mostly true.

So when a doctor or medical professional doesn't know the exact reason for something (e.g. why did I get x?) many start thinking the doctor is stupid/useless/incompetent. Well it turns out that medicine is still a very inexact science and there are many things that are not well understood.

> everything in the world has a root cause that we can understand

But that indeed is true of reality. The difference is in the likelihood of being able to find that root cause.

I think any programmer can appreciate the difficulty of finding answers in a domain that proves elusive.

Take the example of a spaghetti codebase. You know the answer is there somewhere, but you wouldn't fault someone for not being able to give you an answer.

So I wouldn't be so certain. In fact I feel many would understand the difficulties and not disparage a doctor for being unable to give an exact diagnosis.

> Take the example of a spaghetti codebase. Take the example of a spaghetti codebase.

I think this actually just further proves the GP more than correct.

Comparing the complexity of determining the root cause of some disease processes and biological processes in general to a "spaghetti codebase" just underscores the disconnect that programmers and engineers have with some of the complexity in nature. There is no manmade codebase shitty or otherwise, even large enough to approximate the complexity of understanding even some of the more rudimentary biological mechanisms, let alone extending that to actual clinical disease presentation.

In clinical medicine we don't necessarily think "the answer is in there somewhere", we don't know the answer, and further the full answer is most likely unknowable in our lifetime, so effectively as far as providing care is concerned, the answer really isn't there.

The point of the comparison was only to illustrate the shared experience of lacking answers due to complexity, nothing more.

I am aware of and entirely sympathetic to the order of magnitude differences in complexity between biological processes and digital constructs.

It was not my intention to compare the two as if they were on equal footing, though I can see how it can be interpreted that way--my fault.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com