> scientist comes along, saying we should change how we do it
That doesn’t sound like science. An example or pointer would be helpful.
That doesn’t sound like science. An example or pointer would be helpful.
What do we do now? The exact opposite, and much closer to usual ARDS practices. You can argue that wasn't a mistake because it followed the process of scientific discovery, but it's nevertheless a tragic example of experience trumping the advice of the scientific community.
That's really not what I meant. I have no problem with the publication. But put yourself in the shoes of someone such as myself, who's intubated tens of cases on admission and probably killed many doing so. Wouldn't you be questioning the structure of our research system then? Not that I have any better solution at hand, mind you...
This is what I don't get. Science is contradicted and questioned all the time. It's the main mechanism by which science evolves.
Also a crucial feature of science is that it's literally always wrong. Science is the iterative process of building models of reality, and those models by virtue of being models never 100% represent reality. Scientists understand this and are always working to improve our knowledge by further refining our models.
Why do you feel like science is not to be questioned? Moreover, if you're dissatisfied as a practitioner with scientific review, why don't you get involved more with the review process? In my field practitioners publish and are involved with our research and peer review all the time, is this not true for your field? Can you work to change it?
In my experience if you don't agree with published research, you don't just lay down and accept it, you do your own research to counter it, and publish that with a big fat citation of the old paper saying they're wrong. Where does this idea come from that science is proclaimed from on high? If you don't like it, roll up your sleeves and prove them wrong -- science is done from the bottom-up.
At the same time though, I get it and I do this too. This might be too reductionist but I think most of it comes down to trust. It's very expensive, in terms of time, to have a critical understanding of any specialized field. So taking the shortcuts like past experience, intuition, relying on others are more profitable. Especially if the goal is survival and not understanding of a system. This then becomes a game of finding the most "trustable" person but that's the catch 22.
I don't know who came up with this notion that science is high-minded (probably a scientist) but it's really as petty as any human social process. Go back through history and you'll note plenty of scientists persecuting some other group because they're challenging the orthodoxy. If that makes you uncomfortable maybe science isn't for you, but that's the truth of how it's always worked (and always will work unless you can solve the human angle of this).
Most ideas, especially scientific ones, are almost never accepted on their own merits. They have to be forcefully pushed on the world, and that ruffles some feathers, because that means crowding out some other competing idea. Remember we call this a "marketplace" of ideas. Not everyone comes home from the market happy.
I guess my bottom line is: welcome to how the sausage is made. During Covid some people got a look and found out that they don't like it, shocker. The good news is you're allowed (no one is stopping you) to participate in the process with your own ideas. You just have to steel yourself against criticism and inoculate yourself against the inevitable retaliation and pushback. If you believe in your ideas, don't give in!