I stumbled on this fascinating post that lays emphasis on the evolution of science. However, the author wishes to bring in the “social revolution” via promotion of skepticism. He questions the belief of “professional bodies” and why other humans place trust in someone with their lives.
A measurement revolution starting in astronomy, moving to physics, and then invading dozens of industrial domains. As domains acquired better stable focal parameters to observe, and better predictions, many such domains acquired industrial power. That is, those who had mastered such things could create devices and plans of greater social value. This raised the status of such domain experts, so that eventually this “scientific” process acquired high status: carefully collecting stable focal parameters, systematically collecting and sharing data on them, and making math models to describe their patterns. “Science” became high status.Overcoming Bias : Science 2.0
Ethical and moral bindings aside, the decision making for most people is complex. There are known unknowns that sway for end users. Sometimes decisions could be explained rationally, but in hindsight may appear to be irrational. A patient’s “experience” also determines the “satisfaction”.
One of the common problems we encounter in our clinical practice is the “rise of enlightened patient”. Seeking second opinions is fine; especially when it deals with grey areas. However, jumping from a consultant to another is fraught with difficulties because of trust deficit. Conflicting opinions with the desired course of action of the individual makes it difficult to reach an acceptable common ground.
If the author’s assertions are to be held on their face value, it would make it difficult to assert the will of a trained practitioner apply the “wisdom” from measured and repeated values (with caveats).