Bruno Latour on, reality, science......is his thinking relevant for our prostate cancer discussions?

[Darryl]

Are medicines useful? Are vitamins useful? Is science providing a belief or an unalterable truth? Philospher Bruno Latour's work is discussed in this easy to read New York Times article. I think the timing is perfect, given our multi positioned discussions about Vitamin D and other things. Please read and share your thoughts below.

nytimes.com/2018/10/25/maga...

[Tall_Allen]

Isn't science as a social phenomenon what Kuhn was saying? - we view reality only within our current paradigm. But the Scientific Revolution starting in the 16th century is still our prevailing paradigm. I think a Fundamentalist approach to science endangers us. Fundamentalism, whether in religion or science, puts a single person's beliefs ahead of the authority of normative beliefs obtained by building on past efforts, expert review and disputation, and agreed upon methodology for interpretation (hermeneutics). Without those "institutions," we are in post-modernist quicksand because any belief is as valid as any other.

[BrentW in reply to Tall_Allen]

The Scientific Method does not constitute a paradigm, which is characterized as being an entrenched belief system -- not a method. Kuhn used as his example of a paradigm shift our change in belief from a geocentric solar system to a sun-centred one. In my own field (palaeontology) we have had major paradigm shifts, such as our acceptance of an "old" Earth age (as a result of evidence from radioactive decay interpreted by Arthur Holmes), the emergence of evolution (good old Darwin), and the discovery of plate tectonics (initially posited by Wegener). Each of these shifts in our view of the world started with one individual (though credit for evolution must also be given to Wallace). Each shift has allowed us to advance our thinking (knowledge) greatly, provided we steer clear of fossilised ontological assumptions. I wrote a paper on these assumptions and their impact a few years ago -- see blaypublishers.files.wordpr... Enjoy!

[Tall_Allen in reply to BrentW]

I didn't say the Scientific Method, I said the Scientific Revolution (although the scientific method arose as a tool later). In fact, the scientific revolution is widely considered to have started with Copernicus. It was the victory of Determinism. There have been several challenges since then, such as Quantum Physics, and Complex Adaptive Systems. But we still operate under that paradigm when we understand the macro universe and linear systems.

[Schwah]

A little too much political overtones for me ...and in my opinion not what this site needs. We all deal with the rough political climate in the real world. Best to keep it off this forum in my humble opinion.

Schwah

[Hidden]

Boy, you lost me on the political overtone.

[j-o-h-n]

On the topic of weather, my only comment is that based upon Bruno's photograph he sure looks weathered for a 71 year old.

Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.

j-o-h-n Friday 10/26/2018 5:58 PM EDT

[Hidden]

Social convention says a flush beats a straight.

[kaptank]

Thanks for bringing this to attention Darryl. How we assess the evidence is absolutely essential to managing this disease and it is we who ultimately have to take some control, do the risk analysis and we do bear the consequences. I was a quiescent patient until my cancer went castrate resistant. Up to then, at that time, it was a pretty clear cut path for standard of treatment. (Not so clear nowadays however) I decided then that I needed to take a more central role in the decision making process because I had stepped into a much more uncertain and dangerous phase. Lots more learning, of course. Also regarding your doctors and experts as advisors first and engaging them openly. The best advice has to be listened to and thought about. It doesn't have to be accepted. I think most good doctors are gratified when patients take some responsibility for treatment strategy and talk to them honestly. My point is that for us the patients, the decision making tree is for each of us our singular personal view. The logic is different to that of big science. We are having to learn what is best in our particular case, while taking account of the generalised findings of best medicine and all alternate possibilities in between. We are on a learning logic (sometimes called Bayesian) where we assess things from what we know now and the consequences of new information as the disease progesses in each case (for nearly all are different - bit like life really). The logic and statistics of big science and best medicine is far more of the classical coin tossing stats. They are different ways of looking at things.