Discussion in 'Health News and Research unrelated to ME/CFS' started by Andy, Jan 12, 2021.
The author of this has written a book called 'Smith's Patient Centered Interviewing'.
In the Preface he says (my bolding)
This means we now can, for the first time, identify a scientific BPS model for every individual patient.
If it explains everything, it explains nothing. Infinite flexibility is not a desirable feature in a scientific model, BPS or otherwise.
Without reading the main text, I make a testable prediction that much circularity and unfalsifiability will be found therein.
The only way to make the BPS model more scientific is to find develop a testable theory of how it impacts the body. The FND work is trying to do that though it is full of gaps.
What! How could the bps model be even more scientific? Impossible surely?
"This is scientific because I like it" is quite the rhetoric-based 17th century argument. They use the thing they want to prove to prove that they are right. It's a perfectly circular argument. How do serious people who work in the field of health care not see that? The reviewers. The editors. No one really sees that this is a fully circular argument? Incredible.
If this is not a joke paper submitted to test the limits of what nonsense journals will publish, I cannot tell the difference.
Therefore, by definition, because the patient-centered interview defines the specific BPS model in each patient, the model itself is evidence-based. This means we now can, for the first time, identify a scientific BPS model for every individual patient.
Er no, there was a guy called Sigmund something who tried this 100 years ago.
Then a fellow called Karl used Sigmund's method as a definition of what science is not.
Isn't this like trying to put lipstick on a slug to make it pretty?
Apophenia is the tendency to perceive meaningful connections between unrelated things. Especially when the person is told there is some hidden meaning to be discovered. That would seems to be a serious problem in this approach.
Maybe our species should have been called Homo apopheniensis
Now there's a confession if ever there was.
An alternative being, like trying to polish a turd.
That glib phrase "evidence-based" yet again. Low or very low quality evidence does not entitle you to start bragging about being evidence based.
since when was 3 6 minutes long enough to take a decent patient history never mind adding the bs that these people seem to have swallowed whole .
If you are having to use such phrases in the sales pitch, chances are you don't have the evidence.
What this paper along with the pile of other BPS papers needs is for some healthy mentally energetic person to come along and set up a youtube channel for debunking the fake science of BPS cure-alls for whatever ails you. *
Lots of material there. Maybe not altogether entertaining so maybe David Tuller can come in and rip up some paper and throw it about.
Or maybe a wild west theme with various olde-timey potions, lotions, salves and eye of newt jars as a backdrop.
And a really, really big rubber stamp to smack on the paper saying 'Fake Science'.
So let your imagination run loose with ideas -- the BPS ideologues / true believers certainly did.
And maybe beg the writers to get out and mingle with people outside their belief system sometime to gain some perspective. After the pandemic is over of course.
Or maybe it's time to call the FBI in to secure the compound.
*Apologies. I just can't take this stuff seriously any more. And I'll probably regret this attempt at humour in the morning.
From chapter 9:
I'm having an ad hominen attack.
Because we just know for sure that they do have a defective personality type. Yes sirree, no question at all about that. The diagnostician's task is merely to figure out which type it is.
What if the diagnostician has a defective personality type which causes him to mis-evaluate his patients?
A more scientific approach would be to identify each patient's personality style by referring to their astrological chart
Separate names with a comma.