Saturday, December 28, 2013

Art, Philosophy or the The Most Rigorous, Objective Science?

I've just tried commenting to an excellent short blog!Treating-Behaviors-in-the-Elderly/c2tw/97C4DCDE-86A1-433E-AFF3-004901760BCC on the complexities of prescribing for 'behavioural problems' in the elderly. (I couldn't because of ethical objections to Facebook and that was the only way to leave a comment)

My issue was this: calling complex decision making an art rather than a science. In a world that disparages anything that is not labelled as 'science', I am uncertain of this....

Art vs science? Contextual thinking that includes the immeasurable vs linear thinking that only accounts for the instrumentally measurable?

Contextual thinking is highest level of formal logic and rationality where a theory (diagnosis or treatment plan) is debated, accepted or rejected on its performance in accounting for the entirety of the evidence available. The exclusion of subjective evidence just because it is difficult to deal with is subjectivity none the less and against science's Noble Ethic.

So should we be referring to this as rational, pro-actively objective philosophy rather than art?

Or is this is the gold standard of science that the traditions of modern academic science do not live up to?

No comments: