If you want to be annoyed that an MRI of a dead fish gets publishable results, go ahead. I am too. But this very quickly took a detour into "sometimes hypotheses are wrong, therefore science is stupid".
We haven't had 25 years of a wrong belief about Alzheimers, just 25 years of "shit, this is hard to understand". And given the history of non-scientific-theory medicine (we cured scurvy ~5 times before word got out), it still seems like a winning score.
I know it's fair to criticize something without having a better solution, but it's still jarring to see science attacked on topics where it has a better track record than anything else ever devised.
I agree, but I won’t not disagree. We are due a resurgence in responsible Hegelian dialectics, but it’s easier said than done. I think both arguments fail the test in this case.
If you want to be annoyed that an MRI of a dead fish gets publishable results, go ahead. I am too. But this very quickly took a detour into "sometimes hypotheses are wrong, therefore science is stupid".
We haven't had 25 years of a wrong belief about Alzheimers, just 25 years of "shit, this is hard to understand". And given the history of non-scientific-theory medicine (we cured scurvy ~5 times before word got out), it still seems like a winning score.
I know it's fair to criticize something without having a better solution, but it's still jarring to see science attacked on topics where it has a better track record than anything else ever devised.