NICE : "Do not do" recommendations for (not) treating ME/CFS

[alex3619]

I must object to this choice of words. Empiricism simply means observation of reality and is pretty important when it comes to deciding whether a hypothesis is correct or not. In the context of CFS/ME, psychiatry is failing to observe the reality of CFS/ME properly. Their view of CFS/ME fails the reality check but they're unable to admit it.

Empiricism is a discredited 19th century school of scientific philosophy. That's its formal name. It later combined to form Verificationism, yet another discredited philosophy of science from circa 1920.

Empiricism and empirical are not the same.

Apparently Nassim Taleb’s Antifragile directly deals with empiricism in modern medical research and practice, but I have yet to read it. Empiricism is anti-science. Testing is not important, data gathering is what matters. So much bad science is based more on empiricism than critical rationalism (the current scientific philosophy which I think needs an update). Its why there is so much debate on climate science - some of it is too empirical and not testable, or at least some put forward explanations along those lines.

I am putting together a reading list.

In the context of empiricism, and verificationism, the psychiatrists are doing a great job with respect to M.E. and CFS. With respect to critical rationalism, and pan-critical rationalism, they are doing nonscience i.e. pseudoscience. Empiricism and verificationism were discredited for good reasons (look up the history of scientific philosophy) but many medical researchers are still stuck in the 1920s and even 19th century scientific processes. Critical rationalism also has empirical roots, but it emphasizes that hypotheses must be testable, and that contrary data can disprove an hypothesis.

There IS NO reality check in empiricism, at least not usually. The struggle to reconcile it to the real world led to critical rationalism. The struggle to reconcile critical rationalism with messy and ill-defined reality, and untestable aspects of reality, led to pancritical rationalism.

 

[alex3619]

PS Some reading relating to empiricism:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empiricism

1.empirical method or practice.
2.Philosophy. the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sense experience. Compare rationalism ( def 2 ).
3.undue reliance upon experience, as in medicine; quackery.
4.an empirical conclusion.

My bolding


http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidsh...t-causation-the-retro-humility-of-empiricism/

Why Causation Is (Often) Not Causation - The Retro Humility Of Empiricism

I’d argue this is especially true in medicine, where despite our aspirations to approach health and disease from first principles, our actual understanding is far more limited, and based far more on rationalized empiricism than is often appreciated – there’s much more scientism than science. The primacy of empiricism in medicine also emerges from Morton Meyers’ Happy Accidents, and is a central theme of Nassim Taleb’s Antifragile. (I also touch upon implications for drug discovery here.)

(I may add others if they are not too philosophical.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Scientism is a term used to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.[1] It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society."[2] An individual who subscribes to scientism is referred to as a scientismist.

Please note that this discussion of scientism is really about an abuse of the scientific method.

It might help if I point out that Verificationism was a key tennet of Logical Positivism, also known as Logical Empiricism, from circa 1920s till sometime in the 60s.

 

[A.B.]

Empiricism and empirical are not the same.

Sorry then, I wasn't aware of that.

 

[alex3619]

Sorry then, I wasn't aware of that.

Its OK, I used the term in a misleading fashion. There are alternative meanings of Empiricism that are not based on philosophy of science schools of thought, and in particular in the way the word is used in modern language. It is very confusing, which is why I elaborated on what I meant. I should perhaps have more consistently said "Empiricism" rather than "empiricism" indicating a formal name.

 

[SOC]

My doctor also employs this tactic. He describes my condition as long-standing fatigue of uncertain origin (along with other symptoms), therefore he is compelled to investigate.

This is the tactic that ought to be used by any doctor who cares about helping patients, which should be all doctors. Only arrogant SOBs who shouldn't be in the business of caring for sick people would put a diagnosis in a patient's record that would require all doctors treating the patient to ignore clear symptoms rather than investigate and treat.

 

[Ambrosia_angel]

I wish doctors were given more freedom. In the uk the only dr we have is NICE. To call people who just do exactly what a governing body tell them to do is not being drs. They don't have their own brain to try out alternative treatments or think outside of the box with test. All I've had is cbt and ged and I'm getting more physio which has already been pushed to another date. I suspect that all they will do is give me a sheet of exercises like they did when I was initially ill. It hasn't worked and I suspect soon that I won't have any medical intervention other then a fifteen minute gp appointment if I have an infection or need pain relief.

I feel failed by NICE that is supposedly the best in the world. I would seriously rather they left the medical condition box blank and put unknown because they don't care about cfs. If it was unknown at least I wouldn't be treated as bad. The worst thing is my symptoms don't correlate with the CFS that is internationally recognised. Everyday I'm on this forum is everyday i realise that I don't even fit in with cfs community when it comes to common physiological symptoms. It's very confusing. All I want is effective treatment at the end of the day.

 

[alex3619]

I know of someone who was failed by NICE guidelines and UK medical practice, paid for private testing and treatment, researched their doctors, got a completely new diagnosis, and is now awaiting treatment.