My own thought is that many clinically-based researchers don't really understand what science is. They've heard about it a bit, they vaguely believe it is a good thing, and they are dabbling in it, but they are very much lacking in the experience or even the capacity for it.Should we assume, then, that Professor White considers that his research should not be subject to the same level of scrutiny as any other research?
Or does he consider that having his research challenged by the laity to be unreasonable and an "attack" on science (if that is what he did say)?
They've come from a situation where the doctor is always in charge, and is not being actively assessed by anyone, into a place where the "authority" of a source should be irrelevant. I expect it's a very uncomfortable situation for some, and that they really do perceive themselves (and their limited concept of "science") as being attacked.
But the reality is that vigorously challenging ideas and methodologies is an inherent and important part of science, and that scientists need to be capable of appreciating and embracing that.
Not everyone can handle scientific thinking and the scrutiny and debate of their work which comes with it. And I think that's perfectly normal and nothing to be ashamed of. But if such a person decides to delve into the realm of science, they really have nothing to complain about when their work is civilly criticized.
Last edited: