Evidence Based ⓡ
When I was a boy, many products advertised that they had The Good Housekeeping Seal. Despite the battle between the Federal Trade Commission and the Hearst backed publication (1939) that implied that the seal was primarily an advertising gimmick, the Good Housekeeping Seal remained something that could be touted as a sign of quality.
In medicine, the seal of quality is called Evidence Based. The Evidence Based label has come to mean something close to "correct", something better- and at the same time, not as good as - true Evidence is better than truth because it is a body of information that is ( or should be) available for all to examine. An evidence based conclusion is one that follows logically from the data, any rational, knowledgeable person would come to a similar, if not identical, conclusion. But it is only as good as the data... and the interpretation.
In medicine, the seal of quality is called Evidence Based. The Evidence Based label has come to mean something close to "correct", something better- and at the same time, not as good as - true Evidence is better than truth because it is a body of information that is ( or should be) available for all to examine. An evidence based conclusion is one that follows logically from the data, any rational, knowledgeable person would come to a similar, if not identical, conclusion. But it is only as good as the data... and the interpretation.
Evidence Based is usually associated with an expert consensus opinion. Very few practicing physicians have ever examined the evidence upon which the conclusion is based. The evidence itself is rarely available. Articles that represent the conclusions of the authors, the people who oversaw the gathering of the evidence, are the only readily available material that is derived from the evidence. The actual evidence is in a silo, a private storehouse.
Fifty years ago, handling numbers was out of the reach of most people. Only engineers had calculators and computers were rare. At that time, it made no sense to supply raw, undigested data to a broad audience. Nothing could be done with it. Who was going to copy long columns of numbers and do long divisions by hand? But now, we all have powerful computers in our pockets and downloading vast amounts of data requires only a click. But, the actual data remains hidden. And we call quoting the conclusions of the authors "evidence." This is applying a veneer of science to an edifice of opinion. This is scientism.
It is clear that were such raw data available, few would have the time or the skills to independently analyze the data. Opening the data to public examination could lead to misleading, incorrect analyses. The information could be politicized and reinterpreted for profit or the benefit of a particular cause. Presumably the data had been open to the scrutiny of reviewers who share expertise in the field.
There are dangers in democratization of data. I think they are worth the risk. Monolithic science is not the optimal solution.
Most importantly, when a conclusion is called Evidence Based or Data Driven, we should identify who analyzed the data...and who confirmed the conclusion.
It is clear that were such raw data available, few would have the time or the skills to independently analyze the data. Opening the data to public examination could lead to misleading, incorrect analyses. The information could be politicized and reinterpreted for profit or the benefit of a particular cause. Presumably the data had been open to the scrutiny of reviewers who share expertise in the field.
There are dangers in democratization of data. I think they are worth the risk. Monolithic science is not the optimal solution.
Most importantly, when a conclusion is called Evidence Based or Data Driven, we should identify who analyzed the data...and who confirmed the conclusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment