Feb 20, 2014
Read on
(unread)
Effects Of Vertical Acceleration On Wrongness
1 min
•
56 words
•
16 comments
The author humorously responds to a common argument against evidence-based medicine, suggesting a parachute experiment with a twist.
Longer summary
This post is a humorous take on the common argument against evidence-based medicine that uses parachutes as an example. The author playfully suggests using those who make this argument as the control group in a parachute experiment, but then acknowledges that this would be unethical as groups need to be determined by random assignment. The post uses irony to subtly critique the flawed logic often used to dismiss evidence-based medicine.
Shorter summary
Recurring tags:
humor (48),
scientific method (12),
logical fallacies (8),
evidence-based medicine (6),
research ethics (6)
Whenever someone sneers “Evidence-based medicine? You wouldn’t demand a double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial of PARACHUTES, would you?” I feel a strong urge to use them as the control group in my double-blind parachute experiment.
Of course, deep down inside I know that this would be morally wrong. Groups need to be determined by random assignment.
If you enjoy this fan website, you can support us over
here. Thanks a lot!