О философии науки
Наверное, единственный полезный раздел философии дает хороший ответ на вопрос "откуда в постсовке такое засилие разнообразных фуфломицинов и плацебо-процидурок?". Самая суть:
In the West, the widespread use of light therapy was incompatible with the growing importance of scientific evidence to medicine. The concept of evidence in healthcare became linked to the idea of falsifiability, a philosophical concept developed by Karl Popper as a criticism of positivism. According to Popper, a useful hypothesis should be capable of being disproved by empirical experiment. The Soviet model of scientific reasoning continued to follow a more inductive approach where the goal was not to refute hypotheses but rather to gather evidence from experiments that would support them. This often involved the use of analogy and surrogate measures. Thus, if light therapy caused some other observable effect, such as inflammation, it was inferred that said effect would improve the outcome in question, even if there was no plausible causal pathway. This was in contrast with the Popperian approach of testing the null hypothesis, that ‘light therapy has no effect on a given outcome’.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3767061
Конечно, в свете этого совсем неудивительно полное отсутствие в совецкой и пост- медлитературе исследований с отрицательным результатом. Опровержения нам не нужны, нам подавай только подтверждения.
Уж 20 лет прошло, а воз и ныне там.
In the West, the widespread use of light therapy was incompatible with the growing importance of scientific evidence to medicine. The concept of evidence in healthcare became linked to the idea of falsifiability, a philosophical concept developed by Karl Popper as a criticism of positivism. According to Popper, a useful hypothesis should be capable of being disproved by empirical experiment. The Soviet model of scientific reasoning continued to follow a more inductive approach where the goal was not to refute hypotheses but rather to gather evidence from experiments that would support them. This often involved the use of analogy and surrogate measures. Thus, if light therapy caused some other observable effect, such as inflammation, it was inferred that said effect would improve the outcome in question, even if there was no plausible causal pathway. This was in contrast with the Popperian approach of testing the null hypothesis, that ‘light therapy has no effect on a given outcome’.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3767061
Конечно, в свете этого совсем неудивительно полное отсутствие в совецкой и пост- медлитературе исследований с отрицательным результатом. Опровержения нам не нужны, нам подавай только подтверждения.
Уж 20 лет прошло, а воз и ныне там.