There are two main ways to critique medical science. On the one hand, we can look at the actual science that’s being done. We can analyze the truth claims that many doctors make, using the analytical tools (e.g. sociology, philosophy) that we have at our disposal. The other way, which some may say is related, some may say is not, is to look at the actual, overall practice of medicine.
Science is a human enterprise. It is not something locked up in a test tube, immune to disease and corruption. This is something I have mentioned many times throughout Earthpages. The response usually isn’t that great, mostly, I think, because science for the most part is the new human religion. And people don’t like to have the fraudulent aspects of their religion exposed. It upsets them, inviting them to rethink many taken-for-granted beliefs that they were once comfortable with.
In saying that science is a new religion, I simply mean that it involves a lot of belief and in many cases, blind faith. I am not saying that science is no good, just as I would not say that religion is no good. But I would argue that both could be improved. Neither is perfect.—MC