That isn't true. For example, I pointed out that simple reason tells you that there's no way to see inside the body before surgery without some sort of imaging system. No rigorous analysis is needed to realize that.
That's true. Yep, simple reason does tell you that one can't see inside the body without some sort of scan.
So what?
Where a more rigorous analysis is needed is to make points that advance your argument, that are not just colorful but incidental comments. If you make an apparently extraneous comment like that, you need to show how it advances your position. Random snippets of "simple reason" are meaningless. You can toss around all sorts of comments like that but if they don't hang together, if they don't provide a logical progression from premise to conclusion, then there is no indication of a reasoned process. How does that comment advance your position? It doesn't, best I can tell, which is why I kept trying to get you to either connect the dots or recognize that there was no connection. That's why I typed "so what?" so many times.
If you recall the context, there was a challenge on the table regarding the value of MRI's in diagnosis. The two studies cited reported as follows:
Study 1: "M.R.I.’s, he said, are not needed for the initial evaluation and treatment of many whose shoulder pain does not result from an actual injury to the shoulder."
Study 2: "Nearly 90 percent of those scans were unnecessary and half had interpretations that either made no difference to the patient’s diagnosis or were at odds with the diagnosis."
Now, how does the fact that you can't see inside the body without a scan answer that challenge to the value of MRI's in diagnosis? How does it even relate at all? Well, they're both statements about MRI's. That's it. That's the sum total of their relationship. You could have said "there's a place down the street from me that does MRI's." That's a statement about MRI's, too. Does it advance your position? No, it obviously doesn't.
Had the question on the table been about the use of MRI's for surgery rather than for diagnosis, then at least that comment would have been supporting, if not compelling or independently position advancing. But it wasn't even on topic. That you can't see how utterly insufficient your statement is indicates that you're not accustomed to developing and defending rationales.
You simply stubbornly refused to consider any viewpoint other than the gut bias you brought to the issue.
And so does this. People with the tools available to make good arguments make them. Lashing out randomly indicates a lack of better tools.
"In medical school I was taught that over 90% of diagnoses can be made on the basis of history alone. "
FWIW. Earlier today I happened to read that. Thought of you... <g>
weightymatters.ca |
