Originally Posted by
The Atheist
Nope, they're very closely related, both subject to enormous confirmation bias through lack of rigour, and two very soft sciences that appeal to people not committed enough to do actual science.
That's what makes this research so valuable - it's been completed by a bloke whose vested interests would probably lie in the other direction. I doubt he has many mates in the Psych-ology/iatry departments.
You write that the philosophy of science has "enormous confirmation bias through lack of rigour" and they both "appeal to people not committed enough to do actual science".
But you have cited an essay by a philosopher of science and thus
according to your post is subject to "enormous confirmation bias through lack of rigour" and maybe one of these "people not committed enough to do actual science"
!
Paranoia about vested interests does not make Stegenga neutral. What gives a possible vested interest is reading the essay - his philosophy book Medical Nihilism. Stegenga is skeptical about the evidence for the effectiveness of
all modern medicine. Stegenga writes an essay concluding that antidepressants are not more effective than placebos
without any evidence. Casting dubious doubt on clinical trials and meta-analysis destroys the evidence!