The suprascientific in clinical medicine: a challenge for Professor Know-All
BMJ 2001; 323 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7327.1452 (Published 22 December 2001) Cite this as: BMJ 2001;323:1452All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Your professor Know-all is unique indeed.A characteristic of a
'professor' who is worth his weight in salt is to find answers to
questions by engaging in painstaking research. By so doing mankind has
been able to push further and further the frontiers of science and this
process of painstaking research is based on quintessential humility.
What will be the state of affairs if we simply rest on our oars and
attribute every unexpected occurance to be an act of God. I do not think
this God will be very pleased with us if we did. He will be dissaponted as
we will not be using this sophisticated brains he has endowed us with.
I thought 'coincidence' or 'chance' is a scientific phenomena.
Competing interests: No competing interests
The issue, it seems to me, is how to make predictions about ignorance. Only a fool would claim to know everything. We may someday know the unknown, or we won't. How can we predict? I don't see any foolproof way. Why should we predict? Why try to answer an unanswerable question? Basing our convictions about ultimate matters on supposed answers to unanswerable questions seems unwise.
You quote Paul favorably when he says God's judments are beyond our understanding. I don't think we do theistic religion any favor using God to fill the gaps in our knowledge. As we learn more, does that diminish God? If we wish to assign the term God to ultimate value, let's see God in our quest for knowledge, for the existence of a cosmos that responds to this quest.
Your Professor Know-It-All erred not only by assuming he could answer all questions, but by offering answers that we cannot prove whether they were true or not. That doesn't mean he overvalued reason, but that he didn't use it well.
Yours truly,
Competing interests: No competing interests
Finite humans ........and science
Editors – Professor Konotey-Ahulu’s (1) piece was thought provoking.
It shows that not all human experiences are explainable by human reason or
science. It must be acknowledged that in spite of unraveling the genetic
code, probing the depths of the seas and the span of the skies, humans and
science are still very limited in their reason and knowledge. Life is far
more complex than physical laws, which can be explained or proven by
science.
How would Professor-know-All explain supernatural phenomena such as
the stigmatist? These individuals found in the Catholic Church bleed at
different times of the year and carry wounds similar to that of Jesus
Christ. They are never anaemic and their wounds heal spontaneously without
infection.(2)
DNA’s were always helical in tissues before Crick and Watson learnt
the alphabet. Apples have been falling before Isaac Newton took fresh air
under the tree. An object always displaced its weight when immersed in
water before Archimedes ever stepped into the bathtub and the River Niger
existed before Mongo Park ever saw a boat let alone ‘discover’ the river.
The point is science needs to acknowledge its finite capacity. Humans (..
and science) are as clever as what they currently understand.
I cannot agree more with Professor Konote-Ahulu’s quote from Blaise
Pascal that ‘The supreme achievement of reason is to realize that there is
a limit to reason.’ And that ‘there are infinite number of things beyond
It.’(1) Certainly, there are explanations for every event. But would these
explanations make any sense to science and us?
1. Konotey-Ahulu FID. The suprascientific in clinical medicine: a
challenge for Professor Know-All. BMJ 2001;323:1452-3
2. Catholic Encyclopedia: Mystical Stigmata.
www.newadvent.org/cathen/14294b.htm (accessed 27 December 2001)
Competing interests: None
Competing interests: No competing interests