There's No Evidence Like No Evidence

After reading your last sentence the name Jared Bernstein pops right into my head.

I have seen the same clueless response several times from MD's. I suspect that it applies to many or even most MD's.

Surprisingly, general oncology is a specialty where less intellectually capable physicians can thrive. The definitive diagnosis of cancer is made by a pathologist. Surgical treatment, if appropriate, is done by a surgical specialtist. Radiation therapy is overseen by the radiation oncologist. All that's left for the oncologist is chemotherapy, and nearly all cancers have well-defined protocols. The biggest challenge is dealing with the emotional effects of cancer and its treatment, but oncologists refer tough cases to psychiatrists or psychologists.

Thus, I am unsurprised that an oncologist did not understand the "no evidence" problem.

Can't say I'm surprised either. I'm in academics (beh. sci. professor) and my wife is a highly specialized physician (radiologist). It seems about half my friends are professors and half MDs. The MDs are, to a person, exceedingly organized and hard-working. My wife's study marathons during med school were mind boggling. Hand them a 1000-page textbook and they will be able to ace a test on it a week or two later. However, they are not, by and large, intellectual, generally curious people. I find the breadth of their knowledge remarkably narrow. They are wonderful people, but more like top-tier technicians than scholars. One problem with my anecdote here is that all the MDs I know are Hopkins/Mayo/Duke top 5% med student types. Maybe they are a hyper-focused subset temperamentally disinclined to expend time and energy learning about anything other than their specific area.

Yes, I think DM Sahl has a filtering problem. I'm also a radiologist, and the difference is obvious and fundamental to me. It's the difference between "not known to be true" and "known not to be true".

i understand your point, and it is a very good one.

however, only one of those is no evidence, the latter is no evidence.

otherwise you would say "there is evidence that extra chemo has no effect"

but the point still stands. there are two types of thing people mean when they say no evidence. only one is no evidence, the other is evidence of no effect.

Cato is right.

I make a point in the courses I teach to never, ever use the term "no evidence" as it's too misleading. If someone asks a question such as "does X cause Y", I'll give an answer such as:

"There have been a number of studies and all evidence suggests that X does not, in fact, cause Y"

or

"That's still a fairly open question that needs to be studied more.. we really don't know either way".

The problem is not theorists vs. anti-theorists.. the problem is the appalling misuse of the English language. Given that academic economics puts such an emphasis on math vs. verbal skills, to the point where it is not uncommon to see Econ Profs who can't communicate at all in English, this sloppy use of language should surprise no one.

Perhaps this is a little harsh, but I'd reckon anyone who didn't know that distinction as being a little stupid. As in unreflective, lacking analytical capacity, downright dim.