Editorial: Getting critically real

It’s amazing to me that it has been a year since first starting this blog.

Another product of the thoughts that the blog allowed to share is out as an editorial which you can find linked here.

An excerpt:

This may seem like pedantic philosophical banter but these issues are truly at the heart of all debates about evidence-based practice, justification of practice decisions, and dialog about how to develop, articulate, and disseminate knowledge both to existing and developing professionals. When debate percolates regarding the limitations of using evidence in practice, it is usually pointing out the limitations of a hyperempiricist caricature of evidence. The debate is fueled by the fact that this hyperempiricist caricature is propagated at times. It is the claim that we must not consider generative mechanisms, that the best we can do is attempt to understand outcomes and base practice decisions on whether or not large studies have discovered significant effect sizes in relevant outcome measures. I do not dispute the contribution of this type of evidence. But we must recognize the limitations in applying such a high level of analysis to particular situations that require an understanding of generative mechanisms. A few examples of where mechanistic reasoning led medical science down the wrong path should not be used alone as an argument against the search for understanding of applicable generative mechanisms.[2](http://journals.lww.com/cptj/Fulltext/2016/01000/Let_s_Get_Real,_Critically_Real.1.aspx#P21)

Happy New Year!

Leave a Comment