Epidemiology vs. Etiology
Over the last several years I’ve been digging into the science of cancer and systems biology, while at the same time looking at the epidemiology of disease and nutrition. And the more I learn, the more I’m convinced that there’s a gap that our scientific tools and methodologies cannot account for. While I’ve discussed this generally under the heading of Science 2.0 (also here), I’ve had a hard time putting into language the exact nature of the gap.
I’ve begun a series of posts that I hope will illustrate the gap, which I believe has to do with the fundamental difference between epidemiology (which is based on statistical observation) and etiology (which seeks to find causal mechanisms for observed phenomena):
- A1 vs. A2 Milk
- Medicine 2.0
- Sunlight vs. Vitamin D
- Animals vs. Plants
- Sugars
Once I’ve completed these posts, I’ll attempt to explain the nature of the gap and what it means for the future of scientific inquiry.
Related posts:
- Invisible Etiology
- Scientific Singularity?
- Medicine 2.0
- Behavior and Emotions as Virus
- Shermer on Science
-
Paul
Rafe Furst
I believe the scientific method as currently practiced is incomplete. ”Science 2.0″ is emerging, and the lessons from complex systems theory are a big part of what’s missing. This has more than theoretical implications; the biggest challenges we face are due to a general ignorance of — and a willful dismissal of — the realities of an increasingly complex, interdependent world. To learn what else I’m interested in visit RafeFurst.com.