obsidian/💻 Hyperblog/Work/mechanistic speculation.md

Mechanistic speculation in health sciences can be problematic from an epistemic standpoint for several reasons:

1. Complexity of biological systems: Human health and disease involve intricate, interconnected systems that are often not fully understood. Speculating about mechanisms without sufficient evidence can oversimplify these complex relationships.
2. Risk of confirmation bias: Researchers may be tempted to fit data to their proposed mechanisms, potentially overlooking contradictory evidence or alternative explanations.
3. Lack of empirical support: Speculative mechanisms often lack robust empirical evidence, making them unreliable bases for clinical decisions or further research.
4. Potential for misleading conclusions: Unfounded mechanistic explanations can lead to incorrect assumptions about disease processes or treatment efficacy, potentially misdirecting research efforts or clinical practice.
5. Difficulty in falsification: Speculative mechanisms may be challenging to disprove, leading to the persistence of incorrect ideas in the scientific literature.
6. Resource allocation issues: Pursuing research based on speculative mechanisms may divert resources from more promising evidence-based approaches.
7. Ethical concerns: In clinical settings, basing treatments on speculative mechanisms rather than evidence-based practices can put patients at risk.

Instead of relying on mechanistic speculation, the health sciences generally prioritize empirical evidence, rigorous experimental and observational study designs, and validated statistical analyses to draw conclusions.

Example: "Of course seed oils increase the risk of heart disease, because they oxidize LDL particles, and oxidization of LDL particles is a necessary step in heart disease!"

---

Hashtags

#fallacies #mechanistic_speculation #hyperblog