Reply to comment

Throughout our discussion, I was constantly reminded of a concept that has plagued me for a while now: the existence and nature of knowledge. I used to attempt to define knowledge and our limited affinity for it and I initially grew frustrated with scientists who took for granted every piece of information they were fed. Take the Pythagorean Theorem for example. Since its derivation in antiquity, we have been taught to regard this theorem as true. For this reason, we have used the theorem as the foundation for more complex mathematical and scientific concepts. However, what would happen if this theorem which we have been taught to blindly accept as true, was incorrect? All of the advances built atop this mathematical foundation would crumble. Terrified by this thought, I believed that it was necessary for society to become more critical of everything it deemed true. Yet, I eventually realized that such skepticism was impractical and would impede societal progress.

            Likewise, it is impractical for a doctor to list every remedy ever theorized in an attempt to achieve neutrality (which may very well be unobtainable). While it is risky to accept something as fact, it is a risk we must take in order to function. Ultimately the goal is to treat the patient and in order to do that, we must accept certain things as fact and assume that the doctor is acting in the interest of the patient. As patients, it is our responsibility to realize that we are asking the doctor for a professional opinion, not neutrality.