Sep 22 2009
Science Starts With Words
This may seem a little odd. Researchers working with a team of 27 “medical opinion leaders” have taken the time — from everyone’s otherwise busy schedules — to . . . define “gut feelings.”
What? Gut feelings are . . . gut feelings. Why go to all the trouble to define a term like that?
Answer: They were doing science. Good science. Physicians understand that one of the elements that influences their decision-making is . . . you guessed it . . . gut feelings. So to better understand this variable they will study it. Task one involves clearly defining the variable so that 1) every knows exactly what they’re talking about (they are “on the same page,” so to speak), and 2) the variable can be isolated and measured.
Sure, some of science involves an exciting, unstructured tinkering in a lab or in the field. But the bulk of it, the part that reflects “the scientific method” (methodological exploration?) is an extremely disciplined pursuit.
Technically speaking, to experiment means to test a hypothesis. Drug x treats condition y; in rock layers x years-old you will find fossils of type y but not z. Etc. Before experimentation begins, however, scientists work with words. They generate a hypothesis. Prior or simultaneous to that crucial step is the definition of variables. Words and the precise use of them are fundamental to doing good science.
As for “gut feelings,” how was this variable defined? The news release informed me. The group of thinkers determined that there are two basic types of gut feelings, as the term pertains to practicing medicine. One type provides a “sense of alarm.” The other a “sense of reassurance.”
That might seem like a lot of fuss about a whole lot of basic nothing. But if you aren’t interested in dotting your Is and crossing your Ts, science probably isn’t for you.
The article tail contained this quote:
“Our next step will be to construct and validate a questionnaire as a tool to evaluate gut feelings as well as the diagnostic work-up and the contribution of major potential determinants like experience and contextual knowledge.”
What may come of this fuss over semantics? A better understanding of how to best make decisions when treating patients. That’s a fuss worth making.
