|
|
|
|
|
by kqr
1290 days ago
|
|
I don't agree. A surgeon is not going to see the vast majority of people who don't suffer head trauma, so they are not any more reliable than anyone else. If anything, they are likely to be more biased than the average person. Now, get me a statistician and we can talk. |
|
Which is a very silly argument.
A surgeon is one among the few that can see a spike in brain traumas cases and can investigate the causes, it's totally more reliable than you or me, because he has the data and the knowledge, we don't.
I don't know about you, but I would ask a veteran about the horrors of war, not to 4 years kids, who, having seen none of it, are, by your reasoning, less biased.
> A surgeon is not going to see the vast majority of people who don't suffer head trauma
Because surgeons are notoriously not people too and live in a closet in the hospital.
> Now, get me a statistician and we can talk.
first of all, medical professionals typically study statistics, epidemiology doesn't really figure out itself on its own.
Secondly, I work with statisticians to assess the risks for insurance companies (not in the US). I work with that kind of data everyday and, guess what, MDs reports are highly predictive of risks, the average Joe with a laptop opinions, are discarded because, after examination, have been found "completely non-predictive".