My essay has achieved its aim: it has provoked a debate.1,2 But might I suggest some rules of engagement in the debate? Could commentators please argue the points that have been raised rather than try to read my mind? I do not feel ‘frustration’ or ‘unrest'.3 I do not have ‘a problem’ nor do I see myself as a protector of any sepulchre rendering me liable to ‘almost paranoid’ responses.4
While we are at it, lighten up a little. Humour has an honourable tradition in philosophy. The example of the bus was chosen not simply for a reductio ad absurdum of denying objectivity nor as a link to the less obvious example of MMR vaccination, but because it was — ironic.
References
- 1.Hopayian K. Why medicine still needs a scientific foundation: restating the hypotheticodeductive model — part one [Back pages] Br J Gen Pract. 2004;54:400–401. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Hopayian K. Why medicine still needs a scientific foundation: restating the hypotheticodeductive model — part two [Back pages] Br J Gen Pract. 2004;54:402–403. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Brown CA. Commentary 1 [Back pages] Br J Gen Pract. 2004;54:404. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Willis J. Commentary 2 [Back pages] Br J Gen Pract. 2004;54:404–405. [Google Scholar]