Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Medicine is not science

Clifford Miller, Donald Miller


If scientific knowledge cannot be distinguished from other knowledge we cannot prohibit use of unscientific and non-scientific knowledge in medicine. Science addresses narrow closely defined questions (hypotheses) in closely controlled conditions by carefully designed experiments to elicit a narrow range of evidence of high reliability, adopting the highest standards of proof. Science proves cause and effect by intervention demonstrating regularity of outcome.  Universal generalisation by theory enables accurate and reliable prediction in existing previously observed and unobserved cases and in wholly new cases.

Neither the practice of medicine nor medical research is science. A fundamental limit to universal generalised theorisation is medical research’s inability to test by rigorous scientific experiment. This is an inevitable consequence of treating individuals in heterogeneous populations of complex biological organisms.

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are not science. RCTs do not tell us: when we can predict X will cause Y in a particular patient; that X is the only cause or factor in the cause of Y; when X does not cause Y; why or when Y will appear when X is not present. RCTs cannot therefore verify hypotheses about when or why X does or does not cause Y. RCTs also provide no information enabling us to predict new outcomes in addition to Y. RCTs provide no mechanism for prediction beyond a probability of how often we might expect X to cause Y. RCTs also provide no knowledge to  predict the outcome of a treatment involving 2 or more drugs of unknown interactivity. Meta-analyses of RCTs, also, cannot therefore be science and are subject to other limitations.

Observational statistical studies are not science. They tell us only that X is seen in association with Y. There is no intervention, so they provide no information about whether X is a cause of Y. The assessment of causality is not scientific, but a matter of judgement requiring evaluation of clinical data including detailed medical histories of cases. 

Medicine is concerned with living individuals, not predicting outcomes of natural phenomena occurring throughout the universe. Universal theoretical generalisation may be impossible, inappropriate or unnecessary. Medicine may not need the same high standards of evidence and proof as science. Scientific method, the types of evidence it admits and that which it rejects and the standard of proof applied in science, are less relevant to, and in any event unattainable in, medicine, but improvements can be identified and should be implemented. 

The practice of medicine cannot be scientific.  Medicine requires the assessment of probabilistic information applied to broad and not narrow questions and so is reliant on professional judgement based on experience and expertise. Well documented case and clinical histories of individual cases can provide knowledge of potentially high reliability through systematic, methodical and rigorous research. The compilation of databases of such histories should be a priority. Medicine also uses non and unscientific information and knowledge which is not the result of medical research nor established by RCT. Like Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM), much modern medicine fails to meet that latter standard. Unlike medical research, CAM research is relatively recent and grossly underfunded. It is unscientific to abandon or dismiss medical fields which have not been the subject of formal research and publication. In their discussion paper, Miles and Mezzich talk of medicine, science, scientific medicine, scientific medicine and biomedical and technological research and its use within clinical practice. In this response to Miles and Mezzich, we examine all such notions in order to assist conceptual and terminological clarity.


Case reports, case series, Complementary and Alternative Medicine, evidence, evidence-based medicine, evidence-informed individualised care, medical experiment, medical practice, medical research, medical theory, non-scientific knowledge, observational

Full Text:



Miles, A. & Mezzich, J.E. (2011). Person-centered Medicine: advancing methods, promoting implementation. International Journal of Person Centered Medicine 1 (3) 423-428.

Miles, A. (2009). On a Medicine of the Whole Person: away from scientistic reductionism and towards the embrace of the complex in clinical practice. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 15, 941-949.

Miller, C. & Miller, D. (2011). The Real World Failure of Evidence-Based Medicine. International Journal of Person Centered Medicine 1 (2) 295-300.

Miles, A. & Mezzich, J.E. (2011). The care of the patient and the soul of the clinic: person-centered medicine as an emergent model of modern clinical practice. International Journal of Person Centered Medicine 1 (2) 207-222.

President John F Kennedy: Address Before the 18th General Assembly of the United Nations, September 20, 1963 New York USA.

British Prime Minister Harold Wilson. Labour Party Conference Scarborough 30 September-4 October 1963.

Haack, S. (2012). Six Signs of Scientism. Logos & Episteme 3 (1) 75-95.

Berliner, D. (2002). Educational Research: The Hardest Science of All. Educational Researcher 31 (8) 18-20.

Bright, W (1952). An Introduction to Scientific Research. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill

Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Second Edition, Enlarged International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Barrow, J. (1991). Theories of Everything. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Haack, S. (2007) Defending Science - within reason. New York: Prometheus Books.

Greenhalgh, T. (1997). How to read a paper: getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about). British Medical Journal 315, 243.

Anderson, P. (1983). Marketing, Scientific Progress and Scientific Method. Journal of Marketing 47, 18-31.

Smith, R. (2004). Doctors are not scientists. British Medical Journal 328, 0.9

Silverman, M., Murray, T. & Bryan, C. (2002). The Quotable Osler. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians.

A service of the US National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), at the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM). Available at: Accessed 23 July 2012

Karl Popper 3. The Problem of Demarcation. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: Accessed 24 July 2012

Strevens, M. (2006). Scientific explanation. In: Encyclopedia of Philosophy, second edition. D.M. Borchert (ed.). Detroit :Macmillan Reference USA.

Article 82 of The Treaty Establishing the European Community.

Haack, S. (2010) Federal Philosophy of Science - A Deconstruction - And A Reconstruction. New York University Journal of Law & Liberty 5, 394-435.

Watts, G. (2005). Nobel prize is awarded to doctors who discovered H pylori. British Medical Journal 331,795.

Davis, G. (1997). The Logic of Testing Structural Change in Meat Demand: A Methodological Analysis and Appraisal. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79 (4) 1186-1192.

Underdetermination of Scientific Theory. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available At Accessed 26 July 2012

Csermak, B. & Armstrong, S. (1999). Bits, Bytes & Chips: Understanding Digital Instruments. The Hearing Review 6 (1) 8-12.

Penston, J. (2010). stats.con. How we've been fooled by statistics-based research in medicine 2010. London: London Press

Rothwell, P. (2006). Medical academia is failing patients and clinicians. British Medical Journal 332, 863.

Haack, S. (2007). Peer Review And Publication: Lessons For Lawyers. Stetson Law Review 36 (3) 789-819.

Greenhalgh, T. (1997). How to read a paper: getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about). British Medical Journal 315, 243.

Miller, C. (2011). An unattractive hypothesis - RCTs' descent to non-science. International Journal of Person Centered Medicine 1 (4) 841-842.

Connor, S. (2003). Glaxo chief: Our drugs do not work on most patients. The Independent on Sunday, England.

Hickey, D., Noriega, L (2012) The Failure of Evidence Based Medicine? International Journal of Person Centered Medicine. In press.

Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health: Smoking and Health. (1964). United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service Publication No. 1103.

Hill, A. (1965). The environment and disease: association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 58, 295-300.

Feinstein, A. (1979). Clinical biostatistics. Scientific standards vs. statistical association and biologic logic in the analysis of causation. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 25, 481-492.

Reference Guide on Epidemiology. (2000). Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 2nd Edition. Federal Judicial Center.

Miles, A. & Loughlin, M. (2011). Models in the balance: evidence-based medicine versus evidence-informed individualised care. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 17, 531-536.

Brown, L. (2000). Heliobacter pylori: epidemiology and routes of transmission. Epidemiology Reviews 22, 283-297.

Prasad, V., Cifu, A. & Ioannidis, J. (2012). Reversals of Established Medical Practices Evidence to Abandon Ship. Journal of the American Medical Association 307 (1) 37-38.

Fletcher, A. (1991). Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting vs. event monitoring: a comparison. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 84, 341-344.

NIH Budget Research for the People. (2012). US National Institutes of Health. Available at: Accessed 26 July 2012

Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2011. (2010). National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health. Available at: Accessed 26th July 2012

Miller, D. & Miller, C. (2005). On evidence medical and legal. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 10, 70-75

R v. Smith. (1915). 11 Criminal Appeal R. 229.

Dwyer, D. (2008). The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Twining, W. (2006). Rethinking Evidence 2nd Edition. Cambrisge: Cambridge University Press.

Anderson, T., Schum, D. & Twining, W. (2005). Analysis of Evidence 2nd Edition. Cambrisge: Cambridge University Press.



  • There are currently no refbacks.