Originally Posted by
Shiva Kaul
This is a very important, fascinating subject. I look forward to his future posts, but right now, it seems he’s thinking too loosely.
First, for this kind of work, it’s not enough to identify problems; you also need to propose solutions. For example, it’s very easy to complain about how myopic your doctor is. The challenge is (a) understanding how that happened, and (b) figuring out a better way to be a doctor.
Rip is someone who successfully figured out how to reconfigure the division of labor in his industry, advocating for vertical rather than horizontal integration. He tells you what platform to stand on, what shoes to wear, the precise configuration of your joint angles in relation to the load - but achieves economy in exercise selection. This is challenging domain-specific work. It seems far more likely that Patterson has convinced himself of superficial connections between exercise science and set theory, rather than simultaneously resolving the problems in both.
Second, there is currently a massive amount of legitimate, exciting innovation being driven by smart, honest, well-funded, mainstream scientists. Way more than the research output of prior "ages." It doesn’t seem like he’s going to correctly distinguish this from all the junk:
I know, his post is just an introduction. When he eventually digs into more specifics, the litmus test will be: is this practical and constructive, or merely cathartic and entertaining?
I am (slowly) working on a more targeted critique of methodology in healthcare, along with proposed solutions.