In this chapter, an attempt is made to highlight the differences between evolutionaryand revolutionary hypotheses. Most hypotheses about etiology or novel therapies areevolutionary in nature and advance the field of medicine incrementally. Revolutionaryhypotheses, on the other hand, are received with skepticism, but they advance thefield enormously if corroborated. Viewing truly revolutionary hypotheses from anevolutionary perspective is misguided and dangerous. If an unusual hypothesis ispresented reasonably, is founded upon solid science, and addresses important aspects ofpathology that currently lack a clear explanation or solution; then it should be listened toand given a reasonable consideration. Medical hypotheses and evidence-based medicinerepresent a continuum, one complementing the other, and any separation between the tworemains artificial as far as the patient care and advancement of knowledge are concerned.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Title of host publication||Hypotheses in Clinical Medicine|
|Publisher||Nova Science Publishers, Inc.|
|Number of pages||8|
|State||Published - 2013|
ASJC Scopus subject areas