I am not obliquely referencing any study. You are mind reading.
So you have a statistic that says doctors choose to die differently than the patients they are treating. That is interesting, but merely descriptive, not prescriptive. It does not tell you which treatments works best for someone who happens to be a doctor.
If you are talking about fixes being studied for problems borne out of subjectivity, you admit that objectivity is at odds with the individual.
For instance, you can not make an objective assessment on whether prescribing a pain drug to patient is the right thing to do, because pain and suffering is a subjective experience.
There is no pain meter that gives an objective reading of the patients experience and outlook and then tells you if some medication is statistically justified, relative to the harm it causes.
> For instance, you can not make an objective assessment on whether prescribing a pain drug to patient is the right thing to do, because pain and suffering is a subjective experience.
Yes, pain and suffering are subjective experiences, but they are also objective phenomena. We know, to some extent, how pain works, and can see it happening on brain scans.
I think the core of our disagreement here is that you seem to think that experience is somehow supernatural and therefore can't be studied, but it isn't: experience happens in the physical world, via physical and chemical processes, and can absolutely be studied via normal scientific means.
Sure, you can study it, but we are nowhere near being able to objectively measure it well enough to make objective predictions that fit a given individual, as opposed to some hypothetical average person.
A lot of the things that indeed are possible (like brain imaging for pain response) are only feasible in a lab setting, they're not in widespread clinical use. Maybe they should be, maybe doctors shouldn't be handing out fentanyl like candy and instead look at what's going on in their patient's brain first - but then how do you prove that what's showing on the screen reflects the experience of the patient?
That's not to say that such studies are entirely useless. They're one more data point, but ultimately, the decision should be up to the individual. This is also closer to my experience of how patients are actually treated. There is no oracle system that can tell you what the right way to treat an individual is.
> I think the core of our disagreement here is that you seem to think that experience is somehow supernatural
Not at all. I don't think we disagree on what's possible "in theory". I'm not a dualist.
So you have a statistic that says doctors choose to die differently than the patients they are treating. That is interesting, but merely descriptive, not prescriptive. It does not tell you which treatments works best for someone who happens to be a doctor.
If you are talking about fixes being studied for problems borne out of subjectivity, you admit that objectivity is at odds with the individual.