From hypothesis to evidence-based medicine: Connecting the dots

Bradley K. Weiner, Joseph Fernandez-Moure, Ennio Tasciotti, Mohammadali Mohajel Shoja

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter


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 languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationHypotheses in Clinical Medicine
PublisherNova Science Publishers, Inc.
Number of pages8
ISBN (Print)9781622572762
StatePublished - Dec 1 2013
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)


Dive into the research topics of 'From hypothesis to evidence-based medicine: Connecting the dots'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this