Nonfiction: "Science" as a Rationale for Dismissing Personal Experience, Particularly in a Medical Setting

One thing I'm enjoying about writing "The Chicago Flood of 2015" is that it gives me the opportunity to learn about things like ancient Egypt and explore questions like, "what happens when magic, science and medicine meet, particularly in a woman's body?" I like to play with genres not just because it's fun but because I think it's a useful way to confront stereotypes, to subvert the quick and dirty character sketches writers often use to kick-start a story. Attempting to portray realistic characters caught in unrealistic situations gives me more than enough opportunities to explore what I think and feel and learn about real life. Here's where I am when it comes to the question of how and why medical professionals might unconsciously feel dismissive of the women in their care, and why that's a problem.

Because science doesn't accept an individual's experience as evidence of the Truth of a situation unless/until that experience is repeated multiple times using the scientific method (for example, the Dunning-Kruger effect, which I just learned about; the effect has been recognized and discussed in philosophy and literature for over a thousand years yet it wasn't "real" until scientists figured out how to prove it), we find it easy to dismiss an individual's unique experience of the world.

The issue is muddied by the fact that we are instinctively driven to come up with stories to explain our limited understanding of the world, and the stories we've come up with over thousands of years have been false on a lot of levels, even when they explore deeper truths, and have resulted in commonly-accepted tales and myths, overgeneralization, racism, sexism, and socially-imposed ideas of proper behavior that interfere with our own objectivity when we explore ourselves and our surroundings.

Scientists and medical professionals, being human themselves, bring those internalized social stories with them, such as their own sexism for example, but can frame it as objectivity, putting their human subjects at a distinct disadvantage, since they aren't in a position that provides that valence, themselves.

But science, like stories, slowly gropes its way toward the truth. It is often wrong on the way there. At times, it can be used as a tool of repression. At other times, it can be used as an excuse for a lack of empathy.

When it comes to human sexuality, we remain mired in the mythology of the past and even science and medicine haven't been able to lift us out and clean it off the wheels of progress. We remain at the mercy of a medical industry that downplays women's health concerns, pushes drugs for erectile dysfunction, and fails to put any money into investigating ourselves as sexual creatures.

One of the most harmful stories we have to overcome today is the one in which women know less about themselves than those in a position of authority. It results in untested rape kits, undiagnosed--or diagnosed too late--cancer, and unnecessary suffering through all stages of a woman's sexual life cycle. A woman's story about herself may not align completely with the Truth as science and medicine currently describe it, but it benefits both the woman and her doctor to explore the story together as partners, to reveal the individual truths that might be hiding below the surface.

The point of using the scientific method, particularly in medicine, is to help people. Dismissing a person's unique experience of their lives means missing the point of searching for the truth.