What does the false dichotomy between specific and non-specific effects suggest about their legitimacy?

The false dichotomy between specific and non-specific effects indicates that the distinction itself can create tension regarding the legitimacy of different treatment approaches. By suggesting that these effects are in opposition, this dichotomy may challenge the established clinical authority traditionally held by practitioners. It opens the door to questioning the validity of practices that may not demonstrate traditional specific outcomes but do offer significant non-specific benefits, such as enhanced patient trust and satisfaction.

Thus, acknowledging non-specific effects can lead to a more integrated understanding of healthcare that values holistic care rather than strictly clinical outcomes, potentially undermining the cultural dominance of conventional measures. This perspective invites a critical examination of how clinical authority is constructed and maintained, emphasizing the importance of recognizing the broader therapeutic context in which care occurs.