Tom,

It all depends on what you want to understand, for example individual experience or what happens in general. Have you read Ken Wilbur at all? There's more than one type of knowledge about the world and more than one criterion for what counts as acceptable knowledge as a result.

Truthfully, I'd rather my doctor understand as much as he/she can about my cancer (I have had two cancers and two primary docs for each), including the statistics in general for everyone with the disease and for the success of different forms of treatment, the physiology of the disease, the physiological details of my particular case and what treatment will work with me, his/her patient's experiences in general, my experience in particular, how his/her interaction with patients affects their experience and how his/her interaction with me affects me.

Obviously statistics and knowledge collected using the scientific method would be of help in some of those forms of knowledge and of no use in other forms. Fortunately it's not really such a dichotomy as you are making it. Some of us can call ourselves "quant. jocks" and still understand that not every question can be answered that way and value the place of qualitative understanding as well--and use those other methods where appropriate! There is no inherent dichotomy between one or the other form of understanding, contrary to a lot of useless raging academic debate, unless you buy into the idea that everyone who can think linearly and abstractly enough to undertand statistics lacks empathy and creativity and has no other skills.

And as for my docs, I hope they really see me as well as the numbers, but in many ways I care more that they are skilled at the scientific end of the spectrum, if I had to choose between the two.

Nelie