▁Method ist , ▁treat ments ▁to ▁dise ases ▁are ▁immediately ▁obvious ; ▁it ▁is ▁a ▁matter ▁of ▁common ▁sense , ▁of ▁reason . ▁There ▁is ▁no ▁need ▁for ▁just ification ▁by ▁experience ; ▁to ▁Method ists , ▁there ▁are ▁no ▁conce iv able ▁alternatives ▁to ▁their ▁inn ate ▁knowledge ▁of ▁proper ▁treat ments . ▁ ▁Because ▁Method ists ▁do ▁not ▁take ▁their ▁knowledge ▁of ▁proper ▁treatment ▁as ▁an ▁issue ▁of ▁observation ▁or ▁experience , ▁they ▁are ▁willing ▁to ▁conced e ▁that ▁their ▁knowledge ▁is ▁a ▁matter ▁of ▁reason . ▁On ▁this ▁point , ▁the ▁Method ists ▁bear ▁a ▁similarity ▁to ▁Dog mat ists , ▁taking ▁reason ▁as ▁a ▁construct ive ▁approach ▁to ▁appropri ating ▁the ▁proper ▁treatment ▁for ▁an ▁a il ment . ▁However , ▁Method ists ▁do ▁not ▁support ▁the ▁Dog m atic ▁concept ▁of ▁employ ing ▁reason ▁to ▁find ▁hidden ▁causes ▁that ▁bel ie ▁the ▁disease ▁manif ested . ▁The ▁causes ▁of ▁dise ases ▁can ▁not ▁be ▁fant astic ▁or ▁obsc ure ▁forces ▁that ▁would ▁not ▁occur ▁in ▁ordinary ▁life . ▁The ▁key ▁difference ▁between ▁Method ist ▁do ctors ▁and ▁Emp ir ic ist ▁or ▁Dog m atic ▁do ctors ▁is ▁that ▁a ▁Method ist ' s ▁knowledge ▁is ▁" f irm ▁and ▁certain ," ▁and ▁that ▁it ▁leaves ▁no ▁room ▁for ▁future ▁revision . ▁R ather ▁than ▁rely ▁upon ▁reason ▁and ▁experience , ▁the ▁Method ist ▁does ▁what ▁is ▁inher ently ▁obvious ; ▁there ▁is ▁no ▁room ▁for ▁error . ▁ ▁Notes ▁ ▁See ▁also ▁ ▁References ▁ ▁William ▁Smith