Bickel, BeverlyMaher, JenniferKerfoot, Susan Elizabeth2023-04-052023-04-052022-01-0112638http://hdl.handle.net/11603/27308The concept of objectivity has been the cornerstone of biomedical practice since the 18th century. Despite the common perception of objectivity as the basis for fact-based reasoning and evidential truths, this dissertations presents objectivity as both empirical and rhetorical, and how it needs to be understood in terms of praxis. My perspective follows Phil Francis Carspecken’s (2003) point that "there is not one center,…but a complex network of…multiple discourse-practices” (p. 995). My dissertations situated biomedical discourse and practice in the context of how "all discourses involve the power-knowledge connection, making people into "others…[to] silence them” ( p. 1012).I start with an historical overview of the evolution of objectivity as a virtuous endeavor. The chapters’ themes include ancient rhetoric as a framework to interpret biomedical discourse; the role of evidence, validity and truth; the rhetoric of the "other” as a mechanism of control, as manifested by the "stranger” and the "monster;” and psychedelics researchers’ intentional use of specific argumentative processes to establish the credibility of emotions as evidence in academic medical research. I follow with a research study I conducted to investigate curiosity as a transformative element for teachers and students in biomedical education. I conclude with contemporary examples of bias to underscore the vital role of fallibility and uncertainty in biomedical practice. I argue those qualities, alongside a capacity for curiosity and empathy, are essential elements to combat inequities and bias. This means training in biomedicine as art is as critical as the mastery of scientific medicine, because together those qualities sustain the biomedical profession’s fundamental mandate of the Hippocratic oath to "Do no harm.”application:pdfevidenceexclusionfeminismintersectionalitypowerpraxisText