Instigator / Pro
25
1810
rating
49
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#1560

Physicians are Scientists

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
9
Better sources
8
6
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
4

After 4 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

Barney
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
23
1554
rating
15
debates
73.33%
won
Description

This is being initiated at the request of con, due to a continued disagreement about definitions within the English language (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1555/comment_links/21621).

Pro is arguing that physicians (AKA Medical Doctors) are scientists.
Con is arguing that physicians are not scientists.

Definitions:
Obviously this is a debate about language, so we'll be arguing which definitions are best within the debate.

-->
@Barney

I got very close to calling the argument vote a tie as did the last 2 voters. What flipped my vote was the dictionary.definitions. I felt very strongly that they could not be ignored. Yes, I understand Con wanted to minimize the effect of the dictionary definitions, but I felt that was a weakness in his argument.

-->
@sigmaphil

Now that voting is over...

IMO BoP on this debate (any any like it) would not quite be an absolute all or none (unless such specific qualifier statements were included in the resolution), but more of an overwhelming majority/minority. For any large populations, there will always be a few outliers. As an intuitive example, on a debate 'Nazi's Are Bad People,' citing Oskar Schindler would not prove the Nazi's are not bad.

Anyway, thank you again for taking the time to vote. My opinion on such matters is of course just one opinion, which does not invalidate others.

-->
@Nemiroff

Thank you for the debate.

I minimize commentary during the voting window, but now that it's over I'm happy to discuss anything you would like.

I finish finals tomorrow night and then I will try to slip in a vote.

-->
@Barney

You're welcome.

-->
@Christen
@SirAnonymous

Thank you both for taking the time and effort to vote.

-->
@Nemiroff

There is a bit of irony in one of your examples. You stated that Ragnar's definition would make programmers into scientists. While I would agree that they aren't, it is funny in that one of the two main degrees for programmers is called Computer Science.

-->
@Barney

Sorry for taking so long to add my vote. It was a great debate, though.

-->
@Nemiroff

I sent you a pm. My quick answer to the Einstein question is yes he would be a scientist, but I elaborated in the pm.

-->
@sigmaphil

Of course he is still a scientist. Three question is if someone is a scientist, not when are they scientists. I don't see the relevance.

Can you answer my questions requesting you to explain what you think a scientist does? And my question regarding einstein; would he be considered a scientist if he had simple been a fan of new discoveries without even attempting to formulate new ideas?

-->
@Nemiroff

I simply felt that the standard English dictionary definitions were not to be ignored. And they state that a scientist is an expert in the natural sciences, which is what a Physician is.

Let me ask you this, Is a scientist only a scientist when they are conducting a scientific experiment?

-->
@sigmaphil

If einstein simply enjoyed learning new science discoveries and made no contributions of his own, would he be a scientist? Or simply a science nerd?

Despite being clearly "learned in a science"

-->
@sigmaphil

I dont mind sharing BoP, but that doesnt necessitate an absolute statement. Just like with "being scientist", physicians can also be artists, that doesnt mean physicians ARE artists.

As for the dictionary, i was hoping to hear your wifes english major opinion. The definition of "person learned of science" is obviously inadequate. Mere knowledge of math and physics didnt make einstein a scientist, his work to uncover further discoveries is what made him a scientist.

How would you define a scientist in your own words? Is the primary quality knowledge of past theories, or working on new ones?

What of dictionaries failure in objective definitions of words like literally, or failure in defining career specific terms like "theory" or apparently the careers themselves.

I think the differences in job description (seeking new knowledge vs applying known knowledge) speaks for themselved.

Just wanted to clarify my position, this will be my last comment on your vote unless you want to pm me. Thank you for voting.

-->
@Nemiroff

It seemed to me from the debate description, that the burden of proof was shared even though this was never clarified. It did feel the burden of proof leaned more on Pro. I felt that the definitions of scientist which Pro stated from dictionary.com and others was very powerful and should be the standard when defining a universal term. I'm not negating your definitions and I applaud you for bringing it up in the debate- that was also powerful but at the end of the day the common English definitions should be the standard, you can't just dismiss them as "more record keepers than authorities." This I found to be a weakness in your argument. I really enjoyed the debate! Great read!

-->
@sigmaphil

Thank you for voting.

-->
@sigmaphil

At no point did i say *no physician* can be a scientist. ANYONE CAN CONDUCT RESEARCH as a hobby and be a scientist.

If a patent clerk does independent research in his free time, he is a scientist. That does not make all parent clerks scientists.

The only absolute statement was on pro's side. This is a major confusion that i dont think was caused by my word choice.

-->
@Nemiroff

There's a few factors for the low voter turnout. One big one I think is the number of students on the site being busy with finals.

-->
@Barney
@Nemiroff

I plan on voting. I'll probably cast my vote early next week. I've read through the debate several times. It honestly is a bit baffling to me. I discussed it with my wife who has an Ivy League English degree and we've come to an agreement, lol.

Also, thank you to all voters, including dynamic squid.

At least the simplest non troll, non FF, non super low word limit debate.

I wonder why this isnt getting more votes. This is probably the most simple and easy to follow debate on the site. Very few premises or moving parts.

-->
@Barney

Yup, np!

-->
@DynamicSquid

Thank you for voting!

-->
@Barney

I continued to insist on my assertion as a matter of fact. I never replied to that statement in your specific context. Although as i said before, i wasn't against a debate on the subject, i simply wanted to clarify our positions more first.

-->
@Nemiroff

"If you insist, then we can have a debate on definitions within English." ... And then you insisted.

-->
@Barney

this quoted challenge for a debate is from you as i am not a former combat medic. Thus the debate is at your request.

I don't seem to have accepted or denied the request in the following post, instead trying to clear up any possible misconceptions.

-->
@Nemiroff

Why do you believe you did not request this debate?

Do you remember the words: "I won't spam links at you, but if you doubt me you can check any dictionary. If you insist, then we can have a debate on definitions within English. I am sorry for the mocking slow clap. As a combat former medic, your negative words towards the medical field touched a nerve." You then continued on the same trajectory...

I would also like to clarify, as i did in the first comment. This debate was not at my request. We simply disagreed in a comments section and then i found this challenge in my notifications. I do not know why @ragnar phrased it that way.

I would prefer the opportunity to define my own position. My response to your argument is not my actual argument.

-->
@Barney
@PressF4Respect

A better comparison

Pro:
“A doctor who does not conduct experiments, would quickly find themselves in malpractice lawsuits for the various injuries they would inflict by giving treatments for the wrong ailments. It is necessary for any practicing modern physician to be a scientist.”

Con
"A doctor who conducts experiments would find himself without a job. Giving unverified treatments, especially ones that fail, will not only land him in court, it will cost him his license. The doctor is (hopefully) not trying to find out how the disease works, or even new ways to cure it. The doctor should be carrying out the best cure that is known to work, to get you better with minimal consequences."

-->
@PressF4Respect

Slightly difficult to answer while inside the voting period, but I'll give two-line snippet from the conclusion of each case...

Pro:
“A doctor who does not conduct experiments, would quickly find themselves in malpractice lawsuits for the various injuries they would inflict by giving treatments for the wrong ailments. It is necessary for any practicing modern physician to be a scientist.”

Con:
“My opponent has tried to use vague definitions to twist the term scientist into meaninglessness. Anyone who second guesses actions and then verifies them is now a scientist. Whether that question is about the workings of the world, or whether their car battery still has a charge.”

-->
@Barney

Sparknotes version plz

If anyone does not feel comfortable voting, feedback outside of votes would still be appreciated.

-->
@Barney

Tyvm. Good luck.

-->
@Barney

Thank you.

-->
@Nemiroff

Just a friendly reminder that there is now only one day remaining to post arguments.

They study science but as Con says, only a minority are also scientists. This is actually less of a minority in Social Democracies, where the research is partially funded by the government as part of a research thing that goes along with public healthcare. It is actually mandatory in some lines of medical work; you need to spend time in a lab to genuinely get a job that doesn't involve lab work at times, to prove you fully understand it on a cellular level and besides it's a great Resumé/CV builder.

-->
@Barney

cutting it close!

-->
@Nemiroff

Just a friendly reminder that there is now only one day remaining to post arguments.

-->
@Nemiroff

I have not forgotten this debate, I just got unexpectedly very busy. I’ll post my argument this Friday or at the latest Saturday.

Wow, that table got all kinds of messed up on my screen.

-->
@Barney

Sources for R1 Con in order of appearance.

1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
2. https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-a-scientist/
3. https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4887
4. https://www.aamc.org/what-we-do/mission-areas/medical-research/physician-scientist
5. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190731171722.htm
6. https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10.1164/rccm.201110-1806ED

over the character limit by 1300 :( let me see if I can wittle it down

-->
@Barney

I appreciate the concern, and apologize for the light teasing :) All meant in good faith. With 1 week periods i should be able to have several off days to formulate a response so it shouldnt be a problem. This debate also wont require technical economic data research and should be a much more relaxed time compared to my previous rushed, highly technical debate.

Perhaps its because it is an interesting new debate that i am so anxious to get started :p

-->
@Nemiroff

You asked for a week period due to your schedule, I tried to respect that by withholding my opening case until you were a little less swamped (you just finished another debate yesterday for example). Posting now (9 hours after your last comment).

-->
@Barney

I know there is a 1 week window to make a debate, but i was expecting the investigators opening statement sooner. I hope you havent forgotten.

Btw, this debate was not at my request. I simply insisted on the truth as i will defend it when i received this challenge in my notifications. I did not request it, but i will certainly not decline it.