Physicians are Scientists
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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.
- My Opinion
- Common English
What is a Scientist?
In general I would say a scientist is any practitioner of the scientific method, which can be simplified to [2]:
- Make an observation
- Ask a question
- Form a hypothesis
- Conduct an experiment
- Reject or Accept hypothesis
My opponent believes “the last thing you want a doctor to do is start guessing and experimenting on his patients” [3], which is to say the last thing he would want is a doctor who makes use of the scientific method. I disagree. I want a doctor who is capable of continuous diagnosis. For example, after they assume a broken bone is set back into place, I want them to run the experiment of an x-ray to test said hypothesis, rather than risk it healing wrong. Someone with a history of worsening headaches, should probably receive a CT scan, rather than just be given more and more painkillers (or worse, being given treatment for brain tumors or otherwise based on symptoms without an experiment to confirm that hypothesis).
Doctors are Scientists by Definition:
Making an appeal to the authority of the dictionaries, scientists are…
- Merriam-Webster says “a person learned in science and especially natural science” [5].
- Cambridge says “an expert in science” or “an expert who studies or works in one of the sciences” [6].
- Dictionary.com says “an expert in science, especially one of the physical or natural sciences” [7].
- https://study.com/requirements_to_become_a_doctor.html
- http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=scientific_method
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/1555/comment_links/21621
- https://www.medicinenet.com/physical_exam_why_does_your_doctor_do_that/article.htm
- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientist
- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/scientist
- https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientist
2: in effect : virtually —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possiblewill literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice— Norman Cousins [1]
Physician-scientists are physicians (MDs or DOs with or without additional degrees) who devote regular components of their professional effort seeking new knowledge about health, disease, or delivery of patient care through research. While all physicians receive training in medical science, physician-scientists are those who are trained to conduct independent scientific investigation in the laboratory, clinic, or other setting.Historically, physicians were pioneers in medical science, and often relying on only informal scientific training coupled to their intellectual insight and curiosity. Today, however, most physician-scientists complete formal, usually intensive scientific training in addition to their medical education. [4]
Physician-scientists have been a driving force in biomedical research and have made major contributions to medical breakthroughs. However, in the past 40 years, the proportion of U.S. doctors engaged in research has dwindled from a peak of 4.7 percent of the overall physician workforce in the 1980s to about 1.5 percent today. [5]
TABLE 1. ATTRIBUTES THAT DISTINGUISH PHYSICIANS AND SCIENTISTSAttributes............................................................…….Physicians..........................……ScientistsApproach to knowledge...............................................Application...................................DiscoveryDecision making...............................................................Rapid......................................ReservedAdherence to accepted standards of practice............Almost always...............…......…..Almost neverExpert opinion.............................................................Respect authority.........................Question authorityResponse to mistakes........................................Risk management review.........….........Basis for potential breakthroughs [6]
- Make an observation
- Ask a question
- Form a hypothesis
- Conduct an experiment
- Reject or Accept hypothesis
- Merriam-Webster says “a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences” or “the antecedent clause of a conditional statement” [2].
- Cambridge says “an idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proven” [3].
- Dictionary.com says “a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.” [4].
- Merriam-Webster says “TEST, TRIAL” or “an operation or procedure carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law” [5].
- Cambridge says specifically to science “a test done in order to learn something or to discover whether something works or is true” [6].
- Dictionary.com says “a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle, supposition, etc.” or “to try or test, especially in order to discover or prove something” [7].
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman
- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis
- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hypothesis
- https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hypothesis?s=t
- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/experiment
- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/experiment
- https://www.dictionary.com/browse/experiment?s=t
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non_sequitur
Doctors are Scientists by Definition:Con has tentatively dropped that Physicians are within English defined as Scientists.
Scientist: A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, making a hypothesis and testing it, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.
“A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, making a hypothesis and testing it, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.”
"rather I have called a group of “experts of a natural science,” who underwent “11-14 years education beyond most citizens” scientists (this also contradicts con's conclusion)."
What is a Scientist?In general I would say a scientist is any practitioner of the scientific method, which can be simplified to [2]:
- Make an observation
- Ask a question
- Form a hypothesis
- Conduct an experiment
- Reject or Accept hypothesis
“respective representative bodies all repeatedly deny … as I repeatedly showed”
I've invalidated the no true Scotsman by demonstrating that the doctors and scientists themselves deny any similarity.
“I do not believe verifying proper bone setting is a hypothesisstrange standard would prevent scientists from being educated in their respective fields and still able to be considered scientists,” and that “nothing supports his views that a suspected outcome would mean it’s not a hypothesis. Extend"
"Physicians job is all about systematically gathering and using research and evidence to help patients (vs to GAIN knowledge). They routinely make Diagnosis (not hypotheses) and then test them (as seen with even determining a bone is broken, rather than putting a cast on for months at a whim without verification (The pros/cons of which is already known knowledge)). And yes, of course they share the knowledge (But don't GAIN knowledge) and understanding with their patients and co-workers (that they even record illness rates should be a clue)." (The doctor treating you isn't the one compiling and studying that data.)
Not even con’s definition of scientists includes his newly moved goalpost about novel research
That not all have the job title Doctor-Scientist is irrelevant, as is if research is their primary goal.
Con drops that he has demanded that scientists reject their own “accepted standards of practice”
“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.”
Physician-scientists are physicians (MDs or DOs with or without additional degrees) who devote regular components of their professional effort seeking new knowledge about health, disease, or delivery of patient care through research. While all physicians receive training in medical science, physician-scientists are those who are trained to conduct independent scientific investigation in the laboratory, clinic, or other setting.
Like I said in my private conversation with Ragnar, since a scientist is a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences, a physician is a person qualified to practice medicine and who has some basic knowledge about biology, and biology is a science, physicians would be considered scientists.
https://i.imgur.com/VBoxCR5.png
My problem with Pro however is that Pro seems to focus too heavily on opinions rather than facts and deductive reasoning. This would be okay if the debate itself was based on a subjective question rather than an objective one, but the question is whether or not physicians are scientists. The answer must either be yes or no.
Con says "I agree with this definition of scientist" then immediately contradicts that agreement by proceeding to provide their own definition of a scientist, disagreeing with Pro's definition that Con already agreed with.
Con says "3. Can a doctor be a scientist? Yes of course." meaning the debate should have ended right there as Con admitted that physicians and doctors are technically scientists.
Con reveals that "the number of physician scientists was under 5%". So I think Con's is trying to say that physicians are not scientists because there are... a small number of them? I'm not sure.
It seems to me like the title of this debate should have been changed to "all physicians are scientists" or "some physicians are scientists" since both Pro and Con were struggling to interpret whether or not some or all physicians being scientists would fulfill the the topic of this debate.
Both sides kept going off topic about the No True Scotsman Fallacy and some other things that I didn't think were relevant to the debate, as DynamicSquid already pointed out.
This debate was a bit of a mess, but I still agree with Pro's original claim.
Before I begin, I would like to thank the participants for this interesting and very well argued debate. This debate is between two Top 15 DART debaters, and they have proven their proficiency. It was a pleasure to read.
Both debaters used reputable sources. They exercised good conduct and had few errors with spelling and grammar.
Naturally, the crux of this debate was the definition of a scientist and whether physicians meet that definition. In R1, they agreed that scientists have the following characteristics:
Scientists...
1. Make an observation
2. Ask a question
3. Form a hypothesis
4. Conduct an experiment
5. Reject or Accept hypothesis
This is the scientific method.
Pro contends that physicians make observations on their patients' bodies, ask questions regarding the malady, form a hypothesis of what the malady is, conduct an experiment such as a scan to test that hypothesis, then reject or accept the hypothesis based on the results of the test. Thus, physicians follow the scientific method and are therefore scientists. He also cites three definitions of a scientist from different dictionaries to demonstrate that, in common English, physicians are scientists.
Con replies by arguing that diagnoses and scans do not qualify as hypotheses and experiments because they are known procedures and do not result in new information. In his words,
"Scientists ask Questions and make Hypothesis (aka a possible explanation for an unknown phenomena), in order to Gain new and deeper knowledge
Doctors use this knowledge in order to provide optimal treatment to sick people. They do not, in 95%+ cases, seek new knowledge through their primary work.
If, as a doctor should, do seek knowledge. it is newly discovered (past tense) knowledge that was discovered by scientists... as that is their job description."
Further, he argues that dictionaries are not authorities and cites definitions of a physician and a scientist from organizations of the two professions.
Pro counters that this is moving the goal posts and constitutes a No True Scotsman. He argues that diagnoses do not cease to be hypotheses merely because they are educated guesses and that known procedures do not cease to be experiments merely because they are known. He cites three different dictionaries to back up his claim. Also, he maintains that the fact that dictionaries aren't authorities doesn't invalidate his point that physicians are scientists using English definitions.
Con repeats his argument that diagnoses and medical tests are not hypothesis and experiments because they are not novel research. Further, he asserts that dictionaries are not authorities and that the definitions he provided from organizations of physicians and scientists are a better standard. Also, he points out that the definition of a scientist as someone who uses the scientific method would classify nearly everyone as a scientist.
Pro replies once again that requiring the research to be novel constitutes moving the goalpost. He argues that whether or not most people are scientists is irrelevant to the question of whether physicians are scientists.
Overall, I thought that Pro established that physicians do use the scientific method, so, by the agreed upon definition, they would be scientists. However, he has no effective response to Con's reductio ad absurdum that such a definition would lead to everyone being classified as a scientist. However, that was the definition Con agreed to at the beginning of the debate. I cannot decide which of these two arguments (establishing that physicians use the scientific method and establishing that such a definition would make everyone a scientist) has more weight. Thus, arguments are tied.
Once again, I would like to thank both participants for this excellent debate. It was a pleasure to read. Both sides were argued excellently.
First off, I truly enjoyed this debate. Both Pro and Con showed professionalism and knowledge of their side of the debate and did a wonderful job of arguing that side.
I am honored and humbled to submit my vote...
Better Sources:
-Both Pro and Con had good sources
-Vote: Tie
Better Spelling and Grammar:
-Both Pro and Con exhibited good spelling and grammar.
-Vote: Tie
Better Conduct:
-Both Pro and Con showed good conduct.
-Vote: Tie
Better Argument:
-The Resolution: Physicians are Scientists
--My understanding (from the description section) of what was needed to win the debate was either Pro had to prove that all physicians were scientists or Con had to prove that no physicians were scientists. The resolution was absent of any constraint; an all or nothing for both sides. Therefore if neither side could prove conclusively their side of the all or nothing resolution then the Better Arguments criteria would end in a tie.
-Usually, I like to boil down my analysis by round, but I thought it would be best to make a list of important points that are made throughout the debate and why I think they are important.
--Point 1: Even though Con would rather propose their own definition of a scientist, which they grabbed from a source called, "sciencecouncil.org," I thought that the official dictionary definitions brought up by Pro could not be dismissed. So which side should win the definition argument? Even though both sides argued well, my opinion is that the official English dictionary definitions should be the standard.
--Point 2. Con brings up an argument that "Physician-Scientist" are in decline since the 1980's, which at face value would appear to show that Physicians can be non-scientists. Con also answers a question, "Can a doctor be a scientist?" where their next three words are "Yes, of course." This brings up a very important point and one that bears a lot of weight in my vote. That point is can a physician be considered a scientist even though they may not currently be exercising the scientific methodology that Pro and Con agreed to in round 1. In other words, If a physician is not 100% actively involved in the scientific process are they still considered a scientist? Another way of saying it is is a Physician-scientist a scientist because who they are or what they do? I think Con would say the later and Pro, the former. It really does boil down to who has the mo0re accepted definition for a scientist. And what could be more accepted than the common English dictionary definition. Therefore I believe Pro has a stronger argument here.
--Point 3: The next criteria and the one both Pro and Con agreed to is the scientific methodology. Pro and Con again argue over the definition of the word hypothesis and the word experiment. Again Pro counters with common English dictionary definitions of which Con counters by questioning whether dictionary definitions should be used because they are "more record keepers then authorities." I continue to have problems with Cons disregard for dictionary definitions. If there is not a standard English dictionary definition than anyone can define whatever word they want and claim their's is the authority. I believe Pro has the edge here.
--Point 4: Numerous other arguments were brought up; the No true scotsman argument, the arguments about x-rays and bone settings, etc. All these are irrelevant to the main point that a Physician is a scientist because of who they are not what they do. A point that is supported by Pro's dictionary definitions and Con's sources about the Physician-Scientist and Con's admittance that a Physician can be a scientist.
-Final Point and Vote: Pro's dictionary definitions on scientists state that a scientist is an expert in the natural sciences, which means that a Physician is a scientist and a scientist may or may not utilize the scientific methodology. Therefore all Phycisnas are Scientists. Vote goes to Pro.
Great job both of you. This was quite an interesting debate to read. Let's get into the scores.
Better arguments. That is the main focus I will be answering here.
Pro, I think you kind of screwed yourself up in the opening, but making the definition a little too broad. However, Con did not challenge your definition directly, but instead tried to work around it. My advice for Con, if you see an unfair definition, don't be afraid to challenge it directly.
Pro, you also based some of your text on the literal definition of "doctor" and stuff like that. However, I fell like that this is actually going off-topic for this debate. The dictionary can't be wrong. It's a fact, so there is no point in debating it. You should have expanded on your own opinion.
Pro, you also brought up the point about how doctors follow the Scientific Method. However, I find that Con doesn't argue directly with this, but instead tries to work around it, if you know what I mean. Like I said before, don't be afraid to challenge Pro's model.
Pro, I find that your only main argument was your opinion. True, there were subcategories, but they weren't labeled, and I felt like they were all the same thing. However, Con has multiple theories, and interesting ones too, talking about stuff like how the career paths are different and more.
Con, try to keep your formatting the same. Some sections were bolded, others were underlined, and some were a mix. It was a little bit hard to differentiate different parts. However, a small error.
Con, try not to recycle some of your information. If you stated an argument, then don't state it again. That just takes up valuable space take could potentially be used for more text.
All and all, I think that Con takes this debate in terms of arguments. The rest should be self explanatory. Well done!
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.
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.
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.
You're welcome.
Thank you both for taking the time and effort to vote.
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.
Sorry for taking so long to add my vote. It was a great debate, though.
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.
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?
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?
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"
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.
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!
Thank you for voting.
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.
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.
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.
Yup, np!
Thank you for voting!
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.
"If you insist, then we can have a debate on definitions within English." ... And then you insisted.
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.
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.
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."
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.”
Sparknotes version plz
If anyone does not feel comfortable voting, feedback outside of votes would still be appreciated.
Tyvm. Good luck.
Thank you.
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.
cutting it close!
Just a friendly reminder that there is now only one day remaining to post arguments.
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.
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
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
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).
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.