Instigator / Pro
Points: 25

Physicians are Scientists

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 4 votes the winner is ...
Ragnar
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Education
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
5,000
Contender / Con
Points: 23
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.
Round 1
Published:
I shall prove my case on two fronts, which shall be given their own sections below
  1. My Opinion
  2. Common English

But first, we should quickly address that as both debaters live in the USA, this debate is centered on physicians within that country (as opposed to say African Witch Doctors). A medical doctor in the USA is a highly skilled and highly paid position, requiring 11-14 years education beyond most citizens [1]. I doubt there will be any disagreement that physicians are experts of a natural science.


I. My Opinion:
What is a Scientist?
In general I would say a scientist is any practitioner of the scientific method, which can be simplified to [2]:
  1. Make an observation
  2. Ask a question
  3. Form a hypothesis
  4. Conduct an experiment
  5. Reject or Accept hypothesis

What Type of Doctor is Best?
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).

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. Were they not, there would be no such thing as an annual physical exam (a key time doctors do many experiments) [4].


II. Common English:
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].
Each are slightly different, but the general theme of what a scientist is within the English language (to which this debate is using) should be clear. Considering physicians by those standards: they practice the natural science of medicine, a field to which they very well learned in to the point of being experts. They are by definition scientists.


Sources:
  1. https://study.com/requirements_to_become_a_doctor.html
  2. http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=scientific_method
  3. https://www.debateart.com/debates/1555/comment_links/21621
  4. https://www.medicinenet.com/physical_exam_why_does_your_doctor_do_that/article.htm
  5. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientist
  6. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/scientist
  7. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientist
Published:
Re: Opinion definition

I agree with this definition of scientist, however I do not believe verifying proper bone setting is a hypothesis, nor is the x-ray an experiment. These are known procedures. If the doctor was evaluating a brand new untested procedure, or posing a hypothesis that injecting something new will lead to self repair and then testing it, then he is a scientist, but the vast majority of doctors do not do this. 

A particularly negative example of doctor's playing scientist is the Tuskegee experiments. A certain group was selected to study the natural progression of syphilis. The participants thought they were getting normal medical treatment, but even after a known antibiotic cure was developed, the study went on. These doctors violated their oath to prioritize the patient, they acted as scientists to preserved the data at expense of their patients.


Re: Common English

I cannot dispute that those are the common definitions, however common definitions may not be the best way to judge professions. Shortly I will demonstrate what academic institutions and the professionals themselves see as accurate definitions and equivalencies.

What I will say about dictionaries is that they do not decide language as scientists judge facts. Dictionaries simply record the common usage of a word, which is proven by the constantly changing definitions of words to match popular usage at the dismay of intellectuals. Example: literally now officially can mean not literally.

2: in effect : virtually —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible
will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice— Norman Cousins  [1]
Thus dictionaries are more record keepers then authorities.


My Arguments

1. Definitons:

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. [2]

Physician: A person who is trained in the art of healing… The term generally refers to a person who has earned a Doctor of Medicine (MD), Doctor of Osteopathy (DO), or Doctor of Naturopathy (ND) degree and who is accepted as a practitioner of medicine under the laws of the state, province, and/or nation in which he or she practices. [3]


2. PhD vs MD

Doctors and scientists follow different degree paths, one stressing known medical knowledge, while the other stresses methodology to discover new knowledge.


3. Can a doctor be a scientist?

Yes of course. However it is not the common situation, it isn't automatically true, and they will have many ethical dilemmas to deal with (prioritize the health of subjects vs prioritize extracting unadultered data.) 


4. What would constitute a Doctor-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.

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]
If at its peak the number of physician scientists was under 5%, then I don't see how physicians would i be scientists. 


5. What are the key differences between Physicians and Scientists?

Table 1: 

TABLE 1. ATTRIBUTES THAT DISTINGUISH PHYSICIANS AND SCIENTISTS
Attributes............................................................…….Physicians..........................……Scientists
Approach to knowledge...............................................Application...................................Discovery
Decision making...............................................................Rapid......................................Reserved
Adherence to accepted standards of practice............Almost always...............…......…..Almost never
Expert opinion.............................................................Respect authority.........................Question authority
Response to mistakes........................................Risk management review.........….........Basis for potential breakthroughs     [6]
Sources for CON R1 in Comment #5.
Round 2
Published:
I. My Opinion:
What is a Scientist?
My opponent and I agree in general terms to scientists utilizing the scientific method:
  1. Make an observation
  2. Ask a question
  3. Form a hypothesis
  4. Conduct an experiment
  5. Reject or Accept hypothesis

What Type of Doctor is Best?
We disagree on what counts as utilizing the scientific method. Specify due to the No True Scotsman Fallacy [1]...

“I do not believe verifying proper bone setting is a hypothesis”
He fallaciously argues that something does not count as a hypothesis, if the guess is educated instead of random. He offers no reason this would be the case, merely the No True Scotsman Fallacy [1]. This strange standard would prevent scientists from being educated in their respective fields and still able to be considered scientists.

Hypotheses are defined as…
  • 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].
Nothing supports his views that having a suspected outcome would mean it’s not a hypothesis.

“nor is the x-ray an experiment”
He insists experiments don’t count as experiments, unless they are wholly new, which is again the merely the No True Scotsman Fallacy [1].

Experiments are defined as…
  • 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].
So con’s insistence that testing things with known true/false outcomes are not experiments, is patently wrong.


II. Common English:
Doctors are Scientists by Definition:
Con has tentatively dropped that Physicians are within English defined as Scientists.

“common definitions may not be the best way to judge professions”
Were this debate about if physicians are instead called scientists as a profession and job title, con could have a valid point here; instead he chooses to repeat the No True Scotsman Fallacy [1]. He may as well claim Nuclear Physicists are not scientists, solely due to possessing the wrong job title.

“dictionaries are more record keepers then authorities”
This is no way refutes the validity of the combined records of language I have shown.


III. Con’s Arguments:
“Definitions”
Save for con’s No True Scotsman fallacy against hypotheses and experiments (see above), his own definition supports that physicians are scientists. The definition he offered specifically calls for “gathers and uses research and evidence” as opposed to doing wholly random things with no suspected outcome to count as a scientist as he has argued them.

“PhD vs MD”
He again offers the No True Scotsman Fallacy [1], insisting that what makes a scientist has nothing to do with even his own definition, but rather is about having a certain school degree.

“Can a doctor be a scientist?”
A mere assertion against the evidence [8].

“What would constitute a Doctor-Scientist?”
He again offers the No True Scotsman Fallacy [1], insisting that what makes a scientist has nothing to do with even his own definition, but rather is about having a certain job title.

“What are the key differences between Physicians and Scientists?”
According to con, someone is only a scientist if they “almost never” commit “Adherence to accepted standards of practice.” This would mean if a scientist is regularly using the accepted standard of the scientific method (things like conducting experiments to prove a hypothesis), is not a true scientist according to con. With this con has reduced his case down to an internally contradicting non-sequitur [9].


Sources:
  1. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman
  2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis
  3. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hypothesis
  4. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hypothesis?s=t
  5. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/experiment
  6. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/experiment
  7. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/experiment?s=t
  8. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion
  9. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non_sequitur
Published:
I. Your Opinion:
 
My opponent claims that verifying a known process one has done hundreds of times constitutes a hypothesis and experiment. Thus a food cart vendor verifying that the wheel brakes he set are properly engaged is a scientist. In fact, according to my opponent, all people can be considered scientists, engineers, accountants, doctors, or professionals of any kind!

My opponent makes repeated claims of a no true Scotsman fallacy when he is in fact stretching the definition of no true scotsman to absurdity. This is not a case of self proclaimed Scotsman considering other self proclaimed Scotsman to be not true Scotsman. The doctors, scientists, and their respective representative bodies all repeatedly deny a similarity between the two professions, as I repeatedly showed in the previous round.
This is not a “no true scotsman,” this is a “reduction to absurdity.”
 
II. Common English:

Doctors are Scientists by Definition:
Con has tentatively dropped that Physicians are within English defined as Scientists.

My opponent has swapped his usage of the term “Common English” for simply “English.” That change is not without consequence.
He relies on dictionary definitions that represent common usage and are subject to contradictions and subjective change, such as when literally suddenly came to mean the opposite of itself
Definition of literally
1 : in a literal sense or manner: such as ...
2 : in effect : virtually —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is *not literally* true or possible
 
If dictionaries are not authorities, then they do not determine definitions, they simply record common usage by the people. A profession is defined by its scope, and what it actually does. That definition comes from the professionals themselves, or some representative body such as the American Medical Association. All professional scientists, doctors, and their respective organizations agree on the many differences between the fields, as highlighted by my many citations in the previous round.
 
III. Con’s Arguments:
Definitions
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.

My definition of scientist did not have any instances of the word “OR” in it, yet my opponent takes a segment of it and ignores the rest.
“gathers and uses research and evidence”
That is dishonest. My actual definition does not support his claim at all. I would hope many different professions would gather and use research and evidence. 

PhD vs MD
My opponent relies on Common English definitions as the absolute authority (despite dictionaries simply recording common usage) for his claims, yet rejects any and all decisions from actually relevant authorities and institutions.
 
Can a doctor be a scientist?
An accountant can be a scientist if he studies and achieves the proper credentials or independently conducts his research. However anyone can make that personal choice. That doesn’t mean all accountants are scientists.  The fact that only a small number of doctors pursue novel research (less then 5% at its peak, as cited in the previous round), demonstrates that the VAST MAJORITY of doctors do not pursue novel research, and as such are not scientists. 
 
What would constitute a Doctor-Scientist?
I made several arguments based not off of job title, but job description. The job description of a researcher is very different from that of a doctor’s normal medical practice of applying evidence backed practices that lead to best outcomes, vs the testing of novel ideas.
 
What are the key differences between Physicians and Scientists?
My opponent is committing an all or nothing fallacy here.  The role of a scientist is to question accepted principles and uncover unknown truths. They do not reject the whole foundation of science, but they do have to question a certain aspect of what is accepted and seek to uncover a greater truth.
Doctors on the other hand are trained to accept all practices backed by evidence, and do not go rogue formulating their own theories within their medical practice. I want a scientist to question accepted assumptions. I want a doctor to stick to what has proven effective in the past, until new research by scientists uncovers a better alternative.

I would also want scientists to question authority and seek new truths, I want a doctor to stick to what works and not try experimental treatments
The differences are clear and vast.

Conclusion:
My opponent relies on flawed common definitions while rejecting any and all professional authorities on the matter.
According to his vague definition, all people going about their everyday lives are scientists if they do any verification of their decisions.
The goal of seeking novel truths is incompatible with the goal of best *consistent* outcomes.

Round 3
Published:
I. My Opinion:
“according to my opponent, all people can be considered scientists…”
A blatant Straw-person fallacy [1]. I have not said everyone is a scientist as my opponent infers; 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).

No True Scotsman
On each I have shown why his exclusions were invalid. To deny physicians are scientists, he has claimed such things as a test isn’t a true test if there’s suspected outcomes [2], then refused to offer any reason for such when this was called out; instead he declared it absurdity to bring attention to what he chose to do.

“respective representative bodies all repeatedly deny … as I repeatedly showed”
If not lying to the point of complete disregard for reality [3], which section in your above argument contains the quotes from every representative body for medical doctors in the US? Doing a word search, I don’t see anything from the American Medical Association (as just one prominent example), nor the apparently repeated denials from any other (this isn’t even getting into how small the sampling from groups like the Science Council are, when it is claimed the prior round included disavowment of physicians from every representative body of scientists).

“I do not believe verifying proper bone setting is a hypothesis”
My opponent has chosen to drop both that his “strange 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.

“nor is the x-ray an experiment”
He has chosen to drop his “insistence that testing things with known true/false outcomes are not experiments, is patently wrong.” Also extend.


II. Common English:
Doctors are Scientists by Definition
As a reminder from the description of this debate: This is to settle a “disagreement about definitions within the English language.” To which con is basically asking for English itself to be dismissed when it disagrees with him.

“Literally” & “dictionaries are more record keepers then authorities”
Con has a disagreement with a single definition from a single dictionary, which is committing the cherry-picking fallacy [4]. In no way does the single flaw suggest that even the one dictionary should be thrown out, let alone all three I have used in this debate. As I stated last round: “this is no way refutes the validity of the combined records of language I have shown.”

“common definitions may not be the best way to judge professions”
Con has chosen to drop the rebuttals against this, including that his standard excludes Nuclear Physicists from being scientists. Extend.


III. Con’s Arguments
“Definitions”
As already shown, con’s own definition in no way rejects physicians. Rather than pointing to any part of it which does, he calls it dishonest that I already showed most of it back in my first contention and did not repeat myself. He further declares that me proving his own source did not favor him, was somehow a rejection of it.

“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.”
Physicians job is all about systematically gathering and using research and evidence to help patients. They routinely make 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). And yes, of course they share the knowledge and understanding with their patients and co-workers (that they even record illness rates should be a clue).

“PhD vs MD”
As stated, con is “insisting that what makes a scientist has nothing to do with even his own definition, but rather is about having a certain school degree”; while also insisting they're not a scientist if certified via “accepted standards of practice.” Extend.

“Can a doctor be a scientist?”
Not even con’s definition of scientists includes his newly moved goalpost about novel research [5].

“What would constitute a Doctor-Scientist?”
It has repeatedly been shown that physicians are scientists, even by con’s own preferred definition. That not all have the job title Doctor-Scientist is irrelevant, as is if research is their primary goal.

“What are the key differences between Physicians and Scientists?”
Con drops that he has demanded that scientists reject their own “accepted standards of practice” in order to be considered scientists. He is now changing his mind again saying he wants them to live up to the professional standards and credentials outlined by various groups.


Sources:
  1. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man
  2. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman
  3. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bullshit
  4. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
  5. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
Published:
1. Your Opinion: 

"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)."

The agreed upon definition in of scientist in R1 was :

What is a Scientist?
In general I would say a scientist is any practitioner of the scientific method, which can be simplified to [2]:
  1. Make an observation
  2. Ask a question
  3. Form a hypothesis
  4. Conduct an experiment
  5. Reject or Accept hypothesis
You proposed that a Doctor fits this definition due to his use of "hypothesis" and "experiment" to verify proper bone placement. Similarly many of us form assumptions and do various tests to confirm consequential actions, like the food cart salesman verifying his breaks. 


No True Scotsman
“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've shown numerous claims for many such organizations, you're only sources are common dictionaries. Can you show any representative body of either profession who support your claim?


“I do not believe verifying proper bone setting is a hypothesis
strange 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"

And you have not responded to how a food cart vendor seeking to verify he put the breaks on properly isn't "forming a hypothesis and then testing it with an experiment." As per our agreed upon definition in R1, if that is a hypothesis, and an experiment, he is also a scientist. The programmer that gives his program a test run? scientist! The person checking his account to make sure the check went through? Scientist!
Extend.



2. Common English

My opponent drops the charge that he changed from "Common English" to just "English"
He also drops criticisms of dictionaries simply recording "Common" usage, such as "Literally" now meaning "Exaggeration"
Extend all



3. My arguments 

“Definitions”

"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.)
(modified quote, additions in Bold)

Can you cite a single doctor who call's his Diagnosis a Hypothesis.
Doctors gain knowledge through study, and following new research.
Scientists are the ones who do NEW RESEARCH

“PhD vs MD”

My opponent refuses to acknowledge experts who train the very people we are discussing.



Not even con’s definition of scientists includes his newly moved goalpost about novel research

Novel research is in our original agreed upon in R1. Its called the hypothesis. a word you misunderstand.

"Scientific hypothesis, an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world."



That not all have the job title Doctor-Scientist is irrelevant, as is if research is their primary goal.

Are you suggesting research is not a scientist's primary (or possibly only goal)?
If you are then you will have to concede soon.



Con drops that he has demanded that scientists reject their own “accepted standards of practice”

Pro continues his all or nothing fallacy in the face of common sense.
What use is a scientist who accepts all accepted theories and doesn't question or reject anything? What is his job exactly?



Conclusion:

My opponent continues to reject any and all authorities on this matter. He refuses to explain how everyday people are not also forming "hypothesis" and testing them with "experiments" according to his usage of those terms (in the X-ray / bone setting example) and are thus not scientists according to the agreed upon definition in R1.

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.

Thank you.
Round 4
Published:
I. My Opinion:
“according to my opponent, all people can be considered scientists”
If anyone else is also a scientist, has no bearing on whether physicians are scientists.

“The agreed upon definition in of scientist” [sic]
And my opponent accidentally concedes much by moving the goalpost to just the opening from my first contention (which I used as a building block, expanded in the second contention to show they must additionally be experts of science; which was verified in my preamble and wholly unchallenged); one which he previously criticized for being too open ended, but now insists it’s what we “agreed upon.”

No True Scotsman
Saying a true scotsman is recognized as a true scotsman by other true scotsman, is what con’s argument against having used the No True Scotsman fallacy boils down to. This is his core argument, and I have already shown why it is blatantly fallacious.

“respective representative bodies all repeatedly deny … as I repeatedly showed”
Pro has dropped that he was “lying to the point of complete disregard for reality [1].” Extend.

And no, I will not be validating the No True Scotsman with a related appeal to popularity. Rather I have based my argument on what physicians actually do, as opposed to any cherry picked opinions from their social circle.

“I do not believe verifying proper bone setting is a hypothesis” & “nor is the x-ray an experiment”
My opponent has acknowledged my criticisms, and chosen not to challenge them. Thus he has dropped that physicians are full practitioners of the scientific method, asking questions, forming hypotheses, running experiments, and based on the results rejecting or accepting said hypotheses. His argument thus becomes that scientists cannot be educated, which is an assertion without merit.

To his case about other types of scientists, it has no bearing on whether physicians are scientists.


II. Common English:
Doctors are Scientists by Definition
Con literally extended my criticisms of his case, including that he is “basically asking for English itself to be dismissed when it disagrees with him.”

“Literally” and “dictionaries are more record keepers then authorities”
I haven’t a clue why con imagines this was dropped. Extend.

“common definitions may not be the best way to judge professions”
Extend.


III. Con’s Arguments
“Definitions”
Con believes that the process of the scientific method does not result in gaining knowledge. As shown with the example of not having your leg plastered for months on a guess, they conduct an experiment which gains them knowledge of if the bone is actually broken, and if so what type of fracture. Said knowledge informs the treatment and related other experiments to be done. While it is true they work in teams, any one physician will conduct several experiments on a regular basis; as previously seen when I referenced “annual physical exam (a key time doctors do many experiments) [2],” which has now gone effectively unchallenged for three rounds.

And again “con’s own definition in no way rejects physicians.”

“Can you cite a single doctor who call's his Diagnosis a Hypothesis.” [sic]?
Wholly irrelevant. The Dinglehopper remains a fork, no matter what anyone calls it [3].

“PhD vs MD”
Con offers no challenge to my previous criticisms and arguments here, so extend.

“Can a doctor be a scientist?”
I encourage any voter to verify if “novel research” was used and agreed upon in R1 as con claims, or if he’s lying to cover up when caught trying to move the goalposts [4].

As for scientific hypothesis, his definition offers no disagreement with mine for hypothesis from R2, nor has he shown any way physicians are not undertaking the process of the scientific method to include coming up with hypotheses and testing them. As seen with the potentially broken leg example, that the leg is likely broken is tentative explanation about the pain and other phenomena observed in the natural world. Nothing about his own definition calls for the wheel to be reinvented every time a hypothesis is to be tested, nor is his term novel research even present on the link he used for it.

“What would constitute a Doctor-Scientist?”
The job title remains irrelevant. And nothing about any definition implies what the motivations must be (I see another No True Scotsman coming…). Extend.

“What are the key differences between Physicians and Scientists?”
Yet another dropped argument. Extend.


Conclusion:
Con’s conclusion repeated already well refuted parts of his case.

As for my conclusion, I'll just repeat content from my R1:
“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.”
Published:
Starting with Pro’s Conclusion
 
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.
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.
 
1 Your Opinion:

If anyone else is also a scientist, has no bearing.
My opponent does not challenge that his definition qualifies everyone as a scientist, not as a hobby, but in everyday life situations for all. This makes the concept of scientist obsolete and is absurd. Thus his definition must be overly vague or incomplete.


Agreed upon definition
I agreed upon your definition in the first sentence of my R1. If you have elaborated upon that definition, I disagreed with it and referencing back to the agreed upon definition.
What you are doing is twisting vague definitions into a meaninglessness that defines near everyone.

"The word scientist is a general term, used to describe someone who researches and examines various aspects of the physical world in order to attain a better understanding of how things work and function. There are many specializations of 'scientist', and depending on which field of study one chooses to follow, the work can vary greatly. Each scientist, however, follows 'the scientific method', which is a strict set of rules that ensure all new discoveries are factual and not just speculation."

 
No True Scotsman.
No true scotsman involves denying the validity of people who identify as you but disagree with you. These two groups do not identify as each other.

Pro has dropped that he was “lying to the point of complete disregard for reality"
Despite the drama act, you have not shown a single scientist, doctor, or representative body that agrees with

Bone Setting and X-rays
A “surgery” is not an “experiment”. They are not trying to gain new information, they are trying to fix the problem right the first.
Taking an X-ray is no different then a programmer running a diagnostic tool. Its far more complex, but it is analogous. It is not research, the patient is not a subject, and the treatment is not an experiment.

annual physical exam (a key time doctors do many experiments)
No mention of experiment anywhere in the article. The doctor searches your body for known signs of known illnesses in order to prescribe the optimal treatment for the ailments. There is no experimentation. These are diagnostic workups with known outcomes. Experiments were conducted in the development of these tools.
 
2 Common English
 
“What would constitute a Doctor-Scientist?”
The job title may be irrelevant, the job description is not. If you wanted to see the motivation it was laid out back in R1:
 
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.
3 My Arguments

that the leg is likely broken is tentative explanation about the pain and other phenomena observed in the natural world.
So what’s the science? What knowledge is being gained? He is trying to fix a malady using known knowledge. This is not science.
 
“What are the key differences between Physicians and Scientists?”
My opponent unfortunately is building a strawman.
I was clear that scientists seek to correct or expand on known knowledge, their job description is to question accepted knowledge in search of deeper understanding.
Doctors do not question accepted methods in search of better tools, at least not on unsuspecting patients. They would have to form a study with volunteers or subjects.

4 Conclusion.

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.

I ask that you not fall for semantics and look at what the professions do, their different motivations and priorities. I ask that you listen to the professionals and their representative organizations who highlight the many differences between the two. Scientists seek to uncover how our world works. Doctors use the findings from those answers to treat patients, using tried and true methods with known, minimal consequences.

Tyvm Pro/Voters

Added:
--> @Ragnar
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.
#46
Added:
--> @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.
Instigator
#45
Added:
--> @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.
Instigator
#44
Added:
I finish finals tomorrow night and then I will try to slip in a vote.
#43
Added:
--> @Ragnar
You're welcome.
#42
Added:
--> @Christen, @SirAnonymous
Thank you both for taking the time and effort to vote.
Instigator
#41
Added:
--> @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.
#40
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Sorry for taking so long to add my vote. It was a great debate, though.
#39
Added:
--> @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.
#38
Added:
--> @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?
Contender
#37
Added:
--> @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?
#36
Added:
--> @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"
Contender
#35
Added:
--> @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.
Contender
#34
Added:
--> @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!
#33
Added:
--> @sigmaphil
Thank you for voting.
Instigator
#32
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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!