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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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!