Lifting N Tx
New Member
<div>
(xahrx @ Sep. 15 2006,09:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Doctors are generally just fools with MDs who once they leave school, and sometimes in school itself, get their information from the same sources we do.</div>
This is a pretty strong statement. I do agree that doctors certainly aren't all-knowing. A scientist should be using the scientific method to gain new knowledge about such things as the fundamental laws governing nature.
A doctor, like an engineer, applies scientific knowledge to help solve problems. However, being bright and knowledgable in applying established knowledge is not sufficient to qualify one to be a researcher, or to draw accurate conclusions in areas where adequate research has not been done. Doctors are dependent on knowledge developed by scientists to use in helping their patients. In areas where adequate research hasn't been done, their opinion probably isn't worth any more than anyone else's.
It occurs to me that sufficient data is probably out there to draw some reasonable conclusions. It probably resides in the patient history of lots of cardiologists. However, getting access to enough of that data to draw unbiased samples useful in drawing conclusions will probably never happen.
FWIW, while I like science and have had some college level technical science courses, I am not a scientist. I just know that being able to apply some "laws" of physics or biology or whatnot as a professional is not the same as being a qualified researcher.
(xahrx @ Sep. 15 2006,09:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Doctors are generally just fools with MDs who once they leave school, and sometimes in school itself, get their information from the same sources we do.</div>
This is a pretty strong statement. I do agree that doctors certainly aren't all-knowing. A scientist should be using the scientific method to gain new knowledge about such things as the fundamental laws governing nature.
A doctor, like an engineer, applies scientific knowledge to help solve problems. However, being bright and knowledgable in applying established knowledge is not sufficient to qualify one to be a researcher, or to draw accurate conclusions in areas where adequate research has not been done. Doctors are dependent on knowledge developed by scientists to use in helping their patients. In areas where adequate research hasn't been done, their opinion probably isn't worth any more than anyone else's.
It occurs to me that sufficient data is probably out there to draw some reasonable conclusions. It probably resides in the patient history of lots of cardiologists. However, getting access to enough of that data to draw unbiased samples useful in drawing conclusions will probably never happen.
FWIW, while I like science and have had some college level technical science courses, I am not a scientist. I just know that being able to apply some "laws" of physics or biology or whatnot as a professional is not the same as being a qualified researcher.
