[pdupiano]

Quote:

Originally Posted by crossmd /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wait..what? If medicine isn't science, God help us. What is it then? Also, the NHF? Is maybe just as biased as News With Views. They have an agenda..and their goal is to push it to as many people as possible. IMO, they are a no more viable source than the aforementioned, and only further cement in my mind his lack of credibly impartial support, sorry.

Medicine is an art. Anyone who truly believes medicine is a science is a quack. Go ahead, ask your doctor, how does aspirin work. Mind you it's the OLDEST remedy in the world and yet no one knows how it actually works(or at least as the same sense as how science describes how a battery works). Like a lot of medication, we know the side effects, results etc.. but no real mechinism. Science is about explaining the natural phenomena around us, without the ability to explain how all of these medications work, how tumors disappear for no reason etc.... medicine is not a science. It is best referred to as an art (and by art here I mean a form of Techne).

Do not get sidetracked by the use of the so called scientific method in medical research, which btw is FAR from real science because it is very rare for medical research to actually EVER come up with an explanation for a phenomena. Most medical research is concerned with statistical work on **CORRELATION** not even causation of drugs/treatments etc... and their number one argument for working with correlation instead of causation is because there are too many variables with the human body. While the argument is true, it is also an argument that prevents medicine from being a science -in other words, how can something that you do not fully understand be a science?

Science = understanding and description of a natural phenomena ==>Think physics.

When is the last time your doctor explained to you how a drug works. Yes, they can say "Drug A thins your blood and reduces the pressure on your arteries" but can they say why? or what about psychological medications "Yes this drug will make you feel less depressed by blocking certain neurotransmitters from entering their binding sites" but do they also know why it causes people to commit suicide or how the medicine does not interfere with anything else in the body?

Medicine is not science. Medicine is a practice from years of experience and knowledge. The simple fact that someone who has access to all the material in web (assuming all of it was true or if thats problematic assume a person has access to all medical knowledge) cannot replace a doctor who's been in the profession for 20 years, should demonstrate that medicine is not just factual knowledge but relies on experience/expertise. Science could careless about how much experience you have, its about knowing, understanding, and analyzing. Did Einstein have to do decades of research to make scientific discoveries or breakthroughs? But doctors, painters, musicians, architects... all artists require years of trials and failures to make discoveries because their art is a mixture of both knowledge and experience. Einstein just had knowledge (but I will admit how he came up with a lot of things are based on how he experienced the world -but I hope you can see that's a different type of experience from the experience you get by working in science for years)

If any one here on head-fi without any medical training but has every book ever published (or even all medical knowledge in the world) in a netbook that he could access at will could actually replace a doctor who's been working for years.... well then I'll recant my statement.

But until that happens... Medicine is not a science, it is an art.

 

[Drubbing]

Just because there are many unknowns in Medicine - how cancer starts and spreads, and what genes are responsible, how the brain actually works, why people develop food/pollen allergies at different stages of life, what the exact mechanism of action of aspirin, or many other drugs that are commonplace - does not separate medicine from science.

Science is a process of control and experiment, elimination and probability. Medicine uses the lessons learned in science to apply it to particular situations.

Scientists never claim to have all the answers. Doctors certainly don't; that's the work of the media, and the science fiction fantasy world of medical TV dramas. If anything, greater knowledge only throws up more questions.

If you live long enough, or live with family that are going through cancer, you realise this quickly, if you didn't beforehand.

But to separate medicine from science - and claim it is an art, which can only truly be science if you assimilate all the knowledge the world has ever accumulated, is just simplistic and naive, and another campus-based argument.

 

[Lazarus Short]

I always thought of the healing arts, not limited to the M.D./D.O. bit, as both art and science, but granted, not hard science.

 

[billybob_jcv]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdupiano /img/forum/go_quote.gif Medicine is an art. Anyone who truly believes medicine is a science is a quack. Go ahead, ask your doctor, how does aspirin work. Mind you it's the OLDEST remedy in the world and yet no one knows how it actually works(or at least as the same sense as how science describes how a battery works). Like a lot of medication, we know the side effects, results etc.. but no real mechinism. Science is about explaining the natural phenomena around us, without the ability to explain how all of these medications work, how tumors disappear for no reason etc.... medicine is not a science. It is best referred to as an art (and by art here I mean a form of Techne). Do not get sidetracked by the use of the so called scientific method in medical research, which btw is FAR from real science because it is very rare for medical research to actually EVER come up with an explanation for a phenomena. Most medical research is concerned with statistical work on **CORRELATION** not even causation of drugs/treatments etc... and their number one argument for working with correlation instead of causation is because there are too many variables with the human body. While the argument is true, it is also an argument that prevents medicine from being a science -in other words, how can something that you do not fully understand be a science? Science = understanding and description of a natural phenomena ==>Think physics. When is the last time your doctor explained to you how a drug works. Yes, they can say "Drug A thins your blood and reduces the pressure on your arteries" but can they say why? or what about psychological medications "Yes this drug will make you feel less depressed by blocking certain neurotransmitters from entering their binding sites" but do they also know why it causes people to commit suicide or how the medicine does not interfere with anything else in the body? Medicine is not science. Medicine is a practice from years of experience and knowledge. The simple fact that someone who has access to all the material in web (assuming all of it was true or if thats problematic assume a person has access to all medical knowledge) cannot replace a doctor who's been in the profession for 20 years, should demonstrate that medicine is not just factual knowledge but relies on experience/expertise. Science could careless about how much experience you have, its about knowing, understanding, and analyzing. Did Einstein have to do decades of research to make scientific discoveries or breakthroughs? But doctors, painters, musicians, architects... all artists require years of trials and failures to make discoveries because their art is a mixture of both knowledge and experience. Einstein just had knowledge (but I will admit how he came up with a lot of things are based on how he experienced the world -but I hope you can see that's a different type of experience from the experience you get by working in science for years) If any one here on head-fi without any medical training but has every book ever published (or even all medical knowledge in the world) in a netbook that he could access at will could actually replace a doctor who's been working for years.... well then I'll recant my statement. But until that happens... Medicine is not a science, it is an art.

Good grief - what a bunch of drivel. Let's look at your view in reverse - I challenge any head-fi member without engineering training but every book every published (or even all engineering knowledge in the world) in a netbook that he could access at will could replace an engineer who's been working for years...

Would you fly in an airplane or drive across a bridge designed by that guy?

I think you are completely underestimating the difference between medical doctors working in a general or family practice and the folks doing medical research. There is a huge difference - just as there is a huge difference between a manufacturing engineer who runs the assembly line at an electronics factory and the physicist who does research on the effects of the ionosphere on satellite communications.

IMHO, the "art" is in the diagnosis and application of medical "science". That doesn't mean that ALL medicine is art. If it wasn't for the researchers, we would not have proton pump inhibitors, beta blockers, gene therapy or a zillion other medical treatments that came from researchers working not by trial and error, but by beginning to understand the workings of the human body at the cellular and molecular level. There *is* a great deal of hard science involved in this research!

 

[pdupiano]

*******************Warning: Please Read at your own Risk************



*******************SECOND WARNING***********************
I just realized I wrote well over a thousand words below... so instead of trying to debate and clear things up I think I'm just gonna go write that essay for El_Doug to try and get the chance to buy his HF2's... later so yeah don't read what's below



Quote:

Originally Posted by billybob_jcv /img/forum/go_quote.gif Good grief - what a bunch of drivel. Let's look at your view in reverse - I challenge any head-fi member without engineering training but every book every published (or even all engineering knowledge in the world) in a netbook that he could access at will could replace an engineer who's been working for years... Would you fly in an airplane or drive across a bridge designed by that guy? I think you are completely underestimating the difference between medical doctors working in a general or family practice and the folks doing medical research. There is a huge difference - just as there is a huge difference between a manufacturing engineer who runs the assembly line at an electronics factory and the physicist who does research on the effects of the ionosphere on satellite communications. IMHO, the "art" is in the diagnosis and application of medical "science". That doesn't mean that ALL medicine is art. If it wasn't for the researchers, we would not have proton pump inhibitors, beta blockers, gene therapy or a zillion other medical treatments that came from researchers working not by trial and error, but by beginning to understand the workings of the human body at the cellular and molecular level. There *is* a great deal of hard science involved in this research!

Have you ever designed an amplifier? An electronic circuit? Engineering is not a science, its an application of science -something VERY different. So let's reverse my argument with something more direct.

Would you, trust some one who has direct access to all scientific knowledge/information to explain to you how your tv works? Would you entrust them to explain how the solar system behaves, how proton pumps work? I would.

In so far as medical research and medicine is concerned I do apologize for not making a clearer distinction and infact blurring the two together. but let me reiterate. The medical profession (ie. practicing doctors/surgeons etc... basically what comes to mind when we think of medicine or a doctor) is governed by people who primarily prescribe medications, heal common illnesses, and give you general recommendations on how to improve your health or whatever condition you have. I think these practitioners are who I would classify as "art practitioners." Medicine and healing is their art, their canvas the individuals they help.

Medical researchers, are primarily individuals who have very few, if any patients and are concerned with medical breakthroughs as in cures for new diseases(eg cancer treatments/studies), and protocol recommendations/improvements. These are the individuals who work closely with the scientific method.

Here's another quote:
"Just because there are many unknowns in Medicine - how cancer starts and spreads, and what genes are responsible, how the brain actually works, why people develop food/pollen allergies at different stages of life, what the exact mechanism of action of aspirin, or many other drugs that are commonplace - does not separate medicine from science.

Science is a process of control and experiment, elimination and probability. Medicine uses the lessons learned in science to apply it to particular situations."

I will agree that science is a process of control and experimentation, furthermore, I agree that medicine uses lessons learned from science -BUT understand that using science does not make it into a science. Medicine uses science and it uses the scientific method but it fails to explain and that is the power of science -explanation. The reason explanation is so important is because look at what science replaced. Science replaced "mythic based explanations." What I mean by that is, look at past traditions in greek mythology or any documented belief systems prior to Newton. People explained natural phenomena through mythical creatures or gods. Science replaced that by allowing us to grasp these natural phenomena without the aid of some super mystic, but rather through the aid of other, more tangible things like atoms and elements.

IF science were to lose that ability, the ability to explain -what makes it better than any of these myths? While science has led to countless technological advancements, would you be satisfied to say that the importance of science comes from the technologies that stem from it? If that were the case, then give me back the myths instead because those myths -while they cannot produce XBox 360's, artificial hearts, or HD800's- for me, those myths can produce the meaning of life and happiness. At the end of the day, the real power of science is its ability to explain and its closeness to the truth of the world around me not the byproducts of its use. While it may be conceivable that Zeus is the one casting thunderbolts, the use of more tangible matter(eg. electrons and plasma) makes me chose science over mythology because it is better at explaining the phenomena

If you take my definition of science as something that has the ABILITY to EXPLAIN natural phenomena, than you will quickly see that medicine and science are distinct, in that medical research is unable to explain much of anything because it is riddled with statistical information. And unfortunately statistics is very fickle and it bows down to whoever is smart enough to manipulate the data to how they see it fit. Medical research is similar to a lot of "applied research" today. As someone who's studying engineering, I can tell you right now that engineering research (grad level included) is applied science, but is not science.

The reason I make a distinction between the two is because applied research can never lead to new theories/laws about the universe. OR if they can, I can't recall in the past several centuries having heard applied research contributing to science. Thinking back to Faraday and magnetic fields, and Maxwell, we find advances in science occur due to abstract ideas and experiments to help prove/disprove these abstract thoughts. Remember the Aether experiments? Prior to einstein, "the aether surrounded the world" and they ran world wide experiments to prove/disprove the aether. Experimentation driven by theories and ideas can lead to new scientific discoveries. Experiments that are driven by the effects of prozac in the american public, or the effects of antioxidants to human health do not. In fact, in the countless, COUNTLESS amounts of research into antioxidants, we have a butload (sorry for my nonscientific term) of data that shows antioxidants are good for our health. But at the end of the day, none of this data shows HOW. They LACK explanation.

Now the ideas behind the proton pump inhibitor, beta blockers etc... These are amazing technologies. But these are byproducts of science as well, just like the countless electronics around us today like our computers. But please understand that when you talk of medical research concerning these products the medical researches conducted do not include -how they work. But rather their effects on human beings. If there are medical researchers out there who have the ability to explain how things work -like tobacco for example. Please, for crying out loud, please come forward so that Tobacco companies can finally stop testing on animals. The reason why Tobacco companies continue to test on animals are because there are "no conclusive" (according to them) evidences regarding tobbaco and Cancer. So if anyone has real answers or explanations on what tabacco does to the human body, please by all means PLEASE I BEG you release whatever information you have.

But Medical research is ALL about adverse effects. If you're in a university (I took part in a few research studies as the guinea pig and as the researcher so I have a bit of experience in terms of medical research) you can sign up to be a lab rat for some medications/procedures. You'll quickly realize as you take these placebos/drugs that they could careless how they work. All they care about is -1) Does it make you feel Nauseated 2) Are you having irregular bowel movements 3) Do you have odd rashes on your body?

Even if we look at research into artificial hearts, transplants, and xenotransplants (I forgot the right term, but its the ability to transplant organs from animals to humans eg. liver of a pig to a human), we find that what doctors are concerned with are looking for an answer, rather than looking for an explanation. And once again to make it clear. Science = Explanation. but obviously if you can't see why I ***require*** that to be the importance of science then... yeah everything above is just mindless drive and should be disregarded for all intensive purposes.

 

[billybob_jcv]

I tried to make it through, but I couldn't do it - and I agree with your recommendation to disregard it...

From what I could get through, I will reiterate that IMHO you are selectively choosing to ignore the science behind many of the medical breakthroughs you claim are "unexplained". There *is* an explanation behind how beta blockers and PPI operate - and that explanation is based on understanding the molecular and chemical receptors in specific specialized cells. *I* don't understand it - but there are people who do. They didn't just randomly select compounds to see what happens to your blood pressure and call the best one a "beta blocker" - for crying out loud the guy won a Nobel Prize for his research! I'm not sure what you are looking for in your "explanation" - you seem to insist that the human body contains primarily mysterious functions - and although I agree there is much, much to yet to learn, and many things will likely remain unknown for a long time - much *is* known and not everything is nearly as mysterious as you imply. Just because approvals for drugs and procedures require clinical trials and statistics does NOT mean the underlying science is not understood. It just means the FDA has a process that must be followed in order to gain approval.

As to your engineering analogies - I *do* have an engineering degree - and I know very well what separates theoretical science from engineering design. I used my analogy because I equate most family medical doctors to technicians - they are presented with a set of symptoms and they have a store of knowledge composed of their past & ongoing education and their own experience. From those, they attempt to determine which pieces of knowledge to apply to the current problem. I don't expect my family practitioner to understand the nuances of why each of the 3 antibiotics recommended by the PDR for a particular infection differ - but I do expect the pharmacological researcher who specializes in that class of antibiotics to understand - and I believe he could tell you the specific way that antibiotic affects the infection.

I'm not sure either one of us is going to get very far writing these long diatribes, and I fear this is one of those topics that requires too much detail to be an effective online debate. Especially when it's obvious we are both stuck on maximum verbosity...

 

[Drubbing]

As one of my job duties, I develop educational programs for GPs. We update them on research results, investigation techniques, their timeliness, and the appropriate pathology investigations required to uncover causes of disease, and eliminate others.

All based on science; biochemistry, immunology, histopathology and serology.

THe only 'art' involved is that of learning and comprehension.

 

[Barry]

This is a very helpful discussion. I always suspected that my doctor used a random number generator and tarot cards to practice his art. He always claimed that there was scientific underpinings but heck, audio designers say the same thing and we know the snakeoil associated with that. (I had to bring this back into our hobby somehow.).

 

[pdupiano]

************Warning: If this is too long, please read last 2 paragraphs*******

*********you've been warned****************
Quote:

Originally Posted by billybob_jcv /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not sure either one of us is going to get very far writing these long diatribes, and I fear this is one of those topics that requires too much detail to be an effective online debate. Especially when it's obvious we are both stuck on maximum verbosity...

For the sake of brevity and an ice cold beer I'll try to summarize stuff

-Explanation ->eventual formation of descriptive laws (Think Einstein/Newton)
-Medicine *including medical technologies* utilize science
-Utilizing science does not imply science
-If calling engineering design/medicine as an art is troubling, I don't know what other word to use, but I can't in good conscience call an engineer or a doctor a scientist because they do much more. You're right that they diagnose, they treat, they create, they design, they troubleshoot etc..., they do things that scientists do not do on a daily basis (scientists may do these things to create their own experimental apparatus but its more of a means to an end rather than their actual work).

At the end of the day, just look at the goals of scientists and applied scientists (this includes doctors, engineers, architects, etc...)

Scientists have an ultimate goal of describing natural phenomena and reaching descriptive laws of the universe. Think Newton and Einstein, Maxwell, etc... Through their experiments (thought or otherwise), they obtain more and more knowledge about the world around them, ultimately formulating descriptive laws of the natural phenomena (this is really what I'm driving at about the whole explanation issue).

Applied Scientists have an ultimate goal of solving a problem. Think of your senior design project, or any design work you have. While you are using science and scientific theory, the ultimate outcome of your work is something physical or a particular design. It does not, in and of itself, further scientific knowledge towards the unknown.

You could raise the question: What about engineers who design test equipment for scientists. While the engineer is
1. Using science to develop a new technology
2. The new technology will lead to more information about the world and possibly lead to descriptive laws

The engineer's duty is still limited to designing and creating a device. His/her duties are not in and of themselves tied with the endeavors of furthering scientific knowledge, they end with the device they are creating.

You're points on the nobel Prize are interesting because the Nobel Prize is a combination of advances in science and technologies. The one you mentioned regarding beta blockers is an example of an advancement due to technology. My pick would be something like Paul Elich for contributions to chemistry. But look at Dr. Black's remarks "Art is a passion pursued with discipline; science is a discipline pursued with passion,"

I don't think we can characterize medicine or engineering as a discipline with passion. Rather I'd describe them as a passion that is backed up by scientific knowledge. I mean, hell I would have never survived EE without a passion for the work (or head-fi for that matter). And I'm certain medicine begins with the passion as well. Science on the other hand is the opposite. I dunno maybe you'll interpret the quote otherwise but I hope you atleast read this part.

 

[Drubbing]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdupiano /img/forum/go_quote.gif You could raise the question: What about engineers who design test equipment for scientists. While the engineer is 1. Using science to develop a new technology 2. The new technology will lead to more information about the world and possibly lead to descriptive laws The engineer's duty is still limited to designing and creating a device. His/her duties are not in and of themselves tied with the endeavors of furthering scientific knowledge, they end with the device they are creating.

Massive assumption at work here; that Engineers and Scientists exist in seperate hemispheres, with different aims, and no 'interest' in each others contribution, when working on research subjects.

Your original post made it clear you were creating clear boundaries between science and technology, and knowledge and 'art'. Now you are moving away from that, and yet still trying to maintain some semblance of your original argument.

All these fields are interrelated in some way,shape or form, and cannot be seperated from each other in the search for knowedge and its everday applications in medicine and research.

You cannot unblur, what is already a muti facted, complex coexistence of the very disciplines you are trying to seperate, like oil and water.

 

[billybob_jcv]

Hmm, I think we're making progress toward each other, not apart, and that's always a good sign.

I didn't really find much to disagree with in your last post - except perhaps for your overly strict definition of science and your overly broad definition of art. What I got from your post is a definition of science, and then the belief that anything not within your definition of science must therefore be art.

Like Drubbing said, I think that's too simplistic of a view. I'm willing to call some of what engineers and doctors do "art" - as I previously said, I do think the inspiration for the diagnosis or the finding of a HW/SW bug certainly does involve some intuition and "feel" for the problem, and that can be considered an "art". But - I'm not willing to call it art in the same way that a sculptor can generate emotion in people who view their work, or a graphic artist can create a logo that causes the customer to feel a certain way about the company.

When I'm working on a design, it's more about how to accomplish my functional goals in the most efficient way. Is that art? I'm not sure - I think I understand what you are saying about pure science being about the furthering of knowledge - and I agree that's not what I'm doing either - but I suspect there must be something between the creation of knowledge (your definition of science) and the creation of emotion (my definition of art).

 

[pdupiano]

Well as I mentioned.. I really don't know what else to call "not science" The reason I used "art" is because I think its more common to use art. But to be honest everytime I use the word art, I am referring to this:
Techne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As I mentioned in my initial post when I say art I think I do mean Techne.

As Drubbing mentioned, I think I may be trying to split what cannot be split, but I'll be damned if I don't try my hardest to make a clean cut between science and other things. Perhaps my attempt to force everything into the "art" category is the real issue here, so lets get rid of that. But if we do I think the definition I have for science, while strict and rigid, is what makes science truly unique from other practices or disciplines. It may be simplistic -but is that necessarily a bad thing?

But yeah maybe I can do a better job at this "art" thing.

 

[billybob_jcv]

Well, there ya go - you can't take anything said by a bunch of guys in togas very seriously...

 

[tigang69]

Hi to all i am here to share you guys something that is really important, you must know about tinnitus remedy.

 

[Czilla9000]

It's important to realize that, unlike other conspiracy theories, vaccine denialism is not harmless fun. If an unvaccinated child comes in contact with measles, he/she will get measles just like our ancestors.

Measles, smallpox (eradicated), polio, diphtheria, etc. We don't know how to cure these diseases. The only reason these diseases aren't killing millions of people is due to the popularity of widespread vaccination campaigns. An unvaccinated child born in 2009, exposed to Polio, will suffer as much as a child born in 1909.

These diseases are not curable, vaccination is the only option. If an AIDS vaccine were available, would you really argue people should not take it?

Like comic book superheroes, vaccines are victims of their own success. With the dragons having been slain, we now fear the slayers. But without the slayers, the dragons will return.

Ask any grandparent, who has seen these diseases firsthand, whether they want their grandchild to be vaccinated. Our ancestors would think it inconceivable - modern foolishness - to do otherwise.