Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,919 Year: 4,176/9,624 Month: 1,047/974 Week: 6/368 Day: 6/11 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Education
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6053 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 139 of 304 (268336)
12-12-2005 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by randman
12-12-2005 4:55 PM


MDs are not evolution biologists
If evolution is so complicated that medical doctors are not educated sufficiently to understand it, then it has no business whatsoever being taught to high schooler and undergrads.
That's sort of equivalent to saying, "there's a lot about anatomy that rocket scientists are not educated sufficiently to understand, therefore it has no business whatsoever being taught in high school or college."
Don't biology students, or potential future biology students, get to study biology in high school or college? Do they really have to wait until graduate school to learn the foundation of biology? And just because medical doctors don't know it? That's absurd.
I have medical doctors as colleagues. I have taught medical students.
There is a heck of a lot that medical doctors do NOT know about really basic biology - not just about evolution - but also in fields more immediately related to medicine, such as cellular biology and genetics. I've had classes of medical students who had trouble grasping extremely basic genetics, and classes of bio undergrads who knew the same genetic concepts in their sleep before I brought them up.
MDs need to understand little of the biological facts and concepts that many biology researchers could not live without - even though it is often said biology researchers who are providing research and therapy design to the doctors who will use it without fully understanding the underlying mechanisms.
This is not necessarily an insult to MDs, because they have other things to cram into their brain, like the massive number of treatment options for each condition they might encounter, and the criteria for selection amongst those options for a given patient.
Does an auto mechanic need to have a complete understanding of physics and thermodynamics to keep your car running?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by randman, posted 12-12-2005 4:55 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Philip, posted 12-12-2005 6:03 PM pink sasquatch has replied
 Message 198 by randman, posted 12-16-2005 12:31 PM pink sasquatch has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6053 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 151 of 304 (268367)
12-12-2005 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Philip
12-12-2005 6:03 PM


Re: Underlying mechanisms are not fully understood
(I've just demonstrated to Shraf that my humble hydro-mechanics-specialist (plumber) is no different as a research scientist than my proud yet sublime) slime-mechanic (biologist)
You did no such thing. You asserted that both plumbers and microbiologists use the scientific method, and that both have comparable higher degrees, which is silly.
Because someone inadvertently uses the scientific method, that does not make them a scientist.
No more than someone who inadvertently unclogs a drain is a plumber.
Regarding your claim of higher degrees of education, my plumber didn't graduate high school. One can scarcely call themself a microbiologist without having ten years plus post high school education. How is that the same?
What about the underlying mechanisms of the underlying mechanisms? What are they founded on?
Your silly pot philosophy does not counter the practical reality of occupations and their related spheres of knowledge and understanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Philip, posted 12-12-2005 6:03 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Philip, posted 12-13-2005 3:55 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6053 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 152 of 304 (268372)
12-12-2005 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by randman
12-12-2005 6:08 PM


randman...
randman - just before the thread veered off-course into Haeckel land, I addressed you on-topic here, and am still awaiting reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by randman, posted 12-12-2005 6:08 PM randman has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6053 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 200 of 304 (270034)
12-16-2005 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by randman
12-16-2005 12:31 PM


Re: MDs are not evolution biologists
The point is evolutionary theory is well understood by it's critics.
Huh?!? This was "the point", since it was the entirety of your message:
If evolution is so complicated that medical doctors are not educated sufficiently to understand it, then it has no business whatsoever being taught to high schooler and undergrads.
This is essentially an advocation of shutting down biology training altogether.
There is no empirical reason to assert, for example, that mutations are random, but evos assert that all day long and claim they are doing science
Actually, it was "evos doing science" that revealed that mutation is a non-random process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by randman, posted 12-16-2005 12:31 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by randman, posted 12-16-2005 12:56 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6053 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 239 of 304 (270413)
12-17-2005 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by robinrohan
12-16-2005 10:51 PM


nail on head
A blind man could see it a mile away, you with your proper living formula and Holmes with his superiority complex about sex and everything else.
You deserve each other.
My thoughts precisely - I learned to avoid their self-important banter some time ago...
...and I'm liking you more and more each day, RR.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by robinrohan, posted 12-16-2005 10:51 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Silent H, posted 12-18-2005 5:44 AM pink sasquatch has replied
 Message 241 by nator, posted 12-18-2005 9:19 AM pink sasquatch has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6053 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 242 of 304 (270480)
12-18-2005 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by nator
12-18-2005 9:19 AM


Re: nail on head
The criticism made of you:
RR writes:
you with your proper living formula
Your response:
schraf writes:
have you adopted the diet of the most healthy people in the world, the Okinowans, yet?
You couldn't have done a better job of demonstrating his point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by nator, posted 12-18-2005 9:19 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by nator, posted 12-18-2005 3:08 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6053 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 243 of 304 (270483)
12-18-2005 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Silent H
12-18-2005 5:44 AM


a Festivus for the rest of us
Holmes,
I wasn't agreeing with RR's comments regarding this thread; I was agreeing with them regarding your posts throughout the forum. And believe me, I am NOT defending schraf - she has always seemed to me to be more interested in starting an argument than having a constructive discussion.
Regarding your posting style, I personally feel it comes with a lot of self-important attitude. Maybe that's not your intent, but it is how I read it; as I've said before to you - that I think you make yourself a self-appointed expert on things, and then proceed to get your facts wrong. Just my view. I think I get frustrated with some of your commentary because we share many experiences and you argue from those experiences differently than I would, yet you do so in a general, absolute sense.
I'm sure (absolutely positive) there are others on the forum that dislike aspects of my posting style.
You are correct, my comments in this thread are unnecessary, though not meant to be insulting. I personally thought RR's comments were dead-on and I wanted to pat him on the back (I would have POTMed them except for the fact that they were simply commenting on the attitude of others).
I don't know, it's only a few days to Festivus, maybe I'm just in a mood to air my grievances...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Silent H, posted 12-18-2005 5:44 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Silent H, posted 12-18-2005 12:16 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024