The WELL: inkwell.vue.341: Gary Greenberg, The Noble Lie

#207: Hugh Watkins (hughw1936uk) Fri 26 Dec 08 17:33

Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:33:00 PST

some people are football fans

I am a "science fan" eg aim to comprehend all sciences at the "Scientific American " level [Read entire topic]

#206: Elisabeth (wickett) Fri 26 Dec 08 06:44

Fri, 26 Dec 2008 06:44:00 PST

I like "scientistic!" That describes well the interior view of the medical profession. The credence given to medical pronouncements by non-medical people, however, tends to skip over the gap between scientific and scientistic.

I look forward to reading your book to see how you handle the distinction. I do not remember that the discussion here touched on that particular dissonance. [Read entire topic]

#205: Gary Greenberg (gberg) Thu 25 Dec 08 02:06

Thu, 25 Dec 2008 02:06:00 PST

I think what you're saying is that most clinicians don't meet your definition of what a scientist should be. I'm sure that's true. But "scientist" is not only a profession. It's an orientation toward knowledge, or an epistemology. And epistemologically speaking, whether they want to be or not, doctors are, to stretch the language a little, scientistic. [Read entire topic]

#204: Elisabeth (wickett) Wed 24 Dec 08 11:08

Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:08:00 PST

I remain unconvinced about clinicians as scientists. I certainly wouldn't classify med students as scientists. They are busy cramming facts into their heads and learning skills, not questing, questioning, and repeating experiments. A certain distance and informed curiosity are just a couple of the essential qualities of a scientist, in my view.

One of the reasons I mentioned the neurologist is because she noticed a phenomenon that cries out for scientific investigation. I suspect many clinicians see similar odd clumps of unexpected correlation or dissonance, the investigation of which could potentially lead to clearer diagnositic criteria and more effective treatments. [Read entire topic]

#203: Gary Greenberg (gberg) Fri 19 Dec 08 12:54

Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:54:00 PST

Although, as Eliot Spitzer points out, banks are free to report any transactions under $10K that seem suspicious. [Read entire topic]

#202: Scott MacFarlane (s-macfarlane) Fri 19 Dec 08 10:09

Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:09:00 PST

"Well, you see, it's been scientifically established that 10 grand is the threshold at which corruption begins."

$10k is also the threshold amount where banks and escrow companies are required to fill out a disclosure form for the IRS. [Read entire topic]

#201: Gary Greenberg (gberg) Fri 19 Dec 08 08:34

Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:34:00 PST

>I think that the amount of money they are allowed to accept from >pharmaceutical companies should be dropped to zero. $10,000 is >still way too much.

Well, you see, it's been scientifically established that 10 grand is the threshold at which corruption begins.

>I also question whether medical clinicians are scientists.

Certainly most practicing docs outside of research institutions are not also practicing scientists. But they speak a scientific language, and more important, they derive their authority from being steeped in the scientific tradition. THey were trained as scientists (think about the pre-med and med school curricula) and their knowledge comes from scientific journals and their practice is based on scientific knowledge. [Read entire topic]

#200: Elisabeth (wickett) Fri 19 Dec 08 01:44

Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:44:00 PST

Thanks for the article. That certainly confirms my objection to therapists (psychiatrists as well as psychologists, PhDs and PsyDs) as scientists. I call them all paradigmologists embedded in social subjectivity and power (money) conflicts.

I also question whether medical clinicians are scientists.

To take an example, my neurologist treats a lot of patients with both lupus and multiple sclerosis. She would love to interest a medical researcher to comb through her files, set up parameters, and compare with other cadres of patients to find interlinkages or perhaps a more accurate grouping of criteria that could lead to more accurate disagnosis and treatment. [Read entire topic]

#199: Linda Castellani (castle) Thu 18 Dec 08 20:13

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:13:00 PST

I think that the amount of money they are allowed to accept from pharmaceutical companies should be dropped to zero. $10,000 is still way too much. [Read entire topic]

#198: Gary Greenberg (gberg) Thu 18 Dec 08 12:55

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:55:00 PST

Some clinicians classify themselves that way. Psychiatrists, most obviously, and psychologists, who officially adhere to something called the scientist/practitioner model, unless you have a Psy.D. instead of a Ph.D., in which case you are a practitioner/scientist.

In real life, of course, most practicing therapists wouldn't claim to be scientists. But they have to engage in a scientific discourse if they want to be licensed and insured and collect money from insurance companies. That is, they ahve to take licensing exams in which their knowledge about supposedly objective facts is assessed, fill out treatment reports and render diagnoses. So to make a good living, you have to give lip service to science, even if you are denying it out of the other side of yoru mouth. Best of both worlds, I suppose, otherwise known as bad faith.

And if you want to see just how ridiculous it is to think of the therapy profession as a scientific one, just read the article on the front page of today's Times, in which the whole unfolding debacle of the DSM-V is described.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/health/18psych.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper [Read entire topic]