5 ms·

Tangental point here, but I find Medical student's relationship to Science quite fascinating. For instance there's a trend for medical students to believe less

Tangental point here, but I find Medical student's relationship to Science quite fascinating. For instance there's a trend for medical students to believe less in evolution than other biology students EDIT: reference to it in this story: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/21/religion.highereducation https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/21/religion.highe...

airhead969 6y ago
What frightens me is that osteopath magical thinkers (DOs) are allowed to practice medicine in the US just like MDs. They're glorified chiropractors!
- dreamcompiler 6y ago
  Osteopaths in the UK and most other countries are quacks. Osteopaths in the US are real physicians. This is not a trick of labeling: In the US osteopath training is a science-based, rigorous medical program identical to that of an MD. Yes DOs are also trained in the historical "chiropractic"-like stuff, but most of the ones I know deemphasize that in practice.
  - airhead969 6y ago
    Why have it at all? It's magical thinking like religion that needs to be debunked and obliterated. Religion and quackery have no place in scientific medicine!
    - wl 6y ago
      In practice, it serves the purpose of letting less academically accomplished students become physicians without resorting to Caribbean medical schools. This isn't a net negative to society because much of the overachievement in the pre-med set is overlearning the game, not genuine accomplishment. Talking to people who have gone to osteopathic medical schools, it seems like the true believers there have enough clout that they're not transforming into normal medical schools any time soon. But OMM is such a small part of the curriculum, it's not a huge burden for the majority of students who think it's nonsense.
      - ggggtez 6y ago
        I don't know about you, but if I learned that my doctor, with whom I trust my health, spent 4-6 hours a week in a class where they learned to say "Circle Circle Dot Dot, now you got the cootie shot" like a kindergarten rhyme... I don't care if 95% of them know it doesn't work and is a waste of time. I'd have serious concerns about their entire profession that they were even allowed to waste their time on something so unscientific. (Not to mention a deep fear that I might get one of the 5% that will try to re-sell me rhyme based medicine as proven science).
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - neaden 6y ago
      I think a lot of it is history, a lot of DO schools were founded back with it was more of a viable theory and Med School wasn't much more scientific. Over a hundred years the school teaches changes, but the name and degree doesn't.
- chrisbennet 6y ago
  https://www.healthline.com/health/what-is-an-osteopath#training https://www.healthline.com/health/what-is-an-osteopath#train... "After graduating from medical school, DOs take a rigorous national licensure exam, which contains the same material as the exam to become an MD. Both kinds of doctor are licensed by state medical examination boards."
- leereeves 6y ago
  And MDs come from the historical branch of medicine that prescribed bloodletting and heroin. Now both MDs and DOs take a more modern approach. > Osteopathic medical school curricula are virtually identical to those at schools granting the MD degree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Osteopathic_Medicine#Education,_training_and_distinctiveness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Osteopathic_Medicine...
  - airhead969 6y ago
    And surgeons came from barbers. What's your point? Virtually isn't the same. There is no need for DOs. Period.
    - pbourke 6y ago
      Doesn’t the need arise from the constrained supply of MDs?
      - throwawaygh 6y ago
        Yes. Well, kind of. More accurate to say shortage of MDs in specific specialties. DOs are much more likely to go into family/general practice/pediatrics/etc. I kind of expect that long-term lots of DOs will be replaced by NPs and PAs. I've been to medical appointments three times this year and only saw a Doctor once. Got excellent care each time.
- vangelis 6y ago
  Tell the AMA to allow more MDs.
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    Or, better yet, collude with hospital systems and other care providers to side-step the AMA by giving NPs and PAs more autonomy to operate independently of an MD. You don't need four years of med school and a residency to do an annual health check-up for a pre-teen or put in a few stitches.
OskarS 6y ago
> For instance there's a trend for medical students to believe less in evolution than other biology students I don't find that particularly surprising, actually! I would assume that most subfields of biology relies more on deep understanding of evolution than medicine does. Like, if you're a botanist or entomologist or whatever, you need to have a very understanding of speciation and evolutionary pressure and whatnot, more so than a doctor would (I would think, anyway). Now, if medical students believed less in evolution than the general public, THAT would be shocking. But I doubt that is the case.
- jack_riminton 6y ago
  Well they’re more likely to believe in God than the general public so yes that’s entirely possible https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/news/survey-shows-that-physicians-are-more-religious-than-expected https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/news/survey-shows...
  - Xcelerate 6y ago
    I seem to recall seeing a breakdown of belief in God by discipline, and it was the opposite of what I would have expected. Abstract mathematicians were the most likely to believe in some form of God, followed by physicists, with biologists being the least likely to believe. Considering how complex and unpredictable biological science is compared to something like particle physics, I was surprised by this.
    - gjm11 6y ago
      I don't think it should be surprising if biologists are the least likely group to believe in God. One common reason for believing in God is how ingeniously designed living things often are. The reason why this turns out not to be a very good reason is that evolution explains this better (dealing e.g. with cases where the design seems needlessly complex, malicious, etc.). Biologists are more familiar with evolution and spend more time thinking about it than other scientists. Relatedly, evolution has frequently been the target of attack from religious people and groups. Biologists are likely to notice this more and be more bothered by it (imagine a world where there's a strong anti-technology lobby motivated by religion; engineers would likely be more likely to be opposed to religion in that case). Pure mathematicians are used to thinking of intangible things like numbers, sets of sets of sets of sets, equivalence classes of functions from manifolds to abelian groups, etc., as real things even though they clearly don't "live" in the physical universe, and perhaps even as more perfect than the tangible inhabitants of the material world. I think this may make the idea of a sort of spiritual universe with inhabitants like a Most Perfect Being Imaginable particularly congenial to pure mathematicians. (On the other hand, pure mathematicians ought to be less vulnerable to some varieties of philosophical flim-flam used by religious apologists. For instance, the so-called "ontological argument" is composed mostly of logical errors, and I would expect pure mathematicians to notice this more readily than anyone else. ... But: Kurt Goedel, who was one hell of a good logician, actually put some effort into coming up with a logically sound version of the ontological argument. Of course it's no good because it relies on axioms there's no reason to think apply to the actual world, but it does indicate that a sufficiently ingenious mathematician may react to a terrible argument not by dismissing it but by finding a way to make it less terrible.) [In case anyone cares: I am a pure mathematician, or at least I was one before moved into industry where one gets paid more for doing easier work. I was a religious believer for many years but am not any more.]
Balgair 6y ago
Per my own anecdata in the US, MDs are a pretty diverse group of people in regards to faith. The 'calling' of being a doctor/healer is strong among many faith based communities in the US. As such, their reasoning for being an MD is not based on science as much as it is on their faith and purpose. The point is to be a doctor/healer, how the knowledge to better do so is generated may be incidental. Note: Medical researchers are a different bunch, per my own anecdata, I'm talking about practicing MDs specifically here.
- jack_riminton 6y ago
  Also a lot of pressure for child’s of immigrants to become doctors and engineers. And because immigrants are more likely to be religious, so are their kids

airhead969 6y ago

What frightens me is that osteopath magical thinkers (DOs) are allowed to practice medicine in the US just like MDs. They're glorified chiropractors!

dreamcompiler 6y ago
Osteopaths in the UK and most other countries are quacks. Osteopaths in the US are real physicians. This is not a trick of labeling: In the US osteopath training is a science-based, rigorous medical program identical to that of an MD. Yes DOs are also trained in the historical "chiropractic"-like stuff, but most of the ones I know deemphasize that in practice.
- airhead969 6y ago
  Why have it at all? It's magical thinking like religion that needs to be debunked and obliterated. Religion and quackery have no place in scientific medicine!
  - wl 6y ago
    In practice, it serves the purpose of letting less academically accomplished students become physicians without resorting to Caribbean medical schools. This isn't a net negative to society because much of the overachievement in the pre-med set is overlearning the game, not genuine accomplishment. Talking to people who have gone to osteopathic medical schools, it seems like the true believers there have enough clout that they're not transforming into normal medical schools any time soon. But OMM is such a small part of the curriculum, it's not a huge burden for the majority of students who think it's nonsense.
    - ggggtez 6y ago
      I don't know about you, but if I learned that my doctor, with whom I trust my health, spent 4-6 hours a week in a class where they learned to say "Circle Circle Dot Dot, now you got the cootie shot" like a kindergarten rhyme... I don't care if 95% of them know it doesn't work and is a waste of time. I'd have serious concerns about their entire profession that they were even allowed to waste their time on something so unscientific. (Not to mention a deep fear that I might get one of the 5% that will try to re-sell me rhyme based medicine as proven science).
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - neaden 6y ago
    I think a lot of it is history, a lot of DO schools were founded back with it was more of a viable theory and Med School wasn't much more scientific. Over a hundred years the school teaches changes, but the name and degree doesn't.
chrisbennet 6y ago
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-is-an-osteopath#training https://www.healthline.com/health/what-is-an-osteopath#train... "After graduating from medical school, DOs take a rigorous national licensure exam, which contains the same material as the exam to become an MD. Both kinds of doctor are licensed by state medical examination boards."
leereeves 6y ago
And MDs come from the historical branch of medicine that prescribed bloodletting and heroin. Now both MDs and DOs take a more modern approach. > Osteopathic medical school curricula are virtually identical to those at schools granting the MD degree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Osteopathic_Medicine#Education,_training_and_distinctiveness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Osteopathic_Medicine...
- airhead969 6y ago
  And surgeons came from barbers. What's your point? Virtually isn't the same. There is no need for DOs. Period.
  - pbourke 6y ago
    Doesn’t the need arise from the constrained supply of MDs?
    - throwawaygh 6y ago
      Yes. Well, kind of. More accurate to say shortage of MDs in specific specialties. DOs are much more likely to go into family/general practice/pediatrics/etc. I kind of expect that long-term lots of DOs will be replaced by NPs and PAs. I've been to medical appointments three times this year and only saw a Doctor once. Got excellent care each time.
vangelis 6y ago
Tell the AMA to allow more MDs.
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  Or, better yet, collude with hospital systems and other care providers to side-step the AMA by giving NPs and PAs more autonomy to operate independently of an MD. You don't need four years of med school and a residency to do an annual health check-up for a pre-teen or put in a few stitches.

OskarS 6y ago

> For instance there's a trend for medical students to believe less in evolution than other biology students I don't find that particularly surprising, actually! I would assume that most subfields of biology relies more on deep understanding of evolution than medicine does. Like, if you're a botanist or entomologist or whatever, you need to have a very understanding of speciation and evolutionary pressure and whatnot, more so than a doctor would (I would think, anyway). Now, if medical students believed less in evolution than the general public, THAT would be shocking. But I doubt that is the case.

jack_riminton 6y ago
Well they’re more likely to believe in God than the general public so yes that’s entirely possible https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/news/survey-shows-that-physicians-are-more-religious-than-expected https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/news/survey-shows...
- Xcelerate 6y ago
  I seem to recall seeing a breakdown of belief in God by discipline, and it was the opposite of what I would have expected. Abstract mathematicians were the most likely to believe in some form of God, followed by physicists, with biologists being the least likely to believe. Considering how complex and unpredictable biological science is compared to something like particle physics, I was surprised by this.
  - gjm11 6y ago
    I don't think it should be surprising if biologists are the least likely group to believe in God. One common reason for believing in God is how ingeniously designed living things often are. The reason why this turns out not to be a very good reason is that evolution explains this better (dealing e.g. with cases where the design seems needlessly complex, malicious, etc.). Biologists are more familiar with evolution and spend more time thinking about it than other scientists. Relatedly, evolution has frequently been the target of attack from religious people and groups. Biologists are likely to notice this more and be more bothered by it (imagine a world where there's a strong anti-technology lobby motivated by religion; engineers would likely be more likely to be opposed to religion in that case). Pure mathematicians are used to thinking of intangible things like numbers, sets of sets of sets of sets, equivalence classes of functions from manifolds to abelian groups, etc., as real things even though they clearly don't "live" in the physical universe, and perhaps even as more perfect than the tangible inhabitants of the material world. I think this may make the idea of a sort of spiritual universe with inhabitants like a Most Perfect Being Imaginable particularly congenial to pure mathematicians. (On the other hand, pure mathematicians ought to be less vulnerable to some varieties of philosophical flim-flam used by religious apologists. For instance, the so-called "ontological argument" is composed mostly of logical errors, and I would expect pure mathematicians to notice this more readily than anyone else. ... But: Kurt Goedel, who was one hell of a good logician, actually put some effort into coming up with a logically sound version of the ontological argument. Of course it's no good because it relies on axioms there's no reason to think apply to the actual world, but it does indicate that a sufficiently ingenious mathematician may react to a terrible argument not by dismissing it but by finding a way to make it less terrible.) [In case anyone cares: I am a pure mathematician, or at least I was one before moved into industry where one gets paid more for doing easier work. I was a religious believer for many years but am not any more.]

Balgair 6y ago

Per my own anecdata in the US, MDs are a pretty diverse group of people in regards to faith. The 'calling' of being a doctor/healer is strong among many faith based communities in the US. As such, their reasoning for being an MD is not based on science as much as it is on their faith and purpose. The point is to be a doctor/healer, how the knowledge to better do so is generated may be incidental. Note: Medical researchers are a different bunch, per my own anecdata, I'm talking about practicing MDs specifically here.

jack_riminton 6y ago
Also a lot of pressure for child’s of immigrants to become doctors and engineers. And because immigrants are more likely to be religious, so are their kids