3 ms·
This hasn't been my experience at all in medicine and science. I perhaps have more exposure to both science and medicine than most because I have an MD-PhD. Per
by dillydogg 2y ago
This hasn't been my experience at all in medicine and science. I perhaps have more exposure to both science and medicine than most because I have an MD-PhD. Perhaps at the medical student level there is truth to this, but the physicians who are conducting clinical research are often at academic centers where they go specifically for the opportunity to do research. Academic centers almost universally pay much less than private hospitals. In my area, physicians make double salary in private practice over academia.
And this all ignores that the authors are PhD scientists. So I'm confused how this is categorized as "medical field" in the first place. I found that the ability to memorize is essentially useless in PhD level biological science (I studied immunology, so I can't necessarily speak to other fields), and it is all systems level conceptualizing.
I think this is a team with many talented people who came together to do their best. But I'm sure I'm naive. There seems to have been a lot of new interest and debate about what is happening in the glymphatics sphere.
- lo_zamoyski 2y agoI don't know how neuroscientists fare wrt knowledge of biology, chemistry, etc. that is relevant to their field, but the real problem is when they wade into philosophical waters without the requisite philosophical chops or background to do so [0]. Others can be guilty of similar sins, of course, and since the early 20th century, when philosophy and the classical liberal arts in general evaporated from school curricula, scientists have generally been quite poor at this, despite unwittingly treading into subject matters they are ill-prepared to discuss. Compare how a Schroedinger or a Heisenberg[2] talk about philosophical stuff, and then look at someone like Krauss [3]. The former may not have been great philosophical thinkers, but there is a huge difference in basic philosophical education and awareness, and these are not just isolated cases. [0] https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/01/against-neurobabble.html https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/01/against-neurobabble... [1] https://a.co/d/1RMG66X https://a.co/d/1RMG66X [2] https://a.co/d/4lrBokZ https://a.co/d/4lrBokZ [3] https://a.co/d/5qoMLqU https://a.co/d/5qoMLqU
- dillydogg 2y agoSure, I agree that, when neuroscientists begin to wade into the realm of consciousness etc., they are wandering into a world they are unequipped to discuss. In my experience with my neurobiology colleagues, they are pretty dialed into their neurocircuits. I do have qualms with their experimental models on the behavioral end as a non-neuroscientist. To really answer your question, I think I need to talk about the books modern day neuroscientists are writing and I have to say I simply agree. I think these self-help kind of books are not good! Too bad they are so easily propagated in the media.
- dinkumthinkum 2y agoAre you gate-keeping philosophy from neuroscientists? Are you not a fan of the Damasio or Paul and Patricia Kirkland? I don't know; i think you are a bit too dismissive here.