Challenging the Status Quo: Health Care Education

[LitleBang]

If you sign up for a course in say health care and your instructor says you may not question the current thinking on health care. doesn't that make sure the status quo is maintained and no new ideas will be forthcoming unless some well known name decides that a new idea is needed?

 

[Pengwuino]

... a few questions. What does this have to do with the forum rules? And what class are you talking about? and what's this about skepticism and debunking?

 

[ideasrule]

If you sign up for a course on health care, meaning you don't know much about it, you should probably wait until you become an expert before coming up with "new ideas".

 

[Integral]

So you think every freshman who steps into a classroom should argue with the prof? Do you think that is where and how science is advanced? This is not a class room, nor is it a academic seminar, it is a public Internet forum. We do not believe that it is possible for real science to be done in this arena. Are we wrong? Maybe, but none of us loss any sleep over that lost chance.

We have worked very hard to create an atmosphere where a physics/math novice can come to get a reliable answer to well posed questions. It takes a lot of time and effort on the part of the mentors to maintian these current "limited" goals.

We do have the IR forum where members can present well posed non mainstream papers.

 

[DaveC426913]

You'll want to learn where the box is before trying to think outside of it.

 

[FredGarvin]

If you don't study history you are doomed to repeat it.

On my more sarcastic side...Do you really think that you have an idea that hasn't been thought of by hundreds of people already?

 

[arildno]

If you sign up for a course in say health care and your instructor says you may not question the current thinking on health care. doesn't that make sure the status quo is maintained and no new ideas will be forthcoming unless some well known name decides that a new idea is needed?

As long as you:

1. Prove that you actually understand the current theory (NOTE: Tis is not the same as citing tat theory)
AND
2. Are able to pinpoint flaws in that theory,
THEN, but only then, are you entitled to:
3. Describe your "new" theory designed to remedy the flaw in question.

As long as 1&2 are lacking, you and your no. 3 are...dismissable.

 

[jreelawg]

One physics teacher once explained to me that she went into physics with dreams of thinking up new theories and bringing forth new ideas. It turned out for her that it wasn't as easy coming up with a theory in physics as she hoped, and even if you do come up with a good theory, it isn't very easy to get anyone to pay attention to it.

 

[russ_watters]

I even had a history teacher in high school tell the class that we weren't allowed to express original thoughts in our term papers (every idea must be sourced from a scholarly paper)! He said until we got to our phd thesis in history, we didn't understand the subject matter well enough to provide any original insight. And even if we did get lucky and have a good insight, it couldn't possibly be original - someone must have already thought it.

The nerve!

[he was right!]

 

[LitleBang]

The establishment says don't ask embarrassing questions, like, what is charge, what causes charge, why is it there, how do you explain the charge on the proton with quarks yet can give no explanation for the charge of the electron. What causes gravity, the mechanism of gravity. What is inertia, it's mechanism. Of course the establishment can give what they consider to be the accepted answers but shame on anyone who offers an answer in an attempt to explain one of these.

 

[Moonbear]

If you sign up for a course in say health care and your instructor says you may not question the current thinking on health care. doesn't that make sure the status quo is maintained and no new ideas will be forthcoming unless some well known name decides that a new idea is needed?

Why would you think that? Generally, if you're learning a subject in a course, it's because you still need someone to lead you through the basics. Once you've mastered the subject and have exhausted the available courses on it, then you are armed with the information needed to start delving into your own research into new ideas.

I'm guessing if you're asking this, you're still either taking high school or undergraduate courses, since grad students are already familiar with this process. Generally, through the undergraduate level, courses are not comprehensive, but rather survey a topic. Details may be greatly oversimplified or entirely left out because you need to build knowledge gradually in layers. If you have questions that have not been answered in the course, rather than questioning the subject matter, you should probably first question how limited your knowledge of the subject is and inquire if there is an answer to your question already in existence. This is a good use of office hours if you are curious about learning more about a subject that just what can be taught in class.

 

[Pengwuino]

If some random person came up to your door one day and started telling you how to run your life, how to eat properly, how to raise your kids, etc etc, what would you think?

That's essentially how nonsense like this works. Someone who doesn't know better thinks they can come in, without any expertise, and start demanding to be taken seriously. Why would you take a random person who comes up to you telling you how to live your life seriously? Similarly, why would the "establishment", whatever that is, take anyone seriously who doesn't present ideas that don't follow some basic tenets?

 

[Mark44]

The establishment says don't ask embarrassing questions, like, what is charge, what causes charge, why is it there, how do you explain the charge on the proton with quarks yet can give no explanation for the charge of the electron. What causes gravity, the mechanism of gravity. What is inertia, it's mechanism. Of course the establishment can give what they consider to be the accepted answers but shame on anyone who offers an answer in an attempt to explain one of these.

I disagree with your opinion that the "establishment" doesn't want you to ask embarrassing questions. We have a pretty fair understanding of some of the things you mention, but not so much in others. For example, inertia's effect is pretty well explained by Newton's first law of motion, but if your question is "why does it work this way," then you're asking why the universe behave this way, and that's something we don't know and probably never will.

We have some theories about why gravity works, one of which explains it by mass warping the texture of space in the neighborhood of the massive object. Again, if your question is how did this come to be, that's more of a philosophical question that we might never be able to answer.

Scientists observe events and try to discover the physical laws that explain why the event occurs. When a new law of physics is discovered, the scientific method allows other people to start with the same set of initial conditions, and reach an identical conclusion. As more and more people are able to repeat a given experiment over time, that gives credence to the interpretation of events. In a sense, that is the establishment.

 

[arildno]

LittleBang:

Many of your questions are of the form:
"Why is the universe this way, rather than that way?".

In effect, you are asking for the ontological NECESSITY of the physical laws we have observed, i.e, that any other set of physical laws would be self-contradictory.

It might be that far, far off in the future, we might be able to answer that question, but physicists of today are struggling with understanding wat laws we actually DO have, or MIGHT have, and that will be the case for generations to come.

 

[DaveC426913]

The establishment says don't ask embarrassing questions
...
Of course the establishment can give what they consider to be the accepted answers but shame on anyone who offers an answer in an attempt to explain one of these.

Posted in the wrong forum.

Please move this post to the Conspiracy Theories forum.

 

[russ_watters]

The establishment says don't ask embarrassing questions, like, what is charge, what causes charge, why is it there, how do you explain the charge on the proton with quarks yet can give no explanation for the charge of the electron. What causes gravity, the mechanism of gravity. What is inertia, it's mechanism. Of course the establishment can give what they consider to be the accepted answers but shame on anyone who offers an answer in an attempt to explain one of these.

Asking questions and "questioning" are two different things. You can ask questions, but at your level you can't "question". If you don't like it, tough. Part of maturing is accepting your ignorance - learning not to be arrogant in thinking you already know more than the sum total of all the scientists in history! When you ask a question and get a "we don't know yet" answer, you have to accept it until you are educated enough to start exploring the answer yourself.

 

[DanP]

I even had a history teacher in high school tell the class that we weren't allowed to express original thoughts in our term papers (every idea must be sourced from a scholarly paper)! He said until we got to our phd thesis in history, we didn't understand the subject matter well enough to provide any original insight. And even if we did get lucky and have a good insight, it couldn't possibly be original - someone must have already thought it.

The nerve!

[he was right!]

Didn't F. Crick discovered the structure of DNA in 1953 with Watson, while he didnt had yet defended his PhD thesis ? I believe he did so only in 1954. Besides, they beat L. Pauling to it, which says a lot.

I believe Chargaff summed it up pretty well, from a certain point of view: " ... that such pygmies should cast such giant shadows only shows how late in the day it is". This reference as pygmies to Watson and Crick ... it only shows Chargaff was never able to come to terms with their success, the success of 2 man which he considered way too low in their accomplishments to succeed anything.

It only takes one example to refute the theories of your teacher.

 

[arildno]

Yawn.

BOTH Crick&Watson were very much "establishment thinkers", rather than "renegade thinkers" at the time when they proposed the DNA model.

Russ Watters' history teacher made only a slight exaggeration, nothing more..

 

[DanP]

Yawn.


Russ Watters' history teacher made only a slight exaggeration, nothing more..

Very true. But it proves her wrong. According to her theories , those 2 couldn't be "established thinkers" and they would have to wait to get their PhD to even dare to contemplate a problem of this magnitude. Its ironic

 

[arildno]

According to her theories , those 2 couldn't be "established thinkers" and they would have to wait to get their PhD to even dare to contemplate a problem of this magnitude. Its ironic

No, because the PhD thesis being a necessary criterion was the above-mentioned exaggeration on his part.

 

[DanP]

No, because the PhD thesis being a necessary criterion was the above-mentioned exaggeration on his part.

Yes, because said exaggeration rendered the whole logic construct false. Follow the structure:

condition == "until you get a PhD"
dependent proposition == "didn't understand the subject matter well enough to provide any original insight"

The fact that I presented renders the construct false. Besides, I have the feeling Crick's insight didnt depended by being a "established thinker", nor by Chargaff running around and pretending Waston / Crick are turkeys which can't even remember elementary structures. They simply had it in them, PhD or no PdD

Aslo, we can talk about Tesla if you want. Should he have waited for a PhD as well to dare to think about induction motors ? Heck, by some accounts Tesla didnt even completed his undergraduate studies. He is a more classical example of "renegade thinker". He probably produced as much crackpot as he did helped humankind advance

 

[arildno]

Yes, because said exaggeration rendered the whole logic construct false. Follow the structure:

condition == "until you get a PhD"
dependent proposition == "didn't understand the subject matter well enough to provide any original insight"

The fact that I presented renders the construct false. Besides, I have the feeling Crick's insight didnt depended by being a "established thinker", nor by Chargaff running around and pretending Waston / Crick are turkeys which can't even remember elementary structures. They simply had it in them, PhD or no PdD

No, they didn't have it "in them" in the early 40's, say, because they then had not learned enough to tackle the problem.
They gained those skills through a wholly standard higher-level education.

Nor is it likely that they would have gotten those skills outside of academia.

 

[DanP]

No, they didn't have it "in them" in the early 40's, say, because they then had not learned enough to tackle the problem.
They gained those skills through a wholly standard higher-level education.

No contest on the means of gaining the knowledge. Standard higher level education is by far the most efficent means of gaining knowledge.

However, they simply did had it independently by what established ppl in academia thought about them. I.E , your ability to use the knowledge you gain, does not depend by academic recognition, PhD's or other such academic honors. More overs, it does not depend
of what a teacher of history thinks what you can do, or generally , how much your high school teacher thinks you should learn before trying to be "original"

I think humans are fortunate to have a free spirit and try original things. If we should have waited for PhDs before thinking of anything, or listen to all those naysayers, academia or not, we would still live in caves.

Generally, ppl which **do** remain in history. The rest, irrespective of their PhDs and other academic grades, are forgotten.

Wright brothers conceived a plane. They gave us "flight". Others do PhDs only to lay down in dust and never do anything (except teaching in some university, which no doubt, has
a tremendous value, but it's not really original)

 

[DanP]

Nor is it likely that they would have gotten those skills outside of academia.

Unlikely, yes. Impossible no.

John Moffatt at U Torronto currently. Painter in Paris, no undergraduate degree. Self taught. Corresponded with Einstein. Was admitted as a student to imperial college from London, based on his **original** work. I think he did post grad with Abdus Salam.

I could be wrong though, not sure it was Salam

 

[arildno]

your ability to use the knowledge you gain, does not depend by academic recognition, PhD's or other such academic honors.

Since you generally won't achieve a PhD without "using your knowledge", having a PhD usually means you are good at that.

 

[DanP]

Since you generally won't achieve a PhD without "using your knowledge", having a PhD usually means you are good at that.

Again true, but what's your point , in relation to the ability to think creatively and originally ?
I think it;s crystal clear for anyone that a Phd is highly advanced academical degree, and possessing one is a testimony to your ability to use "knowledge".

Crick didn't had this formal recognition known as a "phD". Some of more established researchers as Chargraff (my fav example) where dead bent on belittleing the Watson / Crick couple. Probably endless rows of "history teachers" did the same in their minds. Look, no PhDs. look, those guys can't even remember some of the elementary chemical structures.

But in the end, those 2 guys , using their knowledge and what probably was a uncanny amount of sheer determination, got the answer to the problem. Got a Nobel for it. While
Chargaff got a what was probably the biggest disappointment in his life. While he was a great researcher in his own right, with serious contributions to nucleic acid problems, he should have focused more on his own research than asserting what other ppl can do or not. Maybe then he would have got the structure first.


Having a PhD won't magically enable you to develop a new original theory or magically create a technological breakthrough. It is knowledge and work , a lot of hard work. It takes "heart". And unfortunately, no university or PhD can give you "heart".

 

[DanP]

Couple of years ago I had the incredible luck to be part of the same online community as prof. Tom Fahey , one of the coauthors of the text (with profs Brooks and Baldwin) "Exercise physiology: Human bio-energetics and its applications", a work which is IMO today the standard in exercise physiology books.

When we praised his work, he responded with 2 things: 2 affirmations and an anecdote. He said to the community (my paraphrase):

1. "Thank you for your nice words. However, don't take our word for anything. Demand
evidence!" Judging about his interaction with the group, which contained a lot of coaches,
exercise physiology scientists and athletes themselves I am inclined to believe he really had this attitude and those where not just "nice words". We did question official lines of thinking very often. We tried to reconcile observations from the field (i.e athlete performance with
phsyiology). In the end the discussion where very productive for all IMO.

2. The anecdote was about one of his professors , prof Franklin Henry , one of the fathers of motor control specificity theories . Prof. Henry once said that if someone says "Good morning," you should say, "Where's your data?"

Perhaps one of the posters in this thread got it right when he said there is a difference between "questions" and "questioning". But sometimes the border is blurred.

But IMO is a gross mistake from the part of a teacher to state at the begging of a course that you "not question the current thinking on health care". In rare cases it can even mean that said professor was not prepared himself to discuss and provide meaningful answers to some questions. Its even more wrong for a history teacher to write theorems about who can or not think creatively.

 

[LitleBang]

The responses so far have proved what I say, I rest my case.

 

[DanP]

The responses so far have proved what I say, I rest my case.

Yes, but chances are that most of theories you can develop without a solid base (which may take years to develop) are crackpot indeed. Be prepared to be wrong , and make a lot of mistakes. Best is to absorb everything with an open mind. Ask questions today, question tomorrow, but don't let other ppl tell you what your mind can or can not do with or without a PhD. Be also "social" savvy, most of the ppl don't like to be asked for explanations. Use utmost diplomacy, and make friends in high places :P

 

[arildno]

The responses so far have proved what I say, I rest my case.

You never had any case to begin with, so yes, it is best if you put it to rest.