Engineering background? Seems qualified enough on medical issues to me.
On a side note, I am now giving free breast exams to hot chicks, and as an engineer I am totally qualified.[/quote]
Actually, I think an engineer is much better equipped to interpret studies than a doctor. DOE est.[/quote]
What do you base that on? Over here, all doctors spend at least 6-9 months of their education doing research long before getting their license, a little more when you specialize and then at least 5 years more if you want any kind of senior position. What makes you think this dude with a bachelors degree in engineering better at interpreting medical studies than a doctor?[/quote]
Because doctors know shit about math, or about statistics or about methodology or about the difference between correlation and causation and, worst of all, pretend that they do.
There was a doctor not too long ago who invented a method how to determine the space under a curve, approximating it with triangles, like for blood sugar measurements and such.
This was published in several medical journals.
If you dont get why this is fucking funny, you Sir, are part of the problem. [/quote]
OH, I remember hearing about that. Hilarious. Was it actually true?
as a hint: the medical industry was essentially unaware of basic math around since the 1700s.
Engineering background? Seems qualified enough on medical issues to me.
On a side note, I am now giving free breast exams to hot chicks, and as an engineer I am totally qualified.[/quote]
Actually, I think an engineer is much better equipped to interpret studies than a doctor. DOE est.[/quote]
What do you base that on? Over here, all doctors spend at least 6-9 months of their education doing research long before getting their license, a little more when you specialize and then at least 5 years more if you want any kind of senior position. What makes you think this dude with a bachelors degree in engineering better at interpreting medical studies than a doctor?[/quote]
Because doctors know shit about math, or about statistics or about methodology or about the difference between correlation and causation and, worst of all, pretend that they do.
There was a doctor not too long ago who invented a method how to determine the space under a curve, approximating it with triangles, like for blood sugar measurements and such.
This was published in several medical journals.
If you dont get why this is fucking funny, you Sir, are part of the problem. [/quote]
OH, I remember hearing about that. Hilarious. Was it actually true?
as a hint: the medical industry was essentially unaware of basic math around since the 1700s.[/quote]
[quote]orion wrote:
I will have to say though, the guy was a bright guy, he basically invented it from scratch.
On the other hand though, he also was an arrogant fool. [/quote]
But that’s exactly the argument. Not that doctors are smart, but that they are wholly unaware of proper scientific methodology. Inventing basic numeric integrations is really smart, but also really dumb and very telling for the field.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
What makes you think the avg doctor in the US looks at studies?[/quote]
Most doctors have no reason to look at studies. There are organizations that look through more studies than any engineer with a conspiracy book could ever do, with more resources he could ever have and more medical knowledge he could ever have and base their recommendations on that. Reading the recommendations is much more time efficient and it’s easier to get the big picture than reading through hundreds of studies yourself.
[quote]kakno wrote:
I should have taken Consuls advice.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
What makes you think the avg doctor in the US looks at studies?[/quote]
Most doctors have no reason to look at studies. There are organizations that look through more studies than any engineer with a conspiracy book could ever do, with more resources he could ever have and more medical knowledge he could ever have and base their recommendations on that. Reading the recommendations is much more time efficient and it’s easier to get the big picture than reading through hundreds of studies yourself.
Doctors at university hospitals keep up with the latest research. Guys who just prescribe penicillin for sore throats don’t really have to.[/quote]
Yeah, government panels with their great resources do a splendid job. You know these are the same guys that run the DMV right?
[quote]orion wrote:
I will have to say though, the guy was a bright guy, he basically invented it from scratch.
On the other hand though, he also was an arrogant fool. [/quote]
But that’s exactly the argument. Not that doctors are smart, but that they are wholly unaware of proper scientific methodology. Inventing basic numeric integrations is really smart, but also really dumb and very telling for the field.[/quote]
I dont think that he did anything approaching integration he simply plotted the space with ever smaller triangles, arguing that computers could do that in a heartbeat.
Which is true and they actually do that instead of doing real integrations but they use Riemann parabolas (?) to approximate the curve.
I just realized that my English math vocabulary is sadly lacking.
He is definitely not on par with Newton or Leipnitz.
[quote]orion wrote:
Because doctors know shit about math, or about statistics or about methodology or about the difference between correlation and causation and, worst of all, pretend that they do. [/quote]
You believe what you want to believe.
[quote]There was a doctor not too long ago who invented a method how to determine the space under a curve, approximating it with triangles, like for blood sugar measurements and such.
This was published in several medical journals.
If you dont get why this is fucking funny, you Sir, are part of the problem. [/quote]
I remember that thread, and if you look it up you’ll find that I laughed at it. You need to be able to integrate to even get into med school here, so that story is pretty irrelevant.
I dont think that he did anything approaching integration he simply plotted the space with ever smaller triangles, arguing that computers could do that in a heartbeat.
Which is true and they actually do that instead of doing real integrations but they use Riemann parabolas (?) to approximate the curve.
[/quote]
[quote]kakno wrote:
I should have taken Consuls advice.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
What makes you think the avg doctor in the US looks at studies?[/quote]
Most doctors have no reason to look at studies. There are organizations that look through more studies than any engineer with a conspiracy book could ever do, with more resources he could ever have and more medical knowledge he could ever have and base their recommendations on that. Reading the recommendations is much more time efficient and it’s easier to get the big picture than reading through hundreds of studies yourself. [/quote]
Ah, but here you run into the problem that medicine nowadays is either socialist (Europe) or fascist (in the US).
Bureaucrats are not the aloof public spirited angels they pretend to be if challenged, they have their interests and agendas and those do not necessarily coincide with yours or the public good.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
But that’s exactly the argument. Not that doctors are smart, but that they are wholly unaware of proper scientific methodology. Inventing basic numeric integrations is really smart, but also really dumb and very telling for the field.[/quote]
Doctors know more about study design and statistical significance than engineers know about medicine. You can’t interpret a study without understanding what it’s about. You’re not qualified to interpret cause and effect when it comes to medicine.
It’s like you’re debating my knowledge of Swedish just because you can read a dictionary.
I dont think that he did anything approaching integration he simply plotted the space with ever smaller triangles, arguing that computers could do that in a heartbeat.
Which is true and they actually do that instead of doing real integrations but they use Riemann parabolas (?) to approximate the curve.
[/quote]
That is numeric integrations.[/quote]
The German word for the whole Leibnitz stuff is “Integral” so yeah, if you say so.
We would call that an iterative approximation or something similar.
[quote]orion wrote:
Because doctors know shit about math, or about statistics or about methodology or about the difference between correlation and causation and, worst of all, pretend that they do. [/quote]
You believe what you want to believe.
[quote]There was a doctor not too long ago who invented a method how to determine the space under a curve, approximating it with triangles, like for blood sugar measurements and such.
This was published in several medical journals.
If you dont get why this is fucking funny, you Sir, are part of the problem. [/quote]
I remember that thread, and if you look it up you’ll find that I laughed at it. You need to be able to integrate to even get into med school here, so that story is pretty irrelevant.[/quote]
No, I actually dont.
I believe a lot of things I do not necessarily want to believe.
Cant say that for most doctors, or most people for that matter.
Also, hey, to get into medical training they most likely also had that in the US.
Does not matter.
There are people who get straight As and remember shit.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
But that’s exactly the argument. Not that doctors are smart, but that they are wholly unaware of proper scientific methodology. Inventing basic numeric integrations is really smart, but also really dumb and very telling for the field.[/quote]
Doctors know more about study design and statistical significance than engineers know about medicine. You can’t interpret a study without understanding what it’s about. You’re not qualified to interpret cause and effect when it comes to medicine.
It’s like you’re debating my knowledge of Swedish just because you can read a dictionary.[/quote]
No. You are just proving my point that you don’t understand scientific and statistical methodology.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
But that’s exactly the argument. Not that doctors are smart, but that they are wholly unaware of proper scientific methodology. Inventing basic numeric integrations is really smart, but also really dumb and very telling for the field.[/quote]
Doctors know more about study design and statistical significance than engineers know about medicine.[/quote]
No, they dont.
[quote]
You can’t interpret a study without understanding what it’s about. You’re not qualified to interpret cause and effect when it comes to medicine.[/quote]
Big deal, nobody is. That is beyond the power of most medicinal studies.
He is infinitely more qualified to judge what is a statistically significant correlation and what is not.
The thing is, this has zilch to do with medicine.
Could be the rice harvest in a Chinese province, burn out rates of lightbulbs, the topic is irrelevant.
[quote]
It’s like you’re debating my knowledge of Swedish just because you can read a dictionary.[/quote]
No, its not.
As an engineer he speaks math fluently, whereas doctors mumble bullshit.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
But that’s exactly the argument. Not that doctors are smart, but that they are wholly unaware of proper scientific methodology. Inventing basic numeric integrations is really smart, but also really dumb and very telling for the field.[/quote]
Doctors know more about study design and statistical significance than engineers know about medicine. You can’t interpret a study without understanding what it’s about. You’re not qualified to interpret cause and effect when it comes to medicine.
It’s like you’re debating my knowledge of Swedish just because you can read a dictionary.[/quote]
No. You are just proving my point that you don’t understand scientific and statistical methodology. [/quote]
And you think you do? You’ve met three stupid doctors, so all doctors are stupid?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
But that’s exactly the argument. Not that doctors are smart, but that they are wholly unaware of proper scientific methodology. Inventing basic numeric integrations is really smart, but also really dumb and very telling for the field.[/quote]
Doctors know more about study design and statistical significance than engineers know about medicine. You can’t interpret a study without understanding what it’s about. You’re not qualified to interpret cause and effect when it comes to medicine.
It’s like you’re debating my knowledge of Swedish just because you can read a dictionary.[/quote]
No. You are just proving my point that you don’t understand scientific and statistical methodology. [/quote]
And you think you do? You’ve met three stupid doctors, so all doctors are stupid?[/quote]
No, but running into an idiot doctor is an unacceptable risk however small it might be.
[quote]orion wrote:
He is infinitely more qualified to judge what is a statistically significant correlation and what is not. [/quote]
Enlighten me then, what exactly does he do? Calculate his own p value using pencil and paper?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
But that’s exactly the argument. Not that doctors are smart, but that they are wholly unaware of proper scientific methodology. Inventing basic numeric integrations is really smart, but also really dumb and very telling for the field.[/quote]
Doctors know more about study design and statistical significance than engineers know about medicine. You can’t interpret a study without understanding what it’s about. You’re not qualified to interpret cause and effect when it comes to medicine.
It’s like you’re debating my knowledge of Swedish just because you can read a dictionary.[/quote]
No. You are just proving my point that you don’t understand scientific and statistical methodology. [/quote]
And you think you do? You’ve met three stupid doctors, so all doctors are stupid?[/quote]
Just shut up while you are behind. You are getting overly emotional and saying dumber and dumber shit. I specifically stated earlier that doctor intelligence wasn’t in question and hinted strongly that doctors are, in-fact, smart. And yes, I think I have a much better idea than most doctors. in scientific analysis, subject matters very little. That is really the point of the scientific method. You can apply it, as a tool, to anything. Someone like an actuary or economist, can use data about anything to do a statistical analysis. And the best part is, not knowing the subject, they are often less bias about the role of variables.
A doctor may be told x does y in the human body which can bias him into conclusions from a study that aren’t statistically there.