F
fogh
Guest
Kevin Aylward wrote:
There is an argument about understanding: you state that understanding is necessary before one can come to a proof, a defendable thesis. I would rather say that the a demand of research is to be able to deal with what is not understood. A study that comes from a situation where "pain" has no metaphysical definition and no clinical definition, and arrives at a point where there is at least a clinical definition is AOK in my book. Generally speaking, I would not think that science provides "understanding" or "explanations". Being able to follow a theory, read some specific formalism an jargon, or assess wether a theory has the required properties to be scientific (cartesian reasoning, refutability, etc.) do not bring "understanding". ( It a nice kick sometimes though )
It has been probably stg like 70 years since physicists have agreed that the question of conscience is not relevant to their theories, i.e. physics theories can hold independently of the outcome of philosophical questions of conscience, reality, existence. It is a feelgood fairytale we tell kids that physics explains reality, and that it has thus a strong grasp on technology. But try saying that to a physicist and you ll be confronted to a grin and a long silence, at best. And conversely physics theories have nothing to say about those questions. So you can hold assured that I did not at anytime believe that there is a mechanically provable relation between pain and physical manifestation. The relation between pain and metabolic manifestations that can be defended by a medical thesis is not a "mechanical" relation. The relation does involves conscience: the conscience of all individuals from so-called group A and the conscience of the Phd student. So, indeed, you can not f
rom such a study create a machine
that detects pain, or a machine that calculates the dosis of opium to give a preborn. Even if you put a well programmed computer in that machine. But you can create a medical procedure, since the procedure involves the conscience of the medical staff.
Medical practice is not too concerned with conscience either. Who ever saw veterinarian having a big dilemma on prescribing a painkiller " Oh, no. Wait ... I can t prescribe these, Fifi is not an alter-ego and it is not proven that it has conscience. OK, lets tear off this slip and put more expensive antibiotics instead."
Hence, I still _miss_ the point and so far I keep accepting that a doctor in medicine studies, treats, influences, or causes pain without understanding what it is, and still be considered a scientist.
BTW, why do you find conscience to be so closely related to pain ?
There is an argument about understanding: you state that understanding is necessary before one can come to a proof, a defendable thesis. I would rather say that the a demand of research is to be able to deal with what is not understood. A study that comes from a situation where "pain" has no metaphysical definition and no clinical definition, and arrives at a point where there is at least a clinical definition is AOK in my book. Generally speaking, I would not think that science provides "understanding" or "explanations". Being able to follow a theory, read some specific formalism an jargon, or assess wether a theory has the required properties to be scientific (cartesian reasoning, refutability, etc.) do not bring "understanding". ( It a nice kick sometimes though )
It has been probably stg like 70 years since physicists have agreed that the question of conscience is not relevant to their theories, i.e. physics theories can hold independently of the outcome of philosophical questions of conscience, reality, existence. It is a feelgood fairytale we tell kids that physics explains reality, and that it has thus a strong grasp on technology. But try saying that to a physicist and you ll be confronted to a grin and a long silence, at best. And conversely physics theories have nothing to say about those questions. So you can hold assured that I did not at anytime believe that there is a mechanically provable relation between pain and physical manifestation. The relation between pain and metabolic manifestations that can be defended by a medical thesis is not a "mechanical" relation. The relation does involves conscience: the conscience of all individuals from so-called group A and the conscience of the Phd student. So, indeed, you can not f
rom such a study create a machine
that detects pain, or a machine that calculates the dosis of opium to give a preborn. Even if you put a well programmed computer in that machine. But you can create a medical procedure, since the procedure involves the conscience of the medical staff.
Medical practice is not too concerned with conscience either. Who ever saw veterinarian having a big dilemma on prescribing a painkiller " Oh, no. Wait ... I can t prescribe these, Fifi is not an alter-ego and it is not proven that it has conscience. OK, lets tear off this slip and put more expensive antibiotics instead."
Hence, I still _miss_ the point and so far I keep accepting that a doctor in medicine studies, treats, influences, or causes pain without understanding what it is, and still be considered a scientist.
BTW, why do you find conscience to be so closely related to pain ?
