Teaching science vs. the apprentice model â do we really have the choice?
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 4 (1):85-89 (2001)
| Abstract | The debate about the appropriate methodology of medical education has been (and still is) dominated by the opposing poles of teaching science versus teaching practical skills. I will argue that this conflict between scientific education and practical training has its roots in the underlying, more systematic question about the conceptual foundation of medicine: how far or in what respects can medicine be considered to be a science? By analyzing the epistemological status of medicine I will show that the internal aim of medicine( promoting health through the prevention and treatment of disease ) differs from the internal aim of science ( the methodological and systematic acquisition of knowledge ). Therefore, medicine as a whole discipline should not be considered as a science. However, medicine can be conceptually and methodologically scientific in so much as it is based on scientific knowledge. There is evidence from cognitive science research that diagnostic reasoning not only relies on the application of scientific knowledge but also â especially in routine cases â on a process of pattern recognition, a reasoning strategy based on the memory of previously encountered patients. Hence, medical education must contain both: the imparting of scientific knowledge and the rich exposure to concrete cases during practical training. Hence, the question of teaching science vs. the apprentice model will not be either-or but rather both â but in which proportion? | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesIneke Widdershoven-Heerding (1987). Medicine as a Form of Practical Understanding. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 2 (2).
Michael R. Matthews (1994). Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science. Routledge.
Mark H. Waymack (2009). Yearning for Certainty and the Critique of Medicine as “Science”. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (3):215-229.
Peter Hucklenbroich (1998). Steps Towards a Theory of Medical Practice. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 19 (3).
Michael Martin (1981). Is Medicine a Social Science? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 6 (4):345-360.
Ronald Munson (1981). Why Medicine Cannot Be a Science. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 6 (2):183-208.
Norbert Paul (1998). Incurable Suffering From the “Hiatus Theoreticus”? Some Epistemological Problems in Modern Medicine and the Clinical Relevance of Philosophy of Medicine. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 19 (3).
Neil Pickering (2010). Who's a Quack? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 7 (1).
Barry Hoffmaster (1981). Family Medicine as a Social Science. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 6 (4):387-410.
Martin Carrier & J. (1990). The Unity of Science. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 4 (1):17-31.
Hillel D. Braude (2009). Clinical Intuition Versus Statistics: Different Modes of Tacit Knowledge in Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence-Based Medicine. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (3):181-198.
Pawel Wlasienko (2005). Ethical and Legal Aspects in Teaching Students of Medicine. Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (1).
Arthur L. Caplan (1986). Exemplary Reasoning? A Comment on Theory Structure in Biomedicine. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 11 (1):93-105.
Walter Burger (2001). The Relation Between Medical Education and the Medical Profession's World View. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 4 (1):79-84.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2010-08-31Total downloads1 ( #275,053 of 549,753 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 549,753 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
