On Monday 12 Feb 2007 2:26 pm, Charles Haynes wrote: > I would prefer a doctor that had at least seen bleeding piles before I > would consider going to them for treatment. Reading about piles in a > book is all fine and good, but I would hope a doctor got more than > just book training before attempting a diagnosis or suggesting a > treatment.
True - but a doctor is required to diagnose and treat diseases that he has never seen before on a fairly regular basis, and surgeons are required to cut and sew up things in ways that they have never done before. For that he needs to have information that such diseases have been seen by others in the past. This is not visible to the non-doctor, but the training of a doctor requires that he makes himself familiar with reams and reams of information about things that he has never seen but has at least heard about and read about. This leads directly to his ability to anticipate and recognize things that he would not otherwise have done and have strategies to deal with them Unless all the information is collected and studied - it cannot later be proven or disproved. That collection of information about Pakistan has never been done before by any Indian. A somewhat similar collection of facts has been done by a handful of authors from the US and UK - who in my opinion, talk about things that that are relevant to their worldview. Foremost among that is the dismissal for decades by Western authors that Pakistan had anything to do with terrorism. Did someone say something about "tunnel vision"? shiv
