It isn't so much the doing of it as it is the being able to do it. Having and understanding of how it works and how to do it is critical for interpretation. And having no interest in it suggests to me someone who will not develop a good understanding of it.
But maybe I'm just a science bigot.... m -- Marc Carter, PhD Associate Professor and Chair Department of Psychology College of Arts & Sciences Baker University -- ________________________________ From: Michael Smith [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:28 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] I have no interest in research I don't think a physician needs to be a medical researcher to be a good physician. To me, this again seems like this condescending attitude among at least some people in "scientific psychology". That is, if you don't do research: you won't be able to think properly, you won't be up on stuff within your field, you won't be able to assess research any better than a grade school kid, you will be an easy mark for any extremist views, etc. etc. Never mind that most people in "scientific psychology" couldn't make the med-school cut no matter how hard they tried. Perhaps psychological education should include a class in humility --Mike On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Mike Palij <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:43:41 -0700, Louis Schmier wrote: >Mike, must you be a medical researcher--beyond keeping up on >your reading and training--to be a good physician? I think not. Louis, A physician does not have to be a medical researcher but a physician should be a critical thinker and, in some sense of word, wise. I wonder about physicians who have no interest in medical research because I'd worry about the extent to which they have critically evaluated the medical knowledge they're using to treat a person. Is this knowledge based on research evidence or hunches or voices that come in the night speaking the "truth"? If a physician does not rely upon research results as a guide for their medical treatment, what do they rely upon? Conform to the common practice of other physicians, even if this practice has no demonstrated benefit? I think that a physician who has no interest in research will be less concerned with evidence-based medicine. Consider the table at the following website and some of the articles cited though these are somewhat dated (see www.cochrane.org<http://www.cochrane.org/> for current info on what works): http://www.shef.ac.uk/scharr/ir/percent.html Something to think about. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected]) ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail") is sent by Baker University ("BU") and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify Baker University by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you. --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
