Quote:
Originally Posted by Azy  It's not a matter of my personal opinion, doctors of medicine are not trained to be scientists, they're trained to practice medicine. Obviously there's a spectrum and there are multidisciplinary skills involved but doctors are not trained to be fully fledged researchers.I'll admit I'm relying on Nature's good reputation in this matter. |
I don't know, where in the world doctors aren't trained to be scientists perhaps 13th century waikiki?.. that is what they are by defintion most if not all doctors have papers published that means 'research'!... here in the united states, you need an undergraduate in one or more of the sciences in order to be accepted into medical school... mine is a BS/MS in molecular biology... I am sorry, that, docs don't conform to your idea of what a 'scientist' is, but, that is more your problem than theirs.
Quote:
Code: All Psych
Prot 39 27
Cath 22 10
Jew 13 29
None 10 17
Tot 84% 83%
Rest 16% 17% I wasn't sure where the 39% came from in your post. As it stands physicians don't need any doctored statistics (sorry) about religion, 3/4 isn't a bad turn out.
|
that is 84% and 83% of 61%-- those who have responded of an already statistically negligible pool!
Quote:
It is not my own personal claim of these figures, it is the work of people more competent in organising a survey and has been published in one of the world's foremost scientific journals.
I'm sure if you have some desire to prove that this work is flawed then you could write to the author at the address provided and question his methods yourself.
|
I have no need to do that.. I personally didn't see this piece of work in any foremost scientific journal 'Nature' magazine doesn't constitute a scientific journal! besides that, this doesn't affect me in any which way, least of which the inflated number you rounded up to make a case for yourself...
I have stated in practically every post relating to this matter, that an appeal to authority is an incorrect way to reason through ones existence
cheers