Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
>I think that the amount of money they are allowed to accept from 
>pharmaceutical companies should be dropped to zero.  $10,000 is
>still way too much.

Well, you see, it's been scientifically established that 10 grand is
the threshold at which corruption begins. 

>I also question whether medical clinicians are scientists.

Certainly most practicing docs outside of research institutions are
not also practicing scientists. But they speak a scientific language,
and more important, they derive their authority from being steeped in
the scientific tradition. THey were trained as scientists (think about
the pre-med and med school curricula) and their knowledge comes from
scientific journals and their practice is based on scientific
knowledge.
  

    
"Well, you see, it's been scientifically established that 10 grand is
the threshold at which corruption begins." 

$10k is also the threshold amount where banks and escrow companies are
required to fill out a disclosure form for the IRS.
  

    
Although, as Eliot Spitzer points out, banks are free to report any
transactions under $10K that seem suspicious.
  

    

I remain unconvinced about clinicians as scientists.  I certainly wouldn't
classify med students as scientists.  They are busy cramming facts into
their heads and learning skills, not questing, questioning, and repeating
experiments.  A certain distance and informed curiosity are just a couple 
of the essential qualities of a scientist, in my view.  

One of the reasons I mentioned the neurologist is because she noticed a 
phenomenon that cries out for scientific investigation.  I suspect many 
clinicians see similar odd clumps of unexpected correlation or dissonance, 
the investigation of which could potentially lead to clearer diagnositic 
criteria and more effective treatments.
  

    
I think what you're saying is that most clinicians don't meet your
definition of what a scientist should be. I'm sure that's true. But
"scientist" is not only a profession. It's an orientation toward
knowledge, or an epistemology. And epistemologically speaking, whether
they want to be or not, doctors are, to stretch the language a little,
scientistic. 
  

    

I like "scientistic!"  That describes well the interior view of the 
medical profession.  The credence given to medical pronouncements by 
non-medical people, however, tends to skip over the gap between scientific 
and scientistic.  

I look forward to reading your book to see how you handle the distinction.  
I do not remember that the discussion here touched on that particular 
dissonance.
  

    
some people are football fans

I am a "science fan" 
eg  aim  to comprehend all sciences at the "Scientific American "
level