This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- BMAT 2024 Entry Discussions Megathread
- BMAT 2023 entry discussions megathread *Updated 14th October 2022*
- BMAT Section 3 | Post & Reflection | 2023 FINAL SESSION
- BMAT percentage? Im at around 5.0,6.0,3A?
- Low UCAT - High BMAT (UCL, Imperial, Cambridge)
- BMAT Section 3 Essay
- BMAT section 3 tips?
- BMAT 2023 help
- 6med BMAT
- Changing an option on UCAS from medicine to biological sciences
- Bmat 2023
- bmat exam
- Official: University of Leeds A100 2023 entry Applicants and Offer Holders thread
- Official: Imperial College London A100 2023 Entry Applicants and Offer Holders thread
- is my BMAT low or average?
- GAMSAT 2024 / 2025 entry discussions megathread
- bmat
- Leeds Dentistry 2023 Entry
- Are there 12 markers in AQA A level psychology?
- Oxford A100 2023 entry Applicant and Offer Holders thread
BMAT Section 3 Essay Marking 2018 entry
Scroll to see replies
Original post by iras
Added comments above
I thought it was a good essay overall. I recommended the structure change because I was told to lay it out as the questions were laid out, but it's clear you addressed all aspects of the question so shouldn't matter tbh
I thought it was a good essay overall. I recommended the structure change because I was told to lay it out as the questions were laid out, but it's clear you addressed all aspects of the question so shouldn't matter tbh
Thanks for the comments! I will definitely take note on the part about essay structure.
Original post by Wolfram Alpha
Can someone please provide some constructive criticism? Thank you in advance.
There is money to be made from not curing disease.
Explain what this statement means. Argue to the contrary. To what extent do you think money can be made from not curing diease.
This statement means that a financial profit can be made when one refrains from finding a cure for a disease. If we consider common diseases such as cancer, the most common way to 'eliminate' the disease is to use chemotherapy. In countries where there is not a publicly finded health service such as the NHS, patients must pay significant amounts of money to receive such treatments. This generates a large income because the fact that chemostherapy isn't a cure fpor cancer means there is always a chance of relapse and thus more money can be generated as the process of treatment is repeated. In addition to this, patients must pay for medications to help them over-come the side effects of chemotherapy such as nausea which generates further profit. Moreover, if we consider charities such as Macmillan which rely on the absence of a cure for diseases such as cancer, since their aim is to find a cure for cancer, if a cure for this disease was found, the large donations cancer charities current;ly receive would come to an end, significantly reducing the profit made. [Great introduction which dives straight into the "for" argument.]
On the contrary, money is not to be made from not finding a cure for disease. Diseases which have the capability of rapidly wiping out whole populations of animals means there is less livestock to be sold; this is very prominent in farms where animals are kept close together, enabling diseases to easily spread. Here, there is a loss money as all the money spent on feeding these organisms and sheltering them is not regained as a result of their death. To add to this, some diseases, if not most, can lead to additional health complications if they are not cured, and this can lead to increased costs of care and medication, which is far from proftable, especially under publicly funded health services such as the NHS. [Ageing population leading to increase in the need for palliative care, in nature a long term treatment. This would put additional strain on the already under-funded NHS. Money is instead being used to maintain the NHS.]
In conclusion, I belueve that there is not money to be made from not curing disease as it is in everyone's best interest to find a cure. The consequences of suffering from an incurable disease such as losing a job due to complex healthcare needs which can only be attended to in a clinical setting means there is an overall loss of money rather than gain. [The money gained from the treatment of diseases is diminished by the money spent trying to deal with it.]
There is money to be made from not curing disease.
Explain what this statement means. Argue to the contrary. To what extent do you think money can be made from not curing diease.
This statement means that a financial profit can be made when one refrains from finding a cure for a disease. If we consider common diseases such as cancer, the most common way to 'eliminate' the disease is to use chemotherapy. In countries where there is not a publicly finded health service such as the NHS, patients must pay significant amounts of money to receive such treatments. This generates a large income because the fact that chemostherapy isn't a cure fpor cancer means there is always a chance of relapse and thus more money can be generated as the process of treatment is repeated. In addition to this, patients must pay for medications to help them over-come the side effects of chemotherapy such as nausea which generates further profit. Moreover, if we consider charities such as Macmillan which rely on the absence of a cure for diseases such as cancer, since their aim is to find a cure for cancer, if a cure for this disease was found, the large donations cancer charities current;ly receive would come to an end, significantly reducing the profit made. [Great introduction which dives straight into the "for" argument.]
On the contrary, money is not to be made from not finding a cure for disease. Diseases which have the capability of rapidly wiping out whole populations of animals means there is less livestock to be sold; this is very prominent in farms where animals are kept close together, enabling diseases to easily spread. Here, there is a loss money as all the money spent on feeding these organisms and sheltering them is not regained as a result of their death. To add to this, some diseases, if not most, can lead to additional health complications if they are not cured, and this can lead to increased costs of care and medication, which is far from proftable, especially under publicly funded health services such as the NHS. [Ageing population leading to increase in the need for palliative care, in nature a long term treatment. This would put additional strain on the already under-funded NHS. Money is instead being used to maintain the NHS.]
In conclusion, I belueve that there is not money to be made from not curing disease as it is in everyone's best interest to find a cure. The consequences of suffering from an incurable disease such as losing a job due to complex healthcare needs which can only be attended to in a clinical setting means there is an overall loss of money rather than gain. [The money gained from the treatment of diseases is diminished by the money spent trying to deal with it.]
Overall, a well-written essay with very clear viewpoints.
Thanks for the feedback!! Will take note of them
Original post by mangotangochick
Hi! Please see my comments in bold.
Original post by yesplsnoty
Overall, a well-written essay with very clear viewpoints.
Thank you for your feedback; much appreciated!
Original post by Starched
Hi all! This is my first bmat essay and I'd really appreciate it if anyone could critique it since it's a bit hard to know where it went wrong. Thanks!!!
2 “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” (Christopher Hitchens) Explain what you think Christopher Hitchens means. Argue to the contrary that some assertions do not require evidence. To what extent do you agree with the statement?
This statement suggests that any assertion requires proof to be accepted as a truth in contrast to being substantiated by intuition or faith. Answered the first question sufficiently. But could possibly expand your for point here so the flow is more natural.
However, this claim loses relevance in areas of knowledge concerned with subjective perception. Different individuals will react differently to art pieces. They may believe that an art piece is meaningful or artistically crafted while another person may disagree. Yet, both individuals assertions may be equally valid since it is impossible to objectively rate an art piece due to observers having different metrics of judgement or perceiving the same art in a diametrically opposed manner. A prime example of this would be contemporary art pieces. Picasso's cubanistic art which appear alien and distorted to some are revered as magnificent pieces by others, as evidenced by their prices at auctions. Thus, in these circumstances such different assertions are equally valid and do not require evidence nor can they be dismissed as they are intrinsically unique to the individual concerned. Valid point but the phrasing is a bit too repetitive. Could clarify better what the assertation in question refers to.
On the other hand, especially in the sciences, this statement appears to be largely self-evident as the sciences are concerned with deriving knowledge from observations of the natural environment or through conclusions from statistically significant data sets from controlled environments. Mendel's experiment in which he grew thousands of peas and observed their characteristics became the foundation for modern genetics. Thomas Morgan's famous experiment using fly's enabled him to assert the existence of linked genes. The structure of the cell membrane was continuously refined as new evidence, such as freeze fractured imaging, became available, allowing previous assertions to be dismissed. Even pharmaceutical drugs are only approved after rigourous testing through numerous phases before their assertion on the drugs efficacy and safety are accepted. Should have addressed the aspect of dismissing without evidence better, but otherwise its a well substantiated point.
Thus, it is important to recognise that the nature of the area of knowledge is important in determining the relevance of this sentence. In arts, where appreciation of pieces is inherently subjective and personal, assertions of the pieces desirability may be made on feelings rather than objective evidence. Sciences may necessitate objective evidence that can be independently verified before assertions are accepted or rejected. Perhaps an equally pertinent question would be what counts as valid evidence since there appears to be a degree of subjectivity in determining validity.
2 “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” (Christopher Hitchens) Explain what you think Christopher Hitchens means. Argue to the contrary that some assertions do not require evidence. To what extent do you agree with the statement?
This statement suggests that any assertion requires proof to be accepted as a truth in contrast to being substantiated by intuition or faith. Answered the first question sufficiently. But could possibly expand your for point here so the flow is more natural.
However, this claim loses relevance in areas of knowledge concerned with subjective perception. Different individuals will react differently to art pieces. They may believe that an art piece is meaningful or artistically crafted while another person may disagree. Yet, both individuals assertions may be equally valid since it is impossible to objectively rate an art piece due to observers having different metrics of judgement or perceiving the same art in a diametrically opposed manner. A prime example of this would be contemporary art pieces. Picasso's cubanistic art which appear alien and distorted to some are revered as magnificent pieces by others, as evidenced by their prices at auctions. Thus, in these circumstances such different assertions are equally valid and do not require evidence nor can they be dismissed as they are intrinsically unique to the individual concerned. Valid point but the phrasing is a bit too repetitive. Could clarify better what the assertation in question refers to.
On the other hand, especially in the sciences, this statement appears to be largely self-evident as the sciences are concerned with deriving knowledge from observations of the natural environment or through conclusions from statistically significant data sets from controlled environments. Mendel's experiment in which he grew thousands of peas and observed their characteristics became the foundation for modern genetics. Thomas Morgan's famous experiment using fly's enabled him to assert the existence of linked genes. The structure of the cell membrane was continuously refined as new evidence, such as freeze fractured imaging, became available, allowing previous assertions to be dismissed. Even pharmaceutical drugs are only approved after rigourous testing through numerous phases before their assertion on the drugs efficacy and safety are accepted. Should have addressed the aspect of dismissing without evidence better, but otherwise its a well substantiated point.
Thus, it is important to recognise that the nature of the area of knowledge is important in determining the relevance of this sentence. In arts, where appreciation of pieces is inherently subjective and personal, assertions of the pieces desirability may be made on feelings rather than objective evidence. Sciences may necessitate objective evidence that can be independently verified before assertions are accepted or rejected. Perhaps an equally pertinent question would be what counts as valid evidence since there appears to be a degree of subjectivity in determining validity.
Overall, I think its a pretty good essay that addressed all the sub-questions.
Hope somebody could give me an honest critique of my essay.
"Science is a way of trying not to fool oneself." - Richard Feynman, 1964.
Explain why not fooling oneself is necessary for a scientist. Why might it be easy for scientists to make the mistake of fooling themselves? How might scientists guard against this mistake?
Facing an increasing number of measles outbreaks in recent years, many in the United States are shocked but groups advocating against vaccines were unfazed. A large basis behind this harmful movement is a study linking vaccines with autism which was published on the Lancet years ago. While it was later disproved, the harm has already been done. This clearly illustrates the danger of bad science the importance of staying objective for a scientist. Apart from the dangers, staying objective is vital for a scientist as the truth is independent and for science to progress, good science needs to be pursued.
Despite the clear importance of pursuing objectivity, it is easy to see how scientists may fall into the trap of interpreting results subjectively. SCientists often devote years of effort on a singular research and more often than not, the results do not support the hypothesis. Considering the effort spent and the subjectivity of results, scientists would be tempted to interpret results in a less than accurate manner. Apart from that, scientists are also not spared from cognitive biases such as confirmation bias. Specifically, when reviewing past studies, scientists may tend toward studies supporting their hypothesis, discounting those in opposition. These are inevitable as scientists are as human as any of us but the consequences could be devastating.
Yet, there is little cause for concern as science has progressed beyond the days of Sigmund Freud where pseudoscience is pursued openly. Today, with contributions from philosophers like Karl Popper, the scientific method is established to determine what counts as objective, true science. Beyond that, existence of anonymous peer reviewed journals ensure that studies are held to more scrutiny. While not always feasible, double-blind experiments ensure the chance of biases during execution of experiments to be kept to the minimum. Definitely, such systems are imperfect and any determined individuals could work their way around these safeguards. However, it would not be overly optimistic to trust that most scientists have a genuine love for their subjects and would not consciously practice bad science.
"Science is a way of trying not to fool oneself." - Richard Feynman, 1964.
Explain why not fooling oneself is necessary for a scientist. Why might it be easy for scientists to make the mistake of fooling themselves? How might scientists guard against this mistake?
Facing an increasing number of measles outbreaks in recent years, many in the United States are shocked but groups advocating against vaccines were unfazed. A large basis behind this harmful movement is a study linking vaccines with autism which was published on the Lancet years ago. While it was later disproved, the harm has already been done. This clearly illustrates the danger of bad science the importance of staying objective for a scientist. Apart from the dangers, staying objective is vital for a scientist as the truth is independent and for science to progress, good science needs to be pursued.
Despite the clear importance of pursuing objectivity, it is easy to see how scientists may fall into the trap of interpreting results subjectively. SCientists often devote years of effort on a singular research and more often than not, the results do not support the hypothesis. Considering the effort spent and the subjectivity of results, scientists would be tempted to interpret results in a less than accurate manner. Apart from that, scientists are also not spared from cognitive biases such as confirmation bias. Specifically, when reviewing past studies, scientists may tend toward studies supporting their hypothesis, discounting those in opposition. These are inevitable as scientists are as human as any of us but the consequences could be devastating.
Yet, there is little cause for concern as science has progressed beyond the days of Sigmund Freud where pseudoscience is pursued openly. Today, with contributions from philosophers like Karl Popper, the scientific method is established to determine what counts as objective, true science. Beyond that, existence of anonymous peer reviewed journals ensure that studies are held to more scrutiny. While not always feasible, double-blind experiments ensure the chance of biases during execution of experiments to be kept to the minimum. Definitely, such systems are imperfect and any determined individuals could work their way around these safeguards. However, it would not be overly optimistic to trust that most scientists have a genuine love for their subjects and would not consciously practice bad science.
Original post by try hard
Hope somebody could give me an honest critique of my essay.
"Science is a way of trying not to fool oneself." - Richard Feynman, 1964.
Explain why not fooling oneself is necessary for a scientist. Why might it be easy for scientists to make the mistake of fooling themselves? How might scientists guard against this mistake?
Facing an increasing number of measles outbreaks in recent years, many in the United States are shocked but groups advocating against vaccines were unfazed. A large basis behind this harmful movement is a study linking vaccines with autism which was published on the Lancet years ago. While it was later disproved, the harm has already been done. This clearly illustrates the danger of bad science the importance of staying objective for a scientist. Apart from the dangers, staying objective is vital for a scientist as the truth is independent and for science to progress, good science needs to be pursued.
Despite the clear importance of pursuing objectivity, it is easy to see how scientists may fall into the trap of interpreting results subjectively. SCientists often devote years of effort on a singular research and more often than not, the results do not support the hypothesis. Considering the effort spent and the subjectivity of results, scientists would be tempted to interpret results in a less than accurate manner. Apart from that, scientists are also not spared from cognitive biases such as confirmation bias. Specifically, when reviewing past studies, scientists may tend toward studies supporting their hypothesis, discounting those in opposition. These are inevitable as scientists are as human as any of us but the consequences could be devastating.
Yet, there is little cause for concern as science has progressed beyond the days of Sigmund Freud where pseudoscience is pursued openly. Today, with contributions from philosophers like Karl Popper, the scientific method is established to determine what counts as objective, true science. Beyond that, existence of anonymous peer reviewed journals ensure that studies are held to more scrutiny. While not always feasible, double-blind experiments ensure the chance of biases during execution of experiments to be kept to the minimum. Definitely, such systems are imperfect and any determined individuals could work their way around these safeguards. However, it would not be overly optimistic to trust that most scientists have a genuine love for their subjects and would not consciously practice bad science.
"Science is a way of trying not to fool oneself." - Richard Feynman, 1964.
Explain why not fooling oneself is necessary for a scientist. Why might it be easy for scientists to make the mistake of fooling themselves? How might scientists guard against this mistake?
Facing an increasing number of measles outbreaks in recent years, many in the United States are shocked but groups advocating against vaccines were unfazed. A large basis behind this harmful movement is a study linking vaccines with autism which was published on the Lancet years ago. While it was later disproved, the harm has already been done. This clearly illustrates the danger of bad science the importance of staying objective for a scientist. Apart from the dangers, staying objective is vital for a scientist as the truth is independent and for science to progress, good science needs to be pursued.
Despite the clear importance of pursuing objectivity, it is easy to see how scientists may fall into the trap of interpreting results subjectively. SCientists often devote years of effort on a singular research and more often than not, the results do not support the hypothesis. Considering the effort spent and the subjectivity of results, scientists would be tempted to interpret results in a less than accurate manner. Apart from that, scientists are also not spared from cognitive biases such as confirmation bias. Specifically, when reviewing past studies, scientists may tend toward studies supporting their hypothesis, discounting those in opposition. These are inevitable as scientists are as human as any of us but the consequences could be devastating.
Yet, there is little cause for concern as science has progressed beyond the days of Sigmund Freud where pseudoscience is pursued openly. Today, with contributions from philosophers like Karl Popper, the scientific method is established to determine what counts as objective, true science. Beyond that, existence of anonymous peer reviewed journals ensure that studies are held to more scrutiny. While not always feasible, double-blind experiments ensure the chance of biases during execution of experiments to be kept to the minimum. Definitely, such systems are imperfect and any determined individuals could work their way around these safeguards. However, it would not be overly optimistic to trust that most scientists have a genuine love for their subjects and would not consciously practice bad science.
"Science is a way of trying not to fool oneself." - Richard Feynman, 1964.
Explain why not fooling oneself is necessary for a scientist. Why might it be easy for scientists to make the mistake of fooling themselves? How might scientists guard against this mistake?
Facing an increasing number of measles outbreaks in recent years, many in the United States are shocked but groups advocating against vaccines were unfazed. A large basis behind this harmful movement is a study linking vaccines with autism which was published on the Lancet years ago. While it was later disproved, the harm has already been done. This clearly illustrates the danger of bad science the importance of staying objective for a scientist. Apart from the dangers, staying objective is vital for a scientist as the truth is independent and for science to progress, good science needs to be pursued. Good but try to link it to the statement more clearly, it was difficult to make the connection. Tip: your opening paragraph should be such that the examiner need not read the question to know what it is.
Despite the clear importance of pursuing objectivity, it is easy to see how scientists may fall into the trap of interpreting results subjectively. SCientists often devote years of effort on a singular research and more often than not, the results do not support the hypothesis. Considering the effort spent and the subjectivity of results, scientists would be tempted to interpret results in a less than accurate manner. Apart from that, scientists are also not spared from cognitive biases such as confirmation bias. Specifically, when reviewing past studies, scientists may tend toward studies supporting their hypothesis, discounting those in opposition. These are inevitable as scientists are as human as any of us but the consequences could be devastating. Good. Not much to say here. Although you should have included your vaccine-autism correlation in this paragraph and expanded on it.
Yet, there is little cause for concern as science has progressed beyond the days of Sigmund Freud where pseudoscience is pursued openly. Today, with contributions from philosophers like Karl Popper, the scientific method is established to determine what counts as objective, true science. Beyond that, existence of anonymous peer reviewed journals ensure that studies are held to more scrutiny. While not always feasible, double-blind experiments ensure the chance of biases during execution of experiments to be kept to the minimum. Definitely, such systems are imperfect and any determined individuals could work their way around these safeguards. However, it would not be overly optimistic to trust that most scientists have a genuine love for their subjects and would not consciously practice bad science.
Great piece. If I hadn't done this question myself, I would have told you that you need more points but it really isn't easy so I suggest elaborating on points more to compensate.
Science only tells us what is possible, not what is right.
Explain what this statement means. Argue to the contrary that science helps us to judge what is right. To what extent can decisions about what is right and wrong be informed by science?
Science is a methodology adopted to obtain empirical information about the world around us. This information is heavily scrutinised to ensure it is objective, valid and reliable. However, what happens when we try to test something that is inherently subjective like morality?
This statement implies that science only goes as far as obtaining information rather than deciding what to do with it or whether it is right to use it in certain ways. Through science, the possibility of cloning humans became apparent; however, how does one determine whether it should be done through rigorous testing? It is nigh impossible. The subjectivity of morality is evident by the shear difference in opinion on matters such as capital punishment.
On the other hand, even if science can't pinpoint what constitutes a right and wrong action, it can inform us if it is based on our own criteria. For example, a widely acknowledged method of discerning between right and wrong is whether the action causes harm. Since the discovery that masturbation doesn't cause major harm, it has been considered less and less 'wrong'. Moreover, some evolutionists speculate that morality is an evolutionary adaptation that we have gained as it increases the chances of survival for the group (altruism allows the rest of the group, who have similar genes, to survive and procreate thus increasing the proportion of individuals with the trait). If the genes that code for moral behaviour can identified, it is possible for science to discover what actions are right and wrong accordingly.
Ultimately, science can only currently tell us whether an action is right or wrong based on our criteria. It's success at discovering objective truths makes it a useful method of equipping us with the necessary knowledge to make the final decision.
Explain what this statement means. Argue to the contrary that science helps us to judge what is right. To what extent can decisions about what is right and wrong be informed by science?
Science is a methodology adopted to obtain empirical information about the world around us. This information is heavily scrutinised to ensure it is objective, valid and reliable. However, what happens when we try to test something that is inherently subjective like morality?
This statement implies that science only goes as far as obtaining information rather than deciding what to do with it or whether it is right to use it in certain ways. Through science, the possibility of cloning humans became apparent; however, how does one determine whether it should be done through rigorous testing? It is nigh impossible. The subjectivity of morality is evident by the shear difference in opinion on matters such as capital punishment.
On the other hand, even if science can't pinpoint what constitutes a right and wrong action, it can inform us if it is based on our own criteria. For example, a widely acknowledged method of discerning between right and wrong is whether the action causes harm. Since the discovery that masturbation doesn't cause major harm, it has been considered less and less 'wrong'. Moreover, some evolutionists speculate that morality is an evolutionary adaptation that we have gained as it increases the chances of survival for the group (altruism allows the rest of the group, who have similar genes, to survive and procreate thus increasing the proportion of individuals with the trait). If the genes that code for moral behaviour can identified, it is possible for science to discover what actions are right and wrong accordingly.
Ultimately, science can only currently tell us whether an action is right or wrong based on our criteria. It's success at discovering objective truths makes it a useful method of equipping us with the necessary knowledge to make the final decision.
All these essays seem so sophisticated and in mine it feels like I can hardly speak english 
Anyway could anyone give me feedback and maybe a score?
I've attached the file
Thank You,
3 When treating an individual patient, a physician must also think of the wider society. Explain the reasoning behind this statement. Argue that a doctor should only consider the individual that he or she is treating at the time. With respect to medical treatment, to what extent can a patient’s interests differ from those of the wider population?
Anyway could anyone give me feedback and maybe a score?
I've attached the file
Thank You,
3 When treating an individual patient, a physician must also think of the wider society. Explain the reasoning behind this statement. Argue that a doctor should only consider the individual that he or she is treating at the time. With respect to medical treatment, to what extent can a patient’s interests differ from those of the wider population?
Original post by Bossmanjacks
Science only tells us what is possible, not what is right.
Explain what this statement means. Argue to the contrary that science helps us to judge what is right. To what extent can decisions about what is right and wrong be informed by science?
Science is a methodology adopted to obtain empirical information about the world around us. This information is heavily scrutinised to ensure it is objective, valid and reliable. However, what happens when we try to test something that is inherently subjective like morality? This first paragraph does not address the 'what is possible' aspect of the question. While it is later covered, it would be better if all is summarized here.
This statement implies that science only goes as far as obtaining information rather than deciding what to do with it or whether it is right to use it in certain ways. Through science, the possibility of cloning humans became apparent; however, how does one determine whether it should be done through rigorous testing? It is nigh impossible. The subjectivity of morality is evident by the shear difference in opinion on matters such as capital punishment.
On the other hand, even if science can't pinpoint what constitutes a right and wrong action, it can inform us if it is based on our own criteria. For example, a widely acknowledged method of discerning between right and wrong is whether the action causes harm. Since the discovery that masturbation doesn't cause major harm, it has been considered less and less 'wrong'. Moreover, some evolutionists speculate that morality is an evolutionary adaptation that we have gained as it increases the chances of survival for the group (altruism allows the rest of the group, who have similar genes, to survive and procreate thus increasing the proportion of individuals with the trait). If the genes that code for moral behaviour can identified, it is possible for science to discover what actions Interesting example using masturbation but perhaps referring to Homosexuality would be a more evident example. Not sure what you were talking about in the second half of the paragraph. Whether altruism is coded for or not is unrelated to any morality.
Ultimately, science can only currently tell us whether an action is right or wrong based on our criteria. It's success at discovering objective truths makes it a useful method of equipping us with the necessary knowledge to make the final decision.
Explain what this statement means. Argue to the contrary that science helps us to judge what is right. To what extent can decisions about what is right and wrong be informed by science?
Science is a methodology adopted to obtain empirical information about the world around us. This information is heavily scrutinised to ensure it is objective, valid and reliable. However, what happens when we try to test something that is inherently subjective like morality? This first paragraph does not address the 'what is possible' aspect of the question. While it is later covered, it would be better if all is summarized here.
This statement implies that science only goes as far as obtaining information rather than deciding what to do with it or whether it is right to use it in certain ways. Through science, the possibility of cloning humans became apparent; however, how does one determine whether it should be done through rigorous testing? It is nigh impossible. The subjectivity of morality is evident by the shear difference in opinion on matters such as capital punishment.
On the other hand, even if science can't pinpoint what constitutes a right and wrong action, it can inform us if it is based on our own criteria. For example, a widely acknowledged method of discerning between right and wrong is whether the action causes harm. Since the discovery that masturbation doesn't cause major harm, it has been considered less and less 'wrong'. Moreover, some evolutionists speculate that morality is an evolutionary adaptation that we have gained as it increases the chances of survival for the group (altruism allows the rest of the group, who have similar genes, to survive and procreate thus increasing the proportion of individuals with the trait). If the genes that code for moral behaviour can identified, it is possible for science to discover what actions Interesting example using masturbation but perhaps referring to Homosexuality would be a more evident example. Not sure what you were talking about in the second half of the paragraph. Whether altruism is coded for or not is unrelated to any morality.
Ultimately, science can only currently tell us whether an action is right or wrong based on our criteria. It's success at discovering objective truths makes it a useful method of equipping us with the necessary knowledge to make the final decision.
Original post by try hard
One way of looking at the question could that while Science does not pass judgement as the aim of science is to better humanity/ understand our world better, it uncovers stereotypes or misperceptions we have. We can then make better-informed judgements. Could possibly explore social science or psychology to better understand why people act the way they do. (Stanford Prison Experiment absolve Nazis of some of the blames as it shows that the majority of us will conform to pressure and act in hideous ways)
Lol, I was bored of using homosexuality so I used another hugely condemned 'sin'. What I meant regarding altruism is that it is one of the most moral actions one can do and the only reason morality seems to be 'subjective' is because there isn't a scientific basis for it. If evolution could explain that morality (and therefore altruism) arose out of a need to cooperate, it would be written in the genetic code and upon discovery, we'd know exactly what is objectively moral and immoral. Perhaps we could even essentially take evolution into our own hands and set moral standards according to maximisation of benefit to society. Thank you very much for the feedback though! Sometimes, it's easy to miss that others won't be reading your essay with your mind frame.
Hi guys, was wondering if anyone could have a quick look over my essay:
BMAT 2009, QUESTION 1: You must be honest, open, and act with integrity. Explain what is meant by the above statement. Why might honesty, openness and integrity be important in a good doctor? Under what circumstances might a good doctor be justified in being less than perfectly honest or open in the course of their professional practice?
ESSAY:
For success in healthcare as a doctor, and, more crucially, the well-being of the patient the GMC regards acting with honesty, openness, and intergrity of the utmost importance. This involves telling the complete, uncompromised truth to both patients and colleagues.
Fundamentally, the importance of these qualities is for the production and preservation of a bond of trust between doctor and patient. This bond would lead to the fruition of more accurate diagnoses and therefore more effective treatments . This would be as a result of the increased likelihood the patient giving the doctor all the information necessary for proper diagnosis, no matter how private, if they believe the doctor will not breach their confidentiality. Therefore, this honesty would help the patient by producing the most effective treatment, and similarly would help the cash-strained NHS by saving it money on drugs. Moreover, honesty is an important criterion to satisfy a patient's informed consent. If a doctor was to be dishonest or withhold information about the risks and benefits of a particular treatment this would constitute disrespecting the patient's autonomy as their right to be completely involved in their own treatment has been compromised.
However, in some cases it is inappropriate to be honest. This may apply if it is in the best interest of the patient not to be told the whole truth regarding their illness. For example, the morale of a child with a terminal illness might be lowered upon the knowledge of this. This may lead the child to refuse painkillers and palliative care, which would not be in their best interest. A doctor must act according to beneficence, that is, doing what is best for their patient. Honesty is also inappropriate in cases where another patient's confidentiality may be breached, for example if a woman was pregnant as the result of an affair, it would not be right to tell her partner without her consent.
Ultimately, being honest, open, and acting with integrity are vital. Nonetheless, times when it is inappropriate to be completely honest should be subject to case-by-case analysis and warrants an individualistic outlook on patient care.
Please let me know what you think - many thanks in advance.
BMAT 2009, QUESTION 1: You must be honest, open, and act with integrity. Explain what is meant by the above statement. Why might honesty, openness and integrity be important in a good doctor? Under what circumstances might a good doctor be justified in being less than perfectly honest or open in the course of their professional practice?
ESSAY:
For success in healthcare as a doctor, and, more crucially, the well-being of the patient the GMC regards acting with honesty, openness, and intergrity of the utmost importance. This involves telling the complete, uncompromised truth to both patients and colleagues.
Fundamentally, the importance of these qualities is for the production and preservation of a bond of trust between doctor and patient. This bond would lead to the fruition of more accurate diagnoses and therefore more effective treatments . This would be as a result of the increased likelihood the patient giving the doctor all the information necessary for proper diagnosis, no matter how private, if they believe the doctor will not breach their confidentiality. Therefore, this honesty would help the patient by producing the most effective treatment, and similarly would help the cash-strained NHS by saving it money on drugs. Moreover, honesty is an important criterion to satisfy a patient's informed consent. If a doctor was to be dishonest or withhold information about the risks and benefits of a particular treatment this would constitute disrespecting the patient's autonomy as their right to be completely involved in their own treatment has been compromised.
However, in some cases it is inappropriate to be honest. This may apply if it is in the best interest of the patient not to be told the whole truth regarding their illness. For example, the morale of a child with a terminal illness might be lowered upon the knowledge of this. This may lead the child to refuse painkillers and palliative care, which would not be in their best interest. A doctor must act according to beneficence, that is, doing what is best for their patient. Honesty is also inappropriate in cases where another patient's confidentiality may be breached, for example if a woman was pregnant as the result of an affair, it would not be right to tell her partner without her consent.
Ultimately, being honest, open, and acting with integrity are vital. Nonetheless, times when it is inappropriate to be completely honest should be subject to case-by-case analysis and warrants an individualistic outlook on patient care.
Please let me know what you think - many thanks in advance.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Jhus2
All these essays seem so sophisticated and in mine it feels like I can hardly speak english
Anyway could anyone give me feedback and maybe a score?
I've attached the file
Thank You,
3 When treating an individual patient, a physician must also think of the wider society. Explain the reasoning behind this statement. Argue that a doctor should only consider the individual that he or she is treating at the time. With respect to medical treatment, to what extent can a patient’s interests differ from those of the wider population?
Anyway could anyone give me feedback and maybe a score?
I've attached the file
Thank You,
3 When treating an individual patient, a physician must also think of the wider society. Explain the reasoning behind this statement. Argue that a doctor should only consider the individual that he or she is treating at the time. With respect to medical treatment, to what extent can a patient’s interests differ from those of the wider population?
Para 1: Straightforward introduction to directly answer question. What you can improve in is maybe elaborate more on why you think the author has made such a statement. Explaining why would also allow you to introduce some "for" arguments which would help you to achieve balance in your essay as you consider both perspectives.
Para 2: Your statement on "patient's well-being is more important than the opinions of society" seems too much like a bold statement. I think you can rephrase that to sound more neutral. Explain why you believe their well-being is more important than opinions, that would help with achieving neutrality when making a claim like this because at least your claim is substantiated.
Para 3: Points raised are valid! Maybe you can explore the idea of "herd immunity" to show that society's interests aligns with that of the patient.
Para 4: You should separate out your conclusion as an independent paragraph on its own. Just to make your essay look more structured.
Overall, your essay has addressed all the subquestions with valid points. A room for improvement would be to work on the expansion of some of your points as I've commented above!
Another perspective that you can explore would be the social status of the patient. What happens if the patient in question is a mass rapist who has yet been convicted of his/her crimes? What happens if the patient is a Nobel Peace Prize Award recipient? If so happens that both patients are due for a heart transplant but there's only one available donor, would the society's interests than differ from the patient? Basically it boils down to the "value" that society has tagged the patient with. However, when it comes down to it, the prioritisation of medical help should be solely dependent on the medical diagnosis and should not be affected by the society as all doctors should practise beneficence to all.
I think one way to really answer those "To what extent do you agree..." subquestions would be to provide your own criteria for judgement. Then, use those criteria to guide the way you argue.
Hope my comments have helped!
Original post by yesplsnoty
Para 1: Straightforward introduction to directly answer question. What you can improve in is maybe elaborate more on why you think the author has made such a statement. Explaining why would also allow you to introduce some "for" arguments which would help you to achieve balance in your essay as you consider both perspectives.
Para 2: Your statement on "patient's well-being is more important than the opinions of society" seems too much like a bold statement. I think you can rephrase that to sound more neutral. Explain why you believe their well-being is more important than opinions, that would help with achieving neutrality when making a claim like this because at least your claim is substantiated.
Para 3: Points raised are valid! Maybe you can explore the idea of "herd immunity" to show that society's interests aligns with that of the patient.
Para 4: You should separate out your conclusion as an independent paragraph on its own. Just to make your essay look more structured.
Overall, your essay has addressed all the subquestions with valid points. A room for improvement would be to work on the expansion of some of your points as I've commented above!
Another perspective that you can explore would be the social status of the patient. What happens if the patient in question is a mass rapist who has yet been convicted of his/her crimes? What happens if the patient is a Nobel Peace Prize Award recipient? If so happens that both patients are due for a heart transplant but there's only one available donor, would the society's interests than differ from the patient? Basically it boils down to the "value" that society has tagged the patient with. However, when it comes down to it, the prioritisation of medical help should be solely dependent on the medical diagnosis and should not be affected by the society as all doctors should practise beneficence to all.
I think one way to really answer those "To what extent do you agree..." subquestions would be to provide your own criteria for judgement. Then, use those criteria to guide the way you argue.
Hope my comments have helped!
Para 2: Your statement on "patient's well-being is more important than the opinions of society" seems too much like a bold statement. I think you can rephrase that to sound more neutral. Explain why you believe their well-being is more important than opinions, that would help with achieving neutrality when making a claim like this because at least your claim is substantiated.
Para 3: Points raised are valid! Maybe you can explore the idea of "herd immunity" to show that society's interests aligns with that of the patient.
Para 4: You should separate out your conclusion as an independent paragraph on its own. Just to make your essay look more structured.
Overall, your essay has addressed all the subquestions with valid points. A room for improvement would be to work on the expansion of some of your points as I've commented above!
Another perspective that you can explore would be the social status of the patient. What happens if the patient in question is a mass rapist who has yet been convicted of his/her crimes? What happens if the patient is a Nobel Peace Prize Award recipient? If so happens that both patients are due for a heart transplant but there's only one available donor, would the society's interests than differ from the patient? Basically it boils down to the "value" that society has tagged the patient with. However, when it comes down to it, the prioritisation of medical help should be solely dependent on the medical diagnosis and should not be affected by the society as all doctors should practise beneficence to all.
I think one way to really answer those "To what extent do you agree..." subquestions would be to provide your own criteria for judgement. Then, use those criteria to guide the way you argue.
Hope my comments have helped!
Thank you very much for your feedback, it really has helped!
Are you taking the exam as well by the way?
In terms of score would this be at keast a 3?
Thank You
Original post by Jhus2
Thank you very much for your feedback, it really has helped!
Are you taking the exam as well by the way?
In terms of score would this be at keast a 3?
Thank You
Are you taking the exam as well by the way?
In terms of score would this be at keast a 3?
Thank You
Yep! I'm also taking the exams hahaha glad that my comments have helped
It would definitely be a 3 as long as your essay has addressed all the subquestions with resonable quality!
Would be much appreciated if anyone could give me a bit of feedback if they have time
The main benefit of patient consent is that it relieves doctors of blame for bad decisions.
Write a unified essay in which you address the following: Explain the argument underlying this statement. What are conventionally regarded as the benefits of patient consent? Give an example of a situation in which a patient’s consent would be meaningful, and another in which it would not. How should clinical decisions be made?
The argument underlying this statement is that the most important advantage of a patient giving permission for a treatment is that it protects the clinician from being held accountable if the treatment does not go to plan.
While patient consent providing some protection for doctors in these instances may be a benefit, I would not go so far as to say it is the main benefit. Conventionally, there are two main benefits of patient consent. Firstly, it respects the patient’s right to self-determination; autonomy. Secondly, it involves patients in their healthcare decision making process. Patients often feel scared and powerless- the informed consent process is an opportunity for them to engage with their doctors and participate in the treatment decisions, enabling them to fully gauge all their options. For example, with a full understanding of their situation, a patient with terminal cancer can decide whether or not to endure chemotherapy that may significantly reduce their quality of life without improving the state of their disease.
Valid, informed consent requires competence, non-coercion and information. A patient’s consent is only meaningful if they are deemed competent to make decisions and the have been provided with all the information that could influence that decision – for example if a mentally capable, fully informed, 25 year old with leukaemia has decided to take part in a clinical trial. For patients who are either incapable of giving consent or are regarded as lacking the mental capacity to make these decisions, a surrogate decision maker is found – for example if a patient has dementia. Furthermore in an emergency situation, such as if a patient is unconscious with a brain bleed, and there is no time to find an appropriate proxy without risk of harming the patient, then treatment will proceed with presumed consent.
Ultimately, if patients are competent and have a clear understanding of the situation, treatment options and their implications, clinical decisions should be made with respect to patient autonomy, and so should go on the basis of what the patient decides.
The main benefit of patient consent is that it relieves doctors of blame for bad decisions.
Write a unified essay in which you address the following: Explain the argument underlying this statement. What are conventionally regarded as the benefits of patient consent? Give an example of a situation in which a patient’s consent would be meaningful, and another in which it would not. How should clinical decisions be made?
The argument underlying this statement is that the most important advantage of a patient giving permission for a treatment is that it protects the clinician from being held accountable if the treatment does not go to plan.
While patient consent providing some protection for doctors in these instances may be a benefit, I would not go so far as to say it is the main benefit. Conventionally, there are two main benefits of patient consent. Firstly, it respects the patient’s right to self-determination; autonomy. Secondly, it involves patients in their healthcare decision making process. Patients often feel scared and powerless- the informed consent process is an opportunity for them to engage with their doctors and participate in the treatment decisions, enabling them to fully gauge all their options. For example, with a full understanding of their situation, a patient with terminal cancer can decide whether or not to endure chemotherapy that may significantly reduce their quality of life without improving the state of their disease.
Valid, informed consent requires competence, non-coercion and information. A patient’s consent is only meaningful if they are deemed competent to make decisions and the have been provided with all the information that could influence that decision – for example if a mentally capable, fully informed, 25 year old with leukaemia has decided to take part in a clinical trial. For patients who are either incapable of giving consent or are regarded as lacking the mental capacity to make these decisions, a surrogate decision maker is found – for example if a patient has dementia. Furthermore in an emergency situation, such as if a patient is unconscious with a brain bleed, and there is no time to find an appropriate proxy without risk of harming the patient, then treatment will proceed with presumed consent.
Ultimately, if patients are competent and have a clear understanding of the situation, treatment options and their implications, clinical decisions should be made with respect to patient autonomy, and so should go on the basis of what the patient decides.
Original post by yesplsnoty
Yep! I'm also taking the exams hahaha glad that my comments have helped
It would definitely be a 3 as long as your essay has addressed all the subquestions with resonable quality!
It would definitely be a 3 as long as your essay has addressed all the subquestions with resonable quality!
How did you practice for section 3? Or is this section just easier for you naturally? 🤔
Original post by Rj2018
Hi guys, was wondering if anyone could have a quick look over my essay:
BMAT 2009, QUESTION 1: You must be honest, open, and act with integrity. Explain what is meant by the above statement. Why might honesty, openness and integrity be important in a good doctor? Under what circumstances might a good doctor be justified in being less than perfectly honest or open in the course of their professional practice?
ESSAY:
For success in healthcare as a doctor, and, more crucially, the well-being of the patient the GMC regards acting with honesty, openness, and intergrity of the utmost importance. This involves telling the complete, uncompromised truth to both patients and colleagues.
Fundamentally, the importance of these qualities is for the production and preservation of a bond of trust between doctor and patient. This bond would lead to the fruition of more accurate diagnoses and therefore more effective treatments . This would be as a result of the increased likelihood the patient giving the doctor all the information necessary for proper diagnosis, no matter how private, if they believe the doctor will not breach their confidentiality. Therefore, this honesty would help the patient by producing the most effective treatment, and similarly would help the cash-strained NHS by saving it money on drugs. Moreover, honesty is an important criterion to satisfy a patient's informed consent. If a doctor was to be dishonest or withhold information about the risks and benefits of a particular treatment this would constitute disrespecting the patient's autonomy as their right to be completely involved in their own treatment has been compromised.
However, in some cases it is inappropriate to be honest. This may apply if it is in the best interest of the patient not to be told the whole truth regarding their illness. For example, the morale of a child with a terminal illness might be lowered upon the knowledge of this. This may lead the child to refuse painkillers and palliative care, which would not be in their best interest. A doctor must act according to beneficence, that is, doing what is best for their patient. Honesty is also inappropriate in cases where another patient's confidentiality may be breached, for example if a woman was pregnant as the result of an affair, it would not be right to tell her partner without her consent.
Ultimately, being honest, open, and acting with integrity are vital. Nonetheless, times when it is inappropriate to be completely honest should be subject to case-by-case analysis and warrants an individualistic outlook on patient care.
Please let me know what you think - many thanks in advance.
BMAT 2009, QUESTION 1: You must be honest, open, and act with integrity. Explain what is meant by the above statement. Why might honesty, openness and integrity be important in a good doctor? Under what circumstances might a good doctor be justified in being less than perfectly honest or open in the course of their professional practice?
ESSAY:
For success in healthcare as a doctor, and, more crucially, the well-being of the patient the GMC regards acting with honesty, openness, and intergrity of the utmost importance. This involves telling the complete, uncompromised truth to both patients and colleagues.
Fundamentally, the importance of these qualities is for the production and preservation of a bond of trust between doctor and patient. This bond would lead to the fruition of more accurate diagnoses and therefore more effective treatments . This would be as a result of the increased likelihood the patient giving the doctor all the information necessary for proper diagnosis, no matter how private, if they believe the doctor will not breach their confidentiality. Therefore, this honesty would help the patient by producing the most effective treatment, and similarly would help the cash-strained NHS by saving it money on drugs. Moreover, honesty is an important criterion to satisfy a patient's informed consent. If a doctor was to be dishonest or withhold information about the risks and benefits of a particular treatment this would constitute disrespecting the patient's autonomy as their right to be completely involved in their own treatment has been compromised.
However, in some cases it is inappropriate to be honest. This may apply if it is in the best interest of the patient not to be told the whole truth regarding their illness. For example, the morale of a child with a terminal illness might be lowered upon the knowledge of this. This may lead the child to refuse painkillers and palliative care, which would not be in their best interest. A doctor must act according to beneficence, that is, doing what is best for their patient. Honesty is also inappropriate in cases where another patient's confidentiality may be breached, for example if a woman was pregnant as the result of an affair, it would not be right to tell her partner without her consent.
Ultimately, being honest, open, and acting with integrity are vital. Nonetheless, times when it is inappropriate to be completely honest should be subject to case-by-case analysis and warrants an individualistic outlook on patient care.
Please let me know what you think - many thanks in advance.
Anyone?
Hey guys, anyone care to mark my essay? Highly appreciate it.
“When you want to know how things really work, study them when they are coming apart”
Explain what this statement means. Argue to the contrary. To what extent do you agree with the assertion?
This statement is referring to the reductionist feature of science. Studying a subject by dividing it into smaller parts allows for factors to be identified and individually tested; this increases the validity by reducing the effect of confounding factors. Therefore, to get detailed information about how something works, it should be studied in parts.
It is easy to appreciate the benefits of reductionist study. For example, if a disease were to be tested by observing the overall effects on the body, not much information can be gathered. However, had it been studied at the molecular level, the mechanism by which it occurs can be discovered and pharmaceuticals can be developed accordingly to cure or treat the disease. The effectiveness of reducing areas of study has long had dramatic increases in understanding from the point where all science was considered ‘philosophy’ to now, where it can be split into areas as small as zoology, pathology and quantum mechanics.
On the contrary, many topics like behaviour consist of many factors that affect it but it is not necessary or even useful, to study it individually. The system in question simply operates through a synergy of factors and where a comprehensive overview is required, it is pointless to reduce it. For example, one does not need to know the neuronal mechanism by which children imitate role models to test whether they do.
In essence, anything that is reduced enough would eventually reach the subatomic level of detail so clearly, a compromise must be made. This compromise is contingent on the scale the information is required at; if a holistic view is all that is needed, it would be better to study the subject as a whole. If the subject is to be studied in scrupulous detail, it is more beneficial to reduce it’s parts and see how they come together.
“When you want to know how things really work, study them when they are coming apart”
Explain what this statement means. Argue to the contrary. To what extent do you agree with the assertion?
This statement is referring to the reductionist feature of science. Studying a subject by dividing it into smaller parts allows for factors to be identified and individually tested; this increases the validity by reducing the effect of confounding factors. Therefore, to get detailed information about how something works, it should be studied in parts.
It is easy to appreciate the benefits of reductionist study. For example, if a disease were to be tested by observing the overall effects on the body, not much information can be gathered. However, had it been studied at the molecular level, the mechanism by which it occurs can be discovered and pharmaceuticals can be developed accordingly to cure or treat the disease. The effectiveness of reducing areas of study has long had dramatic increases in understanding from the point where all science was considered ‘philosophy’ to now, where it can be split into areas as small as zoology, pathology and quantum mechanics.
On the contrary, many topics like behaviour consist of many factors that affect it but it is not necessary or even useful, to study it individually. The system in question simply operates through a synergy of factors and where a comprehensive overview is required, it is pointless to reduce it. For example, one does not need to know the neuronal mechanism by which children imitate role models to test whether they do.
In essence, anything that is reduced enough would eventually reach the subatomic level of detail so clearly, a compromise must be made. This compromise is contingent on the scale the information is required at; if a holistic view is all that is needed, it would be better to study the subject as a whole. If the subject is to be studied in scrupulous detail, it is more beneficial to reduce it’s parts and see how they come together.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence”
(Christopher Hitchens)
Explain what you think Christopher Hitchens means. Argue to the contrary that some assertions do not require evidence. To what extent do you agree with the statement?
Christopher Hitchens is suggesting that for a claim to even be considered, there must be robust evidence to back it up. This is in line with the scientific hypothetico-deductive model whereby a hypothesis is made and is then tested objectively. After rigorous scrutiny, if the results support the theory, it is accepted. Without evidence, any claim can be asserted to be true and will not necessarily be representative of the real world. This also raises the concept of ‘burden of proof’ as he says that it can be ‘dismissed without evidence’. The burden of proof lies first with the claimant and only after evidence is given, can the interlocutor respond by attempting to falsify the claim. This is especially important as some claims are impossible to disprove such as ‘angels exist but can’t be detected’.
On the other hand, this only applies to scientific claims were the purpose is to discover objective truths about the world around us. A claim that the Mona Lisa is a beautiful painting doesn’t require evidence as it is so subjective. The purpose of art is to entertain and the absence of a solid explanation for why a painting is beautiful is the precise reason for why it fascinates us. Also, some claims aren’t important enough to justify the requirement of evidence; if a friend asserts that he had a nice day, it is not necessary to press him for evidence. Finally, an implicit assumption is made that an assertion should only be accepted if it is true. Surely, some people would prefer to believe claims such as the existence of an afterlife purely for the purpose of self-comfort.
In conclusion, I agree with the statement as far as it regards scientific claims. When an important claim is made that is required to be objective, objective evidence is needed. If a subjective matter such as drama or music is involved, it is not necessary for there to be evidence. Ultimately, although assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, they can also be accepted at the discretion of the individual.
(Christopher Hitchens)
Explain what you think Christopher Hitchens means. Argue to the contrary that some assertions do not require evidence. To what extent do you agree with the statement?
Christopher Hitchens is suggesting that for a claim to even be considered, there must be robust evidence to back it up. This is in line with the scientific hypothetico-deductive model whereby a hypothesis is made and is then tested objectively. After rigorous scrutiny, if the results support the theory, it is accepted. Without evidence, any claim can be asserted to be true and will not necessarily be representative of the real world. This also raises the concept of ‘burden of proof’ as he says that it can be ‘dismissed without evidence’. The burden of proof lies first with the claimant and only after evidence is given, can the interlocutor respond by attempting to falsify the claim. This is especially important as some claims are impossible to disprove such as ‘angels exist but can’t be detected’.
On the other hand, this only applies to scientific claims were the purpose is to discover objective truths about the world around us. A claim that the Mona Lisa is a beautiful painting doesn’t require evidence as it is so subjective. The purpose of art is to entertain and the absence of a solid explanation for why a painting is beautiful is the precise reason for why it fascinates us. Also, some claims aren’t important enough to justify the requirement of evidence; if a friend asserts that he had a nice day, it is not necessary to press him for evidence. Finally, an implicit assumption is made that an assertion should only be accepted if it is true. Surely, some people would prefer to believe claims such as the existence of an afterlife purely for the purpose of self-comfort.
In conclusion, I agree with the statement as far as it regards scientific claims. When an important claim is made that is required to be objective, objective evidence is needed. If a subjective matter such as drama or music is involved, it is not necessary for there to be evidence. Ultimately, although assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, they can also be accepted at the discretion of the individual.
Related discussions
- BMAT 2024 Entry Discussions Megathread
- BMAT 2023 entry discussions megathread *Updated 14th October 2022*
- BMAT Section 3 | Post & Reflection | 2023 FINAL SESSION
- BMAT percentage? Im at around 5.0,6.0,3A?
- Low UCAT - High BMAT (UCL, Imperial, Cambridge)
- BMAT Section 3 Essay
- BMAT section 3 tips?
- BMAT 2023 help
- 6med BMAT
- Changing an option on UCAS from medicine to biological sciences
- Bmat 2023
- bmat exam
- Official: University of Leeds A100 2023 entry Applicants and Offer Holders thread
- Official: Imperial College London A100 2023 Entry Applicants and Offer Holders thread
- is my BMAT low or average?
- GAMSAT 2024 / 2025 entry discussions megathread
- bmat
- Leeds Dentistry 2023 Entry
- Are there 12 markers in AQA A level psychology?
- Oxford A100 2023 entry Applicant and Offer Holders thread
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OFFICIAL A101 Liverpool University Graduate Entry Medicine Thread 2024 EntryMedicine
77
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OFFICIAL A101 Liverpool University Graduate Entry Medicine Thread 2024 EntryMedicine
77
