The Student Room Group

Is Medicine considered a form of science in any sort?

Le question, I know it's not Life or Social sciences. But it's still some form of science on it's own right?
It's an applied science.
Original post by The Arsonist
It's an applied science.


Thanks!!
Original post by 06sulraj
Le question, I know it's not Life or Social sciences. But it's still some form of science on it's own right?


It is underpinned by science and the scientific method without a doubt.

But it is also an art. And intimately connected with society, and culture.

So to answer your question, it incorporates aspects of both life and social sciences, but it doesn't slot neatly into either box. Which is why the degree is entitled MB BS (or equivalent) and not BSc or BA.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by The Arsonist
As the study of disease and diagnostic processes, though, surely it's an applied science.


Why does it have to be only one thing though?

Understanding a drug's mechanism of action or why a certain disease causes particular signs is scientific knowledge.

Talking to a patient and recognising their symptoms and signs as being indicative of a particular condition, and knowing which tests to order to confirm your impression is applying those scientific principles.

Conducting a fluent and accurate history and examination, whilst avoiding unnecessary tests and procedures is a product of repeated practice and experience, which is an art.

Communicating the results to the patient, getting them on side, talking to the relatives, providing reassurance and so on is also an art.




I'm not saying any of this makes medicine an "arts subject" but considering that the job, at its core, involves communicating with and trying to treat people who are invariably worried or anxious or angry or whatever else, it follows that there must be much more to it than simply applying science.
(edited 8 years ago)
Applied Science it is, usually the main types of sciences are (no order):

(i) Applied - i.e. Medicine, Dentistry etc
(ii) Physical - Chmistry, Math, Physics etc
(iii) Life - Zoology, Anatomy, Cell Biology etc
(iv) Social - Economics etc
Original post by The Arsonist
Maths, like philosophy, is a formal science, not a physical science.


It's debatable, Maths isn't really classified into one, I just put it as a physical science.
Original post by The Arsonist
No, it's definitely a formal science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_science

The physical sciences are a subset of natural sciences which mathematics is not.


Meh I know many mathematicians who disagree with this statement which is probably why I am inclined to say physical, but I won't argue with if you put it as formal science.
Original post by The Arsonist
Which ones? I've never come across that.

To be considered a physical science it needs an empirical component. Maths, logic, philosophy do not have this: They provide the structure of the empirical sciences (social and natural sciences) but unlike the empirical sciences the theories in maths and philosophy hold true in every universe: They are axioms.



I don't disagree with what you are saying I am not denying it should or can be classified as a formal science. Personally I don't like the idea of classifying it as a formal science (specifically mathematics) and I have for some time usually considered it a physical science.

As said before I find mathematics a unique scientific discipline which could be classified as part of a range of sub-sciences, therefore I never really question what ones opinion on mathematics is as a sub-science.

OFC this is just my opinion for this one discipline, I am not stating its indefinitely to be a physical science.
Original post by The Arsonist
I was talking about the study of medicine. This is under University Courses so assumed that's what we were alluding to. Nonetheless, your interpretation of 'an art' is loose at best.

That last one is a bit of a cop-out. It's a component of any job to be able to communicate well. The environment is just different. Pathologists don't really ever have to speak to patients, nor academics. Thus, it's not an integral part of medicine. Sure, you have anxious people and this is novel but it's not a skill set not otherwise seen in sciences.


I don't really think you can say that communication isn't an integral part of medicine!!
Original post by The Arsonist
I was talking about the study of medicine. This is under University Courses so assumed that's what we were alluding to. Nonetheless, your interpretation of 'an art' is loose at best.


Okay, but any sensible person would realise that to view medicine as just a degree is a bit pointless considering the fact that you spend most of your time on placement and the whole purpose of the degree is to train you for a particular job. This is the angle which I am coming from in my post, so if you disagree with that, we're kind of at cross purposes.

Even if you wish to consider just the degree itself, medicine contains...

1) aspects of social sciences, unlike a BSc
2) communication skills
3) the application these skills in a real time environment and examination of said skills at every stage of the course

It's not just about "the study of disease and diagnostic processes". Otherwise all medical students would learn out of textbooks and no one would ever go on placement. This has been an accepted concept in medical education since the 19th century. This is the reason why medical schools do not simply recruit people who have the best grades in sciences and maths - there are other skills required which don't simply come as part of a package with good scientific knowledge (even though that is essential too).

That last one is a bit of a cop-out. It's a component of any job to be able to communicate well. The environment is just different.


Er...yes. But this isn't just about communicating "well", it's about communicating in a particular manner with patients who come from a wide range of different backgrounds and with a wide range of different complaints. It's not a "bit different", it's entirely different.

Pathologists don't really ever have to speak to patients, nor academics.


Pathologists still go through medical school and the foundation programme which takes at least 7 years, so once again, you can't get to that stage merely by memorising lots of applied science.

Also, academic doctors definitely do see patients. I'm not sure why you think they wouldn't.

Sure, you have anxious people and this is novel but it's not a skill set not otherwise seen in sciences.


Well a chemist doesn't ever have to reassure an anxious test tube or talk to the test tube's angry family, so I'm not sure what you mean really. Having done a science degree, I can assure you that the "skill set" you learn as a med student and a doctor are not found in other degrees or scientific jobs.
(edited 8 years ago)
Lol, I am doing a Life Sciences subject...hopefully I get into Haematology/Microbiology.

Quick Reply

Latest