Hacker News Reader

Comment by blinded | Hacker News Reader

Regressive. Divinity on the list, but not nursing and advance nursing degrees.

The professions are traditionally divinity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity_(academic_discipline)), medicine, and law, so I don't see how you could remove divinity from the list. When you argue for including nursing as a "professional degree", what you're arguing is that it belongs to the category exemplified by those three instances.

Edit: please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profession for the current undestanding of that category.

[flagged]

Without the 13th-century POV in question, the distinction becomes meaningless.

Why? Can we not define what a professional degree is without the historical baggage?

You could make up a new category and call it by the same name as the old category, if what you wanted was to confuse people and make clear thinking more difficult. If you want to define a category without historical baggage, I would prefer that you used a different term so that it was clear that you weren't talking about the concept laden with that baggage.

I don't think many associate the term with the historical baggage here, so its you who are confusing others by using it that way rather than the opposite.

They may not be consciously aware of it, but that makes them more likely to be influenced by it, not less. Having unexamined opinions generally means having self-contradictory opinions, which makes you easy to manipulate.

Moreover, the Department of Education is clearly using the term in the sense I am describing, about whose further historical development you can read more in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profession.

> Moreover, the Department of Education is clearly using the term in the sense I am describing

But that change will confuse people since it has been a professional degree for a long time now. Using ancient definitions causes confusion, it doesn't resolve it.

I'm talking about divinity, not nursing.

Words evolve in meaning all the time. What's included in "science" now is very different from what was included 500 years ago. Doesn't mean we should create a new term for it each time a new discipline is added.

maybe we should include alchemy in the list then

Ever heard of Chemistry?

Chemistry is not alchemy and astronomy is not astrology and philosophy is not divinity.

Alchemy and astrology were the precursors to modern chemistry and astronomy.

Alchemy was a subfield of natural philosophy, not a profession. Its European practicioners had typically studied medicine or theology.

Is this sarcasm?

And people say the humanities aren't important....

Absolutely

Adore your handle

What is divinity?

Edited into parent.

A masters level degree in Christian theology. Traditional Christian denominations require it to be a priest or pastor.

Is the US government preferring one religion over others?

Is nursing not medicine?

It is.

Wtf does tradition have to do with it?

Why the hell does a large portion of this country give a rats ass about tradition, but also larp as caring about progress and effectiveness. These two are logically inconsistent.

If anything we should be removing more traditions than ever.

Word meanings are determined purely by tradition. There isn't an objective reality about what words do or don't mean apart from how people use them. If you make up your own definitions for words instead of using the traditional ones, you sacrifice the possibility of communication with people who don't know your definitions. That's glory for you!

Words change meaning and definitions drift all the time. Language isn't static and adapts to modern times.

Besides, this bizarre tangent about tradition ignores that this has some very practical downsides for nurses, it's not just about preserving tradition or whatnot.

You're equivocating. Rejecting the relevance of a centuries-old traditional definition does not mean that all words have suddenly lost all meaning.

The problem is the "traditionally" part. What merit does tradition have? None.

Of course tradition has no real merit on its own, but studying the same linguistic tradition is what enables two people to communicate by using language. Unless you manage to complete John Wilkins's project, perhaps, and eliminate the arbitrariness of Wilkins's decisions.

However, in this conversation, we are speaking English, whose words owe their meaning entirely to tradition.

> However, in this conversation, we are speaking English, whose words owe their meaning entirely to tradition.

The meaning of words change over time, so you are wrong, words meaning are not entirely from tradition or else their meaning would not change.

Or if you agree that traditions can change, then what the word meant year 1300 doesn't matter, things has changed since then.

And the word "word" used to mean "to speak", as in make a sound. The word "merit" likely meant "to assign". Current day meaning matters a lot more than what something used to be.

Yes I profess that these antiquated terms are deeply disturbed

> Regressive. Divinity on the list, but not nursing and advance nursing degrees.

The list on the site has Theology, not Divinity (which is a bit ironic, because Divinity is traditionally the professional degree and Theology the academic one.)

chiropractors also have an origin in pseudoscience, they have sort of evolved into scientific studies in many ways but part of the quackery remains.

Chiropractic was taught to its founder by a ghost

So you're saying it belongs under divinity?

The ghost wasn't holy

It was some regular dead dude’s ghost not god

That’s funny.

But when Ramanujan says 1 + 2 + 3 + … = -1/12 because god told him we accept that as a reasonable explanation.

>But when Ramanujan says 1 + 2 + 3 + … = -1/12 because god told him we accept that as a reasonable explanation.

What community accepts that as reasonable explanation?

I think Ramanujan’s results attained acclaim and notoriety long before rigorous proofs were discovered.

They came to him from God. So apparently divine inspiration can indeed be valuable. Who is to say a Holy Ghost couldn’t divulge secrets of medicine to an anointed prophet.

If you believe in God, it’s blasphemous to suggest the chiropractic ghost was divine or holy. It was the ghost of a regular man.

1 + 2 + 3 + … = -1/12 in the sense that you can factor out the divergence in a well-defined way, and the remainder is -1/12, not 0. Anybody glossing over that divergence is just baiting you, usually for advertising revenue.

In what way are they anything but quacks?

They have more scope to experiment, in my case it was a way for me to access PRP injections before wider adoption. They are paid rather orthography to treatment, they can treat other things while also giving you regular spinal adjustments - similar to the idea that researchers should be paid to teach as paying them to research will pollute the research. We need a way to continue paying dentists so they can stop finding ‘soft spots’ that don’t exist.

I dislike the quackery but traditional science isn’t free from it either. I wish everyone was rational, evidence based and disinterested (as in not having a particular interest on biasing an outcome). But the world we live in is far from that. Consider the percentage of ‘normal’ medical doctors in Germany who believe in homeopathy. A large part of that is due to the terrain school of thought in medicine which lost out to germ theory. An artifact of history rather than rational people and rational study. I’m still looking for a better way the phrase it; but it seems to me that the belief in the belief of science far exceeds the actual belief in science.

If doctors / medical researchers really were so good at research they wouldn’t have taken so long to rediscover the ancient practice of prolotherapy.

> in my case it was a way for me to access PRP injections before wider adoption

So they are not only quacks, but also grifters? The evidence for PRP is basically non-existent. It doesn't hold up in RCTs: https://www.jwatch.org/na54355/2021/12/27/evidence-against-p...

(To be fair, chiros are not unique in grifting PRP -- I've seen traditional doctors selling it too.)

> Consider the percentage of ‘normal’ medical doctors in Germany who believe in homeopathy.

I hadn't heard of this, but, yeah, that's also quackery. Wild. 32% of German GPs report "using" homeopathy once a week. The US medical system may have some problems, but at least believing in homeopathy isn't one of them.

I had a limp from an injury that persisted for 8 years before PRP cleared it up in 3 months. I would have gotten the French sucrose injections earlier but France was a far way off and I couldn’t afford it at the time. I put it in the bucket of prolotherapy not in the bucket of stem cells and on that basis it absolutely works. Being a substance derived from the patient allows it to skip over regulatory hurdles, as mentioned I would have taken sucrose but that wasn’t on offer. The evidence for prolotherapy working is extensive, far exceeding a single study.

In studying actual science along with the fake stuff, mostly. Nowadays they have anatomy, physical therapy classes, etc.

Some of their techniques are also proven to be useful-ish for short term pain management (not for the reasons they claim, it’s similar to acupuncture). So someone who actually tells the patient that the treatment is exclusively for physical therapy and only short time benefits might be useful.

Few are that honest, but for some people that kind of short term help is vital.

It might be what gets you through the wait for a long term procedure, or what lets you rest and sleep to improve actual recovery, for example. Pain management is a need for some people.

Meanwhile when seeking treatment for pain with western medicine:

* first see a GP, no real diagnosis.

* get an ultrasound - everyone already knows it won’t show anything of use but insurance companies require this escalation path

* get an xray - same as above

* maybe if you insist get an MRI.

* regardless the treatment is the same: go to a PT’s office.

That's an artifact of the health system (as an economic/insurance system), not of medicine itself. Chiropractors are different, the problem with them isn't the bureaucracy of insurance.

Conflating medicine with how health systems work in some countries is a serious error.

physical therapist != chiropractor

Reply on news.ycombinator.com