Abstract
The debate about the appropriate methodology of medical education has been (and still is) dominated by the opposing poles of teaching science versus teaching practical skills. I will argue that this conflict between scientific education and practical training has its roots in the underlying, more systematic question about the conceptual foundation of medicine: how far or in what respects can medicine be considered to be a science? By analyzing the epistemological status of medicine I will show that the internal aim of medicine(“promoting health through the prevention and treatment of disease”) differs from the internal aim of science (“the methodological and systematic acquisition of knowledge”). Therefore, medicine as a whole discipline should not be considered as a science. However, medicine can be conceptually and methodologically scientific in so much as it is based on scientific knowledge. There is evidence from cognitive science research that diagnostic reasoning not only relies on the application of scientific knowledge but also — especially in routine cases – on a process of pattern recognition, a reasoning strategy based on the memory of previously encountered patients. Hence, medical education must contain both: the imparting of scientific knowledge and the rich exposure to concrete cases during practical training. Hence, the question of teaching science vs. the apprentice model will not be “either-or” but rather “both — but in which proportion?”
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Flexner, A.: 1910, Medical Education in the United States and Canada. A Report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Boston, MA: Updyke.
Hanson, M.J. and D. Callahan: 1999, The Goals of Medicine: The Forgotten Issue in Health Care Reform. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Kassirer, J.P. and Kopelman, R.I.: 1991, Learning Clinical Reasoning. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
King, L.S.: 1984, ‘The Flexner report of 1910’, JAMA 251, pp. 1079–1086.
Munson, R.: 1981, ‘Why medicine cannot be a science’, The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 6, pp. 183–208.
Osler, W.: 1903, ‘On the need of a radical reform in our methods of teaching senior students’, TheMedical News 82(2), pp. 49–53.
Patel, V.L., Evans, D.A. and Groen, G.J.: 1989, ‘Biomedical knowledge and clinical reasoning’, in: D.A. Evans and V.L. Patel (eds.), Cognitive science in medicine. Biomedical modeling. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 53–112.
Pellegrino, E.D.: 1999, ‘The goals and ends of medicine: how are they to be defined?’, in: M.J. Hanson and D. Callahan (eds.), The Goals of Medicine: The Forgotten Issue in Health Care Reform. Washington: Georgetown University Press, pp. 55–68.
Pellegrino, E.D. and Thomasma, D.C.: 1981, A Philosophical Basis of Medical Practice: Toward a Philosophy and Ethic of the Healing Professions. New York: Oxford University Press New.
Schmidt, H.G., Norman, G.R. and Boshuizen, H.P.: 1990, ‘A cognitive perspective on medical expertise: theory and implication’, Academic Medicine 65(10), pp. 611–621.
von Uexküll, T. and Wesiack, W.: 1991, Theorie der Humanmedizin. Grundlagen ärztlichen Denkens und Handelns, 2nd ed. München: Urban & Schwarzenberg.
Wieland, W.: 1975, Diagnose. Ñberlegungen zur Medizintheorie. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Wiesing, U.: 1993, ‘Medizin zwischen Wissenschaft, Technologie und Kunst’, Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ethik 39, pp. 121–130.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Marckmann, G. Teaching science vs. the apprentice model – do we really have the choice?. Med Health Care Philos 4, 85–89 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009956310614
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009956310614