Discussion on why Medicine is a science not an art; The Science of Medicine, Hippocrates

Why you might read the Science of Medicine?

The Science of Medicine gives us more insight. Especially into how Hippocrates separated the Charlatans and the actual practitioners. It follows on from his previous work to define good practice and good science.

In my Self Education project, it fills the role of completing a corpus. While it may have only a little to add by itself it is a part of a greater whole of what Hippocrates wrote.

The content of the Science of Medicine

The Science of Medicine covers Hippocrates arguments for medicine as a science. He argues against it being an art. He covers it both in the positive, that it is a science. He does this via arguments about a physician being able to learn from his patient's condition. That this learning lets him better help future patients. He also covers some of the objections. For example, the idea that even some untreated patients get well, while some who are treated die. He explains this by saying that the one that gets well has followed the advice a practitioner would give. Though he does so unknowingly and that is why he gets well. While the one who dies he says is likely not to have followed the advice given through lack of strength. 

Hippocrates also spends some time discussing the difficulties of treating internal diseases. Because they cannot be seen often they are given remedy far to late and the disease wins.

Reflection on the Science of Medicine

Hippocrates is almost a Philosopher with his arguments in this work. I am a little surprised in fact at how much of this he has done. How little, so far, has been written about the actual practice of Medicine.

We see again Hippocrates' passion for the role of Physician. How much he wants to protect the position from the falsehoods that are around. This is especially true as he works through objections to medicine being a science.

What others have to say about the Science of Medicine.

From Dr Axe "Still to this day medical doctors and historians consider Hippocrates to be the founder of medicine as a “rational science.”"

Comparisons to other texts

This text is really a continuation of The Oath and The Canon as it continues to expand upon the nature of medicine and what it is to be a good practitioner. It continues to expand upon the idea that medicine can be learned both from a teacher as well as through scientific methodology. So that a practitioner never stops learning from his patients' conditions and taking that to the next patient.

Conclusion

This text is Hippocrates proving that medicine is a science. He does this by first proving the positive and giving reasons why this is so. He then spends time dispelling the questions and ideas against his point. Finally, he distracts himself a little with a discussion on internal diseases.

Have you read The Science of Medicine? If so what did you think of it? 

 
Want to read The Science of Medicine but haven't? Please leave me a comment and let me know why you want to read it.

Hopefully, this post inspires you to take the time to look into it on your own journey of Self Education.

Get a copy of The Science of Medicine.

Sun Tzu, The Art of War; In death ground, fight

I'm half way through my training for the call center job. It's going really well I'm passing all the tests. In some ways, I can't see how we will be reading in another 3 weeks and yet at times, I'm like "I've got this".

The Art of War is a rather pithy and to the point. It was a joy to reread and is the first book that I have reread in order to blog about it.

Synopsis
The Art of War outlines Master Sun's lessons on how to run a military, mainly at the tactical level but parts do suit the strategic level as well.
Master Sun breaks it down into 13 chapters ranging from assessment and planning, to intelligence and espionage. Over all, it consists of short bites of what a good general needs to be thinking about to make war to his own advantage. Master Sun likes to give both the positive and the negative of each idea. The 'what to do' and 'what not to do'. He breaks down things like 'what sort of ground' into types, then expounds exactly on what to do on those terrains. He is not afraid to say, 'do not engage with the enemy' or even, 'retreat'. We see over the course of the work that he is dedicated to making war in the way that is both of your own choosing as well as to your advantage.

Reflections
The Art of war is so short and yet so much goes on inside it. It is also a book that still gets quoted a lot in military circles, as well as high flying business. It is interesting how it transcends cultures and military styles. I think, this is because it focuses on what the General can do in advance, rather than once the army's get to grips with each other. It also contains many pithy quotes like; "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." 

Comparisons
There is not a lot to compare the Art of War to yet, as we do not see preserved European texts about war at this period. We do see stylistic similarities with the Analects and the Tao Te Ching.

Have you read The Art of War? If so what did you think of it?

Want to read The Art of War but haven't? Hopefully this inspires you to take the time to do so.
Get a copy of The Art of War.