The mantra with Medical School was “50% of the stuff we taught you is incorrect - you’ll spend the next 10 years sorting out which 50%.”
However, my medical school (UCSD) beat the tar out of me - first semester 31 units, and 100% of your grades were on a single test at the end of the semester - no buffer at all.
That’s quite ordinary in European universities.
Zdog … loved his stuff … I appreciate that is an EM inside area of knowledge - but his video on ultrasound pulmonary embolism and his rap with this was amazing. I’d love if someone can find the link to his as I’ve been unable to.
Well it sucked really bad … but I passed obviously. UCSD was the 5th most difficult med school to get into in 1990 in the U.S. out of a 130 … and $3000/year tuition back then.
Exactly, after his professional bodybuilder and personal trainer career, he became a professor at Lehman college, Bronx, and had no more time to train intensely.
Today I’ve been kind of fixated on the ad-corporem fallacy. If I were overweight I would never go to an overweight dietist. This is a conspicuos example of ad-corporem fallacy, which i admittedly would be a victim of.
Also, when I used to follow the low-carb and keto influencers, I noticed that many of’em, although affirming that such a regime is good to lose weight, were visibly overweight. The mind is quick to make the leap: they are overweight, so the keto diet isn’t good enough to shed weight. But this is an ad-corporem fallacy.
Likewise, I used to follow a certain Dr. Rosedale, a supporter of longevity low-carb, low-protein diet (the Rosedale diet). He was very thin, so the mind goes expeditiously to establish that the Rosedale diet is good for losing weight, regardless of any other theoretical, empirical, or statistical consideration. Again, ad-corporem.
It seems to be a tu quoque version of the ad hominem, it is not wholly dependent on it, so other factors must play a role to not be a fallacy.
The third version of the ad hominem fallacy is the tu quoque. It involves not accepting a view or a recommendation because the espouser him- or herself does not follow it. Thus, if our neighbor advises us to exercise regularly and we reject her advice on the basis that she does not exercise regularly, we commit the tu quoque fallacy: the value of advice is not wholly dependent on the integrity of the advisor.
Yes, if we construe for example the fact that Brad Schoenfeld is not very big because he doesn’t exercise enough, and we reject his advice on muscle hypertrophy on the basis that he doesn’t exercise enough to be pronouncedly hypertrophic, then this would be a tu quoque fallacy.
So, this could be an interesting case of a possible double fallacy: ad-corporem OR tu quoque.
Maybe both, depending on our perception.
And maybe, since you raised the possibility, there might exist even more potential fallacies.
I would never follow the suggestions, even if scientifically sound, not to eat fish oil coming from the red herring: maybe an ad-corporem fallacy?
Great thread, thank you!
I have this poster hanging in my office as well a few others from this organization.
Especially tough for weight loss and diet since weight loss is far more about will power than diet.
Small world. I was doing my ER residency from 90-93 at the Navy Hospital in SanDiego and doing rotations at UCSD. Got to work with Peter Rosen.
Amazing, I did my OB/Gyn and Surgery at Naval Hospital San Diego and also met Peter Rosen - but didn’t do an ER rotation. He is a legend. My residency was Family Medicine, and in Australia I have my EM certification - much more detailed than the U.S. - it is a minimum of 9 years post medical school to be an EM Physician there. They credited me with a lot of my time - but had to take some really tough exams.
