Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Isn't gravity a law?
-
The 2026-2027 DO School Specific Threads are now available in the School Specific Discussions forum. The 2025-2026 discussions are now available in the prior year discussions forum.
LUCOM inaugural class stats...
Started by BestDoctorEver
Isn't gravity a law?
No its a theory
As I said before, gravity is too complicated and does not describe a specific event, hence it cannot be a law. It describes a number of events, hence it is theory that can and fundamentally will be expanded to fit the needs of things that are freaky in this universe.
But the Newton Laws are actual laws, right? Equal reaction for each action etc?
Technically, everything is a theory.
The speed of light is ~300,000 meters per second. Why is that? We made up what a meter means. We made up what a second means.
Why is the speed of light not 62 bananas per hair cut?
What we consider knowledge is nothing more than a collection of assignments we've created to organize the reality we perceive.
The speed of light is ~300,000 meters per second. Why is that? We made up what a meter means. We made up what a second means.
Why is the speed of light not 62 bananas per hair cut?
What we consider knowledge is nothing more than a collection of assignments we've created to organize the reality we perceive.
No. Every thing is not technically a theory. Your claim and your supporting statements aren't even the same topic.
No offense, but reading this thread is really disheartening. The things you guys are talking about are the core concepts of the scientific method and reasoning, something pre-meds should be all too familiar with. Honestly, I don't mean to put people down, but I am reading posts confusing the definitions of "fact" and scientific "theory", what a "theory" actually entails in the scientific community, and humans' need to come to grips with the unknown (what you mean FutureDrB) with continued scientific progress.
Last edited:
Haha, I've heard of it. I'll have to watch it. Is it sci-fi though...can't do sci-fi.
What I'm saying isn't that complicated.
What you know, you only know, because someone at some point in your life told you...and someone told them...and someone told them...back to the point where the first person made it up.
If 20 years ago I handed you an iPhone, you'd say, "What the hell is this?" Then I would say, "This is an iPhone." So now you've acquired the knowledge that this object in your hand is called an iPhone.
Same principle applies whether you're talking about gravity, a chemical element, or a delicious cupcake.
I know what you're getting at and while in some philosophical --rather than scientific-- way you are correct, in the end, you are making a statement so broad that it becomes ultimately meaningless and contributes very little to the discussion. Your point was hard to understand because you equated how humans create arbitrary labels and measurements for natural phenomena, which we use as reference points to quantify our investigations of the world and thus use as tools to build our theories, as being the same thing as an actual theory. That makes no sense. They are not the same and asserting they are suggests a weak understanding of scientific thinking.
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Philosophy and science are interchangeable, you can't have one without the other.
But getting back to topic of this thread, religion and science we can do without.
Feel free to disregard my previous posts, haha, I was just trying to get people to see things at the macro level.
I agree that they're both valuable. I hope you don't think I was attacking you personally. Cheers.
Can we stop arguing like 10 year old girls and get back on track here... 
I'm curious what dropout rates will be like since they accept such borderline numbers... or if they make a point to retain people, I'll be really curious about board scores.
Last edited:
This is interesting the pissing contest that this has turned into...
No one's dropped yet (from what I've heard), but they're only two tests into the semester.
Interesting. Thanks for the info. I'm not trying to make it a "pissing contest", but just curious if LUCOM can demonstrate that undergrad grades/MCAT don't have to dictate med school performance/retention with effective teaching and student motivation. I find most MD schools to be so adamant that only high MCAT/GPA students can succeed with the demanding curriculum, so this (and other new DO schools that accept students who would be sneered out of MD interviews) are cases that make me curious. Heck, maybe the religiosity at LUCOM helps students cope with stress better.
There is always a hierarchy when it comes to stats. The best MD schools usually get the students with best GPA/MCAT, and it trickles down until you reach the Caribbean. Bear in mind however that many (if not most) DO applicants have taken advantage of the grade replacement that only DO's offer. Who knows, maybe some with an AACOMAS GPA of 3.4 (which is quite respectable for DO) would have an AMCAS GPA of 2.8 and, naturally, would never be considered for any US MD schools.
Owing to the fact that applicants today have, in general, better stats than applicants 10-20 years ago I'm not concerned that these newer schools can't train these future doctors to perform well during board exams.
A really valid point. It is startling to see that students getting into some of the top DO schools now couldve gotten into top MD schools a decade or two ago. I have no doubt that above a certain gpa and MCAT threshold (basically proving they are competent and can work), that anyone from any school can become a solid physician, regardless of societal differences in opinion.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
