[Skip to Navigation]
January 1963

The Scholar in Clinical Medicine

Arch Intern Med. 1963;111(1):1-3. doi:10.1001/archinte.1963.03620250005001

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


We have heard so much of the "two worlds"—science versus humanism, the classics, and the humanities—that some think such a division is not only real but important. Worse degrees of schizophrenia exist within each of the several guilds of learning than between them. There are scientists who are scholars as learned in humane letters as those who claim humane letters as a profession, and a classical scholar may be rigorously scientific. Perhaps it is nearer the truth to say that a sense of form and the rigor of critique have gone limp generally but not just in the field of science or of humane letters. At least there is need for the humanist to be scientific and the scientist to be both humanistic and humane. In the light of these notions, problems, and conflicts it seems useful to set down a statement of what the scholar in clinical medicine should

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview