Virtual human puts doctors inside their patients
Let me preface this by saying that the preceding news article is actually very good news. I worry that what I will say next may give the impression that I am against this “virtual human” as an amazing tool for medical science.
There has been a very interesting discussion going on that I am happy to call attention to yet again, because I think it has the potential to go on and on and on and it’s very cool to me. (It’s an older article from this website and all its following comments.) We have been talking about art and its meanings and manifestations, and somewhere in there is a brief tangent about semantics.
I consider myself a laid-back person, but for some reason I’m a stickler for semantics. I think it’s important that we all know what we’re talking about and express our ideas properly so that others listening may be on the same page. With all our tools of communication nowadays, our language(s) is(are) evolving faster than the ecosystem after a nuclear powerplant meltdown on the Galapagos Islands. In other words, really fast. So whenever I see something, especially a news article, make a linguistic mistake, my first reaction is panic and outrage. I don’t always make sense myself, so I am forgiving of others, but still…grrr.
(Keep reading…)