This blog post from the British Library showcases a 15th-century manuscript (Harley MS 1760) containing a fascinating early example of medical licensing. The document grants "Master Nicholao" permission to practice medicine in the diocese of Norwich, specifically allowing him to treat internal ailments. Issued by the Bishop of Norwich, it highlights the Church's historical role in regulating medical practice and reveals contemporary understanding of medical specializations, differentiating between treating internal diseases and surgical procedures. The manuscript exemplifies the intersection of religious authority and healthcare in medieval England.
The blog post explores the potential of generative AI in historical research, showcasing its utility through three case studies. The author demonstrates how ChatGPT, Claude, and Bing AI can be used to summarize lengthy texts, analyze historical events from multiple perspectives, and generate creative content such as fictional dialogues between historical figures. While acknowledging the limitations and inaccuracies these models sometimes exhibit, the author emphasizes their value as tools for accelerating research, brainstorming new interpretations, and engaging with historical material in novel ways, ultimately arguing that they can augment, rather than replace, the work of historians.
HN users discussed the potential benefits and drawbacks of using generative AI for historical research. Some expressed enthusiasm for its ability to quickly summarize large bodies of text, translate languages, and generate research ideas. Others were more cautious, highlighting the potential for hallucinations and biases in the AI outputs, emphasizing the crucial need for careful fact-checking and verification. Several commenters noted that these tools could be most useful for exploratory research and generating hypotheses, but shouldn't replace traditional methods. One compelling comment suggested that AI might be especially helpful for "distant reading" approaches to history, allowing for the analysis of large-scale patterns and trends in historical texts. Another interesting point raised the possibility of using AI to identify and analyze subtle biases present in historical sources. The overall sentiment was one of cautious optimism, acknowledging the potential power of AI while recognizing the importance of maintaining rigorous scholarly standards.
Summary of Comments ( 13 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42832114
HN users discuss the historical context of medical licensing, highlighting how it served to protect established physicians and potentially stifle innovation. Some point out the inherent difficulty in assessing medical competence in earlier eras, lacking the standardized testing and scientific understanding we have today. Others draw parallels to modern regulatory hurdles faced by startups and new technologies, suggesting that licensing, while intended to protect the public, can also create barriers to entry and limit progress. The elitism and gatekeeping aspects of early licensing are also mentioned, with some arguing that similar dynamics still exist in modern healthcare systems. A few users express skepticism about the overall efficacy of medical licensing throughout history, questioning whether it has truly improved patient outcomes.
The Hacker News post titled "Permission to Practise Medicine," linking to a British Library blog post about a medieval physician's license, generated several interesting comments.
One commenter highlighted the striking similarities between the historical licensing process and modern medical regulation, noting the continued importance of established authorities granting permission to practice. They found it fascinating that core elements of professional certification have persisted across centuries.
Another commenter pointed out the irony of the physician, John of Burgundy, being licensed to practice in London despite apparently not being English. They connected this to the broader historical context of migration and the movement of skilled individuals across borders, suggesting that even in the Middle Ages, cities recognized and sought out expertise regardless of nationality.
A further comment focused on the text of the license itself, specifically the phrase granting permission "in the city and suburbs of London." This commenter questioned the geographical extent of the suburbs at that time and speculated on the challenges of defining the boundaries of the city's jurisdiction.
Someone else expressed surprise at the apparent lack of a requirement for formal medical education, contrasting it with modern stringent educational pathways for physicians. They wondered about the prevailing medical knowledge and practices of the period and how competency was assessed in the absence of standardized training.
The discussion also touched upon the role of the Bishop of London in granting the license, prompting a commenter to discuss the historical intertwining of religious authority and secular governance, particularly in matters of public health and welfare.
Finally, a commenter reflected on the broader historical context of the Black Death, suggesting that the licensing of physicians might have been partly a response to the devastating plague and a desire to regulate medical practices in a time of crisis. They pondered whether this period saw an increased emphasis on formalizing medical authority.
These comments collectively offer various perspectives on the historical license, touching on themes of professional regulation, migration, urban geography, medical education, religious authority, and the impact of historical events. They provide a richer understanding of the context surrounding the document and raise intriguing questions about the evolution of medical practice.