| Hedra42 said:
Your claim was "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence" The link does not substantiate the claim because it is about medical practices that were based on scientific observations and the available evidence of the time. They probably did have successes with leeches in the past, otherwise they wouldn't have been as widely used as they were, but we are talking about science today. Your link actually shows that modern medicine still uses leeches in certain circumstances, but this is based on the scientific evidence of the benefits of anti-bloodclotting agents in their saliva, not faith. No, that was not your point, and it has been deliberately taken out of context. Your point was that "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence" My point was that the scientists of the day were unknowingly working on hoaxed evidence, and came up with reasonable claims based on their observations. Despite these initially accepted claims, there was an unease about the authenticity of the bones which, back then, couldn't yet be proved. This unease, and the subsequent testing and re-testing until the truth was revealed had nothing to do with faith.
No, not after decades of faith in bs, as you so eloquently put it, it was after decades of wasted research and thought trying to fit these relics into the record of human evolution, and decades of uneasiness and speculation over the authenticity of the find, according to your own evidence. You said "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence" Scientists test hypotheses and theories based on existing evidence and observations, to ascertain proof and further their knowledge. If new discoveries are made, they may need to modify their hypotheses and theories. Sometimes a new discovery might turn a theory on its head, or lead to a medical breakthrough that makes existing practices look primitive and cumbersome in comparison. That doesn't mean that obsolete theories and practices can be regarded in hindsight as 'faith in bs'. It was valid science of the time. Every step forward in science provides the foundation for the next, providing successes to build on and lessons to learn by. Even as they pass into obsolescence, every scientific advancement is still as vitally important historically as today's cutting edge developments.
The theory of the origin of the universe was developed based on observations and evidence. People may support this theory, but to say people believe in it is wrong. Again, you are confusing belief / faith (where no proof is sought) with hypotheses and theories, for which scientists strive to obtain proof and verification in their quest for knowledge and understanding. Personally, I think that based on the evidence so far, the big bang theory is plausible, but it is incomplete - it doesn't answer questions like what caused the expansion, or whether what we are observing is the first such instance of the expansion of the universe. There are questions still to be answered about the nature of the contents of the universe which may, in time, change the way we understand its origins, and the theories that go with it. But I don't 'believe in the big bang' just because it's the big bang, and nor do scientists. Now, on to the quotes of your claims - which I had hoped you would provide supporting evidence for, but I see that you haven't. Where is your supporting evidence that nobody can disagree with the fact that science has a more negative impact than religion? Where is your supporting evidence that science has caused more loss of life than religion? (using the word arguably is not a get-out clause. If there's an argument for something, there should be something supporting it) The rest of your 'claims' don't have supporting evidence either, but I'll respond to them anyway I didn't voice my disagreement with anything. I am asking for supporting evidence on your argument against Permalite's statement. I picked up on that quote of yours because it specifically attributes ignorance and greed to the practitioners of science. Where is your evidence? Don't try to get out of it by now applying these attributes to everyone. I have already explained how scientific progress works, and I believe Permalite has, too. Again, I am asking for supporting evidence for your response to Permalites statement. I rest my case. By your response, you have said that maybe we should never have progressed from the stone age. You have made unsubstantiated claims that ignorance and greed are indispensible attributes of scientists. You have claimed, without supporting evidence, that science has caused more loss of life than religion, and you have claimed, without supporting evidence, that nobody can disagree that science has had a more negative impact than religion. You have failed to give proper evidence supporting your claim that scientists work on faith, and you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the difference between theory/hypothesis and faith. You have also demonstrated your lack of understanding about the continuing progress of scientific study by describing historical knowledge and practices as utilising 'faith', having 'ignorance' and 'pushing lies'. And all you can come back with is a question about a problem with dodos? That's why I think a proper discussion is off the agenda.
|
"Your point was that "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence""
ok i didn't remember that i said presently, so that was a mistake, but i mean obviously if you believe that we'll make progress as we refine our technology then there'll be methods and ideas that we use now that will be discarded
its a perpetual practice for humanity, but regardless as a present example i'd mention singularities
" That doesn't mean that obsolete theories and practices can be regarded in hindsight as 'faith in bs'. It was valid science of the time."
but we aren't looking at this from the context of being there at the time but from here in the present
"The theory of the origin of the universe was developed based on observations and evidence. People may support this theory, but to say people believe in it is wrong. "
really? you don't think people just believe in some things because an authority in the field told them and they just trust the authority?
"Again, you are confusing belief / faith (where no proof is sought)"
i'd disagree with that, for example, religious people look for their proof in their holy books
i know that faith is defined as belief with evidence but i don't think that's really the case, i think the hang up is with regards to what type of evidence
"Where is your supporting evidence that nobody can disagree with the fact that science has a more negative impact than religion?"
you reworded what i said, this is what i said and i already addressed this but lets go again then
“i do think science has had more significant negative impacts on the planet than religion... and i don't think anyone can really disagree with that”
all situations where the planet has been damaged on a large scale by humans have been caused by science... examples would be oil spills, bombings, nuclear tests, nuclear accidents etc etc etc
can you forward anything on the religious side that is comparable?
"using the word arguably is not a get-out clause. If there's an argument for something, there should be something supporting it"
the billions of people that have died throughout the centuries due to guns, knives, swords, bombs, synthetic substances etc etc etc do you have a counterpoint?
"You have made unsubstantiated claims that ignorance and greed are indispensible attributes of scientists. "
but i mean what am i supposed to say to someone that doesn't acknowledge that greed and ignorance are inherent to human beings?
you're pretty much expecting me to argue something that's fundamental to existence, like asking me to prove that water is wet
wouldn't it be stupid for me to ask you to prove that water is wet? that's what you're doing right now
". You have claimed, without supporting evidence, that science has caused more loss of life than religion"
this is a lie
"that nobody can disagree that science has had a more negative impact than religion."
and this is a misquote presumably to worm away from the answer i gave
"ou have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the difference between theory/hypothesis and faith."
can you show me where i said that a hypothesis or theory is the same as faith?
the practices i spoke of were not regarded as hypotheses, they were accepted as verified treatments at the time... to try to use that to say that i have said that a hypothesis and faith are the same thing is a looooooooonnnnnnnnnnng stretch
" You have also demonstrated your lack of understanding about the continuing progress of scientific study by describing historical knowledge and practices as utilising 'faith', having 'ignorance' and 'pushing lies'."
uh are you really denying that piltdown man was a lie? i could see you trying to make that argument for the medical procedures sure but piltdown man? lol
uh and are you really saying that these people were not ignorant? are you kidding me right now? lol
so people that bled people out to cure them weren't ignorant? ok lol
and finally as i said above the procedures i referred to were not regarded as hypotheses... its not like these people were coming to this from the pov of testing the validity of the procedures, they were accepted as legitimate during those time periods
that would be like saying that if we find better cancer treatment methods in the future, that radiation therapy was just a "hypothesis" lol
Last edited by o_O.Q - on 11 January 2018
