Hedra42 said:
None of your links support your claim that "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence" The first explains the history of bloodletting, how it was used in the days when the human anatomy was not fully understood, and shows its decline as medical science advanced. It even cites an experiment conducted in 1828 by a scientist that proved bloodletting was ineffective for 'flu, and that by the 1870's, patients had to be convinced not to be bled when they fell ill. Finally, it details the use of leeches in modern day medicine and how they are beneficial, backed up by scientific reasoning. The use of leeches today is certainly not based on faith within the scientific community. Your second details how, in 1911/1912, a skull and jaw were found by some workmen, treated with chemicals and dyes, with the teeth deliberately worn in certain ways to make them look like they were the 500,000 fossils of an early human, and passed on to scientists. The level of scientific testing of the time was not advanced enough to call the authenticity into question. In fact, your link says that despite extensive investigations and work, it was clear that something with these bones did not fit with human evolution, and that skepticism abounded among paleontologists for the next couple of decades. It wasn't until 1939 that chemical analysis was developed to date bones, and not until 1953 that more advanced chemical analysis was able to debunk the hoax. Carbon dating was not a thing until 1959. In fact, your link shows that continued questioning and scientific testing uncovered the truth in the end, that the scientists involved in the 'discovery' were the victims of an elaborate hoax. They could only, perhaps, be accused of being distracted by the fact that the 'find' had been made in England. Your third link is some research about the risks of almagam fillings written by a Swedish dental professor. On reading it, it sounds like having an amalgam filling will result in mercury poisoning, yet we all know millions of people in the world have almagam fillings with no ill effects. The use of almagam is subject to restrictions in certain groups of people, so risks are recognised, but I don’t see how this link supports your claim about scientists having “a good deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence.” On to your next comment: “many people believe in the big bang even though its just a proposition... its quite alright to say that its just a proposition... but people don't really behave like that's the case with these things” These people you refer to are not scientists. On to your final point, where you wanted to know what claims you'd made without supporting evidence: “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” “The development of these and other weapons and the other peripheral effects i touched briefly on (global warming for example) have arguably lead to the loss of more life than the conflicts of religion have...” (in response to Pemalite’s comment "Ironically, it's the far-right, typically religious conservatives that are against the idea of things like climate change and thus the solution to many of those issues you have listed.") "how is it ironic? it could only be ironic if religion caused the problem to begin with... i'd argue that since religion is against technology advancement that its actually quite the opposite" "i think what you are missing is that " ignorance, greed" are indispensable aspects of the practitioners of science " (In response to Pemalite’s “That's not evidence that the Scientific Community uses faith. That is just evidence that the Science wasn't fully understood.") "they had faith that the evidence presented in these cases was accurate and as a result they used harmful procedures or pushed lies... how can you really deny that?" I would love to see some real supporting evidence for these. Maybe then we could have a proper discussion. Although…. Hedra42 " What point are you trying to make about this? That we should never have progressed from the stone age?" o_O.Q “maybe, i mean at least we'd still have dodos” Maybe a proper discussion is off the agenda.
|
"The first explains the history of bloodletting, how it was used in the days when the human anatomy was not fully understood, and shows its decline as medical science advanced."
yeah... and before medical science advanced they believed in these procedures without adequate evidence... so how does that not substantiate my claim?
"The level of scientific testing of the time was not advanced enough to call the authenticity into question."
yes... that was my point, thank you
"In fact, your link shows that continued questioning and scientific testing uncovered the truth in the end"
yes after decades of faith in bs
you seem to not understand that i'm not calling this a permanent condition necessarily but it does exist and it looks like you acknowledge that it does even if you won't concede my claim
"These people you refer to are not scientists."
i know of people employed in scientific fields that believe in the big bang and most likely you do also... i think what you meant to say is people educated on this topic
"“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”"
well i mean logically, i don't think someone could believe that logically, since explosives, pollutants etc etc etc are creations of science right?... what about you? do you think anyone who believes that could be thinking logically?
"“The development of these and other weapons and the other peripheral effects i touched briefly on (global warming for example) have arguably lead to the loss of more life than the conflicts of religion have...”"
definition of "arguably" - "it may be argued (used to qualify the statement of an opinion or belief)."
""how is it ironic? it could only be ironic if religion caused the problem to begin with... i'd argue that since religion is against technology advancement that its actually quite the opposite""
oh... you disagree that religion suppresses technological advancement?
""i think what you are missing is that " ignorance, greed" are indispensable aspects of the practitioners of science ""
yeah... i've never met a human that wasn't ignorant or greedy to some degree... have you?
""they had faith that the evidence presented in these cases was accurate and as a result they used harmful procedures or pushed lies... how can you really deny that?""
the fact that these things went on for decades and centuries in some cases... are you denying history?
"“maybe, i mean at least we'd still have dodos”
Maybe a proper discussion is off the agenda."
what is your problem with dodos?
