o_O.Q said:
"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? |
| o_O.Q said:
yeah... and before medical science advanced they believed in these procedures without adequate evidence... so how does that not substantiate my claim? |
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.
| o_O.Q said:
yes... that was my point, thank you |
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.
o_O.Q said:
yes after decades of faith in bs |
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.
|
o_O.Q said: 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 |
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.
o_O.Q said:
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 |
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
o_O.Q said:
oh... you disagree that religion suppresses technological advancement? |
I didn't voice my disagreement with anything. I am asking for supporting evidence on your argument against Permalite's statement.
o_O.Q said:
yeah... i've never met a human that wasn't ignorant or greedy to some degree... have you? |
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.
|
o_O.Q said:
the fact that these things went on for decades and centuries in some cases... are you denying history?
|
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.
|
o_O.Q said:
what is your problem with dodos?
|
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.
Last edited by Hedra42 - on 11 January 2018
