Hedra42 said:
You are addressing my first point on confusing belief/faith with scientific methods, by giving further analysis on another point of mine which is totally unrelated - your claim that one needs to be greedy and ignorant to be a scientist. And you have addressed it by pasting the definition of practitioner from Google, lol! I'm not going to argue any more about this with someone who is obviously in denial. Uh, because you asked me to show you where you said that a hypothesis or theory is the same as faith. That conversation began with you asking me if I believed in electrons which then led on to your claim "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence," leading to my questioning the level of your understanding of the difference between hypothesis /theory and faith / belief. Check the original post out yourself. Well all you did was mention the word 'singularities'. I don't know how you'd expect a reaction from that. You obviously have a short memory, or else you didn't read the evidence you posted on bloodletting earlier on in this thread. The scientist who tested the effectiveness of bloodletting on flu sufferers found that it didn't have any benefit. If you read the evidence you provided for me more closely, you'll see that as medical knowledge improved, physicians had to persuade patients that blood lettings were not necessary. So I maintain - no belief or faith was involved, except perhaps on the part of the patients. From the evidence you provided, physicians generally adhered to verified procedures based on the knowledge at the time. It may be practiced in a harmful way in certain parts of the world, but bloodletting still has its place in modern medicine in developed countries. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3858087.stm
You didn't say they were ignorant when viewed through the lens of our current level of development. You implied were ignorant, and challenged me to deny it. Just a little reminder for your short memory: 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 Then perhaps you should do research first before making unevidenced claims on message boards.
|
"your claim that one needs to be greedy and ignorant to be a scientist."
you're twisting my words again to run away... what i actually said is that both are qualities that the practitioners of science always have and anyone who's reasoning properly understands that humans are practitioners
" I'm not going to argue any more about this with someone who is obviously in denial."
sure... you're denying that practitioner means person and i'm in denial lol
"Well all you did was mention the word 'singularities'. I don't know how you'd expect a reaction from that."
yeah... in the context of you asking for an example
"You obviously have a short memory, or else you didn't read the evidence you posted on bloodletting earlier on in this thread. The scientist who tested the effectiveness of bloodletting on flu sufferers found that it didn't have any benefit."
yes... which was my point... the people who continued to do the practice did so disregarding the evidence, because they had "faith"
" If you read the evidence you provided for me more closely, you'll see that as medical knowledge improved, physicians had to persuade patients that blood lettings were not necessary."
in some cases yes and in others they did so without persuasion, again because they had "faith"
"From the evidence you provided, physicians generally adhered to verified procedures based on the knowledge at the time."
which depending on the time period was blood letting... eventually they stopped sure but it was a widely used and accepted procedure for a while
and your use of "general" here is telling don't you think?
"You didn't say they were ignorant when viewed through the lens of our current level of development. You implied were ignorant, and challenged me to deny it. Just a little reminder for your short memory:
uh and are you really saying that these people were not ignorant? are you kidding me right now? lol"
um are you kidding right now
if i say that i was ignorant in the past, wtf does that mean? lol do you know the meaning of the word ignorant?
"Then perhaps you should do research first before making unevidenced claims on message boards."
i've backed up every claim i've made, i can't force you to accept evidence, that's on you