o_O.Q said:
"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 |
|
"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 |
What you actually said, and I quote: "i think what you are missing is that 'ignorance, greed' are indispensable aspects of the practitioners of science".
Let's analyse that, so you can understand exactly what that means, and so you can understand why I have a problem with the validity of this statement.
Ignorance, greed are indispensable (definition: absolutely necessary) aspects (definition: a quality) of the practitioners (a person actively engaged in an art, discipline, or profession, especially medicine) of science.
Note how you specified practitioners of science. Not practitioners of any other discipline or profession, your claim was specifically about practitioners of science.
Insert these definitions and discard the disciplines and professions that don't fit with your specification of science, and you have "Ignorance, greed are absolutely necessary qualities of the people actively engaged in science."
That means, people actively engaged in science need to be greedy and ignorant, because those qualities are absolutely necessary.
Now, if that wasn't what you intended to mean, then I suggest you retract and clarify your claim.
|
"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 |
In the context of me asking for an example of what? Is it that you want to use singularities as an example to prove your claim that
"in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence"?
If that's what you mean, then please provide a link to some evidence relating to singularities to prove that claim.
|
"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"
|
And your point is Incorrect; the first quote in the box below contradicts it.
|
" 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"
|
Patients may have had faith in their physicians, but we are not discussing the patients' 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? |
Finally you agree that it was a widely used and accepted procedure based on the verified scientific knowledge of the time, and not an example of "faith". In fact, you had already accepted that your claim about "faith" didn't apply to scientists of the past, since the claim is aimed at scientists of the present. You have offered the topic of singularities as replacement evidence to back up your claim about "faith" in the scientific community of the present. I will be waiting to see the link to that evidence in your next reply.
(BTW, my inclusion of the word 'general' acknowledges the certain individuals who took longer to modify their practices in the light of emerging medical evidence, an example of which you kindly provided later on.)
|
"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
|
I posted an example of your comment, and you're telling me I'm kidding? Okay, I'll find actual links to the examples of you implying that scientists of the past were ignorant, if you don't believe me.
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8688841
Hedra42 -
"The people that bled people were not ignorant. Definition of ignorant: lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated."
o_O.Q -
yeah... and the practitioners of this method lacked the knowledge and awareness to question their belief in it... i don't see how you can deny that
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8688070
o_O.Q -
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
I have not been able to find anywhere in this thread any evidence of you claiming that scientists of the past were ignorant "when viewed through the lens of our current level of development", so unless you can point me to it, with a link to the post that contains it, I'll assume that this is a lie.
|
"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
|
That's the biggest lie so far. I will remind you of the list of various claims you made in this thread, which I first compiled here http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8687547 - and which I asked you to back them up with evidence twice, and so far all you have done is comment on them. In fact, this is the third time I've compiled them, and they're all here in the box below, highlighted in bold, (bar one, which has been resolved through examining evidence on a related claim) I have inserted the status of each (in italics).
|
“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” (No evidence supplied) “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...” (no evidence supplied) (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" (no evidence supplied) "i think what you are missing is that " ignorance, greed" are indispensable aspects of the practitioners of science " (Content of claim being analysed)
|
How can I be forced to accept evidence on any of these when you haven't provided it in the first place?
Last edited by Hedra42 - on 12 January 2018
