Hedra42 said:
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.
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.
And your point is Incorrect; the first quote in the box below contradicts it.
Patients may have had faith in their physicians, but we are not discussing the patients' faith.
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.)
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.
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).
How can I be forced to accept evidence on any of these when you haven't provided it in the first place?
|
