1
2
Next

Read Discussion
Reply to All

1

Now, About That Flawed Science?

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Now, About That Flawed Science?
When examining how people arrive at their belief systems, there is a thing which One finds to be quite incongruous and confusing:

Now, certain Believers are quick to discredit and disbelieve science and those scientists who present the evidence for such things as evolution and global warming. But at the same time, when these Believers are sick, they have no problem trusting this science and those scientists and their counterparts for treatment.

So in essence, Believers are once again contradicting themselves. When it is to their immediate benefit or interest, they have no problem trusting their lives to "flawed science" and its scientist. But when it appears not to be to their benefit (primarily monetary) they have a problem with scientists and their "flawed science." But yet, this "flawed science" provides them with the medicines that they need to cure or alleviate their various ailments.

So, questions: If One cannot trust "flawed science" and the scientists with their assessments on evolution and global warming, then how can you trust "flawed science" and the scientists with your life? Can you have it both ways?

Doctors and scientist, do they not both go hand in hand? Can you find a doctor without finding a scientist close by?

Should you be visiting that doctor for your next ailment? Shouldn't you be staying away from those who are associated with that "flawed science?"

Should you be taking those prescription pills which were created with that "flawed science?"

Or is this just another example of that disease of hypocrisy which has been plaguing the community of Believers?

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,023 • Replies: 30

No top replies

Re: Now, About That Flawed Science?

Mindonfire wrote:

So in essence, Believers are once again contradicting themselves.

It's a contradiction only if one believes that either the entirety of science is correct or that the entirety of science is incorrect. I can't think of anyone, "Believer" or otherwise, who would subscribe to that asinine proposition.

Mindonfire wrote:

If One cannot trust "flawed science" and the scientists with their assessments on evolution and global warming, then how can you trust "flawed science" and the scientists with your life? Can you have it both ways?

Yes. The easiest way is to remember that geologists don't go to medical school, but physicians do. Keep this in mind the next time you're tempted to consult a geologist when you have respitory problems, or when you're tempted to consult your physician when you have a question about tectonic plate movement.

0 Replies

Yeah what Shapeless said.

0 Replies

Re: Now, About That Flawed Science?

Shapeless wrote:

It's a contradiction only if one believes that either the entirety of science is correct or that the entirety of science is incorrect. I can't think of anyone, "Believer" or otherwise, who would subscribe to that asinine proposition.[/quote]

LOL! Where have you been sleeping? Many of today's Christians do.

Shapeless wrote:

Yes. The easiest way is to remember that geologists don't go to medical school, but physicians do. Keep this in mind the next time you're tempted to consult a geologist when you have respitory problems, or when you're tempted to consult your physician when you have a question about tectonic plate movement.

Well considering that your physician doles out medicine which is made by those scientists who all basically use the same methods to arrive at their respective conclusions. Therefore, if these methods lead them to arrive at these flawed conclusions about evolution and global warming, then they will lead them to flawed conclusions in respects to the human body. So if all of their conclusions are so wrong about evolution and global warming, then why are you trusting these scientists with your life?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Yeah what Shapeless said.

What did he say? What about you? What do you yourself say?

0 Replies

You just attempted to quote it.

You don't know?

0 Replies

Re: Now, About That Flawed Science?

Mindonfire wrote:

LOL! Where have you been sleeping? Many of today's Christians do.

Well, you don't have to take my word for it. Start an A2K post and ask Christians if they believe that either all scientific claims are correct or all scientific claims are incorrect. You'll see how well your Christian straw man holds up to real-life models.

Mindonfire wrote:

Well considering that your physician doles out medicine which is made by those scientists who all basically use the same methods to arrive at their respective conclusions.

Please explain how the methods for diagnosing lymphoma are "basically the same" as the methods for measuring regional carbon dioxide emissions.

0 Replies

Mindonfire,

No individual has an entirely consistent or coherent thought/belief system. The word "personality" epitomises this from its origins in the Greek word persona for "actor's mask". The only difference between (religious) believers and non-believers in their attitude to "science" is that the former apply greater selectivity in their usage of scientific results. Indeed as an extreme example "Christian Scientists" shun most forms of medical treatment.

0 Replies

Re: Now, About That Flawed Science?

Shapeless wrote:

Mindonfire wrote:
LOL! Where have you been sleeping? Many of today's Christians do.

Well, you don't have to take my word for it. Start an A2K post and ask Christians if they believe that either all scientific claims are correct or all scientific claims are incorrect. You'll see how well your Christian straw man holds up to real-life models.

Mindonfire wrote:
Well considering that your physician doles out medicine which is made by those scientists who all basically use the same methods to arrive at their respective conclusions.

Please explain how the methods for diagnosing lymphoma are "basically the same" as the methods for measuring regional carbon dioxide emissions.

They both utilize some form of the scientific method:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

0 Replies

Re: Now, About That Flawed Science?

Mindonfire wrote:

They both utilize some form of the scientific method

Wow. That's what you think diagnosing lymphoma involves, huh? It makes you wonder why doctors spend so many years of their lives going to medical school when their medical procedures can be summarizied in just a few sentences. I don't blame you for not daring to venture any closer to specificity than that, since your argument wouldn't survive even the tiniest amount of reality.

The scientific method has been used to arrive at the conclusion that cold weather causes the common cold. It has also been used to arrive at the conclusion that cold weather does not cause the common cold. Now since you believe that all claims which have used the scientific method must have the same truth value, you believe that "cold weather causes the common cold" at the same time that you believe "cold weather does not cause the common cold." It never ceases to amaze me how far zealots are willing to take their logic for the sake of dogma, no matter what absurd territories it leads them to.

0 Replies

Re: Now, About That Flawed Science?

Shapeless wrote:

Mindonfire wrote:
They both utilize some form of the scientific method

Wow. That's what you think diagnosing lymphoma involves, huh? It makes you wonder why doctors spend so many years of their lives going to medical school when their medical procedures can be summarizied in just a few sentences. I don't blame you for not daring to venture any closer to specificity than that, since your argument wouldn't survive even the tiniest amount of reality.

The scientific method has been used to arrive at the conclusion that cold weather causes the common cold. It has also been used to arrive at the conclusion that cold weather does not cause the common cold. Now since you believe that all claims which have used the scientific method must have the same truth value, you believe that "cold weather causes the common cold" at the same time that you believe "cold weather does not cause the common cold." It never ceases to amaze me how far zealots are willing to take their logic for the sake of dogma, no matter what absurd territories it leads them to.

Yes, it is amazing how far zealots will go. Now where did you hear that the scientific method arrived at the conclusion that cold weather causes the common cold? Do you have a citation for this claim?

0 Replies

One of its most recent (and amusing) incarnations came in the form of the study that the Common Cold Centre of Cardiff University conducted in late 2005. (As a result of the study, the PCT issued a "friendly warning" that girls who wear midriff-exposing clothes are increasing their chances of catching a cold.)

0 Replies

Re: Now, About That Flawed Science?

Shapeless wrote:

Mindonfire wrote:
They both utilize some form of the scientific method

Wow. That's what you think diagnosing lymphoma involves, huh? It makes you wonder why doctors spend so many years of their lives going to medical school when their medical procedures can be summarizied in just a few sentences. I don't blame you for not daring to venture any closer to specificity than that, since your argument wouldn't survive even the tiniest amount of reality.

LOL! What does diagnosing lymphoma involve? What does diagnosing anything involve? Does it not involve observation? Does in not involve a concise technical description of the entity? Does it not involve the investigation or analysis of the cause or nature of the condition, situation, or problem? Maybe you have a new way to diagnose? Please fill us in

Shapeless wrote:

The scientific method has been used to arrive at the conclusion that cold weather causes the common cold. It has also been used to arrive at the conclusion that cold weather does not cause the common cold. Now since you believe that all claims which have used the scientific method must have the same truth value, you believe that "cold weather causes the common cold" at the same time that you believe "cold weather does not cause the common cold." It never ceases to amaze me how far zealots are willing to take their logic for the sake of dogma, no matter what absurd territories it leads them to.

LOL! No One has stated that all claims which have been produced by the science is all 100% accurate. Go back to the beginning and re-read the post. What we are stating is that if One does not or can not trust science and the theory of evolution or global warming, then how can you trust your doctor and his prescriptions. All of them arrive at their conclusions using basically the same methods.

0 Replies

Re: Now, About That Flawed Science?

Mindonfire wrote:

LOL! No One has stated that all claims which have been produced by the science is all 100% accurate.

Yes, I agree that no one has said that, which makes me wonder why you are pointing this out. Allow me to remind you of your own words:

Quote:

if these methods lead them to arrive at these flawed conclusions about evolution and global warming, then they will lead them to flawed conclusions in respects to the human body.

I was dubious whether you actually believed in the absurdity expressed in these words, but you in fact confirmed them. You said that the "method" that both geologists and physicians use is the scientific method, and as you point out in the above post, you believe that a geological conclusion drawn from the scientific method will have the same truth value as a medical conclusion drawn from the scientific method. And you confirmed it a third time:

Mindonfire wrote:

Does it not involve observation?

Of course it does. But observation of what? That's what you are tellingly silent about. You seem to think that since they both involve observation, they can't be that different. You might want to look up the definition of a geologist and the definition of a doctor... you might find that what they respectively observe is quite different. I asked you how the diagnosis of lymphoma was similar to the diagnosis of tectonic plate movement, and the best you were able to do was that they both involve observation. Going to the bathroom also involves observation. Does that mean that the validity of going to the bathroom is also called into the question since it involves "the same" process as diagnosing lymphoma and tectonic plate movement?

Again, I don't blame you from refusing to get any more specific than this, because your argument won't work (to the extent that it works even on the most generalized level, which is not a very far extent.) It is what allows you to believe you are making a profound rhetorical point when you say:

Mindonfire wrote:

What we are stating is that if One does not or can not trust science and the theory of evolution or global warming, then how can you trust your doctor and his prescriptions. All of them arrive at their conclusions using basically the same methods.

For the sake of maintaining your seemingly grandiose but in fact vacuous point, you have to conveniently ignore the fact that doctors are trained in matters of the human body while geologists are trained in observing the earth. (Details, details.) You express wonder at why, when it comes to matters concerning the human body, we trust the judgment of people who have spent their lives studying the human body over people who have spent their lives observing the earth. As I said, you don't have to take my word for it. If you really want to know why, ask a geologist to treat you next time you have a heart attack. You'll quickly find out why it might have been better to trust the physician.

0 Replies

Shapeless,
I don't understand your argument? Are you saying that Dr's don't use the scientific method? Or are you saying that geologists don't?

The scientific method doesn't require that all testing be done exactly the same. It only requires that testing that can be duplicated by others be performed. Science doesn't say that a rock needs to have a biopsy done on it to make it a scientific observation. Nor does science say that we need to do a radiospectogram of a lump in the human body to make the proper medical diagnosis.

By the way, I still haven't seen your citation for the scientific method proving that cold weather causes the common cold. (Possibly contributing to the likelyhood of it occurring is not the same thing as causing it.)

0 Replies

parados wrote:

I don't understand your argument? Are you saying that Dr's don't use the scientific method? Or are you saying that geologists don't?

Neither. Both geology and medical science use the scientific method. I thought my point was pretty clear, but here it is again: I am pointing out the absurdity of the claim that the scientific method will necessarily produce the same degree of reliability in one field as it will in another. As you pointed out, a description of the scientific method says nothing about the manner in which its observation and testing are carried out. Thus, any assessment of the validity of scientific claims that focuses on the rhetoric of the scientific method and not on the actual testing in which it is manifest is an empty assessment. It is my belief that Mindonfire is knowingly avoiding any mention of how the scientific method is manifest in specific cases, and resolutely staying in the realm of generalization, because that is the only way for someone to maintain with a straight face that

Mindonfire wrote:

if One does not or can not trust science and the theory of evolution or global warming, then how can you trust your doctor and his prescriptions.

if these methods lead them to arrive at these flawed conclusions about evolution and global warming, then they will lead them to flawed conclusions in respects to the human body.

If Mindonfire cannot comprehend why we trust people who routinely perform biopsies over people who do not in matters of biopsies, I don't imagine there's anything anyone can do to help. For anyone who believes that the "flawed conclusions about evolution and global warning" call into question conclusions about medical science in respect to the human body, again, don't take my word for it. Feel free to test the conclusions about the human body yourself--for example, the conclusion that consuming hard drugs while pregnant will endanger the health of the fetus. You'll find out to your own satisfaction whether the flawed conclusions of evolution means that this conclusion about crackbabies is flawed.

parados wrote:

By the way, I still haven't seen your citation for the scientific method proving that cold weather causes the common cold.

I provided an example in the post directly following yours. The study was covered in a number of British media.

0 Replies

Shapeless,
I am aware of the study by the Cariff University. It doesn't say that cold weather causes colds.

You might want to look at their main website before you claim they did something with the scientific method that they didn't.

http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/biosi/associates/cold/home.html

Quote:

The common cold is caused by a viral infection of the nose and throat. There are several groups of viruses that cause the common cold and one of the most common is the rhinovirus or 'nose' virus since rhino means nose.
The common cold is more common in cold weather than in summer but there are still plenty of colds around in summer particularly when we go on holiday.

It seems they never said cold weather "causes" colds. They said that cold weather makes it more likely to have cold symptoms.

Your inability to understand what the Cardiff University found makes it easy to see why you have problems with the "scientific method."

0 Replies

"Colds" are more frequent in cold weather because people are indoors, and more readily exposed to the aerosol from others who cough or sneeze.

0 Replies

The Cardiff study does lead to the question of whether cold makes the blood vessels restrict in the nose and thus you are less able to fight off the virus.

Although the methodology of that particluar study has been questioned since it was based solely on reported symptoms and no testing was done to see if they had caught a cold or not.

0 Replies

I long worked in Army and civilian hospitals. It was par for the course to be tested for strep at the beginning of the "cold and flu season," because the medical profession has long recognized that people spend more time together indoors in cold weather, and therefore, the vectors for the virii and the bacteria that cause the conditions which are called "colds" are more common. Additionally, children--who are nasty little things when it comes to their habits of personal hygiene--are packed into schools then, swapping pathogens, and then taking them out into public and taking them home. They don't cover their mouths when they sneeze or cough, and they wipe their noses with their hands, making no effort to keep their hands clean.

http://helios.bto.ed.ac.uk/bto/images/sneeze.jpg

This famous image of a sneeze should give some idea of the kind of aerosol which is commonly produced when people sneeze or cough. Personally, i can't believe anyone would waste money on a study about why there are more "colds" in cold weather. It's a real no-brainer.

0 Replies

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice

Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence

Spirituality - Question by Miller

Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae

give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus

Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus

Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus

One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus

God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus

The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli

Family files lawsuit against school over Jesus - Discussion by Baldimo

Forums
» Now, About That Flawed Science?

1
2
Next

Read Discussion
Reply to All

Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/04/2025 at 07:41:32

▲ ▼