Hi Gilbert, I think you are right about some of the things you say in the post appended below. But since you are not a cosmologist, astrophysicist or a theoretical physicist you are most likely not very accurate in what you say about the predictions of Einstein's theory and the value of mathematical models in arriving at valid predictions in science. For example, Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's and quantum theories are theoretical models/constructs whose predictions have been verified by objective evidence with great precision, and are highly valid today. In Newton's case for more than 300 years.
On statistics, lest people be unintentionally misled by what you said, I would like to make the following clarifications. Statistical data by their very nature fall on some kind of distribution, such as a Gaussian or bell-shaped distribution. Just because on an average or on a median (or whatever percentile that you use as a criterion) a patient is found to live for 4 months does not mean every patient you see will live for about 4 months. If a large longitudinal study has been conducted for this type of cancer, a statistician would like to know if a good survival curve has been obtained. She would also like to know what percentage of these patients survive for 3 years without cancer. The nature of statistics is such that there are likely to be a few rare outliers at the extreme ends of any statistical distribution. On the basis of this understanding, scientific medicine arrives at the most parsimonious and probable natural explanation for any observation. It never jumps to supernatural miraculous conclusions. To give a simpler example, just because the average body weight of an American man between 20 and 74 years of age is 191 pounds, does not mean that every American man will weigh close to that much. You will find several that weigh more than 400 pounds. If a statistician who understands this sees a man weighing 800 pounds, he will never claim that it is a miracle. He will never invoke any kind of supernatural explanation or a supernatural being. He will ask experts in endocrinology, physical medicine or nutritional sciences to figure out why on rare occasions people weigh that much, by performing investigations in the field and in the laboratory. These are scientific areas, namely statistics, endocrinology, physical medicine and nutritional sciences, wherein religion or a religious man can tell us nothing of any practical value. If a religious man intervenes, and insists that this is a miracle (that this is a proof for his religious beliefs), and that those who do not agree with him are attacking his religion, then this would be an instance of a conflict between the religious beliefs of this man and the science practiced by the scientists who disagree with him. Cheers, Santosh -- Gilbert Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On a personal level, I see many situations where > science will find it difficult to explain. Not > infrequently, I will see a patient I have treated > with advanced cancer, who with overwhelming > statistics is supposed to live for about 4 months. > Yet, the patient is alive three years later, without > cancer. I could say their survival was because of > the radiation that I administered. Or would I rather > say (to myself), as this patient embraces me with > gratitude that, "this is a 'miracle patient'; and I > am glad that I was an instrument in God's hand"? Is > this Religion VS Science? Or is it Religion AND > Science? You kow what this supurlo Goenkar > thinks.:=)) >