On Sep 6, 2007, at 12:13 PM, Simon Jester wrote:
Okay, I am officially taking umbrage at the insistence of some poor
dears here that medicine in particular and biology in general can
really be called science.
What else would you call them?
Well, I suppose you could call biology a sort of soft science- there
are just way too many variables and unknowns when dealing with living
things.
Medicine I would definitely call a religion. I intend no offense to
anyone here, especially those who may be MD's. This is my opinion based
on my experiences with the doctors here.
Physics... that's science in theory, sometimes in practice
Chemistry...that is science in both ways
Geology....yes, on both counts
Engineering, a resounding YES, on both counts and particularly
because it is so very pratical.
Biology... now there you have WAY too many variables to control, so
it can hardly be called a true science
Medicine.... no way, it is half lies (even learned drs say only half
of what they teach is true,
Ummm.. do you have any idea how many times what 'we' *knew* to be true
in mathematics, or geology, or chemistry, etc, turned out to be *not*
true?
The absolutely wonderful things about science is that we learn. Nothing
is written in stone, it is not dogma, it is a field of study. Emphasis
on study. It is a given that as we achieve more knowledge and
information, we will change our ideas and opinions. Which is why we
bother doing research at all, we are curious about something, and wish
to see if we can learn any more. That is an essential quality of a real
scientist, in my opinion. What often happens is that the result is the
opposite of what had been expected, and a new breakthrough occurs. Or
also, the "whoops- that's funny" .
got an example about the chemistry? I can think of geology examples;
and even some advanced math topics that I don't think have been proven
untrue, just that there are alternate explanations. If you are talking
about biological chemistry, that doesn't count- see my rule above about
too many variables.
I think what you are talking about is the distinction between
'Science' and 'Dogma'...
? True science is not dogmatic, it is vibrant and alive and changable,
in so far as new info comes up. But yes, I see your point.
Science is supposed to simply be the organized, systematic search for
truth, regardless of the field in which it is practiced.
I agree- that is why I went into it. Looking for truth. Doesn't mean we
find it, but we know that. It is entertaining, though.
Most if not all of the problems with respect to science stem from
becoming so personally invested in/attached to a belief in some theory
that one loses their objectivity...
Yes, many fall into that trap.
I just do not understand why people do not like scientists.
The only problem I have is with 'corporate' or 'commercial' scientists
who have abandoned the search for truth in favor of the pursuit of the
almighty dollar.
Not that I am against pursuing wealth - not at all. As long as it
doesn't come at the expense of the truth, I'm all for each of us
accumulating as much as one is capable of.
Again, I agree, conflicts of interest are unscientific, and contaminate
the field. It used to be less so, but in the last 20 years it has
become a bigger problem. Now many medical publications are starting to
declare the subsidies, and list the companies funding the study, and
who the person works for, trying to get back some public trust. And
everybody needs a little money.....as long as it is not at the expense
of someone else.
Kathryn
--
The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver.
Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org
To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com
Address Off-Topic messages to: silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com
The Silver List and Off Topic List archives are currently down...
List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
