My Thalidomide Challenge

[AV1611VET]

It seems to be your only point here.

Unless you can complete the following:

Doctors are not always right therefore......

... people die?

 

[variant]

... people die?

In this case they are born without limbs.

So, whets the point of your thread.

 

[Cabal]

In this case they are born without limbs.

So, whets the point of your thread.

Because of one infamous medical case science was shown to be wrong. Therefore science is arbitrarily wrong because AV says so when it suits him, therefore evolution is wrong.

 

[Freodin]

Because of one infamous medical case science was shown to be wrong. Therefore science is arbitrarily wrong because AV says so when it suits him, therefore evolution is wrong.

Ah, please don´t get that one wrong. There is a major difference between getting undesirable results and "being wrong".

The whole Thalidomite story is not a glorious one for pharmacy, chemistry or science... but not for any scientific reasons.

AV - and sadly some of his opponents also - act as if "science" should have recognized the teratogentic effects of Thalidomite on humans instantly, and that it was a "failure" of science not to do that.
In hindsight (oh, blessed perfect hindsight!) this might be correct. But it isn´t.

TemperateSeaIsland wrote in posts #5 and #7: "It hasnt been tested as a teratogen on humans." and "I have a better grasp of potential biochemical interactions than my doctor. I just read some papers it hasnt been tested as a tetratogenic."

How would one - how would "science" - evaluate such a claim? It hadn´t been tested as a teratogen on humans, that is correct. Most substances weren´t and aren´t tested as a teratogen on humans. In order to do so.... well, one would have to TEST IT ON HUMANS! Pregnant humans, and observe the results.

How would "science" test the potential teratogenic effect on humans? A related chemical substance has such an effect and so could Thalidomite. But how to find out... without testing it on humans?

In the case of Thalidomite, animal tests - even for the teratoginic effects - were conducted, with negative results. Only on selected (and not commonly used in tests) species could this effect be shown. How to find out if humans were affected... without testing it on humans?

It can be objected that the "test" that happened was not very scientific, nor even meant as a test. But science is not limited on test-tubes and laboratories. Any incomming data is usable. The data of Thalidomite malformations lead to the results and the "hindsight" knowledge.

It was science that produced the drug and it was science that discovered the effects. From the scientific side, Thalidomite and its story wasn´t a failure. Science didn´t fail here.

Mrs. Oldham Kelsey was mentioned quite early in that thread... but if she is to thank for sparing the USA from the results of Thalidomite, it is not due to a failure of science either.
Mrs. Oldham Kelsey did not know or expect the teratogenic effects either. She did not know beforhand about them - she did not warn about them. She was concerned with other - scientific! - studies that hinted at a direct neural sideeffect of Thalidomite. It was sheer luck that the drug was held back long enough so that the other, more grave effects had been discovered.

And they had been discovered by scientists and analysed by scientists. No independent baptist preacher had warned about Thalidomite.

Science and scientists may reach wrong conclusions from wrong premises, act on non-existent knowledge and take to long to find answers.

But preachers never reach any conclusions, never achive new knowledge and their answeres are always borrowed. At least the answer they borrow from science can be validated... but too often they insist on borrowing from future generations.

 

[variant]

Because of one infamous medical case science was shown to be wrong. Therefore science is arbitrarily wrong because AV says so when it suits him, therefore evolution is wrong.

"Science" wasen't shown to be wrong in this case, public policy and the drug approval process were shown to be inadiquate.

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

"Science" wasen't shown to be wrong in this case, public policy and the drug approval process were shown to be inadiquate.

All the same thing to AVET. He sees it all as one giant box of stuff he doesn't understand labelled "SCIENCE"

 

[sandwiches]

All the same thing to AVET. He sees it all as one giant box of stuff he doesn't understand labelled "SCIENCE"

To AV a scientist making a mistake shows the unreliability of science. He doesn't understand that it's like saying that just because a person doesn't multiply 2 by 6 correctly doesn't mean that math is flawed or untrustworthy.

 

[AV1611VET]

He sees it all as one giant box of stuff he doesn't understand labelled "SCIENCE"

Here's a pile of yesterday's stuff you guys claimed you did understand:

You know what they called that pile of junk back in my days?

Spoiler: pile of junk back in my days

final exams

 

[variant]

Here's a pile of yesterday's stuff you guys claimed you did understand:

You know what they called that pile of junk back in my days?

Spoiler: pile of junk back in my days

final exams

Indeed.

Science is about learning from new information and careful methodological testing.

From time to time accepted knowledge changes when new things are discovered.

Do you have any new information to show us or are you just babbling pointlessly?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you have any new information to show us or are you just babbling pointlessly?

Acts 17:21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)

I'll bet they sound like your kind of people, don't they?

 

[Cabal]

All the same thing to AVET. He sees it all as one giant box of stuff he doesn't understand labelled "SCIENCE"

Exactly what I meant. AV isn't going to appreciate the distinction, but thanks to those who have pointed it out for the lurkers.

 

[Cabal]

Here's a pile of yesterday's stuff you guys claimed you did understand:

Here's what I like to call "the fate of yesterday's Christian thinkers":

 

[variant]

Acts 17:21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)

I'll bet they sound like your kind of people, don't they?

So I see it is going to be babbling pointlessly.

 

[AV1611VET]

So I see it is going to be babbling pointlessly.

That would be a scientist's job today.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

That would be a scientist's job today.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

If you don't understand something, it does sound like babbling. If you learned something about science, you might be happier and more comfortable with it.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you don't understand something, it does sound like babbling.

As Feynman put it:

I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

As Feynman put it:

We've come a long way in our understanding since he made that remark - and I suspect you're taking it out of context.

Science isn't some deep dark mystery, after all - science is (considered broadly) two things: the systematic application of methodological naturalism - something that even theists use every day; and the knowledge (generally in the form of parameterized models) about the universe that we derive from that application.

Then we have engineers who come along and convert that knowledge into fun toys, like the computer you're composing your answers on; the insulin that keeps diabetics alive; the wells that pump the oil that gets cracked into gasoline to let you drive your car to the grocery store.

It's really that simple. In the process, science has to define and clarify a lot of terminology that has more specific meaning in science than in general discussion. Terminology like "planet."

 

[AV1611VET]

We've come a long way in our understanding since he made that remark - and I suspect you're taking it out of context.

Science isn't some deep dark mystery, after all - science is (considered broadly) two things: the systematic application of methodological naturalism - something that even theists use every day; and the knowledge (generally in the form of parameterized models) about the universe that we derive from that application.

Then we have engineers who come along and convert that knowledge into fun toys, like the computer you're composing your answers on; the insulin that keeps diabetics alive; the wells that pump the oil that gets cracked into gasoline to let you drive your car to the grocery store.

It's really that simple. In the process, science has to define and clarify a lot of terminology that has more specific meaning in science than in general discussion. Terminology like "planet."

Well ooh and aah to science.

Good for them -- and I mean that.

But when they come snooping around the Bible with their clipboards, they should be taught the lesson that was taught to Uzzah,* viz. there are places you just don't go.

* Non-lethal, that is -- this is a new dispensation.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Well ooh and aah to science.

Good for them -- and I mean that.

But when they come snooping around the Bible with their clipboards, they should be taught the lesson that was taught to Uzzah,* viz. there are places you just don't go.

* Non-lethal, that is -- this is a new dispensation.

If the bible is accurate, it will stand scrutiny. If it's wrong, we should know. On some points it is definitely wrong. Those points are historical, not theological.

And in the interest of truth, there are no places scientists shouldn't go. Unless you're not interested in truth of course.

 

[pgp_protector]

If the bible is accurate, it will stand scrutiny. If it's wrong, we should know. On some points it is definitely wrong. Those points are historical, not theological.

And in the interest of truth, there are no places scientists shouldn't go. Unless you're not interested in truth of course.

why else do you think the warnings from him for scientist to stay away from the bible?