Proof???!!!!!

[FishFace]

Because modern science distinguishes between subjective and objective and teaches us that objective is “good” and subjective is “bad,” this creates for us an increasingly wide gulf between our perceptions of phenomena and the concepts by which we explain them. For example, we see the Sun rise and set just as people have done for thousands of years, but we think of this in terms of the Earth’s rotation.

On the contrary, science makes no normative statements of any kind. It says objective is good for gaining true knowledge. That's a purely descriptive statement. (And truthful, as well - subjective experience is unreliable.)

There’s an interesting story in all of this that illustrates the sorts of power struggle games that scientists play. In biology, as in many other sciences, there are many people who judge a person’s worth in life by how many publications that person has authored: the name of the game is “Publish or Perish.”

Emphasis mine - WHAT?! This is pure nonsense. Their scientific worth - something very different from their worth in life - isn't even the same as how many publications they have.

Predictably, theologians dug in their heels and resisted. Scientists “bent over backwards” to be “totally objective,” and avoid anything that could be perceived as being even a little bit subjective, even to rejecting, en masse, the Judeo-Christian concept of a Creator along with the rejected Greek ideas. One sad consequence of this divorce is that, while amazing scientific discoveries have been made, we often are at a loss for ethical guidelines and the subjective judgements and framework to make the wisest use of those discoveries.

What did I tell you? Science doesn't make normative statements. Don't get disappointed, then, when you don't find morality (normativity) in science! Look somewhere else - moral philosophy, maybe.

One parting thought — what’s your opinion?
Up until about 100-150 years ago, science/biology and “religion” were intertwined in human thought and culture. The religious aspect, although sometimes abused, gave people a sense of right and wrong, morals, and/or ethics. Since Darwin’s time, in Western culture, science and religion have pretty much gone their own ways at a time when new discoveries are constantly being made in science. Since then, science has “bent over backwards,” as it were, to insure objectivity and make sure it has nothing to do with religion, which many scientists reject as being too subjective. In the last 40 years since the publication of Watson and Crick’s paper on DNA, our biological knowledge has increased exponentially, especially in the field of genetics, and now we’re realizing there’s no ethical framework on which to hang it. There are all sorts of fantastic, and perhaps lifesaving, things that we are capable of doing which also give us the ability to annihilate whole segments of the human population and/or whole other species of organisms. People have claimed that our knowledge had grown faster than our ability to make the ethical decisions, but sometimes I wonder if maybe we’ve ignored/stifled ethics in the name of “objectivity.”

Again, it is not the job of science to determine what is right and wrong. Science can't do an experiment to find out whether stem cell research is moral or not. It can't make verifiable predictions based on the hypothesis of some ethical theory. This entire idea is predicated on the flawed belief that scientists think science dictates ethics.

Here is probably some more good reading for you.

http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...AF37C0777166.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=1103
Research Article

From medical astrology to medical astronomy: sol-lunar and planetary theories of disease in British medicine, c. 1700–1850

Emphasis added. You're 150 years out of date.

MARK HARRISON a1 fn1
a1 Department of History, School of Cultural Studies, Collegiate Crescent Campus, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield S10 2BP, UK

Abstract

After 1700, astrology lost the respect it once commanded in medical circles. But the belief that the heavens influenced bodily health persisted – even in learned medicine – until well into the nineteenth century. The continuing vitality of these ideas owed much to the new empirical and mechanical outlook of their proponents. Taking their cue from the work of Robert Boyle and Richard Mead, a number of British practitioners amassed statistical evidence which purported to prove the influence of the Moon upon fevers and other diseases. Such ideas flourished in the colonies and in the medical services of the armed forces, but their exponents were not marginal men. Some, like James Lind, were widely respected and drew support for their views from such influential figures as Erasmus Darwin.

Emphasis added.

 

[Carey]

Firstly, most antibiotics are given orally, so they get into the entire system (most importantly the gut)
Secondly, just because there is no infection doesn't mean there is no bacteria
Thirdly antibiotics do not evaporate, they hang around in the environment for a long time.

The end result is you are increasing the over all environmental exposure to the antibiotic, and thus increasing the amount of general resistance. Since bacteria are constantly swapping genetic material, you are thus increasing the chanc that a pathogenic bug will pick up the resistance.

Sounds like science has created antibiotics that are effective in treating one problem but as with virtually all of mans science simply creates another problem bigger than the one it treats.

 

[Psudopod]

Not really. Antibiotics are still effective in many (most?) cases. I'd have loft my sight in one eye if they weren't. The biggest problems come from people ignoring the science - ie pumping antibitoics in livestock when it's not needed; patients requesting antiboitics when they don't need them and doctors being too eagre to supply them; patients not finishing a full course of antiboitics etc. It makes sence from an evolutionalry point of view that resistance would rise in bacteria, but it's happening quickly because we've been careless.

 

[Loudmouth]

Interesting. Why is it risky to prescribe antibiotics "just in case?" If there is no infection, wouldn't there be no risk of resistance?

People can be asymptomatic carriers of known human pathogens. For example, about 5% of people are nasal carriers for Staphylococcus aureus. You may recognize the multiple drug resistant variety called MRSA.

At one time MRSA was found only in hospitals but there has been an upsurge in community acquired MRSA over the last 3 years.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sounds like science has created antibiotics that are effective in treating one problem but as with virtually all of mans science simply creates another problem bigger than the one it treats.

Antibiotics are not causing a problem. If bugs become resistant to every known antibiotic then we simply go back to the level of health care prior to the discovery of antibiotics.

Science is also looking at other novel solutions to bacterial infection such as bacteriophages. Science is also producing novel antibiotics that are effective but are usually withheld for all but the most resistant bugs. On top of that, new multi-drug protocols are starting to become popular. This requires the bacteria to become resistant to two very different antibiotics at the same time before being cleared. This is much more difficult and reduces the risk of evolving drug resistance.

Or we can go back to exorcisms and prayers and hope for the best. Your pick.

 

[Loudmouth]

The Bible predicted this stupidity.

What?

The occults influence on science and medicine has prevented it from being accurate in so many arenas.

What occult influence? Science is not black magic.

What is taught in science/medical schools is often wrong because there is so much omitted.

Like what? Given the outright lies you have linked to before I really doubt you are in a position to tell anyone what should and should not be taught in medical schools.

Because modern science distinguishes between subjective and objective and teaches us that objective is “good” and subjective is “bad,” this creates for us an increasingly wide gulf between our perceptions of phenomena and the concepts by which we explain them.

Completely false. The concepts are based on perception.

There’s an interesting story in all of this that illustrates the sorts of power struggle games that scientists play. In biology, as in many other sciences, there are many people who judge a person’s worth in life by how many publications that person has authored: the name of the game is “Publish or Perish.”

Publications are used to judge the scientist, not the person. In the same way, the number of votes that a singer gets on "American Idol" is a judgement of their singing skills, not their personal worth.

Predictably, theologians dug in their heels and resisted. Scientists “bent over backwards” to be “totally objective,” and avoid anything that could be perceived as being even a little bit subjective, even to rejecting, en masse, the Judeo-Christian concept of a Creator along with the rejected Greek ideas.

The concept of the supernatural is only a "little bit subjective"? Give me a break. The Judeo-Christian concept of a Creator is rejected because of a lack of evidence. Period. Get over it.

One sad consequence of this divorce is that, while amazing scientific discoveries have been made, we often are at a loss for ethical guidelines and the subjective judgements and framework to make the wisest use of those discoveries.

All research funded by public money is required to pass an IRB (Institutional Review Board) before the research can be done. The Job of the IRB is to strongly enforce stringent ethics requirements. Often, religious leaders from the community are part of the IRB.

You are not only insulting our intelligence but you are also insulting thousands of scientists, many who are christians, that do research across the globe. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[FishFace]

People can be asymptomatic carriers of known human pathogens. For example, about 5% of people are nasal carriers for Staphylococcus aureus. You may recognize the multiple drug resistant variety called MRSA.

At one time MRSA was found only in hospitals but there has been an upsurge in community acquired MRSA over the last 3 years.

Gottit

 

[Chalnoth]

Sounds like science has created antibiotics that are effective in treating one problem but as with virtually all of mans science simply creates another problem bigger than the one it treats.

That's completely incorrect. Antibiotic resistance just means that we can see diminishing returns after the same antibiotic is used for a long period of time. It's rather like how the income tax system works here in the US: as you earn more money, the government takes a larger proportion of what you earn. But the system is set up such that earning more money never causes you to pay more to the government than the additional amount you earn. That is, if you compare a raise of $10,000/year to a raise of $100,000/year, the tax system is set up so that you'll obtain a smaller percentage of the $100,000/year, but no matter what the total amount you retain with the $100,000/year raise will be greater than with the $10,000/year raise.

The same is the case with antibiotics. Antibiotics still save lives. That continued use of the same antibiotics causes fewer lives to be saved means that antibiotics still saved lives. And this is unavoidable, by the way: no matter what mechanism we use to fight disease, because diseases evolve, over time we will see diminishing returns. This just says that medicine has to be as adaptive as the bugs it tries to combat. If the "alternative medicine" remedies actually worked, they'd have the exact same problems.

 

[Carey]

That's completely incorrect. Antibiotic resistance just means that we can see diminishing returns after the same antibiotic is used for a long period of time. It's rather like how the income tax system works here in the US: as you earn more money, the government takes a larger proportion of what you earn. But the system is set up such that earning more money never causes you to pay more to the government than the additional amount you earn. That is, if you compare a raise of $10,000/year to a raise of $100,000/year, the tax system is set up so that you'll obtain a smaller percentage of the $100,000/year, but no matter what the total amount you retain with the $100,000/year raise will be greater than with the $10,000/year raise.

The same is the case with antibiotics. Antibiotics still save lives. That continued use of the same antibiotics causes fewer lives to be saved means that antibiotics still saved lives. And this is unavoidable, by the way: no matter what mechanism we use to fight disease, because diseases evolve, over time we will see diminishing returns. This just says that medicine has to be as adaptive as the bugs it tries to combat. If the "alternative medicine" remedies actually worked, they'd have the exact same problems.

Alternative medicines do work and if the person will stop the behavior that caused the problem to begin with the so called "alternative" medicine never stops working.
But the best part of the only type of medicine that should be used that is called alrenative is there are never negative side effects.EVER

But I guess alternative medicine is a blanket thing and would include non Biblical things.Like accupunture which is truly an ineffective thing except for the placebo effect in some cases.

 

[Loudmouth]

Alternative medicines do work and if the person will stop the behavior that caused the problem to begin with the so called "alternative" medicine never stops working.

What?

Are you saying that alternative medicines cure polio as long as you aren't exposed to polio?

But the best part of the only type of medicine that should be used that is called alrenative is there are never negative side effects.EVER

Efficacy is more important than negative side effects.

But I guess alternative medicine is a blanket thing and would include non Biblical things.Like accupunture which is truly an ineffective thing except for the placebo effect in some cases.

If you claim that something is a medicine then you need to show how it is more effective than placebo in a double blind clinical trial. The "alternative" tag is not needed. Either something is a medicine or it is not.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Alternative medicines do work and if the person will stop the behavior that caused the problem to begin with the so called "alternative" medicine never stops working.

Then please explain why homeopathy has been repeatedly demonstrated to be no more effective at curing any illness than sugar water. Please explain why no 'alternative medicine' has ever been demonstrated to be more than an elaborate (and expensive) placebo.

But the best part of the only type of medicine that should be used that is called alrenative is there are never negative side effects.EVER

Well of course not: it doesn't do anything.

But I guess alternative medicine is a blanket thing and would include non Biblical things.Like accupunture which is truly an ineffective thing except for the placebo effect in some cases.

So wait, alternative medicines work unless they are unbiblical?

 

[SLP]

Alternative medicines do work and if the person will stop the behavior that caused the problem to begin with the so called "alternative" medicine never stops working.
But the best part of the only type of medicine that should be used that is called alrenative is there are never negative side effects.EVER

But I guess alternative medicine is a blanket thing and would include non Biblical things.Like accupunture which is truly an ineffective thing except for the placebo effect in some cases.

I hear that you can cure leprosy by killing a couple of pigeons over running water. Is that true?

 

[FishFace]

Alternative medicines do work and if the person will stop the behavior that caused the problem to begin with the so called "alternative" medicine never stops working.

James Randi once took 64 times the maximum recommended dose of homeopathic sleeping pills. Given that he's still around and didn't even feel dozy, what is it about homeopathic sleeping pills, different to other remedies, which makes it useless?

But the best part of the only type of medicine that should be used that is called alrenative is there are never negative side effects.EVER

Nor are there any effects whatsoever! Except the placebo effect, of course.

But I guess alternative medicine is a blanket thing and would include non Biblical things.Like accupunture which is truly an ineffective thing except for the placebo effect in some cases.

Actually a small placebo controlled test was done recently in the UK which found that at the least, there seems to be a verifiably different experience one has (according to brain scans) when one has acupuncture on some acupuncture point than when one has a fake needle tapped against the skin at that point.

 

[Pesto]

Water in Bible times was pure and had natural minerals .

Okay, now I'm confused. Was the water pure, or did it have minerals?

 

[Loudmouth]

Okay, now I'm confused. Was the water pure, or did it have minerals?

Hehe, I missed that one.

I personally don't know why everyone thinks nature = safe. Anyone ever had hemlock tea? Socrates sure enjoyed it. Poison oak toilet paper? Mmmmm, mother nature soft. Fugu sushi anyone?

 

[TheOutsider]

Hehe, I missed that one.

I personally don't know why everyone thinks nature = safe. Anyone ever had hemlock tea? Socrates sure enjoyed it. Poison oak toilet paper? Mmmmm, mother nature soft. Fugu sushi anyone?

It's similar to how people always think that "organic" means really good for you. Obviously they don't realize that cyanide is organic.

 

[Carey]

Then please explain why homeopathy has been repeatedly demonstrated to be no more effective at curing any illness than sugar water. Please explain why no 'alternative medicine' has ever been demonstrated to be more than an elaborate (and expensive) placebo.


Well of course not: it doesn't do anything.


So wait, alternative medicines work unless they are unbiblical?

YES

 

[Carey]

Okay, now I'm confused. Was the water pure, or did it have minerals?

It was pure

definition of pure in case you did not know : (2): free from dust, dirt, or taint <pure springwater>


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pure

 

[Wiccan_Child]

YES

Fair enough. But to reiterate:

lease explain why homeopathy has been repeatedly demonstrated to be no more effective at curing any illness than sugar water. Please explain why no 'alternative medicine' has ever been demonstrated to be more than an elaborate (and expensive) placebo.

Alternatively, please give an example of an 'alternative medicine' that you consider to have no negative effects, that works 100%, etc, and please demonstrate its effectiveness.

 

[tanzanos]

Homeopathy only works while watching SpongeBob Squarepants upside down at exactly 15:36!