• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science - Who Needs It

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
Science has provided some knowledge many find beneficial.
However, science has not, and cannot provide knowledge of the most fundamentally important things in life.
Some have asked: Why did things evolve to form a universe and a planet equipped to sustain life? Science has no answer.
It is true, we can live without having the answer to this question.
It is also true, we can live without knowing that the earth orbits the sun, rotates around an axis at an angle of 23.5 degrees, at a speed of about 1,000 miles per hour.
How does that affect my hair growth?

Why do we need science?
It tells how you get colors. So? Do I need that to live? Besides about 8% people are color blind, and some can't see at all. I can appreciate color, without knowing how we get it.
True... science does help me to appreciate even more, the awesome nature of the designer of our universe, but I don't need science to know that our creator is awesome.

Okay, you say, but science has done done a lot to fulfill mankind's needs - electronics, transportation, medicine... At this point, I've hit a blank, so perhaps someone can help me fill it.
Electronics - Telephones, cellphones, television, music players, video recorders, computers...
There are people who live without these, and their lives are no less meaningful. We don't need these things to live.

Transportation - from the chariot to the Lamborghini
Really? Why? Is there a "Need For speed? Have we noticed that mankind seems to be unsatisfied with the speeds that man has reached... they seem to want more?
Nowadays, when some get stuck in traffic, they wish they could acquire wings and fly out of there. Where is Superman when you need him?

Medicine
Let's talk about medicine. Perhaps someone can name one medicine that we need.

We have everything we need in the earth. People have for centuries utilized these herbs - not only in their treatment of sicknesses, but also in practice for their overall health, and longevity.

Why do scientist mix these herbs with chemicals?
What really are reportedly cancer causing agents?
What are the contributing factors to many sicknesses, diseases, and body deformities?
Many believe science is responsible to a large extent. So to many, science has done a lot, yes, but a lot we don't need.

The facts show that while greedy rulers and merchant prevent us from getting what we do need from the earth, most science is used to pollute what we need.
So why do we need science?

"But still you use it", some argue.
We use it - not that we have to, but as a temporary convenience.
We also use the temporary polluted air, and food, thanks to science - not that we want to, but we are somewhat forced to.
For the most part, science it seems has played a role in doing more bad than good.

I believe the things we currently use are temporary, and will no longer be here in the near future.
The things we do need, however, like the planet's life-sustaining air, food, plants, etc., I believe these will continue forever. Only, everything will be free of man-made chemical pollutants. Sickness will be gone, because its root cause will be gone.

My point here, though it may appear that way, is not to discredit science as anything but good, because having knowledge of how things work, and using that knowledge with certain advancements, is not bad at all.
However, science can be put to so much good use, for which it is not currently being utilized.

Furthermore, for no good reason, but it seems for the sake of ego, to some, Science is a Sacred Cow
Science is a Sacred Cow is a book written by the chemist Anthony Standen. It was first published in 1950 by E. P. Dutton. It was in print for 40 years. The book argues that some scientists and many teachers of science have "inflated egos" or, in the words of Standen, "a fabulous collective ego, as inflated as a skillfully blown piece of bubble gum". The book was widely reviewed.

Reception
Part of the book's thesis is that the general public and students of science hold the words of scientists in awe even when these are merely "latinized nonsense". According to a March 1950 issue of Time, Standen's concerns are that scientists can be and have been "overbearing," "overpraised," and "overindulged". The book was once praised by one of the great scientists: Albert Einstein. An editorial note in the March 27, 1950, issue of Life magazine introducing several pages of excerpts and a half dozen editorial cartoons from Sacred Cow states "With tongue-in-cheek hyperbole, [Standen] suggests that a group that takes itself so seriously deserves some serious skepticism. Life—without taking all Mr. Standen's funmaking too seriously—thinks he deserves a happy hearing".


Chapter 1 - THEY SAY IT'S WONDERFUL
Excerpt
WHEN a white-robed scientist, momentarily looking away from his microscope or his cyclotron, makes some pronouncement for the general public, he may not be understood, but at least he is certain to be believed. No one ever doubts what is said by a scientist. Statesmen, industrialists, ministers of religion, civic leaders, philosophers, all are questioned and criticized, but scientists -- never. Scientists are exalted beings who stand at the very topmost pinnacle of popular prestige, for they have the monopoly of the formula "It has been scientifically proved . . ." which appears to rule out all possibility of disagreement.

Thus the world is divided into Scientists, who practice the art of infallibility, and non-scientists, sometimes contemptuously called "laymen," who are taken in by it.


So my point is... who needs science.

The samples of this book contain some great expressions, coming from a Chemist. I am interested in getting a copy.
...[con]verted into energy, and the atomic scientists went ahead and did it with the atomic bomb, and what other group of people have done anything so wonderful as that? Science has achieved so many things, and has been right so many times, that it is hard to believe that it can be wrong in anything, particularly for a layman, who does not have enough knowledge of the subject to be able to argue back. He might not even want to argue back, for the claims of science are extremely inviting. The benefits we have received from it are tremendous, all the way from television to penicillin, and there is no reason to suppose that they will stop. Cancer may be cured tomorrow, or the day after, and the nuclear physicists may easily find a way to end all drudgery and usher in the golden age. Mere laymen, their imaginations stupefied by these wonders, are duly humble, and regard the scientists as lofty and impeccable human beings.

"The scientist is a man of integrity and faith who trusts the basic laws of nature and intelligence to lead him into the paths of truth. His loyalty to truth is unquestioned: his capacity for patient and sacrificial inquiry is limited only by his powers of endurance; his devotion to the scientific method is unwavering; his objective is the welfare of mankind; and his discoveries, whether of medicine, mechanics, psychology, or what not, are the free possession of...
George Washington needed science.

 
Your food issue may or may not be truly trial and error, because you have not defined your hypothesis to come up with anything new with food, which is unlikely since you are just coming up with possible different combination of food and nothing new. If you come up with new combinations of unknown foods in a new hypothesis, maybe, but you have not presented anything meaningful.

The case of the metals of the Bronze and Iron Age they were developing metals and metal mixes that never existed before.

My 'hypothesis' is: 'this will taste nice if I do this/add X' (i.e. I am aiming to produce a chemical substance with a specific quality)

I still don't get the need for something to be innovative to make it 'science' though. The latter people are simply replicating the 'experiment', and replication is still science.

Also, let's say completely independently of each other, 2 ancient metallurgists created the same alloy (let's say bronze). One created bronze 10 years earlier than the other though, even though they live on opposite sides of the world.

You are saying that the first one was created using science, but the second one was not as it was 'nothing new'? So science is not defined by purely by following a "scientific" methodology, but also by who was first?

(And why was the first monkey who formed an implicit hypothesis 'I can fish for termites with a stick' which he then tested not doing science?)

Trial and error that is not science does not have a goal and hypothesis as science does. Trial and error in science has a goal and hypothesis. The original developers for new blends metals from their existing knowledge of basic metals, had goals and hypothesis for the desired result. Even in the Neolithic they had basic knowledge of rocks and comparing different rocks and materials for the desired need, and experimented with the materials they presently knew and applied their knowledge testing new materials they found, and traded with other tribes and cultures..

Almost all trial and error has a goal, that is why you are doing the trial and error in the first place. It might be fixing your computer, creating a recipe, or inventing the electric lightbulb. We all do this. It is a very instinctive activity.

A child with a toy where you need to put different shaped objects in different shaped holes starts with trial and error. They form a basic hypothesis 'this object will fit in that hole' then they test it. The monkey had a goal to create a new technology to help him eat the termites. His hypothesis was that the stick would do the job.

As I've said, the demarcation problem is not an easy one to resolve and there is no single correct answer to it. Your approach seems to be very inconsistent though as things using exactly the same methodology are identified as either "science" or "not science" based on no clearly identified characteristics.

If science is simply 'trial and error to produce an anticipated goal', it also means that "science" is responsible for almost everything, good or bad, humans have ever done.
 
Last edited:
Gonna toss a couple cents here:
There isn't. Food science is a major research and industry field with lots of branches. What you're doing at home is a lay version of it, like the milk and soap food coloring activity kids do which teaches some very basic chemistry and physics principals.

I agree that if one is science then the other also has to be.

How would you differentiate between science and "not science" btw?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
My 'hypothesis' is: 'this will taste nice if I do this/add X' (i.e. I am aiming to produce a chemical substance with a specific quality)

So what!?!?! Nothing new, and not an adequate hypothesis to develop something new as new mtals with new abolities as in science.

I still don't get the need for something to be innovative to make it 'science' though. The latter people are simply replicating the 'experiment', and replication is still science.

Replication to confirm hypothesis is a part of science, and thi is not the issue here. The development of new metals is scientific goals and hypothesis, and of course they repeated their work to confirm it. Your silly food example does not meet the grade.

Also, let's say completely independently of each other, 2 ancient metallurgists created the same alloy (let's say bronze). One created bronze 10 years earlier than the other though, even though they live on opposite sides of the world.

You are saying that the first one was created using science, but the second one was not as it was 'nothing new'? So science is not defined by purely by following a "scientific" methodology, but also by who was first?

This actually happened, but more time then ten years, and it remains science. It has actually happened in the contemporary world of science. It does not change anything both are science.

Almost all trial and error has a goal, that is why you are doing the trial and error in the first place. It might be fixing your computer, creating a recipe, or inventing the electric lightbulb. We all do this. It is a very instinctive activity.

No hypothesis here for creating something new.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I agree that if one is science then the other also has to be.

How would you differentiate between science and "not science" btw?

The scientific method was not invented it is inherent in the intellect of the nature of being human, evolved over time, and elements of the scientific method are in almost all human activities to make and do things. Your correct that the application of different methods occur all through human problem solving activities. You gave examples, but unfortunately your examples do not make the grade of the full scientific method coming up with something new with the scientific methods as the development of different metal allows in the Bronze Age, Iron Age and beyond, and going back to the Neolithic in the development of the Jade Age in China.

The development of metal allows involved the knowledge of existing metal elements, the goal of developing more durable and harder alloys, the hypothesis is that mixing metals in proper ratios will produce harder and more durable metals. Actually the experimenting with different ratios of metals to meet different needs is a part of this science. The bronze applied technology was the development of tools and weapons with the new metals.that is the best for bells is not the same as the bronze used in swords. This basically the same process of scientific methods used in developing steel allows in the iron age and after, and contemporary science developing Titanium alloys, and the technologies to apply the new alloys to industry.
 
Last edited:

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
Interesting way of looking at it. It's reasonable.
Do you personally think one is better than the other - not meaning to put you on the spot? Would you mind sharing the reason for your answer.

After thinking about how to answer this is my best response. It depends on the individual for which is best. The one thing we need to survive well is others to support us how we get the others to support us is based on our individual needs. You can live with the Amish or You can live in NYC what do you want will decide mostly on which is better.

As for me I believe a combination of each without reliance on either is the best way. I attend mass every week, I support my church in different ways and put my kids in religious instruction. I am a Electronics Technician with direct ties to science and invest a lot of my time in science. I do not consider my church the absolute authority nor do I consider science the absolute authority. I tend to challenge both. I find myself happiest in a natural environment where I can just relax in the moment not caring about Religion or Science.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Luddite or agrarian utopianism is the fantasy of the privileged. It often ignores those millions who died because 'Earth provides' a lot less than they think. It either has to create a magic land which fundamentally changes the reality they know and/or worse, a casual disregard of the suffering of those at the end of the bell curve 'for the greater good.'

Raise your hand if you would be dead if you were born back in those 'good old days'. *raises hand.*

I need my glasses to see clearly. In the good ol' days I would not have known which way to run when needed.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
So why has life expectancy more than tripled with the aid of science.? Without science how do you know what is a contaminant? How the hell does one control your mental disposition? Pray tell, there arw millions of mentally ill people would love to know your secret.
Millions of mentally ill people. Gee... I wonder why.


You want data? My husband was diagnosed with cancer, 10 years ago it would have been terminal. Now thanks to scientific cancer research he is cancer free.

67% of cervical cancers are now cured
98% of prostate cancers are now cured
95% of testicular cancers are now cured
91% of skin cancers are now cured.
25 years ago, even 10 or 5 years ago the survival rate was much lower if a survival rate existed.
Shows, 'having knowledge of how things work, and using that knowledge with certain advancements, is not bad at all'.


Gravity is why, pity you fail to comprehend that fundamental force.
Why did things evolve to form a universe and a planet equipped to sustain life?
Gravity.
Somebody, put me out of my misery.


Did i? Life expectancy around 24 years, starvation, cold, broken bones, dying from basic illness such as a gum abscess or an infected cut.
Yes you did.


??? So farmers plant out at any time and harvest by luck? Of course people need to know, sheesh, with your attitude the human race would have been extinction from stupidity before it even got civilised.
...we can live without knowing that the earth orbits the sun, rotates around an axis at an angle of 23.5 degrees, at a speed of about 1,000 miles per hour.
The farmers who did not know this, died because they didn't know when to plant.
Please, someone, just end the misery... please, it's torture.


And the reason those selfish individual are reasonably safe is because the responsible ones (the majority) are vaccinated.

US anti-vax poster child gets chickenpox

No need to ask you, you made it plain that you use your computer to mock the science that makes your life bearable.
Obvious you understood nothing the post said. That's understandable.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I am considering using this old pond on my property as a source of water for drinking, cooking and cleaning. I believe it is OK. What do you think I should do? Should I just continue to believe or should I have people trained in science and the use of technologies to determine water quality test it to see if it is OK. Do you think that those technologies I was referring to were the result of bad science. Maybe I should not bother with people using that bad science and just go with what I want to believe. I really, really, really believe the water is OK.

Any help you can provide will be much appreciated in helping me to decide.
Ask the ancient civilizations. Go to the Amazon, and ask the Indians there. Try the Aboriginal Australians. Just search for the indigenous people.
Oh wait. Forget I said that. I don't want any blood on my hands. Some people with a high-and-mighty-full-of-themselves attitude.often irritate humble people trying to live without interference. Then there are those who have a keen smell for unwelcoming "guest"
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Science is just a method to verify truth claims. How you come about that claim is up to you. You can make any truth claim you want by whatever means you feel is appropriate. Einstein, for example made a number of claims about time and space. Science has been able to validate many of his claims. SInce these claims have been proven by science, we don't have to rely on his word.
What do those truth claims have to do with my living?
How many does one need?
For example, people have been having sexual intercourse for centuries, and making babies. Do you think knowing about Mendel's Laws of Heredity, affect how they will now have sexual intercourse.
It seems my OP has been misunderstood... but that's okay.
I understand why.

Partly, theories/hypothesis are based on what we know to be true or what we accept to be true. Everyone does this. Folks observe reality and make a guess at how it works and reality may seem to work according to that theory. Someone may observe that whenever a car engine is running it vibrates for example. They come up with a theory that vibrations makes the car run. What science adds to this the attempt to disprove such a theory by eliminating every other possible cause. In the case of a car, maybe remove gas, air, electricity. Just vibrate the car and see if it runs. If the car still runs with vibrations being the only possible cause, then you've validated the theory.
There are people, of course, who need education, since unlike others, they may not have been educated, or they may have been misled by opinions. Even scientists need educating themselves.
For example, they thought Joseph Lister was a stupid fool, before they learned they were wrong.

Because they haven't actually used science. They only did the first part. Came up with a theory, which kind of seems to work without eliminating all other possible causes to prove the truth of their claim. Without doing this second part, then people can claim anything that seems to be true as truth whether it is actually true or not.

Knowing what doesn't work is just as important as knowing what does work. Science does miss a lot. It's part of the elimination process. To arrive at the truth, you need to eliminate everything that can be determined not to work.


Science, used properly is simply a tool to eliminate false, claims, theories, hypotheses. If you don't go through this process, you can't really know if you can trust the claim, theory, hypothesis that you are relying on for truth.
I hear what you are saying, and I don't think I disagree.
I think you should read the post more carefully to understand what I am saying.
I'm not sure it would make a difference, as I understand how our minds can sometimes run away with a few words our eyes see, and filter out everything else, but of course this has a lot to do with our mindset.
It is said, 'there is an art in listening'. Art is not an easy thing for everyone. It take a lot of practice. A whole lot, for some others.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
In your first post: "Thus the world is divided into Scientists, who practice the art of infallibility, and non-scientists, sometimes contemptuously called "laymen," who are taken in by it."

Also you are constantly referring to 'those scientists?' in negative generalizations, and egos without clarification. You totally misrepresent science by referring to the negative 'personalities' of individuals, which is not science. Science has self-correcting methods of peer review and redundant research, reevaluation, and commentary on previous works. Research that is not repeatable and is flawed is weeded out over time.

I am still waiting for your definition of 'good science,' since you have at present only resorted to vague character assassinations of unnamed scientists. I gave mine, and I am waiting . . .
I did no such thing. Please read the post more carefully.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I had malaria, a mosquito born viral disease. I would be dead without medicine for malaria, or the blood tests needed to detect it in time. I was 5 then.
I also had a lymphatic infection in my leg that spread rapidly. It came from some cut I had when swimming in the sea. Without a course of anti-fungal medicine, it would have led to blood-poisoning and kill me. I was 11 then.
A few years back a hurricane passed through the neighborhood we lived in. Fortunately, there were scientific weather models that warned us ahead of time so that the town could be evacuated. Thus our lives were saved though there were damages.

There are scores of such instances.

Humans don't need science is they wish to wallow in ignorance and in the pre-industrial way of life when most humans born died before the age of one and very few humans ever travelled outside of their hamlet, disconnected and ignorant of the greater world and the universe beyond and 99% of the rest doing brack-breaking labour in the fields till they died in abject poverty. The ability to live and the quality of lived experiences have increased exponentially in quality and meaning because of science and technology, as well as the potential ways we could choose to live our lives. Science and Technology is an essential part in making our lives as rich and as meaningful as they are today.

Understand this. Most of us don't merely wish to survive. We wish to thrive, achieve that which seems out of reach or even impossible. Test and overcome every limitation that is before us....for ourselves and our children. I certainly hope that humans of the future will explore and colonize every solar system in our galaxy and go even beyond, that they will create and seed life in planets that are today lifeless, that they will live for millennia, that ultimately they will be able to create new universes even. None of these are impossible, and they exist as potentials to be realized by every conscious kind that emerges in this universe. And I am rooting for my kind to do this first.

How do you propose any of this can be done without science and technology (and also arts, literature, music and creative imagination and effort)?

Why do you wish to regress to the isolated dark drudgery of the past eons? What makes it so attractive? Do you want to be a mother who fears either she or her baby will die during childbirth? Do you want to sit and watch helplessly as all who you know die in plagues that decimate the community? Do you want to live knowing that all you will ever do is work 15 hours in the field all your life and still going hungry at night till the end of your life?

People imagined beautiful heavens because they hated how they lived on earth and desperately clung on to the hope that after death they will go to a better life. What was better about that earthly life then that created such escapism? Still 50% of the world's people live in such distress...but its 49% less than what it was in 1400 s. We can and will reduce that want, that poverty, that insecurity to zero...till every human has a future in life that is something to look forward to. It may take 50 years or 500...but it can only be done with the assistance of knowledge we gain from science and implementation through technology (along with political and social efforts).

That is the general reason why I believe science to be essential to the flourishing of humankind. But whether human society wishes to flourish or not is a choice that is up to ourselves alone.

But there is a spiritual reason as well. Science (and Math) are the purest and most sincere human effort in the search for the truths of existence that I have ever encountered. And the truth is a fundamental property of the Ultimate Reality that we Hindus call the Brahman. Thus seeking truths about the world and of ourselves is a fundamental spiritual path in its own right...the Way of Knowledge or Gnana. And I practice this spiritual path by my practice of science. I do other things also, but clearly, for me, science is a spiritual calling that brings me in contact with Brahman.

As our scripture says:-

Truth alone prevails, not falsehood.
By truth the path is laid out, the Way of the Gods,
on which the seers, whose every desire is satisfied,
proceed to where resides That Which Always Is,
the highest treasure attained by truth.


Science certainly treads this path...though there are many ways to travel.
For thousands of years, traditional herbal remedies have been used to treat malaria. The first effective treatment for malaria came from the bark of cinchona tree, which contains quinine.

Although there is little record to establish when plants were first used for medicinal purposes (herbalism), the use of plants as healing agents, as well as clays and soils is ancient. Over time, through emulation of the behavior of fauna, a medicinal knowledge base developed and passed between generations.

The uses of bark in medicine are endless. It can be used to treat a wide range of ailments, from inflammation, arthritis, and high blood pressure, to even being used in some cancer treatments.

Why do people today think they are the pioneers of commonsense and knowledge, and everyone else was backwards?
Funny, the reverse seems to be true from the looks of things.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
After thinking about how to answer this is my best response. It depends on the individual for which is best. The one thing we need to survive well is others to support us how we get the others to support us is based on our individual needs. You can live with the Amish or You can live in NYC what do you want will decide mostly on which is better.

As for me I believe a combination of each without reliance on either is the best way. I attend mass every week, I support my church in different ways and put my kids in religious instruction. I am a Electronics Technician with direct ties to science and invest a lot of my time in science. I do not consider my church the absolute authority nor do I consider science the absolute authority. I tend to challenge both. I find myself happiest in a natural environment where I can just relax in the moment not caring about Religion or Science.
Thanks.
I find it hard to imagine relaxing without thinking about religion, because our mind is always busy with things that impact our lives, and the lives of friends and family... and the questions are always there... unless we have had them answered.
Since you are religious, I believe you are able to relax, because some of your questions have been answered, and subconsciously your religious thoughts sooth you.
That's what I think, but I could be wrong. We are all different, although not so much in some cases.
 

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
1940s? Dude, you are talking about the backward era. Go back... Go back.
Science - Who Needs It
Your OP is mostly rant and drivel, though I did answer it correctly. You asked who needed science and I'm sure many many people do and did. In the OP, you compared the past to the present and so will I.
I gave an example of how an important figure needed science.

The end. :)
 
Last edited:

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Millions of mentally ill people. Gee... I wonder why.

Si you have no answer other than god messed up but you are unwilling to say that so fall back on mockery?


Shows, 'having knowledge of how things work, and using that knowledge with certain advancements, is not bad at all'.

One has to learn how to create that technology in order to benefit from it. I see no instructions in the god books of how to build a computer so you can mock technology.

Why did things evolve to form a universe and a planet equipped to sustain life?
Gravity.
Somebody, put me out of my misery.

How about learning come basic cosmology or particle physics rather than mocking what you self admittedly dont understand?

Yes you did

Proof please!

we can live without knowing that the earth orbits the sun, rotates around an axis at an angle of 23.5 degrees, at a speed of about 1,000 miles per hour.
The farmers who did not know this, died because they didn't know when to plant.
Please, someone, just end the misery... please, it's torture.

The farmers learned by obsetvatobse, that in itself is an aspect of science. How about learning some history too rather than making yourself look deliberately foolish

Obvious you understood nothing the post said. That's understandable.

You made a statement based the ignorance of benefits of medical science. I replied with a valid example so once again you choose mockery as your get out clause. If you really think i did not understand your claim then how about explaining why it is better to provide the conditions for, say, smallpox to return rather than saving 5 million lives per year.

Conclusion. Because you cannot provide answers that work in favour of your faith you resort to mockery.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I did no such thing. Please read the post more carefully.

In your first post: "Thus the world is divided into Scientists, who practice the art of infallibility, and non-scientists, sometimes contemptuously called "laymen," who are taken in by it."

Also you are constantly referring to 'those scientists?' in negative generalizations, and egos without clarification. You totally misrepresent science by referring to the negative 'personalities' of individuals, which is not science. Science has self-correcting methods of peer review and redundant research, reevaluation, and commentary on previous works. Research that is not repeatable and is flawed is weeded out over time.

I am still waiting for your definition of 'good science,' since you have at present only resorted to vague character assassinations of unnamed scientists. I gave mine, and I am waiting . . .
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
For thousands of years, traditional herbal remedies have been used to treat malaria. The first effective treatment for malaria came from the bark of cinchona tree, which contains quinine.

Marginally true, and also the blacks of Africa evolved with cycle cell anemia as a defense against malaria.
It remains a fact that millions still died, before modern scientists developed better treatments.

Although there is little record to establish when plants were first used for medicinal purposes (herbalism), the use of plants as healing agents, as well as clays and soils is ancient. Over time, through emulation of the behavior of fauna, a medicinal knowledge base developed and passed between generations.

The uses of bark in medicine are endless. It can be used to treat a wide range of ailments, from inflammation, arthritis, and high blood pressure, to even being used in some cancer treatments.

Why do people today think they are the pioneers of commonsense and knowledge, and everyone else was backwards?
Funny, the reverse seems to be true from the looks of things.

By the way science does research natural herbal medicines to contribute to the technology, but that does not negate the advances in the science of medicine that improve the health and life span of humans.

Good Science? Still waiting . . .
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
For thousands of years, traditional herbal remedies have been used to treat malaria. The first effective treatment for malaria came from the bark of cinchona tree, which contains quinine.

Although there is little record to establish when plants were first used for medicinal purposes (herbalism), the use of plants as healing agents, as well as clays and soils is ancient. Over time, through emulation of the behavior of fauna, a medicinal knowledge base developed and passed between generations.

The uses of bark in medicine are endless. It can be used to treat a wide range of ailments, from inflammation, arthritis, and high blood pressure, to even being used in some cancer treatments.

Why do people today think they are the pioneers of commonsense and knowledge, and everyone else was backwards?
Funny, the reverse seems to be true from the looks of things.
And those herbal remedies for malaria rarely worked. We are fully aware of the herbal remedies and their relative ineffectiveness in treating most cases of malaria.
 
Top