ReluctantMathematician
Member
The mass of people that seem to think they can just make up whatever want, and then justify it by claiming it is spiritual or religious.
-
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!
How much can we trust science?
- Thread starter ReluctantMathematician
- Start date
The mass of people that seem to think they can just make up whatever want, and then justify it by claiming it is spiritual or religious.
They often pretend that there are no limitations and what they cannot prove they just 'best guess'.....but always within the parameters of the theory that they "believe" must be true. Their "evidence" requires "interpretation" which is followed by "conjecture" and when there are gaps they are filled by suggestion and that is, I believe, where the truth ends and "belief" begins.
When science and its principles are used for the benefit of mankind and its theories are provable....then science is good. But that only relates to some advances in medicine and surgical techniques. These are proven in real time under real conditions. That is what I would call "true science". But along with that is the detrimental advances in pharmacology which is drugs, designed to alleviate symptoms without treating the cause....guaranteeing customers for life for the drug manufacturers. Their hapless victims line up for their drugs every month thinking that these pills are keeping them alive......but are many of them actually "living" when the side effects of these medications are often worse that the illness being 'treated'?
Medical science these days has been hijacked by greedy men who don't really care about human suffering. They use doctors trained at their funded institutions to practice what is passed off as "medicine"....as if that means mainly dispensing pills for whatever ails you....the cost of which is nothing short of ridiculous.
Standards of living are what make the difference between a malnourished person (who is depleted in the vitamins and minerals vital to maintain health) and a healthy individual who has access to good nutrition. The most common forms of disease taking human life today (cancer, heart disease and diabetes) are more the result of lifestyle choices than not having access to nutritious foods. Basically people are lazy junk food eaters.
So your statement above is a bit like saying that some religions are good because they are humanitarian, therefore all religions must be good....we know that's is not true.
Some science is wonderful and beneficial....other science is destructive and life threatening.....we are here, but for how long if we keep putting Mother Earth to death by our greed and selfishness in the misapplication of science?
Last edited:
nPeace
Veteran Member
Sounds to me like you are referring to those I mentioned earlier. I don't disagree.
Sadly some want to ignore those on the side they adore.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Just read this...
DAN HODGES: How can we follow science if the scientists are not the most foggy?
The scientists have, in effect, given up their own science. Their attitude is no longer to take an evidence-based approach in addressing the pandemic. Instead, they resort to whatever they can to Covid, hoping that something – whatever – can just work.
Other ministers are concerned about how the scientists seem to increasingly see their role as that of pro-lockdown spin doctors, rather than as objective experts.
But we can no longer ignore the facts. The scientists told ministers that locking them too early would cost lives. And those same scientists are now lining up to say we locked up too late.
The scientists told ministers that there is a low risk of asymptomatic transmission of the virus. And now they admit it happened, and they raged through our nursing homes.
Scientists told ministers masks wouldn’t work. Now they are all telling us that they are an essential part of the fight against Covid.
If not, we should all remember the time when Britain’s best scientific and medical minds said to the nation, ‘We can’t wait for better quality evidence before making decisions.’
And then someone has to call Caprice.
Because it's useful.
I see it slightly differently.
Science is a tool. It is a way we can gain 'knowledge', in a sense, but like any tool, it's being used by humans. Good, evil...or just used in a fashion to which it wasn't designed.
Not so different from a hammer, in its most reduced form.
Science enabled us to discover dynamite. Is dynamite good, bad, or a tool that can be used in various ways, including some originally unintended?
I don't get this desire to anthropomorphise science.
That's not aimed at you, to be clear. Just my thoughts on this topic.
Say what??? You say that you would rather a person be in agony from an incurable disease than medical science create a drug that eases the symptoms? Wow.
If the side effects are worse then you have the free will to not take them. And any doctor worth their salt will ne aware of side effects, inform the patient (who should read the information leaflet provided with the drug) and make a ensure the patients consent.
This is truly aluminium foil hat territory. Rhe countries i know of train their doctors in universities. And countries provide those drugs at no (or greatly reduced) over the counter cost.
And still medical science has added an average of 50 years extra life to junk food eaters. Perhaps 60 years to mr and mrs average.
I think you will find it is industry and the consumer (you and me) who are driving the destruction of our planet. Science is provided ways to help mitigate the destructive nature of human beings.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Native said: ↑
When the observations of the starry motion around a galactic center was discovered in 1932, this refuted Newtons law of celestial motion.
Why isn´t Newtons law discarded long time ago then?
Native said: ↑
Not only probably but surely wrong as historic authors and present scholars are downgrading the ancient knowledge of the ancient known part of cosmos, thus interpreting and mistaking the Sun to have created everything in our galaxy and this misconception and misinterpretation can be read all over in books and encyclopedia.
"The sun is the giver of life, controlling the ripening of crops which were worked by man. Because of the life giving qualities of the sun the Egyptians worshiped the sun as a god. The creator of the universe and the giver of life, the sun or Ra represented life, warmth and growth. Since the people regarded Ra as a principal god, creator of the universe and the source of life, he had a strong influence on them, which led to him being one of the most worshiped of all the Egyptian gods and even considered King of the Gods".
--------------
Of course the Sun is "giver of life" on Earth, but surely it isn´t "the creator of the Universe" as concluded in this text, not even as the ancient world perception "only" included the Milky Way realms and imagery.
The creator of the Milky Way, the ancient known part of the Universe, was/is the central light in our galaxy, called Amun-Ra in the ancient Egyptian texts of creation and hieroglyphs.
When Egyptologists and others have no astronomical or cosmological insights, their only option is to interpret a light as the Sun and the creator of the local part of the Universe instead of the central Light source in the Milky Way.
Another impossible mythical interpretation of the Sun goes that "the Sun is carried over the Sky on a ship". A scenario which is impossible to imagine and depict. No one can observe "a ship together with the Sun".
This misconception derives from a interpretation of a wheel symbol, which is assumed to be a "Sun-Wheel", but in fact, it is a logical rotation symbol of the Earth celestial pole where the "ship" is a stylistic image of the Milky Way contours. The scholars and authors are conflicting a nocturnal scenario to be a daytime observation.
These misconceptions takes place because the ancient physical and spiritual knowledge of astronomy and cosmology is hugely underestimated.
When the observations of the starry motion around a galactic center was discovered in 1932, this refuted Newtons law of celestial motion.
Why isn´t Newtons law discarded long time ago then?
So how can this wrong idea of "gravity" STILL play a huge role all over the places in modern cosmology and astrophysics? A falsified hypothesis should be discarded according to the scientific method, you know.
Native said: ↑
Not only probably but surely wrong as historic authors and present scholars are downgrading the ancient knowledge of the ancient known part of cosmos, thus interpreting and mistaking the Sun to have created everything in our galaxy and this misconception and misinterpretation can be read all over in books and encyclopedia.
This goes on all over the places in books and encyclopedia and has been repeated for centuries by scholars and laymen. An example here from - Ra - Wikipedia - quote:
"The sun is the giver of life, controlling the ripening of crops which were worked by man. Because of the life giving qualities of the sun the Egyptians worshiped the sun as a god. The creator of the universe and the giver of life, the sun or Ra represented life, warmth and growth. Since the people regarded Ra as a principal god, creator of the universe and the source of life, he had a strong influence on them, which led to him being one of the most worshiped of all the Egyptian gods and even considered King of the Gods".
--------------
Of course the Sun is "giver of life" on Earth, but surely it isn´t "the creator of the Universe" as concluded in this text, not even as the ancient world perception "only" included the Milky Way realms and imagery.
The creator of the Milky Way, the ancient known part of the Universe, was/is the central light in our galaxy, called Amun-Ra in the ancient Egyptian texts of creation and hieroglyphs.
When Egyptologists and others have no astronomical or cosmological insights, their only option is to interpret a light as the Sun and the creator of the local part of the Universe instead of the central Light source in the Milky Way.
Another impossible mythical interpretation of the Sun goes that "the Sun is carried over the Sky on a ship". A scenario which is impossible to imagine and depict. No one can observe "a ship together with the Sun".
This misconception derives from a interpretation of a wheel symbol, which is assumed to be a "Sun-Wheel", but in fact, it is a logical rotation symbol of the Earth celestial pole where the "ship" is a stylistic image of the Milky Way contours. The scholars and authors are conflicting a nocturnal scenario to be a daytime observation.
These misconceptions takes place because the ancient physical and spiritual knowledge of astronomy and cosmology is hugely underestimated.
Last edited:
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
You can make your own independent mythical peer reviews by studying Comparative Mythology and Comparative Religion - but I doubt you´ll get anything out of this since you take it all in advance to be plain fairy tales.
Science is a beneficial tool in the right hands....but its also a sledgehammer in the hands of those who use science as a weapon against faith. The likes of Dawkins for example, who looks down his nose at the poor deluded fools who believe in God and makes any ID believer out to be an uneducated moron.
Well, that is the way we see him too.....a poor deluded fool who will someday be brought face to face with the one whose existence he has ridiculed. I'd like to be a fly on the wall at that encounter.
I think of atomic weapons and try to see what good use they could possibly be put to....?
The fact that one nation actually used them on other human beings...twice....leaves me speechless.
I am dumbfounded that a number of nuclear power plants are actually built on earthquake fault lines.....like Fukushima...and we know what happened there......How many more will there be?
If only there were just good uses for the things human make with so little regard for the safety of others or even of the planet itself. I think of all the tons of pills (synthetic chemicals) that people swallow every day of their lives, with no thought to how much of that is excreted by the kidneys and is flushed into our sewage treatment works, only to end up in our ocean outfalls.....its affecting the fish, some of which are now presenting with mutant features.
Its hard not to when such a monster exists in the world.....its true that science can be a useful tool in the hands of some, but its a dangerous weapon in the hands of others.
Why should science be able to kill God? I don't think science has to compete with God at all....IMV God created what science studies, so the two have to be completely compatible.
I just wish there were more people who would look at science with a more critical eye....instead of just swallowing everything they suggest....it can be a substitute 'religion' in the eyes of some. A lot of theoretical science is based on assumption rather than fact...but that is not the way its sold...is it?
Is that what I said...? That is what the orthodox medical system does to cancer patients who opt for chemo and radiation.....drugs to ease the symptoms you say? I'd rather die from the disease than be killed by the treatments. Have you sat with someone dying of cancer and who have endured rounds of chemo....they die looking lie escapees from Auschwitz.
I have no doubt that there are other ways to treat disease and suffering using what is available from the unorthodox, natural medical fraternity. Every time I visit my GP (which thankfully isn't often) I am left shaking my head at the ineptitude of his remedies.....the snails pace at which I am diagnosed, and the ridiculous wait for appointments to see specialists....and the exorbitant costs just for a consult.
I have a meniscal tear in my knee that is very painful.....so my GP gave me a letter to surgeon, but I had to wait six weeks for an appointment even to discuss my options....so I Googled my problem and found out what my options were without waiting for the guy in the Armani suit to tell me what I already know. So I cancelled my appointment and I am trying a range of other remedies.
The doc offered me strong painkillers...I said "no thanks".....so did my liver.
I usually see my natural therapist for health issues, and they have a radically different approach that is non-invasive and I get a diagnosis immediately.
I leave with naturopathic or homeopathic drops and perhaps some exercises or diet, and within a few days I feel so much better. The medicine is working with my body, not against it. Side effects from synthetic drugs are an expectation, with of course, other pre$cription$ offered to off$et them.
I never have that problem with natural medicine....there are no side effects.
We have the leaflet that comes with the medication detailing the possible side effects.....sometimes its the size of a tablecloth. Prescription drugs kill more people that illicit drugs do. What about the Hippocratic oath? Isn't that first of all "do no harm"? Can we say that about prescription drugs?
Medicine that comes from nature, doesn't make you sicker. The medicinal cannabis issue is a case in point.
I know that most doctors (but not all) here are poisoned by the AMA and disinformation about cannabis that is widely circulated.
It is still demonized as a schedule 1 drug here....what a joke! when alcohol and tobacco are freely available and the cause of more ill health than cannabis could ever produce. Alcohol causes more visits to the ER than any other drug. It is at the root of most domestic violence incidents, and way too many road accidents.
I have no faith in the medical system who IMO have sold out to big pharma and made doctors their pimps. Its all about the money.....
FYI, my husband has recently been treated for cancer, had the first robotic operation of its type in france, followed up by an intensive daily course of radiotherapy. Now he will live to see our children grow rather than die a painful death in a few years. So please dont preach your aluminium hat fears to me.
That's up to you, i can assure you, you are in the minority.
Yes, some few do, they would have died anyway but they took a chance of a cure. Most make a full or partial recovery extending their life by years
Placebo medicine is only so effective. And in most cases does no or little long term good.
So change your GP.
Jolly good, if it works fine, if not then you can always make another appointment
Your liver speaks???
Which is why they are not licensed to practise medicine
BTW, many "synthetic" drugs are derived from natural sources, defined to remove the bad stuff
An extract fromthe Guardian newspapers
Herbal medicines can cause kidney failure and liver damage in some consumers because they contain toxic chemicals or heavy metals,
So? Surly the more information the better. As opposed to natural remedes that dont tell you they can destroy your liver.
Do you have actual evidence of this?
Considering prescription drugs help cure far more people than kill then i would think the oath is intact.
I cannot cite one example of a prescription drug being directly responsible for a death if it is administered as per the instructions.
Oh, tell that to my brother in law who has suffered debilitating paranoid schizophrenia for 15 years considered to have developed due to marijuana.
You are talking america, i hate to pop your bubble but America counts for just 5% of the world population.
Also see previous comment.
Again america. I know that without Amilie (the french health service, majority financed by the government ) i would be dead now, (in all fairness the original doctor was responsible but pulled out all stops to fix his mistake) and my husband would be dead within a year or two.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
I wasn't just talking about Egyptian myths and religions.
I was talking about Egyptology and archaeology in general, involved multiple disciplines, and not all of them involve "science", so my point is that it would be pointless do Peer Review on non-scientific discipline like translation of texts, or art criticism or art history on Egyptian artwork; meaning peer review wouldn't apply in these sorts of situation.
Surely, you do understand what I am saying here, don't you?
Again, like I said, the Newtonian model for gravity is a *very* good approximation. For the vast majority of cases, it is accurate enough for the task at hand (unless you are wanting 6 decimal places of accuracy, then you use general relativity).
The rotation curve of the galactic disk is NOT what showed that Newtonian gravity is wrong. The procession of the orbit of Mercury and the bending of light past the sun did.
The rotation data from galaxies showed that there is more matter out there than we thought. Even with modified models of gravity, that extra matter is required to fit the data we have.
NO modern scientist claims the sun created everything in our galaxy. And no ancient society even knew there *is* a galaxy.
Last edited:
cladking
Well-Known Member
Egyptologists believe in Peers but they still don't systematically apply science and human knowledge to the study of ancient Egypt or any of the artefacts. There is still no infrared data of any great pyramid despite the widespread availability of the technology for a century now. There are even apps for phones.
cladking
Well-Known Member
While I sympathize with this exact statement we might find the depth of their knowledge was far greater than we imagine. They certainly were aware of the existence of the Milky Way and might hypothesize that this was just a single galaxy but without telescopes it would have been very difficult for them to actually know other galaxies existed.
Native and I believe myth originated from knowledge rather than superstition. This knowledge is readily visible throughout the written record and throughout the artefacts left by ancient civilization. I believe it is confined to before 2000 BC.
Unlikely since most ancient civilizations believed the stars were simply points of light on a giant globe (or dome) surrounding the Earth. Nothing even remotely similar to our idea of a galaxy existed until we got knowledge of the true depth of space. And that was after the invention of the telescope.
Some galaxies are visible to the naked eye. Are there any mentions telling them apart from stars in old texts?
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Scientists are never happier than when their Hypothesis can be verified by experiment.
Some of Einstein's Hypothesises have only recently been verified, others still have not.
Repeatability is a basic concept, an experiment fails if it is not repeatable in the verification process.
However that does not prove that the concept or Hypothesis is wrong. It only proves that that particular experiment failed.
Verification can be a very long process often exceeding the originators lifetime.
Which can be unfortunate for some, as Nobel prises are only awarded to the living.
Some of Einstein's Hypothesises have only recently been verified, others still have not.
Repeatability is a basic concept, an experiment fails if it is not repeatable in the verification process.
However that does not prove that the concept or Hypothesis is wrong. It only proves that that particular experiment failed.
Verification can be a very long process often exceeding the originators lifetime.
Which can be unfortunate for some, as Nobel prises are only awarded to the living.