I'm talking about progress over time. Compare science now with that of the middle ages, or even 100 years ago. Something can fluctuate yet still trend upwards. Look at the Stock Market.
Look, I'm running out of patience with this. The problem I'm having with getting you to understand me comes from the way you choose to communicate. You say something, it's not clear to me but I think I understand what you are saying, so I respond based on that. You then say that I've got it wrong and say something equally vague, and round it goes. It's not hard to feel that you are being deliberately obstructive.
I will continue, but only if you will answer the following questions clearly and unambiguously.
- What is your attitude to science, in general, not picking particular examples. Is it accurate or inaccurate? Is it an effective way to determine truth?
- Again in general, is modern medical science better, worse or the same as that of, say, 100 years ago?
- What are you trying to establish with all this?
Over to you.
You want to know, so I'll answer.
What is your attitude to science, in general?
There has been many accomplishments and advancements in science - some for good... some for bad.
Science has its weaknesses, and limitations.
These include insufficient evidence, and the human element (error, hubris, bias, personal interest, etc.)
There are many example of how "scientific findings" (note quotation marks) are seen
by scientists themselves.
Two camps of theorists are bickering in public — with one [camp] saying the others’ ideas don’t even qualify as science.
"Some scientists accept that inflation is untestable but refuse to abandon it. They have proposed that, instead, science must change by discarding one of its defining properties: empirical testability. This notion has triggered a roller coaster of discussions about the nature of science and its possible redefinition, promoting the idea of some kind of non-empirical science".
Moreover, they claim that the inflation theory is untestable because of its flexible nature. "Individually and collectively, these features make inflation so flexible that no experiment can ever disprove it".
They concluded by characterizing it as an idea outside of empirical science altogether. The myriad ways inflation could have played out would lead to so many possible outcomes that no astronomical observation can ever rule the general idea out, they say — and moreover, some advocates for inflation know it. This would go against a basic, popular framing of science suggested by philosopher Karl Popper, in which a theory becomes scientific when it takes the risk of making predictions that nature could then uphold or disprove.
*******************
It would be good to read the entire article.
It's interesting what these scientists are saying... which means that these weaknesses and limitations in science are real. They do exist. ...and scientists courageously point them out.
I understand that scientist have their job to do, and so they must proceed, rather than sit and twiddle their thumbs, despite problems with their theories, but that has nothing to do with me.
What scientist believe is up to them.
I don't have to believe as they do. Many, many scientists don't... and I am no scientist.
So when it comes to science, I consider whether there is solid evidence, or just "strong" ideas.
You know the
inflation theory idea, is considered by many scientists, as an actual reality, right.
Not all scientists though.
THE LATEST ASTROPHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS, COMBINED WITH THEORETICAL PROBLEMS, CAST DOUBT ON THE LONG-CHERISHED INFLATIONARY THEORY OF THE EARLY COSMOS AND SUGGEST WE NEED NEW IDEAS
Now consider that other "theories" are built on these ideas.
It would be like building a house with a pack od cards, in a closed room.
Now open the windows.
Since I myself, and billions of people are interested in finding truth, from a source that can give us reliable answers, I do not limit myself to this limited field of study... Not saying that science does not provide some answers. It does.
That's why I understand certain things, like
the eye - how it works, amd how we see, amd why I know there is an intelligent designer that created these things.
However, science is not the only source to truth, nor is it the most reliable.
Many years have past, and science cannot give us answers to...
"Why was the universe so incredibly uniform just one second after the big bang?" "Why is the earth so finely tuned for life?" "Why do the parts of the body function so harmoniously?" etc.
Yet, they tell us why the sky is blue, right.
I have found reliable answers to the afore mentioned questions... and more, of course, from another source... one atheists don't like.
Forgive me for getting carried away.
By the way, did Jose Fly put you up to this?
Looks identical to his questions and MO.
In general, is modern medical science better, worse or the same as that of, say, 100 years ago?
I'm telling you man, that question is as broad as a truck, and you are asking me to paint my closet with it.
I'm not Michael Jackson you know.
I'll try.
Ancient medicine and practice has been around centuries before modern medicine, and is still as effective, now, as in the past... more effective and more safe than modern medicines.... most of which makes one more sick than before, as they add to complications.
Should I read some of the info on a few for you, or is your head out the sand?
The Chinese, and other Asians have utilized herbs known to be extremely effective in a number of serious ailments in their modern medicines.
Some drugs utilize herbs... with added "poisons"
Oh, and do you know that the incompetence of many modern practitioners also add to the problem of modern medicine not being as effective as in the past.
People even say that people today do not care as much as in the past.
Now why this question is not a question that can receive a straightforward answer, is because modern medicine is also ancient medicine, practiced by people who do not believe in treating their patients with drugs that are more dangerous than drinking a drop of poison every month... or two weeks.
Naturopaths for example practice medical science. It's modern, but not Orthodox, and it utilizes ancient medicine and practice.
So you see, why I cannot say one is better than the other... Or did I.
However, I can tell you I prefer the medical science that is against the medical science that washes people in synthetic drugs... and blood transfusions.
In certain cases though, I might seek out the other side.
For example, in a case where I may need to remove harmful "bodies" from the body. ...but this is for two reasons. 1) I don't know of all the practices of medical practitioners who use other form of medicine than drugs, and 2) some of their practices are against my religion.
I don't have that faith... in those practices, I mean.
I'm studying if I left out anything.
I think that's it.
