Sorry to hear that. If you don't mind my asking, do you have any treatment options for myocarditis? Have doctors told you whether the condition can go away?
-
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!
In Science We Trust
- Thread starter lukethethird
- Start date
Sorry to hear that. If you don't mind my asking, do you have any treatment options for myocarditis? Have doctors told you whether the condition can go away?
Augustus
…
Thank you
Mild myocarditis should resolve itself without need for treatment, usually without long-term consequences. It's a rare-ish but not all that uncommon effect of numerous viral illnesses including flu, covid, etc.
Symptoms are pretty mild, but it is rather disconcerting at times. Taking its time to go away too, although is gradually improving. It's like getting sneak preview of what it will be like when I'm 70
Just taking a NSAID to help reduce any inflammation.
When I was getting my ECG the nurse actually mentioned quite a few people had been in with heart issues after getting Covid (also that she'd seen quite a few people in A&E after getting the vaccine).
Can't win really
Thank you
Mild myocarditis should resolve itself without need for treatment, usually without long-term consequences. It's a rare-ish but not all that uncommon effect of numerous viral illnesses including flu, covid, etc.
Symptoms are pretty mild, but it is rather disconcerting at times. Taking its time to go away too, although is gradually improving. It's like getting sneak preview of what it will be like when I'm 70
Just taking a NSAID to help reduce any inflammation.
When I was getting my ECG the nurse actually mentioned quite a few people had been in with heart issues after getting Covid (also that she'd seen quite a few people in A&E after getting the vaccine).
Can't win really
That's pretty unfortunate. I hope your condition completely resolves soon and you're only left with the benefits of the vaccine. I'm beyond exhausted from the pandemic and related topics too.
Atheists....smarter than the average bear.
Not all who claim to be rational or logical actually are."Rationalists" here treat "science" like a teenage girl treats a boyband. It is to be to be fawned over, rather than treated critically. Then they will pat themselves on the back for how rational and sceptical they are
Tis often just that one feels certain about something,
therefore anyone who disagrees isn't logical.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
I've never seen a single atheist, here or anywhere else, ever claim the scientific method is infallible.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Well maybe most atheists are just more critical of unevidenced ideas, like the kind of conspiracies that drive anti vaccination propaganda. It's easy to believe greedy pharmaceutical companies are so self serving they'd do anything to make money, but the simple fact is that these anti vaccination conspiracies are nothing new, and the evidence never supports them, and they are always dangerous and pernicious nonsense.
I'm not sure that medicine and economics qualifies as science. Or do you mean creating vaccines and medicines to deal with illnesses?
Your criticism is broad and vague, and that suggests to me you have a bias yourself that you might not have thought through completely. When I got my degree in psychology there was a lot of emphasis on ethics, including the history of psychology, which was horrific. Ethics is very imprint in science. Of course once you mix in money and ideologies there may be some individuals who have to play some games. For example if a university administrator says a science department needs to present some findings in order to keep funding there will be pressure to be unethical. This tells us about bureaucracy, it doesn't tell us how experts in science ce take their work and ethics seriously.
I don't see how the quote was applicable. Further I don't know what the context was. The example in the quote was about teaching the scientific method and not results in science. I'm not sure what grade that teacher taught, but when I was in the 7th grade we did learn about the scientific method. We learned it in application in my Experimental Psychology class.
Since the guy is a Nobel winning physicist his approach to the scientific method will be more abstract and require certain assumptions that aren't applied in other science. I don't know, you didn't clarify. Your lack of precision and clarity is exactly what science teaches to avoid.
Your bias is not like a large, exposed boil on your face, and it's all anyone sees of you."Rationalists" here treat "science" like a teenage girl treats a boyband. It is to be to be fawned over, rather than treated critically. Then they will pat themselves on the back for how rational and sceptical they are
Non-experts in science dont have the expertise to criticize science. This is the Duning-Kruger effect, look it up.
Science corrects itself, that is how it gets more accurate and precise over time.
Your vagueness and lack of precise points is something you need to reflect on if you want to be comprehensible to others. If you are deliberately vague it may indicate you are not confident in what you believe and your arguments.
They have all been wrong about things before. So you have that in common with them.
Maybe when the Pope does science ....?
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Well yes, but more telling for me is his assumption that atheists think the method is infallible or perfect, even when no atheist has to my knowledge ever remotely claimed this, and quite a few have pointed out they understand the opposite, myself included.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
"Rationalists" here treat "science" like a teenage girl treats a boyband. It is to be to be fawned over, rather than treated critically. Then they will pat themselves on the back for how rational and sceptical they are
Rubbish, every atheists here is telling you bluntly they do not remotely think this, so this is just another ridiculous straw man again. Though of course they could all just claim to have faith it is perfect, and have personally experienced this knowledge, and you'd be in no position to object as far as I can see.
Augustus
…
The medical sciences have produced great advances.
They also have some of the worst replication rates and biggest ethical and methodological problems
In addition, bad medical science cause real harm to people.
All of these can be true.
Agreed?
No one is criticising "science".
I made the very simple point that some sciences are more vastly reliable than others so saying 'trust the science "is silly without expressing what science it is we are supposed to trust.
You might think it "rational" to blindly trust findings in fields that replicate below 50% but I don't.
If you think that is Dunning kruger or makes me "anti-science" then I can't help you.
Yes, but it is also true that correction often takes decades and may cause harm in the meantime.
This is why the unreliability of some sciences is problematic.
Agreed?
The other chap claimed that it was easy to demarcate science from non-science because "science follows the scientific method".
I was pointing out he was wrong as there is no single scientific method and demarcation is actually far more complex than that. There is no neat way to differentiates science from non-science.
Do you agree?
Bias against what exactly?
You still seem to be addressing a figment of your imagination.
Or you are incapable of reading without bias and so keep making the same basic errors over and over again.
The only people who seem to misunderstand are those who don't read what I say and jump to silly conclusions based on their mistaken assumptions.
Funny that...
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
It's mostly Evangelicals that are anti-vax.
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
Most vaccines you have done as a child, so I don't think they are real money makers.
Um, no. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Dinosaurs lived between about 240 million years ago and 63 million years ago. You are off here be a factor of at least 27.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Someone is still paying for them.
You're referring to drugs. This is why we need government oversight over drug companies. Drugs are a broad subject, and you cannot throw all of them into similar category. You can't talk about insulin the same way you can talk about opiates. Again, you are being exceptionally vague. If you have a specific point to make, then make that specific point.
You gave examples that are not comparable. It's like you asserting "not all fruits are equally sweet". OK, who cares? Fruit and sciences need to be assessed for their individual approaches and results. There is no broad brush assessment as you try to perform here.
Give real examples of this being the case.
You can look it up, reflect on your comments and thinking, and then help yourself.
Most drug companies, via regulation by the government, take years and years doing studies. Those studies offer the opportunity to individuals, and often get paid for their time. They subjects are notified of the risks, and the subjects agree to the terms that these studies involve risks. Subjects will often include a medical and personal health survey so drug companies can look at why individuals have certain side effects whileWith this data the drug companies can assess the side effects while others don't. With this data drug companies can assess whether the drug is safe and effective. As with Covid there was a fast track from development to release due to the threat to public health and the deal nature of the virus. The development was based on other successful vaccines, so they weren't reinventing the wheel.
Give real examples of sciences that are unreliable. Make sure you don't site references from the 18th or 19th century.
You are vague and offer no details what you are talking about. It sounds like more apples and oranges.
If you can't articulate EXACTLY what you are referring to maybe you don't have a real argument.
Jonas Salk didn't ask for any money on his polio vaccine. He saw it as his duty to humanity to give it away. Of course it costs money to produce, so that production cost has to be offset by someone, or insurance, or the state.
I've not seen this straw man used very much, but i can see it being a round about way to suggest that atheists/thinkers have an exaggerated trust in science, and that this is a "faith" and that since science has a history that includes failures, this faith is bad.
And of course none of this is accurate. Oddly the approach by theists to try to impose faith onto atheists, and that faith is unreliable, only comes back on them as their faith is highly unreliable.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
@Augustus , I have no problem with your post #61 (though I would not agree that percentage of real 'rationalists' is as low as 20%). As you can see, the atheists above have accepted that science is not infallible. It stumbles and progresses. That is part of the game.
As you can see, the atheists above have accepted that science is not infallible. It stumbles and progresses. That is part of the game. Or private hospitals. In India, they advocated Plasma therapy. I never believed that. Now it is in the "Covid cures' dust bin.
Last edited: