No social ladders any longer?

[questfortruth]

To achieve recognition and acceptance, you need to have authority over Scientific Community. And to have authority, you need to have recognition. Elite is a closed club and there are no "social lifts" or "social ladders". Therefore, it is a great miracle of God if a good person receives recognition, glory, fame, and success.

 

[F1fan]

To achieve recognition and acceptance, you need to have authority over Scientific Community. And to have authority, you need to have recognition. Elite is a closed club and there are no "social lifts" or "social ladders". Therefore, it is a great miracle of God if a good person receives recognition, glory, fame, and success.

So you are complaining about how science has high ethical standards and that we all know that religious claims do not, and that you think it is unfair that religious claims cannot compete with conclusions in science for what we can know is true about reality.

Religion had its heyday for millennia and it's too bad that science reveals little of it is true.

 

[Kenny]

So you are complaining about how science has high ethical standards and that we all know that religious claims do not, and that you think it is unfair that religious claims cannot compete with conclusions in science for what we can know is true about reality.

Religion had its heyday for millennia and it's too bad that science reveals little of it is true.

I think you are dreaming.

 

[F1fan]

I think you are dreaming.

Feel free to finish your comment with a lucid explanation.

 

[Kenny]

So you are complaining about how science has high ethical standards

We could start right here one the very first half a sentence...

Would you like to back that up?

Levaquin Users Sue J&J for $800 M for Hiding Side Effects

British Climate Scientist in hacked email controversy to step down

FDA Caught Buying 'Fresh' Aborted Baby Body Parts From Dealer


1 vaccine and you will be fine... oops... 2 vaccines and you will be fine.... oops 2 vaccines and a booster shot will make you fine... oops 2 vaccines and regular booster shots will make you fine.... oops - just get a vaccine once a year - but you will still get covid.

YUP! great high ethical standards... would you like more?

 

[Revoltingest]

We could start right here one the very first half a sentence...

Would you like to back that up?

Levaquin Users Sue J&J for $800 M for Hiding Side Effects

British Climate Scientist in hacked email controversy to step down

FDA Caught Buying 'Fresh' Aborted Baby Body Parts From Dealer


1 vaccine and you will be fine... oops... 2 vaccines and you will be fine.... oops 2 vaccines and a booster shot will make you fine... oops 2 vaccines and regular booster shots will make you fine.... oops - just get a vaccine once a year - but you will still get covid.

YUP! great high ethical standards... would you like more?

Science is about models of reality that are useful.
(It's not about being "true", error free, & unchanging.)
They're proposed...tested...re-tested...bunked...debunked
...& replaced by better models that are tested....etc, etc.
This isn't a problem...errors, corrections, & re-thinking
are fundamental to the process.

An advantage of the scientific way of reasoning over the
religious way of feeling is illustrated in vaccine usage.
Some feel that vaccines have failed because one can
still get Covid. But the scientific way is epidemiological,
ie, to look at the frequency & morbidity of non-vaxing
vs vaxing. Thus we see vaccines are useful because
the disease tends to be far less severe.

 

[Kenny]

Science is about models of reality that are useful.
(It's not about being "true", error free, & unchanging.)
They're proposed...tested...re-tested...bunked...debunked
...& replaced by better models that are tested....etc, etc.
This isn't a problem...errors, corrections, & re-thinking
are fundamental to the process.

An advantage of the scientific way of reasoning over the
religious way of feeling is illustrated in vaccine usage.
Some feel that vaccines have failed because one can
still get Covid. But the scientific way is epidemiological,
ie, to look at the frequency & morbidity of non-vaxing
vs vaxing. Thus we see vaccines are useful because
the disease tends to be far less severe.

The problem isn't what you are talking about. The problem is that he referred to science as if had a standard of excellence... it doesn't.

 

[Sheldon]

Religion had its heyday for millennia

Oh I wouldn't attach too much significance to that, I think it's heyday occurred mostly when people thought virgins were the pinnacle of volcanology. Indeed, placating imaginary deities, and placating volcanoes with virgins, seems equally successful given the evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

The problem isn't what you are talking about. The problem is that he referred to science as if had a standard of excellence... it doesn't.

Oh, it does.
But it's also imperfect.
Still, there's no better method for
dealing with the material world.

 

[Sheldon]

The problem isn't what you are talking about. The problem is that he referred to science as if had a standard of excellence... it doesn't.

Sorry couldn't read that, what with the science that underpins the technology making it possible, not having a standard of objective excellence. Hope you can read this, as I am not prepared to pray it to you.

 

[F1fan]

We could start right here one the very first half a sentence...

Would you like to back that up?

Levaquin Users Sue J&J for $800 M for Hiding Side Effects

British Climate Scientist in hacked email controversy to step down

FDA Caught Buying 'Fresh' Aborted Baby Body Parts From Dealer


1 vaccine and you will be fine... oops... 2 vaccines and you will be fine.... oops 2 vaccines and a booster shot will make you fine... oops 2 vaccines and regular booster shots will make you fine.... oops - just get a vaccine once a year - but you will still get covid.

YUP! great high ethical standards... would you like more?

Sure, but be sure to account for the millions of ethical science references that you ignore. Care too calculate a percentage of ethical versus unethical in science? Of course you don't, your arguments are emotional and bluffing. That is why your argument will fail, and religion fails: too emotional, not enough facts, not an objective approach, bad conclusions.

Science isn't perfect but it has an ethical standard and self-corrects itself. Compare religion to that.

 

[Kenny]

Oh, it does.
But it's also imperfect.
Still, there's no better method for
dealing with the material world.

Very imperfect but it does help with the material world...

Spirituality also helps with the material world We also adjust, correct and get better.

 

[Kenny]

Sorry couldn't read that, what with the science that underpins the technology making it possible, not having a standard of objective excellence. Hope you can read this, as I am not prepared to pray it to you.

Yes, that wonderful standard of excellence that silences opposing viewpoints, gives your information to the highest bidder and helps big brother know everything about you...

you better learn how to pray

 

[Revoltingest]

Very imperfect but it does help with the material world...

Spirituality also helps with the material world We also adjust, correct and get better.

Imperfect though science be,
there's no better alternative.

 

[F1fan]

Very imperfect but it does help with the material world...

Yes, the one world we can be sure exists outside of our imagination.

Spirituality also helps with the material world We also adjust, correct and get better.

When?

 

[Kenny]

Imperfect though science be,
there's no better alternative.

I agree... hands down!

But I would lower the rating of "high ethical standards". Killing of babies in the womb, falsifying of information for the bottom line, unnecessary surgeries, forced use of experimental vaccines....

It isn't like "high bar" fits the definition.

 

[Kenny]

Yes, the one world we can be sure exists outside of our imagination.


When?

When what?

As Jesus so well put it, "be it unto you according to your faith". You don't have to enjoy the benefits But I love the results!

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree... hands down!

But I would lower the rating of "high ethical standards". Killing of babies in the womb, falsifying of information for the bottom line, unnecessary surgeries, forced use of experimental vaccines....

It isn't like "high bar" fits the definition.

You have a different sense of ethics.
To many people, a fetus is not a "baby".
And most scientists have nothing to do with that.
Once again, I see no better system.
Religion & government certainly aren't better,
what with their systematic lying, abuse, oppression,
& murder of babies, children, & adults.

 

[Kenny]

You have a different sense of ethics.
To many people, a fetus is not a "baby".
And most scientists have nothing to do with that.
Once again, I see no better system.
Religion & government certainly aren't better,
what with their systematic lying, abuse, oppression,
& murder of babies, children, & adults.

Again... I agree that it is the best standard for natural help... didn't deny that. It just isn't the golden standard.

Ethics is still ethics. If you hide negative results of a drug but still helps some people, it is that persons standard of ethics... it is still wrong.

Abortion is still wrong and to claim that it is a golden standard only means you have lowered your ethics in as much a the Hippocratic Oath runs contrary to abortion.

Notice I didn't say religion is better (hopefully I didn't) because people are still involved.... you just can't say that science is "better".

 

[Revoltingest]

Again... I agree that it is the best standard for natural help... didn't deny that. It just isn't the golden standard.

Ethics is still ethics. If you hide negative results of a drug but still helps some people, it is that persons standard of ethics... it is still wrong.

Abortion is still wrong and to claim that it is a golden standard only means you have lowered your ethics in as much a the Hippocratic Oath runs contrary to abortion.

Notice I didn't say religion is better (hopefully I didn't) because people are still involved.... you just can't say that science is "better".

Abortion is right or wrong depending solely upon
highly varied personal preference. There is no
universally agreed upon relevant morality, as we
see in religions & governments.
Let's avoid absolutism that ignores this diversity.