Nothing all that suprising, since it has long been known that scientific theories are provisional. And in a few years they will undoubtedly be claiming something else.

Do you anticipate discoveries that will suggest a 6000 year old universe?

And the world as a whole will be better off - we'll live longer, healthier, there will be less poverty.

If you don't want to use results of provisional science, please, don't use your computer, don't take any drugs, tell everyone in your church to just pray and put oil on forehead and it will be all just fine.

Sigh....

Where is Jesus when he needs to keep us from his followers?

You don't know that the world as a whole will be better off, or that we will be living longer, healthier lives. In fact, there are indications that will not be the case. As to poverty, it is increasing despite, and even because of in some cases, technological advance.

SRAW MAN claims about what people who live in a created, not an atheistic, universe should be allowed to do simply misrepresent the church, prayer, and many other things you talk about.

Computers can be used to control populations, as can drugs (not to mention the damage done by drugs), and science has provided things that threaten our very existence.

Sigh...

Great is they faith in Science.

[from the admin - moved to the Home for Wayward Comments for continuing to be too personal. I've explained the forum expectations a number of times - please take your personal crusade elsewhere, or stick with making points about issues, not people.]

You say that like its a bad thing.

It definitely can be, if, for example, you have had medical treatments that later research indicated were worse than useless, but actually harmful.

As happened to a relative of mine.

Fortunately, a Lawyer straightened things out!

That doesn't sound bad, it sounds good. Research led to improvements.

And if a lawyer got involved, it sounds more like
a) negligence on the part of an individual doctor/hospital (not the entire field of medical science)
or
b) someone didn't understand that all medical procedures involve risk and an ambulance chaser convinced them that money would make them feel better.

On the contrary, it involved a medical trial of a new technique. it was pretty well demonstrated that the system faild.

And you are right, money did make them feel better because it enbabled them to get on with their lives in the face of disability. That said, you obviously have illusions about how great the system is.

Yes, I think the system is great. The provisional nature of science is not a flaw, its one of its greatest assets. You yourself said that later research determined that a certain medical treatment was not just useless, but harmful. Hurray for new evidence, right?

You really haven't given us enough information to make your case. I'm not asking for it - its none of my business and I really don't care. But it seems to me that if you had to get lawyers and the courts involved, then someone (a doctor, a hospital, a drug company) did something negligent. Based on your "later research" statement, it sounds like someone either prescribed a treatment even after it was shown to be harmful, or before its efficacy was properly determined.

Neither of these is an indictment of science, per se. Who were the defendants in this case? They're the ones that you should be upset with.

Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. If you really think the system is that great, your experience is obviously limited.

And of course, in your view, no matter what happens, Science is never at fault. There will always be an excuse. Sure, you can claim science is self correcting, but how can you ever know for sure. In any case, if the "correction" comes to late to help the many people hurt, it is irrelevant to them.

"A theory that explains everything explains nothing."

And as far as the courts being involved, your side does not hesitate to utilize them when it suits them, as in Dover and numerous other cases involving science.

Translation: I have nothing to say to back up my claim, so I'll just repeat it and call anyone who disagrees with me, ignorant. You got me there, Mike.


Strawman. I didn't say Science is never at fault. I never said there will always be an excuse. What I did say was, that in the extremely vague example you provided, it sounded like an individual or a company acted improperly.


An irrelevant quote that, without any context, adds nothing to your argument.


Another strawman. Who's complaining about the courts getting involved? I like when our legal system addresses legal issues. Like when a school board violates the Constitution by teaching religion in a science classroom. Or when a doctor or a drug company is held accountable for fraud or negligence. And please define "your side" vs "my side."

Strawman? Your original post was a Strawman. You have not offered any evidence, and have simply dismissed the massive failures of the medical system by saying "I think the system is great".

Apparently you see the 200,000 killed each year by medical mistakes, studies later claimed to be wrong...when even the later study may be wrong... pharmaceutical errors, and many other problems as not enough "evidence".

Its a serious, critical problem, and kills more people than car wrecks, crimes, and terrorist attacks each year combined. Tell me, how many would have to be slaughtered for you to say the system is no longer "Great"?

(By the way, I have a solution...expand the penalies from just CIVIL, which one can pay their way out of, to CRIMINAL. How's that suit you? I bet that would get the systems attention! )

MikeH wrote
I wonder where you get your numbers. Even the report below from 12 years ago seems to be hedging on the numbers - as if even they are guessing. Many of the suggestions from this paper have been implemented and medical errors most certainly have dropped since then. Perhaps you should update your thinking.

From The Institute of Medicine of the National Academies "To Err is Human: Building A Safer Health System", dated 1 November 1999


And even this has nothing to do with science correcting itself. You are talking about human error, not scientific errors.