Can/should we Skeptics in Modern Science?

[Kumar]

Hello all,

It is usually indicated to me in this forum & otherwise, that Modern Science & its every/most things can't be somewhat alike "absolute" or "persitant". It is a continuing process & go on changing, modifying, banning or discarding previous findings inspite of too much advanced & harsh tests & studies, on practical applications/time testings, if new technology is found or previous one got rejected/banned due to some adversities. Too much studies, theories, substances, involvements, time avaibility with practicing person in these, ignorances,carelessness, oversights etc. due to attuned/become prominient, prefered, conventional system/s etc., can also be thought.

Under these considerations, I want to better understand that;

1. Whether we should remain always skeptic in modern science/systems & so should we do our homework before using/accepting these new technologies?

2. Can prescriber/teacher in these systems have required time, brain's capacity(for too much) to remember & apply for justified/real prescription/teaching? Whether complete knowledge just equivalent to 'research scientists' in any prescription, is really necessary & justified to effect justified/real treatment/teaching?

3. Can we get some adversities, if we don't do this homework?

4. How this homework is practical in case of common person, who has to use these sciences/systems?

5. What we can suffer by using these new technologies/systems in view of anticipated changes/non-absoluteness in these systems & by not doing the homework?

In short, I want to understand true position of 'modern science/systems' for their uses & abuses by me/common person.

Rest as usual.

Best wishes.

 

[ReFLeX]

Kumar, what is your first language?

 

[Donks]

In short, I want to understand true position of 'modern science/systems' for their uses & abuses by me/common person.

Rest as usual.

Best wishes.

What your position should be is this: When you hear about some advancement in science, if it contradicts the absolute knowledge of TRS, or the semiabsolute knowledge of homeopathy, then discard it out of hand. If you can somehow take any piece of it and twist it into supporting the aforementioned systems, then do that and discard all the rest.

 

[Kumar]

Kumar, what is your first language?

Not english. But we are not discussing just language here.

 

[Kumar]

Re: Re: Can/should we Skeptics in Modern Science?

What your position should be is this: When you hear about some advancement in science, if it contradicts the absolute knowledge of TRS, or the semiabsolute knowledge of homeopathy, then discard it out of hand. If you can somehow take any piece of it and twist it into supporting the aforementioned systems, then do that and discard all the rest.

To me, any unclear system is doubtful-- homeopathy or science. I remain skeptic in these & so ant to understad maximum. Whether we are bound to accept & follow that, even unclear, is a differant matter being no other choice. But we should atleast know unclear aspects--unabling to understand, handle or be prepared for that in advance.

 

[joesixpack]

I'm waiting for PixyMisa's response.

 

[Donks]

Re: Re: Re: Can/should we Skeptics in Modern Science?

To me, any unclear system is doubtful-- homeopathy or science. I remain skeptic in these & so ant to understad maximum. Whether we are bound to accept & follow that, even unclear, is a differant matter being no other choice. But we should atleast know unclear aspects--unabling to understand, handle or be prepared for that in advance.

Yes, I agree. We should only blindly accept TRS. Homeopathy, just mostly, since some stuff can be cut from it to make it absolute. And from science, just whichever bits we can twist into supporting TRS. You are right. Everything else should be ignored.

 

[Kumar]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Can/should we Skeptics in Modern Science?

Yes, I agree. We should only blindly accept TRS. Homeopathy, just mostly, since some stuff can be cut from it to make it absolute. And from science, just whichever bits we can twist into supporting TRS. You are right. Everything else should be ignored.

Just try to understand anything in reality, neither pro nor opposite. I could benefit sufficiently, when I studied medical informations on any disease & then discussed with doctors accordingly. Antacids MOM, Alm. Hydroxide etc. related to constipated person or clear motion, is one such understanding. Under current pressure on modern science/s, we can also do something for our benefit. Why so many reputed sites are there on medical informations, suitable for a common person? Reg; absoluteness, we can say effect of traditionally used salts eg; NaCl, Sod. bicarbonate..etc. as somewhat absolute/persistant. If any such salt or natural/ body's substance(alike insulin) is there, we can think it as absolute/persistant. But if we are using any new substance, it may not be absolute/persistant. It is so simple logic.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Starts with an N........

 

[Zep]

Nihilsm? Naturalisation? Nintendo?

 

[Throg]

1. We should always remain sceptical about everything . That's pretty much the basis of science. It seems to me, it has to be the basis of all rational thought applied to the real world as opposed to pure logic. Of course you should do the homework, I am surprised that is even a question. It is foolish to expect to be prepared for any situation without actually preparing for it.

2. Depends upon the person. There are stupid people and intelligent people, hard-working people and lazy people and all the shades of grey in-between. This is true of teachers/prescribers as much as anyone else. This is why you must do your homework so that you don't have to completely rely on others for your understanding. Of course, you cannot devote as much time nor hope to achieve as deep an understanding of every subject as the best specialists in a particular subject. You can attain a sufficient understanding of the principles of any subject and, more importantly, of the scientific method and critical reasoning that underpins all science to make informed decisions and to recognise where, in specific areas, you need to work to improve your knowledge. If by brain capacity, you mean the limits of memory then it is, for practical purposes, irrelevant; if you mean innate lack of intelligence then there is little you can do about that. Absolutely, it is justified and necessary for teachers/prescribers to do the homework, I'd even say it is a moral requirement. Is that really in question?

3. We can certainly get adversities. We can get ignorance and that's pretty adverse.

4. This is covering much of the same territory as 2. above. How is it practical? Well it's more or less practical depending on the individual. We each do the best we can.

5. We can suffer in exactly the same way that we can suffer from using harmful old technologies. The trick is exactly the same with new technologies as old technologies, you work to gain as complete an understanding as you can before you apply the technology.

The true position of modern sciences (I won't address "systems" as it's far too vague) is that they represent the best current understanding of the phenemona under investigation. They never stop investigating and never accept that they have the complete answer. They always try to advance understanding which means that at any particular point in time the most accurate understanding of any given phenomena is likely to be provided by modern science. The understanding is almost certainly incomplete and there is always the chance that it is just plain wrong. It is nevertheless, the best understanding that money or anything else can buy.


Incidentally, the question about your first language is sort of relevant. Sometimes it is not clear what you are asking (that is also true of those of us for whom English is our first language) and knowing your first language might enable some of us to better interpret what it is you are saying in virtue of the structure of your first language. Just a thought.

 

[Kumar]

1. We should always remain sceptical about everything . That's pretty much the basis of science. It seems to me, it has to be the basis of all rational thought applied to the real world as opposed to pure logic. Of course you should do the homework, I am surprised that is even a question. It is foolish to expect to be prepared for any situation without actually preparing for it.

Thanks for one of the best & most neutral post, here. Is there any limit of skepticism--where skeptic can become believer?

What about homework or pre-occupied with medical informations, in case of healing substances which are least toxic & with least adversities.

2. Depends upon the person. There are stupid people and intelligent people, hard-working people and lazy people and all the shades of grey in-between. This is true of teachers/prescribers as much as anyone else. This is why you must do your homework so that you don't have to completely rely on others for your understanding. Of course, you cannot devote as much time nor hope to achieve as deep an understanding of every subject as the best specialists in a particular subject. You can attain a sufficient understanding of the principles of any subject and, more importantly, of the scientific method and critical reasoning that underpins all science to make informed decisions and to recognise where, in specific areas, you need to work to improve your knowledge.

Yes, correct.

If by brain capacity, you mean the limits of memory then it is, for practical purposes, irrelevant; if you mean innate lack of intelligence then there is little you can do about that. Absolutely, it is justified and necessary for teachers/prescribers to do the homework, I'd even say it is a moral requirement. Is that really in question?

BY Brain capacity I mean, modern & some alternative science/systems have too much theories, referances, healing substances etc. which can be beyond the capacity of single brain of any healer/prescriber to understand in complete & apply at a given time. How then, he can effect really justified cure/treatment by understanding everything of a patient in some limited time? Mistakes in this respect, can be very much possible & mistakes in case of crude chemical based medicines--can mean much more than other alt. systems.

3. We can certainly get adversities. We can get ignorance and that's pretty adverse.

Yes.

4. This is covering much of the same territory as 2. above. How is it practical? Well it's more or less practical depending on the individual. We each do the best we can.

As per 2 above.

5. We can suffer in exactly the same way that we can suffer from using harmful old technologies. The trick is exactly the same with new technologies as old technologies, you work to gain as complete an understanding as you can before you apply the technology.

But adverse/toxic effects can matter, if mistakes are possible in both types.

The true position of modern sciences (I won't address "systems" as it's far too vague) is that they represent the best current understanding of the phenemona under investigation. They never stop investigating and never accept that they have the complete answer. They always try to advance understanding which means that at any particular point in time the most accurate understanding of any given phenomena is likely to be provided by modern science. The understanding is almost certainly incomplete and there is always the chance that it is just plain wrong. It is nevertheless, the best understanding that money or anything else can buy.

In view of possible mistakes, possible mistakes in technologies, adverse/toxic effects can matter much--as I said above.


Incidentally, the question about your first language is sort of relevant. Sometimes it is not clear what you are asking (that is also true of those of us for whom English is our first language) and knowing your first language might enable some of us to better interpret what it is you are saying in virtue of the structure of your first language. Just a thought.

Is it not sufficient that english is not my first language? Still if you will insist, I will tell you.

In view of above, I feel that mistakes in current status of science tecnologies & in prescriber's interpretation can be very much possible. We may now have to find, how to justify side/adverse or toxic effects(adversities) in case of modern concentrated medicines & other's systems crude substance based healing substancs?

 

[joesixpack]

PIXYMISA WHERE ARE YOU????

 

[prewitt81]

Does it rhyme with d'oh?

 

[Mojo]

Re: Re: Re: Can/should we Skeptics in Modern Science?

To me, any unclear system is doubtful-- homeopathy or science. I remain skeptic in these & so ant to understad maximum.

Are you saying, here, that you understand science and homeopathy as well as an ant does?

 

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Kumar Is it not sufficient that english is not my first language? Still if you will insist, I will tell you.

Kumar's first language is obviously Trollish... but it's also clear he's quite eloquent in Gibberish as well.

 

[joesixpack]

Does it rhyme with d'oh?

Yes, and here's another hint. It uses all of the letters in the alphabet between "M" and "P". It uses each of those letters exactly once, and in alphabetical order.

 

[Mojo]

Is it not sufficient that english is not my first language? Still if you will insist, I will tell you.

 

[hgc]

Not english. But we are not discussing just language here.

Give us a clue. How about yes/no questions? My turn: Is it a human language?

 

[Throg]

Thanks for one of the best & most neutral post, here. Is there any limit of skepticism--where skeptic can become believer?

You are welcome. It seems to me that neutrality is a necessary corollory of scepticism (at least prior to obtaining reliable evidence to contraindicate a neutral position). As far as I can see there is no rational way for a sceptic to become a believer. Given sufficient evidence, a sceptic can provisionally accept that a proposition is likely to be true and may adopt the pragmatic position that he should behave as if it is true. Thus I accept that the best evidence suggests that the world is spheroidal, that I am a human being with the associated mental and physical needs. I conduct my life as if I absolutely knew these things since I have no rational alternative basis on which to proceed and the consequences for me should the world, in fact, be as it seems and I acted as if it were not, would be dire. Nevertheless, I am quite conscious of the fact that the world and I may be quite other than we appear to be. Should there come a point where the evidence that my perceptions of the world are false I will accept that everything I have taken for granted my entire life is wrong and attempt to adapt to the world as it is evinced to be. I do not and cannot conceive of ever believing in anything I merely have provisional beliefs based on the evidence.

BY Brain capacity I mean, modern & some alternative science/systems have too much theories, referances, healing substances etc. which can be beyond the capacity of single brain of any healer/prescriber to understand in complete & apply at a given time. How then, he can effect really justified cure/treatment by understanding everything of a patient in some limited time? Mistakes in this respect, can be very much possible & mistakes in case of crude chemical based medicines--can mean much more than other alt. systems.

Since there is no absolute knowledge, the best we can do is act in a rational manner based on the best understanding of the world available to us. I do not think it is really an objection to the practice of science or medicine that no scientist or doctor has perfect knowledge. All we can expect is that doctors and scientist use those methods which are most likely to be effective according to to the best understanding available at the time. Neither doctors nor scientists are gods but since we do not have gods available to us to perform their duties they are the best we can get. Certainly, mistakes will happen both because of the limitations of individual practitioners and of our current state of knowledge. What we must do is meticulously analyse the potential risks involved, the potential benefits involved and the probabilities of each. It is far from perfect but it is the best we can do and far better than doing nothing, as even a cursory examination of the progression of modern science and medicine shows. You have a point that chemical medicines can do more harm than alternative systems when mistakes are made but failure to take advantage of chemical medicines when they are indicated is at least equally harmful while the benefits when chemical medicines are used correctly far outweight those offered by alternative systems based on the evidence. Analysis of the risks/benefits of "conventional" modern medicine vs alernative therapies conviningly favours modern medicine.

But adverse/toxic effects can matter, if mistakes are possible in both types

Absolutely they can matter so it comes down to analysing risks/benefits again and modern medicine and science still seem to win.

Is it not sufficient that english is not my first language? Still if you will insist, I will tell you

I do not insist in the slightest. I merely point out the reason why it might be relevant. If you are willing to make the extra effort to make yourself understood (and to understand those of us who are fortunate enough to be using our own familiar language) then I applaud you for the effort.

In view of above, I feel that mistakes in current status of science tecnologies & in prescriber's interpretation can be very much possible. We may now have to find, how to justify side/adverse or toxic effects(adversities) in case of modern concentrated medicines & other's systems crude substance based healing substancs?

No argument, mistakes can and will happen in both conventional science/medicine and alternative systems. So far as I can see, reliance on alternative systems seems to be a mistake in itself since the evidence seems to show that such systems are generally ineffective (the only "alternative" therapy I can currently think of for which there has been significant favourable evidence is acupuncture but please correct me if I am wrong) such that it is really irrelevant whether or not they are safer in terms of what happens when mistakes are made. The justification for side/adverse or toxic effects in modern medicines is that the benefits outweigh the costs.