bioneural.net

2 responses to US divorces fact from science

1. 1 Carole Danforth
   Apr 9th, 2007 at 5:15 am

   Well, perhaps many in the USA are disillusioned with "science" as it is applied to human beings. I've known a couple of doctors, healthy specimens themselves, who were appalled at the results of mixing various chemicals in the human body and the trauma of surgical procedures, which should be a last resort, but instead is overused. Is it medicine, or chemical experimentation? Does it cure or add new side effects while eliminating original symptoms? Isn't much of it just legal pain-killers and happy pills?

   However successful trips to the Moon have been, one can still become skeptical and disillusioned when medical science appears faulty. Not to mention that living life at breakneck technological speed leads to heart problems. Just because we can create new and complicated mental constructs and give it a boost from the masses who believe in anything new, does not mean it is truth. Will we laugh a few centuries from now at what we blithely call "cutting edge" today?

   Not to be a right-wing fundamentalist at all. Actually I appreciate Christianity, Zen, astrology and herbalism. Why not take the Creation story literally? Perhaps many in the US sort of throw their hands up in despair. I don't remember actually being there at the moment of Creation, so I can't say for sure. For all we know...

   Nice blog design you have, by the way (especially the hover on About). I remember you from iBlog forums a few years back.

2. 2 Bruce
   Apr 9th, 2007 at 8:39 am

   I agree the medical sciences are far from perfect Carole—although personally I would put my "faith" in chemicals or cold steel well before religion when it came to cancer treatment. That isn't to say religion can't play a part, and for many people it does. In such an example bio-medical science and religion are two complimentary approaches to rationalising the situation and resolving the same problem.

   I find it curious that so many Americans are willing to accept something as "fact" without the burden of proof. You cannot establish a fact without "reasonable" experimental evidence. At least in medicine (the conventional type) there are clear attempts to provide proof of efficacy—although this is lacking or weak for many more interventions than most of the public likely realise.

   Wow, a surviving iBlog user. Hat's off to you ;-)

Something to say?

Comments may be moderated, are subject to spam filtering, and should be inoffensive and relevant to this post. Please disclose commercial interests.