jamius.com

A lot of you are probably into engineering and construction and are knowledgeable, at least a little, in how things work. By the common definition, you are a scientist. Science, after all, shows us how to turn creative ideas in to actual creations.

But there are a lot of people in the world that don’t view science as we do. Usually that’s fine, since I’m a tolerant person and you can have your belief even if it doesn’t, scientifically, make sense. After all, we don’t know everything about science, so who’s to say what even does make sense?
The thing that really bothers me though, is when people flat out deny the voice of science in spite of overwhelming evidence and potential harm from ignoring it. Just as a quick example:

Creationism. That is, the belief that a god (Abrahamic or otherwise) created man as he is currently. I feel this is bad because it implies that humans were chosen to rule the world and therefore we can do anything we want. Evolution, in contrast, implies we are part of nature and therefore should treat it with equal respect. Creationism also implies that good humans are pure. That if you’re disabled, it is as a punishment. Why else would you be created in such a way?

Now I can never be sure that creationism isn’t true, but we have a lot of evidence against it. If someone wants to believe it privately, that’s fine, but it scares me when people make crusades against science because of their personal beliefs. Science has a very good track record. Personal beliefs do not.

There are people that say “Well, we don’t know for sure either way, so we should present each equally” which leads to schools teaching creationism as if it was a known thing. But that denies other beliefs. What if someone else said humans originally grew from trees? Should we give that equal time too? No. Because we can’t humor every contradictory belief. We have to choose one, the best one as far as we know, and in this case evolution is it.

And there are instances when we can’t afford to be tolerant. Sometimes we can’t allow the science to be ignored out of safety.

Anyway, I’m guessing most of you agree with me. My question, though, is how do you personally deal with people that deny science in favor of their beliefs? There was a case where some woman stopped giving her child medicine and instead prayed for healing and the child died. Of course you can’t just tell these people their wrong. Even if you show them all the evidence against their side, they just deny it more. So is it possible to have these people think critically and abandon their biases and look at it from a logical point of view, or in some cases is it just a lost cause?

There are numerous problems with your post.

First, science isn't one thing. Some scientists disagree with other scientists.

What is fact tends to change over time. We were in danger of global cooling and a nuclear winter in the 70s. Now cooling isn't the problem. It is warming.

Just like with science, there are good points and bad points with religion.

For some religion is obviously wrong, while for others it is obviously right.

Tolerance is very important. At one point people were killed for suggesting the world was round.

You have to take science and religion for what they are. They are not the same thing. One is logic based and the other is faith based.

There is a danger in science that has become very evident. Sometimes science can keep people alive longer than is good for them. So, you get into ethical questions there.

To be intelligent, you have to realize that you don't know everything. You even don't know what you don't know. What is obvious at one time, becomes ridiculous the next.

It is always dangerous for one person or group to decide they know what is best for everyone.

The best we can do is learn to respect other people's beliefs and protect everyone's rights. Basically, if something someone is doing doesn't affect someone else's rights, it is their right.

Ok, I will try not to get too much into religion here (as Jaimie has banned it... kinda). But I agree, and disagree.

Logically, for me, religion is hard to believe. That's all I have to say about that.

In my eyes people can believe whatever the heck they want to believe. As long as it doesn't affect me, I'm happy. If people start making decisions purely based on what they "believe" (not just religion here, but other things as well), then that does affect me, and that annoys me. When people kill, based on what they "believe", that REALLY gets on my nerves.

I believe all major decisions should be made based on the facts. I took a philosophy class in college, and (I don't know who's belief this was) said that we should do the "most good, for the most amount of people." While yes, there are some problems with that statement, like if a child is dying somewhere but saving them requires risking the lives of thousands of other people, I still believe it holds true in most cases. When people make decisions based on beliefs, or to get votes (I'm talking government here), I get annoyed.

There will always be people who oppose everything. I'm SURE there are still people who believe the earth is flat, somewhere. Wow that was surprisingly easy to find... http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

If no one ever questioned anything, science would never advance. If we never asked WHY, or if we never wanted to prove someone (the opposers) wrong, science would never get anywhere. The fact is, we don't know everything. I'm sure we don't even know a tiny percentage of everything there is to know. (I mean think about the universe, how much of it do we actually know? How much don't we know about every planet out there?) There is actually a word for the way... uh... let's just say people are starting to believe in science more. We talked about it in philosophy. I think it's due to having a more educated public. Sure, we learn what we are taught, but I think school teaches (most of us) more than that. It teaches us to make our own decisions, and that is what is important.

So in the end, I just shrug it off and say that I've made my decision to believe what I want in a more logical and sensible way. I think I'm right, but don't we all?

With that said, please try to keep religion out of this discussion, and talk about people who... still believe the earth is flat for example.

Let me clarify a few things, sjvsworldtour:

Science is one thing. It’s a process. And different ideas from different scientists contribute to that process.

Facts do change over time, but we can’t use that as an excuse to never believe the facts as we currently know them. We have to use the best knowledge we currently have. (Also, your mistaken. Most media predicted global cooling in the 1970’s, but the vast majority of scientific papers predicted warming.)

Tolerance is important, but we can’t be tolerant of everything. People were killed for suggesting the world was round. Exactly. People with beliefs killed people who believe the science. I can’t think of an instance where people of science killed other people just because they didn’t believe the science.

Science teaches us to critically think so that we don’t let someone else decide what is best. It teaches people to weigh the facts and disregard biases.

And my entire point of this was to highlight when someone’s beliefs do effect other people.


I was a bit apprehensive about using a religious example, but it was the best example I could think of. I used creationism only as an example, not to attack it. But in an effort to remove religion from my point, okay, let’s consider Flat Earthers.

Say you lived in an area where everyone else believed the Earth was flat. They were like anybody else in any way, but they refused to believe the Earth was spherical (ya, I know it’s not a true sphere, but let’s not nitpick). You are the only one among them that knows it isn’t flat. You lecture them, show them satellite photographs, videos, gravitational probe data, explain to them the physics and astronomy everything else. But it’s no good, the stick to what they choose to believe. If they didn’t affect anybody else, then I don’t care, let them believe what they want.

Now, what if some person, a child who is too young to form his own beliefs, gets a fatal rare disease. There are two hospitals, 10 miles east of the area and one 100 miles west, that have a cure. But these people believe the edge of the Earth is 8 miles east of them. They don’t believe the eastern hospital exists and that if they went that way, they would fall off the edge of the world. So instead of taking a five minute drive to save the kid, they take a 3 hour drive to the western hospital and the kid is DOA. The only reason the kid dies is because the people believed the Earth was flat, despite all the evidence. In this case, would the child’s death be justified by their belief? Could they be blamed, or does their belief give them innocence?

I say no, they were wrong and should be punished for willfully denying well established science since it led to the death a person who did not have the capacity to believe anything else. But it is a moral question. What do you think?

That may be a bad example, so let’s try something more believable:

There is a drug, let’s call it Panacea, which has been shown to cure some horrible disease, say, brain cancer. The drug is shown to work 98.9% of the time, almost guaranteed. Without treatment, only 0.2% of patients survive. Panacea is widely available and free. Now, a child is diagnosed with brain cancer and the doctor prescribes Panacea. The mother refuses since she read an article that Panacea can cause lung cancer, and besides it might not even cure the brain cancer. The doctor explains that there is no scientific evidence to suggest it causes lung cancer. There were two studies done that showed it caused lung cancer, he explains, but they’re methods were so faulty and heir results so questionable that no reputable journal would publish them so they self-published and just pushed it through the media to make it seem more legitimate. Furthermore, the FDA and CDC both published about 5 studies each which showed no connection between Panacea and cancer.

Yet the woman still refuses, believing the child will be better off without the drug, and the child dies. Too me this is gross negligence. They would be just as guilty as if they had given their kid a loaded gun. They didn’t directly kill their child, but their actions led to his death. And they ignored well established evidence against their beliefs. So again, in this case, can we blame the parent, or do they have a right to believe what they want, even if it hurts others?

I agree that medicine and beliefs don't mix. Doctors know what is best for their patients (probably) 99% of the time. Sure, some beliefs are based on experience... like maybe a root that cures some ailment that some people believe was put there "for that reason". Just a question though, do doctors have the ability to overrule the parent or guardian and just do a treatment? Legally that is?

DrJekyll wrote:There is a drug, let’s call it Panacea, which has been shown to cure some horrible disease, say, brain cancer. The drug is shown to work 98.9% of the time, almost guaranteed. Without treatment, only 0.2% of patients survive. Panacea is widely available and free. Now, a child is diagnosed with brain cancer and the doctor prescribes Panacea. The mother refuses since she read an article that Panacea can cause lung cancer, and besides it might not even cure the brain cancer. The doctor explains that there is no scientific evidence to suggest it causes lung cancer. There were two studies done that showed it caused lung cancer, he explains, but they’re methods were so faulty and heir results so questionable that no reputable journal would publish them so they self-published and just pushed it through the media to make it seem more legitimate. Furthermore, the FDA and CDC both published about 5 studies each which showed no connection between Panacea and cancer.

Yet the woman still refuses, believing the child will be better off without the drug, and the child dies. Too me this is gross negligence. They would be just as guilty as if they had given their kid a loaded gun. They didn’t directly kill their child, but their actions led to his death. And they ignored well established evidence against their beliefs. So again, in this case, can we blame the parent, or do they have a right to believe what they want, even if it hurts others?

Change those percentages to 65% and 35% or 50% and 50% when isn't it negligence and where do you draw the line. The example you quote is a highly rare situation in reality.

Some doctors know what is best for there patients in some circumstances.

sjvsworldtour wrote:Some doctors know what is best for there patients in some circumstances.

I'd have to replace your "some" with "most." Doctors, like any other profession, are trained for that they do. They are, most likely, your best chance of getting cured. Yes, most of the time they assume it's something they've seen over and over and over again. If you've seen symptoms that point to a certain disease 100,000 times, are you going to be able to tell that 100,001th person that they have a different disease with the exact same (or similar) symptoms? Probably not, but if you save 100,000 people out of 100,001, I'd say you're doing pretty good.

My point is, doctors aren't perfect, no human is, but you wouldn't ask an opera singer to fix a leaky pipe in your kitchen would you?

I definitely would not say most. Like any other profession, there are the few good and the many mediocre. I have seen lots of cases of this, such as people that appeared on the verge of dying and taking tons of medicine every day switching to a different doctor that prescribes different medicine and suddenly they are taking a lot less medicine and fine.

There are also cases of doctors accidentally killing there patients, which happens a lot more than you may realize. I dated a girl that was a respiratory therapist in several nursing homes and she told me about some shocking stuff.

Also, do not underestimate the power that faith plays, and yes there are cases were people have been cured when the doctors said there was nothing that could be done for them. I do not care weather it was divine intervention, luck, or the power of positive thinking. It happens, and results are more important to me than the how. Laughter has also been proven to have a healing affect.

Do not underestimate the power of faith. It does amazing things. Some may choose to call them miracles and there may be other explanations, but you don't knock what works because you don't understand the how.

I am probably getting too much into religion, but in essence, I try to take the spirituality out or the religion. Don't believe in a religion because if you don't you will burn in a lake of fire for eternity because God loves you. Look at the affects it has. If your God is telling you to kill people or blow yourself up, well, that is a God I choose not to believe in. If your God makes people happy and enables them to handle life better, God bless him:) Pun intended.

And one last thing. I choose to not believe in a God that would condemn people because they picked the wrong invisible friend:)