Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Garzik: An Andre To RememberGarzik: An Andre To RememberPosted Jul 30, 2012 20:13 UTC (Mon) by kjp (subscriber, #39639)Parent article: Garzik: An Andre To Remember
"Man does not live on bread alone." Matthew 4:4
I have been there myself... it's a very dark place. I would add to the list of suggestions, "go to church... and pray". Fortunately, "YOU" is a flexible concept.
(Log in to post comments)
Garzik: An Andre To Remember Posted Jul 31, 2012 8:33 UTC (Tue) by lkundrak (subscriber, #43452) [Link]
I yet have to see an example, where praying did not do more harm than good to a troubled person. Turning to people close to you instead of a ridiculous supernatural entity for help is usually a much better idea. People are real, they are capable of thoughts and love.
Also, when a condition reaches the point where medical assistance is needed, there's not better idea than seeking a professional. That is, a professional in psychology, not in reading fiction books.
Garzik: An Andre To Remember Posted Jul 31, 2012 9:07 UTC (Tue) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link]
Possibly your experience is not exhaustive - there are more things in heaven or earth than are dreamed of in Hamlet's philosophy!
And there is sound psychological value in letting go of your guilt, and in admitting to yourself that you are not in complete control of everything in your life - both effects of genuine prayer quite apart from whether the entity addressed has an objective existence out side of the person praying.
While I admit that I cannot demonstrate that the bible is largely accurate, I'm quite sure that you equally cannot demonstrate that it is largely fiction. When someone makes a bona-fide attempt to record events, that is usually called "history", even if not everyone agrees that it is accurate.
I certainly agree that seeking professional help is wise. Choosing the right profession, or the right professional, can be a challenge - just ask anyone who has suffered from a bad back (phsyio? chiro? osteo? acupuncture?).
Garzik: An Andre To Remember Posted Jul 31, 2012 21:40 UTC (Tue) by kjp (subscriber, #39639) [Link]
>I yet have to see an example
"Then it pleases me to be the first."
Trust me, I tried the 'professionals'. Talk about epic fail. Also, 'man's search for meaning' is a good book...
Garzik: An Andre To Remember Posted Aug 1, 2012 3:51 UTC (Wed) by acooks (subscriber, #49539) [Link]
If you're implying that professional counselling will _never_ help, that's not only provably incorrect, but also a bloody awful thing to say, because it takes away hope and an option from those who need it. For 15 years I had a deep dislike in all shrinks and psychs and people who try to put me in a box. About three months ago, I found someone who made me challenge these long-held beliefs.
"Man's search for meaning" is a great book. "Steve Jobs: The Exclusive Biography" by Walter Isaacson is a good read as well. I'm not an Apple fanboi at all, but the guy had major issues and still achieved great things.
Garzik: An Andre To Remember Posted Aug 5, 2012 20:23 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] If you're implying that professional counselling will _never_ help, ... He's definitely not. He starts out, earlier in the thread, with, "I would add to the list of suggestions."
Garzik: An Andre To Remember Posted Aug 12, 2012 17:59 UTC (Sun) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
Also, he never claimed to be a representative example.
He merely said *he* was an example where the professionals were useless and the church helped.
As somebody who wanted to be a doctor (I didn't make medical school), I have a *deep* distrust of modern medicine. Only deepened by my knowledge of medical history and what I call "the arrogance of the modern" - the belief that we are so much cleverer than our forfathers.
Just read some old medical books as far back as even the 1600s. About the only real advance we have is technology that makes surgery safer and easier, and antibiotics (an advance we are in real danger of throwing away soon).
The arsenal of knowledge they had 400 years ago hasn't been improved that much at all! Indeed, the arsenal of knowledge they had 2000 years ago sometimes exceeds todays!
Cheers,
Garzik: An Andre To Remember Posted Aug 12, 2012 19:41 UTC (Sun) by viro (subscriber, #7872) [Link]
Really? Care to show a 17th century textbook that would cover epidemiology? Or some data on life expectancy with diabetes back then... As a bonus question, discuss the impact of antibiotics and surgery on *that*. While we are at it, as you certainly know, antibiotics do not work for viral infections. Are you saying that there had been no meaningful changes regarding those? BTW, where do you put anti- and aseptic methods? Yes, they do fit as "technology that makes surgery safer", but they sure as hell have applications well beyond that. Sigh...
We aren't more clever than we used to be in 1600, but we definitely have learnt a lot since then. Including, BTW, mathematical statistics and data analysis. How much of that gets learnt by students in medical schools is a different question, of course...
Medical procedures Posted Aug 17, 2012 12:59 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Not to speak about vaccines, grafts, prosthesis, vitamins, micro-surgery, anti-retro-viral medicines, X-rays, analgesics or monitoring equipment. Saying that nothing but antibiotics and surgery techniques has changed from an era where amputation was the most common surgery (and the tourniquet had not even been invented, figure that) shows a high level of self-delusion.And, as item #6 explains, we actually are smarter than in 1600; at least we don't have all that lead around us any more.
Medical procedures Posted Aug 17, 2012 14:17 UTC (Fri) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185) [Link] Smarter than in the last century, which is what #6 is about. See also http://www.rachel.org/files/document/Lead_Poisoning_in_Historical_Perspective.pdf
Medical procedures Posted Aug 17, 2012 14:40 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Not only last century; please read the pdf you cite and not only the abstract, specifically the section about the preindustrial and industrial ages.
Garzik: An Andre To Remember Posted Aug 13, 2012 7:01 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
WTF?
Medicine is about the best way to illustrate the progress. Essentially all medical practices from before 1800-s would now be considered actively harmful to patients. Simple surgeries are about the only surviving pieces of the pre-1800-s medical practices.
Consider this - germ theory of diseases has been developed only in late 1800-s! Before that doctors were using the crap like 'humour imbalance' theory, doing things like blood-letting to 'cure' weakness and infection!
Garzik: An Andre To Remember Posted Aug 14, 2012 14:19 UTC (Tue) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] What's happened in medicine since the 17th century is not just progress, it's a fundamental change. Medicine today is based on science, but before the late 1800s it generally was not. Today, we try to deconstruct the internal workings of the human body and develop hypotheses for treatments and test them with experiments. In contrast, before then, medical practicioners did what felt like it ought to work, for any number of reasons.In other words, it was a lot like the religion that was compared to medicine earlier in this thread as treatment for depression.
Garzik: An Andre To Remember Posted Aug 14, 2012 18:48 UTC (Tue) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
While I agree that there is plenty of scientific medical research being done and that this has greatly improved the practice of medicine I would argue that Medical Doctors are not scientists and do not practice science. Medical practitioners still just do what they feel ought to work and those feelings are only tangentially related to the actual science of medicine in many cases.
Garzik: An Andre To Remember Posted Aug 14, 2012 22:36 UTC (Tue) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] Medical practicioners are to medical researchers what engineers are to physicists – i.e., they apply the results of research to everyday problems. The only difference is that the world of engineering has, on the whole, less tolerance for quacks and charlatans than the world of medical practice.
Diluted sugar Posted Aug 17, 2012 13:02 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] To be fair, it is much easier to detect quacks in engineering than in medicine: in engineering there are many more controlled variables, while in medicine there is a an enormous variety of conditions and tolerances -- not to speak about interactions. Proteins are much harder to predict and control than screws and bolts, or even than lines of code in large systems.My pediatrician is also a homeopath practitioner and sometimes she prescribes some diluted sugar recipe which we immediately throw to the nearest garbage can. It goes to show how deluded a modern practitioner can be, since she is otherwise a good pediatrician.
Diluted sugar Posted Aug 17, 2012 14:44 UTC (Fri) by jackb (subscriber, #41909) [Link] My pediatrician is also a homeopath practitioner and sometimes she prescribes some diluted sugar recipe which we immediately throw to the nearest garbage can. It goes to show how deluded a modern practitioner can be, since she is otherwise a good pediatrician.I think you're being too charitable by using the word "deluded". I would lean more towards "fraudulent" or, at best, "incompetent". I also couldn't imagine trusting such a person to provide medical care to a child. If she's not blatently prescribing fake cures for financial benefit then it must mean she is incapabable of distinguising between the effectiveness of antibiotics vs. distilled placebo water. In that case she might as well be picking treatements randomly out of a hat.
Diluted sugar Posted Aug 17, 2012 15:08 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] She is careful to prescribe quack pills only when there is no other treatment, and to explain that they may not achieve the expected results; also there is no direct financial benefit. Perhaps it is the placebo effect she is after, but I think it is just incompetence. Many other things recommended in the alopathic (i.e. non-homeopathic) literature do not work either and they get away with it; avian flu remedies come to mind. It is a strange science indeed.
Diluted sugar Posted Aug 17, 2012 22:46 UTC (Fri) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] »Allopathic« is a propaganda term homeopaths use for what the rest of the world calls »scientific«. Homeopathy is a form of sympathetic magic that dates from a time when modern medicine basically didn't exist. In spite of vast numbers of trials there is no evidence whatsoever that homeopathy works better than placebos; in fact, if it worked at all it would mean that large, well-established swathes of contemporary physics and chemistry are wrong. That homeopathy works is, in other words, unlikely in the extreme. Modern science-based medicine, on the other hand, has at least a fighting chance of working, because it relies on evidence and our contemporary knowledge of human biology, pharmacology, etc. Medical practitioners who use homeopathy are either not aware of the fact that homeopathy is, with a probability bordering on the absolutely certain, utter BS, which means they are incompetent, or are aware of this fact and are actively misleading their patients, which means they are unethical. As far as I am concerned, either of these would be sufficient grounds for not trusting such a person with something as important as my (or my family's) health. Your mileage may vary.
Diluted sugar Posted Aug 17, 2012 23:10 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Yes, sorry for the "allopathic" moniker. I meant "scientific medicine", i.e. non-homeopathic.Last time she prescribed some 30C phony medication, which means it has one ml in a sphere 212 light years long. I wonder if they actually take the time and effort to do the dilution or just skip it and use pure sugar. But of course that would be fraud... The thing is, our pediatrician knows her basic stuff and explains things nicely. We have gone to other (reputed) doctors to get a second opinion and they have all prescribed lots of unnecessary things which have done nothing either, and our child has only had the usual colds and fevers. If she had anything more serious (god forbid) we would go to a specialist, so we just tolerate the quack homeopathic thing as an eccentricity. And double-check everything on MedlinePlus and similar places. Which is not a bad practice anyway.
Diluted sugar Posted Aug 18, 2012 17:40 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] In spite of vast numbers of trials there is no evidence whatsoever that homeopathy works better than placebos But placebos work, on some people. Is it possible a practicioner can legitimately heal someone by prescribing a homeopathic treatment that the patient can read about on the web and develop some faith in? There is a recognized ethical quandary over whether prescribing placebos is unethical, especially considering that for them to be effective, they typically have to be expensive. Speaking of placebos, I'll always remember looking at a box of minoxidil hair regrowth medication. It said something like 35% of subjects reported hair regrowth using the drug vs 25% for placebo. It was very expensive and my first thought was, "I'll take the placebo. Sounds like a better deal."
Diluted sugar Posted Aug 18, 2012 20:28 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Minoxidil is a funny example of "scientific" medicine: it was discovered by chance, it only works on some people, the mechanism by which it works is unknown, and all of its effects are reversed if the patient stops using it. But still it is used, as it is the only known medicament which stops hair loss effectively.The percentages of success vary, but hair growth is not usual; rather it stops hair loss. It is there where placebos may be some competition and not in growth, since if placebos caused hair growth they would sell like crazy.
Diluted sugar Posted Aug 19, 2012 21:24 UTC (Sun) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] Placebos "work" for some people because many ailments people suffer from will tend to go away if they are left alone long enough. Consider, for example, the common cold, which so far has resisted the efforts of scientific medicine, but for which your friendly neighbourhood homeopath will be more than happy to prescribe some sugar pills at an outrageous price (for sugar). It doesn't matter if you take the sugar pills because they will neither help or hinder your getting better. However having taken the sugar pills you are likely to give them the credit. It is even likely that your symptoms will get worse after you have started the sugar pills, since they don't do anything, which homeopaths will conveniently explain away as the effect of the medication getting to work inside you. Many other ailments people suffer from (e.g., chronic back pain, which scientific medicine has so far also failed from curing conclusively) tend to come and go, and since people are apt to go to the doctor (or homeopath) when their complaints are worst, even sugar pills will seem to help because of "regression to the mean" (you would have come out of the bad phase into a somewhat better phase, anyway). Then of course there are those ailments that have a good chance of killing you when they remain untreated, like malaria or cancer. This is something that "ethical" homeopaths shouldn't touch with a 10' pole. If only they would. The BBC has found in an experiment that a vast majority of homeopathic pharmacies in London will be more than happy to sell you "homeopathic" malaria "prophylaxis", and one homeopathic remedy for cancer is sugar pills with hyper-diluted extract of mistletoe (i.e., no mistletoe), on the grounds - and I am not making this up - that mistletoe looks like cancer on trees. The problem with stuff like homeopathy is that the placebo effect is a lot less powerful if your medical practitioner tells you that there's nothing in the pills except sugar, that they have not been able to be proven to work in clinical trials, and that indeed they have no conceivable way of doing anything to you as far as our concepts of physics, chemistry and biology go. Which is, perhaps understandably, why most people dealing in homeopathy neglect to explain this to their patients. In effect, they are being knowingly dishonest to their patients, which is unacceptable. Personally, I would have much less of a problem being told that there is no remedy against my cold that has been shown to work, but that the cold will almost certainly get better anyway, than being prescribed very expensive sugar pills or (for that matter) antibiotics (which too many non-homeopathic practitioners are prone to do, but that is a different problem).
Diluted sugar Posted Aug 19, 2012 22:56 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] No, that's not the placebo effect. The fact that things get better in time without treatment is a big reason that the control group reports improvement, but it isn't what people refer to as the placebo effect. The placebo effect is where a person's subjective evaluation of his health improves when he thinks he is being treated. The placebo doesn't cause his rhinovirus count to go down, but it makes him feel better. When you consider that the real reason most people go to the doctor is to feel better, not to effect a particular biological change in the body, you have to say a placebo is effective in that case. In fact, you could argue it's unethical to withhold a placebo. The placebo effect is very real. I have a friend who is extremely susceptible to it, not just in medicines, but in everything else. If he installed a new wireless access point, especially if it were expensive, he would report faster web browsing even if the actual speed was unaffected. (He's not the type to measure it, of course).
Sorry for the off-topic Posted Aug 19, 2012 23:10 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] In fact, you could argue it's unethical to withhold a placebo.That argument could even be a suitable justification for homeopathic medicine. I am not sure if you want to go there. The thing is that the Hippocratic Oath specifically says "never do harm", but not "avoid useless treatments". It could be argued that using the placebo effect can sooth both patients and their families, in cases where there is no known cure. Sugar pills cannot do any harm... On the other hand, spreading unscientific theories is a much worse sin in my opinion.
Sorry for the even-more off-topic Posted Aug 19, 2012 23:28 UTC (Sun) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link]
> On the other hand, spreading unscientific theories is a much worse sin in my opinion.
You seem to be spreading the theory that "spreading unscientific theories is harmful".
Just curious...
Sorry for the even-more off-topic Posted Aug 20, 2012 0:04 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Thanks for the recursive laugh, I always appreciate those :)Anyway, I don't have any scientific basis to dislike unscientific theories, but I am not right now speaking from an office which is (or should be) based on science. If a professor of Astronomy spoke about the horoscope I would start to worry... And I am not a medical practitioner, thank god, since I think it is one of the hardest professions. From medical practitioners I expect to get at least a plausible explanation of the causes, or (as in the case of Minoxidil above) an experimental confirmation. We should require both, but life is tough. With homeopathy there are neither, and therefore the iniquity. To bring this long thread at least a bit back into topic, the psychiatric profession has made wonderful advances both in the determination of the root causes of mental illnesses, and in the experimental treatment of those. If you don't feel well, please go to a doctor (a psychiatrist) in addition to a psychologist.
Garzik: An Andre To Remember Posted Jul 31, 2012 22:51 UTC (Tue) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link] Just don't turn to ridiculous supernatural entities.For one who has been a (honest) atheist back then but has seen enough strange things that e.g. probability theory would have a hard time explaining, and who has been close enough to death on a couple occasions, I *know* that there's God there and that there's nothing really random out there. And I only have read *two* sane psychologists, one of whom is an Orthodox monk by now. The rest of those I happened to meet so far (mostly while traveling) were crazy people who would be better off being barred from "treating" people: it takes more than knowledge and clean hands to meet someone's soul. Please don't try referring to science blindly, modern science can't prove the non-existence of anything in general manner. But if you have an explanation of these fireballs I as an M.Sc. in Chemistry and someone who's got some practice with reasonably high voltage equipment would be glad to hear it (shigorin gmail com if you please, let's not spam this sad discussion anymore). The intelligence isn't substitute for the common sense. I have buried one of my best friends who took his life either and who was extremely intelligent too but apparently did turn to the ridiculuous entities -- there were satanic videos found on his PC afterwards by his relatives... and I managed to be somewhere else. We should care for each other while we still can.
There speaks the true believer Posted Aug 12, 2012 17:51 UTC (Sun) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
In the illusion that is mathematics.
"If one defines a religion as being an irrational belief in the unprovable, then not only is mathematics a religion, but it is the only religion that can prove itself so"
What you believe about religion is up to you, but you must recognise that secularism, and mathematics, are both religions themselves.
Some include science as part of maths. I don't, but for me the only reason science is not a religion is because it is not something to believed - it is the OBSERVATION of the past and the PREDICTION of the future. No belief there (at least as far as "I know what I saw" has any objective reality, which often it doesn't).
Cheers,
Lack of faith is not a kind of faith Posted Aug 19, 2012 21:55 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Sorry, too much for me; I will bite. I do not recognize that mathematics is any kind of religion.Mathematics is a religion, you say? How can the derivation from a set of axioms and rules to a number of theorems be a religion? Mathematics says nothing about the nature of the Universe. To use a common example, our space may be Euclidean, hyperbolic or elliptic; if it is Euclidean then Euclid's postulates and conclusions will hold, and not otherwise, but maths do not (and cannot) say which. The fact that mathematics can accurately represent some phenomena of our physical world, or rather the fact that our physical laws can be represented mathematically, is just an exponent of some kind of objectivity in the world: things sometimes work in a way that can be deduced from a few axioms. Is it a lucky coincidence or some kind of superior powers at work that makes integers behave according to Peano axioms? Maths do not go there. There is certainly nothing to believe or to worship in mathematical laws, and few people since Pythagoras have done so. If there are still some people who believe in mathematics with some kind of enthusiasm bordering in religious fervor, then good for them; axioms and theorems do not need people to believe in them to work, contrary to most religions.
Lack of faith is not a kind of faith Posted Aug 20, 2012 0:47 UTC (Mon) by apoelstra (subscriber, #75205) [Link]
Note that I am not the GP.
> Mathematics is a religion, you say? How can the derivation from a set of
Because to avoid infinite regress (i.e., to get a theorem B from axiom A, you would need the axioms "A implies B", "(A implies B and A) implies B", "((A implies B and A) implies B) implies B)", and so on), you need to take the definition of "implies" from somewhere in your psyche. Philosophers argue endlessly about where this definition comes from. Mathematicians generally take it on faith.
You can certainly do mathematics without ever thinking about the religion or philosophy of it. But all of mathematics is built from logic and set theory, which I would say are religion.
>Mathematics says nothing about the nature of the Universe.
No, but as soon as you accept that the two in "I have two hands" is the same as the two that mathematicians use, you have indeed made a statement about the universe (and one that also requires faith!).
Still no faith required Posted Aug 20, 2012 1:07 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Yes, you need axioms and rules. No, rules are not mysterious entities that require belief; they are a well understood part of the system. Logic and set theory are also sets of axioms and rules, and in that they are very similar to mathematics. Again, no belief or faith necessary: if you don't believe e.g. that "a and ¬a cannot be true at the same time" you can still be happy, just accepting that the conclusions of first-order logic cannot be carried out to the physical world.as soon as you accept that the two in "I have two hands" is the same as the two that mathematicians use, you have indeed made a statement about the universe (and one that also requires faith!).That is precisely why the "I have two hands" part is firmly planted in reality, and outside the realm of mathematics. I am forced to quote Einstein again: as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.Not that I dislike quoting father Einstein, but citing the same quote twice in a week is excessive and has the danger of becoming old.
Lack of faith is not a kind of faith Posted Aug 20, 2012 6:42 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
You don't 'need' to do anything with math. Theorems do not require your belief to be derivable using some sets of axioms and inference rules.
Axioms are not some 'self-evident truths', they are just starting points. And math is just a way to see what can be derived from them, nothing more and nothing less.
Want to see what happens if it's possible to draw exactly 3 lines parallel to a given line through an arbitrary point? Go on, that would be interesting. But that doesn't affect any geometry theorems operating in our familiar boring Euclidean space.
Lack of faith is not a kind of faith Posted Aug 20, 2012 9:07 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] But that doesn't affect any geometry theorems operating in our familiar boring Euclidean space. Unfortunately, of course, our familiar space is not Euclidian. Well, mine isn't. But, given a nicely-behaved Euclidian space, the challenge would be to prove that there can be at most one line through a point that is not on a second, parallel line. Now, that's hard enough even for aspiring mathematicians, but if you could prove that it is possible to actually draw two or more such lines, it would most certainly mean the end of Euclid's famous fifth postulate, and with that all of Euclidian geometry, not to mention the start of a hectic tour of talkshows in which you would have to patiently explain that you cannot explain what it all means.
Lack of faith is not a kind of faith Posted Aug 20, 2012 15:27 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
> Unfortunately, of course, our familiar space is not Euclidian. Well, mine isn't.
And? Mathematics is in no way related with the real world. The fact that some mathematical structures can be used to model objects and behaviors from the real world is just a happy coincidence.
> But, given a nicely-behaved Euclidian space, the challenge would be to prove that there can be at most one line through a point that is not on a second, parallel line.
That's impossible. The Euclid's fifth axiom is independent from others and that has actually been proven. It's not possible to prove that in general case (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompletenes... ), but Euclidean geometry is a complete theory (in Göedel sense).
So you have the following choices:
Lack of faith is not a kind of faith Posted Aug 20, 2012 12:05 UTC (Mon) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] It depends on how you define »religion«. John Barrow observed that if you think of a »religion« as a system of ideas containing statements that are unprovable, then mathematics is not only a religion, it is actually the only religion that can prove itself to be a religion.
Lack of faith is not a kind of faith Posted Aug 20, 2012 12:25 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] If you think of a "chicken" as a two-legged vertebrate then we are all chickens :)What you describe is more "theology" than "religion": the deduction of conclusions based on a set of postulates. Not coincidentally theology is a branch of philosophy, heavily based on logic. In that respect, theology is to religion what mathematics is to science: science does indeed apply mathematical laws to our physical universe, thereby implying that some sets of axioms apply in our world. Answering apoelstra above, physics equates the "2" in "2+2=4" with the "two" in "I have two hands". What Wol missed above is that science is indeed akin to religion, in that there are no proofs that it works at all but still people believe in them with something resembling faith. See e.g. Wigner: arguments could be found that might [...] put a heavy strain on our faith in our theories and on our belief in the reality of the concepts which we form.There is a big difference though: religions usually demand faith from the practitioner, while science works independently of beliefs. This conceptual leap (pioneered by Galileo himself) is worth centuries of progress.
Garzik: An Andre To Remember Posted Jul 31, 2012 8:57 UTC (Tue) by morhippo (subscriber, #334) [Link] I think it is not very good taste to spread your personal belief system in the context of this sad news, where an apparently sick man ended up killing himself. Let's not bring belief system into this, but let's honor the man. That is of course, unless Andre would have endorsed your belief system and lived by it, which I seriously doubt.
Garzik: An Andre To Remember Posted Aug 1, 2012 10:27 UTC (Wed) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
Seconded. It is inelegant and seems like the person is taking advantage of the situation to proselytize.
Garzik: An Andre To Remember Posted Aug 2, 2012 10:11 UTC (Thu) by dunlapg (subscriber, #57764) [Link]
So what's the difference between saying, "Seek professional help" and "Seek spiritual help"? If you genuinely believe the benefits of therapy and medication (in the appropriate context), would you refrain from mentioning it because you know *some* people don't believe in it? So if you genuinely believe Christianity (or whatever) will benefit someone, why should you refrain from mentioning it because you know some people don't believe it?
Garzik: An Andre To Remember Posted Aug 2, 2012 12:47 UTC (Thu) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] Speaking on the basis of knowing several people with bipolar spectrum disorders: God can't write you a prescription for carbamazepine; your psychiatrist can.
Garzik: An Andre To Remember Posted Aug 2, 2012 13:05 UTC (Thu) by dunlapg (subscriber, #57764) [Link]
Indeed. No one said *not* to go to a psychiatrist; he only recommended to *also* look into church and prayer.
Garzik: An Andre To Remember Posted Aug 5, 2012 21:05 UTC (Sun) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
> So what's the difference between saying, "Seek professional help" and "Seek spiritual help"?
Basically? Science.
Garzik: An Andre To Remember Posted Aug 12, 2012 18:40 UTC (Sun) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
And what is science?
As practiced by humanity, precious little difference between that and religion! See my other comment :-)
Cheers,
Garzik: An Andre To Remember Posted Aug 12, 2012 18:44 UTC (Sun) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
I should add to that, science is supposedly the rational observation and study of "what is", but in reality in medicine (and certainly it seems true of American medical research) it appears largely to be the collection of "facts" that re-inforce the financial interests of big pharma. (And the suppression of "inconvenient" facts that don't.)
And the same appears to be true of many other areas of big business, too :-(
Cheers,
|
|||||||||||||