When I have a headache, I take aspirin. I don’t go on a botany trip to scrape myself some willowbark (which contains a very similar chemical). The pharmaceutical version has a number of advantages. When I take my pills, I’m getting a controlled dose in an easy to take, sterile package. That’s not the case if I take bark, the amount of salicin may vary widely from one sample to another, and I don’t know what else I’m ingesting.
Science is perfectly capable of investigating folk remidies and determining which ones work.
Why do you think your own experiences are more reliable than a scientific approach, which allows large numbers of tests to be aggregated? How do you determine a treatment has actually worked? Because you feel better? How do you know you wouldn’t have recovered anyway? Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation?
It is the only solution to some problems. Good luck with a holistic apporach to building an airplane for example. Science is an enabler, it opens up possibilities. It can’t tell us how to live our lives, but it gives us more options, and better information to make decisions.
In the example I gave above, aspirin was discovered through a scientific analysis of willowbark. It offers pain relief to millions of people at very low cost. It’s availability and affordability are much higher than the traditional remedy it replaced, and it has fewer side effects.
Health care costs are rising, but the major factors are availability of more advanced treatments and an ageing population. Science has vastly improved the cost-effectiveness of health care.
This is all well and good. You have been taught how much to safely take and how much you need to take for your condition. This is the same as getting the drugs from plant sources, you learn. Yes the aspirin is much more convenient, especially when it’s raining out.
In our modern day society we have OTC drugs, drugs that are fairly hard to mess up taking and don’t require a doctor to prescribe. In nature we have the same thing, things like pine sap as a antiseptic. Something everyone can use fairly safely. But for other medical conditions we have in the modern world we want a expert advice and we have prescriptions, this is a modern form of the medicine men, someone who has experience and insight with more difficult medications. Medicine men have the experience and insight to use the more risky drugs. I am thankful we have both.
I am a believer in subjective reality, as such science, which depends on objective reality does not tell the full story for the individual. I also believe there is ample evidence of subjective reality and that evidence is often reported yet very few people can see it being reported. It is the care for you as a individual person that science normally excludes, and what these other methods often include.
If reality is subjective, then science is only a partial solution and always will be.
I’m not saying that science is bad, I am saying science is useful, but only useful for what it is. Extending science beyond it’s ability causes failure and disappointment.
Yes and I have taken aspirin several times in my life, I don’t believe I have taken willow bark. Though that is a matter of teaching, I have been taught how to acquire and take aspirin (which is a tricky word to spell btw) not willow bark.
This could be the case, but if the demand for science is outstripping it’s supply cost rise. I believe we are at that point, peak science if you will. Not that science will run out, but our rate of advancement may be limited and we are in diminishing returns to increase it.
My views above go hand in hand with the belief that we are not alone, there is a God, and our angelic and arch-angelic family who love us (as we are their children). We were never made to make it on our own, but to get help from our parents. In time we will learn more, but we are very much a dependent child race.
Jesus, what a trainwreck. I saw the thread title and hoped it would be an interesting discussion, but all the love is clogging it up. I’ve started a new thread on the topic with, I hope, a clearer OP.
This is nonsense, and there are far more people with faith in your type of religious glurge than in anything scientific.
Your mistake here is that you keep attributing everything to “science.” That’s not how the world really works. “Science” doesn’t do things. You appear to think you can prove a larger point with this foot fungus thing, but I don’t see it.
Not all drugs are expensive, and not all folk remedies are cheap.
I don’t think you know what you’re talking about here. Many medications and very expensive and the cost is going up, true. There are also many programs to help people get treatment when they can’t afford it. And very generally speaking, the people who need expensive medications are the ones with complicated or dangerous problems like cancer and genetic diseases. Those people aren’t going to by Water That Used to Have Plant Extract in it. If you take St. John’s Wort or something for a cold, it probably won’t hurt you because the cold will go away anyhow. People who take homeopathic stuff instead of scientifically tested medications for cancer or multiple sclerosis and things like that are probably going to suffer and die.
Well Yes, I can see it if you take science with it’s limitations, it isn’t and can’t. Science is what it is.
The ironic part is I don’t consider myself religious, and your stand seems almost religious, blind acceptance because it seems to work for you without questioning.
Science, as we apply it to medical science is great in many instances for the ‘greater good’ of society, yet there are people who medical science can’t help, what are they suppose to do?
So this is the ultimate response as to why we should not accept learned opinion and solid evidence on any subject, but instead rely on “examining things yourself”, for instance following ethereal directions to buy homeopathic products?
Yes, it looks like another kanicbird tract in the guise of debate.
The “irony” is your mischaracterization of requiring evidence as religion, when the opposite is true. As noted before, it is peculiar that religious woo-ists think that labeling the opposition as religious is the ultimate insult.
If they have utilized all their mainstream medical options and no cure is in the offing, they can utilize evidence-based treatment that relieves symptoms and/or prolongs life, acknowledging that there is no solution at present and contributing whenever possible to research aimed at finding that solution.
Or they can follow your example, listen to the voices in their head and buy vials of magic water, or any of the zillion ineffective remedies marketed to us by the multi-billion dollar supplement industry and the armada of quacks that promote them and other useless therapies. After all, who can really say all of it is quackery until they’ve tried all of it, or at least all they can buy before their money runs out?
This thread makes it clear you don’t know what it is.
What you call yourself isn’t relevant to the discussion, but for the record, your posts make it clear you’re into spirituality. You’re not particularly interested in organized religion, but you talk about Jesus way too much to play the “I’m not religious card.” You are. Religion and spirituality aren’t the same thing, but for purposes of this discussion, they’re the same.
In any case you don’t need to have faith that science works. The fact that you think so indicates how little you know about science. What I do think, based on the evidence, is that the world is comprehensible, and that we can use scientific tools to learn more about it. On the other hand your view appears to be that that things happen for reasons we can’t understand, so we should just trust in Love and everything will work out unless it doesn’t.
If Love and placebos could cure them, they wouldn’t need medical science. I never said medical science has the cure to every disease, although it does have a much better track record than “smile and hope for the best.” Some diseases are well under control, and some aren’t yet but may be in the future, and until then, they’ll use the best of what medical science has to offer.
