Science and faith: do you trust science?

@Gloomy [quote]Let's say a fundamentalist family refuses life saving medical treatment for their child because they trust God despite scientific evidence and experience proving that the medical intervention would save a life. This would be an, albeit one of the more extreme ones, example on why science should always come before faith.

Faith and to be more specific especially religions are very dogmatic and are in fact resistant to change and contrary evidence while whether you like it or not science is in fact open to new findings, improvement and active discourse.[/quote]

You're missing the point because of your own faith in science while misrepresenting the science (by definition the knowledge) of faith. Ideologically pitting science and faith is redundant and nonsensical, because faith in God doesn't require the refusal of such medical treatment, fundamentalist's ignorance does. Your ideology doesn't educate you, science or the faithful, it divides you in an emotional fixation out of ignorance only encouraging your opponent to do the same. It is the very polar opposite of science, which makes your stance hypocrital as well.

All you have to do to see this is compare those fundamentalists who die from refusing medical treatment to those who die from iatrogenesis (doctor error) almost exclusively caused by pharmaceuticals. Since that is the third leading cause of death in this country (USA) only exceeded by cancer and heart disease you've already lost the argument.

@AkioTsukino [quote]Since that is the third leading cause of death in this country (USA)[/quote] I'd love to see the source of your stats on that.

My sources say the top ten causes of death in the US are:
[sep][sep]
heart disease
cancer
accidental injuries
stroke
chronic lower respiratory diseases
Alzheimer's
diabetes
influenza & pneumonia
kidney disease
suicide.
[sep][sep]
Source: [b]https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778234[/b]
What's your source??

@AkioTsukino [quote]faith in science[/quote]

I trust in science which I base on experience with and knowledge on scientific methods and archievements. Faith requires trust without evidence.

@ElwoodBlues [quote]I'd love to see the source of your stats on that.[/quote]

You have.

[quote]My sources say the top ten causes of death in the US are:
heart disease
cancer
accidental injuries
stroke
chronic lower respiratory diseases
Alzheimer's
diabetes
influenza & pneumonia
kidney disease
suicide.
Source: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778234
What's your source??[/quote]

I was just using common knowledge. I could source it for you but you already have. I said iatrogenesis was the third leading cause of death after cancer and heart disease. Look at your source. It's the same.

The Jama study by Dr. Barbara Starfield was published in 2000, and her research documented 225,000 Americans die from iatrogenic causes, meaning their death is caused by a physician's or hospital's activity, manner, or therapy. Her statistics showed that each year:

12,000 die from unnecessary surgery
7,000 die from medication errors in hospitals
20,000 die from other errors in hospitals
80,000 die from hospital-acquired infections
106,000 die from the negative side effects of drugs taken as prescribed.

Ironically, in 2011 Dr. Starfield herself became one of those. due to adverse effects of the blood thinner Plavix taken in combination with aspirin. However, her death certificate makes no mention of this. In the August 2012 issue of Archives for Internal Medicine her husband, Dr. Neil A. Holtzman, writes, in part:

"Writing in sorrow and anger, I express up front my potential conflict of interest in interpreting the facts surrounding the death of my wife, Dr. Barbara Starfield, ... Because she died while swimming alone, an autopsy was required. The immediate cause of death was 'pool drowning,' but the underlying condition, 'cerebral hemorrhage,' stunned me ...

Barbara started taking low-dose aspirin after coronary insufficiency had been diagnosed three years before her death, and clopidogrel bisulfate (Plavix) after her right main coronary artery had been stented six months after the diagnosis. She reported to the cardiologist that she bruised more easily while taking clopidogrel and bled longer following minor cuts. She had no personal or family history of bleeding tendency or hypertension.

The autopsy findings and the official lack of feedback prompted me to call attention to deficiencies in medical care and clinical research in the United States reified by Barbara's death and how the deficiencies can be rectified. Ironically, Barbara had written about all of them."

As a Newsweek article points out, the CDC doesn't collect data on iatrogenesis:

"The researchers for the study from Johns Hopkins say their findings suggest the CDC's method for collecting data on causes of death is flawed, leading to inaccurate estimates on just how dangerous a visit to your local hospital has become.

Death certificates currently don't have a separate coding classification for medical errors, which means estimates are not accurate.

The medical coding system used by the CDC was originally developed for physicians and hospitals to determine what to bill health insurance companies for individualized patient care. The authors recommend an overhaul of how cause of death data is collected."

@AkioTsukino How does a cerebral haemorrhage come under iatrogenesis?

@AkioTsukino Here's whats wrong with your statistics. You are comparing current American medicine with some imaginary non-existent "perfect" standard of care. That's a complete strawman fallacy.

The only valid comparisons of a real world approach to health care are to other real world approaches to health care. How do US hospitals compare with "alternative mediciine"? How do US hospitals compare with praying for healing? How do US hospitals compare with Canadian hospitals.

You are completely misusing Dr. Starfield's results. She is [i]scientifically[/i] statistically identifying where US medical care can most be improved. She isn't proposing some alternate system of superior care because no such alternate system of superior care exists in this world.

[quote]106,000 die from the negative side effects of drugs taken as prescribed. [/quote] Again the comparison to non-existent perfect care. You need to compare to the negative side effects of taking no drugs whatsoever. Probably most of those cases were chemo drugs on terminal cancer patients, and they were fully briefed on the risks. Perfect care doesn't exist, and your approach pretends it does.

Yes, medicine can be improved. How? Wait for it ...
via the [b][big][c=BF0000]SCIENTIFIC METHOD!![/c][/big][/b]
And that is exactly what Dr. Starfield was doing.

@newjaninev2 [quote]How does a cerebral haemorrhage come under iatrogenesis?[/quote]

Barbara started taking low-dose aspirin after coronary insufficiency had been diagnosed three years before her death, and clopidogrel bisulfate (Plavix) after her right main coronary artery had been stented six months after the diagnosis. She reported to the cardiologist that she bruised more easily while taking clopidogrel and bled longer following minor cuts. She had no personal or family history of bleeding tendency or hypertension.

Clopidogrel increases your risk of bleeding, which can be severe or life-threatening. Like aspirin, Plavix is a blood thinner. Similar to Warfarin an anticoagulant used as a medication under several brand names including Coumadin, and as a poison for rats and other pests.

Bleeding in the brain (also called a cerebral hemorrhage or brain bleed) can reduce oxygen delivery to the brain, create extra pressure in the brain and kill brain cells. If you're having brain bleed symptoms, it's crucial to get treatment as quickly as possible.

@AkioTsukino In short, you don't know how much Dr. Starfield's medications extended her life by preventing clots that could have caused strokes and/or heart attacks.

Again, you are comparing the medications Dr. Starfield got with some perfect nonexistent standard of care. You are decidedly NOT comparing the medications she got with no medications at all.

Additionally, Dr. Starfield knew her condition and tendency to clot and agreed with her prescription. Pretending she was denied some form of perfect care is just silly.

Your basic approach here is to assume that every time a patient dies under a doctor's care, it's the doctor's fault. You refuse to recognize that sometimes modern medicine can only buy a few months, and some patients can't be saved at all.

@Gloomy [quote]I trust in science which I base on experience with and knowledge on scientific methods and archievements.[/quote]

I doubt that, but even if true you do that while insisting that religion, spirituality, and the supernatural are nonsense, knowing very little of them? You more than likely don't like those things, as simple as that sounds, and so think that you somehow seem more intelligent than you are. You, in effect, have science on your side. Science is your God. That has been almost exclusively my experience with science minded skeptics of the Bible.

[quote]Faith requires trust without evidence.[/quote]

Faith doesn't require anything. Faith is trust. The evidence is up to you. Science involves trust. You have faith in science. It isn't difficult, you're conflating faith with religion. Without evidence you wouldn't know to even mention any gods. Your evidence of gods is wanting. Your evidence in science isn't practical. You aren't a scientist which means all you have is faith when it comes to science. It is wanting as well.

@AkioTsukino [quote]religion, spirituality, and the supernatural are nonsense[/quote]

There is no evidence in order to consider those concepts to be true and of any importance to society.
Rather frightening is that even though there lacks evidence and necessity people try to justify (violent) acts with their religion and use the idea of a god to legitimise their biases and worldviews. I regard it as disingenous.

Science is a process, a method, something that is applied and has results and progress to show for itself. I cannot say the same about religion. I don't believe in the supernatural aspects of the Bible and regard it simply as a historical document. Nothing more nothing less. It has been used for evil by people who put way too much emphasis on its existence and context.

To put it bluntly your quote about science being a God shows how little you understand.

[quote]Faith doesn't require anything. Faith is trust.[/quote]

But trust is not faith. Trust usually depends on prior experiences that gives someone an estimate and plausabillity for an outcome.

[quote]Without evidence you wouldn't know to even mention any gods.[/quote]

The Bible is a source for the idea of a god but not of it's actual existence.

[quote]You aren't a scientist which means all you have is faith when it comes to science.[/quote]

Wrong, it is possible to understand the basics without being a scientist yourself. In science the process is outlined and the results are described so others can understand. Not like people preaching the Bible in latin in the middle ages.

It's funny how you express that there is no religious vs science debate yet you clearly position yourself as anti scientific.

@ElwoodBlues If that was what she was doing why do you say there's a problem with my stats? They aren't mine, they're hers.

@AkioTsukino I never said there was a problem with your stats or her stats. I said you were misinterpreting them. The problem is that you are comparing current American medicine with some imaginary non-existent "perfect" standard of care. That's a complete strawman fallacy.

The only valid comparisons of a real world approach to health care are to other real world approaches to health care. How do US hospitals compare with "alternative mediciine"? How do US hospitals compare with praying for healing? How do US hospitals compare with Canadian hospitals?

That is the proper use of the data Dr Starfield was gathering, not comparing US hospitals with some imaginary form of perfection.

@ElwoodBlues [quote]Here's whats wrong with your statistics. You are comparing current American medicine with some imaginary non-existent "perfect" standard of care. [/quote]

No I'm not, you're just ideologically fixated. Any criticism of modern medicine triggers you. All the stats say is what they say. They aren't compared to anything.

[quote]The only valid comparisons of a real world approach to health care are to other real world approaches to health care. How do US hospitals compare with "alternative mediciine"? How do US hospitals compare with praying for healing? How do US hospitals compare with Canadian hospitals.[/quote]

I only used the US because that's the country I live in and the study was specifically in reference to it. I wouldn't really be interested in a comparison, but more in an overall estimation of healthcare in general. Africa, Europe, Asia, etc. Praying for healing is nonsensical, counterproductive so to speak. Sickness and death are a product of the result of sin. God wants us to get sick and die. Why pray for him to change his mind?

@AkioTsukino
[quote] All the stats say is what they say.[/quote]
In isolation statistics are just numbers. In isolation they say very little. All the meaning comes from putting them in a context.

For example, In 2021 life expectancy at birth for American males was 76.1 years. What does that mean? Now let's put it in context. Let's compare. In 2020, it was 77.0 years. It declined almost 1 year during the Covid lockdown period. For women in went from 79.9 to 79.1. Japanese females have a life expectancy at birth of 84.6. In context, the stat starts to mean something. It leads to questions about differences.

We can also ask silly questions - how does French life expectancy compare to 100 years? It's silly because no one has a 100 year life expectancy. When you compare American medical care to some non-existent perfect outcome you're making a silly comparison.

[quote] Sickness and death are a product of the result of sin. God wants us to get sick and die. Why pray for him to change his mind?[/quote]

I see. So actually, Dr Starfield died as a result of her sins. God killed her on purpose while she was swimming. And all your fussing about iatrogenic causes is just some kind of weird play-acting. People die when God wants them to, according to you, case closed.

@Gloomy [quote]There is no evidence in order to consider those concepts to be true and of any importance to society.[/quote]

You don't know what you're talking about.

[media=https://youtu.be/wwi9Q9apHGI]

[quote]Rather frightening is that even though there lacks evidence and necessity people try to justify (violent) acts with their religion and use the idea of a god to legitimise their biases and worldviews. I regard it as disingenous.

Science is a process, a method, something that is applied and has results and progress to show for itself. I cannot say the same about religion. I don't believe in the supernatural aspects of the Bible and regard it simply as a historical document. Nothing more nothing less. It has been used for evil by people who put way too much emphasis on its existence and context.[/quote]

Are you serious?

[media=https://youtu.be/I-pulhtgHHo]

Everyone will use whatever tool they can to legitimize their biases and worldviews. People will use religion, not only to war, but to compare it to science. Why do you think that is? And to what end? I think that all organized religion should be banned worldwide, but the last thing we should do in that case is replace it with science minded ideologues. We should also get rid of politics, in my opinion, but I'm nothing to do with it. I'm apolitical. These are only my observations and opinions. I know mankind aren't ever going to solve their problems. It may sound difficult but all you would have to do is get rid of money. Debt based economy, fractional reserve banking, etc. Replace all of that nonsense with science and technology. That's what we should do in order to be the best we can until God takes over. Only Jehovah God can solve our problems and I believe he will.

Do you know why science and technology will never have the opportunity to do that? Money. Because it is the incentive to corrupt religion, politics, governments, and . . . science. And that isn't something I lose sleep over, it's just the way it is. God will take care of that.

[quote]To put it bluntly your quote about science being a God shows how little you understand.[/quote]

No, it shows how little you understand. Or perhaps how much you need to convolute everything to justify your worldview. All you have to do is go to Google and search God. The Oxford or any other definition. It really is a very simple exercise. If you want to expand that you can go to Wikipedia and look up Gods, deities, etc. Without access to all of that all you would have to do is look at religious people and what they do to be classified as such and then try and compare "your science" to that. Not science in general. Your science. What science means to you. What you do as a result of science. Then go back to the definition and think, to yourself, hmmmm.

If science were a religion, and it is, you would be a fundi on the Internet preaching the good news. Think about it. If you can.

[quote]But trust is not faith. Trust usually depends on prior experiences that gives someone an estimate and plausabillity for an outcome.[/quote]

Well, after you've finished looking up God look up faith. I'll do it for you. Oxford Dictionary: faith - complete [b]trust[/b] or confidence in someone or something. I've given that definition word for word several times in this thread alone. Give me your scientific rebuttal.

[quote]The Bible is a source for the idea of a god but not of it's actual existence.[/quote]

What? It's? God is a title, like king, president, captain. the Bible is a reference source for many gods. It could be and is, in fact, a god to many people. It shouldn't be, but it is. Be sure and Google that as I mentioned earlier and look at it with what we silly humans call "an open mind." Be objective. No, no, no, not the fake objective that you science preachers are always bragging about, but real objectivity.

[quote]Wrong, it is possible to understand the basics without being a scientist yourself. [/quote]

I never said otherwise. What I meant is that since you aren't actually participating in a field of study, or doing actual science, so you have to have faith in it's process, conclusions, etc. You have to trust it.

[quote] In science the process is outlined and the results are described so others can understand. Not like people preaching the Bible in latin in the middle ages.[/quote]

I guess the preachers were the science of that day, huh? Nothing like today where the preachers of science itself are the common surfers on the world wide wasteland.

[quote]It's funny how you express that there is no religious vs science debate yet you clearly position yourself as anti scientific.[/quote]

No, you just think I'm anti science because I'm a blasphemer, I dare question or criticize your science.

@AkioTsukino Have you looked up ghosts? Zombies? Faeries? Witchcraft? Astrology? I'll bet the Oxford English Dictionary has long entries for those words as well. Does a dictionary entry make something perforce real?

[quote] I dare question or criticize your science.[/quote] Actually, it's the job of scientists every day to question and criticize existing results. You seem to believe that every scientific result must be treated as a new revelation of truth and your criticisms of science are based on that approach. Your approach is way off. @reflectingmonkey explained that science isn't about truth and you gave him BA but you don't seem to have absorbed what he wrote.

You are still treating scientific results as some form of Gospel and basing your criticism on that misapprehension.

@ElwoodBlues [quote]Have you looked up ghosts? Zombies? Faeries? Witchcraft? Astrology? I'll bet the Oxford English Dictionary has long entries for those words as well. Does a dictionary entry make something perforce real?[/quote]

All a dictionary does is tell us what the common use of a word is; it's spelling, maybe etymology, grammatical data for syntax, and examples. For example, a Zombie is listed in Oxford as

1. a corpse said to be revived by witchcraft, especially in certain African and Caribbean religions.

(in popular fiction) a person or reanimated corpse that has been turned into a creature capable of movement but not of rational thought, which feeds on human flesh.
"a world overrun by zombies"

INFORMAL
a person who is or appears lifeless, apathetic, or completely unresponsive to their surroundings.

PHILOSOPHY
a hypothetical being that responds to stimulus as a person would but that does not experience consciousness.
a computer controlled by another person without the owner's knowledge and used for sending spam or other illegal or illicit activities.

2. a tall mixed drink consisting of several kinds of rum, liqueur, and fruit juice.

So, though we typically use the term in application to 1 and we think of that as supernatural, where it actually comes from is that people in African and Caribbean cultures used drugs to poison people into appearing dead. So you could pay some priest or witchdoctor to poison someone and their vitals would be undetectable by primitive examination. The person would be buried and sometimes they recover and walk around causing all sorts of superstitious mayhem to pursue. The interesting thing, to me at least, is that when you say Zombie some people - and I'm not giving names - think the word is limited to the sort of transmogrification of the actual natural practice. Like it has to mean The Walking Dead.

Terribly interesting! Knowing something becomes a politicized conflict of ignorance in a sort of science delusion for fundi preachers of science who are threatened and triggered by EVERYTHING!

[quote]Actually, it's the job of scientists every day to question and criticize existing results. You seem to believe that every scientific result must be treated as a new revelation of truth and your criticisms of science are based on that approach. Your approach is way off. @reflectingmonkey explained that science isn't about truth and you gave him BA but you don't seem to have absorbed what he wrote.[/quote]

Maybe, as a representative of science, you should be more careful about trying to figure out what my motives are and pay more attention to what I'm actually saying. Because you suck at it. Not unlike science, you are almost always wrong.

You've been doing this too long. Get the chip off your shoulder and use your God given mind to think it out without the traditional archaic conflict of science vs religion and atheism vs theism.

Maybe think more scientifically and actually inquire what I mean rather than presume when the evidence, even you point out yourself, (The BA to @reflectingmonkey would possibly reflect.

[quote]You are still treating scientific results as some form of Gospel and basing your criticism on that misapprehension.[/quote]

DUDE! As you say, all I'm doing is saying that science uses faith, that science and theology are imperfect. The rest of this thread is fundi science gone mad. Almost totally unable to have a conversation about the subject.

@AkioTsukino It is true that scientists take certain things on trust (for example rely on someone elses findings to expand on them). It is also true that religious narratives might speak to human needs that scientific theories can’t hope to satisfy.

And yet, scientific practices - observation and experiment, the development of falsifiable hypotheses, the relentless questioning of established views - have proven uniquely powerful in revealing the surprising, underlying structure of the world we live in, including subatomic particles, the role of germs in the spread of disease, and the neural basis of mental life.

Religion and faith has no equivalent record of discovering hidden truths.

@AkioTsukino [quote]God is a title, like king, president, captain.[/quote]

In its most common usage it refers to a superhuman/supernatural being and when gods are discussed in context of faith and religion that is what is meant.

@Gloomy Yes, but that most common use isn't complete. It's only one example. It's most common because it's the one most used. There are few gods fitting that description and billions of others that don't. That specific example doesn't explain the requirements of being classified as a god. The billions of others are just as much gods as that one.