I won't answer all of this, but some of it is irresistible. I should
probably talk to my therapist about how easy it is for Bertvan to
jerk my chain. :-)
Susan
---->>>Chris >>>To be fair to Bertvan, I think she's talking about the political >>>shenanigans at Baylor, not any alleged "science" that may be involved. > >Richard: >>No, I think Bertvan was trying to cast aspersions on the value of the >>scientific work of academics generally. All scientific work involves >>interpretations. If the public accepts Bertvan's assertion that the >>interpretations of scientists cannot be trusted, then public understanding >>of science will become a free-for-all, where people pick and choose whatever >>bits of science or pseudoscience suit their personal prejudices. This what >>Bertvan does, and she wants others to do the same. > >Bertvan: >You are absolutely right, Richard. Many people believe whatever the >"experts" tell them to believe. You'll find them in Doctors waiting rooms >eager to ingest the latest "happy" pill the drug companies have for sale. >They paid a fortune for psychiatrists to investigate their mysterious ID, ego >and super ego, and damaged psyche with which " psychiatric science" had them >convinced they were afflicted.
It's a good thing the early experiments in treating mental illness (after we stopped putting the mentally ill in chains) have been enhanced by further research and advancements of knowledge and that psychiatry has for the most part abandoned the Freudian model in favor of more empowering techniques--that work better. Treating depression, for example, with therapy and drugs has a success rate of about 80 percent.
>Having been convinced by "science" that they >have no free will, they became the victims of their genes and their >environment. Even rapists relax convinced their behavior is the logical >result of random mutation and natural selection.
a recent book on this subject is highly controversial *among scientists*. Even the authors of the books didn't think rapists should "relax." After all, it is *not* human nature to use a bathroom or to brush ones teeth. But nobody (I hope) is suggesting that one should take care of ones urges in the living room floor.
>They fed their >babies bottled milk, rather than nursing them.
that was more an artifact of marketing than science. In fact nutritionists have always maintained that nursing was better and healthier--even when it was socially unacceptable.
>They were bled by leeches.
bled by leeches? Science was basically invented during the Enlightenment. The leech thing was "non-naturalistic" or "pre-naturalistic" science. Bleeding by leeches and chains for the mentally ill is what science will look like after that nasty materialism is removed.
>They accepted social Darwinism, and sterilized people in the name of >eugenics.
Social Darwinism is a misunderstanding of the necessity of variation for natural selection to work on. In other words, it is *not* darwinism. It's the exact opposite of darwinism.
>They recognized meteorites as a hoax. (How could rocks fall from >the sky?)
huh?
>They were told that that masturbation, >condoms and suppressed sexual fantasies cause impotence, consumption, >paralysis, seizures and insanity.
huh? The church said that, not scientists.
>They were told homosexuality was a mental >illness caused by a dominant mother and an absent father.
I've read those early studies. They turn out to be unrepeatable (that old peer-review thing). It was certainly more kindly than dismissing homosexuality as perversion.
>For a while the tobacco and >pesticide industries had no trouble hiring scientists who assured the public >their products were safe.
The pesticide companies would hire scientists who would stand up and tell people that they had developed a product that would subvert evolution. That's not true, of course, but every few years they still hire people to do it. Every few years they'll have a big conference and the pesticide company hiree will tell the crowd that if you use their product, evolution won't happen *this time*. This has been going on since the introduction of DDT in the 30s. They should just hire Henry Morris or Duane Gish to tell people that evolution doesn't exist!
>The vast majority of the time science is man's most shinning accomplishment. >However, the difference between science and pseudo science is often not >apparent until later, and scientists are as susceptible to pettiness and >personal prejudices as anyone else.
I agree. That's why it's really important to look at their evidence. It's how you tell real science from pseudoscience and how you tell good science from bad. Sometimes it's so arcane that an ordinary person can't tell even by seeing the evidence. But most of the time it's obvious. Who financed the study? How many people participated in the study? and so forth. When it's too tough to call then you listen to their peers. What do the *other* scientists say about it? You, know, those guys who know what the claimant is talking about.
I think you are trying to make the case that you just can't tell what the truth is, so it's ok to pick and choose at whim. If you are comfortable living your life that way, fine. It's not ok with *me* I couldn't stand to live in such chaos.
> I listen with interest to what the >"experts" say, but if it defies common sense, as does "chance and natural >selection" as an explanation of evolution in the opinion of many people, I'll >keep hoping someone comes up with a more reasonable explanation.
Yes. And you'll use those tried and true methods of getting at the truth like evaluating the good manners of the people making the claim. Now, *that's* reliable!
Why *don't* we still use leeches to cure disease? They didn't work, that's why. (Evolution *does* work, which is why biologists "cling" to it.) The human race learns from its mistakes because it is possible to tell which things are mistakes and which things are true.
Susan
-- ----------
I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to shew why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction.
---Charles Darwin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 26 2000 - 15:30:11 EDT