Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can't help but notice how you like to point to people's "ignorance" with impressive frequency.
And this sampling:
"... you are too angry ..."
"... can't explain science to you ..."
"... you don't understand how to analyze scientific data ..."
"... you don't understand probabilities ..."
"... you won't get the point no matter how I explain it ..."
"... you are off the deep end ..."
"... you are obviously not interested in reality ..."
"... get someone to explain to you how condescending you are ..."
"... I am trying to convince you to be less arrogant and more thoughtful ..."
And so much more. It's a treasure trove!
Here's a mirror. Take a look in it.
I would not disagree with this ^^^ at all. But you really excel at being a disagreeable messenger.
It’s not the insults that bother me. It’s the lack of fact and quite frankly, the rambling nature of the claims.
She wants people to admit that modern medical science doesn’t know it all. Who ever thought they did? Then she alludes to other topics like the right diet and nature knowing best and intelligent design and religion, but fails to follow through with one thought before jumping to another leaving people scratching their heads and trying and figure out what she’s saying.
You can discuss the topic as long as you want but discussions about people's personal religion are off topic. Also discussions about where or when someone went to school. In other words, stick to the topic and don't let it get personal. Hopefully the OP will get a chance to say most/all of what he or she wants to say and will not start another thread on the same or a similar topic! Also, name calling and insults will be infracted so if you're done discussing the topic, you don't need to say anything else.
There are many respected scientists who say that nature is beyond human comprehension. It isn't just my little opinion.
If you thought about it for a moment, you would realize there are infinitely more things that can't be explained by science than what has already been explained. You can always say that maybe a million years from now science will have everything figured out, but that would just be a guess. You don't know, no one knows.
We need less arrogance in this world. Really.
Which scientists are those? Science is hard, but I do not see any scientists throwing up their hands and giving up and saying "nature is beyond human comprehension".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Williepaws
Pot call kettle black. You project your belief in everything medical in every post, in every situation, on every drug, on every treatment etc. Nothing else, no herb, no belief in something outside yourself whatever that may be, no alternative therapy even if its been around for 2000 yrs ,can possibly compare to western medicine according to you. You are free to do or not do whatever treatment ,drug etc you want. Dont presume to tell the rest of us who dont believe in western med that we know nothing and our experiences dont count. No thanks. Long and short of it, every patient needs to do their own research if at all possible before they have anything to do with the medical profession. And take anything a dr tells you with a big dose of skepticism.
I am open to any "alternative" for which the claim of benefit can be established with scientific evidence. The thing is, once that happens, it is no longer "alternative", it's just medicine. The "its been around for 2000 years" is a logical fallacy called the "appeal to antiquity". Just because it has been done for 2000 years does not mean it is effective.
I said, I am trying to convince you to be less arrogant, less human-centric. Our species is not as all-knowing as you would like to think.
Medical professionals need to be more careful and more thoughtful, more respectful of nature and the intelligent universe. That is what I am hoping for. Maybe a hundred or so years from now, if we have somehow survived.
Respect for nature does not have to include a belief in an "intelligent universe".
I can't help but notice how you like to point to people's "ignorance" with impressive frequency.
And this sampling:
"... you are too angry ..."
"... can't explain science to you ..."
"... you don't understand how to analyze scientific data ..."
"... you don't understand probabilities ..."
"... you won't get the point no matter how I explain it ..."
"... you are off the deep end ..."
"... you are obviously not interested in reality ..."
"... get someone to explain to you how condescending you are ..."
"... I am trying to convince you to be less arrogant and more thoughtful ..."
And so much more. It's a treasure trove!
Here's a mirror. Take a look in it.
I would not disagree with this ^^^ at its core. But you really excel at being a disagreeable messenger.
Yes! +1.
A few others also pull this exact same nonsense. Someone even posted a poor me, I'm "attacked" thread yet pulls the exact same above nonsense.
Our bodies still process nutrients in a way where it will hold excess in reserve in anticipation of a period without regular ingestion. If our bodies didn't, we'd all be very lean and excrete all of the excess.
Once we let ourselves get "too far gone" in unhealthy habits, we can actually feel bad when we stop eating the bad stuff! Even though it's what will ultimately hurt us.
Logistical advancements in food supply to keep supermarket shelves stocked leaves it to each individual to control what they put in their mouth. You could very well eat yourself to death, and you could very well starve if you choose to eat nothing. Eating to maintain whatever feeling of "comfort" you decide to stop at is NOT an accurate way to gauge how much is "enough" when you nourish yourself.
Added flavors and processing foods into something that doesn't occur in nature will make this method VERY inaccurate, and we will more often than not end up overweight. Combine this with the decidedly low tolerance for discomfort and impulsiveness that's let run rampant in modern generations and you've got a death spiral to plummeting life expectancy.
Our bodies still process nutrients in a way where it will hold excess in reserve in anticipation of a period without regular ingestion. If our bodies didn't, we'd all be very lean and excrete all of the excess.
Once we let ourselves get "too far gone" in unhealthy habits, we can actually feel bad when we stop eating the bad stuff! Even though it's what will ultimately hurt us.
Logistical advancements in food supply to keep supermarket shelves stocked leaves it to each individual to control what they put in their mouth. You could very well eat yourself to death, and you could very well starve if you choose to eat nothing. Eating to maintain whatever feeling of "comfort" you decide to stop at is NOT an accurate way to gauge how much is "enough" when you nourish yourself.
Added flavors and processing foods into something that doesn't occur in nature will make this method VERY inaccurate, and we will more often than not end up overweight. Combine this with the decidedly low tolerance for discomfort and impulsiveness that's let run rampant in modern generations and you've got a death spiral to plummeting life expectancy.
Which brings us to the fact that societies with longer longevity tend to eat less and move more.
Okinawans, for example, follow the philosophy of eating until only 80% full: hara hachi bu.
Which scientists are those? Science is hard, but I do not see any scientists throwing up their hands and giving up and saying "nature is beyond human comprehension".
I never said anything about scientists giving up. It IS possible to continue learning, while noticing that you will never know it all.
I never said anything about scientists giving up. It IS possible to continue learning, while noticing that you will never know it all.
How do you manage to twist everything I say??
I don't know ANY scientists that have claimed (or not noticed) to know it all. That's just an odd thing to say.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
I don't know ANY scientists that have claimed (or not noticed) to know it all. That's just an odd thing to say.
Oh man. I was talking about people who believe science can potentially understand all about nature. Because they think they are smarter than nature. That is the New Atheist perspective.
I never said anything about scientists giving up. It IS possible to continue learning, while noticing that you will never know it all.
How do you manage to twist everything I say??
Yoy said, "There are many respected scientists who say that nature is beyond human comprehension."
Who are they?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
