The Political Discussion Thread

[Galileo_Galilee]

If science didn't have some faith to it, there would be no funding to discover the cure for cancer and aids. Because with decades and billions being spent on research there hasn't been a cure found for them yet. Therefore the evidence would suggest that there would be no cure ever found. That means we shouldn't waste the money on finding these cures.

So, there does have to be some faith in science.

But, it is still not the same thing as a religious based faith, which encourages and sometimes forces people into believing an invisible man wants to micromanage every single aspect of your life and never allows you to make choices for yourself.

[SF_and_Coffee]

If science didn't have some faith to it, there would be no funding to discover the cure for cancer and aids. Because with decades and billions being spent on research there hasn't been a cure found for them yet. Therefore the evidence would suggest that there would be no cure ever found. That means we shouldn't waste the money on finding these cures.

So, there does have to be some faith in science.

Science has already found cures for other diseases, so there is no faith involved in assuming that eventually it will also find a cure for cancer. The fact that it has already found cures for other diseases IS the evidence that suggests that funding cancer research will eventually bear fruit.

But, it is still not the same thing as a religious based faith, which encourages and sometimes forces people into believing an invisible man wants to micromanage every single aspect of your life and never allows you to make choices for yourself.

That isn't the definition of faith.

[SoulReaver]

somewhat offtopic again, but I ain't so sure things like cancer, and - more so - AIDS, malaria, flu & cold, can ever be cured (but hey, could be wrong...)

[Giantevilhead]

If science didn't have some faith to it, there would be no funding to discover the cure for cancer and aids. Because with decades and billions being spent on research there hasn't been a cure found for them yet. Therefore the evidence would suggest that there would be no cure ever found. That means we shouldn't waste the money on finding these cures.

So, there does have to be some faith in science.

But, it is still not the same thing as a religious based faith, which encourages and sometimes forces people into believing an invisible man wants to micromanage every single aspect of your life and never allows you to make choices for yourself.

In order for there to be evidence to suggest no cure can be found, there would have to be absolutely no progress in that direction. However, all that research has produced a lot of results. There are plenty of new treatments for cancers that we didn't have decades ago. Heck, depending on your definition of a cure, we can cure cancer by removing the tumor or killing it with chemo or radiation therapy.

[Galileo_Galilee]

Which in many cases does re-occur. So how is that exactly a cure again?

For me I define a cure as something that is completely gone and completely healed, not managed and lived with.

Because that is what cures do. They get rid of the problem.

The dictionary of course, defines it like this:

1. Restoration of health; recovery from disease.
2. A method or course of medical treatment used to restore health.
3. An agent, such as a drug, that restores health; a remedy.
4. Something that corrects or relieves a harmful or disturbing situation: The cats proved to be a good cure for our mouse problem.
5. Ecclesiastical Spiritual charge or care, as of a priest for a congregation.
6. The office or duties of a curate.
7. The act or process of preserving a product.

Because if a problem re-occurs it is still there and the person is still not truly healthy.

And therefore has not been cured if it comes back.

[KEK]

If science didn't have some faith to it, there would be no funding to discover the cure for cancer and aids. Because with decades and billions being spent on research there hasn't been a cure found for them yet. Therefore the evidence would suggest that there would be no cure ever found.

No it doesn't. Nothing ever happens, until it does. The more reasonable way to look at it would be to look at other diseases that we have struggled with, and inevitably cured.

This is all beside the point of course, as the motivation behind funding scientific research has no bearing on the discipline itself. Science is built on testable phenomena and falsifiable theories, faith doesn't factor into it.

[Col.Foley]

It's not a matter of what he was expecting, it was a matter of what those who scream about (liberal) bias in academia seem to forget - that bias exists on both sides of the field.

...uh...duh. Not saying that there was not more bias then there was any other bias in schools just that the main scope of bias seem to be liberal. Which would effect institutions and how they teach and stuff. But regardless if the bias is 'liberal' or 'conservative' means that usually they are too biased for me. I should also point out that just because someone is biased, that they cannot be truthful. Some people are biased for the truth, or their biases are closer to the truth. It is up to us to determine which is which.

Because the idea in the end breaks down to basically this...there are liberal bias in the schools!...yeah so what there are also conservative bias in the schools...oh yeah I suppose.....

This does not mean that just because there is Conservative bias in some people or what have you or bias for small Government principles maybe or what have you that does not mean that the Liberal bias is not just as bad, or just as dangerous. Especially considering that Liberal bias dictates that you should control people and force them to do things when it comes to matters...just in this thread, and on GW...like Health Care, and Sex Education. And many many many other topics.

I also should point out though that depending on the Conservative you talk to, or where you get your bias or what kind of Conservatism he or she is advocating could lead to much the same outcome.

Interesting to note that the two professions that revolve around the quest for truth (science and journalism) always seem to be made up by a disproportionate amount of people with liberal ideals. IQ averages are higher in atheists and liberals too. Something to think about perhaps.

And I have also heard it said that those with the greater civic knowlege tend to be more Conservative and I guess on the Smaller Government side of things.

But let me run this...toatally crazy theory by you. You have institutions that are mostly Liberal, or somewhat Liberal, they grade and collect data and are even on the watch dogs for those groups and stuff. They compile the polls and the research. And they even teach classes or select those that are hired or any number of things. They decide just what is intelligence, just what is not intelligent, just who is intelligent and what factors lead to intelligence. They think about things in terms of groups or in terms of the collective and they try and deterimine various things about how the world works according to them. You have soviet style Propaganda in many cases making it into our schools, you have lesson plans that lead students to websites advocating for the hanging of cops, and then on top of it all you have a hiring process where again people...based on their own preconceptions of just what 'intelligence' is who are hired and often contribute to the system. And this is just the same in Journalism because Journalists, and scientists, often rely on the education system to provide them with people. And Atheists would often be more liberal because of this very fact as well because they, usually...I do know individuals who are Atheists and Conservatives or at the very least Libertarian...reject part of what makes a Conservative a Conservative. As in their religion. So of course in this environment you are going to produce more young and 'intelligent' liberals then anything else. Did you know too that scores on things like History and reasoning skills are also beginning to fall and falter in this country? Actually I thought from a lot of liberals that I have talked to that our education system is messed up and it needs to be more like Europe.

And on top of that we in our society have gotten to quite a point to make it in society you need a piece of paper from one of these fine instititutions telling you that you are intelligent and that you have met all the requirements in that regard. That we deem you to be smart and intelligent based on test scores or how you wrote on an essay, which is then filtered through someone's own bias and opinion...often enough. What they are looking for. That to do anything in society and to really make it we are taught that we have to go to college, have to go through years of a public education system, and that we are mandated by our society to do these things. That even anyone who disagrees with this, anyone who wants home schooling, or private schooling, or Christian Schooling is often shunned and ridiculed. At least so I have seen. So of course you are going to have more people with a Liberal bias.

Because there tends to be a more liberal bias in these institutions, they can deem what is intelligence and what is not intelligence, and then you are either forced by law to go to these institutions some of them, or that again by law you have to teach it in a certain way and teach certain things, and then you are further shunned if you found your own way in life.

which is why I a weary of getting a college education. I do not have the time or the resources. And which is furthermore contrary to the plain old and fundamental fact of life, you can get an education anywhere.

In what possible sense is science based on faith???

There is a certain faith in science:

You have to have faith that you are right, faith that the information that you absorbed from another scientist has not been manipulated, stolen, or abused. You have to have faith in your work that it is good and just, faith that your facts and theories are right. And your own biases, feelings, and even your own agenda can sometimes make it just as blind as someone who is so bigoted to all other religions that they have to kill them in the name of God.

[mad_gater]

now how'd I know this was gonna turn into one big put down of people of faith? because for certain people here insulting people of faith is their life's blood......I refuse to rise to the bait

[SF_and_Coffee]

now how'd I know this was gonna turn into one big put down of people of faith? because for certain people here insulting people of faith is their life's blood......I refuse to rise to the bait

I would like it to be noted that I, for one, am not putting down people of faith... being a person of faith myself, however different my faith might (or might not) be from that of any other given poster.

[mad_gater]

I would like it to be noted that I, for one, am not putting down people of faith... being a person of faith myself, however different my faith might (or might not) be from that of any other given poster.

I didn't name you either.....but from other people I was getting the sense that it was building up to that point

[Col.Foley]

I didn't name you either.....but from other people I was getting the sense that it was building up to that point

Better to head it off at the pass.

[mad_gater]

Better to head it off at the pass.

- yeah....when discussions start to meander over to faith and science they usually turn into faith vs. science instead of finding ways in which faith and science can ethically work together for the betterment of all

[Col.Foley]

- yeah....when discussions start to meander over to faith and science they usually turn into faith vs. science instead of finding ways in which faith and science can ethically work together for the betterment of all

Yep that does seem to happen far too often. I hold both faith and science in pretty high regard and esteem, though right now in my life I am more scientific then faithful. But that does not stop me from recognizing the negative aspects (often the same ones) in both faith and science and commenting on them. Especially when 'scientists' begin to hold onto their 'science' with the same tenacity as they claim of someone of religion.

[Giantevilhead]

Which in many cases does re-occur. So how is that exactly a cure again?

For me I define a cure as something that is completely gone and completely healed, not managed and lived with.

Because that is what cures do. They get rid of the problem.

The dictionary of course, defines it like this:

1. Restoration of health; recovery from disease.
2. A method or course of medical treatment used to restore health.
3. An agent, such as a drug, that restores health; a remedy.
4. Something that corrects or relieves a harmful or disturbing situation: The cats proved to be a good cure for our mouse problem.
5. Ecclesiastical Spiritual charge or care, as of a priest for a congregation.
6. The office or duties of a curate.
7. The act or process of preserving a product.

Because if a problem re-occurs it is still there and the person is still not truly healthy.

And therefore has not been cured if it comes back.

By that logic nothing can be cured. Every disease has a chance of resurgence.

A cure has never been defined as complete eradication of the disease. It can only be defined as eradication of a specific instance of the disease. The cure does not guarantee that the person will never get the disease again.

There is a certain faith in science:

You have to have faith that you are right, faith that the information that you absorbed from another scientist has not been manipulated, stolen, or abused. You have to have faith in your work that it is good and just, faith that your facts and theories are right. And your own biases, feelings, and even your own agenda can sometimes make it just as blind as someone who is so bigoted to all other religions that they have to kill them in the name of God.

Except you don't need faith because peer reviewed papers have a section called "Methods" in which the scientist(s) who conducted the experiment have to put down enough information about the experiment so that it can be replicated by other people. It's true that scientists often assume that a peer reviewed paper had valid results but they'll still repeat the experiment to make sure that the result wasn't arrived by chance or by experimenter bias.

As for experimenter bias, there's something called a double blind test that eliminates it by making sure that you don't know who's getting the treatment and who's getting the placebo.

[Col.Foley]

By that logic nothing can be cured. Every disease has a chance of resurgence.

A cure has never been defined as complete eradication of the disease. It can only be defined as eradication of a specific instance of the disease. The cure does not guarantee that the person will never get the disease again.



Except you don't need faith because peer reviewed papers have a section called "Methods" in which the scientist(s) who conducted the experiment have to put down enough information about the experiment so that it can be replicated by other people. It's true that scientists often assume that a peer reviewed paper had valid results but they'll still repeat the experiment to make sure that the result wasn't arrived by chance or by experimenter bias.

As for experimenter bias, there's something called a double blind test that eliminates it by making sure that you don't know who's getting the treatment and who's getting the placebo.

Yeah I know. The whole crux of my posts on the subject is that Science and individual scientists, with more and more frequency these days, seem to be relying on their bias and indeed their faith...even blind faith...when it comes to what they are doing. Which is often what a lot of people accuse religion of. I have learned that both religious faith and science and scientific faith is not so clear cut.