Misdirected efforts in New Zealand to honor Indigenous culture by infusing myth into science classes are harming the teaching of science there, just as they are elsewhere.
Most MD's, even today, don't conduct any research. Medical doctors are to science as mechanics are to engineering, they just apply knowledge and experience to fix/heal things.
Midwives accumulated and passed on a lot of real knowledge and were probably involved in treating children from the many diseases that we didn't understand at the time. It really wasn't until the late 19th century that proof of the microbiological world became dominant in disease and Koch's postulates became widely known. It then took a few generations to make that reality and have alternative hypothesis from witchcraft and black magic to "bad air" fade into history.
Medicine didn't become scientific until modern times.
I agree but I cannot help but smile when you say: "Science is universal. It is not ‘male’, nor ‘white’, or ‘western’."
May be, but scientists are not (were not) "universal". Until recently, medicine (if you consider it a science) was "male". Females (female rats actually) were considered too complicated to run experiments for them. Many diseases affecting primary females or having different symptoms in females were unknown, ignored or misunderstood. Women had to march to protest lack of research/funding for breast cancer.
Soon (already) women in the US will not be able to rely on medical science for abortion even for health reasons. They now seeking "alternative methods" relying on herbs and other concoctions. Unfortunately, the universality of science is entangled with its societal context.
While certain scientists may have had biases, science is not merely a collection of facts or body of knowledge garnered through studies. As per your point on sex differences in medicine, there may always, of course, be more or less universality to certain findings in this body of knowledge depending on what the findings relate to.
However, the true universality of science lies first and foremost in its core methodological framework. This method is a social technology that ruthlessly interogates all claims to propositional knowledge through a balance of wonder and scepticism. Identity characteristics are irrelevant here.
May be you misunderstood me. I was just complaining about the 'lack" of findings about conditions in which biological identity matters. E.g., the lack of applying the "scientific method" in such cases!
A good story that may not be true. I just heard a history of medical doctors that indicated that most doctors were women before the AMA gained control over the accreditation of medical schools and the licensing of doctors. This new monopoly ran up the cost of obtaining a medical license and excluded women and minorities.
The Empire of the Scalpel, Ira Rutkow "An additional admonition concerns the fact that the history of surgery has been largely dominated by white men. There is no disputing that, as far back as the Middle Ages, there were women who had a role in providing surgical services for their households or the poor. However, with the growth of the male-dominated Catholic Church in the sixteenth century and their care of the sick, females were forced aside and discouraged from performing any form of surgical therapy. Even with the beginnings of modern surgical training at the start of the twentieth century, the road for female surgeons remained difficult. Nevertheless, the opening of the Woman’s Medical College of Pennsylvania and the London School of Medicine for Women provided fresh opportunities in surgery. Yet, despite the increasing presence of female surgeons, few held positions of authority or leadership or exerted any semblance of control over the governance of surgery until the mid-1970s."
I read two med history books on the subject, but my memory fails me! What I remember, though, is that medicine was not based on scientific principles until very late. Before surgeons were butchers or barbers and midwives did not conduct research on diseases of any kind!
I'm not religious myself, but I've found myself intrigued by some of the claims made in the Bible.
The book of Genesis starts off with...
"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light."
Sounds suspiciously like the Big Bang to me. This could be coincidence of course, or perhaps I'm just reading in to the passage that which isn't actually there. But still, somebody wrote this 3,000 years ago, and they could have written anything, but they chose to write this.
A better example for my taste is the story of how Adam and Eve ate an apple from the tree of knowledge and were then ejected from the Garden of Eden. This fable sounds remarkably like what I see happening in today's modern world.
What I like about this story is that, unlike the supposed Big Bang claim above, it doesn't seem to require divine inspiration. If one starts with a deep understanding of the human condition, it might be possible on that basis to make credible predictions about the general thrust of where humanity is headed.
The evidence that the Bible authors may have had deep insight in to the human condition is that the book they wrote wound up becoming the most popular book in Western civilization. This publishing success clearly doesn't validate every claim made in the Bible, but it does suggest the authors knew something about their audience.
My best guess at the moment is that the Bible writers were referring to some phenomena which does exist in nature. But they were writing for an audience of uneducated peasants who lived short harsh lives. And so they necessarily had to communicate in simplistic fables which understandably no longer resonate with many in the educated modern world. You know, imagine trying to explain sex to a four year old. You'd have to leave a lot out.
I was intrigued by learning about CRISPR, which taught me this. Bacteria grab a chunk of DNA from invading viruses and store the virus DNA within the bacteria's own DNA. Then they reference this stored information to identify future invaders, so as to present the best possible defense against the attack.
When we do things like this we call it data management operations, and label it as an act of intelligence. Given that bacteria have no brain or nervous system, it's hard to label them as intelligent.
So what is the source of their intelligent-like behavior? Saying the word evolution solves nothing, because that just kicks the can down the road to the next question. What is the source of evolution's intelligent-like behavior?
The ancient Bible writers obviously didn't steal their creation idea from modern science. And they could have written any of an infinite number of stories to explain creation. Their creation story could have involved potatoes, donkeys, fig trees, sex, anything.
But somehow they arrived at this particular story which references the "darkness of the deep" and "let there be light".
I agree that this similarity between the stories, which you apparently don't wish to acknowledge, doesn't prove anything about anything. It could just be a coincidence, agreed. I just find this interesting, that's all.
With the Adam and Eve story I can come up with some possible explanation for it's apparent (but unproven) predictive power but with the creation story, other than coincidence, it's much harder.
You might be able to help here, given your mastery of physics. Some physics which I very inexpertly have consumed seems to suggest that time may not be linear in the way that we experience it at human scale. If all time is now, or something like that, some rare individuals in the ancient world may have had some ability to explore that realm. Such a theory doesn't require divine intervention, only the existence of rarely talented individuals, which do seem to exist in every realm of human endeavor.
To the degree there is any evidence to support such a speculative theory it might be found in the fact that, somehow or another, these Bible writer guys were able to publish a book that retained the interest of large swaths of humanity for 3,000 years. No scientist has ever had such an accomplishment, nor are they likely to.
Correct me if this is wrong please, but I understand the point you and Dawkins are making to be that religion is lousy science. I agree! But what I don't hear either of you saying is that the opposite is also true.
When it comes to physics and biology you and Dawkins are experts, and you won't see me challenging either of you on those topics. But when it comes to religion and other social issues, you don't stand above us, but among us.
the earth did not exist before the light.. among many many many many other things. took about 5 billion years for the earth to form after the big bang.
We agree that the Bible is not a peer reviewed scientific paper, and that science has developed far more accurate and detailed information on the subject of creation than the book of Genesis. Now that I've addressed and sincerely agreed to your stated concerns, perhaps we might consider addressing what interests me?
By my read, the book of Genesis by some means or another unknown to me, somehow got in to the _same general ballpark_ as science regarding the creation of this universe. Again, the first story in the Bible references the "darkness of the deep" and "let there be light". Honestly, it seems a dodge to not acknowledge the similarity between that language and the general concept of the Big Bang.
If that similarity does exist, I'm not claiming that it proves anything at all.
My situation is that I'm neither pro nor anti religion, and thus feel free to explore such questions without having any turf which must be defended. I'm here looking for the kind of free and open, as objective as possible, intellectual inquiry which you, Dawkins and recent authors on this blog have said they welcome. I haven't figured out yet whether I'm going to find that. Still listening.
It's funny, without science they would be living their stone-age beliefs. Still dying from the water, splinters, cut fingers and dieses the horrible vaccines prevent. I'm sick of the fact that we pay attention to the whining minority.
Perhaps the social sciences and humanities are correct: "it is all about power". In this case the power to veto reality when you believe it some other story and can force that belief on others.
Too bad nature and reality doesn't give a damn about humanity and we are totally dependent for survival on that reality.
I just reread Orwell's "1984" and it seems even more valid today in our "woke" culture as the new-speak grows and real history and science goes down the memory hole.
I never even considered the possibility of the crazy post-modern belief over in the social sciences and humanities being able to power to suppress the enlightenment and the sciences much like the religions did in the dark ages.
The biggest threat to science is not religion or wokeness. It's our outdated "more is better" relationship with knowledge, the simplistic philosophy which modern science is built upon.
Most MD's, even today, don't conduct any research. Medical doctors are to science as mechanics are to engineering, they just apply knowledge and experience to fix/heal things.
Midwives accumulated and passed on a lot of real knowledge and were probably involved in treating children from the many diseases that we didn't understand at the time. It really wasn't until the late 19th century that proof of the microbiological world became dominant in disease and Koch's postulates became widely known. It then took a few generations to make that reality and have alternative hypothesis from witchcraft and black magic to "bad air" fade into history.
Medicine didn't become scientific until modern times.
I agree but I cannot help but smile when you say: "Science is universal. It is not ‘male’, nor ‘white’, or ‘western’."
May be, but scientists are not (were not) "universal". Until recently, medicine (if you consider it a science) was "male". Females (female rats actually) were considered too complicated to run experiments for them. Many diseases affecting primary females or having different symptoms in females were unknown, ignored or misunderstood. Women had to march to protest lack of research/funding for breast cancer.
Soon (already) women in the US will not be able to rely on medical science for abortion even for health reasons. They now seeking "alternative methods" relying on herbs and other concoctions. Unfortunately, the universality of science is entangled with its societal context.
indeed, but I was referring to science, not scientists.. but of course your concerns, as always, are well posed.
I know, it was clear, I just could help making the comment!
While certain scientists may have had biases, science is not merely a collection of facts or body of knowledge garnered through studies. As per your point on sex differences in medicine, there may always, of course, be more or less universality to certain findings in this body of knowledge depending on what the findings relate to.
However, the true universality of science lies first and foremost in its core methodological framework. This method is a social technology that ruthlessly interogates all claims to propositional knowledge through a balance of wonder and scepticism. Identity characteristics are irrelevant here.
May be you misunderstood me. I was just complaining about the 'lack" of findings about conditions in which biological identity matters. E.g., the lack of applying the "scientific method" in such cases!
FYI: See what came up today about mice! Posting about the long practice of excluding female mice from experiments.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/science/female-mice-hormones.html
A good story that may not be true. I just heard a history of medical doctors that indicated that most doctors were women before the AMA gained control over the accreditation of medical schools and the licensing of doctors. This new monopoly ran up the cost of obtaining a medical license and excluded women and minorities.
The Empire of the Scalpel, Ira Rutkow "An additional admonition concerns the fact that the history of surgery has been largely dominated by white men. There is no disputing that, as far back as the Middle Ages, there were women who had a role in providing surgical services for their households or the poor. However, with the growth of the male-dominated Catholic Church in the sixteenth century and their care of the sick, females were forced aside and discouraged from performing any form of surgical therapy. Even with the beginnings of modern surgical training at the start of the twentieth century, the road for female surgeons remained difficult. Nevertheless, the opening of the Woman’s Medical College of Pennsylvania and the London School of Medicine for Women provided fresh opportunities in surgery. Yet, despite the increasing presence of female surgeons, few held positions of authority or leadership or exerted any semblance of control over the governance of surgery until the mid-1970s."
I read two med history books on the subject, but my memory fails me! What I remember, though, is that medicine was not based on scientific principles until very late. Before surgeons were butchers or barbers and midwives did not conduct research on diseases of any kind!
I'm not religious myself, but I've found myself intrigued by some of the claims made in the Bible.
The book of Genesis starts off with...
"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light."
Sounds suspiciously like the Big Bang to me. This could be coincidence of course, or perhaps I'm just reading in to the passage that which isn't actually there. But still, somebody wrote this 3,000 years ago, and they could have written anything, but they chose to write this.
A better example for my taste is the story of how Adam and Eve ate an apple from the tree of knowledge and were then ejected from the Garden of Eden. This fable sounds remarkably like what I see happening in today's modern world.
What I like about this story is that, unlike the supposed Big Bang claim above, it doesn't seem to require divine inspiration. If one starts with a deep understanding of the human condition, it might be possible on that basis to make credible predictions about the general thrust of where humanity is headed.
The evidence that the Bible authors may have had deep insight in to the human condition is that the book they wrote wound up becoming the most popular book in Western civilization. This publishing success clearly doesn't validate every claim made in the Bible, but it does suggest the authors knew something about their audience.
My best guess at the moment is that the Bible writers were referring to some phenomena which does exist in nature. But they were writing for an audience of uneducated peasants who lived short harsh lives. And so they necessarily had to communicate in simplistic fables which understandably no longer resonate with many in the educated modern world. You know, imagine trying to explain sex to a four year old. You'd have to leave a lot out.
I was intrigued by learning about CRISPR, which taught me this. Bacteria grab a chunk of DNA from invading viruses and store the virus DNA within the bacteria's own DNA. Then they reference this stored information to identify future invaders, so as to present the best possible defense against the attack.
When we do things like this we call it data management operations, and label it as an act of intelligence. Given that bacteria have no brain or nervous system, it's hard to label them as intelligent.
So what is the source of their intelligent-like behavior? Saying the word evolution solves nothing, because that just kicks the can down the road to the next question. What is the source of evolution's intelligent-like behavior?
you must be kidding.. it bears no resemblance to the big bang at all..
A less lazy retort from here...
The ancient Bible writers obviously didn't steal their creation idea from modern science. And they could have written any of an infinite number of stories to explain creation. Their creation story could have involved potatoes, donkeys, fig trees, sex, anything.
But somehow they arrived at this particular story which references the "darkness of the deep" and "let there be light".
I agree that this similarity between the stories, which you apparently don't wish to acknowledge, doesn't prove anything about anything. It could just be a coincidence, agreed. I just find this interesting, that's all.
With the Adam and Eve story I can come up with some possible explanation for it's apparent (but unproven) predictive power but with the creation story, other than coincidence, it's much harder.
You might be able to help here, given your mastery of physics. Some physics which I very inexpertly have consumed seems to suggest that time may not be linear in the way that we experience it at human scale. If all time is now, or something like that, some rare individuals in the ancient world may have had some ability to explore that realm. Such a theory doesn't require divine intervention, only the existence of rarely talented individuals, which do seem to exist in every realm of human endeavor.
To the degree there is any evidence to support such a speculative theory it might be found in the fact that, somehow or another, these Bible writer guys were able to publish a book that retained the interest of large swaths of humanity for 3,000 years. No scientist has ever had such an accomplishment, nor are they likely to.
Correct me if this is wrong please, but I understand the point you and Dawkins are making to be that religion is lousy science. I agree! But what I don't hear either of you saying is that the opposite is also true.
When it comes to physics and biology you and Dawkins are experts, and you won't see me challenging either of you on those topics. But when it comes to religion and other social issues, you don't stand above us, but among us.
A lazy rebuttal.
the earth did not exist before the light.. among many many many many other things. took about 5 billion years for the earth to form after the big bang.
We agree that the Bible is not a peer reviewed scientific paper, and that science has developed far more accurate and detailed information on the subject of creation than the book of Genesis. Now that I've addressed and sincerely agreed to your stated concerns, perhaps we might consider addressing what interests me?
By my read, the book of Genesis by some means or another unknown to me, somehow got in to the _same general ballpark_ as science regarding the creation of this universe. Again, the first story in the Bible references the "darkness of the deep" and "let there be light". Honestly, it seems a dodge to not acknowledge the similarity between that language and the general concept of the Big Bang.
If that similarity does exist, I'm not claiming that it proves anything at all.
My situation is that I'm neither pro nor anti religion, and thus feel free to explore such questions without having any turf which must be defended. I'm here looking for the kind of free and open, as objective as possible, intellectual inquiry which you, Dawkins and recent authors on this blog have said they welcome. I haven't figured out yet whether I'm going to find that. Still listening.
It's both discouraging and frightening that so much nonsense is gaining in popularity at a time when Humanity needs science more than ever.
It's funny, without science they would be living their stone-age beliefs. Still dying from the water, splinters, cut fingers and dieses the horrible vaccines prevent. I'm sick of the fact that we pay attention to the whining minority.
Perhaps the social sciences and humanities are correct: "it is all about power". In this case the power to veto reality when you believe it some other story and can force that belief on others.
Too bad nature and reality doesn't give a damn about humanity and we are totally dependent for survival on that reality.
I just reread Orwell's "1984" and it seems even more valid today in our "woke" culture as the new-speak grows and real history and science goes down the memory hole.
I never even considered the possibility of the crazy post-modern belief over in the social sciences and humanities being able to power to suppress the enlightenment and the sciences much like the religions did in the dark ages.
The biggest threat to science is not religion or wokeness. It's our outdated "more is better" relationship with knowledge, the simplistic philosophy which modern science is built upon.