trust in science at an all time low

SixNein

You are referring to this:
http://silver.neep.wisc.edu/~lakes/iatrogenic.pdf

I find the paper quite questionable. The 250,000 figure is made up of some questionable data. For example, the paper counts 80,000 from infections, and it counts another 106,000 from NON-ERROR adverse effects of medications. How many high risk patients do these numbers represent?

The paper also claims the number they provide is lower than IOM estimates; however, one quick search reveals:

http://iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%...rt%20brief.pdf

yobarnacle

Well, you can find all kinds of statistics. Thankyou for helping me verify I WASN'T inventing doctors the 3rd most common killer.

Actually, it was a bromide in response to letting your mechanic advise you on your health. Not meant to be serious. :)

yobarnacle

I believe some people are trying to make science into something it's not.
I'll explain.
In journalism, a report should answer the following:
Who, what, when, where, why, and how.
Science primarily deals with WHAT and HOW things work. But some WHEN and WHERE.
Philosophy tries to answer the question WHY. The MEANING or relative importance.
From this WHY we derive morals and ethics.
Religion includes a philosophy, but in addition is the only discipline to ask WHO. Who created everything.

Historically, in recent centuries, people were educated in all three disciplines, and knew the difference and limitations of each.

Because many modern scientists have ignored or eliminated religion from their lives, there is a tendency to expect science to serve as all three.

Science cannot also be philosophy and religion too. For one thing, science is amoral. Science has no process or method for determining right and wrong.

Perhaps because conservatives tend to respect traditional ideals, including practicing religion, I suspect it's MORE clear to them, when science tries to be something it's not, attempts to be more than just science. :)

Ryan_m_b

Have you ever met a journalist and spoken to them about what they do? This is hopelessly naive. Amongst the journalist I know and regularly see I doubt any of them would say this with a straight face. Journalism is about finding a story and selling it. Almost always it is spun to comply with an agenda, be told in a way that is entertaining/more likely to be read and simplified so that the public can understand. This is why if you read a news paper story then go and find the original peer-reviewed research it is talking about there will be huge differences.
Science primarily deals with WHAT and HOW things work. But some WHEN and WHERE.
Actually science can play a huge role in your moral system. Yes you can use moral philosophy to decide on your values but you will be informed by science and you can construct moral and social systems from science and measure the outcomes.

I also disagree with your notion that philosophy deals with "why", this is a massive oversimplification to the point of being in error but I'm short on time this morning so will have to respond later.

Bobbywhy

“A study released Thursday in the American Sociological Review concludes that trust in science among conservatives and frequent churchgoers has declined precipitously since 1974, when a national survey first asked people how much confidence they had in the scientific community. At that time, conservatives had the highest level of trust in scientists.

Confidence in scientists has declined the most among the most educated conservatives, the peer-reviewed research paper found, concluding: "These results are quite profound because they imply that conservative discontent with science was not attributable to the uneducated but to rising distrust among educated conservatives."
"The scientific community ... has been concerned about this growing distrust in the public with science. And what I found in the study is basically that's really not the problem. The growing distrust of science is entirely focused in two groups—conservatives and people who frequently attend church," says the study's author, University of North Carolina postdoctoral fellow Gordon Gauchat.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,2248977.story

yobarnacle

i'll give an example in classic philosophy.
Which came first, the chicken, or the egg.
Classic answer, the chicken.
WHY?
because the chicken is reality, the egg merely potential. Reality always takes precedence over posibilities.

In every philosophical question, it eventually boils down to why. Why requires a judgement call. :)

Science is incapable of moral judgement. You can apply moral judgement to science, but not derive it from science. Example: Atomic energy. Good or bad. Science doesn't determine is it good or bad. It IS, it exists.
Philosophy decides if the use of atomic energy is good or bad, depending on WHY it's used. To treat cancer patients to make well, or make atom bombs to kill. :)

yobarnacle

Have you ever met a journalist and spoken to them about what they do? This is hopelessly naive [end quote]

Sorry I can't post the link, but you should be able to find it easy enough.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search In journalism, the Five Ws is a concept in news style, research, and in police investigations that are regarded as basics in information-gathering.[1] It is a formula for getting the complete story on a subject.[2] The maxim of the Five Ws is that for a report to be considered complete it must answer a checklist of five questions, each of which comprises an interrogative word:[3]

Who is it about?
What happened?
Where did it take place?
When did it take place?
Why did it happen?
The principle underlying the maxim is that each question should elicit a factual answer — facts necessary to include for a report to be considered complete.[4] Importantly, none of these questions can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no".

Hart states that "Some authorities add a sixth question, “how”,
to this list, but “how to” information generally fits under what, where, or when, depending on the nature of the information."[3]

In British education, the Five Ws are used in Key Stage 3 (age 11-14) lessons.[5]

[edit] HistoryThis section focuses on the history of the series of questions as a way of formulating or analyzing rhetorical questions, and not the theory of circumstances in general.[6]

The rhetor Hermagoras of Temnos, as quoted in pseudo-Augustine's De Rhetorica[7] defined seven "circumstances" (μόρια περιστάσεως 'elements of circumstance'[8]) as the loci of an issue:

Quis, quid, quando, ubi, cur, quem ad modum, quibus adminiculis.[9][10]
(Who, what, when, where, why, in what way, by what means)
Cicero had a similar concept of circumstances, but though Thomas Aquinas attributes the questions to Cicero, they do not appear in his writings. Similarly, Quintilian discussed loci argumentorum, but did not put them in the form of questions.[9]

Victorinus explained Cicero's system of circumstances by putting them into correspondence with Hermagoras's questions:[9]


WOW! Modern education apparently really IS lacking in broad based pertinent skills and understanding! :)
I'm glad I was educated in an era when it wasn't about brainwashing, societal reform, and dumbing down! LOL

SixNein

I'm in a biology and mathematical research program. And one of the researchers in it told me a funny story about a journalist. There was a problem with some disease caught by ticks during one summer. So a journalist comes to interview him about it. The researcher gives a in-depth discussion about these ticks, the diseases they carry, and what people can do about it. So during the news broadcast, his story came up. They condensed the entire interview into one sentence: "Dr so and so says: Keep the ticks off you." lol

Ryan_m_b is right, journalism is about selling advertisement.

yobarnacle

I'll maintain my position, that people trained and educated in all three of the "inquiring mind" disciplines, philosophy, religion, and science, are BETTER educated, and better qualified, than those with a narrow educational base in only one discipline. :)

yobarnacle

That is funny. I'll agree with Ryan, a lot of news stories I read recent years, if you throw out the buz words and slogans, the meat of the story ends up "chit happens". LOL

The "dumbing down" of society, is NOT funny though!

SixNein

Biological answer: The egg.

The chicken has evolutionary ancestors. =P

yobarnacle

Maybe I should say something about myself. I have a bachelors in math. I am retired, after 43 years at sea. I am licensed as MASTER MARINER. I speak english and spanish fluently, and stuggle along in 6 to 8 other languages. I belong to no political party, but vote for the best candidate in my perception.
I'm christian. I guarantee you, there ARE NO ATHIESTS aboard ship during a huricane at sea!
LOL

SixNein

Science and religion conflict. Religion uses the literacy device dues ex machina in its literature, and the device is a big part of religion. The problem is science doesn't require dues ex machina in its explanations of physical phenomenon. So these two subjects are destined to be on a collision course.

yobarnacle

Not in philosophy. Nothing was said about the egg being fertle. It MIGHT eventually become a chicken, and an equal probability, will become a rotten egg, or somebodies breakfast. What's REAL is more important than maybes! :)

chiro

I'm just curious for you evolution guys (and gals): what are the requirements currently theorized for something to evolve? Is it only this idea of the dominant species wins and everything loses or is there a lot of other stuff missing from this?

Ryan_m_b

Yes there's an entire field you're missing out! Evolutionary biology is a complex and very varied field, a lot has changed since the field's inception over 150 years ago. That said there are only two things required for evoluton to occur:

- Reproduction with modification
and
- Environmental attrition

You might be interested in our introduction to evolution
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=543950

chiro

Thankyou Ryan_m_b for this :)