To Vaccinate or Not To Vaccinate - that is the question

[mudpuppy]

I'm thinking of this in the sense that in both religion and science at some point you have to take something on faith. People who believe in Jesus or Mohammed have faith in the stories they have been told that have been passed down since whenever. In science it is impossible for any one person to observe evidence of every single scientific theory or discovery, so at some point you have to take on faith that someone somewhere, at some time observed the evidence that proves the scientific fact in question--just like Christians may believe someone watched Jesus walk on water.

I do agree that science isn't really a religion, since in science you should be able to recreate whatever experiment proved a fact, while that's not possible in religion.

Science is based on testable observable imperical evidence based in the natural world, it is not a faith. Faith is believing in the existence of something based on no evidence. Science does not need to assume anything supernatural to operate.

I've never observed an atomic clock fly around in an airplane and come back with a few nanoseconds off from a terrestrial atomic clock so I have no direct empirical evidence Einstein's theory of relatively is true. I don't even have the ability to build an atomic clock and test it myself, yet I still believe this theory is true because I have faith in the people who did actually perform this experiment.

 

[ptatohed]

I'm thinking of this in the sense that in both religion and science at some point you have to take something on faith. People who believe in Jesus or Mohammed have faith in the stories they have been told that have been passed down since whenever. In science it is impossible for any one person to observe evidence of every single scientific theory or discovery, so at some point you have to take on faith that someone somewhere, at some time observed the evidence that proves the scientific fact in question--just like Christians may believe someone watched Jesus walk on water.

I do agree that science isn't really a religion, since in science you should be able to recreate whatever experiment proved a fact, while that's not possible in religion.

Science is based on testable observable imperical evidence based in the natural world, it is not a faith. Faith is believing in the existence of something based on no evidence. Science does not need to assume anything supernatural to operate.

I've never observed an atomic clock fly around in an airplane and come back with a few nanoseconds off from a terrestrial atomic clock so I have no direct empirical evidence Einstein's theory of relatively is true. I don't even have the ability to build an atomic clock and test it myself, yet I still believe this theory is true because I have faith in the people who did actually perform this experiment.

True, but your beliefs and trust in science is not the same as religious faith. Science is not a religion. It operates in the real natural world and is based on facts and evidence. Even if you or I can't see it, it is still based on observable, testable, and verifiable data.

 

[Road Guy]

Have you ever read a traffic signal warrant analysis submitted by a developer when they want a traffic signal (for their development)?

Lots of liberties undertaken by the "scientist/engineer" who should know better..

not saying I agree or disagree with any of you but science is only as good as the person manipulating the data..

 

[ptatohed]

Have you ever read a traffic signal warrant analysis submitted by a developer when they want a traffic signal (for their development)?

Lots of liberties undertaken by the "scientist/engineer" who should know better..

not saying I agree or disagree with any of you but science is only as good as the person manipulating the data..

Science is as good as science is. The person manipulating the data is only as good as the person manipulating the data.

 

[engineergurl]

True, but your beliefs and trust in science is not the same as religious faith. Science is not a religion. It operates in the real natural world and is based on facts and evidence. Even if you or I can't see it, it is still based on observable, testable, and verifiable data.

That depends on your beliefs. In some people's eyes when a prayer is answered, then another prayer is answered, and another and another... that is observable, testable and verifiable data. In others, manifestation of situations and things is totally real if done correctly.

 

[Dark Knight]

Am late to this so my opinion is irrelevant. But here is it anyways...

I have serious doubts about the man really stepping on the Moon.

I have three kids, all vaccinated, nothing happened.

My SIL has three, all vaccinated, all have to low to moderate level of autism. Quite frankly, sometimes I do not know what to think.

Religion, well...is religion. Am not touching that topic because no matter what I say will not change what you think anyways.

 

[ptatohed]

True, but your beliefs and trust in science is not the same as religious faith. Science is not a religion. It operates in the real natural world and is based on facts and evidence. Even if you or I can't see it, it is still based on observable, testable, and verifiable data.

That depends on your beliefs. In some people's eyes when a prayer is answered, then another prayer is answered, and another and another... that is observable, testable and verifiable data. In others, manifestation of situations and things is totally real if done correctly.

It's hard to reply to this eg. There is absolutely no way prayer is scientifically testable. Nice try though. It may be observable in an individual’s mind, I don't doubt that, but scientifically observable, testable, and verifiable? Absolutely not. There have been some studies to try to test prayer by using ill and sick patients and it turned out there was no noticeable increase in recovery rates for those being prayed for. In fact, in some cases, they did worse! The theory for that is 1.) When the patient heard the prayers for them, they might have thought their condition was worse than it was and/or 2.) When they heard the prayers they might have felt their health was in God's hands now and they stopped fighting. How would you propose that prayer could be observed, tested, and verified?Let's put it this way, if you could prove prayer worked, you'd be the first person in history.

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by this: "In others, manifestation of situations and things is totally real if done correctly." ?

 

[DVINNY]

All I know is that in the last 25 years, Autism went from 1 in 250,000 to 1 in 68.

Or, rather, all you know is that diagnoses of Autism increased. How much of that is simply increased access to those who diagnose or change in diagnosis criteria?

...in the last ten years the mortality rate of children 5 and under was nearly cut in half... just saying there could be a slight connection, maybe?

Going by the same correlation, it must be obvious that they were just under-diagnosing deaths in children 5 and under before. If a rate of 1 in 200,000+ can increase to a rate of 1 in 68 by proper diagnostics alone, then I'm sure that only cutting a rate in half is most definately done by changing the diagnostic standards of death.

just sayin

 

[knight1fox3]

Science does not need to assume anything supernatural to operate.

I'm not trying to draw this out any but that particular statement is not entirely accurate if you've ever taken a modern physics course vs. the more traditional classical physics. There are phenomena in modern physics where assumptions have to be made because the actual result hasn't been proven due to events that usually cannot be re-created. Such events could be construed as "supernatural".

 

[matt267 PE]

^ like Absolute Zero?

 

[ptatohed]

Science does not need to assume anything supernatural to operate.

I'm not trying to draw this out any but that particular statement is not entirely accurate if you've ever taken a modern physics course vs. the more traditional classical physics. There are phenomena in modern physics where assumptions have to be made because the actual result hasn't been proven due to events that usually cannot be re-created. Such events could be construed as "supernatural".

Can you give an example? Well, I would contend that as long as the unexpected results can be expected, there is nothing supernatural going on. What does supernatural mean anyway? If something new happened, no matter how shocking or unpredicted, in our natural world, wouldn't it be natural, not supernatural? :S

 

[knight1fox3]

Science does not need to assume anything supernatural to operate.

I'm not trying to draw this out any but that particular statement is not entirely accurate if you've ever taken a modern physics course vs. the more traditional classical physics. There are phenomena in modern physics where assumptions have to be made because the actual result hasn't been proven due to events that usually cannot be re-created. Such events could be construed as "supernatural".

Can you give an example? Well, I would contend that as long as the unexpected results can be expected, there is nothing supernatural going on. What does supernatural mean anyway? If something new happened, no matter how shocking or unpredicted, in our natural world, wouldn't it be natural, not supernatural? :S

Of course. Like I said, wasn't intending to sway the convo or drag it out. But when certain aspects can't be completely explained or justified, perhaps it could also be considered "supernatural". A few instances are things like what actually takes place within a black hole. Or when something exceeds the speed of light, how that affects dimensional space and time. Of course there are theories and corollaries, but there are most definitely aspects of things like this that simply cannot be explained.

 

[Road Guy]

So if the moon is 250,000 miles away and it took the Apollo crew 3 days to get there that means they wee traveling at about 3400 miles per hour?

Is that like Mach 3? I suppose SR.-71 pilots spent some lengthy time at those speeds but eight days?

I'm going on 2 hours of sleep so maybe my math is wrong....

 

[Dleg]

Good Lord you people are making me depressed.

I am forming a hypothesis that it is not vaccines that are causing autism, but something every single person in the continental U.S. is consuming that is causing it AND making the majority of you mildly paranoid, to the point of believing crazy conspiracy theories and conflating religion with science!

I suppose an engineering degree is not a science degree, but still, you guys all should have had enough of the basic science courses to understand the scientific process and its basis in data and repeatability, and how that differs from religion or conspiracy theories. The "faith" required to believe someone else's scientific conclusions is not the same as the "Faith" required to believe in a supernatural diety or shadow government that you have never directly seen or have evidence of. The scientific data is there for you and others to examine and test for yourself, at any time. The diety never has been - all you have is someone else's word that it exists - and hence the necessity of the word "Faith" in describing any religion.

:suicide1:

And RG, I am not sure what you are saying about spending 8 days at a speed of 3400 miles per hour, but speed is a relative thing. You and I have currently spent all of our lives traveling at a speed of about 1,000 miles an hour relative to the center of the earth, and about 67,000 miles per hour relative to the Sun.

 

[ptatohed]

Good Lord you people are making me depressed.

I am forming a hypothesis that it is not vaccines that are causing autism, but something every single person in the continental U.S. is consuming that is causing it AND making the majority of you mildly paranoid, to the point of believing crazy conspiracy theories and conflating religion with science!

I suppose an engineering degree is not a science degree, but still, you guys all should have had enough of the basic science courses to understand the scientific process and its basis in data and repeatability, and how that differs from religion or conspiracy theories. The "faith" required to believe someone else's scientific conclusions is not the same as the "Faith" required to believe in a supernatural diety or shadow government that you have never directly seen or have evidence of. The scientific data is there for you and others to examine and test for yourself, at any time. The diety never has been - all you have is someone else's word that it exists - and hence the necessity of the word "Faith" in describing any religion.

:suicide1:

And RG, I am not sure what you are saying about spending 8 days at a speed of 3400 miles per hour, but speed is a relative thing. You and I have currently spent all of our lives traveling at a speed of about 1,000 miles an hour relative to the center of the earth, and about 67,000 miles per hour relative to the Sun.

I agree with everything you said Dleg............ except................................ I am still not convinced we went to the moon...... :run and hide:

 

[matt267 PE]

If the US didn't land on the moon, don't you think the Russians would have been all over it call our bluff?

 

[NJmike PE]

It's all just a hologram.

 

[Supe]

It's all just a hologram.

And lunar eclipses are just the stupid government interns walking in front of the projector.

 

[roadwreck]

 

[mudpuppy]

LOL, I was stirring the pot, but dleg was definitely not the one I expected to catch with my comparison of science to religion.