Is It Wiser To Listen To The Experts And Researchers?

[Stargazer]

Ah yes, Uchtdorf's argument from authority. And who are the experts? Prophets? Apologists? What makes one an expert? And why shouldn't the experts be questioned?  

 

Experts should definitely be questioned.

 

However, the question about who are the experts is not always easily answered.  Are you an expert?  At what?

 

I do pretty much all of my own home improvements and repair.  I do all my own plumbing, concrete work, electrical work, landscaping, gardening, framing, plasterboarding, and so on.  I've rebuilt our porch, created a brand-new bathroom out of a bedroom, including rebuilding that part of the house's foundation, and I don't doubt that I could build a house from scratch if I put my mind to it.  But when I need to do some plumbing work I'm unfamiliar with I go to Home Depot and consult with one of their guys who was a professional plumber his whole life.  Likewise with certain electrical work. 

 

And President Uchtdorf is exactly correct; surely you should inform yourself from every source available, but definitely also seek counsel from those who have spent the time, money and effort in the profession, whatever it is, that concerns the subject in question.

 

Smiley, my wife disregarded the advice of the experts in dealing with her cancer, and as a result of this, she is now dead and I am left a lone man in the world.  It sucks. 

 

And so do you.  I don't think you would recognize an argument from authority if it bit you in the tail.  Because President Uchtdorf's talk had nothing to do with that logical fallacy.

[Stargazer]

Alternative Medicine such as "Prayer Only" approach?

 

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1877352,00.html

 

There are quite a few parents who are being prosecuted for praying only and letting their children die.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/herbert-catherine-schaible_n_3138001.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/19/us-couple-sent-to-prison-for-2nd-prayer-death/5612317/

 

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but Hell No.  Did I give you any kind of idea that this had anything to do with "Prayer Only"?  Or is this just your brilliant deduction based on nothing at all, because I never even mentioned prayer at all?  Though we certainly prayed.

[Stargazer]

I have no problem with God. I do have plenty of problems with what mortals claim He said. IE; I never went to medical school, have no training or expertise as a medical surgeon. Can I pick up a sharp knife and do open heart surgery on you if I claim God told me how to do it?

 

You can, but I wouldn't recommend it.

[Stargazer]

that is your big assumption. The past tells us about the consequence of rapid climate change. 

 

 

 

I am talking about all medical doctors in General. If all tend to agree that something is not good, we should probably stay away from it. 

 

Alternative medicine can be a useful placebo, but nothing more. 

 

You seem to really like absolutist statements, and black/white thinking.  And here I had always thought that skeptics would be a bit less quantum in their outlook.  You didn't read a thing I wrote, did you?

 

Oh well.

[Stargazer]

and I am interested to learn climate science from the climate experts, not from other types of scientists like computer scientists. 

I am only interested in the climate researchers doing real scientific research about climate change. 

 

Hey, Skeptic, did you actually WANT this to devolve into yet another fruitless holy war about anthropogenic global warming?  If so, then rock on, otherwise please stop feeding the flames.

[Stargazer]

I guess I will join in the offshoot of the topic.  There has never been a recognized period of static weather since the earth has been studied.  The weather has always changed from getting very cold to getting very warm.  What amazes me is that I have never heard who was to blame for all those other changes.  Who make the weather change?  If it is not important who made the weather change then why are we so concerned about who is making the weather change now?  The fact that is changing has not....changed.  The weather is not static.  

 

I have never read a single, reputable scientist proclaim that the weather would stop changing by killing every human that is alive today.  So if we remove man from the equation will the weather continue to change?  Yes!  What is the problem again?

 

Et tu, Brute?

[SmileyMcGee]

Experts should definitely be questioned.

However, the question about who are the experts is not always easily answered. Are you an expert? At what?

I do pretty much all of my own home improvements and repair. I do all my own plumbing, concrete work, electrical work, landscaping, gardening, framing, plasterboarding, and so on. I've rebuilt our porch, created a brand-new bathroom out of a bedroom, including rebuilding that part of the house's foundation, and I don't doubt that I could build a house from scratch if I put my mind to it. But when I need to do some plumbing work I'm unfamiliar with I go to Home Depot and consult with one of their guys who was a professional plumber his whole life. Likewise with certain electrical work.

And President Uchtdorf is exactly correct; surely you should inform yourself from every source available, but definitely also seek counsel from those who have spent the time, money and effort in the profession, whatever it is, that concerns the subject in question.

Smiley, my wife disregarded the advice of the experts in dealing with her cancer, and as a result of this, she is now dead and I am left a lone man in the world. It sucks.

And so do you. I don't think you would recognize an argument from authority if it bit you in the tail. Because President Uchtdorf's talk had nothing to do with that logical fallacy.

I'm sorry for your loss. Perhaps when more time has passed we can visit this again. 

Edited October 17, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Storm Rider]

Et tu, Brute

 

Star, I just don't get excited about this.  One large volcano blows, Mt. Pinatubo for example, and the damage done to our system is extreme.  I just don't enjoy this argument.  Man is destroying the earth, the sky is falling, no one can drive cars every again, and yet we hate nuclear energy.  

 

I like being a good steward of the earth.  I like renewable energy alternatives and have been involved in spreading that technology in the Middle East.  However, I just don't get excited about this topic.  Bad things are going to happen and it does not matter one iota what anyone does, the crap is still going to hit the fan.  People want me to be bothered about the reasons for change when change is going to happen anyway.  It makes no sense to me.

 

Other than that, the sky is not falling, sun still shines, my grandson is a complete joy; he is the happiest little guy.  

[Bee Sweet]

You are awfully sure of yourself. Alternative medicine can and does work, look up what our ancestors knew about healing themselves.

 

Sometimes the most incompetent people are those who you say know more than we do. Most times, being admitted into a hospital is one of the most dangerous places you can be. C-diff, staff infection etc., are risks you take.

Someone mentioned vaccines, those who go overboard. This government, the FDA and CDC have poisoned our children. They have since taken mercury out of vaccines except for the flu shot. I don't want to deter the thread, but I'm going

to anyway. My Grandson was saying a few words and a normal little boy at 18 months. My daughter took him for his vaccines, ( the MMR is most dangerous) while I watched her older children. That night he was very sick, the injection site

was swollen and inflamed. He was never the same. His eyes were blank and he has never spoken again. There are nine children in her neighborhood, the same age as my grandson who have Autism. This little boy is so severe he spent a year

in the Texas neuro re-hab center in Austin. He is ten years old now, non-verbal, not potty trained, with the medical field not sure of how to treat them. The re-hab center overflowed with children who were on the Autism spectrum.

 

How many times do they tell us something is safe, these experts and researchers who know so much, only to damage people with their expertise. The cover-up continues. If anyone thinks that a government as corrupt as ours doesn't cover

up what has happened to our children, then I feel sorry for you. It is criminal and will come to light someday.

[mfbukowski]

Et tu, Brute?

Shut it down and try again?

[mfbukowski]

But PLEASE don't anyone bring up anthropogenic global warming. I'd rather stay away from that particular rabbit hole.

Let's see if three is the charm.

 

Maybe red will do it.

Edited October 17, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Kenngo1969]

I'm all for developing as much empirical evidence as possible regarding the efficacy (or not) of any given treatment.  That said, double-blind, random studies are giving way to other methods of assessing such efficacy, such as simply accounting in minute detail for anything and everything one does (or that is done to him) that could have an effect on his condition.  That said, at least some formerly "alternative" treatments, the effective mechanisms of which are not well understood, are gradually becoming more mainstream.  It used to be that "eastern" medicine was east, "western" medicine was west, and ne'er the twain did meet.  Not so much anymore with such things as acupuncture, acupressure, massage and other tissue manipulation, and so on.

 

And the predictive power of western medicine, even at its most cutting edge, sometimes is less than stellar or certain.  This comparison may be an inapt, apples-to-Buicks one because my life has never been at stake, but, of course, I can only write about what I know.  I've written at some length here on the Board of my medical history: I had undergone two failed reconstructions of my left hip, each of which was followed by six weeks with my lower body completely immobilized in plaster and months of painful, grueling, seemingly-fruitless physical therapy.  The conventional medical wisdom held that the best course of action even after both of these failures was to try (again!) a procedure similar to the one that had already failed (twice!), along with the same post-operative casting regime.  Visits to several orthopedic surgeons revealed to my parents and me how deeply ingrained that conventional wisdom was in that community.

 

Only after several such visits did we find a brash, young surgeon (well, he was young then: now, not so much; although he is a professor of orthopedics at the "U" Med School, so hopefully, his "Maverick" streak has rubbed off onto several generations of his students, and at least some of them have become professors of orthopedics who, in turn, have passed it onto their students) who was willing at least to try to buck the oppressive weight of this widespread consensus.  I have emerged the better for it, although I'm probably an outlier: the longer the postoperative interval, the higher the percentage of patients who have undergone revisions, had the reconstructions fail, and so on.

[PeterPear]

I found a really cool website which suggests open-heart surgery by acupuncture.

It claims it will cut down on the medical cost of anethesia.

It scared me so bad I decided to start running 5 miles every morning.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Hey, Skeptic, did you actually WANT this to devolve into yet another fruitless holy war about anthropogenic global warming?  If so, then rock on, otherwise please stop feeding the flames.

 

I simply quoted an article. Zazuka keeps posting antiscience propaganda. 

 

http://www.transfigurist.org/2015/02/mormon-scientists-need-to-emulate.html

 

                                                                                                                                        Poster removed

 

 

Historians of Mormonism have done a lot to bring more "truth" to LDS history. Their efforts, coupled with the global impact of the Internet, have had a lasting impact on our understanding of our past. Mormon history has evolved from "faith-promoting stories" to actual, factual history. And the work of historians — like D. Michael Quinn, Richard L. Bushman, and John G. Turner — has caused important changes in the Church.

Edwin Gaustad, a noted historian of American religion addressed this very issue: “[Historians] are the scholarly profession with the [LDS Church] ... In no other denomination in American religious life do historians occupy so central, so sensitive, potentially significant a place.”

The work of historians has also resulted in a major reevaluation of how LDS Church leaders view history. In a recent speech at a history conference at Brigham Young University, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf made the following comment: “Truth and transparency complement each other. We always need to remember that transparency and openness keep us clear of the negative effects of secrecy or the cliché of faith-promoting rumor.”

Something similar to the Mormon history "rebellion" needs to happen with Mormon scientists. For example, there are still many members of the Church who believe in a literal Genesis (OT). To do this, one has to reject a lot of science (and history as well). Many Mormons believe that to be a good member of the LDS Church you have to believe in a real-life Adam, Eve, Noah, Lot, etc. That the earth was created in 7 or 7,000 days. That there was no death before the Fall. And that people lived to be 900+ years old.

Mormon scientists need to explain to Church members that there was no Universal Flood, Tower of Babel, curse of Cain (or Ham), pillar of salt, or big fish (whale); that there was death before the Fall (if there was a literal Fall); and that organic evolution is more than a theory. There are no discrepancies between true science and true religion. The two are very compatible.

When individuals see a marked dichotomy between science and religion, and perceive themselves to be religious, they frequently reject scientific observations and discoveries. And conversely when studying science, individuals can lose their faith in needlessly conservative Christianity. Both of these scenarios are bad for the LDS Church. For example, rejecting scientific discoveries can (and has) led to: racism; a disbelief in global warming; a lack of environmental sensitivity; distrust in vaccinations and immunizations; and neo-Luddism. Rejecting conservative Christianity — OT literalism — is leading to a loss of important members, the type of members that the LDS Church needs to be a vibrant, viable organization.

Contemporary LDS scientists like Duane E. Jeffery, David H. Bailey, and William E. Everson are speaking out, but not enough in numbers sufficient to move the LDS Church into the 21st century. Mormon scientists need to look at the example of late Apostle John A. Widtsoe (who died in 1954). He was willing to speak out on important issues related to science and religion. And he himself saw no conflict between the two. 

Much in the Book of Genesis is fiction, myth, allegory, parable, whatever. The Mormon Church needs to deal with this fact in an overt and open fashion. That doesn't mean there aren't important lessons in Genesis, it just means it's not history and definitely not science.  

[saemo]

I just have to say, there is a difference between weather and climate.

And, years ago when my daughter was facing a major, life altering surgery, I studied up on "alternative" solutions. Someone, who was absolutely against thinking of anything outside surgery, said the outcome should convince me. Well, the outcome for people who had the same surgery is a mixed bag. Some had severe chronic pain for their whole lives, because of the surgery. On the alternative side, there didn't seem to be any peer reviewed evidence that they did anything at all. Same as doing nothing, which could also have the same outcome of severe chronic pain for a lifetime. We went for the surgical choice, and there isn't a day goes by that I don't hope to God we made the right choice for our daughter.

Edited October 17, 2015 by saemo

[Tacenda]

You are awfully sure of yourself. Alternative medicine can and does work, look up what our ancestors knew about healing themselves.

 

Sometimes the most incompetent people are those who you say know more than we do. Most times, being admitted into a hospital is one of the most dangerous places you can be. C-diff, staff infection etc., are risks you take.

Someone mentioned vaccines, those who go overboard. This government, the FDA and CDC have poisoned our children. They have since taken mercury out of vaccines except for the flu shot. I don't want to deter the thread, but I'm going

to anyway. My Grandson was saying a few words and a normal little boy at 18 months. My daughter took him for his vaccines, ( the MMR is most dangerous) while I watched her older children. That night he was very sick, the injection site

was swollen and inflamed. He was never the same. His eyes were blank and he has never spoken again. There are nine children in her neighborhood, the same age as my grandson who have Autism. This little boy is so severe he spent a year

in the Texas neuro re-hab center in Austin. He is ten years old now, non-verbal, not potty trained, with the medical field not sure of how to treat them. The re-hab center overflowed with children who were on the Autism spectrum.

 

How many times do they tell us something is safe, these experts and researchers who know so much, only to damage people with their expertise. The cover-up continues. If anyone thinks that a government as corrupt as ours doesn't cover

up what has happened to our children, then I feel sorry for you. It is criminal and will come to light someday.

My heart goes out to you. So, so sorry. I have read recently that they give way more vaccines then they did in the beginning.

You've no doubt read about it. http://vactruth.com/history-of-vaccine-schedule/

[BlueDreams]

You are awfully sure of yourself. Alternative medicine can and does work, look up what our ancestors knew about healing themselves.

 

Sometimes the most incompetent people are those who you say know more than we do. Most times, being admitted into a hospital is one of the most dangerous places you can be. C-diff, staff infection etc., are risks you take.

Someone mentioned vaccines, those who go overboard. This government, the FDA and CDC have poisoned our children. They have since taken mercury out of vaccines except for the flu shot. I don't want to deter the thread, but I'm going

to anyway. My Grandson was saying a few words and a normal little boy at 18 months. My daughter took him for his vaccines, ( the MMR is most dangerous) while I watched her older children. That night he was very sick, the injection site

was swollen and inflamed. He was never the same. His eyes were blank and he has never spoken again. There are nine children in her neighborhood, the same age as my grandson who have Autism. This little boy is so severe he spent a year

in the Texas neuro re-hab center in Austin. He is ten years old now, non-verbal, not potty trained, with the medical field not sure of how to treat them. The re-hab center overflowed with children who were on the Autism spectrum.

 

How many times do they tell us something is safe, these experts and researchers who know so much, only to damage people with their expertise. The cover-up continues. If anyone thinks that a government as corrupt as ours doesn't cover

up what has happened to our children, then I feel sorry for you. It is criminal and will come to light someday.

I'm the one who said it....maybe someone else did as well. But I definitely did.

 

I'm sorry for your grandson. The problem with this is that it's coorelative. Late onset or regressive Autism usually shows itself within the range of 12-24 months and your grandson was right in the middle of that. The research is not there to back up said correlation to autism and vaccination rates and several studies have debunked this. I was trying to find a stat about it, longitudinally but found instead stats from country to country and state to state where autism diagnoses ranges quite drastically. For example in Germany vaccination rates are extremely high (95-97% of the population) but their autism rate is extremely low (1.9 in 10,000). Meanwhile Denmark, its neighbor, has a rate of 68 in 10K but has a lower vaccination rate (89%). if you're curious, we have a very high rate of autism, but a lower rate of vaccination, currently. we've vaccilated over the years and the rate does not correlate with what has been a steady and drastic increase in autism (cool, stats on measles immunizations the world over here).

 

There's basically nothing beyond anecdotal stories to back this up. The problem with anectdotal evidence is that it hones in on the assumed cause and can often ignore any other factors or possible stories beyond the accepted narrative about it. Most kids may get those exact same reactions (they're within the norm of possible side effects) but never develop autism, ever. It could be that the reaction itself triggered something genetically latent, but the actual "toxins" had nothing to do with it. It could be that several other environmental factors that had nothing to do with the shot kicked in right around the same time as the shot. It could be that any given illness could have had the same effect. It could have simply been that it had absolutely nothing to do with the shot, there were no environmental factors contributing, and a genetically latent trait just so happened to show itself at that time.

 

But those possibilities are not as likely to be entertained in anecdotal evidence surrounding a narrative of the dangers of vaccines. I don't expect to convince you or anything. If something happened around an event that seemed even mildly truamatic and my child got Autism shortly after, I would definitely have the urge to blame it no matter what data said or didn't say. But it doesn't make it true. And even if the 17 years of research that debunked the initial claim suddenly switched foot and there was some link found....it would most likely not account for the entire trend. Autism affects a little over 1% of the population in the U.S. If even a quarter of those (science-wise, that's being very generous) were linked to autism then about .25% of the population would have had a drastic side-effect. That means the vast majority of children will never have any side effect from a vaccine that without it they (or someone else) could more likely get measles....with one of its side effects being death.

 

Like I said I don't aim to convince, but this is some of the the reasons why I say they're going overboard. I have others, but this is probably enough for something that is off topic.

 

With luv,

BD

[thesometimesaint]

I'm the one who said it....maybe someone else did as well. But I definitely did.

 

I'm sorry for your grandson. The problem with this is that it's coorelative. Late onset or regressive Autism usually shows itself within the range of 12-24 months and your grandson was right in the middle of that. The research is not there to back up said correlation to autism and vaccination rates and several studies have debunked this. I was trying to find a stat about it, longitudinally but found instead stats from country to country and state to state where autism diagnoses ranges quite drastically. For example in Germany vaccination rates are extremely high (95-97% of the population) but their autism rate is extremely low (1.9 in 10,000). Meanwhile Denmark, its neighbor, has a rate of 68 in 10K but has a lower vaccination rate (89%). if you're curious, we have a very high rate of autism, but a lower rate of vaccination, currently. we've vaccilated over the years and the rate does not correlate with what has been a steady and drastic increase in autism (cool, stats on measles immunizations the world over here).

 

There's basically nothing beyond anecdotal stories to back this up. The problem with anectdotal evidence is that it hones in on the assumed cause and can often ignore any other factors or possible stories beyond the accepted narrative about it. Most kids may get those exact same reactions (they're within the norm of possible side effects) but never develop autism, ever. It could be that the reaction itself triggered something genetically latent, but the actual "toxins" had nothing to do with it. It could be that several other environmental factors that had nothing to do with the shot kicked in right around the same time as the shot. It could be that any given illness could have had the same effect. It could have simply been that it had absolutely nothing to do with the shot, there were no environmental factors contributing, and a genetically latent trait just so happened to show itself at that time.

 

But those possibilities are not as likely to be entertained in anecdotal evidence surrounding a narrative of the dangers of vaccines. I don't expect to convince you or anything. If something happened around an event that seemed even mildly truamatic and my child got Autism shortly after, I would definitely have the urge to blame it no matter what data said or didn't say. But it doesn't make it true. And even if the 17 years of research that debunked the initial claim suddenly switched foot and there was some link found....it would most likely not account for the entire trend. Autism affects a little over 1% of the population in the U.S. If even a quarter of those (science-wise, that's being very generous) were linked to autism then about .25% of the population would have had a drastic side-effect. That means the vast majority of children will never have any side effect from a vaccine that without it they (or someone else) could more likely get measles....with one of its side effects being death.

 

Like I said I don't aim to convince, but this is some of the the reasons why I say they're going overboard. I have others, but this is probably enough for something that is off topic.

 

With luv,

BD

 

Amen. :yahoo:

[Zakuska]

I simply quoted an article. Zazuka keeps posting antiscience propaganda. 

 

http://www.transfigurist.org/2015/02/mormon-scientists-need-to-emulate.html

 

You call that an Article?  I call it Anti-Religious Propaganda.

 

Here is the offending lines:

 

Many Mormons believe that to be a good member of the LDS Church you have to believe in a real-life Adam, Eve, Noah, Lot, etc. That the earth was created in 7 or 7,000 days. That there was no death before the Fall. And that people lived to be 900+ years old.

Mormon scientists need to explain to Church members that there was no Universal Flood, Tower of Babel, curse of Cain (or Ham), pillar of salt, or big fish (whale); that there was death before the Fall (if there was a literal Fall); and that organic evolution is more than a theory. There are no discrepancies between true science and true religion. The two are very compatible.

<snip>

Much in the Book of Genesis is fiction, myth, allegory, parable, whatever. The Mormon Church needs to deal with this fact in an overt and open fashion. That doesn't mean there aren't important lessons in Genesis, it just means it's not history and definitely not science.

 

PS. "Snowball earth" is still just another contentious Scientific Theory.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Zakuska

[thesometimesaint]

The experiences of Bruno and Galileo should be a cautionary tales about too close of a conflation of religion with science.

[thesometimesaint]

Nope something much worse.  A bunch of well intentioned fools. 

 

Without going into a long dissertation on Global Warming. Scientists as well as non-scientists can say foolish things. Well intentioned or not. Science fortunately has a self correcting mechanism known as the Scientific Method. It is open to all, but it is very rigorous in its demands for evidence.

 

The Theory of Global Waring is based almost entirely on the hypothesis that CO2 traps heat. This was proposed in the 1700's and was conclusively demonstrated by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1899. It has been reconfirmed many times since then. You can disprove it yourself just show that CO2 doesn't trap heat, and we can "Drill Baby Drill"

SEE https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=experiment+to+show+co2+traps+heat&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

 

Even Exxon/Mobil confirmed the role of CO2 in Global Warming back in 1977. Even designing future operations around that fact. They chose to lie to the public to continue to make profit.

SEE http://crooksandliars.com/2015/10/exxon-mobil-lands-hot-water-over-climate

Edited October 17, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Zakuska]

Let's see 1899 and 1977. Nothing more recent? <grin>

CO2 being a greenhouse gas has never been a question.

[thesometimesaint]

Let's see 1899 and 1977. Nothing more recent? <grin>

CO2 being a greenhouse gas has never been a question.

 

What?

 

I guess you'll have to ask James Mountain "Snowball" Inhofe about that.

[Stargazer]

You call that an Article?  I call it Anti-Religious Propaganda.

 

Here is the offending lines:

 

 

PS. "Snowball earth" is still just another contentious Scientific Theory.

 

How about we have another extended and fruitless "discussion" about AGW in another thread somewhere? 

[Zakuska]

Well if the mods made one AGW thread to rule them all and pin it to the top, maybe so many other threads wouldn't devolve into it. But that's their call.

I'm done with it on your thread. As you wish...

Edited October 17, 2015 by Zakuska