Science is an interesting concept by definition A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: The mathematical sciences. Basically things need to be measured, proven, and reproduced if not it is not considered science. To-days science was theory at one time and future science is the theories of to-day. Any scientist that goes to church or says he loves his mother, wife, or children is a heretic. He does not believe in his own science. God, love, hate, and many other things cannot be proved by scientific measure so I guess they do not exist. A person at the instant of death and when he is dead is exactly the same what was the difference was that little spark of energy we call life but where did it come from or where did it go cannot be proven. I have a theory it might be the real god particle.
Most scientists are atheists. I didn't say all, as there are some that aren't. Why can't a scientist love their mother, wife, etc.? There is more than one type of science and just because a scientist focuses on one doesnt mean he can't regard the others. Every day, I promise myself I won't get involved in your discussions, looks like I failed today.
I believe science is one aspect of human nature and thus only a part of an individuals personality, so it doesn't exclude love, faith or any other dimension of the person as a whole. I see science as constantly playing a catch-up game, as it takes on various human experiences and practical matter, and attempts to explain and prove their existence or otherwise by various mathematical and logical experiments. As we gain more knowledge of the universe, this will in some cases involve a paradigm shift in science, as it adapts to these previously unknown factors in its equations. It is only one way of looking at the world and it's mysteries, in my opinion.
Science is also a rather fluid and abstract concept. As my doctor once pointed out to me, medical science is not an exact science.
Most medical science is by group agreement and not by real tests. A good example is the cholesterol theory.
Show me the scientific studies on cholesterol I can show you scientist that done studies in opposition that the medical system ignored. There were no studies only a 1.7 million dollar bribe from Proctor and Gamble to [AHA] American Heart Association discredit saturated fat and recommend oils. This Dr sued the FDA and got trans fats banned these are what the AHA was recommending. Which are finally being exposed by the FDA as being the cause of most all heart problems.
I know you did not see the videos There is nothing I can say to a person who refuses to listen I told you the truth. Now I did not see this personally before you ask. There it is written in the Wall Street Journal I hope you can trust them. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303678404579533760760481486
Yes I agree cholesterol is an area of dispute as are some other medical matters, but in my opinion these are cause and effect observations, not really pure science at this present time, they haven't carried out enough research to know the complexity of the human body's various systems, so cholesterol and it's creation and effect are not fully understood. As Tom's doctor said Medical Science is not an exact science. Taking Science in the broad sense, it has been responsible for pretty much everything we use in the modern world, from the phone to spacecraft, cures for many diseases and advanced surgical techniques, they did not depend on group agreement. The initial invention may come from an inspiration, but then science develops it.
I still didn't see the word bribe in the article. Also I think this is way off....we are eating less carbs now than before. One consequence is that in cutting back on fats, we are now eating a lot more carbohydrates—at least 25% more since the early 1970s. Consumption of saturated fat, meanwhile, has dropped by 11%, according to the best available government data. Translation: Instead of meat, eggs and cheese, we're eating more pasta, grains, fruit and starchy vegetables such as potatoes. Even seemingly healthy low-fat foods, such as yogurt, are stealth carb-delivery systems, since removing the fat often requires the addition of fillers to make up for lost texture—and these are usually carbohydrate-based.
I'm also a firm believer in knowing your own body. When I lived in Hungary for 6 yrs I ate very poorly in terms of healthy. Everything was fatty, etc. when I came back to the states and had bloodwork done my cholesterol was pretty high. It wasn't before I went to Hungary. After going back to my healthy way of eating after a year my cholesterol went back to normal. So, this is how Ill eat.
One thing I find interesting is that science and are often regarded as polar opposites. This is not necessarily the case. Take architecture, for example. Clearly, it is desirable for buildings to be functional and essential for them to be safe. That is the scientific aspect. Obviously, not all buildings are pleasing aesthetically, but that tends to be subjective. Many buildings are very attractive and that aspect must be regarded as art. Then there is cartography. Maps serve a most useful purpose and are compiled scientifically. But, again, many maps are pleasing to look at. Take, for example, the classic map of the London Underground. It is not a strictly accurate representation, but it fulfills its practical purpose and is also a wonderful piece of art. I suppose I have a foot in both camps. When I completed my degree, I had the choice of a BA or a BSc. I opted for the former because I finished it with arts subjects. I did, though, start with science.