Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Render

People reject science because...

236 posts in this topic

"This member is no longer active"? :no:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"This member is no longer active"? :no:

Interesting turn of events...

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"This member is no longer active"? :no:

I can't say I'm that surprised. His posts have become increasingly unhinged recently, and yesterday he was trolling several threads with non sensical and borderline abusive posts.

Edited by Arbenol68
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Catal Huyuk they found man who died as age cca 65.

Certainly, in those times if you survived childhood it was possible to live many years. Child mortality was much higher even up to the 19th century than now at least in part because of modern vaccines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vaccines are just a part of it as you say. They can't solve everything as they are now, just the most persistently reoccurring and less mutating strains.

Diseases and viruses and the like mutate constantly. This is immunizing yourself through contacting a less fatal amount of the strain can only shield you for a time, and never fully from everything. You still need to beat the strain that'll try to kill you, and for that you need to be in good shape, eat properly, have the mentality for it, and the hygiene so other strains dont get your health down in a critical time. In ancient times, in fact not until the modern times, a lot of people didn't have access to a variety of healthy foods, and hygiene was largely lacking compared to what it is now.

Improper exercise or lack of it is another reason why people before modern times didn't live as long. Indulgent, lazy lifestyle results in a weaker body which'll become old at a younger age. Too much heavy and monotonous exercise, like plowing the fields or standing on guard all day long with a suit of armor on, or let alone marching in a gear that's not the most ergonomic one, will likely give you problems with joints. I've a problem with joints, my workmates have too, because of monotonous a bit harder physical work. And our employer gives us treatment for it, but that wasn't often the case for past generations. These days a common reason for decline of health for the elderly folk in Finland is the bad condition their bones and joints are in. They can't move much in winter because they can slip and fall easily on the hard ice, and if they dont move they'll deteriorate physically, as we all. Immunizing yourself against diseases doesn't help with osteoporosis and joints that fail you.

If you want to live long, keep yourself fit, wash your hands and keep lavatory separated from kitchen and food stores. This hasn't changed during the times.

I feel immunizing yourself is overrated, even though it's effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vaccines actually decease the bodies ability to fight off common infections, because it takes the load off the bodies immune system, causing us to become weaker. We would become dependent on vaccines, while the immune system steadily gets weaker. I rather have a strong immune system and only take vaccines for deadly ones, instead of make it weaker because I don't want to go through common ones. :\

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vaccines actually decease the bodies ability to fight off common infections, because it takes the load off the bodies immune system, causing us to become weaker. We would become dependent on vaccines, while the immune system steadily gets weaker. I rather have a strong immune system and only take vaccines for deadly ones, instead of make it weaker because I don't want to go through common ones. :\

I think vaccines are best for the elderly whose immune systems are perhaps already weaker. Also vaccinations for children against things like polio and small pox and typhoid have succeeded in nearly eradicating these diseases in the US so some forget just how terrible these diseases used to be here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think vaccines are best for the elderly whose immune systems are perhaps already weaker....

One would think so, but ironically some vaccines actually don't work as well for the elderly. See link: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57570589/cdc-flu-vaccine-only-provided-9-percent-protection-for-seniors-against-worst-strain/

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One would think so, but ironically some vaccines actually don't work as well for the elderly. See link: http://www.cbsnews.c...t-worst-strain/

That's interesting. I don't consider myself elderly,but I am getting a little long in the tooth so I have started getting flu shots every year. Last year I got the flu anyway and I figured it must have been a different strain than I got the shot for. I wonder if this is because the vaccine is designed to produce antibodies against the disease and the elderly's ability to make these antibodies is impaired? Edited by spacecowboy342

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in my 69th year, haven't been vaccinated for anything since my Navy days. I don't worry about colds or flu or any of that crap, simply because I do and always will keep myself in decent physical condition, including heavy work and weightlifting, besides the standard aerobic exercising. Whosoever is in good shape will not be affected much by illness.

But besides that, as a query, how much does all this chat about vaccination have to do with the original question, as in why do people reject science? Actually, that question is a loaded question, since it assumes that one who does reject science does so completely, which is seldom the case. Even the bible thumpers around this neck of the woods don't reject science, for the most part. I must admit I tend to be more than a little impatient with the thumping, whether the thumping be for science or for religion. You see, I also reject science to a degree, probably for reasons none of you would really either know or necessarily agree with; as in, all those things you think you know as 'scientists' (or anything similar) ain't necessarily so. And yes, I have a couple degrees in engineering of a type that requires a substantial knowledge of general science, and have been around the sciences for a long time. Most likely, longer than any of you (at age 6, an accomplished mechanic; age 7, built and understood radios; age 13, read and understood books on nuclear physics, inclusive of the math involved (required a lot of study); also geology, metallurgy, and to some degree chemistry, besides the degrees in electronics engineering and computer science).

A simple statement about science in general: With the possible exception of mechanical engineering, just about every mathematical function in science is an approximation. One character on this forum said something about using such formulae on inductors; however, he failed to state that the formulae are approximations, probably because he was taught in his "aerospace engineer[ing] (electronics major)" school that such formulae are precise. If one follows through the Maxwell et al formulations, accounting for everything, then one finds that Maxwell himself simply ignored a very important part of field theory. Modern science wishes to be secretive about such things, since if the many similar items were commonly known, there might well be a whole lot less respect for scientists in general. It can readily be said, and readily proved, that much of modern science is smoke and mirrors, much like modern religions.

It's also a simple fact that many, if not most, scientists are very protective of themselves, as has been said. Even such dignitaries as Einstein, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Feynmann and so on were not particular about who they insulted or whose careers they ruined, and there is doubt as to whether minds of their quality and dream-like imagination exist today, other than as unwitting co-conspirators in the constant battle against real knowledge.

In a sense, it's almost amazing that we've progressed as far as we have, considering the nonsensical attitudes that proliferate. If I didn't know better, I'd almost agree with the UFO crowd in saying that our technology was ripped off or given us by some 'it came from outer space' critters that either crashed or made pacts with President Eisenhower. If I didn't know better.

All in all, I think the state of science, especially theoretical science, sucks.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it not hypocritical for bible thumpers to reject some aspects of science and not others? Some religious people see the bible as allegorical and don't take it literally. Those who seriously believe the world is less than 10,000 years old and was created in 6 days are out of touch with reality. People who criticize science because some things scientists assert change over time don't understand the nature of science which is to always challenge assumptions and modify theories as better observation brings better information. I think theoretical science especially physics is doing fine and is in the most exciting phase in history.as they are on the verge of answering some of the most basic questions man has asked since there have been men.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's interesting. I don't consider myself elderly,but I am getting a little long in the tooth so I have started getting flu shots every year. Last year I got the flu anyway and I figured it must have been a different strain than I got the shot for. I wonder if this is because the vaccine is designed to produce antibodies against the disease and the elderly's ability to make these antibodies is impaired?

Exactly, the current thinking is that the older one gets the less effective a vaccine will be due to the fact that an older immune system just isn't as active. But, (and here's the mystery) most of the time even very elderly people get a better success rate than 9%. Personally speaking, I've come down with flu despite having the shot (and I'm not quite 'elderly' yet but definitely 'long in the tooth'). Just perhaps our notion of who should be heavily vaccinated should change? If the population that has the most contact with the public is zeroed in on then that may serve to protect the older people (who may not be very well protected despite having shots themselves). I wonder what the thinking is over at the CDC?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it not hypocritical for bible thumpers to reject some aspects of science and not others?

Religious fundamentalism generally has a vested interest in keeping people ignorant, which science threatens.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vaccines actually decease the bodies ability to fight off common infections, because it takes the load off the bodies immune system, causing us to become weaker. We would become dependent on vaccines, while the immune system steadily gets weaker. I rather have a strong immune system and only take vaccines for deadly ones, instead of make it weaker because I don't want to go through common ones. :\

Quite the opposite; the challenge a vaccine presents tends to put the immune system through its paces -- give it practice, if you will. For quite a few weeks after a vaccination one has an enhanced immune system.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can come down with the flu if you get a different strain than the one you were vaccinated against. Also, all that parades as flu is not necessarily.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vaccines actually decease the bodies ability to fight off common infections, because it takes the load off the bodies immune system, causing us to become weaker. We would become dependent on vaccines, while the immune system steadily gets weaker. I rather have a strong immune system and only take vaccines for deadly ones, instead of make it weaker because I don't want to go through common ones. :\

Vaccines do nothing to your immune system other than show them what an invading pathogen will look like without becoming infected. There is no mechanism in which vaccines would weaken your immune system and there is no effect whatsoever on whether or not you will be able to respond to other antigens.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vaccines do nothing to your immune system other than show them what an invading pathogen will look like without becoming infected. There is no mechanism in which vaccines would weaken your immune system and there is no effect whatsoever on whether or not you will be able to respond to other antigens.

Exactly, but apparently (or so current research indicates) the older one gets the less effective ones immune system appears to be in developing antibodies to these pathogens. So, a vaccinated 75 year old probably won't gain as great a chance at immunity as would a vaccinated 35 year old. See what I mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, but apparently (or so current research indicates) the older one gets the less effective ones immune system appears to be in developing antibodies to these pathogens. So, a vaccinated 75 year old probably won't gain as great a chance at immunity as would a vaccinated 35 year old. See what I mean?

As we age everything works less well, so I'm not surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it not hypocritical for bible thumpers to reject some aspects of science and not others? Some religious people see the bible as allegorical and don't take it literally. Those who seriously believe the world is less than 10,000 years old and was created in 6 days are out of touch with reality. People who criticize science because some things scientists assert change over time don't understand the nature of science which is to always challenge assumptions and modify theories as better observation brings better information. I think theoretical science especially physics is doing fine and is in the most exciting phase in history.as they are on the verge of answering some of the most basic questions man has asked since there have been men.

As to the biblical thing, IMO anyone who takes the bible literally needs some mental examination.

As to theoretical physics, I don't think it's doing fine. Sorry about this, but there are quite a few misinterpretations, exemptions and outright lies involving quantum mechanics, along with assumptions that are way beyond reality. Some of these are such that they affect the very basis of theoretical physics. Further, theoretical physicists and/or their popular reporter counterparts make statements about who proved what that simply aren't true, as in the case of Michaelson/Morley and Hubbel. They also assert such nonsense as 'without quantum mechanics, we wouldn't have the laser,' a statement which is patently false, since if one applies Heisenberg's uncertainty theorem to the laser, the machine becomes impossible to construct.

It is interesting, to a small degree, that after a hundred years of farting around with quanta, theoretical physics appears to be doing a 180 and rethinking ether, although under different names. Naturally, no one in the field wants to admit that those scientists back then (1800s - early 1900s) actually knew much of anything, even though their research/theories are the basis of modern physics in all respects, but use the transforms. As with any reinterpretation (such as language translation) there are errors introduced, and theoretical physics is not exempt.

Although I tend to think Einstein was somewhat off base, I do tend to agree with one of his statements (made c. 1953 or thereabouts), to paraphrase: 'The more quantum mechanics advances, the sillier it seems.' If you want the exact quote, I'll look it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rabidcat -- you didn't convince me there is much wrong with quantum mechanics except your ignorance of it. By the way, Einstein came around, begrudgingly, so you can quote him all you want.

We have a great deal of difficulty picturing what goes on in quantum mechanics. That is our fault, not quantum mechanics' fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People reject science because........... they can't find a definite cure for cancer :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People reject science because........... they can't find a definite cure for cancer :innocent:

That's like saying they can't find a cure for death.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's like saying they can't find a cure for death.

cancer already considered as death?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it not hypocritical for bible thumpers to reject some aspects of science and not others? Some religious people see the bible as allegorical and don't take it literally. Those who seriously believe the world is less than 10,000 years old and was created in 6 days are out of touch with reality. People who criticize science because some things scientists assert change over time don't understand the nature of science which is to always challenge assumptions and modify theories as better observation brings better information. I think theoretical science especially physics is doing fine and is in the most exciting phase in history.as they are on the verge of answering some of the most basic questions man has asked since there have been men.

I see a "perspective" problem: science and religion are often presented as "either-or" choices. Both sides often expect their adherents to choose one or the other.

I'm convinced that science and religion are the same thing. As we learn more about both, the two ends of the spectrum will be drawn closer together.

Edit to add:

A better way to state my position might be to say, "Scientific Truth and Religious Truth" are the same thing. Scientific opinion and false religion will always be at odds.

Edited by simplybill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rabidcat -- you didn't convince me there is much wrong with quantum mechanics except your ignorance of it. By the way, Einstein came around, begrudgingly, so you can quote him all you want.

We have a great deal of difficulty picturing what goes on in quantum mechanics. That is our fault, not quantum mechanics' fault.

No, Einstein did not. If this is what you think, perhaps you should read some more of Einstein's history, along with his letters to various physicists, up to near his death. One other thing is that there has never, ever been consensus except in the minds of those who actually don't understand qm. You'll find, if you're willing to look, that some camps embrace Heisenberg, others embrace Schroedinger's waves, still others are involved in Dirac etc and on and on. I've had my discussions with Feynmann (was a personal friend) and still I can't agree with his virtual photon energy transfer. It is, IMO, much more reasonable to assume Schroedinger's standing waves are more correct, since said energy transfer is easily explained. Still, there is the conundrum of qm violation of Newton's third, along with several tons of other problems. If you aren't familiar with those, then you should fix your own knowledge before accusing others of their lack of it.

What you call my ignorance of it is probably far less than yours. If you were to read some of the dissenting opinions on quantum mechanics, and if you were familiar with the Bell tests (en toto), and if you were familiar with all the transformations, et cetera, along with the actual dissentions within qm, perhaps you would alter your opinions. It's my personal belief that science of any sort should be based upon fact rather than whiteboards filled with statistical gyrations and approximations. While there are some things we simply have difficulty in measuring, such as your "dark matter/dark energy" or ether or whatever you want to call it or measurement of longitudinal fields vs. transverse fields, most stuff we can measure.

I've also had my experiences with such outfits as Sandia Labs, Lockheed and other subliminal research organizations, something which you probably lack. In this experience, I've learned that qm and its transformations are not acceptable as substitutes for real measurements, especially with the skunk works: those people don't deal with approximations very well, they want physical measurements. So whatever you've read in your popular science stuff isn't necessarily what happens within reality.

Moreover, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. If I sat down here and started describing some of the things I've done on the bench, along with the math, theory and factual measurements, just about everyone I've read here would be lost in minutes. This isn't to say I'm some damned genius so far above anyone else, because I'm not, but it is to say I'm unwilling to simply accept what everyone else believes to be factual without some form of verification. That leads to a very different outlook on your beloved science.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.