Medicine as “a proven science”
 

.
However different our political beliefs, cultures and faiths may be -- we are all obligated to have “faith” in our beloved family physician, as well as to the various and sundry medical specialists to which we are referred when the need arises.

If you’re like me, you’ve found more than one occasion to question their art …ehm, excuse me, their science. But then you quickly park such doubts, for after all: they do know what they’re doing. Don’t they?

There is more than one “proven practice” that has been quietly abandoned. And, no, I am not just thinking of the olde technique of bleeding the illness out off patients that were very sick.

Here is a modest list of a few such practices.

Far too modest, in my opinion. Thus it is my humble hope that ye fellow, honourable Forum Members must augment this list with fine examples from your family archives and other sources.

Ah, there ain’t nuthin’ like quacksalvery posing as professionalism!


Respectfully,
ArcticStones



PS. Some of you may wish to abstain from reading the comments section, due to the occasional explitive contain therein. In addition, some of the descriptions of olde medical practices are admittedly not for the faint-hearted.
.

Actually, bleeding has been proven to have some positive effects, not the least of which is stimulation of the immune response.

Look at female contraception: They used to cut out the entire uterus, meaning months of recovery time. Now, it's a quick tie-off of the Fallopian tubes.

Not medicine per se, but related; the low fat diet that has been promoted these last 35 years: Farce. More obesity than ever now.

It has been my observation that those people suffering from obesity are usually not the same people who consistently eat a low fat diet. Healthy diet and exercise have been promoted my whole life, yet at least 90% of the students I know think I'm crazy to walk a mile each way to class once or twice a day. When did 2-4 miles become too far to walk?!?! It doesn't matter what is promoted, if people don't eat right and exercise, they are going put on pounds (assuming they are overeating rather than undereating).

In my experience, exercise plays a much larger role than diet.

In my country, only the privileged and fortunate have family physicians. :(

It would be nice to be able to find morphine/heroin/opium at the local drug store these days. Instead, people are encouraged to consume the more dangerous poison found at the local liquor stores.

I must say that Viagra and Cialis appear to offer more user friendly solutions to ED. It's nice to know that if I have any issues when I get older, I won't have to resort to electric shock*. :eek:


*assuming that health care is accessible when I am older.

.
My first employer here sent me to the company physician for a health check. The first thing I did was to ask him to snuff out his cigarette. He looked stunned -- obviously that request was almost unheard. But then again, this was the early 1980s.

Anyone who remembers Woody Allen's "Sleeper" ? A veggie restaurant owner is accidentially frozen and thawed 200 years later, to wake up in a totally different world. In the wake-up scene (citing from memory), the surgeon offers him a fine hog roast with dumpling and all, so that the poor vegetarian fears he will be killed on the spot when he eats it, so he asks: "Don't you know how unhealty that is ?" And the surgeon replies: "Well, you know, science has made progress..."

cheers, pink

Take these salt tablets, they prevent dehydration. Cut down on your salt, it raises high blood pressure. Wait, no it doesn't unless you already have a problem.

Don't eat butter, too much cholesterol... eat the margarine made from vegetable oil. No, wait, that's worse, go back to butter.

Take this med that works to keep cholesterol from absorbing in the intestine and lowers your bad cholesterol. No wait, study shows zero effect on the build up in your arteries and has no impact whatsoever on risk of heart attack, surgery, death, etc. Wait, it does lower your bad cholesterol numbers... but apparently that doesn't have anything to do with anything. More studies... keep taking the pill, they're only a buck and half a piece, even though we know there is zero proven benefit to taking them.

Don't eat fat, it has a bad effect on your heart. No, wait... no it doesn't but you should eat less anyway because of the calories.

Don't drink alcohol, it's bad for you in any quantity. No, wait... a couple three drinks a day for the average male actually has a beneficial effect on health. So, I figure six is about break even.

Don't eat apples with the wax sprayed on (Aylar) cause it causes cancer. No, wait, it doesn't.

Don't eat meat cooked over an open flame... the burned spots are carcinogens. When asked what the researchers did with the steaks after cutting off a couple burned spots for testing, the answer was, "We ate them."

I think what folks tend to forget is that although Medicine is science-based, it's practice is still experimental. Consider the way in which a physician will cycle you through a variety of drugs if you have something that doesn't go away with the first. He/she is just playing the odds: The most likely cause of your symptoms is A for which X is the drug of choice -- no alleviation of symptoms? Ahh, it wasn't A, so maybe B is the problem for which Y is the drug of choice -- you get the picture. The human body and its metabolic workings are not nearly so well understood as physicians would have you believe.

Further, the medical profession has really sold us a lie over the years -- that they are "health providers". No physician can provide you with health; their role is to mitigate illness.

It's the system that is sick, not the people
 

Medicine as a science may be proven, but that is not what our medical practicioners subscribe to. Instead they are operatives for a corporate pharmaceutical monopoly. The quackery is the pipeline of useless and unhealthful drugs that medicine feeds people, all for the purpose of corporate profits. Government is complicit in this tactic, failed government policies like the so-called "War on Drugs" only serve to empower corporate warlords and drug smugglers. I might point out that the vast majority of illegal pharmaceuticals come from Asian territory that the US Army occupies. That is not a coincidence.

The problem is systemic, it goes way beyond a few greedy drug corporations. The amount of junk food Americans eat is horrendous, with corporate profits taking precedence over the health of citizens. Taxpayers are expected to subsidize the health of the population, while corporations are expected to profit from pushing unhealthy products.

It's the system that is sick, not the people.

I remember the days of "Hadacol" (as in had to call it something) and Dr. Titchner. These were both hyped as miracle cures for whatever ails you... live longer, feel better, cures everything.

Turns out they weren't too far from wrong.... they were both 40 percent alcohol (as in 80 proof), which we now know has a beneficial effect on health (taken as recommended) as well as how you feel.

"Faith" is an interesting (and IMO accurate) word to apply to much of medicine. I have have no faith in anything, and I've found modern Western medicine to be highly suspect and useless in my own life.

I agreed with you absolutely until I reached 67. My approach to medical problems other than nasty injuries (i.e., requiring stitches or bone setting; sprains, cuts, abrasions and minor dislocations I could deal with and I don't get colds or the flu anyway) was to sweat it out. Whatever I had went away. Alas, I developed high blood pressure and a nasty auto-immune arthritis in my late sixties and must confess that medication has alleviated both -- I'm not counting needing glasses at 55.)

I think everyone's faith in modern medicine is shattered by the barrage of innumerate medical columnists (TV and Print) who sensationalize every new medical correlation between our food/environment and some medical condition, and by the belief that most of those are just some medical researchers looking to make a name for themselves. Such and such doubles your chances of getting cancer of the whatsis, they trumpet without telling us that your original chances were 0.02% and eating that stuff will double them to 0.04% -- I mean, who cares? Our credulity really flounders when some months later we are told what seems to be just the opposite.

Drug companies are not any better. I read "The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It" some years ago and was appalled, particularly after discussing it with my son who is a PhD cell biologist and science director in a small drug research company. Their practices are abominable.

There's a reason that call it "practicing medicine." My college fraternity started out as an engineering fraternity. Over the years, they expanded it to include the sciences: Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Architecture, etc. Nobody wanted to include Biology though, not because it wasn't a science, but because they saw it as a slippery slope towards including medicine!

What I like about the Internet is that I can do a quick check first. For example, my wife was having terrible pain below her rib cage. I did a little searching and WebMD steered me toward the gallblatter. We then went to the emergency ward, and that exactly what it was. They had the equipment to confirm the novice diagnosis.

With all sciences, medicine included, it is a must to have a second opinion on serious matters. It is also good to talk with others that have had the procedure in question. In the case of my wife, several of our family members who had had the procedure were able to offer advice and suggestions.

As for the quack remedies, it reminds me a lot of the treatments that James Harriot often opined about in "All Creatures Great and Small". There was great nostalgia in looking back to such treatments, but they were largely useless. Thanks to the advances during WWII, the penicillins changed the face of both medical and veterinarian practice as well.

The science behind much medicine is sound, but the big variable is makes it unreliable is your body. Each body is an extremely complex system. A lot of medicine is applying the logical narrowing down of causes and effects like we would do when diagnosing what went wrong with a Mac, and we all know how complex a Mac already is to troubleshoot sometimes. The human body is infinitely more complex than a computer, so of course modern logical approaches are limited.

Which eating habits are best for me? Well, that depends on my metabolism, the ability of my different organs to process various substances, my exercise level, my food allergies, etc.

The most important component of medicine is for both you and your doctor to have enough experience with your health to understand how your specific body works. Modern medicine does have quantifiable advantages over a village witch doctor, but modern medicine can get it wrong when it applies standardized template treatments and dosages as if all our bodies are identical.

I find it's easier to walk if you express it in time rather than distance. There's a group of stores about a mile from my house up a hill. I try to walk there because driving such a short trip is bad for the car and a lost opportunity for my health. But if I tell myself that I can walk there in less than four songs on my iPod, then it seems quite doable.

I largely agree, but my pace for the trip varies between about three and six miles per hour, depending on whether or not I am in a hurry, and how pleasant the weather is.

Side Story -- not a hijack.
 

Understanding the psyche of the patient is important too. When I was an undergrad engineering student (50 years ago :( ), the guy across the residence hall from me was in pre-med, a tall good-looking black man from a small island in the Caribbean. His mother was a local witch doctor there and had sent him to Canada for a real education in medicine. Her take was this: having learned witch doctoring from her, he would be able to treat the largely illiterate population and bring to bear what he knew to treat them as follows. "Wear this bag of herbs, bat's teeth, newt's eyes and magic disks on a leather thong around your neck for 7 days. Every morning, empty the bag, remove one of the magic disks and swallow it without biting it, throw one of the bat's teeth in the fire and throw one of the newt's eyes in the ocean. When the magic disks are gone, burn the bag and the herbs that are left and you'll be better." I met him years later, and he said it worked!

Everyone has faith in something or someone, even if it's that the other fellow will stay on his side of the road when driving, that your water supply isn't being poisoned, that the ingredients in canned food are what they say they are, etc. We can't live without faith (i.e., trusting beyond what cannot be proven). It's impossible to do so. You'd drive yourself crazy trying to verify every little contingency of life without some degree of faith.

"Faith" is also a big part of recovery from any illness. Even a placebo has beneficial effects in a considerable percentage of the population. And people who have no faith in the course of treatment they're using probably won't gain much benefit.

I take it you live in the USA? :D

seriously, though, I have no doubts that medicine is a science, but I think what most people forget is exactly what kind of science medicine is. don't think that medicine is the science of healing; it's not. medicine is the science of destroying disease. all a doctor ever does is slice, zap, poison, irradiate, or clean out whatever it is she can see going wrong with your body (or at least mask the discomfort and/or give you 'healthful' supplements...). then she sits back and waits while your body heals - or doesn't - on its own. example: if you get a bad cut, first the doctor cleans, stitches, and bandages it (none of which heal the wound, but help keep infective debris out and make the body's task of clotting and scarring easier), then she'll give you penicillin (pure poison to bacteria), then maybe a tetanus shot (to stimulate the body's production of antibodies). usually that's enough, and your body repairs itself; sometimes it's not. see what I mean?

I get a kick out of many of the "studies" that claim this or that has this or that effect knowing there will eventually be another study that contradicts it.

That said, I have a near infinite faith in the family doc's judgment as to what the treatment needs to be... we both know we're "trying" this regimen and monitoring results and then going to plan B if a good result isn't obtained. It is more of an educated guess than it is a cause and effect scientific fact.

I have put my life in the hands of my cardiologist and heart surgeon on multiple occasions. The last time round, the survival rate for the general population undergoing the procedure was 80 percent --- a tad better than Russian Roulette.

Yes. I had strong faith in his ability. Still do.

I have no faith in any of the things you mention. However I realize I can't test and control them so there's no point in trying. There is a reasonable risk involved that it probably won't kill me, so I choose to worry about things with higher risk.

That's neither fair nor accurate! The practice of medicine is about treating illness - helping the body to overcome infection and injury. Sure, doctors can't magically heal you - but they help you along the way.

I couldn't agree more - and no one is calling any of the troubleshooting "experts" in this forum a hack or accusing them of suggesting quack remedies. Usually the troubleshooting advice is to try these 3 things, and report back if that doesn't work. The other approach is to have someone dump an error log on the forum and analyze those results. Well here's the news flash - the body only generates the most cryptic and unintelligible error logs imaginable, so cut physicians a little slack. They are trying to troubleshoot the most impossibly complex system without access to the original design documentation and reverse-engineered troubleshooting manuals.

Don't forget that science is an experimental process. A hypothesis that cannot be tested is not a valid hypothesis. And how do we test it? Through experiment.

The problem as I see it isn't with medicine, but rather with uninformed patients and profit-hungry businesses. The medical profession has a giant monkey on their back called the pharmaceutical industry. And history has repeatedly shown that the pharmaceutical industry is not out there for the greater good.

I don't watch TV very often (perhaps an hour or two a week), but when I do, I am always shocked at the number of pharmaceutical advertisements on TV. The pharmaceutical companies are trying to peddle their drugs directly to the end user through advertisement. What? So I can go into the doctor and ask them to prescribe me X brand of drug? Pharmaceutical companies are very savvy at advertising and marketing. They wouldn't be wasting millions (billions?) of dollars on advertising directly to the end user if it wasn't influencing their sales. Doesn't that suggest that people must be going to their doctor with preconceived notions about their diagnosis and cure?

"Ask your doctor about Lipitor"
"Ask your doctor about Cialis"
"Ask your doctor about Paxil"

Physicians have an obligation to try to remain objective against the onslaught of that marketing machine. But so too do the patients. As a general rule, I drink a glass or too of water for a headache and go to bed early. No Tylenol, Advil or Aspirin for me. Besides, scientific stats (not pharmaceutically backed studies) suggest that the majority of headaches are caused by improper hydration. I also try to avoid medication of any kind if it's not necessary. If I'm sick, but my body can fight it off on my own, then I let it do its job. However, if and when medicine has been necessary, I believe that medical science has served me well.

I wonder if you actually know the sources of these supposed studies? I would guess that you probably heard of these through the news media or by word of mouth through friends and acquaintances. I would also guess that you never went further and actually looked up the studies themselves (like most people) to see what the hypothesis, methodology, sample size, statistics and results were. Or how about who funded the study? Perhaps it is convenient to try to pin this on bad "medical science" or perhaps science in general, but I think most of the public does a very poor job of developing informed opinions.

For example, there is a recent study released citing that caffeine intake can double the risk of miscarriage in pregnant women. Now, I have always encouraged my wife to cut back on or eliminate coffee drinking while pregnant, so I was quite happy to read this news as it justified my stance on the issue. However, despite the fact that the study told me what I wanted to hear, there are several questions that I could ask about it.

The study was done on 1063 Kaiser Permanente member who were pregnant between 1996 and 1998. There are three things that immediately grab my attention here: 1. the study sample size is quite small, 2. the data is from 1996 to 1998 and the study is just coming out in 2008, and 3. the study was done on members of a specific HMO. All of these factors influence the validity of the claims being made. Why is the sample size so small? The larger the sample size, the more compelling the statistics become. Why wasn't more recent data being used? How well are people going to remember their caffeine habits 10 years ago? If the data was collected then, why is the study only being published now? What kind of demographics apply to members of the Kaiser Permanente HMO? Does this influence the miscarriage rate?

And all of this is only from reading the news media coverage of the study (not actually reading the study itself - this of course assumes that the media got the details right). Many of the answers to these questions may be contained in the details of the study - and if I truly wanted to spend the time, I could read it. Most people don't ask these questions in the first place, let alone take the time to research the answers. Then they complain - after taking the "result" at face value without questioning anything - when they are confronted with a new "result" that contradicts the previous result.

Do you know how many "scientific" studies cigarette companies have done to show that cigarettes are not addictive and do not cause cancer? Did you know that many of the studies showing that margarine is healthier than butter were financed by the companies that produced the margarine? And that many of the studies showing that butter is healthier than margarine were financed by dairy farmers' associations?

Learn to be skeptical, and don't trust "science" unless it comes from a scientific source and is performed like real science. Also, take the time to try to understand the implications of the results. I can't count the number of times I've gotten into a discussion with someone who is opposed to evolution and the "pseudo-science" it represents, only to discover midway through the conversation that they don't even have a proper grasp on what the theories on evolution are claiming. If you don't know what something is, how can you claim to believe it false (or true for that matter)?

That was sorta my point... one study, no matter how well done, does not make it science. I lived through the cholesterol things and made the changes on the doc's advice. The medication I referenced was last month and I am on that medication.... I did not stop taking it. Apples sprayed with Aylar were removed from the market. The items listed are real examples.

We seem to have arrived at the point that an increase/decrease in A resulted in a 6 percent increase in B in one study somehow computes to cause and effect and gets reported in the news just that way. That is nonsense. No doubt in many cases somebody had a federal grant and had to report something, needed a dissertation for a PhD, or had a particular outcome in mind when the project was designed.

I ignore all the advise in the paper/TV and let the family doc make the calls on those things (including alcohol and caffeine). He does keep up with all the literature/studies (professor of internal medicine at a local teaching hospital).

I don't question the fact that they were all real examples (in fact, I remember hearing/reading about all of these at some point or other - except for the salt tablets, never heard that one). My point was merely that many people like to vilify science for their own misunderstandings or often the misunderstandings of others that they have then in turn blindly accepted as fact. And the media (newspapers, TV, internet) is often to blame for this misunderstanding.

A brilliant example of this was years ago when several newspapers reported that you could lose weight simply by increasing your consumption of ice cold water. The article went on to say that researchers had shown that by drinking x cups of ice cold water a day you could burn y calories because your body would lose energy to heating the water to body temperature. I'm not sure what researchers they talked to, but whoever they were, they were charlatans.

The reason this was initially accepted by the media and reported was because the reporters did not understand the difference between a calorie as used in physics and a calorie as used in medicine/nutrition. The difference between the two is a factor of 1000. Thus, the amount of energy consumed by drinking a cup of ice water is actually 1000 times smaller than what the researchers were claiming. I wound up having to sit down and explain this to my sister-in-law and mother-in-law for half-an-hour in order to convince them that this report was utter junk. Of course, I could have just let them drown themselves in ice cold water while trying to lose weight - but that wouldn't make me a very good brother/son -in-law!

Had the media been interested in publishing scientific results they would have done their due diligence and checked their facts before disseminating this garbage! True science exists and gives us valuable insight into the inner workings of our universe (both outer and inner), but as always, you have to sift out some of the garbage that masquerades as science in order to find it.

And now the same tactics of the Tobacco Institute are being used by energy companies and global warming deniers to obfuscate the facts in an attempt to create public debate on an issue on which real scientists have already reached a consensus based on evidence. Public debate has no place in the matter. It's like debating whether grass is a plant or an animal. Even if people can be convinced that grass is an animal, it doesn't change the fact that grass is a plant.

oh, I think it's both fair and accurate, and not all that different from what you said. all I was trying to do was point out that doctors lie somewhere between 'medical messiahs' and cold, bloodless scientists. and think about it - 'treating illness' really means 'treating people by attacking illness' doesn't it?

no insult intended to doctors, who do marvelous work. I'm just trying to put things in perspective.

Not so fast on the global warming issue, at least the human contribution to it. Apparently, there are a lot of "real scientists" who have serious qualms about how the public discussion of that topic has been going. Maybe "global warming" deserves it own thread, however.

Ouch....

Not to appear to flip sides here, but you should be very careful about lumping science and fact together. Very few things in science are fact. The strongest conclusions in science are usually labeled as laws (still not fact, as laws can and have been refuted), the next strongest as theories, then hypotheses, etc.

To say that public debate has no place in the matter is to encourage people to be irresponsible and not to think for themselves - exactly what I was cautioning against above! You should question everything that comes from science. There are many scientific theories that have been modified or flat out disproved over time, and global warming may well be one of them. I happen to believe in global warming and the human contribution to it, but not necessarily to the extent that Gore predicts. After all, I heard global warming predictions when I was growing up that suggested that the California coast should have been flooded by now.

lol - sorry. I was just thinking of that notorious (though possibly mythical) "the operation was a success, but the patient died" quote. :D

A few hundred isn't much compared to several thousands. A closer examination of some of those signatories will expose them as hired guns for special interest.

A couple examples (Notice how the credentials of the second example are misrepresented by the report in the Senate report.

You're right about this being the wrong thread for an in depth discussion of global warming. At any rate, I've not heard any arguments from the side of the deniers that have not been well debunked.

True, few things in science are known as absolute facts. Still, when science finds itself wrong, such as when we realized the earth was not spherical or that Newton got gravity wrong, it typically revises the theories rather than abandon them. We still often model the earth as a sphere, and we still often use Newton's model of gravity.

Public debate has no place in science. Science is about experiment and observation, with a healthy portion of maths thrown in for credibility's sake. Absolutely science should continually question their conclusions. But that questioning should be done in a scientific manner. Once the scientific method is abandoned, it's no longer science. Debate is not science.

I've not heard any arguments from the side of the sky-is-falling crowd that have not been well debunked either. This is why debate is important, but the debate is to be based on science, not public perception or opinion.

I was told by a physician that a full 75 percent of the patients he sees would be just fine without any medical intervention whatsoever. In these instances, he just tries to relieve symptoms while the body heals itself. There is value in relieving symptoms, too.

Really? I've never even heard a reasonable response to this:
1. Put enough force on anything and it's position will change.
2. Over the last 150 years, humans have been putting enormous force on the environment, so its position(s) must change over time. That applies not only to the weather, but the environment's effects on our health and healthcare system as well.

Same goes for the U.N. Climate panel. Bringing up "affiliations" is irrelevant, however. In science, one goes by explanation that is supported by evidence, and so long as one can offer explanation in that manner, it's still science. When you go outside that context, it's about ideology, and there's plenty of that on both sides.

I'll start a new thread and we'll see how it goes. Let's keep the focus here more on the thread topic.

Oh yeah? Exactly what industry do those panel members represent?

Bringing up affiliations is absolutely relevant. Why don't the deniers publish anything in peer reviewed scientific journals such as Nature? If they have science on their side, that would be the logical place to present their position.

J. Christopher, I've started a thread on global warming so I'll discuss the issue with you there, if you decide to participate.

Just to clarify, I was never once indicating that public debate has any place in science. I said public debate does have a place in the matter! "The matter" being decisions made based on the evidence presented by science. Scientists do not run our respective countries - politicians do. And they are directly and indirectly influenced by the public (of which scientists are members, but not a majority). Thus it is the public's responsibility to attempt to discern truth from scientific findings and reports (which often involves public debate of the validity of various findings) and attempt to guide politicians to act on what are perceived to be the real issues.

That is a philosophical argument, not a scientific argument!

I misunderstood your point. Sorry, I should clarify.

Public debate has no place in science. However, science should have an important place in public debate. As you say, scientists don't write policy, politicians do.

Well then, we actually agree :)

The amount of energy and "force" that humans apply in comparison with the energy of the sun and the earth's internally stored energy is so miniscule as to require a very lengthy formula to express.

The amount of force that the sun and earth apply is in balance with the environment. A new force - even a small one, applied over time - will change the environment.

Right you are, but if those other other forces create a reasonable equilibrium, mankind’s "minuscule" forces may nevertheless be sufficient to upset the balance and thus wreak havoc -- especially when considered cumulatively over time.

-- ArcticStones

Again, the previous three posts are referencing philosophical arguments, not scientific arguments. If you want to claim that people are exerting an enormous "force" (I use quotes because it's not necessarily a force in the Newtonian sense) on the environment, then back it up with examples and evidence. If you want to claim that the human contribution is minuscule compared to environmental factors beyond our control, then back that up equally. The "they say" generalizations don't really move the dialog anywhere.

I wasn't aware that such a complex system as the planet Earth was modelled with a single formula! That's a bit of a naive view of science. I think, rather that you were trying to imply that $1000000 is not appreciably different from $1000001 (in a practical sense).

CAlverez, wdympcf...

1) do you believe global climate change is happening?

2a) if you answered 'no' to (1), what are your objections to the scientific data presented in its favor.

2b) if you answered 'yes' to (1), what are your objections to trying to control the one factor we can control, which is our output of greenhouse gasses?

Since you're asking for my personal opinion (after all you are asking me what I believe), I will give it with no apologies to either side of the argument. I think that the only thing that the global warming argument is good for is giving us a sense of urgency and a measure of a target as to what we HAVE to do for the environment.

Does it really matter if the human component to global warming is as significant as some say it is? Not really. In the scheme of things, it shouldn't take an impending global catastrophe (i.e. many of the doomsday predictions about global warming) to motivate us to take our stewardship of this planet seriously. But that is exactly what the "issue" of global warming is being used to do. It is being used to spring us into action, as a rallying point around which we can all hopefully come to some agreement that we MUST take better care of our environment.

So, whether global warming is actually a result of human activities, there can be little doubt that we do take the environment for granted. This attitude needs to change - regardless of whether the catastrophe is global warming or just everyone living on one giant landfill.

seems entirely reasonable to me.

No, it's not, and never has been. Go study a little science before you make a statement like that. What appears like balance to you is a state of continual change over thousands of years. We are but a tiny speck in the earth's timeline.

The earth is in a constant state of change, and continues to be. Whether that change is warming or cooling, and there is evidence of both, I don't know. I have no objection to trying to control gas emissions, I do object to the hysteria and calls for excessive controls.

1. One valid way of looking at science is as a branch of philosophy. Even if you don't see science that way, they're both valid methods of approaching an accurate understanding of reality.

2. Our atmosphere, and hence our climate, has mass, and we add millions of tons of CO2 to that mass every day. Just look at what a very small portion of our economy adds! It is impossible to imagine the climate system not changing without some equal and opposite counter balance to what we're doing. If you know of one, I'm sure the rest of the world would love to hear of it.

Science is a part of philosophy, I will agree on that. However, philosophy is not science - and that is where I'm drawing my distinction.

If you re-read my post above, you will see that I wasn't saying that we are not exerting a "force" on the environment. I was saying that you'll need to back up the claim that it's an enormous force. Certainly, I believe that Newton's third law is true - and I also believe the third law extends to philosophical generalization as well.

Now it's about imagination, still no science. I can easily imagine it not changing, and I refute the presumption that there isn't a counter-balance.

lol - you can refute the assumption that smacking into a light pole at 90 mph will damage your car, too, but that isn't going to do you a whole lot of good. :) the fact of the matter is, the environment does and will respond to the pollutants we pour into it, and because the environment is a dynamic system, the response it gives may be utterly out of proportion to the stimulus we give it. or it may not be, of course... the fear here comes from a mathematical concept called hysteresis, which is present in many physical systems. in brief, that's the tendency of a system to stay in a given state (despite disturbances) until some given disturbance pushes it past a limit point - then the system will rapidly shift to a new state and resist any attempts to push it back to the old.

from my view, the worst position to take is that environmental change is going to be a slow and steady (and thus visible and predictable) process. frankly, we may not see any significant changes until we're past that limit point, and by then it will be just exactly too late.

Pffft! I should have been more precise: Compared to the amount of CO2 that humans are adding to the atmosphere, which amplifies the effects of the Sun's energy, the amount of energy that the Sun radiates upon the Earth is relatively fixed.
And what's excessive controls? Shall we leave that decision to the oil companies?
So where's your counter-balance? Since you're an expert on what is and isn't Science, I'm expecting something impressive.

Warning: Off-topic, environmental posts will be deleted
 

That’s a fascinating thought, TW. And I agree with you.

However, like some other recent posts, it has absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic! Please take environmental posts elsewhere.

If there is a repetition of off-topic posts in this thread – which is on medicine (!) – I shall delete all stray posts by said poster.

I hope that is clear, and I hope it is respected.

-- ArcticStones
.

lol - sorry, I really thought I was responding to a post in the other thread. my bad. :)

Sorry, but
 

Actually, even in 2008 most (by which is meant over half) of diagnoses are made from the history.

Skilled physicians use three basic tools: history (the story the patient tells of what has happened, often focused by questions posed by the physician), the physical examination (in which some examiners will use more of their senses than others), and tests (body fluid chemistry, imaging procedures, biopsy results, &c.).

Fifty years ago, the percentages stood approximately at 70% history, 20% physical examination, and 10% tests.

The drift away from history has, in my opinion, more to do with the relative de-emphasis of the skill of taking a good history in medical education, and the relative over reliance on tests.

I can think of many utterly brilliant diagnoses that were made uniquely from the history.

When a journalist asked Abraham Lincoln, in the dark days of the early U. S. Civil War, what kind of generals he liked, Lincoln was long silent, finally replying, "Lucky." So, if you have a personal physician, I hope that you are lucky when you make your choice, or that your physician has been well trained in the use of the most powerful available tool for diagnosing illness (the history), alas, very poorly represented in the current manifestation of the internet.