Gilbert Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Any religion honoring individuals as 'saints' is no different from other > >scientific fields which honors those who made a major contribution to the > >particular field; or fundamentally inspired others; or shifted the line of > thinking leading to a paradigm shift in perspective. >
The above equation of religion and science is absolutely wrongheaded. In no way is religion a scientific field nor is it in any way like a scientific field. Science does not revere any scientist as a saint, no matter how eminent. It simply recognizes his or her scientific contribution, and fully expects others to modify or improve upon it. For example, unlike a religious committee that recognizes a saint, a Nobel prize committee does not have to certify that a new science prize winner has performed two miracles. The contributions of scientists are supported by objective evidence. They do not rely on supernatural entities and mechanisms, and they can always be confirmed or falsified by others. If falsified, the natural explanations that were inferred from them have to be modified or replaced by better supported ones. This is not true of supernatural explanations and miracles, which are accepted entirely based on faith. As for the rest of the assertions made in the above quoted post, none of them make any sense in the context of either the issue of recognition of religious saints in general, or of young Jesuit saints in particular. The need to bring up personal idiosyncratic misconceptions about science and medicine in this unrelated thread is thoroughly inexplicable. Cheers, Santosh Gilbert Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Some of the perspectives may not stand the test of time. Yet, regard is > given to those > who dedicated their life for a cause. The fact that their > work may not > stand the test of time is not a discredit. It is amazing > how a few decades > later, the same thinking may come full circle, with the > work (and the > individual's fame) resurrected once again. > As in many scientific fields, as we "know more and > more about less and > less", we loose sight of the important issues. Led to > its logical > conclusion, one ends up "knowing everything about > nothing." > > In medicine, the issue is how does any information > presented practically > benefit CURRENT practice (patient care). Or is what is > being presented > 'basic scientific research', which at least > theoretically may be useful at a > later date? When listening to the history of medicine, we > are often feted > with useful anecdotes; which served as the catalysts for > stumbling on the > "right thing". Anything else is considered > "gossip" on some of the > fore-runners of the field, who are not around to defend > themselves. >
