Known measurable failure rates
Failure rates that reduce based on periodic improvements in a vaccine + in
clinical protocols
I fail to see what is unscientific here.
On 05/02/19, 11:53 AM, "silklist on behalf of Srini RamaKrishnan"
<silklist-bounces+suresh=hserus....@lists.hserus.net on behalf of
che...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks to the many who wrote in to say that science is not the last word on
reality, we now see that science can be wrong, is always only the partial
truth, and the key is to be open to new ideas.
If we see that all of us; scientists and non-scientists alike are in the
business of understanding reality, then we see an equality of purpose.
Nobody has the last word. Equality, like sincerity of purpose and humility,
goodness, peace, aspiration etc. is a very good idea indeed.
Logic is not the only tool with which the human can make sense of reality,
if it was, the human race would be very poor indeed. Science then is no
different from other systems that seek to understand the truth of the
reality we live in.
There was the old testament and then came the new one, and then the
numerous interpretations thereof. Religion too is open to new truths. As is
any knowledge - when the 4 minute mile was first run it was a big deal, it
shattered a myth, now it is not nearly as impossible. Businessmen, authors,
gardeners etc. are each making progress in humanity's understanding of
purpose and finding better solutions to the problem of existence, or
enacting better or newer experiences of existence, along with making plenty
of mistakes along the way.
Dogma is not exclusive to religion, scientists can be dogmatic too,
violently resisting new ideas, like for example, the continental drift
theory, until finally relenting under the weight of evidence. It is human
nature to resist giving up hard won spoils.
Violence is a common impulse in man, maybe too common. We saw during the
cold war the two sides were extremely dogmatic about their position, and
would jail or kill anyone who supported a different idea.
It would be far easier to live in a dictatorship, there would be none of
the messy debate, yet we choose free societies that permit freedom of
religion, freedom of opinion, freedom of the vote. Why is freedom to
question science exempt? I cannot make everyone love the Mona Lisa and I
should not be able to make everyone love my idea.
Things like vaccination are tricky because they are not strictly science.
Science is repeatable, and things that don't work on everyone the same
don't strictly deserve the label of science. That doesn't mean they should
never be made mandatory, there merely has to be a very very high bar before
that is done, and if there are other motives besides the wellness of
humanity then that dilutes the case. Especially because like the death
sentence, the effects of it cannot be reversed.
A child in the sandbox is making discoveries, she is a scientist in her own
world, and her discoveries are just as important as that of any Nobel
Laureate. When we can see every human endeavor as brilliant and necessary,
then we enter the realm of equality - because reality is always subjective.
///
"Where the world ceases to be the scene of our personal hopes and wishes,
where we face it as free beings admiring, asking and observing, there we
enter the realm of Art and Science. If what is seen and experienced is
portrayed in the language of logic, we are engaged in science. If it is
communicated through forms whose connections are not accessible to the
conscious mind but recognized intuitively as meaningful, then we are
engaged in art. Common to both is the loving devotion to that which
transcends personal concern and volition."
Albert Einstein
