Thread by @sankrant

Classic Scientism—science as a religion.

Can therapy X help?

Religious believer in Scientism—IT CANNOT. IT WOULD VIOLATE LAWS.

Scientist—Does it work empirically? If so that’s great, let’s investigate it. We may learn something new about the universe, improve our theories.

https://twitter.com/jonathanstea/status/1332435377240477698

Is Science based on “common sense”? Lots of things that Science discovers defy common sense. The sky is not really blue, incidentally.

Sure, studies can control for the Placebo Effect. But religious belief would still not accept it.

https://twitter.com/anuragawasthi/status/1332844550591635461?s=21

https://twitter.com/anuragawasthi/status/1332844550591635461

Multiple logical fallacies in a single statement. Not unexpected of religious believer in Scientism.

1. Ad Hominem
2. Strawman
3. False attribution

Like a religious zealot who believes “Bible=Truth” equates criticism of Scientism as “anti-Science.” 😆

https://twitter.com/jonathanstea/status/1332847648018030594?s=21

https://twitter.com/jonathanstea/status/1332847648018030594

4. Affective Fallacy—“let alone during a pandemic when people are dying ...”

It’s a crisis—we cannot think. 😆

People are not dying of disinformation. They’re dying of:
1. Covid
2. Inability of “advanced modern medicine” to treat Covid.

A good time to learn to be open-minded.

Lol, religion getting scared of logical examination. Long history of this.

For "authority-based" medicine, evidence-based science is naturally threatening.

https://twitter.com/mowensmd/status/1332874509544669185?s=20

My point is not homeopathy—It is how the medical establishment claims the exclusive right to decide what's legit and derides everything else as "quackery." It steals from the indigenous, extracts, patents, and then derides the original as "witch doctors."

https://twitter.com/JMedic2JDoc/status/1332893250190004224?s=20

My results with homeopathy have been mixed, so won't take a stance.

But if there exist double-blind studies that show its efficacy for some conditions, wouldn't that throw the "same as water" hypothesis out? @JMedic2JDoc

But for religious scientism.

sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

Not really. The "laws of science" changed with quantum theory—something could be a wave and a particle, energy could be matter, we could not know both position and momentum.

If we consider existing "laws" of science inviolable, we limit future growth.

https://twitter.com/Atheist_sanatni/status/1332877259112214529?s=20

I've had all the doctors in my family scoff at homeopathy because they're taught in medical school it's "impossible" because it violates Avogadro's Number.

But that's not Science—observed reality must outweigh existing theory. Let us say we find homeopathy works in some cases—

If a double-blind study shows efficacy of homeopathy even for one disease, we must go back and reexamine theory.

*Just* for argument, here's a hypothesis—if no molecule of the original is left, perhaps there is a memory left in the solution, a micro-crystal formation perhaps.

To be clear I am not making any claim about this. But there is a famous (not reproduced) case of a Nature paper about this.

My point is different. That when "theory" supersedes observation, as in medical scientism, we limit the growth of understanding.

nature.com/news/2004/0410…

In Indic traditions pratyaksha (experience) is always valid. Anumana or Shabda are secondary.

Religion has Shabda Pramana—textual authority—as primary. Medicine becomes akin to religion when textual authority ("research papers") trumps direct experience.

https://twitter.com/sankrant/status/1330283812329238528?s=20