Science vs Logic. Which One Is More Practical?!

[Sugar&Spice]

On the subject of science, it can be very vast. I want to point out various aspects of science. And compare them to logic. The reason I would like to bring up this topic, is because although I do not hate, or want to discredit science. I tend to believe that Logic really reinghs surpreme, when compared to Science. Here is why.....


1st Aspect, medicine.


1. Sicence has made it where you can take a pill for practicly anything that bothers you. But along with these new found pills, come dangerous side effects. Let me give you an example of a pill.



There is a pill, that allows you to stop your period after three days. I forgot the name, but it is advertised everywhere. And alot of women are taking it. But the side effects are, blood clots, digestive problems, and ulcers. And because it is a new pill, people tend to want to try it out. No matter what the repacutions are.


Now lets look at logic.



It would be logical to conclude that it would be better to just allow the regular cycle to take place, instead of rushing something that naturaly is to clean your body out. To me logic in this situation, would mean staying healthy, even if it dose annoy you for about a week, sometimes a week and a half. The end result is that your insides are clean, and you don't have to worry about possible clots, digestive problems, etc.



Science is also always coming up with new diet pills. That help you to either speed up your motabolism, or curve your appetite to where you don't have one. This is not healthy because they have had to re-call the diet pill fan-fan, because it caused heartattacks and killed a good amount of people. Not only that but there are constantly commercials that put advertisements on the tv, re-calling a different pill.

Logic would tell people that they should eat healthy and excerise, thus becomeing slimmer and healthier.



Science play a big role in plastic surgery. We already have a thread about this, but I just want to bring out an improtant point. Science has made it so much easier for people to constanly change how they look. Making for a more shallow society. Not only that but people know that they can be as greedy as they want, and when they are ready, they can get the fat sucked out of them. That enables lazyness in todays society.



Logic would cause people to reason, that they should not risk their lives for vanity. Instead be happy with themselves. Thus making it easier for people to be happy being in their own skin, and with out having to have half of their body cut off.


Sticking with the theme of medicine for a moment, I would like to bring out shots.


Shots in its self is not a bad thing. They can help in various ways. But they can often be dangerous.



Example- The flu shot, that they came up with really cannot be trusted. I say this because, they have replaced the regular substances that they used before, and replaced them with diffrent substances. This was a more watered down replica of the original formula. Which has caused various problems with older people as well as with younger ones. And yeah, I'm sure that some people can atest to the fact that they have taken the flu-shot and that it is no big deal, because they never felt any side affects. Well that is really a small amount of people. Because I work in the nursing feild, and I have seen older people, and younger ones, go down-hill after taking those flu shots.




Logic would state that instead of taking a flu shot that no one is sure what is really in it. You would take precautions not to get sick, and even though it is something that you can't avoid. It is much healthier to take cold and flu medicines, when you catch the flu. And yes, I know that some may argue that the flu can kill people, expecially older ones and younger ones. But so can the flu shot. It is less of a risk to get rest, drink fluids, and take flu medicine. Then to take a shot that has different substances in it. No one can be sure of all of the substances in it. If there is someone who knows, then please list them for us.



Another example of a shot, is the one for diabetes. They use a certain horse/goats(I forgot which one it was. I'm sure it was a horse) they took the urine of the animal, and incorparated it into the insulin for diabetics. That is waste. And it can cause some complications in the future.



Although we cannot aviod, taking certain medicine. I cannot help but point out the flaws.




These are the different points I want to bring out. To me it shows that using pure logic, in these cases can keep you healthy, and happier. If anyone disagrees with me. Feel free.

[KendoTiger]

On the subject of science, it can be very vast. I want to point out various aspects of science. And compare them to logic. The reason I would like to bring up this topic, is because although I do not hate, or want to discredit science. I tend to believe that Logic really reinghs surpreme, when compared to Science. Here is why.....

I believe one of your threads was closed earlier for this reason - you do not distinguish between logic and science; as science is based on logic, your following arguments do not make sense. I can kind of understand what you are saying - that people should rely more on common sense (logic) than rely entirely on science. But this still doesn't make sense: your examples put science in opposition to logic, when that is impossible (due to definition).

Rather, you try to point out that science allows for people to follow illogical courses of action. This does make sense, and is true - but the positive or negative outcome is 1) usually subjective, and 2) due to a person's choice - not the existance of science. It's like saying that the existance of bread is less desirable over that of rice, because people can choke on bread if they roll it into a ball and stuff it into their throat.

1st Aspect, medicine.
1. Sicence has made it where you can take a pill for practicly anything that bothers you. But along with these new found pills, come dangerous side effects. Let me give you an example of a pill.
There is a pill, that allows you to stop your period after three days. I forgot the name, but it is advertised everywhere. And alot of women are taking it. But the side effects are, blood clots, digestive problems, and ulcers. And because it is a new pill, people tend to want to try it out. No matter what the repacutions are.
Now lets look at logic.
It would be logical to conclude that it would be better to just allow the regular cycle to take place, instead of rushing something that naturaly is to clean your body out. To me logic in this situation, would mean staying healthy, even if it dose annoy you for about a week, sometimes a week and a half. The end result is that your insides are clean, and you don't have to worry about possible clots, digestive problems, etc.

First, not all medicines have dangerous side-effects. Most do have side-effects, but it is to be expected when you add any chemical into your body. If you eat certain foods, your body will react in different ways (side-effect of the food).

Second: people usually weigh the risks of any new medication before taking it, and most of the dangerous drugs require a doctor's consent.

Third: no medicines are created without some sort of demand - otherwise, the pharmaceutical companies would lose money (as the creation of new drugs are already extremely costly). Therefore, people wouldn't try out a drug because it's new, but rather because they wanted relief, and the drug became available to them. If this is the case, then the fault of damaging side-effects do not lie with medicine, and subsequentially science, but rather in the choice of the person buying it.

For that person, they have to weigh the risks of the pill, with the benefits (in this case, a deminished period). If they think that it is worth it, they will try out the pill. For those women with extremely painful periods, or some other problem, this pill (dispite possible complications), is a "God-send". It is not up to you to decide for them if it is a logical* decision or not, because this decision is based on circumstance. Logic, such as "if a then b", can be applied only to say "if pain>risk, then take pill; if pain<risk, don't take pill". And that information relies soley on the person taking the pill. Science has created the pill, and logic the means of determining if it's worth taking - they are not in conflict.

In addition, medicines can only be made available to the public (at least in the USA - although similar institutions for medicine control are found elsewhere internationally), the dangerous side-effects can only occur in a very small percentage of the human trial population.
---
The same holds true for your argument about the diet pills.

Ps. Some confusion between your statement here and your previous entries in "how should we support obesity" (not sure of the exact thread name).
---
Your liposuction/plastic surgery argument is the same as above.

Also, you cannot blame science for the moral flaws/weaknesses of society - people have been vain long before science was even recognized. Look into the corset.
---
Logic would state that instead of taking a flu shot that no one is sure what is really in it. You would take precautions not to get sick, and even though it is something that you can't avoid. It is much healthier to take cold and flu medicines, when you catch the flu.

First, people do know what is in a flu shot - although the exact viral strain used is dependent on the year. I'm sure if you looked into either the patents of pharmaceuticals, or googled it, you could find the answer.

Also, it is your opinion that it is safer to wait until you get the flu - obviously few people feel the same way. By taking a shot, you recieve a weakened (dead) version of the virus, which can rarely hurt you. Even if it does, you're fighting a weakened version of it - so you have a much higher chance of beating it. If you were to wait - your body would not have the antibodies ready to cope with such an infection, so the young and old would have a very hard time fighting the regular, non-weakened, virus.

Also, flu medicine is meant to boost your immune system, and bodily defenses - they are "blanket drugs" meant to slow down the virus. A flu shot is specifically tailored to the flu you get (although variations - there are usually three such shots available per year - based on region, these are dispersed accordingly).
---
they took the urine of the animal, and incorparated it into the insulin for diabetics. That is waste.

Insulin-wise, same problem as above.

Waste-wise, I don't know what you're reffering to. Penicillin, the "miracle-drug" that saved millions since it's first discovery, was originally created from bread-mold. Does it matter where the substance comes from, if it can be purified, and then used to save people's lives?

[Sugar&Spice]

[QUOTE=KendoTiger;696487]I believe one of your threads was closed earlier for this reason - you do not distinguish between logic and science; as science is based on logic, your following arguments do not make sense.


First of all, what dose the thread that was closed have to do with this thread?! I find that statement irrelevant. Also my staement dose make senes. Because science dose play opposition to logic in plenty of ways. And I will list some once I finish replying to you.


I can't understand where you are going with the bread example, because technicly, people can coke more on rice then bread. And it is not likely that somone would roll bread up and stuff it down their throat. But let me not be deterred from the original topic.



Yes it can be due to peoples choice. And yes I do know that people have been vain before these modern day inventions. But science made it so much easier for people to take their vanity to a new unhealthy level..
An example would be these new ways to so-called improve yourself, through surgery that science has thought up today. I have never seen anyone die or have to deal with life-long serious deformites with a corset, as I have when people come from out of surgery with a missing body part, or decaying fleash due to a technicality in the operating room. Don't believe me, you can look it up.



I can understand that people are looking for some kind of relife. And yeah getting a doctors consent thing is all textbook stuff. But in reality doctors are scientists themselves. And when they try making a new pill they put it out there for people to try on trail bases. To see what happens. I mentioned alot of pills are always being re-called. Because of defects, and bad side effects. And these pills were stocked because of a doctors consent. So what dose having a doctors consent really matter, when people still have to deal with faulty pills?! So Logic would tell someone that if you have to take a pill, you should make sure you need it. Diet pills, and other substances they use for losing weight, in my opinion should be avioded. And instead, should be replaced with healthy eating and excerise. Keeping your body healthier longer.



Most pills do have dangerous side effects. And those who do not have dangerous side effects, still have side effects none-the-less. And it can down the line start to wear on your body. Any side effect, no matter how small, will take its toll.


A pill is made when they think it would make money. Simple as that, any pill that makes money will be sold. There are billions of dollars in the diet pill industry. And that is only one aspect of it. If a pill was made only for the demad of it, then why is it that there are so many diet pills, and different versions of different pills?! If they filled the demand when they made one pill, why keep making different versions of it?! This is not using logic. I hear what you are saying, but it is all textbook, and rules that should be excerised. But it is rarly used in the real world. Yeah pills should be made to give relif, and should be released due to serious demand. But in reality, it is all part of a money making scheme in my opinion, and from alot of what I see. And little logic is used.


As far as the women who have painful periods. Your staement as to whether it is up to me to determine if it is logical for them to take it or not. Is irrelevant, because I never made such a staement. I stated my views on the subject. I never spoke for all women. So that statement made little to no sense at all. But I will say one thing. Logic SHOULD tell a person that pain is better then possible clots, that can move up to the heart, lungs, or brain. And ulcers.
If people want to take that risk, thats is up to them. But it is illogical in my opinion.


I still do not know why you are telling me about confusions in another thread, because we are not discussing the other threads at this point. So what is really your point, for stating something I said from a topic in another thread?! If it has some relation to what is being said now, please qoute it s that I can rebuttle. If not then we can just leave it alone.


I know very well what the flu shot is supposed to be for. And its functions, but you said that people do know what is in the flu shot. But the exact viral strain is dependent on the year?! Then people really don't know what is in the flu shot. It changes from year to year. And when people think of taking the flu shot the next year, they just cannot be sure of the next substance. Enough said.


As far as insulin, I was saying that the urine was waste. Is it not?! If it is not good enough to stay in an animals body, then it is not good enough to be inserted into a persons arm. You say it can save lives and that it is purifed, but people are finding new bacteria everyday. No one can be sure that a bacteria has not seeped through and in the long run will cause serious damage.



The other aspect of science that conflicts with logic.
Science in warfare.


Science has not made warfare any better, in fact it has made it worser. Atomic and chemical bombs have not been successful in solving problems, but it has only furthered them. Creating nuclear weapons and different ways to make torpedos, etc. Is like saying, "if you bomb us, we will bomb you!!" How has logic played a role in this aspect of science?! I see were they clash in this aspect. Because it stands to reason that if you make warfare with science, someone else will too. And then it results in the deaths of millions.



Logic would help people to see that making bombs would not solve any kind of conflict, and would only cause more harm. And I have yet to see anything good come from bombs created by science, used in war. Yeah wars have been won. But winning dose not mean victory. The fighting continues. And thakns to science, people can be more vicious in their killing technics.


Come on humor me!!

[KendoTiger]

First of all, what dose the thread that was closed have to do with this thread?! I find that statement irrelevant. Also my staement dose make senes.

This topic is the recreation of your old post, in which you tried to put logic in opposition to science. Judes shut down your thread because it was 1) vague, 2) illogical, and 3) did not have viable examples/support. You have not addressed any of these three concerns - you merely elucidated on your earlier rant. If you cannot see why the lack of these three things invalidates this thread, please ask someone other than me (as I must not be explaining things clearly).

Before we get too argumentative, let me rephrase what I believe you are saying: "science allows for people to follow illogical actions, which may be worse than the actions they could have taken without the presence of science." If this is the case, you can easily rewrite part of your thread so that it makes for an interesting debate, but if you leave it as is - then this will be a flawed (and hopefully closed) thread.

I have never seen anyone die or have to deal with life-long serious deformites with a corset, as I have when people come from out of surgery with a missing body part, or decaying fleash due to a technicality in the operating room. Don't believe me, you can look it up.

First, it is up to you to post your own sources. I will not spend my time disproving some random person's statement - you must take the initiative and cite sources to support yourself. Second, please take a look into Chinese history and the practice of "foot binding". Thank you. For Europeans, the use of lead-based paint as a form of makeup is another good example.

Diet pills, and other substances they use for losing weight, in my opinion should be avioded. And instead, should be replaced with healthy eating and excerise. Keeping your body healthier longer.

Again, this is your opinion (I am not stating that your opinion, in itself, is good or bad). It is up to the person taking the pills to decide if it is good for them or not - it is up to them to decide. Logic is not determinable on the basis of personal decision, rather, it is a definite system. Basically, if the outcome is dependent on someone's decision, it is not logical.


Most pills do have dangerous side effects... And it can down the line start to wear on your body. Any side effect, no matter how small, will take its toll.

Prove please.

I think you might be missing my point relating to production based on preexisting demand, but I can't rephrase it any clearer.

Your staement as to whether it is up to me to determine if it is logical for them to take it or not. Is irrelevant, because I never made such a staement. I stated my views on the subject. I never spoke for all women. So that statement made little to no sense at all. But I will say one thing. Logic SHOULD tell a person that pain is better then possible clots, that can move up to the heart, lungs, or brain. And ulcers. ...But it is illogical in my opinion.

Sigh. You did make such a statement, when you said it was "logical" for them [women] to avoid taking any type of pill for their period. "Logic" is not related in any way to "opinion: "The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning." (American Heritage Dictionary). In your opinion, it is better to avoid risking clots - despite any possible pain; but that is your opinion, and opinions are stances on issues without the presence of logic.

So what is really your point, for stating something I said from a topic in another thread?! If it has some relation to what is being said now, please qoute it s that I can rebuttle.

Meh, I just thought it was interesting. You don't need to gripe about it.

But the exact viral strain is dependent on the year?! Then people really don't know what is in the flu shot. It changes from year to year. And when people think of taking the flu shot the next year, they just cannot be sure of the next substance. Enough said.

Sigh. Yes, the viral strain changes each year - hence, the altered viral strain present in the flu vaccine must also change. The scientists, and pharmaceutical companies, and the government all know what is in the flu vaccine (as they are the ones creating and endorsing it [vaccine]). With the freedom of information act - any normal person can find out what is in the flu vaccine, for any given year. So you're actually wrong on this point.

As far as insulin, I was saying that the urine was waste. Is it not?!

Urine is actually 95% water, and then a mixture of other chemical substances that are not needed by the body (called urine because of urea). That is why sailors, when there is a lack of water, can drink their own urine to prevent death from dehydration.

Whether or not urine is "waste" all depends on if you look at it from a scientific view (it is just chemicals - oil is created through the decay of animal flesh/protein), or a more traditional view. In fact, unlike feces, there are almost no bacteria in urine (depending on how clean you are - urine is actually sterile). Besides, there are many more bacteria inside of your intestines (which are vital to you being alive - break down food).

If it is not good enough to stay in an animals body, then it is not good enough to be inserted into a persons arm.

I'm sure that if someone has the choice between putting a chemical refined from urine into their body to prevent dying, they will do it. Oh wait, they already do.

You say it can save lives and that it is purifed, but people are finding new bacteria everyday. No one can be sure that a bacteria has not seeped through and in the long run will cause serious damage.

Yes, people are discovering new bacteria every day, as old bacteria mutates, or is found in new regions of the world. But you are wrong - when taking a sterile or chemically defined substance, it is impossible for a new bacteria to "leap into existance". There is absolutely ZERO probability that we will suddenly find new bacteria in urine (which is sterile).

By "purified", I did not mean that Urine is "dirty", but rather that scientists "strip down" the chemicals so that you only have what is needed. Basically, if you only needed urea - you would extract the water and other substances so you only had urea (as a pure chemical extract).

Atomic and chemical bombs have not been successful in solving problems, but it has only furthered them. Creating nuclear weapons and different ways to make torpedos, etc. Is like saying, "if you bomb us, we will bomb you!!" How has logic played a role in this aspect of science?! I see were they clash in this aspect. Because it stands to reason that if you make warfare with science, someone else will too. And then it results in the deaths of millions.

First, logic is present in the creation of the bombs through mathematics and applied physics. The decision to use such weapons are not based on science, but rather on the government involved in the conflict.

Also, based on the the logic behind the "mutual destruction principle", a country will not directly attack another country if it has the ability to assure that the original attacking country is destroyed completely. This is the proven principle behind the Cold War, and the Nuclear Quota (as it exists now - and which N. Korea/Iran are attempting to forcefully change).

These weapons have increased the potential to kill more people - but have also "saved" lives by ending potential conflicts. A few examples include: the invasion of Japan (WW2), conventional war with Russia (Cold War - WW3), attacks on Israel by Muslim governments (creation-current), etc. This is all due to the logic behind the mutual destruction principle.

There has been more extensive writing on the nuclear quota in this sub-forum, I believe in the "America #1" thread, but I am unsure.

I decided not to mock you for your "humor me" poke.

[Sugar&Spice]

Ok first of all, I'm going to refrain from answering your comments on this thread. Why?! Because you started out insulting me, by bringing up another topic that I made that was closed. And then you made the statement that you hoped for this topic to be closed. I did not read the rest of your comments, because it sounds argumentive. If you feel that this topic should be closed, why are you responding to it?1 I have made my point quite clear. If you have problems answering the topic I made, then don't come on here insulting me about it. I will refrain from anymore conversation with you. But thank you for your time.


Dose anyone else want to try and express their views?! I don't mind seeing another point of view!!:D

[judes]

ok....what?
i just have to step in here and said that i don't think there was ANY insult meant in his post. i believe it to be respectful and he is trying very, very hard to see from your point of view, as he has said here:

Before we get too argumentative, let me rephrase what I believe you are saying: "science allows for people to follow illogical actions, which may be worse than the actions they could have taken without the presence of science."

i don't think he has acted in an inappropriate manner, and since he took the time of day to respond to your opinions, then you should also respond in kind by either agreeing or disagreeing with his comments, not completely refuse to answer them.

i have an assortment of point of views regarding your topic, so if you are really dying to hear another discussion, then here we are:

i have a problem with your use of logic originally, and i still have a problem with your use of logic now to compare it to science. let's look at the dictionary definition of logic:

1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.: this definition would say, in essence, that science is logic or at least governed by logic, because it is dependent on logic and relies on logic to make reliable inferences about certain hypothesis due to repeatable experimentation.

2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation.: with logic, you are dependent on reason. i do not know how you could argue that science is not governed by reason. you may say that the reasons behind the scientific movement is flawed, but you cannot say that science does not have argumentation and counter theories and accepted theories behind it.

3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.: the last time i checked, science was a branch of knowledge or study.

the rest of the definitions of logic refers more to actions, but i would say these are convincing arguments that science IS logic, but logic is not necessarily described solely by science.

------------------------------------------
except ok, i'll attempt to discuss the examples you came up with for using "logic" versus science. i believe what you're trying to say is "personal reasoning" or "personal choice" or "common sense" instead of logic versus science, but whatever, i won't play semantics with you.

1. I believe kendotiger has already addressed the supply and demand aspect of providing pills to the public, now i'll just delve a little deeper into your argument about the pill.

It would be logical to conclude that it would be better to just allow the regular cycle to take place, instead of rushing something that naturaly is to clean your body out. To me logic in this situation, would mean staying healthy, even if it dose annoy you for about a week, sometimes a week and a half. The end result is that your insides are clean, and you don't have to worry about possible clots, digestive problems, etc.

This may be possible for a majority of women, but I know personally a few women, one of them being my aunt, who are completely bedridden for that week of their period. They cannot go to work, they cannot do housework, basically, they cannot even leave their house. Would they weight the risk of possible blood clots for being able to live a normal life? Yes. You say that it's only a week to a week and a half of discomfort for some women, but I also know someone who bleeds heavily for two to three weeks every month. Would she take the pill so that she can live a normal life? Yes.

There is also a condition called endometriosis, where your uterine lining grows into your inner cavity, so when you shed the blood, some of it goes inside instead of outwards, causing severe pain and problems such as growth of cysts, complications with organ function, and other health problems. Would they risk the possibility of smaller complications from not having a period than having one and maybe having a serious illness? Yes. So it's not as simple as "cleaning your insides out". This pill actually does have helpful benefits to your way of life.

And the pill can also be used as a method of birth control. It's not "only for stopping periods". I would rather have women make the choice of stopping their periods because they do not want to get pregnant, instead of having them have unwanted babies that are a burden on the health care system.

diet pills and plastic surgery and the flu shot was addresed by kendo.

Another example of a shot, is the one for diabetes. They use a certain horse/goats(I forgot which one it was. I'm sure it was a horse) they took the urine of the animal, and incorparated it into the insulin for diabetics. That is waste. And it can cause some complications in the future.

kendo has also address some of these points, but the benefits of insulin vastly, vastly outweigh the potential "waste". my grandmother had to get foot surgery because of diabetes, and i have seen a close friend go into diabetic shock and it is NOT a pretty picture. there are many people who benefit from the creation of insulin because of these procedures, so yes, there would be unknown implications with what you do, but there are unknown implications everywhere. when i go outside, i take the risk of being hit by a bus. does that stop me from going outside? no. when i go on a plane, i weigh the risks of dying in a plane crash to getting to my destination faster. would i stop myself from taking the plane because a percentage of planes HAVE crashed? no. because the benefits outweight the possible negative consequences.

even though science made modern warfare possible, war has also brought us significant advancements that made our lives a lot easier.

if we consider the impact of science on our lives, we can see that it significantly INCREASES our status of life, instead of decreases, consider:

there could be harmful chemicals in the detergent that we use, it's deposited into the water and it contaminates our environment, so why don't we make our own self friendly and environmentally friendly detergent? because it requires time.
following that, we could simply wash our clothes by hand, why use the washer and dryer? these could be potentially dangerous to us as well? because you try washing your clothes by hand for a day.
need to get to work? but the car i'm driving could possibly kill another pedestrian, so i think i should just walk to work where it will take me two hours instead of half an hour to get there by car.

science gives us convenience in our lives. science gives us freedom of choice. you cannot blame science for giving us the choices. that's like running out into the street against the advice of your mother and then cursing whoever made the car when the reason is because you didn't look both ways while crossing the street.

nobody forces a flu shot into your arm, or the pill down your throat. nobody forces you to take diet pills or to take insulin. in some cases, without these things, someone would just be mildly inconvenienced. for others, it's a matter of life or death.

without science, you would have rotting teeth. without science, that appendectomy that you may have had in first grade would have killed you. without science, you wouldn't be arguing about this with me online right now.

it's not science's fault, it's poor decision making and rash decisions that are the reasons for people make dumb choices.