The wonder of scientific research
amicabl: Common knowledge
Well, if you are going on that premise...that "common knowledge" is accurate, I dunno what to say, especially when this thread is about science.
Because, when I examine your observations about a 19th century cemetery that you visited, it becomes apparent that your "common" knowledge arises from your myopic view of the world that didn't allow you to observe the large number of maternal deaths that cemeteries of that age "commonly" hold.
Skewed statistics? Yes, your interpretations and observations are skewed. You leave out women in your observations.
Actually most people died in their middle age due to all the illnesses we have today that warrant no more than a quick visit to the doctors and a short course of drugs made by those big evil pharmaceutical companies.
They also died of lots of illnesses that we have forgotten about since corrupt science eliminated them.
Please don't choose bland topics in future. Choose controversial ones and be better prepared for a factual debate.
cofty: Please don't choose bland topics in future. Choose controversial ones and be better prepared for a factual debate.
Or, conversely, be prepared to learn something about your subject. There are many posters on here who are pedantic, myself being one of them.
Be prepared to be corrected and challenged. That is the beauty of this forum.
It was a long time ago OrphanCrow, I only put down what I remembered. I can't recall seeing graves of women who died in childbirth or young women who died, only men and women passing away in old age. It was a wander through a cemetery not a scientific expedition. The point I was trying to make in my obviously fractured English, was that the life expectancy of 30 or 40 or whatever was caused by the large number of small children who died which reduced the statistical life expectancy or maybe I am wrong there too. No offence meant to the ladies with whom in the real world I usually get on quite well with.
I actually came on this site to learn and to be encouraged by what I read. I posted a topic of which I do know something only to be shot down, sometimes on minor points and to be misquoted several times. One poster was unnecessarily offensive. I felt that the theme of my post was the dragging out of scientific research in order to create employment for the researchers. I obviously did not make myself clear enough. However what was alarming was the attack launched against me or that is how it seemed. This is not a scientific forum and I expected a variety of opinions. The nitpicking on the way I expressed myself was uncalled for. I am not a research assistant and I will bear in mind in the future that Wikipedia standards are expected of every utterance I make.
Or maybe it was just the subject.
amicabl: The point I was trying to make in my obviously fractured English was that the life expectancy of 30 or 40 or whatever was caused by the large number of small children who died which reduced the statistical life expectancy or maybe I am wrong there too. No offence meant to the ladies with whom in the real world I usually get on quite well with.
And hence your name, right? :)
Yes, I understood what you were saying. And of course, that point has merit. However, it is not the whole picture. Infant and maternal mortality rates have been impacted dramatically by the advent of science. It is not reasonable to make the assertion that the world was better off, health-wise, before scientific advancements.
And yes, women have benefited largely by medical advancements. We actually can anticipate living past our childbearing years, our children can anticipate having their mothers around longer...unless, of course, you are a JW woman. Or a JW child. Then, your mortality risks go through the roof. JW women and children enjoy the primitive state of medicine during and previous to the 19th century.
The point that I was making, amicabl, was that "common knowledge" is knowledge that is suspect - we have to stop and examine if that "common knowledge" is rooted in our own personal biases. Things that we can believe are 'facts" because they are "common knowledge" can be simply manifestations of our own desires and/or position and/or limited access to information.
Fair enough question, but this data was included in the link above, which I have pasted again below. It shows, as an example, that a white male who made it to 20 would on average live 40 more years until he was 60. In 2011 the same white male at 20 would live on average 60 more years, until he was 80. And so on.
Even so, as long as the data comparisons are the same, e.g. life expectancy at birth, it is a meaningful and fair comparison. Unless you think 1 - 5 year olds are insignificant.
So regardless of how you view the data we live much longer than in the past. We should all view scientific studies with scrutiny if not skepticism. But science is its own harshest critic and monitor, as Cofty has stated. Additionally, scientific, empirical studies rarely if ever describe their results as definitive conclusions.
They typically use words such as 'suggests' and 'findings' and they qualify 'conclusions.' Good studies include any problems with the data and almost always identify shortcomings in their own study by pointing out areas or topics on the subject that should be considered for future studies.
That doesn't mean the process is perfect or that some scientists let bias impact their results. That's part of the human process, but the scientific community will typically rip someone to shreds when they violate the process.
OrphanCrow / DJS A combined reply..........My name here is a shortening of my real name with an a in front. So the mic is Michael. I am 69, my wife is still in. I left the hall six months ago never to return. A rogue elder told me that the frequent visits to my house to see me are verboten. That doesn't worry him, he's coming again tomorrow. Anyone coming gets a thorough anti witness for several hours. I really like them all because it is in my nature to do so. I have put up a photo of myself to help them if they want to df me.
my grandmother had a child in the twenties that spent most of her short life in pain because of a blocked or twisted bowel that would be a simple op now.
I understand that a female doctor on the FDA blocked the release of thalidomide that prevented massive suffering in the USA.
these two examples, to me, send somewhat mixed messages of the good and the bad of medicine. Why didn't the surgeons at least try with my aunt and why was thalidomide allowed to be sold in Europe to pregnant women when the ill effects were known. I think that this qualified for common knowledge.
I read the statistics on life expectancy and they are encouraging for someone my age. In Queensland, Australia where I live males live to 80 I think, partly because of the mild climate and the more widely distributed population. But again a poor lifestyle will leave many of them in pain or a nursing home etc., for years before their death. I can't prove any of this scientifically but it is what most think. Sometimes human observation as in a farmer and weather forecasting is better than the meteorogical bureau.
I still feel that money talks in a loud way and that it should be a major concern.
Enough.. It is 2 am and I am off to sleep.
amicable - Just to be clear here is the statement from your OP that resulted in a robust backlash - "most scientific research is fake".
That is an outrageous slur on a field of human endeavor that has done immeasurable good. You are right this is not a scientific forum but there are many of us here who have profound respect and admiration for science. When I left the cult 20 years ago I had a love for science but in retrospect I was woefully ignorant. I have been learning constantly ever since.
Of course our appreciation for science has to be tempered with healthy skepticism and an appreciation of the its limitations.
....it becomes apparent that your "common" knowledge arises from your myopic view of the world that didn't allow you to observe the large number of maternal deaths that cemeteries of that age "commonly" hold.
You mean back when "Doctors" examined diseased patients (and even corpses) and then delivered babies without washing their hands in between? Back when any complication more serious than a breech presentation was usually fatal to the woman?
There was an author named Laura Ingalls Wilder who grew up here in the U.S. in the mid 19th century and described that world in detail. It was a world where her older sister went blind from malaria before anybody knew what caused it. It was a world where malnutrition left her younger sister weak and frail for the rest of her life. It was a world where locusts ate their crops down to the ground. It was a world where heavy snows stopped the steam locomotives of the day and entire towns nearly starved. It was a world were diphtheria left her husband with a serious limp for the rest of his life. It was a world where cholera epidemics broke out every few years. It was a world where the poor went barefoot even in the winter.
I find cemeteries interesting myself, but the stones don't tell you the road these poor people had to walk to get there.
Amicabl - You seem like a nice enough guy, welcome to the forum. Don't let the critiques and objections put you off view it as a challenge.