I took my daughter to a doctor, because she had a rash on her arm. The doctor saw her arm and said "she is allergic to dogs". I thought that was weird, and I said "we don't have dogs". He asked me "what about cats?" I said "We don't have cats either, we don't have pets". He said "what about your neighbors?" I said "we live in an apartment and pets are not allowed in the building. My neighbors don't have dogs". He decided to do more accurate exams. After the results, he said "she definitely is allergic to dogs... here is the prescription". I left his office and put the prescription in the trash.
My question: Is science sometimes stubborn like that? Trying to prove and shovel in our throats results that are more convenient to science itself? For example, I saw a psychiatric trying hard to prove reincarnation doesn't exist and giving the most ridiculous arguments against it, saying that we have to deal with the facts, but the fact is that a 4 y-old boy was telling us...
2007-09-23
17:49:39
·
16 answers
·
asked by
Janet Reincarnated
5
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
... everything about his past life and how he died.
2007-09-23
17:49:59 ·
update #1
Is science stubborn?
2007-09-23
17:50:17 ·
update #2
Blue Skies, I agree with you 100%, and I also believe that science has a strong role in it, still to come in the future, very near future.
The basics of my religion, which are reincarnation and the comunication with spirits come from a book written by a skeptical doctor... go figure! He never claimed his discoveries to be religion, instead he classified them as philosophy and science. We, as followers, chose it to be a religion, because his new ideas changed us morally. I am talking about Allan Kardec who wrote "The Spirits' Book".
2007-09-24
04:42:20 ·
update #3
Some doctors (too many) have a "God complex", which means that they are always right, especially when they're wrong.
I find it amusing when someone tries to explain reincarnation away as an illusion. The funniest thing I encountered on the subject was here at YA. Here ya go: "For the devil to promote a false religion, he gives a person a demonic spirit that knows the past. Whether it be child or adult, it will seem as if the person is reincarnated from a past life. The evil spirit tampers with the mind to believe in the past as the evil spirit knows the past..." That's from http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AleOi731vd3vQ.BKg3t902vty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070921043058AAB6XEM
But take heart. Here's a quote from the late Carl Sagan [from his book Demon Haunted World]: "At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any way other than reincarnation."
Diehard fundamentalists who have convinced themselves that they see demons in every shadow will never admit reincarnation is true, but science will -- one day. We're just beginning to approach an age of "enlightenment" where scientific discovery will make a leap into what is now called the "supernatural" realm.
2007-09-24 02:37:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by Emerald Blue 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
No, these are people you're talking about. I think it's pretty 'stubborn' of you not to look further into any contact your daughter might have with animals. Certain rashes look a certain way and tests were even done.
As far as reincarnation goes and the guy trying to deny it, of course you're going to run into arguments where religion is involved. That has to do with the person, not a particular subject. I would trust already tried and true medical test results (BTW, there's no harm in a second opinion) but finding a psychologist would be harder.
2007-09-23 18:04:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by strpenta 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Science is rational. However, doctors are just people, and people are stubborn.
What your pediatrician should have said is,'The allergy tests come back positive for dogs. The rash is indicitive of an allergy to dogs. She may have gotten exposed to something that a dog has touched. If not, it would be the first case I have seen where a dog was not to blame for a reaction like this.'
However, doctors get tired of being second guessed by laymen. If you had been at your job for 10 years, and had studied for 8 years before taking the position, and someone that you just met questioned your knowledge, you might be a tad bit short with them.
If I were you, I would find a doctor that is better at communication. And, I would dig the prescription out of the trash.
2007-09-23 17:56:53
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
Why would a psychiatrist (I think that's what you meant) be talking about reincarnation? Psychiatrists are doctors who specialize in mental illness, their jobs have nothing to do with philosophy or religion.
Some doctors are bad at what they do. Just as some auto mechanics and some school teachers and some priests and some painters aren't particularly good at what they do. You can't take one example and claim it means science as a whole is anything other than what it is: the collective attempts of the human race to explain the world around us.
2007-09-23 18:01:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Actually, when he says she is allergic to dogs, I think he mean the bugs dogs carries. It can sometime cause rashes in people, especially kids who has little immunity against the bugs.
Actually, psychiatrist would not be the best person to talk about reincarnation. It is for the person who claim positive to provide proof of reincarnation. For example, would you rebuke me if I tell you Mutant Teenage Ninja Turtles exists and a 5 year old kid tell you he saw one ordering pizza through the phone to be delivered to the sewer?
What a 4 yr old boy said cannot be use as proof. However, if you have say 1000 boys/girls/men/womens who provide similar claims, then there would be some grounds for it and further test such as, Historically accuracy, neutral assessment and such would come in place.
Similarly, if I have 1000 people telling me similar story for Mutant Teenage Ninja Turtles, then there is a cause to think about.
2007-09-23 17:59:56
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
If science was stubborn it would be static, when it fact science constantly is evolving as new evidence is presented. A long time ago scientists thought the earth was flat, until technology was able to prove it wasn't true. Science is constantly looking for new answers. Religion says, this is what the bible says happened, what can we use to support it? Science is the opposite. Science looks at all the facts and says, what can we deduce from these facts?
2007-09-23 17:58:03
·
answer #6
·
answered by lindsey p 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
science is not stubborn. it is practical. its idea is that "nothing is correct until it is proven so". and "anything not proven can not be considered true"
i mean thats not really considered being stubborn. just logical. prove it to me, or else why should i have any notion to believe its true?
so i mean about your doctor thing, who says your daughter Had to of come close to a dog at your house. maybe at school, park, sidewalk, any were. you dont NEED to lick the dang dog! just even smelling it can cause the reaction. or even sitting or being around the area a dog was can cause it too. its not science being stubborn. Sounds to ME like YOU are being stubbon in Insisting that you daughter didnt come into contact with a dog. maybe she did you YOU just dont know.
is it science that is stubborn, or the one who claims that it is?
2007-09-23 18:08:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by john doe 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
That doctor may have been stubborn. maybe he was right, you'll never know because you tossed the perscription out.
As for reincarnation boy, why do you let a 4 year old boy shovel results in your throat which is totally unbelievable and contrary to all rational evidence, just because it fits your preconceived idea of things. That is stubborn if you ask me.
2007-09-23 17:57:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
People are stubborn and irrational. Science, unfortunately, is practiced by people. When done right it is the BEST method for getting at the truth that we have. But it is not always done right.
As to a 4 year old boy talking about his past life ... cough, cough ...
2007-09-23 17:59:43
·
answer #9
·
answered by Alan 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
People are stubborn.. science isn't. Your doctor is lazy.. thats all I dont see what it has to do with science at all. By the by how reliable do you think 4 year olds are when it comes to telling the truth and being able to distinguish between imagination and reality??
2007-09-23 17:54:25
·
answer #10
·
answered by Kelly + Eternal Universal Energy 7
·
4⤊
1⤋