JFTDWS
Well-Known Member
And dq is NOT a troll.
Tradition v Science - what do you think?
- Thread starter Henbug
- Start date
Ladyinred
Well-Known Member
Bored and googling.. maybe DQ isn't alone in her views/beliefs http://www.cis.org.uk/about-cis/
Takes all sorts. Some believe in evolution and some in gravy.
ester
Not slacking multitasking
JFTD baaaaaa
I have nothing against people being scientists not believing in evolution, and have met a couple.
I can completely understand that the more you know the more fantastical it seems that it could all have worked out by chance!
I have nothing against people being scientists not believing in evolution, and have met a couple.
I can completely understand that the more you know the more fantastical it seems that it could all have worked out by chance!
Blitzen
Well-Known Member
That is because Gravy is the kingdom,
the power and the glory,
forever and ever
Amen
the power and the glory,
forever and ever
Amen
Alibear
Well-Known Member
I'm am not a scientist.
But I thought when you get right down to the absolute complex nitty gritty, it's pretty much impossible to prove anything. The main goal of many scientists seems to be to prove that existing rules and theorys etc are infact incorrect?
So from that I go back to the "well it works for me" theory.
As for traditions, plenty of traditions have been found to have a glimmers of scientific "proof" behind them.
Go on shoot me now
But I thought when you get right down to the absolute complex nitty gritty, it's pretty much impossible to prove anything. The main goal of many scientists seems to be to prove that existing rules and theorys etc are infact incorrect?
So from that I go back to the "well it works for me" theory.
As for traditions, plenty of traditions have been found to have a glimmers of scientific "proof" behind them.
Go on shoot me now
hollyandivy123
Well-Known Member
i would just like to add my own views as a scientist..................i think i will be controversial here..............................after 10yrs of higher education..................
numerous years in research.........................
i can honestly say without a shadow of a doubt
that i do not believe..................................
in gravy........................
(nasty case of food poisoning and will never touch that stuff again) it is nearly as bad as MARMITE!
numerous years in research.........................
i can honestly say without a shadow of a doubt
that i do not believe..................................
in gravy........................
(nasty case of food poisoning and will never touch that stuff again) it is nearly as bad as MARMITE!
PaddyMonty
Well-Known Member
Your post is a total contradiction. If you dont believe in gravy (ie it doesn't exist) how did it give you food poisoning?i would just like to add my own views as a scientist..................i think i will be controversial here..............................after 10yrs of higher education..................
numerous years in research.........................
i can honestly say without a shadow of a doubt
that i do not believe..................................
in gravy........................
(nasty case of food poisoning and will never touch that stuff again) it is nearly as bad as MARMITE!
Oh wait, just realised, its the exception that proves the rule.
ester
Not slacking multitasking
I think she used to believe in gravy, but her belief was shattered in such a cruel and harsh way that she can never believe again
Jesstickle
Well-Known Member
All the scientists here believe in evolution. However, I do have two that think they've seen, and even spoken to, ghosts.
Can confirm DQ is not a troll and is actually a lovely forum member so be nice children!
Can confirm DQ is not a troll and is actually a lovely forum member so be nice children!
AshTay
Well-Known Member
As a scientist who believes in evolution and gravy (so long as it's vegetarian)...
I find it more interesting how people prefer anecdotal evidence over scientific evidence. For every single supplement that exists you'll always find someone with a story about how their horse went from a poor cripple to winning at Hickstead purely thanks to the supplement. And many manufacturers actually use anecdotal evidence in their advertising campaigns! But very few seem to present rigorous and independent scientfic evidence for their claims.
I've tried various supplements (usually chosen based on whatever scientific evidence I've found or on vets recommendation) and whilst I have seen some some improvements while using them, I've never been able to say without a doubt that it was the supplement and not some other management or seasonal change that happened during the same time period.
And slightly off topic....
I was really annoyed at Your Horse (I think) who did an article a few months back on reactions to micro-chipping. They printed the grisly stories of about 3 owners who blamed some weird symptoms on a recent micro-chipping and the whole article was scare-mongering!! Nowhere did they mention the number of horses chipped every year who had NO symptoms and in none of the stories were they able to say conclusively that the symptoms were actually caused by the chipping.
I find it more interesting how people prefer anecdotal evidence over scientific evidence. For every single supplement that exists you'll always find someone with a story about how their horse went from a poor cripple to winning at Hickstead purely thanks to the supplement. And many manufacturers actually use anecdotal evidence in their advertising campaigns! But very few seem to present rigorous and independent scientfic evidence for their claims.
I've tried various supplements (usually chosen based on whatever scientific evidence I've found or on vets recommendation) and whilst I have seen some some improvements while using them, I've never been able to say without a doubt that it was the supplement and not some other management or seasonal change that happened during the same time period.
And slightly off topic....
I was really annoyed at Your Horse (I think) who did an article a few months back on reactions to micro-chipping. They printed the grisly stories of about 3 owners who blamed some weird symptoms on a recent micro-chipping and the whole article was scare-mongering!! Nowhere did they mention the number of horses chipped every year who had NO symptoms and in none of the stories were they able to say conclusively that the symptoms were actually caused by the chipping.
PaddyMonty
Well-Known Member
Is there any evidence that trolls evolve in to lovely forum members or the other way round? Just curious. Can someone be both, bit like the Hulk?
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
Going back on message for a while after laughing myself silly at the discussion about gravy (make mine with sausage,mash and mushy bees please) I believe in tradition, when it clearly works (aspirin, cold for inflammation, magnesium (epsom salts) for laminitics etc etc) and I am fascinated when science proves that old wives tales were right all the time.
Given a choice, I'd go for science every time, but a lot of what we do will never be properly scientifically tested.
Ironically, there is no scientifically valid evidence anywhere that shoes are the best treatment for either navicular or laminitis (yes there are studies, but they have tiny numbers and no control groups) and yet as a barefooter I hear the argument "showing us sound horses is anecdotal, give us your scientific evidence" all the time. Received wisdom, even when not scientifically based, is very difficult to shift.
Given a choice, I'd go for science every time, but a lot of what we do will never be properly scientifically tested.
Ironically, there is no scientifically valid evidence anywhere that shoes are the best treatment for either navicular or laminitis (yes there are studies, but they have tiny numbers and no control groups) and yet as a barefooter I hear the argument "showing us sound horses is anecdotal, give us your scientific evidence" all the time. Received wisdom, even when not scientifically based, is very difficult to shift.
Last edited:
JFTDWS
Well-Known Member
I have a few things to pick up on, but firstly, I have to ask why you're baaing at me, Ester? I had a history teacher at school who used to baaa at people when they were being woolly about dates and facts I may have done the same myself
Alibear, you're quite right - falsification is the aim of most science (or rather well designed studies are dependent on falsification) and relative verification comes from the repeated inability to falsify a claim. That's Karl Popper's falsification principle, anyway
And I agree that a lot of traditions can be supported by science, even if the tradition arose before the scientific rational was understood. So no shooting from here!
Furthermore, we're assuming that DQ doesn't believe in evolution for religious reasons. It is also possible she is unconvinced by the evidence on a scientific level without believing in creationism / ID / etc. It's possible there is an alternative, better explanation for the current evidence of which we are unaware and when the paradigm shift in scientific understanding happens we will be the ones looking dim for dismissing it out of hand, because of our own prejudices. Just a thought
And finally: I am yet to hear of a branch of science that claims "God did it"
Either you're dismissing science in history or you're unaware of the number of scientists who, historically, have attributed unexplaned phenomena within their theories to divine intervention. Some were obliged to do so by the church, certainly, but others appear to have believed their explanations. e.g. was it Kepler who claimed that God would have to keep resetting the elliptical orbits of the planets to prevent them being pulled off course by other interactions (? I think it was Kepler, anyway). It wasn't until later that the explanation of those forces balancing out to maintain orbits was acknowledged. I'm sure there are better and more comprehensive examples of that happening too... It's only relatively recently that science has claimed to have enough answers to allow for the lack of divine intervention to explain natural phenomena. Many scientists still do not believe that science has enough answers to explain everything and choose to fill the gaps with a religious belief. It's no different, imho to my choosing to fill the gaps with a belief in science which we just don't understand yet.
I may have done the same myself Alibear, you're quite right - falsification is the aim of most science (or rather well designed studies are dependent on falsification) and relative verification comes from the repeated inability to falsify a claim. That's Karl Popper's falsification principle, anyway
And I agree that a lot of traditions can be supported by science, even if the tradition arose before the scientific rational was understood. So no shooting from here!
Furthermore, we're assuming that DQ doesn't believe in evolution for religious reasons. It is also possible she is unconvinced by the evidence on a scientific level without believing in creationism / ID / etc. It's possible there is an alternative, better explanation for the current evidence of which we are unaware and when the paradigm shift in scientific understanding happens we will be the ones looking dim for dismissing it out of hand, because of our own prejudices. Just a thought
And finally: I am yet to hear of a branch of science that claims "God did it"
Either you're dismissing science in history or you're unaware of the number of scientists who, historically, have attributed unexplaned phenomena within their theories to divine intervention. Some were obliged to do so by the church, certainly, but others appear to have believed their explanations. e.g. was it Kepler who claimed that God would have to keep resetting the elliptical orbits of the planets to prevent them being pulled off course by other interactions (? I think it was Kepler, anyway). It wasn't until later that the explanation of those forces balancing out to maintain orbits was acknowledged. I'm sure there are better and more comprehensive examples of that happening too... It's only relatively recently that science has claimed to have enough answers to allow for the lack of divine intervention to explain natural phenomena. Many scientists still do not believe that science has enough answers to explain everything and choose to fill the gaps with a religious belief. It's no different, imho to my choosing to fill the gaps with a belief in science which we just don't understand yet.
Jesstickle
Well-Known Member
You think you were annoyed by that?! You should see how cross I get about the MMR jab! lol
AshTay
Well-Known Member
Me too!!!! (am an epidemiologist...)
fburton
Well-Known Member
I think it is considered more correct to attempt to disprove (falsify). At least, it is more fun.
I prefer to view science as a way of finding stuff out rather than a body of knowledge - the "scientific method".Maybe the process of evolution, as opposed to creation, hasn't been proved but the evidence for it is pretty overwhelming. Any scientist who doesn't believe in evolution would need to have some extraordinary data to show. However, the details of how it works are still being argued and researched, and I wouldn't say that Richard Dawkins' particular view is necessarily the final word by any means.
The hand of God guiding mutations and/or survival? Hmm, it seems like an unnecessary complication to me - but that's just my personal opinion/belief.
PucciNPoni
Well-Known Member
LOL, my thoughts exactly!
Jesstickle
Well-Known Member
ester
Not slacking multitasking
baaaaing is being a sheep and agreeing silly!
PucciNPoni
Well-Known Member
fburton
Well-Known Member
If by "fantastical" you mean wondrous then I completely agree (but disagree if you mean "unlikely").
JFTDWS
Well-Known Member
Isn't there a recent piece of legislation from the VMD which prevents supplements from claiming they work if they aren't supported by sufficient scientific evidence? I was hoping it might help with that particular problem. It drives me up the wall. I have been known to go round stalls at big horse shows and bicker with supplement and alternative therapy sales people about what constitutes evidence. I've never had one produce the results of an actual study and I've never had one admit that a case report of one bleeding horse doesn't constitute scientific proof.
Jesstickle, don't start me on believing in ghosts - I've had some truly alarming (to my blinkered existence) conversations with scientists who believe in all sorts of spectres
FionaM12
Well-Known Member
PaddyMonty
Well-Known Member
I firmly believe...
people dont read the entire thread before posting
JFTDWS
Well-Known Member
baaaaing is being a sheep and agreeing silly!
that's always nice I can completely understand why DQ hasn't chosen to enlighten us with regard to the specifics of her beliefs, from the way this thread is going. (Yet - maybe she's been busy!)
eta - Jess if you bring the MMR into this, I may have a meltdown. I'd rather there was no science at all that "bad" science on that sort of a level!
AshTay
Well-Known Member
Isn't there a recent piece of legislation from the VMD which prevents supplements from claiming they work if they aren't supported by sufficient scientific evidence? I was hoping it might help with that particular problem. It drives me up the wall. I have been known to go round stalls at big horse shows and bicker with supplement and alternative therapy sales people about what constitutes evidence. I've never had one produce the results of an actual study and I've never had one admit that a case report of one bleeding horse doesn't constitute scientific proof.
Jesstickle, don't start me on believing in ghosts - I've had some truly alarming (to my blinkered existence) conversations with scientists who believe in all sorts of spectres
Yeah - I think they're allowed to say "might" or "may" but it's so subtle.
I don't *believe* in ghosts but I do find myself easily spooked by noises and glowing eyes in the dark when sorting the horses in the evening.
FionaM12
Well-Known Member
I firmly believe...
people dont read the entire thread before posting
Hahaha! You got me there! I always do, but somehow mistook the bottom of page one as the end of the thread. Doh. Realized my mistake after I'd posted.
Forgive me, I've just returned from a 26 hour shift and have had no sleep...
JFTDWS
Well-Known Member
subtle yes, but it's a step in the right direction.
I must look up the exact terms so I can have some fun and give them hell at YHL on Saturday
PaddyMonty
Well-Known Member
Now come on, you know better than to ask for forgiveness. This is HHO where the smallest of transgressions will be punished severly (according to the old wives on here at least).Forgive me, I've just returned from a 26 hour shift and have had no sleep...
Added the bit in brackets to keep it on topic.
AshTay
Well-Known Member
subtle yes, but it's a step in the right direction.
I must look up the exact terms so I can have some fun and give them hell at YHL on Saturday
Do it!! I avoid them.
My point though was what owners actually believe - how many would choose a supplement based on anecdotal evidence from a friend rather than based on any published findings.