Re: (Fwd) Re: guidelines/ethics

Eugene Leitl (
Mon, 23 Dec 1996 06:55:56 +0100 (MET)

On Sun, 22 Dec 1996, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:

> > Obviously, you misunderstood. I was referring to good science, while
> > medicine does not qualify as science at all.
> Am I missing sarcasm here, or do you really think there is some
> connection between that slander and reality? I think the /millions/
> of lives saved by good, rational, science in medicine over the

What has the fact that medicine is (mostly) (very) useful to do with its
scientific status? Granted, medicine has a higher status than domestic
science, but still _distinctly_ lower than e.g. chemistry, which is not
good science at all.

> last few decades, despite the public's continued fascination with
> mystical bullshit like astrology, homeopathy, and "alternative"
> medicines are more than sufficient evidence.