Re: OT: 'Devil' in milk risk to health, scientist claims.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> G'day G'day Folks,
>
> Each day we are subjected to newspaper headlines designed to grab
> our attention. Some are worthy of our attention. Some might cause us
> to form new beliefs. Rather than let myself be drawn into an emotional
> response to these headline grabbing articles, I have found it helpful
> to deal with such news articles using a systematic approach which I'd
> like to share with you all. FWIIW, I hope you'll soon notice some
> marked difference between what was presented on HFCS and this
> scientist's claims.
>
> The original mnemonic was LEOR though one of my friends has suggested
> that LORE is easier to remember. I'll let you be the judge of that.
>
> L is for logic.
> E is for emotive appeal.
> O is for omissions.
> R is for references.
>
> It works a bit like "seven hats" or any other systematic approach that
> encourages one to look at different aspects one at a time instead of
> being swept along. Humans have a high level of skill in subjective
> reasoning when dealing with well defined areas. They are also easily
> deluded into believing they can also reach general conclusions in the
> same manner. Research shows they NEED an approach that encourages
> them to focus on one thing at a time.
>
> Let's take a look at the use of logic.
>
> "Devil' in milk risk to health, scientist claims.
>
> Think about that for a moment.
>
> No scientist would publish an article subject to peer review using the
> word devil.
Unless the study is about the devil.
> What would the safe level for the concentration of devil in milk be?
By definition, the devil is a person and not a substance.
> Is there a linear relationship between devil concentration and danger
> in milk or is there some threshold?
See above.
> These are the sort of questions a scientist would ask.
Actually a true scientist would immediately see an erroneous
application of a definition.
> What technique would fellow scientists accept as a reproducible
> technique for measuring the devil content of milk?
They would have to get past the erroneous application of a definition
first.
> This is the basis of scientific method.
Actually, the correct application of definitions in making
observations is a prerequisite for the scientific method rather than a
basis for it.
> Many scientists don't even accept the existence of things unless they
> are in some way measurable... When they are being scientists.
Actually, true scientists are fully capable of accepting the existence
of things that are not measurable. We call this making assumptions.
> Do scientists believe in devils and/or angels?
There are many scientists who believe in the existence of GOD, HIS
angels, and satan (aka the devil formerly known as archangel Lucifer).
> In their private life it's optional. In science it is not.
For true scientists, all things are possible and not off-limits for
application of the scientific method. Science is search for the
truth. It logically follows that those scientists who find the truth
are the most proficient at science :-)
> There is a well established rule called Occam's razor which says one
> should not introduce anything into a hypothesis that is unnecessary.
> Devils and angels etc are unnecessary.
Unless of course they are part of the hypothesis :-)
For example, a scientist could hypothesize that GOD's angels have
bodies that can materialize and dematerialize at will.
To test this hypothesis, a true scientist could humbly ask GOD to send
an angel to appear and LORD willing, the scientist would gather data
about the manner by which the angel appears and then subsequently how
the angel disappears.
May reading this help Jesus' brethren understand that GOD is indeed
sovereign in all aspects of our lives even in scientific areas.
The brethren of LORD Jesus Christ are neither perfect nor more
special...
... we are simply forgiven by GOD:
http://www.interviewwithgod.com/forgiven/
May you wisely choose to be forgiven too by publicly declaring with
your mouth that "Jesus is LORD:"
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/TheWay
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/PressRelease
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Cardiologist
tr...@is-best.com
For true scientists, all things are possible and not off-limits for
application of the scientific method. Science is search for the
truth. It logically follows that those scientists who find the truth
are the most proficient at science :-)
> There is a well established rule called Occam's razor which says one
> should not introduce anything into a hypothesis that is unnecessary.
> Devils and angels etc are unnecessary.
"Unless of course they are part of the hypothesis :-)
For example, a scientist could hypothesize that GOD's angels have bodies
that can materialize and dematerialize at will.
To test this hypothesis, a true scientist could humbly ask GOD to send
an angel to appear and LORD willing, the scientist would gather data
about the manner by which the angel appears and then subsequently how
the angel disappears."
Have you done this experiment? One would have to have it confirmed by
others if it is to be considered a valid scientific explanation. If it
is a hit and miss experience of one person then there are other
scientific explanations.
To be able to invent a notion and even a possible test does not it
science make. Substitute summoning a ufo by request for the above as an
example of the same thing. Only when results are produced as projected
will the notion find confirmation.
God bless.