"Not all Truth is true..."

The difference is, that people are not killing millions over a cooking recipe that has been improvised.

The comparison, on the surface seems legit enough, until you think of the consequences such actions bring about, and then it starts to fall apart.

When it comes to holy books from times that were much more ignorant and superstitious, I have to say there is certainly an inherent danger in being inspired in a time where we know quite a bit more about the world, and many things that were the realm of deities are now basically understood things.

Since an analogy of a bible and cookbook came about, lets look at an analogy of a bible,(or any old holy book) and an older medical book.

No self respecting doctor would use techniques of diagnostics, or surgery from an older time in medical history. Unless it has been proven true to be better, more accurate, etc. Better to say, you would only go back so far, but we have far better technology today, MRIs, CT scans, Ultrasounds, etc as well as just trying to interpret symptoms.

An example, at one time, people thought rubbing dog excrement in the eyes of a blind person would restore there sight.

Today, such a thought is beneath even common sense.

Older ways of doing surgery are not done today, hell, at one time, they didnt even understand that you needed a sterile environment.

Now, certain surgical techniques have been improvised, and changed, and evolved, and if the percentage of survival, better recovery times, an less chance of infection are higher, you do that surgery, and you may have to do a version of an older one if there are unforseen complications. Appendectomies are a good example of this. Most are done laparoscopically, but you may have to do an open if the appendix has burst.

However, you will not go back very far into medical procedures, and they certainly are not going to go extremely far back.

Now someone may bring up maggots, yes, maggots are still used, an were used in older times, most times, not by choice, as you simply couldnt keep them out, but they served the same purpose and are used today in some cases. However, we now know why we use them as opposed to any superstitious or non esense meaning, and they are not used commonly, as we have other methods of debridement of wounds.

Medicines methods evolves, but the base philosophy stands, to heal the sick.

Medicine will move forward though with its methods and while you could argue improvisation happens, it is not necessarily as beneficial as one might think and the risk goes up quite a bit. Surgery is an example of this.

Now, what, in this world has hindered the forward growth of medicine and science more than anything else in this day and age?

Fundamentalist religions.

Keep in mind that the next time you harp on pills used to alter peoples minds etc, that at one time, they prescribed heroin and cocaine outright. Freud prescribed cocaine and did enough to put the Rolling Stones to shame.

I also disagree that there is no wisdom in books. Largely, if we are talking about books that you have to interpret then perhaps, which any book based on a very old and most likely outdated method of thinking,by people who could never have even conceived of a word that we have now, well, yeah, they would probably not even have written such a book, in fact, they wouldnt even have the same worldview. There interpretation would have been much different.

However, there are plenty of books with wisdom in them that are readily applicable to todays world. There simply not religious or philosophical ones.

So in short, should I really be trying to interpret or apply a worldview from people who thought that dog excrement would cure blindness? Or something of the like?

Would you argue that putting dog excrement in someones eyes to cure blindness is true or not?

Truth, if it is truth, is true.

there is a difference between truth and facts.
In general, truths are subjective while facts should be objective.

there is a difference between truth and facts.
In general, truths are subjective while facts should be objective.

I know, and in most cases, it would be best if people stuck to the facts, but there selfish enough to think the truth is more important.

Or accuracy. I do not consider accuracy to be wisdom... though perhaps a complex chain of accuracy might be viewed as wisdom. Medical textbooks are just getting more accurate with targeting desired results as knowledge increases, while I'd probably view wisdom as the experience of putting two disparate accuracies together to be effective in a new manner for example.

Khaos wrote:

there is a difference between truth and facts.
In general, truths are subjective while facts should be objective.

I know, and in most cases, it would be best if people stuck to the facts, but there selfish enough to think the truth is more important.

Right place, right time. Hammers and Screwdrivers. Or?... hammers and nails (or screwdrivers and screws)... one needing the other to have any meaning. Why isolate? Are not both relevant?

Khaos wrote:
Would you argue that putting dog excrement in someones eyes to cure blindness is true or not?.

It is neither "Truth" nor fact, any longer....

But when it WAS, it was a fact, cause my cousin, heard it from a guy he knows who is wise in such things...

Facts are true, until they are proven wrong as well...

I know, and in most cases, it would be best if people stuck to the facts, but there selfish enough to think the truth is more important.

See, life is interpretation...

I dont go around telling you you are using words wrong, something you do quite often...

It doesnt add to the conversation...

its about seeing the message that is being said...

Yet, you argue for facts...

Here is a fact...

I know, and in most cases, it would be best if people stuck to the facts, but [strike]there[/strike] their selfish enough to think the truth is more important.

I do this, not to be a jerk, but to show you that you have to be able to look beyond what is presented to you, to understand what people are saying...

And, no offence, but you do it more that you'd suspect...

I have never pointed it out, because there is probable some fallacy I am using, lol... My fallacy teacher should PM me in a bit to let me know..... And despite the rumors, I am not a jerk, lol...

Its ok, I get what you mean, but remember that most of us are trying to communicate as well, and dont always use the 'right' word either...

This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from the first Men in Black.

Tommy Lee Jones as Agent K wrote: 1,500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

Yes this is from a fictional source, but I still think it has relevance and truth here.

_{(see what I did there with the truth. :laugh: )}

Jestor wrote:

Khaos wrote: I know, and in most cases, it would be best if people stuck to the facts, but [strike]there[/strike] [strike]their[/strike] they're selfish enough to think the truth is more important.

Gisteron wrote:

Jestor wrote:

Khaos wrote: I know, and in most cases, it would be best if people stuck to the facts, but [strike]there[/strike] [strike]their[/strike] [strike]they're[/strike] they are selfish enough to think the truth is more important.

Haha, couldn't resist :side: