WP: CBO says health care repeal would deepen deficit

[shk75]

It isn't a chicken or an egg argument. People have known about TB and Polio and other infectious diseases for a long time.

Small pox was essentially eliminated from the US by 1900. Polio not until around 1960.

What was the difference? The small pox vaccine was created long before the polio vaccine. The difference had nothing to do with our ability to track diseases, organize vaccination programs, or track break outs. The difference is solely the difference in the time frame in which the vaccines were created.

Wow you must really dislike epidemiologists. I mean public health systems do no good. Look at Haiti and the DR. I am currently conducting research in the DR, compare the outbreak in both places. Many Haitians have the same access to drugs as those in the DR yet the outbreak has not spread in the DR largely because of the infrastructure of their infectious response team and their monitoring. I know this because I have seen it first hand in communities like Dajabon which shares a border with Haiti. I have been in both countries and seen just how important the monitoring is in order to quell outbreaks. The most dangerous part of an infectious disease is the fear of mass outbreak and for you to feel that the part of public health that deals with outbreak is not just as necessary as the drugs that are used to treat them is laughable at best and shows your lack of field experience.

Also do you know why MDR-TB and XDR-TB exist, please tell these people on the forum how these came to existence.

[PeterMP]

Wow you must really dislike epidemiologists. I mean public health systems do no good. Look at Haiti and the DR. I am currently conducting research in the DR, compare the outbreak in both places. Many Haitians have the same access to drugs as those in the DR yet the outbreak has not spread in the DR largely because of the infrastructure of their infectious response team and their monitoring. I know this because I have seen it first hand in communities like Dajabon which shares a border with Haiti. I have been in both countries and seen just how important the monitoring is in order to quell outbreaks. The most dangerous part of an infectious disease is the fear of mass outbreak and for you to feel that the part of public health that deals with outbreak is not just as necessary as the drugs that are used to treat them is laughable at best and shows your lack of field experience.

Also do you know why MDR-TB and XDR-TB exist, please tell these people on the forum how these came to existence.

I don't dislike epidemiologists or think public health are useless.

Epidemiologists and public health systems provide a very important function. Public health being more important than epidemiology (and probably even more important than drugs since basic things like sanitation can also be placed in the field of public health).

However, the fact of the matter is without drugs the best epidemiology never cured anybody.

Given a drug and even very bad epidemiology, at least some people will get treated.

The new evolution of drug resistance of TB is meaningless in the absence of any drugs to kill TB. The new antibiotic resistance gets you back to where you started before the drugs in the first place, even with bad epidemiology some people will have been treated before that evolution happens in any case.

If two things aren't equal, there is nothing wrong with saying it, and it doesn't mean that I dislike one of the other.

[shk75]

I don't dislike epidemiologists or think public health are useless.

Epidemiologists and public health systems provide a very important function. Public health being more important than epidemiology (and probably even more important than drugs since basic things like sanitation can also be placed in the field of public health).

However, the fact of the matter is without drugs the best epidemiology never cured anybody.

Given a drug and even very bad epidemiology, at least some people will get treated.

The new evolution of drug resistance of TB is meaningless in the absence of any drugs to kill TB. The new antibiotic resistance gets you back to where you started before the drugs in the first place, even with bad epidemiology some people will have been treated before that evolution happens in any case.

So now you seem to be agreeing with me and say exactly what I said before. From the posts you make on here it seems like you are in the drug industry or maybe a lobbyists I don't know. It seems to me that you got offended when I said the monitoring, distribution, and systems are just as important as the drugs and go hand in hand. It is why when there is no real system for a disease like TB a drug can create resistance. This resistance can then lead to the development of more expensive drugs and a revaluation of how the lack of drug supply and outbreak monitoring standards created the resistance in the first place. This is why the WHO came up with DOTS and DOTS+ as a method to treat TB because they realized that all the great drugs in the world would do nothing if the systems were not in place.

You seemed to reject my chicken and egg comment and maybe it is not the best analogy in that one does not need to come before the other. The point is ask anyone in the field of infectious disease they will agree that the systems to distribute, monitor, and control outbreaks are equally as important as the drugs used to treat them.

Edit:

Also your claim that epidemiology without drugs never cured anyone is once again false. Why don't you google John Snow. Any epidemiologist knows who this man is and I think you should look him up it might change your story a little.

[PeterMP]

So now you seem to be agreeing with me and say exactly what I said before. From the posts you make on here it seems like you are in the drug industry or maybe a lobbyists I don't know. It seems to me that you got offended when I said the monitoring, distribution, and systems are just as important as the drugs and go hand in hand. It is why when there is no real system for a disease like TB a drug can create resistance. This resistance can then lead to the development of more expensive drugs and a revaluation of how the lack of drug supply and outbreak monitoring standards created the resistance in the first place. This is why the WHO came up with DOTS and DOTS+ as a method to treat TB because they realized that all the great drugs in the world would do nothing if the systems were not in place.

You seemed to reject my chicken and egg comment and maybe it is not the best analogy in that one does not need to come before the other. The point is ask anyone in the field of infectious disease they will agree that the systems to distribute, monitor, and control outbreaks are equally as important as the drugs used to treat them.

Edit:

Also your claim that epidemiology without drugs never cured anyone is once again false. Why don't you google John Snow. Any epidemiologist knows who this man is and I think you should look him up it might change your story a little.

Does it matter what I do?

Who did Snow cure? Wait, he actually cured nobody.

What was the underlying problem in the Snow case, public health and sanitation.

No, I think I'll stand by my statement.

[shk75]

Does it matter what I do?

Who did Snow cure? Wait, he actually cured nobody.

What was the underlying problem in the Snow case, public health and sanitation.

No, I think I'll stand by my statement.

The point is you are drawing a false conclusion. You say drugs are more important that epidemiology because they can cure people just by themselves. Yet you ignore that epidemiology can save lives with out drugs by preventing the people from getting sick in the first place. If you want to stand by your statement that they are not equally important and do not go hand and hand than that is ok. It will just confirm to me that you really do not know what you are talking about.

[PeterMP]

The point is you are drawing a false conclusion. You say drugs are more important that epidemiology because they can cure people just by themselves. Yet you ignore that epidemiology can save lives with out drugs by preventing the people from getting sick in the first place. If you want to stand by your statement that they are not equally important and do not go hand and hand than that is ok. It will just confirm to me that you really do not know what you are talking about.

I didn't ignore anything or draw a false conclusion.

You like putting words in people's mouths, don't you?

Your initial post said most important. Then you came around with your chicken and egg analogy.

[shk75]

I didn't ignore anything or draw a false conclusion.

You like putting words in people's mouths, don't you?

Of course you did. You said drugs are more important. I said why would you say that. You said because drugs can cure people, epidemiology can't. Well epidemiology can prevent people from getting the disease in the first place and therefore people would not need the drugs so they would not be sick. You say epidemiology cannot cure people, but what is better having to be cured or not even getting sick in the first place? Epidemiology has saved MILLIONS of lives, so have drugs.

Edit: I said many feel that it is more important yes. I did not say I do. Personally I feel they are equally as important. The reason I said others feel that drugs are not as important is because I have been in the field and I have been in developing nations, right now I am working in the DR. I have seen firsthand how important the delivery and monitoring systems are and how crucial supply chain management is. When these fail all the drugs in the world will be ineffective.

[PeterMP]

Of course you did. You said drugs are more important. I said why would you say that. You said because drugs can cure people, epidemiology can't. Well epidemiology can prevent people from getting the disease in the first place and therefore people would not need the drugs so they would not be sick. You say epidemiology cannot cure people, but what is better having to be cured or not even getting sick in the first place? Epidemiology has saved MILLIONS of lives, so have drugs.

So now, we are making up numbers and calling them equal.

Well, I guess that is better than saying most.

Epidemology is useful, but it is only effective in saving lives in the context of public health (e.g. sanitation) and drugs.

The other two can saves lives in the absence of good epidemology.

[shk75]

So now, we are making up numbers and calling them equal.

Well, I guess that is better than saying most.

Epidemology is useful, but it is only effective in saving lives in the context of public health (e.g. sanitation) and drugs.

The other two can saves lives in the absence of good epidemology.

Peter once again you are going to deny that epidemiology has not saved Millions of lives. You are going to say that the science of studying epidemics and learning how to control them has not saved millions of lives since its invention 150 years ago? Of course nobody knows how much one has saved versus the other. But what people with any type of experience in the field do know is that they work hand in hand and one without the other is a recipe for failure.

Edit: Also I am beginning to question if you actually know what epidemiology even is. Your statement that "it is only effective in saving lives in the context of public health (e.g. sanitation) and drugs" is so false it is almost like you just don't know anything about the field. If you have not taken classes on it I don't blame you for not knowing what it is which is why I would like you to state your field experience or knowledge on this area and please don't say I read a lot of articles off the internet lol.

[PeterMP]

Peter once again you are going to deny that epidemiology has not saved Millions of lives. You are going to say that the science of studying epidemics and learning how to control them has not saved millions of lives since its invention 150 years ago? Of course nobody knows how much one has saved versus the other. But what people with any type of experience in the field do know is that they work hand in hand and one without the other is a recipe for failure.

Edit: Also I am beginning to question if you actually know what epidemiology even is. Your statement that "it is only effective in saving lives in the context of public health (e.g. sanitation) and drugs" is so false it is almost like you just don't know anything about the field. If you have not taken classes on it I don't blame you for not knowing what it is which is why I would like you to state your field experience or knowledge on this area and please don't say I read a lot of articles off the internet lol.

Information, in of to itself, can not save lives (it also doesn't kill people).

People, things, and actions save lives.

[shk75]

Information, in of to itself, can not save lives (it also doesn't kill people).

People, things, and actions save lives.

HAHAHAHAH this may be your most comical post yet. This right here just proves to me you are grasping. How are drugs created in the first place? With information. Epidemiology is the basis of any drug research and approval process. If you do not have information how do you know what kind of drugs to create? How do you know what populations to target? How do you know if one drug is more effective than the other if you do not have a control group? Do they just appear out of nowhere? ALL OF THIS is epidemiology. I know I have said this before but I am done.

[PeterMP]

HAHAHAHAH this may be your most comical post yet. This right here just proves to me you are grasping. How are drugs created in the first place? With information. Epidemiology is the basis of any drug research and approval process. If you do not have information how do you know what kind of drugs to create? How do you know what populations to target? How do you know if one drug is more effective than the other if you do not have a control group? Do they just appear out of nowhere? ALL OF THIS is epidemiology. I know I have said this before but I am done.

You really don't get it, do you?

If information and science can save lives than it can kill people. If science and information kills and/or saves people, you can talk about science being good and evil.

No scientists will ever want to go in this direction.

And it just isn't accurate.

If epidemology has saved lives, then we can talk about biochemistry and organic chemistry saving lives. They have been the science that have been the foundation of drugs for decades so lot's of lives there. They are also the science underlying pesticides and herbicides and so are an important part of the agricultural revolution that has allowed the world's population to reach what it has so lot's more of lives.

But if they are saving lives, then they are also killing people. They are also the sciences underlying many posions, toxins, and WMD.

if they've killed and saved people, then we can start summing up they've killed and saved, and look at who they have killed and saved and since we make moral judgements about people (e.g. Hitler was evil (partly because he killed people) and Mother Theresa was good (partly because she worked to save people's lives), we can make moral decisions about the value those savings and killings and therefore those fields of science.

if we make moral judgments about those fields of sciences, then we can make a moral judgment about science as a whole.

Organic, biochemistry, and epidemology have never saved anybody. Nor have they ever killed anybody. Snow didn't save anybody's life. He gathered information that led other people to take actions that saved people's lives. Even in the case where an epidemiologists also where a hat in public healthy, the epidemiology doesn't save lives. The person does the epidemiologists side of the job, and then in the public health part of the job make decisions based on the information in epidemiology.

Climate science does not make any statements about what actions should be taken with respect to climate change. It says there will be a significant affect as a result of our CO2 out put. People, including, some who are climate scientists make public policy decisions based on that information.

If we start talking the way you want, we can conclude that science is good or evil (based on the people that it has killed and saved). Anybody that wants to conclude that science is good or evil needs to take a good science philosophy class. I'd expect that type of language to be used by the general public, but not by anybody that is actually claiming to be a scientist.

And yes, epidemiology is important with respect to the use of drugs and even identifying drug targets. Epidemiology saves lives in the context of drugs, as i've already stated.

i have a PhD in biochemistry and work in an institution of higher education where I am in a chemistry dept and teach biochemistry, but my research is mostly informatic in nature at this time. I program in 5 languages, thought the only programming class I've ever had was an introductory programming class in C as an undergrad, and C isn't one of the programs, I count myself as being able to program (as I haven't done any programming in it since I was an undergrad), and I've never had a formal class in statistics.

[JMS]

and please don't say I read a lot of articles off the internet lol.

Easy there ace.

[shk75]

You really don't get it, do you?

If information and science can save lives than it can kill people. If science and information kills and/or saves people, you can talk about science being good and evil.

No scientists will ever want to go in this direction.

And it just isn't accurate.

If epidemology has saved lives, then we can talk about biochemistry and organic chemistry saving lives. They have been the science that have been the foundation of drugs for decades so lot's of lives there. They are also the science underlying pesticides and herbicides and so are an important part of the agricultural revolution that has allowed the world's population to reach what it has so lot's more of lives.

But if they are saving lives, then they are also killing people. They are also the sciences underlying many posions, toxins, and WMD.

if they've killed and saved people, then we can start summing up they've killed and saved, and look at who they have killed and saved and since we make moral judgements about people (e.g. Hitler was evil (partly because he killed people) and Mother Theresa was good (partly because she worked to save people's lives), we can make moral decisions about the value those savings and killings and therefore those fields of science.

if we make moral judgments about those fields of sciences, then we can make a moral judgment about science as a whole.

Organic, biochemistry, and epidemology have never saved anybody. Nor have they ever killed anybody. Snow didn't save anybody's life. He gathered information that led other people to take actions that saved people's lives. Even in the case where an epidemiologists also where a hat in public healthy, the epidemiology doesn't save lives. The person does the epidemiologists side of the job, and then in the public health part of the job make decisions based on the information in epidemiology.

Climate science does not make any statements about what actions should be taken with respect to climate change. It says there will be a significant affect as a result of our CO2 out put. People, including, some who are climate scientists make public policy decisions based on that information.

If we start talking the way you want, we can conclude that science is good or evil (based on the people that it has killed and saved). Anybody that wants to conclude that science is good or evil needs to take a good science philosophy class. I'd expect that type of language to be used by the general public, but not by anybody that is actually claiming to be a scientist.

And yes, epidemiology is important with respect to the use of drugs and even identifying drug targets. Epidemiology saves lives in the context of drugs, as i've already stated.

i have a PhD in biochemistry and work in an institution of higher education where I am in a chemistry dept and teach biochemistry, but my research is mostly informatic in nature at this time. I program in 5 languages, thought the only programming class I've ever had was an introductory programming class in C as an undergrad, and C isn't one of the programs, I count myself as being programmed (as I haven't done any programming in it since I was an undergrad), and I've never had a formal class in statistics.

I am not about to get into a philosophical debate about information and the good or evil it can do. This is getting way off topic and all it started with me stating that anyone who has field experience in the area of infectious disease will agree that the systems of distribution, monitoring, epidemiology are just as important as the drugs themselves. I have no idea if the information discovered by epidemiology has killed more lives than it has saved (although I HIGHLY doubt it). I also have no way of knowing if the information used to create drugs has killed more people than it has saved (once again highly doubt it).

Also I knew you had something to do with pharmaceuticals/drugs Let's just leave it here because I think this thread is kind of getting out of control.

Edit: Just out of curiosity, how is it that a PHD program does not require any type of statistics course. Is that the norm? Was that only at your institution? It would seem you would take that class especially since myself as a masters student, not even PHD, I was required to take biostats and I was studying health policy. It seems odd that a biochemist would not have to at least take biostats but maybe that is the norm, I am just curious.

[PeterMP]

Edit: Just out of curiosity, how is it that a PHD program does not require any type of statistics course. Is that the norm? Was that only at your institution? It would seem you would take that class especially since myself as a masters student, not even PHD, I was required to take biostats and I was studying health policy. It seems odd that a biochemist would not have to at least take biostats but maybe that is the norm, I am just curious.

Actually, technically I have a PhD in chemistry (there are some biochemistry deparments now, but they were extremely rare when I did my PhD and most biochemists either came out of chemistry departments or molecule biology departments and this is still probably true today), but my research was really biochemistry.

It isn't uncommon for departments that are chemistry in nature, where there are some biochemists not to offer a class in statistics and generally graduate programs that sit in a department don't require people to take a class outside of the department. It also isn't uncommon for them not to require any particular class (I had absolutely no required classes that I had to take, but there were limits that essentially prevented you from taking certain combinations of classes).

This is true still today at highly though of institutions. The PhD program at MIT has no class requirements:

http://web.mit.edu/chemistry/www/academic/Grad_Guide_10.pdf

"The Chemistry Department offers a flexible program that allows students to select courses

tailored to their individual background and research interests. No specific courses are required

for the degree, but keep in mind that your first year courses may affect your preparation for

research in different areas of chemistry and could affect your qualifications to work with a

particular faculty member."

**EDIT***

And information doesn't do anything.

[JMS]

HAHAHAHAH this may be your most comical post yet.

You really don't get it, do you?

Making light of the other persons opinion just taints the conversation and makes it less useful. A cold reasoned rebuttle would do more to clarify your cases than the feigned incredulity.

shk75, pete is hard to discuss things with. Not because he's not bright, knowledgabe, well informed, and honest in his discussions. all of which he is. It's hard to discuss things with him because he is very precise in his use of the language. I've accused him of arguing pedantics many times, but it's really about decerning his precise meaning and speaking to it.

If information and science can save lives than it can kill people. If science and information kills and/or saves people, you can talk about science being good and evil..

Information can certainly kill people. If hitler had known the location and date of D-Day invasion it would have cost lives. Likewsie the bay of pigs. In a scientific sense I assume you are speaking to a distinction between the mere pocession of knowledge and acting upon that knowledge... If somebody has a heart attack, and their life is saved by someone proximal who knows CPR; is it the guy's knowledge that saved the man, or his actions. I would argue it's both. Without the knowledge the action would likely not be possible..

I would also note that science can kill and science can be evil too. Joseoph Megele comes to mind. He considered himself a scientist and he was certainly evil... Now you might not consider him a scientist and thus he falls outside of the microcosm you are discribing; and that is really were the argument lies. If you get to determine what is an is not science; then you can simple exclude bad science or evil science as unrelated to your point. Which is not a very interesting argument or discussion technique. To proclaim the exceptions that do not fall under your blanket statement arbitrarily irrelivent or unrelated is powerful, but uninteresting.

Since most of us don't have a pocket edition of PeteMP to carry around with us, in order to make the determinations (what is or is not science); we must come up with other qualitative metrics. That is esentially the central idea behind scientific ethics. The study of moral values and judgments as they apply to science. Moral being concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action.. I don't think you would say their is no such thing as medical or scientific ethics would you?

(note: my definitions for ethics and moral are from the dictionary and not arbitrarily assigned.)

[PeterMP]

shk75, pete is hard to discuss things with. Not because he's not bright, knowledgabe and honest in his discussions. all of which he is. It's hard to discuss things with him because he is very precise in his use of the language. I've accused him of arguing pedantics many times, but it's really about decerning his precise meaning and speaking to it.

I was actually going to put this in a post, but decided not to, but since you brought it up. The first time you called me pedantic, I was upset (and probably tried to explain why I wasn't being pedantic). Then over time, I realized to a non-scientists I probably am very pedantic with respect to ideas and knowledge.

I frequently have students asks me if they should understand the big picture for the tests or the details. My response invaribly is something like, they should understand the big picture, put realistically, you don't understand the big picture if you don't know the details. You can't make an accurate big picture without putting the details together.

Another example is after somebody has been in my lab for about 2 weeks, I sit down with them and go through the their lab notebook and quiz them on what they've done. Regularly, the conversation concludes with me holding my hand at waist level and telling them their attention to detail is there, and then moving my hand to about shoulder level and telling them they have to get it to there (this is such a regular thing that I've learned it is something that my students will imitate to one another after they've made a mistake or something related to not paying enough attention to detail).

My PhD advisor used to lecture us on carefully separating what we know, from what we think we know, from what we think. What do you know about the research project, how do you know it? What do you think, why do you think it?

It probably doesn't help that my wife is also a scientists.

To a lot of non-scientists, I probably live in a pedantic home.

Oh, and again, information doesn't do anything.

[shk75]

Actually, technically I have a PhD in chemistry (there are some biochemistry deparments now, but they were extremely rare when I did my PhD and most biochemists either came out of chemistry departments or molecule biology departments and this is still probably true today), but my research was really biochemistry.

It isn't uncommon for departments that are chemistry in nature, where there are some biochemists not to offer a class in statistics and generally graduate programs that sit in a department don't require people to take a class outside of the department. It also isn't uncommon for them not to require any particular class (I had absolutely no required classes that I had to take, but there were limits that essentially prevented you from taking certain combinations of classes).

This is true still today at highly though of institutions. The PhD program at MIT has no class requirements:

http://web.mit.edu/chemistry/www/academic/Grad_Guide_10.pdf

"The Chemistry Department offers a flexible program that allows students to select courses

tailored to their individual background and research interests. No specific courses are required

for the degree, but keep in mind that your first year courses may affect your preparation for

research in different areas of chemistry and could affect your qualifications to work with a

particular faculty member."

**EDIT***

And information doesn't do anything.

That is interesting I would have assumed you guys took a stats class but I guess not, good to know.

Edit: And I have never accused Pete of not being smart or intelligent, I think he has made some good points and anyone with a PHD in biochemistry is going to be intelligent. I think the problem I have is his point on infectious disease and how drugs are more important when, to my knowledge, he has no experience in the actual field and may not know just how important everything involved around the drugs themselves are.

Anyone who has worked in public health or in organizations that deal with health or maybe gone to a conference knows that the arguments going on between me and Pete are extremely typical in this field. Doctors and scientists often say public health professionals have no idea about what they are talking about and how important hard science is. Public health professionals argue that scientists dont think often enough at the population level and that you have to think about the bigger picture. It often turns into a big pissing match, much like this thread so I am very used to his reactions lol and I am sure he is used to mine.

[PeterMP]

Anyone who has worked in public health or in organizations that deal with health or maybe gone to a conference knows that the arguments going on between me and Pete are extremely typical in this field. Doctors and scientists often say public health professionals have no idea about what they are talking about and how important hard science is. Public health professionals argue that scientists dont think often enough at the population level and that you have to think about the bigger picture. It often turns into a big pissing match, much like this thread so I am very used to his reactions lol and I am sure he is used to mine.

Except, I've already admitted that public health, in general, is the most important thing. I've admitted that a thing (drugs), are more important than science (information) with respect to saving lives, and I've admitted that the general field of public health has saved more lives than drugs (and did this before you brought up the likes of Snow).

Good global sanitation (which is the result of public health actions and policy) alone probably saves more lives than drugs.

The information of epidemiology alone is useless with respect to saving lives. Epidemology saves lives in the context of drugs and public health.

If you read my posts with respect to saving lives, it is clear that I would rank public health (which I'm using to cover lot's of things such as sanitation (though this is clear from posts)) > drugs > epidemology (a field of science).

You seem to be suggesting that my posts indicate that I'm arguing science should be #1, which is not at all consistent with my posts.

[JMS]

Oh, and again, information doesn't do anything.

So you are equating information and science here? Did you focus your precise lexical processor on that before you tossed it out there?

science - systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

information - knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; factual data: His wealth of general information is amazing.

The definition in dictionary.com seems to support you. I would have argued science is the systematic pursuit of knowledge. How you go about collecting and catoragizing knowledge. Not the mere pocession of it. I would not equate the two.

Likewise if information "doesn't do anything" why do we commit trillions of dollars globally in the pursuit of information? seriously if it does nothing as you say; what good is something that does nothing? Information certainly does something and scientists certainly must "do something" to obtain their information.

[PeterMP]

So you are equating information and science here? Did you focus your precise lexical processor on that before you tossed it out there?

science - systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

information - knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; factual data: His wealth of general information is amazing.

The definition in dictionary.com seems to support you. I would have argued science is the systematic pursuit of knowledge. How you go about collecting and catoragizing knowledge. Not the mere pocession of it. I would not equate the two.

Likewise if information "doesn't do anything" why do we commit trillions of dollars globally in the pursuit of information? seriously if it does nothing as you say; what good is something that does nothing? Information certainly does something and scientists certainly must "do something" to obtain their information.

The word science is used in multiple ways, but certainly a perfectly valid way is as information uncovered using the scientific method. Science is in fact from the latin word knowledge. Some people use the word science as you are suggesting, but I would prefer to use the term scientific process or method.

Knowledge would be the scope of all information known to humans. Science would be the scope of knowledge obtained using the scientific method (things like math don't fall into the scientific method and so are not science).

Scienctists carry out the scientific method. Knowledge (and science as a subset of knowledge) allows us (but doesn't cause us) to do things in most cases.

Going back your man that did CPR. Why'd he do the CPR? Not, simply because he knew how to. Why'd he even learn to do CPR?

He didn't use the scientific method in the determination to do CPR in that particular case or when deciding how to do CPR.

He did it because there has been a judgment that life is worth saving and holding onto (whether this is knowledge would get into whether you believe in an objective morality, but if you want to go in that direction, I'd suggest you PM techboy). That judgment though is not science. Nobody has ever conducted an experiment that allowed us to conclude that dying is worth X amount of time and money. The judgment that life is worth holding onto underlies the action. The science gives you the ability to act, but it isn't the cause.. The same thing is true for drug development and public health.

Science is the knowledge that allows us to do these things, but it doesn't normally cause us to do them. We carry out the scientific method to identify knowledge that will allow us to do the things that we want to do (which may or may not be based on our knowledge, but certainly don't have to be based on science).

Climate change science says these things will happen if we continue to do the things we are doing. We might determine (or might not) that we don't want those things to happen, but the processes that would allow us to reach those determinations aren't science (though they maybe knowledge). Science can tell us the results of the different decisions, but you can't use the scientific method to make a decision like that.

Another way to look at, let me stipulate a few "facts" (they might not be facts, but let's assume they are):

1. Nuclear energy is "good" in terms of energy production and become an even more important component of our energy production in the future in a clean and safe manner.

2. The use of nuclear weapons at this point in time have been "good". The use of nuclear weapons with respect to Japan saved lives and resulted in a better post-war transition.

3. MAD prevented a WWIII from happening that would have been costly in many different respects so is judged as being good based on the state of human society at the time.

4. From this point forward, nuclear weapons will be de-emphasized and never used again.

300 years from now humans live in a truly global community and they all agree that the use of nuclear technology has been good for the world.

Now, let's assume a different reality and some "facts" associated with that one:

Hitler creates an atomic bomb much earlier than he did. He uses those bombs to win WWII, and and uses the combination of the nuclear weapons themselves and the fear of them to "rule" over the world. The Nazi regime lasts for 200 years before it finally falls, and its fall does not require nuclear weapons. The resulting humans all agree that nuclear technology has been bad for the world and reject its use in any form.

In both cases, the science underlying nuclear technology is no different. It didn't chose or have a say or cause its different uses in our two scenarios. It just is.

[JMS]

The science gives you the ability to act, but it isn't the causes.

Exactly, if it gives you the ability to act and without it you don't have the ability to act; then it can save lives, and the lack of it can kill.

Science is in fact from the latin word knowledge. ..... Science is knowlege

Actually the term science predates what we today call science. The ancient greeks Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle were considered scientists throughout the dark and much of hte middle ages; but they knew nothing of the scientific method nor did they believe observation or experimentation were valid ways to conduct research. Dark age "scientists" such as Calcidius, Macrobius, Martianus Capella, Boethius, and Cassiodorus; were likewise ignorant of anthing resembling science as we know it. By modern standards they were little more than scribes.

Science is not knowlege, but is as I said before both how you go about getting that knowlege ( scientific method, experimentation and observation); and how you catogorize knowlege ( laws, theory, hypothesis ). In the dark ages nothing was considered science if it wasn't writen in greek, and latter lattin. Today nothing is considered science if it's not based upon experimentation and observation.

As for Science is neither good or bad... again that is a myopic statement. The entire relm of science is subject to ethics and certainly falls into catagories like good and bad. There have certianly been bad/evil scientists; Joseph Mengele for example. These things transend mere circomstances of time or history.

Now I will not that it's not always apparent based upon the popular concepts of the day what is good or bad. michelangelo for example disected corpses, which would have gotten him in hot water with the church if it was common knowledge.

[PeterMP]

Exactly, if it gives you the ability to act and without it you don't have the ability to act; then it can save lives, and the lack of it can kill.

No, because it isn't acting. It is completely unchanged during and as a result of the process.

Science is not knowlege, but is as I said before both how you go about getting that knowlege ( scientific method, experimentation and observation); and how you catogorize knowlege ( laws, theory, hypothesis ). In the dark ages nothing was considered science if it wasn't writen in greek, and latter lattin. Today nothing is considered science if it's not based upon experimentation and observation.

Now, you are disagreeing with your own post on the definition of the word.

I use science as the word to describe the knowledge uncovered by the scientific method. Your own post on the word of science says that is an acceptable use of the word. If we take your approach and use science to mean the process of the scientific method, then we don't have a word that describes the knowledge uncovered by using the scientific method and two things (science and scientific method) that mean the same thing.

That essentially renders this conversation meaningless.

I used a word in a manner that is considered valid by the dictionary. You can't then tell me I'm wrong because I'm using the word wrong.

Science can be used in different ways, but this conversation isn't going to go very far if we can't distinguish between knowledge that is gained via the scientific method and the scientific method itself.

As for Science is neither good or bad... again that is a myopic statement. The entire relm of science is subject to ethics and certainly falls into catagories like good and bad. There have certianly been bad/evil scientists; Joseph Mengele for example. These things transend mere circomstances of time or history.

Knowledge (and they way I am using science is as a subset of knowledge) isn't subject to ethics. It isn't good or bad. People and actions are subject to ethics and can be good or bad.

[JMS]

No, because it isn't acting. It is completely unchanged during and as a result of the process.

I'm sure their is some fine point to your defense of this point that escapes me.

I use science as the word to describe the knowledge uncovered by the scientific method. Your own post on the word of science says that is an acceptable use of the word. If we take your approach and use science to mean the process of the scientific method, then we don't have a word that describes the knowledge uncovered by using the scientific method and two things (science and scientific method) that mean the same thing.

Not at all.

Science is the whole; The scientific method is a conceptualization of a part. Science is the application of the scientific method and more. The specific experiements I would run to understand an unkown would not be considered the scientific method, although they would be an application of the scientific method. Those experiements however would certainly be science, as would my hypothesis based on the results and the steps I took to confirm that hypothesis.

Science is the path; not the destination. The culmination of the process is knowlege.

I used a word in a manner that is considered valid by the dictionary. You can't then tell me I'm wrong because I'm using the word wrong.

The dictionary definition of science I posted covers how the knowlege is uncovered. Are you really takeing the position that experimentation is not science?

Knowledge (and they way I am using science is as a subset of knowledge) isn't subject to ethics. It isn't good or bad. People and actions are subject to ethics and can be good or bad.

Our disagreement seems to be tied to your belief Science is limited to possessing knowlege; rather than the pursuit of understanding in a systematic way.. To phrase that another way. Science is not the knowing, but how you go about achieving your understanding. There have been great scientists who never discovered any knowledge; their sole contribution was to disprove someone elses understanding, and thus moving the ball down the feild towards understanding. Francesco Redi and spontanious generation for example.

[PeterMP]

Science is the whole; The scientific method is a conceptualization of a part. Science is the application of the scientific method and more. The specific experiements I would run to understand an unkown would not be considered the scientific method, although they would be an application of the scientific method. Those experiements however would certainly be science, as would my hypothesis based on the results and the steps I took to confirm that hypothesis.

Science is the path; not the destination. The culmination of the process is knowlege.

You're forcing science to only have one meaning. Your own dictionary definition that you posted before indicates that my use of the word is also a valid use of the word.

The dictionary definition of science I posted covers how the knowlege is uncovered. Are you really takeing the position that experimentation is not science?

Sure the process is important. I'm differentiating between knowledge gained through the scientific method and knowledge gained through other methods, like math. The process matters.

There have been great scientists who never discovered any knowledge; their sole contribution was to disprove someone elses understanding, and thus moving the ball down the feild towards understanding. Francesco Redi and spontanious generation for example.

Since, science never proves anything, all the scientific method can do is prove that certain things are not true, or even are not true most of the time.

However, knowing something is false (or even unlikely to happen) is knowledge.

Science can have multiple meanings. If we say that science is the over all process, then you can argue that science saves lives. For example, clinical trials, which are experiments involving drugs, can save lives if the drug saves lives, but in that case the experiment is dependent on the exsistance of the drug, and the experiment (clinical trial) denotes and requires activity.

My posts clearly were related to the use of the word science with respect to knowledge gained through the use of the scientific manner, which your own post, through the use of the dictionary says is a valid use of the word.