[wizwor]

I'm not advocating anything. I'm simply observing that...

1) there are inconsistencies in the beliefs of great thinkers.

Scientists embrace evolution. They taught us that man evolved from monkeys. They taught us that glaciers descending on North America formed the white mountains. To accept that and ignore the possibility that changes in weather might be part of this evolution is inconsistent, in my opinion.

2) great thinkers are often wrong.

Originally Posted by Eric Berger

1. Geocentric universe: The concept that the Earth was at the center of the universe dates back to at least 600 B.C. with Greek philosophers who proposed cosmologies of the Sun, Moon and other heavenly bodies orbiting the Earth. The most famous contortion of the system was Ptolemy’s epicycles to explain the retrograde motion of Mars. This is a prime example of fitting scientific evidence into preconceived notions. The theory was disproven with the publication of Nicholas Copernicus’ De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543.

2. Miasmatic theory of disease: This theory holds that diseases such as cholera, chlamydia or the Black Death were caused by a miasma (ancient Greek: “pollution”), a noxious form of “bad air”. This concept was not disposed of until the late 1800s, with the rise of the germ theory of disease. Miasma was considered to be a poisonous vapor or mist filled with particles from decomposed matter that caused illnesses. It was identifiable by its foul smell.

3. Luminiferous aether: Assumed to exist for much of the 19th century, the theory held that a “medium” of aether pervaded the universe through which light could propagate. The celebrated Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 was the first to provide hard evidence that aether did not exist, and the theory lost all popularity among scientists by the

4. Stress theory of ulcers: As peptic ulcers became more common in the 20th century, doctors increasingly linked them to the stress of modern life. Medical advice during the latter half of the 20th century was, essentially, for patients to take antacids and modify their lifestyle. In the 1980s Australian clinical researcher Barry Marshal discovered that the bacterium H. pylori caused peptic ulcer disease, leading him to win a Nobel Prize in 2005.

5. Immovable continents: Prior to the middle of the 20th century scientists believed the Earth’s continents were stable and did not move. This began to change in 1912 with Alfred Wegener’s formulation of the continental drift theory, and later and more properly the elucidation of plate tectonics during the 1950s and 1960s.

6. Phlogiston: Arising in the mid-17th century, physicians conjured up the existence of a fire-like element called “phlogiston”, which was contained within combustible bodies and released during combustion. Charcoal, for example, left little residue upon burning because it is nearly pure phlogiston. Experiments in the mid-1700s led chemists to conclude the theory was false, giving birth to the field of modern chemistry.

7. The “four humours” theory of human physiology: From Hippocrates onward, the humoral theory was adopted by Greek, Roman and Islamic physicians, and became the most commonly held view of the human body among European physicians until the advent of modern medical research in the 19th century. The four humours of Hippocratic medicine were black bile, yellow bile, phlegm and blood.

8. Static universe: Prior to the observations made by astronomer Edwin Hubble during 1920s, scientists believed the universe was static, neither expanding nor contracting. Hubble found that distant objects in the universe were moving more quickly away than nearby ones. Very recently, in 1999, scientists unexpectedly found that not only was the universe expanding, but its expansion was accelerating.

9. A young Earth: In the mid-1800s many scientists, including Lord Kelvin, believed the Earth to be just 20 million to 40 million years old. It was around that time that geologists such as Charles Lyell began to believe that the Earth was much older, and this conformed to the views of biologists such as Charles Darwin, who needed a much older Earth for evolution to unfold. It wasn’t until the middle of the 20th century that scientists came to the accepted conclusion today that the Earth is about 4.55 billion years old.

10. The Earth is flat. Actually, this one doesn’t belong on the list but I put it here to prove a point. While there’s a popular belief that “flat earth” was somehow a widely held “scientific” idea, Greeks such as Aristotle knew the Earth was round, as did Thomas Aquinas. In short, most scholarship suggests learned men and women from the dawn of antiquity knew the Earth was round. So science gets a pass on this one.

As for Natural Selection, I'll let Darwin speak to that...

Originally Posted by Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”

I have chosen not to take medications prescribed for me by scientists because, while they address a micro-problem, I believe they put the whole of me at greater risk.

I take vitamin D because I apply sunblock to my skin before exposing myself to the greatest natural source of vitamin D because I am concerned about radiation, but every year, a bunch of scientists put a lead bib on my chest and blast radiation at my skull from a nearby room.

And the vegan thing? I sent an email to PETA a few years back. It said that I had come into possession of a pregnant dog and was willing to care for the dog but unable to care for the puppies. I inquired about the ethics of terminating the pregnancies and spaying the mother. PETA responded that I should let the dog have the puppies, find good homes for them, and prevent the mother from getting pregnant without mutilating her.

So, adoption and abstinence. A few weeks later, I sent an email to the same address inquiring of PETA's position on abortion and was referred to their FAQ...

Originally Posted by PETA's FAQ

PETA does not have a position on the abortion issue, because our focus as an organization is the alleviation of the suffering inflicted on nonhuman animals. There are people on both sides of the abortion issue in the animal rights movement, just as there are people on both sides of animal rights issues in the pro-life movement. And just as the pro-life movement has no official position on animal rights, neither does the animal rights movement have an official position on abortion.

I think people eat too much meat. I'm a 'flexitarian' which simply means that I work to find tasty, healthy meals that are meatless, but I still enjoy meat. When I attend or host a function, I try to bring a tasty, healthy meal that is meatless and I mark it as such. Inevitably, a vegan/vegetarian tells me they are surprised that I am a not a [knuckle dragging] carnivore. When I explain myself, they usually go into the animal cruelty thing. When that is over, I inquire about their position on abortion.

People tend to be inconsistent on their principles.

All of this is on the internet for people interested in any of the discussed ideas to discover and consider. If anything in the preceding paragraphs causes a single person to ponder the topics discussed, then I think I have made the case for my initial position -- that internet forums are the salons of today's great thinkers and creators.