It petered out in all of them except one — midieval Europe. The midieval Christians had come up with the doctrine of secondary causation — that God created a nature that could bring things to pass on its own, without constant divine intervention. That, and the belief in an orderly universe ruled by laws given by a law-maker, were what permitted modern science to succeed. In ancient Greece, nature was viewed as capricious — plants, animals, the Earth, the sky were alive, and could do things at any moment for any reason.
The Earth was not an orderly place. And in discussing nature, Greek science held that you must proceed from first principles according to pure logic — NOT consult the evidence. Experiment was work, and work was fit only for slaves. In the middle east, secondary causation was explicitly rejected. The pen moves, wrote one Arab philosopher, because Allah moves it, and the ink appears on the page because Allah puts it there — the two things are not connected; they only seem to be. With a philosophy like that, empirical science was stillborn. In China, experiment was considered a novelty, a novelty was a bad thing — the only learning worth having was knowledge of the classics, and if you had that, you could reason out any conclusion you needed about nature or anything else.
So yes, the Christian worldview was what permitted modern science to arise, and the elimination of the Christian worldview will eventually take science with it. Once the facts are bent to fit the conclusion, science per se is doomed. Then I guess the ancient Aztec worship of Huitzilopochtli Hummingbird of the South must have been science then:.
Rip out hearts of 5, victims on steps of the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan. Sun comes up next morning. Rip out hearts of 5, victims including some captured Spanish conquistadors who died screaming. Formal methods makes assumptions, empirical does not: Pretty much all we can say there has been summed up here — dualism is not an option, solipsism is unparsimonious, and religious views are either falsified or improbable. Which kind of sucks, because platonism sounds like another faith.
I specified the Christian worldview of the middle ages, did I not? If you check — i. Intellectuals of the middle ages did not believe in witchcraft. Thus a book like De Tonitruorum, arguing against the popular superstition that witches could affect the weather.
Bad Astronomy
Witch burning was a popular, bottom-up mass movement, which swept the professors out of the way. Do you understand why a belief in witchcraft which had been rejected during the middle ages might suddenly be embraced during the Renaissance? Can you think of anything which changed? What AIG seem to be relying on is the fallacy that assumptions must be self-confirming: That sort of thing can work in mathematics change the axioms and you get a different self-consistent system but the real world hurts your toe no matter what you are believing when you stub it.
Then I guess the ancient Aztec worship of Huitzilopochtli Hummingbird of the South must have been science then: Levenson also neglects to mention many of the French scientists of the 18th century who were not particularly religious. Whatever real is… If the universe is not real, then neither science nor religion matter. In any case, one need not assume that the universe is real to carry on with science.
If the universe is not relevant, then neither science nor religion matter. The statement is also factually incorrect because the universe is clearly worth worrying about simply BECAUSE some people do worry about it.
No, the scientific method would detect a change in the rules. In fact, the scientific method has SOUGHT changes in the rules, such as a changing speed of light, to explain some facets of the universe. And even though that turned out to be a dead-end, it was considered as an hypothesis, tested by experiment, and discarded. Science may PREDICT that the rules of the universe as they are today are the same as yesterday and will be the same tomorrow, but that is not assumed.
On which faith is science based? You have shown no evidence that this claim is true, and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. I think I said this on another thread. My five senses are sufficient to find out all the data I need about the universe. Now, you might use that assumption to go off and study the workings of the eye, ear, etc. Your conclusions would be dependent on that assumption in mathematical terms your theorems would depend on your axiom. Well, now your research results become your new axiom but they were proven assuming axiom 3. Your new axiom proves the old axiom 3 which is essentially circularity.
So if all assertions in the system are provable from within the system then all arguments within the system become circular. There is no other basis for believing them. Always take everything personally. I saved their comments for about a week, then re-posted the entire thread in a message only editing was to remove details, e. He just said test the model to see if it works and it does in the Aztec case.
Is there a control when we formulate our theories about dark energy, dark matter, etc.? What is the control when we dig up a dinosaur bone and theorize about what species it belongs to? This also corresponded to a period of increased religious tolerance and decreased influence of religion on society. Deism became particularly popular during this era. Overall the middle ages, although not devoid of scientific progress, produced considerably little scientific progress compared to the renaissance, age of reason, age of enlightenment, and the modern era that followed. Each produced considerably more progress than the previous, and for the most part each having less overall influence of religion on society and increased religious tolerance and diversity.
The scientific revolution was a long process, but not that long. Most would place its beginnings at the 16th century. However we cut the cake, religion and especially Abrahamic religions had very little to do with empirical science. They mostly suppressed it, as knowledge is dangerous to faith and new knowledge is dangerous to an existing societal order. Instead of relying on formal models they developed a method and then applied it exhaustively in an empirical fashion. Quite like scientists may choose to do today at times. On the contrary, trying to learn more I find this:. More recent historians have questioned political and cultural explanations and have focused more on economic causes.
Their faith makes them believe there is an association; testing it would be stabbing somebody at midnight does the stabbing really cause the sunrise? And the Aztecs were not conducting expereiments. They were following their religion. When the Spanish came, the Conquistadors were met by Aztecs weilding automatic weaponry. The Aztecs went on to conquer the world and a couple thousand other parallels before being stopped. They had a facade religion, and even a serpent god that they built themselves. However, granting its factual status which I am in no position to refute , it does not lead in my mind to the conclusion that science owes a debt to Christianity in general, but rather to some specific Christians who were open to reason and empirical evidence.
To this day there are professed Christians who are quite hostile to science yourself not among them , so it is hard for me to accept that science gained a critical mass of acceptance at a time and place where Christianity dominated due to the innate benificience of Christianity rather than as an historical accident. A theory and the facts that it contains by its predictions are circular if it is complete. Going full circle back to the argument that which makes observational science work is that it … is observed to work. So maybe anthropic principles tell us the correct physics because they too work by observations, avoiding the formal dilemma.
Science insetad is getting up in the morning and shaking that stack. Why do you think Einstein wondered about people in elevators, on trains, and in spaceships? Why wonder about that? Faith would say you see the same thing. Science asks and tests. Science is not faith. It might be based on the shared assumption that things exist, but at that point it ceases worrying. Paralyzation through endless navel-gazing is not going to get you that grant or cure polio. How is it not a test?
The observed result agrees with the prediction. Now, you may say they are obligated to try all sorts of actions to see what the result is in each case, but why should they bother to as long as their model accurately predicts what will happen? Next time you attend wherever, ask if you can perform some experiments like drinking the font of whatever, or reversing the ceremony.
See what it gets you. Not that my absent metaphysics care, but I would sleep better at night…. I find your comment that a Christian worldview, particularly that of medieval Europe, made modern science possible and is essential for it to continue rather perplexing. Modern science is the collection and incorporation of all scientific discovery since humans first made observations.
It is built on past discoveries and moves forward regardless of any particular religious worldview. You mentioned scientific revolutions in areas outside of medieval Europe. Take, for example, rocketry. This field would not have been possible without the scientific work undertaken by non-Christian China and their discovery and development of gunpowder. You claim that scientific revolutions petered out in the dark ages middle east, China and ancient Greece, but did not in medieval Europe.
Actually, scientific discovery never really flourished in Europe until the Renaissance, when a totalitarian control over knowledge by the Christian church gave way to free inquiry and acceptance that the individual actually mattered. Mediveal Christians destroyed a hell of a lot of knowledge that did not fit with their worldview or threatened their control. Your claim regarding ancient Greece and their view that experimentation is work and work is only fit for slaves is false, in some degree. Experimentation led to the observation that the Earth is, in fact, round. Further, the view that nature was chaotic likely was a result of a young grasp of scientific knowledge about the world, one that we have now, though still limited.
As for China, the squashing of novel experiment [which did not directly benefit those in power] may have arisen from a dogmatic reverence for the classics. A similar phenomenon can be seen in the Bible literalists of today: Also, that bursts of scientific discovery occur and will continue the world over, until they are stopped and suppressed by dogma and totalitarianism. And yes, we do constantly test Einstein, and refine the measurements for the actual effect to check his calculations.
This only works if you are using a deductive argument and not an inductive one. A deductive argument starts from initial premises and using formal rules draws conclusions based on those premises. If science was based on that sort of system than using the conclusions to prove the premises would indeed be circular.
But science does not use deductive logic, it does not use proofs and it does not use premises. Evidence can never prove a given conclusion or disprove it if you are willing to get really picky , it can only increase or decrease its likelihood of being correct. In this case using something assumed initially as evidence to support that assumption is valid in some cases. For instance, to use your example if our five senses were not sufficient to learn about the universe then there would be situations which are five senses are not sufficient. We have numerous such examples, for instance seeing outside of the visible spectrum, so we developed mechanisms to expand our senses.
To give a more concrete example, evidence indicated communicable diseases were real but were being causes by something invisible to our senses. Expansions of our senses microscopes initially allowed us to observe these organisms directly. We have been very successful at determining when our existing sensing capabilities are too limited to answer certain questions and have then gone about expanding our sensing capabilities.
Space telescopes like Hubble are a great example. If there were things that were fundamentally inaccessible to our senses no matter how were to expand them then we should be able to detect that by means of evidence we cannot collect. And we do that all the time. We know that we cannot directly observed particular events prior to a certain point for instance we cannot directly observe the extinction of the dinosaurs.
We know that we cannot simultaneously measure the velocity and position of a particle past a certain resolution for both. We know we cannot directly observe the behavior of animals for which no DNA is left. We know we cannot observe events that have not happened yet. So the problem you describe is not at all a concern for inductive logic since it does not rely on premises, only evidence, and it does not rely on proofs, only probabilities.
According to the terms of the treaty, the United States acquired Florida and, in exchange, renounced all claims to Texas. Andrew Jackson formally took control of Florida from Spanish authorities on July 17, at Pensacola. Speaking scientifically, that would mean finding the T. I thought observations, facts, whatever you want to call them stand by themselves. They are not provable from the theory as far as I know. I want to second Jolly Blogger and Dr. You have one too many assumptions, Phil. Imagine we lived in a universe in which the law of gravity had a random element.
If I built a catapult to carefully launch an object with the same force every time, the height and distance it would travel would vary every time in an unpredictable fashion. In this example, I am obviously glossing over the fact that life would be likely to arise or exist long in such a universe…. The only assumption of science is that the observations I make have a direct albeit imperfect relationship to reality.
Obviously, a very early and obvious conclusion of science in the universe we actually live in is that it IS a universe of rules. Funny you always come up with absurd extremes, but really never argue a point. To be fair he is arguing the main point of this thread: Classifying dinosaur bones makes many assumptions. Finding the T rex bone or, rather, the fact that the T rex bone exists provides evidence for natural selection specifically because it fits with the predictions made by natural selection. Hence the circularity I think that is what he meant. Perhaps the same place as: Anyway, take a look at http: Of course if one professor says it then it obviously must be true, right?
No professor has ever been wrong before, right? No need to actually deal with the arguments or evidence put forth in these comments and countless others, just citing one professor is enough. You are using the standard equivocation fallacy. We are talking about faith in a specific sense, that is accepting something without or directly contrary to the evidence. In fact Phil specifically states this right up front:. Yet you ignore this, ignore the definition used by everyone else here. Instead you pick a definition that, in the manner you are using it, everything must be faith. That being said, I am sure you have met individual scientists or groups of scientists that seem to latch onto particular paradigms pretty damn hard.
You almost have to wait for the old guard to die off before the new models can start making progress. Not only that, I would argue that ANY system of human thought, whether it be science, religion, mathematics, etc. Through science, we observe a phenomenon, make a guess as to how that works, make a prediction based on the evidence, then test our prediction against more evidence.
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. You seem to really like asking questions that have already been answered, especially questions that are answered in the sentence after the one you quote. And who gave you the right to pick which dictionary we are using? How about the American Heritage Dictionary:. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: The body of dogma of a religion: A set of principles or beliefs. Language is created by man and is used under the assumption that when it is communicated to another person they are properly relayed the information that was intended to be conveyed. To say we know exactly what they are saying is to have faith that we can comprehend language.
So, while I see him making some argument about the role of human perception in science… he could just as well be telling us a delicious recipe for cookies… and we are just biased and driven to believe otherwise. Which is… an axiom. It is not an axiom in the conventional sense because it is backed up by evidence. There are no known instances where the universe does not obey rules, no matter how closely or how broadly we look at the universe.
An axiom has no evidence behind it, it is a basic rule on which a system is built. That the universe follows rules is a basic rule on which science is built, but it is also backed up by evidence. I think he got it exactly right the first time. The BA really nailed it on this one. Maybe God set up the photons from stars to make it look like the universe is billions of years old when in fact it was created only a few millennia ago.
The point is that we only make progress if we assume that the universe is rational. We will never be able to disprove the existence of miracles or magic, but we do know that belief in supernatural causes is of no help when trying to make a toaster, or in making predictions about quantum tunneling in nuclei. What I see in many thumpers is that they have zero tolerance for the unknown. At that point, the conversation is over. Any further discussion is disrespecting their religious beliefs.
And has the same value as a religion!!!! Never trust a French philosopher. And Marxism is fashionable 19th century humbug. Never trust a German philosopher. There is randomness in the Universe, of course: But that randomness still follows rules. As far as solipsism goes, feh. If you cannot study it, and it has no evidence or effect, then how is that any different than it not existing? Local effects can be counted for in observations like light aberration, parallax, the fact that we live in a spiral galaxy, and so on.
We need only have that as a hypothesis. If the universe did not follow any rules that hypothesis could be flushed down the drain. It is not faith, it is tests that have shown this to be so. Many wild ideas have been tested and failed, and abandoned. Others have passes the tests repeatably. Evolution, math, physics have many theories that have passes every test thrown at them. If anyone doubts the tests, they only need to test it themselves.
The basic theories have been doubted, and retested. That is the ONLY reason that these theories are held in such high regard. It seems odd that the people who will doubt so much proof, refuse to doubt their own faith. Doubt is the basis of advancement in science, other world views only pay it lip service.
I was going to bring it up but I have been severely chastised for equating science to a formal system even though I believe there are close similarities. Of course, Godel said that given any formal system there are true statements that are unprovable from within the system. It supports my position but I am forbidden from using it. It might be real. It might be unreal. If I can devise a test to tell, I test this and mark it done. Just to operate according to a set of rules. I always find spelling and grammar errors after hitting submit! My five senses … are sufficient to find out all the data I need about the universe.
My brain and senses can easily be tricked. So tests are designed to determine when that is occurring. In fact, there is a whole branch of science that deals with that. We devise a test to see if we can may B happen without A. We devise a test to see if A always precedes B. But how is that an assumption. If we have error bars needed to include all the data, then we know we need to do more research. Even the speed of light is constantly retested to refine the accuracy. Wholeheartedly and without reservation. None of any assumption is required to be believed with out proof.
Now on the initial assumption, we work with it as a basis, but we are testing that assumption all the time. Any time we find something that invalidates that assumption, we will work to find out why and refine our base precept. That would be absurd. Except the Aztec Priest would never test that assertion to see if it is true.
Possibly as an undergrad. They better not in real research! But again, that is not an assumption. Or were you just trying to be silly. I never can tell with sophists. Very late to add to this thread, but Ed Minchau, you must have missed T. Definition 2 is acceptable to me. I forget where you stand. If so then it seems to contradict the initial post which talked about an assumption — which is nothing but a proposition taken on faith as defined in definition 2.
Care to post some referers, Phil? I guess this just proves Arthur Clark had a point. In this case we have a classic example of technology too advanced to be seen as anything other than magic, to most folk,,,I guess this also applies to the Scientifc Method. That is the time the Catholic Church and its Popes became over-bloated with jewels. The whole point is that there is evidence that the universe follows rules. Therefor it does not follow that definition, which requires that there not be evidence.
I did want to go back to something BlackCat posted which was that science is percent inductive. I think there are two phases to science: Newton went out and collected data and tried to come up with a theory that accounted for it. That part of the process is indeed inductive. It involves a collection of observations, anything from the apple falling on his head probably an apocryphal story , observations of the moon, sun, and planets. So he uses it to come up with the equation: The next part is model usage which is not inductive, but rather deductive.
You use the model to make predictions. For example, where will Mars be in the sky on January 1st, ? Well, you can plug in a few parameters like the semi-major axis, eccentricity, position on some previous date, etc. Now to be sure, phase 1 and phase 2 are locked in a loop. Observations are compared with predictions from phase 2 and any discrepancies can be used to tune the model developed in phase 1. But to say that science has no deductive logic to it at all is just not true. And as such, it should adhere to the same restrictions as any logical formal system insofar as its deductions are concerned.
That would be a logical contradiction of the deductive system. So having the deductive part of things causes certain restrictions in the valid predictions. You folks are getting mighty slippery to pin down. In short, assuming regularity in the universe is bad philosophy but necessary of science. This, to me, is the pivotal difference between science and religious faith not science and faith-without-the-religion. Science is pragmatic and draconian and wonderful and rational this way. Religion is the very opposite. Once again, you take a quote out of context and completely ignore the rest of the post which directly deals with what you said.
Phil does say this, but then goes on to say this just two paragraphs later:. I laughed out loud. You may do so at your whim. However, it will be thoroughly trounced as irrelevant to the current discussion. The universe, unlike logic and mathematics, is not an abstract invention of man designed to model aspects of the universe. It IS the universe. The universe does not attempt to describe itself using man made rules of logic and mathematics! Short of replicating the entirety of all existence, Science by definition will always be incomplete.
The initial observation is a sensory perception. The prediction is a foretelling of a future sensory perception. You compare the predicted sensory perception versus the actual sensory perception. Everything is based on sensory data. You are still assuming my assumption 3 which is that your senses are adequate and giving you good data. If the prediction says that such and such object will be straight ahead, but there is something screwed up with your vision so that an object at an angle of 15 degrees appears to be straight ahead, then your observation will agree perfectly with the prediction, even though the real object is off by 15 degrees.
Your theory will be verified even though it is false. The deductive part of science is indeed a system of logic. The proof for this is that it is forbidden to make predictions that are logical contradictions. A prediction may NOT be like one the following:. The earth rotates counterclockwise as seen from Polaris and it also rotates clockwise as seen from Polaris. The average density of the earth is 5. I never claimed that science was a religion or equivalent to religion. I never claimed that faith and Faith were the same anyway.
So the reliability of many dating systems are based on more faith than facts. Try reading the dada and surrealist manifestoes. We can prove things with our mysteries—religion cannot say the same. It is not an assumption. If our senses were giving us bad data then information based on this data would be wrong and so any predictions based off of it would be false.
Even if our senses were somehow wrong that does not explain why we can move single atoms around with scanning tunneling microscopes. The only way all the predictions could be right yet our senses be giving us completely wrong information is for the universe to be specifically set up to give the same results as if our senses were correct. We are getting back into Matrix territory with that. That is why you compare your results to those of other people.
If their vision is messed up in the same way then we would know because people would be unable to agree on the location of the object. If they move these intersection points will move as well instead of staying stationary at the target. If we add a sound source to the object our hearing must also be off in the same manner. If the object hits us in the head it will hit us on the side of the head not on the front. If we add a radio beacon to the object the tracking device would tell us it is 15 degrees off to the side.
If the object is metal and we aim a directional microwave transmitter at it the directional transmitter would only cause a reflection if it was straight ahead. There are numerous inconsistencies that would be evident if our visual perception was off by 15 degrees to the right. What would have to be the case is that our wrong perception fluctuates in such a way that when a group of people are looking at an object their perceived directions all intersect at a single point. These perceptions would have to change so that no matter how they move they all remain intersecting at the same, wrong point.
It would have to be that our movements and other senses are also off by the same amount and also that we somehow miss obvious, constant medical problems due to always walking funny. It would require that all our instruments are off in the same way, and that the amount and direction they are off is perfectly tuned to the constantly changing discrepancy of the one using it.
If multiple people are using it they must somehow get different readings from the same device. The list of absurdities goes on and on. At a certain point you have to say that we have tested it enough, the evidence supports the conclusion that what we perceive as straight ahead is most likely fairly close to what is really straight ahead. Yeah, and I think the server is on fire, too. Whatever the method of understanding this world is, they are all based on some form of faith.
If I have to choose which method to use to understand this world, I would choose scientific method. Religion, however, is as dead as astrology or alchemy. Now the creationists start coming out. First, evolution does not require dating methods period. It can be directly observed in the lab.
Second, data systems are not trusted to be just as valid. This has been confirmed by comparing dating systems based on totally unrelated principles like ice cores, carbon, and tree rings. Some dating methods, particularly those that look very far in the past, have built-in checks. If there was a problem with the dating method then the data would not be self-consistent. Other methods, if there were a problem, would require fundamental changes in the nature of the universe which would be easily detectable. Further, if there were discrepancies then the our extremely sensitive analysis of the principles underlying these events like radioactive decay would have detected changes over time.
So in order for these techniques to be wrong then both very closely related and very distantly related techniques must all be changing in completely different manners that still somehow always give the same wrong dates and those changes must not have affected very similar physical processes and these changes must have stopped just before we developed the technology needed to detect the changes. Forgive me if I consider that just a tad improbable.
You then go into a fair amount of detail of the scientific method but offer no reason why this denies faith. This Red Herring argument only prove there is, currently, an established method for doing scientific research. The concept of science suffers from Argumentum ad Verecundiam; science itself cannot be an authority only those working within science. I understand this may sound like splinting hairs but an argument which states science is not faith based cannot, therefore, say science is faith based because science says so. Again, the universe obeys rules and the scientific community placed their faith in the scientific method to understand those laws, but this offers no tangible evidence for your argument.
Science does stem directly from religion, but hardly an evolution of it. Until the 19th century learned individuals used science to understand the world better, and thus God. The law of gravity is itself the law of gravity untampered, unmovable by sentient life. One, working within those rules; two, as being the source of those rules capable of negating them entirely. This website is a bunch of scientists who have a faith. So what is wrong with saying God set in place all of these laws that make up the Universe and then gave us the knowledge and ability to unravel his creation and figure out why things work the way they do?
Sure some people might disagree, but I think in this way, faith and science can be related to each other. Science is based on faith. Science, as you stated, is based on the assumption that the universe obeys certain laws. That is a very vague way of saying that the universe has some kind of uniformity about it.
That is, when you throw a ball up in the air, it comes back down. When you stub your toe, it hurrts. Science would be impossible if there were no unifimity. Philosophers call it the uniformity of nature and skeptic and philosophical great, David Hume, noted that this uniformity what Hume called induction has no rational warrant. Hume was well aware that we all assume that nature is uniform. That is, based on our past experiences we make inferences to the unknown future. If I stub my toe, it hurts and I try not to stub my toe again. But Hume also noted that we have no rational basis for making such an inference.
The reason for this is because to say that tomorrow will be like today because the past was like today is to beg the question. When you beg the question viciously you argue in a circle and the conclusion assumes the premise in question. It is an error in reasoning. Well, hence it is with the uniformity of nature also called the problem of induction. This may sound silly to the average reader because of ignorance of the true problem , but philosophers have struggled with providing a rational justification for induction for centuries and it is a huge problem in philosophical circles.
The point here is that, contrary to your claims, while science may be evidentiary in nature, the basis of all of science is in fact faith based. You have no rational warrant to assume that tomorrow when you stub your toe that it will not be the greatest feeling ever! You may respond and say that the probabibilty is high that tomorrow will be like today but a quick reflection reveals that this is just as question begging. When you use probability, you are assuming the past event to make an inference into the future, i.
Yeppers, you have faith. We all have faith, some are just honest enough to admit it. They are rank ideologues, as bad as any fanatic. Scientists are constantly having to change their definition of the rules. Which is fine, except many people blindly accept whatever rules they were taught as the pardon the pun gospel truth. Hence, we have the Anthrogenic Global Warming believers who take theories adn see whatever they want in the tea leaves of the weather.
The universe is a lot stranger and harder to pin down than we thought. We are finding this out as we go along. So called science believers have a tendency to undermine their own arguments by behaving like religious followers. Because in my 50 years on this earth I have seen scientists change their stories a lot. There is no real conflict between religion and science.
To many engineers and scientists I know, science studies the universe around us. To say that a scientist is held back by faith is not correct. Faith usually makes a better person and that can play an important role in the quality of a persons life and work. For many, its a motivating factor -to understand the universe God built. One thing that this blog and all of the comments show is that there are lots of extremists in the faith and scientific camps.
The problem is that the AiG crowd also has to make the assumption that the universe follows rules. They have to assume the universe follows rules. They just make the additional assumption that there is a being that is not bound by those rules, and then add a whole heap of other assumptions as well. But in the end they must make the same assumption consciously or unconsciously that science makes in order to even begin to function in the world.
You should read more. Living and breathing requires presuppositions. Try starting with Descartes. Your attempt to distill hundreds of years of thought into a blog post is admirable. Unfortunately, you are as smart as the people you ridicule. To quote Philip K. Dick who was a complete nut: Science does involve an element of faith. The faith involved is the faith in your senses.
You believe that they do not lie, be they your sight, hearing, or your electron microscope space telescope may be more appropriate here: You believe that the data they relay to your consciousness is reliable. You believe you are not living in a perfect reality simulation ala the Matrix. There is no way to prove or disprove this, and thus we take as an article of faith that what we observe IS in fact reality. Now, given that first assumption everything Phil said follows. If your senses are truthful then you can do math and get everything from your basic machines to LCD TVs to space probes.
If we assume that reality is real, then no other leaps of faith are necessary given time to observe and apply logic. However, we still must take on faith that reality is real because there is no way to prove or disprove this postulate. The point here is that we assume we exist. We take this as an article of faith and build upon it. Given that assumption, all else falls into place. However, there is also a sense in which much of what a scientist believes may have been taken on faith. But how do we learn those rules?
We could, in principle, perform the experiments by which other scientists have inferred them. But we do not. We accept the results as reported and we often accept the interpretation put on them by those other scientists. In other words, when we apply rules that were inferred by others, we are doing so without having independently confirmed them ourselves. This strikes me as an acceptance of the validity of the rule based on a faith that the scientists reporting the rule have behaved responsibly. This does not strike me as being all that different from the way one acquires beliefs in a religion-based context.
You accept what you are told by someone who you believe. The real issue for a thinking person is how one decides which authorities are to be believed and which are less credible. For me, those who have been pursuing the methodologies of science are the ones who deserve the most credibility; but we must remain wary of those who would cloak themselves with the appearance of science while trying to delude us. Someone above stated that induction was an assumption of science — it is not.
Induction has since long been replaced by the method of hypothesis and deduction as well as falsifiability. As the blog post mentions, David Hume discussed causality and that we cannot directly experience it, thus we cannot rely on induction to generalize observations to principles or rules. Solipsism is simply rejected by many.
See Wikipedia for an in-depth discussion of solipsism. Contrary to religion that just gathers inconsistencies, science appears to evolve through paradigm shifts that occur when previous theories have turned out to be burdened by too much non-supporting evidence and a new set of theories take their place. In the end, we cannot know for sure whether God does, or does not exist.
Logically, agnosticism is where you end up. Religion should be a personal matter, you cannot generalize based on it. This argument is very weak. That is, the method of making predictions and allowing science to be revised when those predictions fail to materialize is the lone path to truth. Unfortunately, positivism has been dismissed by virtually all Philosophers of Science since then. There are a number of issues with it. For example, a philosopher named Lakatos observed that there really is no objective reality we can confirm outside our perceptions of it: Thomas Kuhn further observed that the revision of scientific theory has more to do with the culture and posturing of scientists of the moment than it does with anything else.
I am not scholarly enough to enumerate all of the reasons why Positivism is considered debunked, but if you are interested any good book or course on the Philosophy of science with excerpts from those Philosophers mentioned should provide a great overview on modern thinking. By the way — I have many friends which are scientists.
Most have not studied the Philosophy of Science…many fall into the trap of the author and subscribe to some sort of simplified Positivism. I myself believe in science, it is a faith-system that has served me too well to abandon. Most astronomy and biology is done with electronics these days. She will still be able to collect and interpret the data. Nobody can see into the infra-red and ultra-violet. Nobody has directly seen or felt!
How do you do science without [mathematical, logical] axioms? Is the speed of light fixed ensuring relativity is consistent or not? If yes, please share. If no, do you believe it did? Evidence is a testimony about natural phenomena; faith is belief in the validity of a testimony. The author of this work presupposes that evidence must have validity in order to attack the cited passage—but evidence need not be valid.
In the realm of science, Physicists often disagree on how to assign validity to the evidence of observed natural phenomena. Consider contemporary disagreements between those for String Theory and the Standard Model and how disagreeing Physicists will provide competing interpretations for evidence of observed or unobserved natural phenomena. One fundamental commonality between science and religion is that both dogmas require constructing far-reaching arguments grounded in unprovable axioms.
The passage cited from the Genesis website is a more enlightening piece of writing and thus does mankind more service than the rant posted here. I agree with Betrand above. Evolution follows form observed evidence. By definition, evolution is science-based, which is the opposite of faith-based belief regardless of what actual evidence shows.
But, from a realist standpoint, it argues that science can only be practiced by non-humans. What would be the point? What you fail to mention is that there are no explanations for the two planets rotating in the opposite direction. I will agree with you on one part of this argument that science has provided us with computer and the means for me to even leave a comment here. That is physics non theoretical and engineering that has done that and a large amount is from engineering. What has evolution given us other than dumber and dumber scientists seems to go against evolutionary though…?
Your claim is not a parallel argument. To accept this extrapolation DOES take faith. Is arguing that empirical evidence can only take us so far back. So, while you can be proud that Engineers and Scientists have made snazzy gadgets. He was a physical chemist turned philosopher of science- did a lot of work discussing the personal component to knowing.
Anyway, really good stuff and I highly recommend the read. Science is what happens when philosophy grows the hell up and realizes that it has to pay the bills. Science is what happens when philosophy grows the hell up and realizes that it has to actually work to pay the bills. There are three major arguments that suggest science provides evidence for the existence of God, the ontological, cosmological and physico-theological argument from design. Obviously these arguments bring up tons of arguments but nevertheless, they make use of science to prove the existence of God.
That is if we all agree on what you mean by science. I just finished reading all comments and found it very interesting and entertaining. It seems to me however the whole debate relies on defining faith. Even a small insignificant shred of evidence is still evidence and eliminates faith. Anyone who has ever seen a miracle, or believes that they have, no longer has faith. They have an evidence based belief. Anyone who actually hears god talking to them, on top of being delusional, has no faith they now have an evidence based belief.
Science requires no faith. Trusting your senses is not faith no matter how poor your senses might be. Then one day I either read it or heard it or thought of it myself. Reality is a powerful ally and it seems to trump all of our wishes. I believe in white unicorns, and the sparkly pink faeries that ride upon their backs. Yet I have no issue accepting the findings of science.
This article is stupid. Tested theories can be disproven. When facts are pliable and some change often how can you call that anything but faith based?! David Vanderschel I like your comment. Michael I Good stuff. Thing about Logical Positivism, though, is that it was debunked by Philosophers. And they all support evolution. If one, just one succeeded in debunking evolution, it would be a BIG deal. Aaron W Again, though. Evidence we have gathered continues to support, not disprove the model.
This evidence continues to accumulate. Why not accept the evidence and rest at night, too? Faith is the belief in something for which there is no evidence. For those people who subscribe to this notion, science is your religion. It is to this gestalt that you ascribe all value and sense of worth. Please understand that there are others who do not hold science in such regard.
- Priorité cerveau (Sciences Humaines) (French Edition).
- A Thousand and a Thousand Years (2012: Its Your Choice... and Mine).
- Unite For Better Treatments for Children and Teenagers with Cancer.
I am not in any way intimidated by science — on the contrary, I fancy myself to be quite the technologist. I am completely fascinated by the new revelations of our universe that science has provided, yet I hardly find any of this new information to be conclusive evidence that there is no more to the universe than the narrow understanding science offers.
Why must these topics always be treated as mutually exclusive ideas? Maybe we should draw a lesson from this topic from the field of science itself. Consider the duality of light. Does light exhibit the properties of a particle? Does light exhibit the properties of a wave? There was a period of time in science in which only one concept was thought to be true, not both. Had you been the type of person to choose sides, you would have only been partially correct in choosing one or the other.
Sorry… I need to revise a paragraph from my previous post… apparently using certain characters results in words being parsed out… Below is the way I intended the paragraph to read…. Nobody in their right mind would argue with biochemistry, microbiology, nuclear physics, botany, human physiology, etc…. Martin McCabe Paediatric oncologist UK Children and young people should not be denied the chance of trying effective treatments simply because they are young. The ethical issues are straightforward. Cancer is a fatal disease. It is unethical not to include children in trials of potentially life-saving treatment.
Chiara Medeot Employee Italia I signed beccasse i have a child cured of leukemia. Louisa Wright Clinical Nurse Specialist United Kingdom To bring hope to the child, with a cancer diagnosis and their family when faced with no further curative options or who could benefit from more platible drug options if needle phobic.
Kelly Houghton Fundraiser UK I have seen the pain losing a child to cancer caused to a very special friend of mine and I would like to hope that we could stop that pain for other children and families in the future. Petra Kloetzner teacher german language italy I want to contribute to save more lives of children and teens with cancer like my son. Roberto Ciccoli Researcher Italy It is necessary to move quicker.
Our children deserve the best treatments. Anna Pace Volontaria Italia Dobbiamo fare tutti qualcosa per aiutare a debellare il cancro. Joshua Savage Senior Clinical Trial Coordinator United Kingdom It is vital we all support global initiatives to develop new paediatric oncology treatments, especially for new drugs licensed for use in adult cancer indications.
Nathalie Velasco Assistant Admin Switzerland for all the good reasons mentioned in this petition and to save more children and teens with cancer. Michel Loonen Retreated Belgium very important for our kids health and future, and theirs families …. Her mother explained that actual treatments given to kids and teens are the same as the ones gave by doctors 20 years ago. New and better treatments need to be found and well investigated every time a drug company develops one. Michela Casanova Doctor Italy Every time you lose a patient, you think that there is a lot to do!
Giulio Senni Retired Italia We need to find appropriate cures and therapies in order to fight and eventually defeat child and teen cancer. Unite2Cure is a strong initiative in that respect. Roberta lorincz self usa it has to change!!! We talk about our kids, our future!! Massimo Serra Researcher Italy I signed this petition because I am working as Researcher in the bone tumors field since and I know very well how much important is the possibility to get access to new drugs and treatments for these patients, many of which are children or young adolescents.
Janet Shipley Cancer Research Professor at The Institute of Cancer Research, London UK I signed up because I believe that we collectively need to do more mechanistic based research that can realistically be taken forward to improve the lives of young patients with cancer. Francois Bonin Pilates and Yoga teacher France I care, I share the concern expressed in the testimonies, as well as the purpose of the call. Estelle Rousseau Private sector France I am the mother of a child who has been fighting his cancer for 10 months now.
Existing treatments do not work and we desperately need new innovative treatments. Thank you for your support! Deborah Clivet Graphist France My son has a brain tumor. Existing treatments are very hard to go through and have longterm side effects. There are so many great people working very hard to find cures for horrible diseases. She battled the disease, but is now faced with potential side effects for the remainder of her life. The treatments are difficult, and have long term consequences. FIght lost 11 months ago, but the experimental cure he had one year before dying gave him a very good year of relapse.
Possibly, a few years from now, he could have survived. I wish this for the children who are fighting now. Gorana Markovic hairdresser Srbija My doeghter is surviver from Hodkins limfomas last year. Jelena Milovanovic Classical philologist Belgium Children deserve right treatment. Vladimir Ivanishevich professor of history — archivist Serbia my 3 and half boy Konstantin died of acute lymphoblastic leucemia after 18 mounts of ilness.
I wish that no one more children diy because of leucemia. Joost van de laar orthopedist Holland My son 2 jears old diagnosed leukemia. Deserves the best medicine there is. My daughter died, the other children have to survive. Things must change, we must find new lighter and more effective treatments. Our association, Solidarity Association Maram sharing your struggle and pleased to join you. Michael Maguire Compliance officer england Children get cancer too.
Avenues of research that could help and prevent all cancers in all people should be pursued appropriately. And all the lil warriors!! They are the future and they should receive the most up to date treatment, which means they need to make better treatments! It needs to stop. If we can find new and improved treatment for adults, we certainly can do the same for children.
We are committed to winning her battle and to helping others both now and in the future. The disease and its many forms is bad enough, the treatments need to get better…less toxic for the benefit of kids and families now and in the years to come. He died of a secondary brain cancer caused by the late effect of treatment he had received ten years earlier, for acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Jesse was brave, kind, and wanted to make the world a better place, just like all these children, who deserve better treatments and cures, now! Because the antiquated toxic treatments are killing our children. Deb Suta retired U. There HAS to be a better route for children…they do not need adult medications! More money should be going to help our children.
Linda Verdine grandmom USA our children need treatments developed for their smaller, growing bodies. They should not have to suffer vicious side effects, and, in many cases, develop another Cancer from the adult drugs pumped into them. Kids are the future and if kids die of cancer who will be our future what if one of them had the formula to Cure cancer! Changed our lives forever. His treatment has left him with double vision, hearing loss, muscle weakness and neuropathy. Chris is now 16 and still suffering from these side effects.
No child should have to go through such harsh treatment. We can do better, and should. We are a little over a year in treatments from Chemo, Stem Cell transplant and currently Proton Radiation. We need to find a cure and one that is not so brutal. Life itself is challenging enough. More research ia needed so our kids can overcome cancer and live a long healthy life. We need to do MORE! Fsy Christie Manager Uk We need to tackle rare cancers and cancers that affect children and young people.
For Leanna and everyone affected. Deanne Jackson Bursar Uk The children are our future. They need every opportunity possible for a better life. Form of cancer and no one should have to go through the pain she is going through. Wish we saw it coming earlier to be able to prevent it! Marlene Silva Junior Charge Nurse England We should be able to always give the best to our children, a younger generation. Those who have experienced tough times are usually stronger and wiser for it.
We need these stronger, wiser and compassionate human beings to help our world return to some form of understanding and implementation of compassion and understanding! It is NOT all about money. So we need to be the first to show compassion and help these children and young people, with their families, to give them a fighting chance to put their most precious mark into and on the world. Sarah Beck Admin assistant Italy …it is only right and just and I hope I can make a difference and save lives. It made absolutely no sense to me also that globally there was no treatment to help my child curatively…in fact Abbie did not receive ONE drug only 6 weeks of palliative radiotherapy….
This is not acceptable. Now as four years ago there are no open UK trials or effective treatment for this cancer. There is absolutely no provision for trials for small cohorts of patients, options that may be available are reliant on charity for accelerated opening , these charities and foundations are also funding research for this disease! All we can do is bridge the gap in pre-clinical research waiting for recognition and focus that the disease really needs…we need help and no one can do this alone. Speed is of the essence the average survival of a DIPG child is just 9 months, for every delay in change, lives are being lost and families are in despair.
I was alerted to this by Patricia Blanc of the Imagine for Margo http: These meetings are happening because there is an unmet need for precision oncology in pediatric cancers worldwide. Habisreutinger Martine Piano teacher Switzerland Every child and teen with cancer wait my signature! More needs to be done to treat and cure children with cancer. It seems like most efforts are focused on adults. We fund the next generation of innovative research in these challenging areas. We truly believe in collaboration and uniting to cure cancers in children and teens. Didier Hauguel Bank executive France Save the children!
Everyday in the world, hundreds are dying…. This has to change. For all the Eddies out therexx. I hope one day soon the treatments available will be more effective and less toxic, so no child will have to go through the horrors of the current treatments. Giving hope to the children and parents alike is so very important. Child loss is the worst pain imaginable and it never ever stops! Clemens Van Druenen Engineer New zealand We need to urge and implement more and better ways to treat and beat cancer.
Keep up the great work. They are all our children and our future. Many thanks in advance, MN. Sonia Fontaine Technicienne bio-medicale Suisse Pour que les choses bougent pour ces enfants et adolescent qui sont notre avenir. Pour que les labos s. Rebecca Finn Mum New Zealand My son had cancer , he was one of the lucky kids, but the chemo was horrible to his body. Please find a chemo that shots children. Destiny in only two years old! Hinemoa Wilson Factory ccontractor New zealand Everyone deserves to live a full and happy life, weather your rich or poor, black or white, male or female.
There sould be a cure!! These kids need more weapons to fight this awful disease. Ann Hindle Retired U. This horrible disease is affecting to many wonderful youngsters and their families. Friend fighting ewing sarcoma — this is for her! We have so many young lives dying from cancer thank you. Children should be our future and they should have the right to grow old instead of suffering and dying before their time.
More research needs to be done now before more innocent lives are lost. Cancer affects children just as much as adults so the research and funding should reflect this. Nobody seems to know anything about this form of cancer. Childhood and teen cancers have to be recognised just as much as other cancers…for all our children and children to follow.
Flora Beverley Student UK I am 20 and have known far too many people and friends who have died from childhood cancers. I cannot imagine told I cannot live out my days to their full extent. The terror would be crippling, and I have huge respect for all those who manage to live fulfilled lives as long as they can. It would just be better if that was longer. Anything that can be done, should be done.
There must be a cure for this evil disease. Deborah Kavanagh Director England The more research undertaken, the better the understanding, the quicker the cure. And everyone should be equal in what medical care and treatment they receive. Kate Berridge Aged care worker Australia My friends daughter is going through treatment, one of her friends she became close with in hospital just passed away from Cancer she was only More research needs to be done to conquer this insidious disease that takes so many people too early.
Annabel Large Student England One of my closest friends at uni is fighting at the moment. With more research, we can prevent this happening and ultimately, save lives. This is for you Tanyel x. Tessa Bullimore Accountant Uk Because young lives need as much support as possible to save. It is time to do something. Daniela Amey Nurse manager England We should fight together to find a cure for cancer!
We cannot allow them to suffer pain and death. Ireland We have to do everything in our power for our children!
- The Fat Bastards Guide To The 10 Commandments Of Losing Weight- Thou shalt obey my commands... (The Fat Bastards Guide To... Book 2)!
- The Best Bakeries in America from 75 Best Bakeries in America;
- HIV Positive in Thailand!
- Inspire Charming Petites: Prayers from the Heart by Conover Swofford (1999, Hardcover, Gift).
- Is science faith-based? - Bad Astronomy : Bad Astronomy.
- Wall of Support!
- Student Loans Dont Have to Bite.
Claire Scott Receptionist N Ireland I feel that our treatments available to cancer patients need improved!! Paula Magee mother ireland I kno the pain of losing a child and its just unbearable x. Kara Keenan Housewife Ireland All children should be give the chance to grow up. Shauna Johnston Sign maker Northern ireland Everything possible should be done to give more options. Alison Saunders student nurse uk We need to use every available option to us. Please lets put an end to cancer! Aileen Sittlington Student N Ireland We need to help all children suffering beat this horrible disease.
Signing this for little Oscar and his lovely family! Louise Downey office clerk Northern Ireland No child should lose its life to cancer, and no parent should lose their child…. Every child deserves the chance to give life their best shot! No parent should ever have to go through the pain of losing a child.
Kathleen Doherty Child minder Northern Ireland I cannot imagine the indescribable heartache it must be for parents watching their child suffer when there may be even a slight opportunity of a drug helping. My little girl is almost 3 and God forbid if she ever took sick I would like to think that every single option was explored to help her.
Terrible to think that political red tape could prevent a child from getting help or even getting cured from an illness. Bernadine Nixon Teacher N. In honour of Oscar Knox. Anthony Doyle Admin N. Ireland Our son was diagnosed with ALL and if there are treatments available which can minimise the suffering children have to go through it would be a huge development. Caroline Sheils Personal assistant United kingdom There has been no new drugs to treat childs cancer for many years and more research is desperately needed.
Little Oscar Knox was an inspiration and a little Legend in his own right. Keep up the good work. Jane Fleming Teacher Northern Ireland We should be trying to do everything possible to protect our children. Elsbeth Hallam Charity founder Uk My child has cancer and more needs to be done! Ireland We should do all we can here to give these young people a chance. Imagine if it was your kid.
Wall of Support | Unite2Cure
The change will be worth it. Mairead Duffy Sales Assistant Ireland In memory of all who have lost their fight against this horrible disease and hopefully future with a cure. Roisin Mc manus Waitress Ireland I signed this for children who are battling cancer and in memory of those who have passed. There is nothing worse in this entire world than losing your child.
There is only one choice… Sign sign sign. Kellie Mccaughan Manager N. More needs to be done to cure these diseases. Bracken Brown Student England So much more needs to be done to research and care for people with cancer, and at the moment far too little money goes into this for children and teens. Anne Mckerr Housewife Scotland Oscar Fought so hard to beat this and was an inspiration to all of us thanks x. This needs to change! Mairead Wilkinson Nurse N. Ireland I met Oscar and his family and they are truly inspirational.
With modern day technology and medicine, no more lives should be lost.. Anything that can lessen the chances of this is the least we can do to help other families who will face this. Sacred heart of Jesus wrap them in your mantle. St Gerard Majella bless them all and their families.
Drug companies should have patient focused priorities — all patients, regardless of age. Also in memory of Oscar Knox. Lorraine Russell Teacher Scotland My son, and our children, need and deserve kinder and better treatments when diagnosed with cancer. Laura Adams Teacher N. Ireland All children and young people have the right to the best treatment available. No baby should die of cancer, ever! He was only five and a half months. All obstacles to progress need to be removed. So many more children to survive cancer and be treated with the best possible medication and care.
The sad thing is everyone knows someone who has lost their live to cancer. We cannot let cancer win. I am doing this for team Oscar x. Fiona Brown Mum United Kingdom My daughter was 3 years 3 months old when she was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Someone who knows first hand that time is of the essence and that something must be done now. We must fight for our children with the same vigor as they show throughout their daily struggle against all odds!
Every avenue should be explored. Julianne Mullin Administration N irelanf Heart breaking to see these babies suffer at the hand of this horrible disease. There has to be more that can be done to find a cure for childhood cancer. Liam Fleming Physiotherapist Northern ireland This is essential to ending preventable pain for children and their loved ones alike. Murray Leith Taxi driver Scotland Wee Oscar was an inspiration and I would hate to see this awful disease not given full attention.
539,87 RUB
And, children deserve to be given special care. Margaret Moody retired or therm Irelabd everything that can be done should be done to save the lives of children. Eugenia Mccartan Hairdresser Northern ireland My nephew was stole from us because of lack of treatment options. Margaret Wylie retired N Ireland Little children diagnosed with cancer deserve all the help they can get. No need for them to die young xx.
Enforcing these rules may not only save precious lives but serve as an example of equal rights for children, a listening ear to those unable to speak for themselves and a sign of compassion that adults are not put first simply because they make the decision. In memory of Oscar. Fiona Hamill Housewife Ireland No child should have to die because of this horrible disease. I pray they all find the courage through difficult times xxx. Shona MacIver Management Scotland I have known 2 young people who have battled cancer, Eileidh was only 2 when diagnosed. Our community raised money to send her to America for treatment which she is still receiving.
Michael battled from12 until So far he is free from cancer. Anything that can make it easier for kids or adults has to be a good thing. Dale Hardie Teacher Scotland My wife has just battled cancer. The thought of a child with cancer is unthinkable. We need to do everything we can to help children with this terrible disease.
More needs to be done in PIP Dev etc. Happy to say that he is now two months away from his 16th birthday! Children and teenagers with cancer should be afforded every opportunity and treatment possible. For a wee boy with a big heart inspired and motivated so many! Sharon Bel Staff nurse UK No mother or father should have to bear the emptiness and frustration of loosing a child to a disease that has a potential cure.
Denise Friel Supervisory assistant Ireland We need new drugs to treat children and young people with cancer. He, and other youngsters like him, should have just as much opportunity as any adult for treatment with new, more effective medications which may have less side effects and better outcomes.
Clare Seeley Mum NI armagh I followed Oscar, he was and still is my hero, such a brave boy, my daughter fund raised for him and he was so loved in our home, anything that can help other children and anyone with cancer should get support. I sign this especially in memory of Oscar Knox. Xx still in our thoughts Wee Oscar. Not to bail out greedy bankers and capitalists. Where we have have learned to be strong but live in fear of relapse or long term effects of the harsh treatment effecting the rest of her life. No 5 year old should have to go through this or any child.
Liz Kelly Midwife Ireland Change needs to come. Signed in memory of Oscar Knox and all sufferers of childhood cancer. Orla Carbery Occupational therapist Dubai To speed up access to more drugs for children suffering from cancer.. These are our children.. They deserve every fight to live! Please help the children of our future.
Denise Hamill Office Manager Northern Ireland My nephews young son died from this terrible disease when he was just 9. Signed with hope for a cure for all these beautiful children xxx. The drugs should be made available to all who need them. Keep up the lobby and well done on taking your fight to brussels. Ireland We need to do everything we possibly can to stop these horrible diseases stealing our children. Susie Mcgeown Staff nurse N. Angela Fegan clerk northern ireland I pray that in the near future cancer will be curable for all victims.
Until then, more effective medicine should be available to all. Anything to help is a bonus. Anything that helps speed up new drugs or treatments should be done NOW. His death cannot be in vain. Any changes to the regulation of European paediatric medicine which will expedite the treatment and care of children like Oscar can only be a positive step. Tania henry Hairdresser Northern Ireland I am a Mother and Grandmother who adores her Familynand the thought of what some families have to go through because there has not been a cure found for many forms of cancers especially ones that attack children and young Adults.
We have to find a cure as these children deserve a chance to live there lives for themselves and their loved ones. Andy Cochrane Retail Manager United Kingdom We should be doing everything humanly possible to combat this disease — particularly for children who have their whole lives in front of them. It has to stop….. MollysAngels16 is behind you. Mark Mc Cauley Painter N.
The way it should be. Tara Morgan Sales manager Northern ireland We need to keep fighting this awful illness. There is huge importance in making sure that kids not only get better safer treatments but, also become part of a long-term care team. Things need to change… And now! Margaret Healy Retired Scotland A dear friend lost her little boy aged 5 and it could be anyones child next time.
Thomas South Retired Scotland Cancer is a terrible disease that affects all ages but it is a tragedy when it affects a child or young person. We found out through his illness that no new peadeatric drugs had been found to treat this and othe childhood cancers. Everything that can possibly be done to fight cancer should be done for kids with cancer. Dermot Mc Fadden Social worker Ireland As a parent who lost a child to a genetic condition, I would do anything to ensure no other parent should have to endure the pain that comes with that loss. Thinking of all the families out there who are affected by childhood and teenage cancer x.
Ireland I loved Oscar Knox and had always hoped that he would get better. His family continues to inspire. Serena Burns Care Assistant Ireland My young son was diagnosed with lymphoma in he will be 5 years post treatment this October please god I hope there are new drugs developed with less harmful side affects for kids diagnosed in the future and better survival rates x. Jane Shreenan Housewife Scotland My only son died of a brain tumour at the age of Machtelinckx j-marie retired Luxemburg My kid is dead from cancer but could live a longer time with the benefits from pediatrics medicine 7years!
Still children are dying from cancer. The children who survive have to face many severe problems after the treatment, which has a negative impact on their quality of life. Awareness is not enough, we need action! Ligot Bertrand Employer Luxembourg Les enfants sont notre espoir, notre devenir, notre amour. Lorraine Doyne Bookseller UK I lost my beautiful brave daughter Bronte age 19 to fibrolamellar carcinoma a very rare cancer, which most often occurs in young adults. Information and support on this cancer was so vague, treatment protocols so old with no investment into research.
My baby suffered tragic consequences through a catastrophe of hospital care. A cry to pharmaceutical companies and for investment into research, Please help our children, please give hope. Spiros Vlahopoulos biologist Greece Profit as a driver is fine. However, there needs to be also life after profit. Therefore there need to be incentives for patient-driven research, be it basic or clinical.
Nowdays profits are privatized and losses are socialized. There needs to be a balance for this problem, which causes the most trouble to funding for pediatric research. Research for pediatric oncology is largely underfunded because childhood cancer is less frequent than cancer in the other ages. Research currently is generally underfunded. Thank you for readind this. Les enfants sont notre avenir. Et les maladies rares qui les concernent. It is anormal to have to argue about this type of topic now.
Political are too much unskilled. Notre avenir sont les enfants. It must help them to overcome this disease. The life of a child has no price! Gregory Masse Without France I am suffering from sclerosis plate and whatever illness I support this type of initiative, together we are stronger. France Equal chances of treatments for all patients. Sorry for my bad english. Everybody would sign this. Sorry my inglish is so bad…. Children must have the better chance to survive and have the better treatment when they are ill.
We have to save children who are sick. I have compassion for parents who are concerned by this. If my boys was seek I hope they would je treat. Childrens are pour futur de shlould help there to je healthy. Il faut que les choses changent et rapidement. DIPG is terminal on diagnosis with no new treatments for 30 years. These statistics are appalling. As much funding should go into childhood cancer as adult cancers get. Our children deserve more! The only treatments available to Alfie was palliative.
The radiotherapy only slowed down the tumour growth, the harsh steroids made him bloated and irritable and the oral chemo made him sick. Alfie passed away in Our Children deserve better. La recherche ne doit pas concerner que les adultes. Julie Smith Administrator England My son fought cancer from 22 months, he is now 9 and in his third complete remission from Stage 4 High Risk Neuroblastoma. He ran out of treatment options in the Uk on his 1st relapse. More needs to be done for our children, our future. Nathalie Varoqueaux Medical Director France We need to accelerate the access to innovative drugs to children.
Ils ne devraient pas subir de telles souffrances!! Il faut faire bouger les lignes. Pour elle et pour tous les autres, merci de vous battre …. Benvinda Neves marketing Luxembourg All children in the world should have all the medication they need, an not to be stopped by a law…. Amanda Griffin Founder at TheTruthAustralia Australia Children and teenager affected by cancer should not be disadvantaged as a consequence of current regulations. I fully support changes to legislation that enforces cancer drug developers to investigate potential anti-cancer affects on paediatric cancer for all new treatments.
Eugenia Mccartan Hairdresser N. Ireland My nephew died of Neuroblastoma because he run out of treatment options. Grace had malignant rhabdoid tumour with no treatmenr protocol as it has not been researched. This needs to change. Angela McBeath Foster carer Scotland It must be the worst thing imaginable to watch your child suffer. Stephen Walker Senior Resource Planner United Kingdom I have seen the effects of chemotherapy on my 3 year old son and on other children, it is heart breaking. Even after treatment has ended the effects of poison can causes further problems.
The governments in all countries should be driving through a structure to make a change. Nice to read about Unite2Cure! Drug research for children with cancer should be a priority too. I stand for the support for the same. It is vital that the regulation of medicines works for the benefit of patients, particularly children. The interests of large drug companies do not necessarily coincide with those of patients, and regulators can be supine in dealing with them.
Tracey Warboys Wife and full-time Mum of 8 children. United Kingdom My 9 year old son was diagnosed with T-cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia in March , his first year of treatment was incredibly harsh, sadly he relapsed in April and needed radiotherapy, more harsh treatment and a bone marrow transplant, fortunately he had 2 sibling matches, his 17 year old brother donated mls of his bone marrow, my son is now 9 months post transplant, he has a lot of problems with his memory and mobility due to the steriods and chemotherapy treatment, we need kinder, less invasive treatment that will also be better for them long term.
The right to survive! We demand live saving treatment for our children! And no parent should have to watch their child loose that battle X. As a nurse working in an oncology ward,I just want every child to get every chance they can to beat this disease. Katrina Taggart Administrator Northern Ireland Something needs to change to hell these poor children.
These children deserve the very best in treatments. The word expensive seems to crop up everytime research is needed. There is insufficient research into new and kinder treatments and too few drugs are available for children with cancer. The UK offered my son palliative care and so we sought treatment abroad. He is now in complete remission. We have to alert our legislators and ask them to ensure positive adherence to the obligation. Anne-Matie Brennan-Verax Psychotherapist France My 6-year old son has cancer Nephroblastoma and I am now more aware of the crucial and critical reforms needed to enable young cancer patients to access drugs which, through research, will be more effective and less toxic.
Robert Putter Student United Kindgom Too many people are affected by unnecessarily slow cancer treatment. I watch my child battle every single minute of every single day. Gloria Hannant Retired Britain Because my dearly loved Grandaughter is bravely battling Ewings Sarcoma and I realise there are many families with children and young adults going through this heartbreak every day.
Annabel large Student Wales One of my best friends is currently fighting cancer, a soft tissue sarcoma and I feel that there needs to be more awareness and research into teenage and young adult cancers. Matt Swabey Student England A brave friend of mine is not getting the potential treatment that she so rightly deserves. Cormac Bohan Compliance Manager Ireland Children andvTeens with cancer deserve the same chance as adults even if its not profitable for drig companies. Vicky Whyte Nurse Ireland My daughter died from the harshness of her cancer treatment.
Maxine Waith Retired nurse United Kingdom Because children like Harvey would possibly still be with his family and now Charlie and children who are battling cancer need this now. Eoin Davies Upholsterer England My child was diagnosed with cancer at 8 months old. Didier Hauguel Banker France Saving children from cancer is a cause which goes beyond frontiers. Elaine Henderson Scientist UK I would like to see further treatment options being officially investigated and approved for use in those under I want to see BIG changes. Bernadette la maman de Benjamin pour toujours.
Evelina Dimova Translator Luxembourg Children should benefit from the latest research and development in medicine, on the same level as the adults. Yvonna Baalbergen Account manager Netherlands Our children are our future. They deserve the same chances as adults when fighting cancer.
Mark received chemotherapy, however due to the position and spread of the tumour he was considered unsuitable for surgery and had radiotherapy. Mark enjoyed a few months of good health and was clear of the disease until The cancer had returned and had rapidly spread to his lungs and other parts of his body. He died in April aged just We hope that more can be done to help prevent young children and teenagers from dying from this horrible disease.
Ingrid Geijteman teacher The Netherlands My son is battling bone cancer for three years now. No child or young adult should suffer like this! I signed this because I agree That the treatment for childeren have to be better! They are our future and pleace a child with cancer we have to help to make it easyer! Nathalie Goujon Employee France Children cannot die anymore in the 21st century of cancer!! Vurlod Christel Mother at home Switzerland For all thoses children fighting and for my little girl who had a brain tumor..
Love my daughter so much. Children are the future. They should be given the same chances to survive and live their lives. Mark Lyus Long term sick England The drug companies have a cure but are making to much money to ever admit it. Fred Salvage Retired France Children and young people with cancer have the right to expect the State to provide them with life-saving treatment, where it exists. Sante Lillo Medical Informer Italy I really hope to see the number of dead teens become smaller and smaller, year after year. Brigitte Rousseau Head of Accounting Luxembourg I signed because I lost too many beloved ones due to cancer and follow the will of my parents…help cancer sick children….
Lorraine Cowan Receptionist UK My son is stage 3 with malignant melanoma with an unknown primary and all we have been offered is to wait and see. Kate Ramsay Retired Scotland I believe that children must be given every opportunity to help them to survive cancer. Daniela Aney Senior nurse England Simply because nobody should suffer from this dreadful desease but it is breaking me when I see children suffering.
Alexandra McKee Charity worker United Kingdom My son has cancer and the late side effects concern me almost as much as treatment. Her will is strong, the science is not. More is research urgently needed. At his diagnosis the consultant said it would be difficult to save him. Once Ewings Sarcoma has spread, as it had with David, there is very little in the way of treatment that will help and cure. This is an area of urgent need. Claire Rowan Fundraiser England I want to help find a cure for childhood cancer in any way that I can.
We need new treatments and help from Europ. Go on and on!! Sonja Weidert fonctionnaire Luxembourg The well-being and health of children should be priority number one in this world. Sante Zampini Finance Italy My son suffered a brain tumor medulloblastoma about 10! Although he is currently in good health he is experiencing the long term complications of the therapies that include short stature, lack of concentration and focus taking a toll on his school performance and hear loss.
WE can all add our part of support and help by signing this petition. Together with her we wish that all children and teenagers will benefit from an efficient and less invasive treatment. Galia Flores Psychologue Swizerland susan goldstein fundraiser united states Our children are not an afterthought. Marie makhlouk employee France i m affraid because i have a child and i want the best for him if he has a cancer yann valdenaire student France Laure De blay Consultante France Faisons avancer la recherche! Child, or teen, need to have a chance. Cecile Besson Perrin Teacher France Purna Kurkure Pediatric Oncologist India there is urgent need to look at our drug armamentarium which has remained almost static in last three decades.
You want what is best for your kids and better treatment means you will see them grow up… Patricia Lacey Retired U. Erik Klop Oud-Beijerland Netherlands every child deserves a chance to live! Olivier Leahu Elena medic Romania I love the childrens. Maja Nidecker Teacher Switzerland i am the mother of a survivor… Madalina Milliot Parent Luxembourg Because current treatments are so invasive, because our children deserve better, because they should have a future!