I remember there being a CS case of a boy dying from Crohn's disease, and the CS were pointing out, correctly, that the child star Heather O'Rourke had just died from the exact same disease, after receiving treatment from the best medical science could offer. Same result. So why aren't Heather's parents criminally insane?
Since it is a genetic disease currently without a cure, there is no fool proof way of dealing with Crohn's disease. However, certain treatements (i.e. medication and, at times, surgery) have been proven to have a higher probability of success than others (i.e. prayer). The responsible act is to engage in the treatment with the higher probability of success and failure to do so does constitute neglect.
Btw, her co-star Dominique Dunne (near whom O'Rourke is buried) had already been strangled by her boyfriend, because she left him. He was convicted for manslaughter and served less than 4 years. I guess it's just the same as our CS parents.
I don't know the specifics of the case, but if it is as you say it seems to demonstrate a failure in our judicial system, these unfortunately happen from time to time, it doesn't mean that we should make them precedent.
Oh? I just spent Friday in a gun scare at school (High School). Not raising your child to conform to tried and true social norms and killing are exactly the same thing.
Is this the failure of parents or perhaps the failure of some of our social norms? I would expand but it would probably drive the discussion into politics.
I work every day with Dr. Spock's progeny. Do you have any contact with children?
Fortunately not every day, but enough to know that there arn't many children I like putting up with, regardless of upbringing.
Just pointing out the obvious of what forum you are posting. If you want to talk about how insane we are in believing in God, start a thread.
Why do you think I started this thread? And the point isn't that believing in god is insane, it's not, the point is that spurning science inorder to hope for miracles is insane.
Btw, the need for the invention of the idea of Punctuated Equalibrium would show the universe, or rather science's explanation of it, is less consistent than you would like.
If you include probability mechanics in your explination everything is perfectly logical and consistent.
Like entropy resulting in order.
Locally, yes...hardly a contradiction to anything.
And, as scientists are loathe to admit, Isaac Newton would seriously contend with you on that: he saw his scientific work as a by product of his religious studies (which is the bulk of his life's work, though relegated into obscurity by those who build modern science on his work).
And there are a plethora of other problems with Newton's work as demonstrated by the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. He had some good points but was dead wrong, or at least inaccurate, on others. His faith, which is expected of a seventeenth century academic, is ignored for the simple reason that, regardless of what he may have thought, it's not significant.
Having worked at a psych hospital I 1) don't need a peer reviewed journal to tell me what I see, 2) saw enough to be leery of the "peers."
No peer reviewed research to back up you hunch, eh? You'll forive me for not taking it seriously then. Let me know when you get it published in one of the Nature Journals, then we can talk about your theories.
That being said, one study I saw showed that the prescription for ritilin corelated better with zip codes than with symptoms. Zip codes, btw, tell you something about affluence and the ability to pay for medications.
And why is this significant to your theory about the effects of the medicine?
Modest as always.
One must know their strengths and weaknesses.
I thought you were the great empirisist. Any observations to back you up?
Judging the quality of philosophical works is often like judging the asthetic qualities of colours...it's generally a matter of personal preference. But with that said, I would argue that due to the scope alone the Tao Te Ching offers a greater degree of philosophical insight than Lord of the Flies, which was intended as a social commentary not a philosophical work.
That being said, Lao Tzu (or at least the Tao Te Ching) has a lot more to say. I will note, that it was written while he was fleeing from society.
By some theories, but not all. Ultimately we know nothing of Lao Tzu.