Sorry about the recent silence, but things have been a bit hectic. School started up again. I totaled my car. Various wedding planning-related activities. And lots of inchoate notions that I never gave sufficient nourishment and sunlight to so that they might sprout into fully bloomed blog posts. So, as an exercise to get warmed up again, shall we consider a few brief points on various topics? ...
The Belgian parliament has voted to allow children with terminal illnesses to request that they be assisted in committing suicide, provided they are suffering unbearably, have their parents' consent, and make the request repeatedly. Nominee for understatement of the year: "Some paediatricians [British spelling] have warned vulnerable children could be put at risk and have questioned whether a child can really be expected to make such a difficult choice." No, really? We won't let a kid pick their own shoes, but suddenly they can decide whether they should live or die? I would guess that the motivation behind this is law is some vaguely well-intended but seriously misguided desire to alleviate suffering, with the solution being to eliminate the sufferer rather than the suffering. I thought it significant that "160 Belgian paediatricians signed an open letter against the law, claiming that there was no urgent need for it and that modern medicine is capable of alleviating pain." 160 may not sound like a lot, but Belgium is pretty small; that could be, like, half of them....
I often tell people that "science isn't an exact science." What do I mean by that? Well, the "scientific method," as we call it, employs inductive reasoning, which means that it comes to probable conclusions based on repeated observation of the same outcomes. Scientific conclusions are always provisional: they are sound, provided that the experiment was done properly, and that all the relevant facts were accounted for in the interpretation of the experiment's outcomes. But it's quite possible that reported scientific findings can be in error: some crucial factor was missed; some outcome misinterpreted; some item ignored. And, if one study is to believed, this happens quite frequently, such that the majority of research published in prestigious journals is false, perhaps unable to be reproduced in subsequent experiments or seriously flawed in its methodology. Be wary of reports in the news on scientific findings. Scientists, being human, want attention for their work, and reporters want attention for their stories, and the combination can lead to a whole heap of hasty conclusions....
Hmm, that may be enough to chew on for now. Do feel free to suggest topics or ask questions any time!
No comments:
Post a Comment