|
Seriously now... if we look at medicine as in terms of an applied science - it should be pointed out that the whole point of the scientific method is that there are no proofs. Everything is open to question, testing, retesting and debate. Private companies do skew this process a bit - however it's pretty hard to take Tom seriously unless he mentions the studies he's using to back his argument. We should not have debate here without reference to observations. Medical conclusions can only be drawn by watching the effect on a decent number of people over a decent period of time - not by sessions with Oprah.
For myself - it's also hard to take seriously Toms interest in observing the physical world without bias when he takes a religious position based on faith. That is not to say however that there are not some excellent religious thinkers, but there are few I believe from Scientology - a group that resists exposure of it's own internal teachings.
Finally, the statement "scientifically we can proove that" in particular shows a total lack of understanding of this process, or concept of doubt. And what of the inclusive "we"? That irks me. Biochemists working with actors for the common good?What research has Tom done. None. Talking isn't research. Acting isn't research. Even the act of reading scientific papers is not research.
Tom has all the intellectual depth and wisdom that I would expect of somebody whose ideal companion is a decade plus younger.
|