>> Do you ever read anything I write?
Yes. Always when it is addressed to me and often at other times.
>> I already said that I do not consider empire in the strict sense to be necessary to human progress.
You did. But you did not say why you'd consider a city state to be an empire. I see now that you are saying Athens had a sphere of influence greater than its size and that it enforced that influence by force. I guess then it can be considered an "empire", though its size precludes it in my mind. But it is still unclear how that relates to our argument...anyway, I let it go on this issue.
>> I have explained over and over the sense in which science did not exist prior to the 16th century.
I heard you here too. I just don't agree with you. Here are the issues: Firstly, you are mixing science with scientific method and claim that one cannot exist without the other. This is like saying without a map I cannot travel from A to B because I am guessing my directions. Of course I can travel. It just may take me longer. Similarly, the achievements I cited did not pop out of thin air. Someone had to have analyzed facts, investigated results, formed hypothesis, and chosen one conclusion among the many possibilities. So science did exist, it just may not have been according to today's vocabulary.
Secondly, I pointed out that even the scientific method existed before the 16th C. The fact that someone would hang meat around the city to discover the cleanest part to build a hospital based on the rate of infection shows tremendous scientific thought. If in fact you believe that science without the scientific method cannot exist, then you must also accept that given the scientific work in ancient times, the scientific method must have existed as well.
>> Actually, drugs are tested under rigorous protocols...
This is not the issue at all. The issues are (a) lack of understanding of physiology and pharmacology by the average doctor, (b) the general "blitz attack" of the drugs on the human body, and (c) what you call the "art of medicine". Which means, IMO, medicine today will be considered as "hit or miss" compared to what we will have in a few thousand years as the ancient Khemit medicine is compared to today's.
>> What makes you think that modern man is unhappier than his ancestors, who could expect to die young, or to have to bury children and/or a spouse before reaching 50?
I never said we are unhappier, though I must admit at times I wonder about that. Regardless, I think you are missing the point here. Studies have shown that a year after winning the lottery, most winners are not any happier than they were before it. In the same way, I believe all the bells and whistles of modern world do not make us any happier. Happiness is gained more by a sense of purpose in life and feelings of accomplishment, camaraderie, friendship, strong family ties, and harmony with one's surroundings. Science does nothing about these issues.
As a side note, I was reading about arguments for and against euthanasia. The "con" side noted studies that showed people with terminal diseases (I think they looked at liver and cancer patients which are both painful) were not any less happy with their lives IF they had good relations with family and friends who interacted with them everyday. Regardless of you stance on euthanasia, it is clear that personal relations and outlook on life are a greater factor in one's happiness than a painful disease, hence my point that the ablity to cure them per se is not the greatest step towards mankind's happiness (it does have some improvement, just not as much).
later,
ST |
