Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication

Krishna: Alternatives to science people suggest are very shaky and completely untrustworthy: Consider these other sources of 'truth and advice' that place themselves as alternatives to science ... religious practices and stories that cannot show any evidence, future predictions like horoscopes/tarot/palm reading, fortune telling, witch and quack doctors who practice dubiously and use untested things to treat people, latest fad crazes, ill-informed relatives, neighbours, friends and groups, the village elders, ignorant advice columnists, cults (e.g. scientology).

Q: Should someone be allowed to debate against scientific theories without trying to understand even the basics about those theories?

Krishna: Like Aristotle said, "The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal!"

More often than not, there is no “opposition party” or “other side” in science. There can be disagreement between various scientists when sometimes the research is incomplete and inconclusive. This can be considered. But non-experts cannot be given 'opposition status' in science. Someone who objects to scientific facts on non-scientific grounds simply cannot form part of the debate.There is the data and what it means. And there are facts whether anybody agrees with them or not. Period!

Q: Paranormal expert "Steve huff" claims to have spoken to the soul of Sushant Singh Rajput, is it possible to talk to the spirit of a dead person?

Krishna: According to science, that is not possible. Because there is no evidence for soul in the first place. Soul?! What is it according to science and scientists?

Yes, you can imagine a soul, then imagine you are talking to it, and then hoodwink the world.

Then there are some ‘conditions’ where people can hallucinate. And think what you hallucinated is real : Science and the paranormal

Suckers will believe this and rationalists will smile and move away.

If you want an answer to the Q: is it possible to talk to the spirit of a dead person?, first decide which category you belong to.

What you accept as an answer depends on not facts but what you want to hear and what your mind is willing to consider.

Q: How do doctors read through so many research papers? Are there any tools that they use?

Krishna: I read atleast 60–70 scientific research papers per day. I am not a medical doctor, though.

Doctors must read atleast work that is being published in their field. Some doctors don’t do this and get stuck with ‘old knowledge’. They say they depend on their ‘experience’ to treat patients. Some learn things from their colleagues. Some get to know things from medical representatives that sell drugs. These people will not have adequate knowledge though.

I have also seen medical doctors who themselves do research.

So there are all sorts of people in the medical profession.

I prefer doctors who ‘get updated’ on a daily basis like me, though.

Q: What is unscientific in this scientific world?

Krishna: Not accepting science, not following scientific methods and methodologies, and still remaining in ancient times both in your thoughts and deeds is highly unscientific.

This causes trouble because you are going against the very nature of the universe we are living in which is highly scientific.

Q: What do you feel, science for people or people for science? What will you suggest to everyone from this above question?

Krishna: If I say science and living beings cannot be separated from each other?

Feelings have no place in science. Only evidence based facts.

Can living beings or this universe and everything in it exist without scientific principles governing them, controlling and running them? NO!

Each and every particle in this universe is controlled by scientific principles. That ‘Science’ is filled in each and every angstrom of this universe. When several factors decide outcomes, they follow the interplay of scientific rules and routes and exactly fit into the reaction realities.

Science has two aspects to it.

One*: The principles with which this universe came into existence and run by it.

Two**: The process with which we study this universe.

People usually take only the second one into consideration, not the first one while dealing with this aspect. But the truth is, without scientific principles, this universe in which we live, wouldn't have come into existence in the first place. Only when the scientific principles based universe came into existence, the consequences like galaxies, stars, planets, origin of life, its evolution, and living beings became a reality.

So it is an established fact that we cannot exist without ‘science’.

Then you have to study this science to gain control over situations, to use it for the benefit of living beings. To live longer and healthy in the first place. To get food to live. To get medical assistance to live. To progress.

Remove ‘science’* that control everything, this universe and you cease to exist.

Remove people, the universe can still exist but without any meaning.

Remove ‘science’ ** (can be thought of as both a body of knowledge (the things we have already discovered), and the process of acquiring new knowledge (through observation and experimentation—testing and hypothesising), you still cannot live a fruitful life, good life, might even die of disease and hunger.

So science* for universe and people in it, because it is the ‘life’ of universe.

If people discard the science**, they still cannot live a quality life and might even get destroyed without the basics for life.

Your statement doesn’t cover all the facts.

Q: Why can't Bombay blood group people have O blood group trnsfusion?

Krishna: Since individuals with the Bombay phenotype are easily misdiagnosed as the O blood group in cell typing and because of the presence of strong anti-H in their plasma, if they receive blood group O red cells or any other blood group red cells except the Bombay group, they may develop an acute hemolytic transfusion reaction. This reaction can cause acute renal failure or disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) which is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates especially in unconscious patients who may receive large volumes of incompatible blood before signs of hemolytic reaction appears (1).

Bombay blood group is also called as the HH group.  All the blood groups primarily contain a protein called the H antigen. The antigens A and B are made from the H antigen. So, when someone has the A blood group, it means that they have the antigen of type ‘A’ and antibody of type ‘B’ in their blood. Similarly a B blood group person has antigen of type ‘ B’ and antibody of type ‘A’ in his/her blood. Blood group AB has both type A and B antigens in their blood but no antibodies, whereas ‘O’ blood group has ‘A’ and ‘B’ antibodies and no antigens. The HH or Bombay blood group do not produce this H antigen, subsequently not producing either A or B antigen. They only have the ‘H’ antibody which none of the other blood groups have due to which blood transfusion for the Bombay blood with any other group is not possible.




Views: 22

Replies to This Discussion



© 2020   Created by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service