HikerGuy83
Diamond Member
- Dec 26, 2021
- 18,555
- 14,789
- 2,288
The fallacy in this is that many of us who voted for Trump don't see him as a "source of truth". We know he BS's, exaggerates, and is extremely hyperbolic. I would never trust anything he says at face value.
I also don't trust so-called journalists.
As for historians, who are you referencing? I am not sure which ones you think people ignore.
When it comes to scientists, the problem becomes the YES/NO ON/OFF approach. Science is science (and I am half scientist myself). Facts are facts....... until they are not facts. And that's when it gets human (or political, if you will). And I have seen it become a real problem across the board.
Way back when.
The day was December 12, 1799. A freezing rain whipped the Virginia countryside including Mount Vernon, where President George Washington lived and maintained his plantation. He inspected his lands for many hours that day, riding horseback and braving the harsh elements just as he had done throughout his life. Although he awoke the next morning with a hoarse, sore throat, it did not deter him from going out again, this time in heavy snow. By 3 am on Saturday the 14th, however, he awoke seriously ill and summoned his aides and doctors.
It was clear that the General had an upper respiratory infection, what is thought today to have been epiglottitis (inflammation and swelling of the epiglottis) or streptococcal pharyngitis (“strep-throat”). In those early days of medicine, however, there was no definitive way to diagnose a bacterial infection and no antibiotics to treat it. Many doctors, in fact, believed that bloodletting or the removal of a portion of an ill person’s blood could improve their condition. In accordance with this, in addition to the application of the usual crude purgatives and emetics, over half of Washington’s blood was drained in just a few hours. It is widely held today that the Father of our country died from the aggressive bloodletting, which resulted in severely low blood pressure and shock.
***************
Now, bloodletting was not "proven", but it was extolled, nonetheless by a doctor. And it was practiced. I worry that we have far to many "facts" out that like bloodletting.
I don't see that changing.
When something turns out to not be right.....science has a hard time accepting that. One example is neuroplasticity.
It was a concept in 1902, but not as readily researched. It got a resurgence (or so they say)....but I still recall hearing that the brain was finished at 20 and only went downhill from there. Only in the last 20 years has the concept really taken off.
During all that time, the accepted "facts" of the day remained as "facts" and (in the absence of anything concrete either way) are still "facts" to some.
