2 ms·

You should have to because the original comment was seeping in dramatic hyperbole to fish for points. At the end of the day, I'd much rather live with modern m

You should have to because the original comment was seeping in dramatic hyperbole to fish for points. At the end of the day, I'd much rather live with modern medicine than dark age medicine.

hilbert42 6y ago
I suggest you read my next post below. BTW, have you ever thought about the fact that cancer deaths are still very prevalent despite all the hyperbole from thousands of researchers say since 1950—yes, hyperbole deliberately spruced up to attract funding and to gain newspaper headlines. The facts are straightforward: had 0.1% of the promises about improvements in cancer treatments that have appeared in the many tens of thousands of professional research papers on the subject over the past 70 yeas had actually come to fruition, then the disease would have all but been eliminated by now. You might say this was justified but it's turned out that this type of hyperbole is not befitting of science, and that it's been largely responsible for the enormous drop in the public's approval rating for science over this time. (I'm not saying it's only cancer researchers (although they top the list), essentially it's all researchers these days.) Don't say this isn't true, do your research. In the 1950s almost everyone believed in and accepted science—even though this was the time of the A-Bomb and bomb development, back then, people could still differentiate science per se* from the bad applications of science. Now, 60 or 70 years later, I know scientists who, when, say, they go to a party, will disguise their real professions, so bad is Science's PR. (I'm even in that league but I'm less sensitive about it than some.) Anyway, I'd suggest to you that in comparison with these professionals, my hyperbole pails into insignificance. Ha, so you reckon my hyperbole is dramatic and done only to fish for points. That implies you actually think about such matters and consider points important (most of my posts never make it even to two). Franky, these post would altogether be much better of without them. For the record, your assertion isn't true (not that I expect you to believe what I've said).

You should have to because the original comment was seeping in dramatic hyperbole to fish for points. At the end of the day, I'd much rather live with modern medicine than dark age medicine.

hilbert42 6y ago

I suggest you read my next post below. BTW, have you ever thought about the fact that cancer deaths are still very prevalent despite all the hyperbole from thousands of researchers say since 1950—yes, hyperbole deliberately spruced up to attract funding and to gain newspaper headlines. The facts are straightforward: had 0.1% of the promises about improvements in cancer treatments that have appeared in the many tens of thousands of professional research papers on the subject over the past 70 yeas had actually come to fruition, then the disease would have all but been eliminated by now. You might say this was justified but it's turned out that this type of hyperbole is not befitting of science, and that it's been largely responsible for the enormous drop in the public's approval rating for science over this time. (I'm not saying it's only cancer researchers (although they top the list), essentially it's all researchers these days.) Don't say this isn't true, do your research. In the 1950s almost everyone believed in and accepted science—even though this was the time of the A-Bomb and bomb development, back then, people could still differentiate science per se* from the bad applications of science. Now, 60 or 70 years later, I know scientists who, when, say, they go to a party, will disguise their real professions, so bad is Science's PR. (I'm even in that league but I'm less sensitive about it than some.) Anyway, I'd suggest to you that in comparison with these professionals, my hyperbole pails into insignificance. Ha, so you reckon my hyperbole is dramatic and done only to fish for points. That implies you actually think about such matters and consider points important (most of my posts never make it even to two). Franky, these post would altogether be much better of without them. For the record, your assertion isn't true (not that I expect you to believe what I've said).