1)What scientists believe change? Example?

2)Science is not technology, explain with example?

3)How people cheat at medical testing? provide an example

4)how we test medical treatments and why we have to?

5)why do we test and have to keep testing theories?

6)Why a market economy cant get us everything? provide example

7)Why we should not use the quack treatments?

8)Is it foolish for an adult to go to mexico for laetrile?

9)Is it immoral if parents take their children there instead of getting them the best treatment available?

What do scientists believe about change? Example?

Based on the philosophy of Heraclitus, it seems to me that for scientists, change is one of the fundamental bases of all their work. The non-permanence of things - change - is what leads scientists, among other things, to study reality for their understanding and better management. Change is evolution and when speaking of evolution, any prescribed form of the origin and reason for being of reality is rejected; Change is definitely the fundamental basis for the great questions of science because in it there is a permanent process of birth and death of components of reality that is what originates evolution. It seems to me that for scientists one of the greatest challenges as a consequence of change is to "put together" the pieces of the evolutionary process to try as far as possible to put together a map of what the world was and continues to be. For example, one of the most well-known tasks of science is to be able to definitively understand the evolutionary process of animal species, among these points, how was really the passage of the lower species until reaching man as it is known today.

Science is not technology, explain by example?

Technology is the set of knowledge specific to a technique. We can also say that it is the set of instruments, technical resources or procedures used in a certain field or sector. Technique is the resource of science for the development of scientific knowledge. Science makes technology itself a subject of study. I think one of the most classic examples is the work that NASA is currently doing to develop technologies that allow it to successfully carry man to Mars. Science is not technology, its field of action is much broader than that of technology itself, because it involves observation and experimentation, the explanation of its principles and causes, and the formulation and verification of hypotheses, and is also characterized by the use of a suitable methodology for the object of study and the systematization of knowledge.

How do people cheat on medical tests? give an example

Modifying the results or the basic information. It is even very common for people to change the personal data of the exams. There are people who very skillfully modify the information of the recipients to change, for example, the dates. This is an action that is usually carried out with the help of another person. It is even the case, especially in health certificates where people pay the same hospital employees to place data favorable to their particular requirements. What I mean is that the most common way is to pay someone else.

How do we test medical treatments and why do we have to?

Well, when it comes to new medicines, we volunteer to undergo treatment. To say that we have to do it is to say that we have to collaborate, even taking risks to check the effectiveness of new drugs.

Why do we test and continue to test theories?

It seems to me that one of the fundamental reasons is that humanity simply continues to pursue answers, the simple fact of the limitations in knowledge and the lack of understanding of such transcendental facts as the evolution of man, of species in general, the subject of human violence, force to generate new theories that problematize the issues in question from various perspectives to guide new possibilities of answers more satisfactory than existing ones.

Why can't a market economy get us everything? lead by example

Because everything does not depend on the economic aspect. The answer seems very simple, but I mean the following: it is true that supply and demand are the fundamental bases for economic dynamics, but seen from a slightly more particular standpoint, the entire well-being of people does not depend on the favorable prices offered in the market. The tranquility and stimuli that generate the possibility of happiness in man are not simply found in the possibility of abundance. The integrity and complexity of man lead him to seek a variety of factors at the level of personal and professional growth that allow him to literally manage the resources and possibilities that existence in its entirety offers, not everything is buying and selling merchandise.

Why should we not use healer treatments?

Why shouldn't we use it? Well, anyway, the limitation with treating healers is that we are simply dealing with pseudoscience, with empiricism at a very basic level. Nothing to do with systematic, critical thinking, supported by demonstration techniques regarding the effectiveness of methods and resources. The healers, beyond the great value that it has in the popular culture of many towns, do not seem to me the best option when looking for treatments to cure diseases. I find it very risky.

Is it silly for an adult to go to Mexico by laetrile? Is it immoral if parents take their children there instead of giving them the best treatment available?

I see it this way: Virtually everyone with cancer desperately searches for any alternative solution to save their lives. It does not seem silly to me as it is the consequence of a pressing situation that forces us to exhaust all possibilities. Another thing is how effective laetrile is for cancer. If in some way - depending on the type of cancer - it is found that there are other more reliable methods and treatments coming directly from the medical scientific field, I think that the most viable way is to resort to science directly. I do not see the decision to take the children as an immoral question, I find it extremely delicate to judge something so pressing.