Health Alert
- Thread starter Sheldon
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
redcoat_or_rebel
Well-Known Member
cancer is no where near "under conrol". check the rates from the 50's till now, world wide or by country its the same, they are up probably 1,000%. Dr.'s used to come from miles aroun to see chilren with cancer because it was so rare, now every neighborhood has a few.
DregAddict
Well-Known Member
A lot of that is from better diagnostic techniques. Any statistic about the increased incidence of cancer compared to 60 years ago needs to take into account that today we have a greater awareness of the need to get certain tests and we have more advanced ways of interpreting the information gained from them.
redcoat_or_rebel
Well-Known Member
i disagree. while there is no doubt we have better detection technology i don't think that would account a significant amount of an increase.
to me its not that not that hard to see - we are bathed in electromagnetic fields 24/7 by all the electronic devices, cell phones, cell towers, etc, we are constantly in contact with chemicals in our processed foods, pesticides on our vegetables and fruits and grains, hormones in our meats and dairy, there have been hundreds of above ground nuclear tests done since the atomic age and the radiation from Chernobyl was detecable around he world for 2 years via the jet stream. so many people are on Rx drugs that have awful side effects, pahramcuticals are one the biggest causes of death in the US.
we come in contact with cancer and other viruses on a daily basis, our immue system defeats them. all of the above adds up and certain people are susceptible to different stresses. an increase in enviornmental stresses equals an increase in cancers.
Inodoro_Pereyra
Well-Known Member
No disrespect, but that has about the same validity as the MSNBC article.
Do you have any scientific proof that any of the contaminants yo cited has any direct influence in the incidence of any type of cancer?
True, many of them are known to be harmful. But are they harmful at the current levels? Where's proof?
redcoat_or_rebel
Well-Known Member
http://http://wildmonkeysects.com/data/20050207_israel.pdf
From:
The Dermatology Unit, Kaplan Medical Center, Rechovot, and the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, ISRAEL.
The Pediatric Outpatient Clinic, Hasharon Region, Kupat Holim, ISRAEL.
p. 3 "The study indicates an association between increased incidence of cancer and living in proximity to a cell-phone transmitter station."
published International Journal of Cancer, 2004
http://http://www.surgicalneurology-online.com/article/S0090-3019(09)00145-1/abstract
Results
The results indicate that using a cell phone for ≥10 years approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same (“ipsilateral”
side of the head as that preferred for cell phone use. The data achieve statistical significance for glioma and acoustic neuroma but not for meningioma.
Conclusion
The authors conclude that there is adequate epidemiologic evidence to suggest a link between prolonged cell phone usage and the development of an ipsilateral brain tumor.
published Surgical neurology, 2009
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/157/9/800.short
Use of chlorinated pesticides among applicators over 50 years of age and methyl bromide use were significantly associated with prostate cancer risk. Several other pesticides showed a significantly increased risk of prostate cancer among study subjects with a family history of prostate cancer but not among those with no family history. Important family history-pesticide interactions were observed.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/242/4885/1513.short
Radioactive material was deposited throughout the Northern Hemisphere as a result of the accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station on 26 April 1986. On the basis of a large amount of environmental data and new integrated dose assessment and risk models, the collective dose commitment to the approximately 3 billion inhabitants is calculated to be 930,000 person-gray, with 97% in the western Soviet Union and Europe. The best estimates for the lifetime expectation of fatal radiogenic cancer would increase the risk from 0 to 0.02% in Europe and 0 to 0.003% in the Northern Hemisphere. By means of an integration of the environmental data, it is estimated that approximately 100 petabecquerels of cesium-137 (1 PBq = 10(15) Bq) were released during and subsequent to the accident.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/151/10/951.short
Use of tricyclic medications for greater than 2 years, however, may be associated with a twofold elevation, and use of paroxetine may be associated with a substantial increase in breast cancer risk. Am J Epidemiol 2000
You can Google Scholar any of the terms i metnioned and see several published studies, some causing different types of cancers in men and women etc.
From:
The Dermatology Unit, Kaplan Medical Center, Rechovot, and the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, ISRAEL.
The Pediatric Outpatient Clinic, Hasharon Region, Kupat Holim, ISRAEL.
p. 3 "The study indicates an association between increased incidence of cancer and living in proximity to a cell-phone transmitter station."
published International Journal of Cancer, 2004
http://http://www.surgicalneurology-online.com/article/S0090-3019(09)00145-1/abstract
Results
The results indicate that using a cell phone for ≥10 years approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same (“ipsilateral”
side of the head as that preferred for cell phone use. The data achieve statistical significance for glioma and acoustic neuroma but not for meningioma.Conclusion
The authors conclude that there is adequate epidemiologic evidence to suggest a link between prolonged cell phone usage and the development of an ipsilateral brain tumor.
published Surgical neurology, 2009
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/157/9/800.short
Use of chlorinated pesticides among applicators over 50 years of age and methyl bromide use were significantly associated with prostate cancer risk. Several other pesticides showed a significantly increased risk of prostate cancer among study subjects with a family history of prostate cancer but not among those with no family history. Important family history-pesticide interactions were observed.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/242/4885/1513.short
Radioactive material was deposited throughout the Northern Hemisphere as a result of the accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station on 26 April 1986. On the basis of a large amount of environmental data and new integrated dose assessment and risk models, the collective dose commitment to the approximately 3 billion inhabitants is calculated to be 930,000 person-gray, with 97% in the western Soviet Union and Europe. The best estimates for the lifetime expectation of fatal radiogenic cancer would increase the risk from 0 to 0.02% in Europe and 0 to 0.003% in the Northern Hemisphere. By means of an integration of the environmental data, it is estimated that approximately 100 petabecquerels of cesium-137 (1 PBq = 10(15) Bq) were released during and subsequent to the accident.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/151/10/951.short
Use of tricyclic medications for greater than 2 years, however, may be associated with a twofold elevation, and use of paroxetine may be associated with a substantial increase in breast cancer risk. Am J Epidemiol 2000
You can Google Scholar any of the terms i metnioned and see several published studies, some causing different types of cancers in men and women etc.
Inodoro_Pereyra
Well-Known Member
Ok, so far, I've read only this one:
Again, this "study" does nothing but to illustrate my point.
Even a statistic with a sample size of 622 individuals is NOT VALID. Doesn't matter where it's been published, 8 cases of cancer (even worse, of DIFFERENT TYPES of cancer), are absolutely not representative. especially when the 622 individuals live in the same area.
Who's to say their cancer wasn't caused by them drinking water off of a contaminated main, or any other possible common cause to their area?
That's why a proper scientific study has to be conducted, before taking that BS as gospel.
A statistic is never scientific proof of anything. Statistics just show the possible causes or consequences of something. A properly conducted scientific study shows "THE" causes or consequences of that something.
Again, this "study" does nothing but to illustrate my point.
Even a statistic with a sample size of 622 individuals is NOT VALID. Doesn't matter where it's been published, 8 cases of cancer (even worse, of DIFFERENT TYPES of cancer), are absolutely not representative. especially when the 622 individuals live in the same area.
Who's to say their cancer wasn't caused by them drinking water off of a contaminated main, or any other possible common cause to their area?
That's why a proper scientific study has to be conducted, before taking that BS as gospel.
A statistic is never scientific proof of anything. Statistics just show the possible causes or consequences of something. A properly conducted scientific study shows "THE" causes or consequences of that something.
Inodoro_Pereyra
Well-Known Member
Your second link goes nowhere.
Your third link only shows the abstract to a "study". No mention as to the methodology used, experimental data, discovered mechanisms by which pesticides would produce cancer, or any kind of data that would even suggest a scientific experiment was ever conducted.
Your fourth and fifth links only show, again, just articles about how this or that "agent" "may" cause a given disease, based on "interpretation of statistical data". Nothing on either of them suggests a scientific experiment has been conducted to bring validity to any of those claims.
Your third link only shows the abstract to a "study". No mention as to the methodology used, experimental data, discovered mechanisms by which pesticides would produce cancer, or any kind of data that would even suggest a scientific experiment was ever conducted.
Your fourth and fifth links only show, again, just articles about how this or that "agent" "may" cause a given disease, based on "interpretation of statistical data". Nothing on either of them suggests a scientific experiment has been conducted to bring validity to any of those claims.
Not really. Buying 7 lottery tickets increases your chance of winning the lottery by 700%, but it doesn't turn it into a sure thing. If the risk of developing a rare disease increases by 700%, it will still be a rare disease.
Buying seven lottery tickets does not increase your chance 700%. You just have seven chances at whatever the odds are for one ticket essentially. Sure the probability changes a little but the change is miniscule probably like 1 in a jabillion to 1.0000000000000001 in a jabillion.
Inodoro_Pereyra
Well-Known Member
I find your use of math very interesting.
Yes, buying 7 lottery tickets gives you 7 chances at whatever the odds are for 1 ticket. that is, using your same "numbers", 7 in a "jabillion" against 1 in a "jabillion", which is, effectively, 700% of your initial odds.
Yes, it does. Let's say that there are a million lottery tickets. Your risk of winning with one ticket is then 1/1,000,000 = 0.000001. If you buy seven tickets, your risk of winning is 7/1,000,000 = 0.000007. 0.000007/0.000001 = 7. Convert to percent (7*100) = 700%.
Therefore the relative increase in risk is 700%. I was just trying to highlight that the relative increase in risk can by very high and scary while the absolute risk remains low.
redcoat_or_rebel
Well-Known Member
classic. you ask for proof and then say it is not valid. unless you are a scientist with contracdicting research, your opinion counts as much as mine to what is "valid" or not. it took me 5 minutes to Google those studies since there were hundred's of results for those terms. but you'll never go search for yourself.
i don't care if it causes cancer in one person, it still causes cancer and if you are the unlucky SOB that gets it from one of these things then its not so insignificant anymore, is it?
and your question just provd my original point that these STRESSES on the immune system, wether they themselves cause cancer or not, make you vulnerable to cancer as well as other things.
like i said before, you come in contact with cancer viruses on a daily basis, your body defeats them. if your immune system is compromised, then you are at risk.
either way, it is not debated that cell phones, cell towers and pesticides cause cancer. you make a valid point about that they could have gotten cancer from some other source like water. i wasn't going to bring it up since it didn't mention it before, but water fluoridation is linked to at least doubling in bone cancer. fluoride is used in pesticides, SSRI Rx drugs, fumagation pesticides for grains etc, fluroide is mined at phosphate mines along with uranium and other radioactive elements- so yes there are toxins all around us all the time. which proves my original reply that CANCER IS NO WHERE NEAR UNDER CONTROL and it is not simply from better detection methods.
also i think i fixed those links, there was an extra http in there for some reason.
i am not paying the registration fee to prove my point to you, you can pay it and read the entire studies if you want.
redcoat_or_rebel
Well-Known Member
Inodoro_Pereyra
Well-Known Member
I'd say what's classic is your position. Ad hominem. You have no way to refute the arguments, so you attack the person.
My opinion on the validity of your "proof" is irrelevant. you seem to completely ignore (or choose to ignore) the very existence of the scientific method. Unfortunately for you, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, it still exists, and it lays down very specific guidelines for what is considered "valid scientific proof". Some of them (just off the top of my head) are:
1. It must establish a CERTAINTY. In other words, the word "may" has no place in a scientific paper.
2. It must be peer reviewed (and statistics, by their very nature, aren't)
3. It must take into consideration all variables. Just to give an example, that BS about the cell phone towers only takes into account distance to the towers. Even that alone is completely irrelevant to judge RF exposure. Microwaves are highly directional, and a person living a mile away from a tower can get a higher exposure to them than somebody living right next to the tower. Add to that all the other variables, like water, food, lifestyle in general, soil, etc, and it's not difficult to see (at least for those who are willing to) why those "studies" have no scientific weight whatsoever.
4. It must explain the mechanisms of a given phenomenon. In other words, saying "we have statistical proof that cell phones may cause cancer" is nowhere near enough. The study must fully determine, on a cellular level, the mechanisms by which cell phones cause cancer. If it doesn't, it's BS.
And 5. The burden of proof lies always with the proponent, never with the reviewer. Meaning NOBODY needs to prove those "studies" are wrong. The authors of those studies need to prove they're right.
You don't know if it causes cancer, period. There are literally thousands, if not millions of carcinogens in this planet. You have no way to know, if you're the "unlucky SOB", if your cancer has been caused by your cell phone, or any of the other known carcinogens you're exposed to everyday.
The stresses on the immune system are what keeps you alive. Life itself makes you vulnerable to disease, cancer or not.
In my 46 years of life, I have NEVER heard any credible source say that cancer is caused by a virus. You should read a little about cancer causes before making that kind of statements.
At this point, you're starting to sound A LOT like a conspiracy nut. Again, show us any REAL, scientific evidence that any of the substances you mentioned is a PROVEN carcinogen. Otherwise, STFU. If you want to believe that Kennedy was assassinated by the aliens from Area 51, the more power to you. Just don't expect the rest of us to fall for the same BS.
cklages
Well-Known Member
Inodoro_Pereyra
Well-Known Member
I stand corrected.
Thanks Cklages.
Thanks Cklages.
edgeofblade
Well-Known Member
No one gets out alive. Eh.... it's life.
While I had agreed with your reasoning so far, and I still agree with you that the posted studies do not firmly support redcoat's position, you have some odd notions about what the scientific method (if there is such a singular thing) is.
Science works based on principles of induction, which by definition do not give certainty. If you want a less technical answer, consider all the false scientific hypotheses, theories, and "facts" that have existed. They were considered true in their day, but now we know better. This happens daily. There is no certainty in science.
Peer review is one (very excellent) way to remove bias, but it's not really necessary. Scientific inquiry can progress without it. Early scientists conducted research, sometimes very successfully, by applying the most rigorous methods they knew or could imagine.
Again, no. If you're willing to be serious about this, you'd see that it's quite impossible to account for all variables. It's also completely unnecessary in almost all cases. It's generally advisable to take account of all relevant variables. Learning to distinguish between the two is key.
I hate to get rude, but your statements about science are getting worse with each example. This is gloriously untrue. Good scientific studies show meaningful correlations all the time. There is no statement about the mechanism at work, in general, when showing correlations.
With any study taken completely out of context, I might agree with you here. But studies are not any more without context, history, placement within wider theories, etc. Where the burden of proof generally lies (and its placement is often debatable) depends upon the specifics of what study you're talking about. Such a burden can be greater or lesser, as well, depending upon how odd its findings strike the greater community.
It strikes me as though you're confusing a "complete scientific theory of everything" with a published study. A CSToE might possibly need to adhere to many of your points above, but the very possibility of such a theory has been a point of debate for hundreds of years, nevermind the practicality. Again, I have to say I agree with most of your conclusions here, but disagree strongly with your methods and assertions about science.
Science works based on principles of induction, which by definition do not give certainty. If you want a less technical answer, consider all the false scientific hypotheses, theories, and "facts" that have existed. They were considered true in their day, but now we know better. This happens daily. There is no certainty in science.
Peer review is one (very excellent) way to remove bias, but it's not really necessary. Scientific inquiry can progress without it. Early scientists conducted research, sometimes very successfully, by applying the most rigorous methods they knew or could imagine.
Again, no. If you're willing to be serious about this, you'd see that it's quite impossible to account for all variables. It's also completely unnecessary in almost all cases. It's generally advisable to take account of all relevant variables. Learning to distinguish between the two is key.
I hate to get rude, but your statements about science are getting worse with each example. This is gloriously untrue. Good scientific studies show meaningful correlations all the time. There is no statement about the mechanism at work, in general, when showing correlations.
With any study taken completely out of context, I might agree with you here. But studies are not any more without context, history, placement within wider theories, etc. Where the burden of proof generally lies (and its placement is often debatable) depends upon the specifics of what study you're talking about. Such a burden can be greater or lesser, as well, depending upon how odd its findings strike the greater community.
It strikes me as though you're confusing a "complete scientific theory of everything" with a published study. A CSToE might possibly need to adhere to many of your points above, but the very possibility of such a theory has been a point of debate for hundreds of years, nevermind the practicality. Again, I have to say I agree with most of your conclusions here, but disagree strongly with your methods and assertions about science.
redcoat_or_rebel
Well-Known Member
if something causes cancer, it causes cancer. if you eat a little bit of arsenic it won't kill you but it is still poison, it doesn't matter how much it takes. the human body is a pretty amamzing machine and can take alot of abuse, so just because something make take 20 ears to give you cancer, still gives you cancer.
this is how most research is done, they accelerate the process. you can't do 40 year reaseach on mice.
take the Japan radiation recently - sure background radiation levels didn't increase that much but if you happen to inhale one single particle of plutonium (or just a particle of dust that has become irradiated), you are dead within days. but lets say radiation danger is over hyped and you could statistically be safe because the back ground radiation is low. Riiiiiiiiight.
The problem with that is it's difficult to prove anything like causation in the process. Some people smoke like chimneys and never get lung cancer, some get it without smoke in their environment. There are too many variables otherwise to say anything will absolutely give this person cancer (short of, say, massive radiation exposure). Statistics on the general level is all you're likely to get.
redcoat_or_rebel
Well-Known Member
+1. ALL science is THEORY and HYPOTHESIS. nothing is fact.
"peer reviewed" journals are a business like any other magazine, so is science in general- they are not immune to corruption.
while it would be nice to measure all variabels that is impossible, the concept is impossible itself. how can you know all variables?
Thanks for the conspiracy nut compliment. The Rockefeller's have funded cancer, viral and vaccine research for the last 100 years. oh but vaccines are good for you and the Rockefellers are American patriots....
i wasn't offering those studies as absolute proof, they are evidence.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 65,431
- Reaction score
- 10,793
"Gene variant increases..700%"
It's all in the details boys. This Gene variant is obviously Gene Simmons.
It's all in the details boys. This Gene variant is obviously Gene Simmons.
Oh, come on now. Don't swing to the opposite extreme, either. Observational facts form the basis of scientific inquiry. They are not immune from criticism, but to say they don't exist is silly.
Inodoro_Pereyra
Well-Known Member
GuldTuborg: the notions about the scientific methods I provided are (taking into account my possible bad translation to English), as I studied them in High School. Like I said before in several occasions, I'm an electronics technician, who happens to love physics, not a scientist.
I'm gonna go by the numbers, so I don't have to do the whole "quote" thing again...
1. I think you may be confusing certainty with ultimate truth. The difference between a "theory" or a "hypothesis" and a "scientific law" is that the law has been proven to a level of certainty. That doesn't mean that law is the ultimate truth about that matter, or that it can't be debunked a day later, as new data or new techniques come into play.
2. Poor choice of words, my bad. What I should've said is that "It must be able to withstand peer review", not that it must first be peer reviewed to be valid.
3. Again, poor choice of words. Yeah, it's all relevant variables. You don't need to conduct a study on an indian tribe deep in the Amazon to quantify the effects of cell phone towers in people in a major city (yeah, I know it's an extreme example). But then again, trying to typify the damage considering only the distance to a cell tower is ridiculous.
4. I never said correlations can't be used. But they're not proof. Saying that because you can observe a correlation between a phenomenon and one possible cause, that must be it, not only is unscientific, but it's a known fallacy of logic (the old "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"- it happened after, so it must be caused by- I cited earlier).
By the way: I appreciate you hating to be rude...
5. You need to look at the context of my answer. Redcoat had challenged me to prove those studies were wrong. I think you will agree with me that, at least in that scenario, the burden of proof does lie on the proponent, not on the reviewer.
I'm gonna go by the numbers, so I don't have to do the whole "quote" thing again...
1. I think you may be confusing certainty with ultimate truth. The difference between a "theory" or a "hypothesis" and a "scientific law" is that the law has been proven to a level of certainty. That doesn't mean that law is the ultimate truth about that matter, or that it can't be debunked a day later, as new data or new techniques come into play.
2. Poor choice of words, my bad. What I should've said is that "It must be able to withstand peer review", not that it must first be peer reviewed to be valid.
3. Again, poor choice of words. Yeah, it's all relevant variables. You don't need to conduct a study on an indian tribe deep in the Amazon to quantify the effects of cell phone towers in people in a major city (yeah, I know it's an extreme example). But then again, trying to typify the damage considering only the distance to a cell tower is ridiculous.
4. I never said correlations can't be used. But they're not proof. Saying that because you can observe a correlation between a phenomenon and one possible cause, that must be it, not only is unscientific, but it's a known fallacy of logic (the old "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"- it happened after, so it must be caused by- I cited earlier).
By the way: I appreciate you hating to be rude...
5. You need to look at the context of my answer. Redcoat had challenged me to prove those studies were wrong. I think you will agree with me that, at least in that scenario, the burden of proof does lie on the proponent, not on the reviewer.
Inodoro_Pereyra
Well-Known Member
Read it again. It wasn't a compliment.
Thanks for the detailed reply, IP. I think our disagreement may be primarily a semantic one, but there may be a little substance here as well. Now that I think of it, if you're replying to redcoat, you may have the properties of a proper scientific explanation in mind, whereas I was interpreting matters more broadly. The practice and body of science is more than just explanation, if you look at it closely enough, though explanation may be its ultimate goal.
1. This may be a semantic disagreement, as stated above. Though, it may be about how to use the word "certain." If we could agree on a dictionary definition, I think you'd have to agree that certainty is not at all required, and maybe not possible.
2. I think we're good here.
3. Same.
4. Here's where I think we had two different things in mind. Explanations require some type of mechanism (at least, at first blush they seem to), other types of inquiry don't need to. It's all still science.
5. I think you're correct here. The burden of proof is on the one asserting exposure to a substance tends to increase the risk of cancer.
1. This may be a semantic disagreement, as stated above. Though, it may be about how to use the word "certain." If we could agree on a dictionary definition, I think you'd have to agree that certainty is not at all required, and maybe not possible.
2. I think we're good here.
3. Same.
4. Here's where I think we had two different things in mind. Explanations require some type of mechanism (at least, at first blush they seem to), other types of inquiry don't need to. It's all still science.
5. I think you're correct here. The burden of proof is on the one asserting exposure to a substance tends to increase the risk of cancer.
Inodoro_Pereyra
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't surprise me at all.
My native language is Spanish. Besides the fact that, naturally, I find English to be quite challenging (especially when I'm trying to explain something I've learned in a different language), I have found, through painful experience, that often we either use the same word to name opposite things/processes, or use opposite words to name the same thing (don't tell anybody, but I'm sure it's a conspiracy orchestrated to impede me to function properly on Internet forums...
)My point is this: all that separates anybody from publishing a "study" on the Internet is the knowledge on how to use Adobe Acrobat.
A few years ago, in another forum, a member cited a study, signed by a scientist at an American University (I don't really remember which one), explaining the reasons why ethanol wasn't a suitable alternative fuel to gasoline. Being that biofuels have been kind of an obsession of mine for a long time, I took the time to fully read the study (about 90 pages, give or take). Upon reading it, I couldn't believe somebody with a minimal knowledge of physics or chemistry had written such a piece of garbage.
So I went to the university's website, only to find out the guy really was part of the staff, BUT HE WAS AN ENTOMOLOGIST!!!
A couple of months later, I went looking for the "study", and it wasn't there anymore.
All these other studies about cell phones, or beer, causing cancer, or about onions promoting hair growth, are nothing new. They pop up like roaches every time you kick a stone. Yet people still buy them.
But enough ranting.
Going back on topic, yes, if you take certainty as the absolute lack of doubt, evidently it's impossible. Some would even argue it's undesirable.
I was taught that, from a scientific point of view, certainty is more like the "beyond any reasonable doubt" statement used in law. Something that makes a scientific statement, irrefutable as of now.
You may also be right on (4.). For the last couple of hours, while I was locked out of here (damn 404 error...
), I've been reading about science, and other stuff, and found out, for example, that there seems to be a different definition in English for things like "law" (scientific) or "theory", than what I was taught in Spanish.In a nutshell, I was taught a theory is an idea that hasn't been scientifically proven, while a law is a theory, after it was proven. For what I read, things are quite different here.
Oh well...Looks like I'm gonna have to hit the books again...
redcoat_or_rebel
Well-Known Member
redcoat_or_rebel
Well-Known Member
that is not the extreme but rather the reality. observational facts are a constant, someone's interpretation of those facts becomes science. everything in science has been "law", as inodoro put it, that is until something completely unkown is discovered that shifts the paradigm - the unknown unknown-variable if you will. that is the history of the scientific method.
Not true. Depends on what the plane crashes into.
redcoat_or_rebel
Well-Known Member
if an airplane crashes exactly on the border between two countries, which country do you bury the survivors in?Edit: off topic referring to myself.
Inodoro_Pereyra
Well-Known Member
Edit: off topic referring to myself.
Nowhere. You bury the dead, not the survivors.
Looks like I'm gonna have to hit the books again...
That's never a bad thing, though. It's when we're done learning that we're in trouble. And on an unrelated note, in writing at least, you have better command of the English language than most natives. Don't worry; most of us natives who worry about such scientific/philosophical inquiry debate the meanings of basic terms as well.
Often, the facts themselves are a part of the "science." The legitimacy of any given observation can be called into question if one can show a meaningful bias imparted by a theoretical framework on the observer. Theory, interpretation, and explanation are always subject to refinement, and often as the scope of our inquiry/explanation grows, we have to radically change our theories to accommodate that new information. Other lines of inquiry will die out entirely as completely misguided. Still, none of that entails the kind of skepticism you made a nod to earlier. If you want to make any kind of case as a skeptic (i.e., giving us reason to therefore treat the whole of scientific inquiry as somehow without merit), you have a whole lot more work to do. Believe me, people in the western world (some with astoundingly sharp minds) have been trying to promote skepticism for some 2500+ years. There is a reason they've met with minimal success.
redcoat_or_rebel
Well-Known Member
Often, the facts themselves are a part of the "science." The legitimacy of any given observation can be called into question if one can show a meaningful bias imparted by a theoretical framework on the observer. Theory, interpretation, and explanation are always subject to refinement, and often as the scope of our inquiry/explanation grows, we have to radically change our theories to accommodate that new information. Other lines of inquiry will die out entirely as completely misguided. Still, none of that entails the kind of skepticism you made a nod to earlier. If you want to make any kind of case as a skeptic (i.e., giving us reason to therefore treat the whole of scientific inquiry as somehow without merit), you have a whole lot more work to do. Believe me, people in the western world (some with astoundingly sharp minds) have been trying to promote skepticism for some 2500+ years. There is a reason they've met with minimal success.[/QUOTE]
i have no desire to convince anyone of anything. i know what i know. i will point out again that unless the person on the other side is a "scientist" then any layperson's opionions are for general purposes equal, therefore i have no burden to prove anything. just because someone knows the lingo and how to read/interpret a case study (which anyone should be able to do) doesn't automatically vest that person with the endorsement of the scientific community. what you call skepticism is merely your taking the information given to you as fact when in reality there are great amounts of info to the contrary.
[/QUOTE]i have no desire to convince anyone of anything. i know what i know. i will point out again that unless the person on the other side is a "scientist" then any layperson's opionions are for general purposes equal, therefore i have no burden to prove anything. just because someone knows the lingo and how to read/interpret a case study (which anyone should be able to do) doesn't automatically vest that person with the endorsement of the scientific community. what you call skepticism is merely your taking the information given to you as fact when in reality there are great amounts of info to the contrary.
Inodoro_Pereyra
Well-Known Member
Believe me, learning has been my only full time hobby, ever since I can remember.
The biggest reason why I love the Internet is that, besides all the spucatum tauri (if you know what I mean) you can find, it's really an infinite source of knowledge. And yo don't even have to make the trip to the library...:rockin:
As per my English...it's complicated. What you see is the product of careful writing, and, mostly, abundant use of the spell check and Wikipedia. Either way, sometimes it's very difficult for me to find the right words to explain myself.
One example is your last post about the legitimacy of observational facts, and the limited success of skepticism. I could've written a 2 page long post, and not be able to explain myself like you did.
And on that note, I'm happy to announce I'm gladly passing onto you the "privilege" of trying to reason with redcoat.
Hope you have more success than I did.
As a librarian, I disapprove of this statement.
But do you know what you don't know? You're quick to assert your complete certainty about your own views (re: what causes cancer) and even quicker to discount the arguments of others with skeptical reasoning. This sword is double edged, and you can't have it both ways.
I'm not actually arguing for any viewpoint here beyond a roughly agnostic one. That is, there just isn't enough evidence to prove a meaningful link in most cases. There is also a different threshold of proof needed in different cases. The kind of evidence needed for a scientist to prove to his peers that a causative link exists between X and a statistically meaningful increase in cancer rates is very different from the amount of evidence required to convince a mostly rational layman that he ought to, say, cut down on his drinking if he wants to avoid a significantly higher risk of cancer. It all comes down to how you phrase the question.
What I was trying to say is earlier is that you are indeed trying to convince people of a lot of things here (causes of cancer, limits of scientific knowledge, etc.). You're also providing very little evidence, and getting defensive, when people criticize the views you put forth. You're then arguing for viewpoints that undermine the very evidence you gave in the first place (hence, getting defensive). I'm all for a healthy debate, but I'd like it to be a well reasoned one.
I'm also all for getting this ship turned around to the original path again, but that may have run its course. There's just not enough evidence for the whole beer/stomach cancer link to generate any real worry for the moderate drinkers here.
