Any good critical thinkers here?

[Caesarea]

Think about all the things that are facts to you. Think of all the thinks that you don't have an answer for. Think about all the things that are lies. Now you have three columns created by your own critical thinking.

Now that is a tidier and actually more personal system for meditation.
Only I find the edges of the Facts and the edges of the Lies are less sharp and the centre column grows more populated the longer I reflect on these things.
Maybe Exogenesis is correct on diagnosing a fit of relativism. Hey a fit of the vapours, quick quick the sal volatile!!

 

[Kate]

I'd like to circumnavigate the health discussions completely with the antis if I could.

This is a habit I enjoy, I am an addict, the risk I take has been balanced against the improvement in my quality of life. I should be free to choose.

Morally the freedom to take (informed) risks overrides the obligation of the state to protect me from unproven risks.

 

[Caesarea]

Good turn-around Caesarea.

Just to prove that not all the anecdotal stuff you find on these forums is nonsense:

I now know vaping is safer than smoking,
why I was smoking in the first place I'll never know.


Originally a pleasure, now an albatross, alternative albatrosses will be found.

I will get pleasure from some form of smoking - even if it kills me,
regardless of the anti-smoker's Pete.

(there's seems to be a little devil on my shoulder)

Have you seen the eyebrows on that Kitteh?????

 

[Caesarea]

(big snip)
Morally the freedom to take (informed) risks overrides the obligation of the state to protect me from unproven risks.

Frankly the state makes me feel farmed, not protected.

 

[exogenesis]

Well someone had to post a cheezeburger

If any form of pleasure is exhibited, report to me and it will be prohibited

 

[jennydotz]

I have lots of questions and concerns, here are my 2 cents:

1) Even if some long-term studies were done on vaping, how could the true cause and effect be proven since we all have a smoking history? How would the 2 be disentangled?

2) Would we even be worried about all this stuff if we weren't flying under the radar? If Phillip Morris manufactured these would we be questioning them? We could worry about groupthink the other way too, as in our societal brainwashing. If Big Pharm and the FDA put their stamp of approval on PVs, would we automatically trust that they were safe? There are many things we accept as safe (because of Govt. sanctioning) that many in the alternative health community strongly believe are killing us or causing harm.

Kate I liked your analogy to dangerous sports

 

[Caesarea]

Well someone had to post a cheezeburger

Heck, you guys are incorrigible! (fortunately!


Originally Posted by Groucho
If any form of pleasure is exhibited, report to me and it will be prohibited

Yesssss...my favourite Marx!

Gosh though, I like jennydotz's point re the alternative health community...

Perspectives are incredibly various, aren't they?

 

[Rookie]

Unfortunately the govt seems to think we are all helpless babes who must be wrapped in cottonwool and protected from everything. How boring a life without risk.

 

[Caesarea]

Unfortunately the govt seems to think we are all helpless babes who must be wrapped in cottonwool and protected from everything. How boring a life without risk.

Well, Rookie, after several decades of brutally hard working and taxpaying, I don't see that much cotton wool has been in evidence.
Protected from unproductivity, yes maybe. But you see what I mean by farming people...

C.

 

[yvilla]

I have lots of questions and concerns, here are my 2 cents:

1) Even if some long-term studies were done on vaping, how could the true cause and effect be proven since we all have a smoking history? How would the 2 be disentangled?

Related to your number one above, Jenny, and I think to Kate's initial post about all the conflicting information and claims to be found concerning ecigs, I'm wondering if you guys saw the most recent interview with Dr. Nitzkin that Bill Godshall posted here today?

It discusses head on the issue of research into ecigs and the questions of safety, etc, and I think it's honest and not hype in the least.

Here it is:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...g-fda-no-banter-here-please-6.html#post219932

 

[Rookie]

Protected from unproductivity, yes maybe. But you see what I mean by farming people...

Good point! We are certainly not prevented from contributing to govt. coffers, just anything we might enjoy that doesn't enhance their revenues.

 

[Caesarea]

Protected from unproductivity, yes maybe. But you see what I mean by farming people...

Good point! We are certainly not prevented from contributing to govt. coffers, just anything we might enjoy that doesn't enhance their revenues.

Good job there isn't a tax on sounding off, or you and I might be getting a new assessment or two in the post!

 

[jennydotz]

Unfortunately the govt seems to think we are all helpless babes who must be wrapped in cottonwool and protected from everything. How boring a life without risk.

Agreed, but my point is that just because the Govt says something is OK, doesn't really mean that it is. We are protected only from selected risks, those without good lobby groups. We may be taking a risk vaccinating our kids for example. I personally don't know what to think about that particular issue, but the debate is certainly out there. With the rise in cases of ADHD, Autism, Autoimmune Diseases, Anxiety/Depression, Bipolar, etc. you have to wonder if the govt is really doing such a good job of protecting us from much.

I guess cigarettes' legal status should stand as the writing on the wall, the constant reminder that the Govt is not in the business of protecting public health.

 

[Caesarea]

Jennydotz wrote: <We are protected only from selected risks, those without good lobby groups>

Excellent point.

 

[Kate]

Thanks for the link Yvilla, that interview sounds very promising.

 

[Kate]

Yep Critical thinking requires that we avoid absolutes when dealing with unknowns - all we can do is assign probabilities according to the information we have.

(See how I tried to get back on-topic there )

This idea reminded me of a book I read once on fuzzy logic. I can't remember very clearly but think the idea was that things could be a certain amount true - say for example it's 90% true that vaping is a good substitute for smoking.

Has anyone else come across fuzzy logic?

 

[Caesarea]

This idea reminded me of a book I read once on fuzzy logic. I can't remember very clearly but think the idea was that things could be a certain amount true - say for example it's 90% true that vaping is a good substitute for smoking.

Has anyone else come across fuzzy logic?

Yes, Kate. It's a bit brain-busting, but always productive to read about.
Every time I take a foray into stuff like that, I come back with a less polarized view of issues.


There's wikipedia for a rough start

If yr into maths a maths oriented explanation from the Technical University, Berlin.
The intro is useful to less mathy folk like me.
http://www.fpk.tu-berlin.de/~anderl/epsilon/fuzzyintro4.pdf

Heavy stuff from Stanford .edu

Fuzzy Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

C.

Please feel free to add other links, guys.

 

[Kate]

Thanks for the links Caesarea, I'll have a look at them when I get a chance.

Black and white, either/or options rarely appeal to me, I like to be less polarised (that's a great word) in my ideas.

Aristotle introduced a lot of either/or thinking and it has it's place, we'd never get anything done without it but introducing and (which is an accepted Oriental philosophy) adds another dimension to things.

Either/or/and ... one or the other and the possibility of both.

 

[Caesarea]

Thanks for the links Caesarea, I'll have a look at them when I get a chance.

Black and white, either/or options rarely appeal to me, I like to be less polarised (that's a great word) in my ideas.

Aristotle introduced a lot of either/or thinking and it has it's place, we'd never get anything done without it but introducing and (which is an accepted Oriental philosophy) adds another dimension to things.

Either/or/and ... one or the other and the possibility of both.

Neti, neti.
Jung et al.

 

[strayling]

This idea reminded me of a book I read once on fuzzy logic. I can't remember very clearly but think the idea was that things could be a certain amount true - say for example it's 90% true that vaping is a good substitute for smoking.

Has anyone else come across fuzzy logic?

Yes indeed.