YepCritical 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 is a pleasant thread.
- Status
This is a pleasant thread.
I was reading something about the etiquette for burden of proof in disputes and apparently it falls to the person making a claim. If someone disputes a claim then they can ask for proof because for them to prove the claim wrong makes everything confused in some way (I can't remember the exact logic).
That means in theory that if we don't make any claims we don't have to prove anything and if someone says vaping is harmful we can ask them for proof.
That means in theory that if we don't make any claims we don't have to prove anything and if someone says vaping is harmful we can ask them for proof.
I find the burden of proof thing can be abused sometimes. It's all too easy to get caught up in debating society rules and lose the truth in the process. Ever seen any of those debates where the proposition is unarguably true in practical terms, but where the rules allow it to be defeated.
E.g. Proposition: The Sun always rises in the East. That one gets shot down in flames according to the burden of proof argument when in the hands of a skilled debater.
One of the few things which genuinely irritates me is when people use that sort of tactic in order to "win" an argument, completely neglecting the truth in their refusal to admit to being in error. For example, calling the liquid we vape a new drug even though it quite obviously isn't.
Proposition: Humpty Dumpty works for the FDA.
E.g. Proposition: The Sun always rises in the East. That one gets shot down in flames according to the burden of proof argument when in the hands of a skilled debater.
One of the few things which genuinely irritates me is when people use that sort of tactic in order to "win" an argument, completely neglecting the truth in their refusal to admit to being in error. For example, calling the liquid we vape a new drug even though it quite obviously isn't.
Proposition: Humpty Dumpty works for the FDA.
I like to think that the truth wins in the end. All we can do is affect how long it takes.
Lets not forget that its probably the absurd health claims that got us into the mess we are in right now, as well as what got many of us looking at e-cigs to start with (and cheating the bans of course!)
Edit: Nah, I'll be nice and ditch that original message. I don't like seeing anyone suffer.
Back later, I'm off to hug a tree.
Last edited:
If you collected all the info available on all the forums, articles,
blogs & manufacturer's claims.
Plus the authorities standpoint(s) and general 'out there' knowledge.
Then collated, grouped & ranked it,
where would be the probable truth in all that?
Especially since truth is quite a variable value.
For an easy to convince person Acceptable Truth can be what they Believe or
Hope to be True, or perhaps Feel is Right,
even what has been Heard/Told frequently with or without validation.
Skeptics may be harder to convince, but they tend get burnt less often.
Critical thinkers - can they be convinced of anything, or will they debate forever?
Hard facts from scientists...are hard & fast until blow-torched by scary new evidence
(Yellow 5 food colouring anyone?)
Proving a negative was always a problem,
but it seems that to find the degree of truth in
'vaping isn't dangerous',
could take more than it seems anyone is currently able/willing to pay,
or most are willing to wait for.
But it does seem that those who are in charge of paying/finding out,
would also like the truth/answers to be what they Feel is Right
(depending on the backers & not mentioning any 3 letter acronyms).
(sorry about my pessimismistic outlook, and one beer too many)
blogs & manufacturer's claims.
Plus the authorities standpoint(s) and general 'out there' knowledge.
Then collated, grouped & ranked it,
where would be the probable truth in all that?
Especially since truth is quite a variable value.
For an easy to convince person Acceptable Truth can be what they Believe or
Hope to be True, or perhaps Feel is Right,
even what has been Heard/Told frequently with or without validation.
Skeptics may be harder to convince, but they tend get burnt less often.
Critical thinkers - can they be convinced of anything, or will they debate forever?
Hard facts from scientists...are hard & fast until blow-torched by scary new evidence
(Yellow 5 food colouring anyone?)
Proving a negative was always a problem,
but it seems that to find the degree of truth in
'vaping isn't dangerous',
could take more than it seems anyone is currently able/willing to pay,
or most are willing to wait for.
But it does seem that those who are in charge of paying/finding out,
would also like the truth/answers to be what they Feel is Right
(depending on the backers & not mentioning any 3 letter acronyms).
(sorry about my pessimismistic outlook, and one beer too many)
Last edited:
Yep, it's the "truth I want" phenomenon. But there are also quite percussive value clashes.
For example, I don't particularly want a *long life, as lived by some health fans...
*Well that ain't likely anyway - pigs might fly!! Or should I say Swine flu?
Last edited:
How about 'relative truth'
"I've already lived a long & happy life & smoked for most of it,
but I've only vaped for a relatively short while.
Therefore, for me, on balance of evidence, smoking is safer."
"I've already lived a long & happy life & smoked for most of it,
but I've only vaped for a relatively short while.
Therefore, for me, on balance of evidence, smoking is safer."
Seeing where people are "coming from" is always eye-opening, I guess. And relativity is a useful luxury.
For example, what is "safety"?
I could echo 75 percent of the statement above and yet conclude with a 180 degree turn:
"I've already lived a long & happy life & smoked for most of it,
but I've only vaped for a relatively short while.
Therefore, for me, on balance of evidence, vaping poses little risk because not much is left to gamble with."
Caesarea sera whatever will be will be....
. The anti-smokers had virtually taken away all my pleasure of being alive by convincing me that my death is imminent because of my smoking addiction......Vaping has taken away some of that feeling.....I even feel like it's worth starting a new hobby!! ......so I am not going to try and convince myself vaping is going to kill me.
Since there are limitless facts and truths, you have to start by knocking down the common misconceptions and complete misunderstandings. What a sales-man says, and what is published as advertisement, are two complete separate things.
These are harmless. (Lie. Nothing is harmless.)
These are less harmful than cigarettes. (Possible, but there is missing information.)
These are healthy. (Lie. There is no study that indicates that the health was improved by every individual.)
These are more healthy than cigarettes. (Possibly, but there is missing information.)
The full disclosure of the reports, along with the direct facts in the statement, are "The truth/facts", as far as the law and we are concerned, until proven otherwise.
Once the manufactures release the actual sold contents, then the item can safely be debated. Until then, we have to assume the contents are being hidden, because they contain chemicals which may or have been proven to harm us in some way.
Ryuan uses synthetic nicotine, not natural nicotine. Some places use natural nicotine, which rightly also contains many or some of the chemicals from the tobacco it was extracted from. Some manufactures are just selling tobacco water.
Additives on some sites are being disclosed. However, they sell "Flavors" which they do not disclose the ingredients for. Quantity in the ingredients is also important, as that helps determine the consumption level.
Most are using standard food flavoring, which are acceptable for normal consumption. However, inhalation has not thoroughly been studied. But in all fairness, it sort-of has, as the factory workers who manufacture the stuff have been manufacturing for years, and breathing in the vapors for 8-hour days, 365-days a year. (Weekends and holidays permitted)
The nicotine vapor has been studied over and over and over again. Nicotine ingestion is only done one way... liquid consumption. (Inhaled when you smoke or vaporize it, and swallowed or absorbed when not inhaled.)
It is safe to assume that if one known element which is the "Leading cause of cancer in cigarettes", is not present in another form, that the item is safer. That is safe logical deduction. Tar and carbon monoxide from combustion, are the two largest carcinogens in an ignited tobacco product.
If those are not present, those can not contribute. The two largest elements within liquid-nicotine, are known to be safer than the two largest elements within an ignited tobacco product. So logical deduction would safely allow us to assume that it is not as unhealthy as an ignited tobacco product.
Those are the same "Assumptions", that medical studies make, when 10000 rats live, and only 10 rats die. Testing is still assumptions, and playing the odds. It is not "Fact" or "Truth", just better potential odds. (Potential, because ten years from now, they may determine rats results don't correlate with human results.)
What if aspirin long term effects caused your head to explode! But it took 100 years to happen. We would have to wait 100 years for that study, and for what... the 2% of people who live past 99, and of that, the 2% who took the aspirin long enough to have their heads explode... could be safe...
You can study it for 100 years, and that information will be useless on the next genetic generation of users.
What you do, is report it, when it happens, to be looked at and studied. If it is actually a problem, and not an isolated incident, then you take action. Yes it is too late. It will always be too late. Knowing about it does not stop it from happening to you. It could be 1 in a billion, and you could be the one it happens to.
It will become more clear soon, because of these actions. This is just a transition that would not have happened on its own. Sadly, and rightfully, it needed intervention. All we can do is hope that it does not end-up leaving a sour taste in our mouths.
These are harmless. (Lie. Nothing is harmless.)
These are less harmful than cigarettes. (Possible, but there is missing information.)
These are healthy. (Lie. There is no study that indicates that the health was improved by every individual.)
These are more healthy than cigarettes. (Possibly, but there is missing information.)
The full disclosure of the reports, along with the direct facts in the statement, are "The truth/facts", as far as the law and we are concerned, until proven otherwise.
Once the manufactures release the actual sold contents, then the item can safely be debated. Until then, we have to assume the contents are being hidden, because they contain chemicals which may or have been proven to harm us in some way.
Ryuan uses synthetic nicotine, not natural nicotine. Some places use natural nicotine, which rightly also contains many or some of the chemicals from the tobacco it was extracted from. Some manufactures are just selling tobacco water.
Additives on some sites are being disclosed. However, they sell "Flavors" which they do not disclose the ingredients for. Quantity in the ingredients is also important, as that helps determine the consumption level.
Most are using standard food flavoring, which are acceptable for normal consumption. However, inhalation has not thoroughly been studied. But in all fairness, it sort-of has, as the factory workers who manufacture the stuff have been manufacturing for years, and breathing in the vapors for 8-hour days, 365-days a year. (Weekends and holidays permitted)
The nicotine vapor has been studied over and over and over again. Nicotine ingestion is only done one way... liquid consumption. (Inhaled when you smoke or vaporize it, and swallowed or absorbed when not inhaled.)
It is safe to assume that if one known element which is the "Leading cause of cancer in cigarettes", is not present in another form, that the item is safer. That is safe logical deduction. Tar and carbon monoxide from combustion, are the two largest carcinogens in an ignited tobacco product.
If those are not present, those can not contribute. The two largest elements within liquid-nicotine, are known to be safer than the two largest elements within an ignited tobacco product. So logical deduction would safely allow us to assume that it is not as unhealthy as an ignited tobacco product.
Those are the same "Assumptions", that medical studies make, when 10000 rats live, and only 10 rats die. Testing is still assumptions, and playing the odds. It is not "Fact" or "Truth", just better potential odds. (Potential, because ten years from now, they may determine rats results don't correlate with human results.)
What if aspirin long term effects caused your head to explode! But it took 100 years to happen. We would have to wait 100 years for that study, and for what... the 2% of people who live past 99, and of that, the 2% who took the aspirin long enough to have their heads explode... could be safe...
You can study it for 100 years, and that information will be useless on the next genetic generation of users.
What you do, is report it, when it happens, to be looked at and studied. If it is actually a problem, and not an isolated incident, then you take action. Yes it is too late. It will always be too late. Knowing about it does not stop it from happening to you. It could be 1 in a billion, and you could be the one it happens to.
It will become more clear soon, because of these actions. This is just a transition that would not have happened on its own. Sadly, and rightfully, it needed intervention. All we can do is hope that it does not end-up leaving a sour taste in our mouths.
No one to my knowledge has said that vaping is healthy. What I hear is that there's definites conclusions: It's safer than cigarettes, obesity, illegal drugs, suntans, smog, driving, bacon, and anything cooked on the grill. Is vaping safe? Probably not 100%. And I for one, will take my chances with sucking steam, and some nicotine. Is nicotine a stimulant? Yes. Is caffeine? Yes. How many of you give your kids soda with caffeine?
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.
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.
Caesarea sera whatever will be will be....
Had to giggle at that
Don't worry - I'm full of joie de vivre.
Except after a long day's graft.
But this urgency over safety passes me by somewhat...must try to take a more responsible view...
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)
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)
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
