Both left leaners and right leaners distort and cherry pick scientific results to justify or support their own viewpoints. It is kinda human nature. And human nature is not scientifically factual.
.
.
New study: vaping no more toxic than breathing air
- Thread starter DrMA
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
The use of Science, in some cases, has been Abused by every Political Party and Every Group/Individual seeking some Goal.
Yep if no profit in it few will do it.
The ones who do get ridiculed out by the ones in it for the money.
Lumping All Research as Not doing Science is a Pretty One Dimensional way of Thinking. There are Hundreds of Thousands of Dedicated Researchers who have Integrity and work in a Highly Professional Manor.
Unfortunately, the Slantz's and Prue Talbot's of the world have Tainted Science, and Most who use it, in such a Bad Light.
And that was exactly the goal of some that wanted science discredited because it conflicted with their desires.
It has always been this way. the earth is the center of the universe? And is flat.
I'm glad the posts after this one (above) clarify how it is actually a knock on science. Perhaps not the theoretical version of what science is, but the practice (or research arm) of what science is or has become.
I would say in shared reality, including politics, the anecdotal evidence for vaping does outweigh the scientific research. Though, this of course depends on one's agenda.
Agree in one sense, but actually thinking that all science is just science is more one dimensional than taking into consideration other multi-dimensional factors, such as politics, control, money, lawsuits, or combatting those other factors - fighting junk with junk.
It actually comes down to methodology - that's where the junk enters - when constants are not used, where overdoing something in order to produce a 'harm' that would not be a harm in normal use. Using machines that in no way replicate use, and using cancer prone rats and making the false connection with them and humans. I know the reason they are used - to approximate 'long term use' but it is flimsy at best, imo - esp. when the results are not seen in regular usage - popcorn lung in smokers, formaldehyde generation, etc. etc. Chicken's don't contain formaldehyde - but you can get some by burning a chicken - one that no one would eat! :- )
The Problem with Research has Always been the Funding. Or more specifically, how Research Funding is Obtained.
A University wants as Much Funding as Possible to due Research. And Publishing Negative Findings for One Study can/will Many Times stop funding for Future Studies. Both in Related and Non-Related areas of Research.
No one said that Science has Not or Is Not Abused. And I didn't say that All who use Science are using Science in a Ethical or Responsible manor.
My Comment dealt with steve's assertion that Research Isn't Science anymore.
To me, the relevant question is whether BAT research is actual science or not. If it is not, based solely on funding/funders, then that does lend credence to what Steve was saying.
IMO, it is clearly scientific practice, and ought to be scrutinized as such, not dismissed as not being aligned with "science" which needs quotes around it to seemingly make it so some can understand what is being conveyed, in some obscure coding of concepts.
IMO, it is clearly scientific practice, and ought to be scrutinized as such, not dismissed as not being aligned with "science" which needs quotes around it to seemingly make it so some can understand what is being conveyed, in some obscure coding of concepts.
Science when viewed as a solitary discipline is mostly beyond reproach.
It seeks to discover truth through bodies of work which are repeatable and hold up to scrutiny.
The problem is when science is perverted.
By money, by politics, and mostly by the media who report it.
The information age is probably as much to blame for the perversion of science as anything.
Because the media are the ones who create the "truth" for mass consumption.
And they don't care about repeatable, or holding things up to scrutiny.
If it sells, it's news, as quickly as we can put it out there.
Without mainstream media complicity, none of this works.
It seeks to discover truth through bodies of work which are repeatable and hold up to scrutiny.
The problem is when science is perverted.
By money, by politics, and mostly by the media who report it.
The information age is probably as much to blame for the perversion of science as anything.
Because the media are the ones who create the "truth" for mass consumption.
And they don't care about repeatable, or holding things up to scrutiny.
If it sells, it's news, as quickly as we can put it out there.
Without mainstream media complicity, none of this works.
Anything you find the sheep watching?
ECF????
I actually watch this place more than anything else.
I watch virtually zero broadcast or satellite TV. Maybe the local news a time or two a week, but usually on line where I can fast forward thru sports and such.
I watch movies online but not many of the ones that most rave about.
Call me un-american but I have not watched American Sniper!
The only news I really watch is local Atlanta/GA stuff, unless it's an election year, when I really try to pay more attention. I find politics exceedingly tedious, but all my years of utter apathy have not improved anything, so I'm *trying* to be slightly more aware of and participating in the "American experiment." I have a strong feeling of, if you didn't make some sort of effort one way or the other, you have no real right to complain if things don't go your way. I think someone around here has a very pithy saying about that, in their sig line, though the exact wording escapes me ATM.
More in-depth news, I nearly always get online, subjects and people who interest me.
Andria
Did they mention what kind of air they were using for the comparison? Where I live it is blue skies and clean air but just 60 miles away down in the city there are months of the year where no blue is to be seen, the mountains only miles away may or may not be visible depending on the AQI on the day.
Just wondering as I used to tell people when I was a smoker that I was doing it to filter out the smog in the air.
Just wondering as I used to tell people when I was a smoker that I was doing it to filter out the smog in the air.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
