The history of the "gateway" argument demonstrates ANTZ are desperate
- Thread starter DrMA
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Then junk science is not a version of science, but science itself, yes?
Funny that you mention gateway in your example... The very thing I've been arguing exists
I never said gateway effect is only caused by chemical means, and agreed that it can often be attributed to social, mental and biological (predisposition) causes. But the effect is still there. Your last post helps my case.
I do agree with you partly on the sugar, bit I would opine that it's caused more by its being so readily available and hidden in almost everything we eat. Being a vital need to our system, its only when we refine it and strip it of all of its natural properties that it becomes such a health risk. Add to that there fact that a good portion of sugar in America is processed from GMO beets, that just makes it worse
Well, as interesting as this debate has been (it seems far to rare to have one here without a flame war starting, so this was refreshing), my day beckons me.
Sent with one hand, the other is busy vaping.
Sent with one hand, the other is busy vaping.
Funny that you mention gateway in your example... The very thing I've been arguing exists
I never said gateway effect is only caused by chemical means, and agreed that it can often be attributed to social, mental and biological (predisposition) causes. But the effect is still there. Your last post helps my case.
I'm either still trying to understand your case, or thinking you are moving the goal posts. From a third review of your first post on this thread, I think that you think of gateway as hypothetical construct that may have some use as teachable moment for certain substance abusers, but is in fact not very accurate with how addiction works, precisely.
And this is you making my case stronger. Sugar is available and hidden in almost everything we eat, and deemed necessary to life on this planet. Hence, the statement of it being the most addictive substance of them all. And hence it being arguably the first gateway effect that the young human brain encounters. When that high wears off or has run its course, then the young brain seeks something more, another level. And IMO, it isn't like there's a leap between sugar and then around age 10 to 16 a human tries substance #2 of the gateway, but far more likely that by age 5, a human has encountered 15 gateways that will likely lead to desire to try more, have more, be more.
Junk science is what happens when people with scientific credentials allow themselves to be used as mouthpieces by political and corporate interests that wish to propagate a fictional, self-serving narrative, and to hide behind the veneer of "science" while doing so.
In other words, when people find something enjoyable, they are motivated to try other enjoyable things. What a revelation.
My whole intended case from the beginning was to counter another posters discredit of the gateway theory as non existent and show that due to my experience I find it to be a valid thing
One person's experiences do not lend validity, ever, to a scientific postulate. Valid scientific theories do not rely on anecdote, bias, prejudice, or subjectivity.
How do these fictional self-serving narratives get published in peer reviewed journals (of the prestigious sort)?
I can respect this, though would stipulate that the gateway concept is hypothesis and not truly scientific theory.
The hypothesis is clearly open to debate, and there are scientific types that have commented on this thread raising legitimate disagreements with the cited studies. I'm thinking you don't buy into the hypothesis that vaping may lead to use of illicit drugs, but feel free to correct me / us if I am speaking incorrectly.
I don't know if you've read Carl Phillips' five-part series on everything that's wrong with "peer review," both in principle and in practice, but you should if you haven't.
What is peer review really? (part 1) | Anti-THR Lies and related topics
I'd venture to guess, research grants to all those "peers" responsible for the reviewing. Money buys everything nowadays -- even scientific integrity -- just look at the WHO and CDC.
Andria
A lot of times it is the control over ideas but money is still a factor - gov't grants, etc..
Don't have to read the whole thing....over half way down, shows efforts to get reviewed (on climate change - even though the authors agreed with some of the data but not all of it).
From "Our experience with the peer-review process was a nightmare that eerily resembles what University of Guelph’s Ross McKitrick describes in his chapter “Bias in the Peer-Review Process,” in my new book, Climate Coup."
The Current Wisdom: The Lack of Recent Warming and the State of Peer Review | Cato Institute
It's really only been in the last several decades that "peer-reviewed" has become a synonym for "credible and most likely correct." When you consider the fact that, almost invariably, history's most eminent scientific minds have become so by rejecting conventional wisdom and demonstrating that their peers are wrong, the inherent fallacy of "credibility by acclimation" becomes starkly apparent.
And in reality, unreliable and incorrect.
There will always be a 'consensus' as long as you don't allow any disagreement or criticism counted. re: Naomi Oreskes in "Inconvenient Truth"
And in reality, unreliable and incorrect.
Yes, it's a time-honored tradition of creating "consensus" at the tip of the weapon of fashion at the time. Cave men did it, the Romans, the Church, nazis, communists... Now, the scientific community is employing the same methods to maintain politically-correct "consensus" on a variety of topics and their weapon of choice is peer review and the threat of burning careers at the stake of peer ridicule.
No, I don't believe vaping to be a gateway to illicit drugs or to smoking analogs....i thought I'd mentioned that early on, maybe not, to many posts have gone by.
Moreover, the journals that are regarded as the most "prestigious" are simply the ones that have been around the longest, hence their editorial boards are populated by older, establishment-minded individuals who are more disinclined to question their own ingrained ways of thinking. When a scientist has the courage to say "You know, I may have been wrong about this all along," it should be regarded as an admirable, praiseworthy act of conscience, because that's what it is. But within the ivory towers of academic peer review, it's more along the lines of professional suicide.
I have glanced at it. He is using reason to dispel a current form of what Wikipedia calls the touchstone of the scientific method. For surely, Carl is not using science to differentiate the true from the untrue.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
