4 ms·

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/does-glyphosate-cause-cancer/ http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/does-glyphosate...

by gcheong 10y ago

emmelaich 10y ago
Great website! Thanks.
- 0xcde4c3db 10y ago
  You might also be interested in Science-Based Medicine [1], another blog where Steven Novella posts. [1] https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ (in case you're wondering about the name: in a nutshell, "science-based medicine" is the position that "evidence-based medicine" is an insufficient rejection of quackery because it leads to a lot of effort being misspent on finding "evidence" to support scientifically implausible and already-debunked treatments and theories)
  - slazaro 10y ago
    > (in case you're wondering about the name: in a nutshell, "science-based medicine" is the position that "evidence-based medicine" is an insufficient rejection of quackery because it leads to a lot of effort being misspent on finding "evidence" to support scientifically implausible and already-debunked treatments and theories) Sorry if this is a common objection, but my first reaction to this is, there's lots of people that reject the word "science" (today's anti-intellectualism), but they're okay with the word "evidence". So even if "science-based" is better, on the surface a lot of people will instantly have a negative reaction to the name.
    - Elrac 10y ago
      Related topic: In the eternal and tiresome dispute between religious Creationists and modern science, a favorite talking point is that "it's only a theory!" As a result, some science-minded people are proposing that scientists adopt a different word to substitute for the "tainted" word "theory," whose colloquial meaning differs from that in a professional scientific context. Me, I think this is a terrible idea. I fiercely resist having my (or anyone's) use of vocabulary directed to accommodate ignorant people. I can see only losing battles in that direction.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
cholantesh 10y ago
Sad that this isn't the top comment. The most qualified voice being quoted in this entire thread is completely drowned out by sensationalism.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/does-glyphosate-cause-cancer/ http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/does-glyphosate...

by gcheong 10y ago

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/does-glyphosate-cause-cancer/ http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/does-glyphosate...

emmelaich 10y ago

Great website! Thanks.

0xcde4c3db 10y ago
You might also be interested in Science-Based Medicine [1], another blog where Steven Novella posts. [1] https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ (in case you're wondering about the name: in a nutshell, "science-based medicine" is the position that "evidence-based medicine" is an insufficient rejection of quackery because it leads to a lot of effort being misspent on finding "evidence" to support scientifically implausible and already-debunked treatments and theories)
- slazaro 10y ago
  > (in case you're wondering about the name: in a nutshell, "science-based medicine" is the position that "evidence-based medicine" is an insufficient rejection of quackery because it leads to a lot of effort being misspent on finding "evidence" to support scientifically implausible and already-debunked treatments and theories) Sorry if this is a common objection, but my first reaction to this is, there's lots of people that reject the word "science" (today's anti-intellectualism), but they're okay with the word "evidence". So even if "science-based" is better, on the surface a lot of people will instantly have a negative reaction to the name.
  - Elrac 10y ago
    Related topic: In the eternal and tiresome dispute between religious Creationists and modern science, a favorite talking point is that "it's only a theory!" As a result, some science-minded people are proposing that scientists adopt a different word to substitute for the "tainted" word "theory," whose colloquial meaning differs from that in a professional scientific context. Me, I think this is a terrible idea. I fiercely resist having my (or anyone's) use of vocabulary directed to accommodate ignorant people. I can see only losing battles in that direction.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

cholantesh 10y ago

Sad that this isn't the top comment. The most qualified voice being quoted in this entire thread is completely drowned out by sensationalism.