3 ms·

>Science has led to many amazing things, but that doesn't mean it can realistically answer all questions. Careful, this attitude is essentially perpetuating th

>Science has led to many amazing things, but that doesn't mean it can realistically answer all questions. Careful, this attitude is essentially perpetuating that we should only use evidence when we feel like it. If you refuse to consume something because you think it is detrimental to health but there is no evidence supporting it, just be honest and admit that it's a religious belief.

marze 9y ago
Or you could call it being cautious.
- oblib 9y ago
  Yeah, I agree. We learn most everyday about things "Science" got wrong because new science proves it. That's not to be dismissive or meant to deny what we do know, only that it's wise to be humble and keep looking and learning.
  - cholantesh 9y ago
    >science proves it But it doesn't. Science doesn't 'prove' anything, it provides evidence for hypotheses. And there is much more evidence for the hypothesis that diet soda is safe for human consumption than otherwise. It would take a lot of work to upend this, and so far, nothing really substantial has been done.
danblick 9y ago
I'm not suggesting we ignore evidence; I'm just saying we should be honest about what the evidence really shows and also honest about our inability to collect conclusive evidence at times. I agree that mouse studies can show that megadoses of these sugar substitutes aren't lethal and probably won't cause cancer. But humans aren't mice and we don't live in lab cages, so animal studies don't answer the question I'm really interested in (~"will accepting artificial sweeteners into my diet improve my health?"). What would be the right experiment to answer that question? Has that experiment actually been performed, and would it be practical? Changes in human behavior might be hard to observe and quantify, and there are always practical limits to sample sizes. Sometimes it's very, very hard to design a study that actually answers the question you're interested in, but neither the scientists nor anyone else really has an incentive to be humble about that. (Most scientists want to make their work seem impactful.)

marze 9y ago

Or you could call it being cautious.

oblib 9y ago
Yeah, I agree. We learn most everyday about things "Science" got wrong because new science proves it. That's not to be dismissive or meant to deny what we do know, only that it's wise to be humble and keep looking and learning.
- cholantesh 9y ago
  >science proves it But it doesn't. Science doesn't 'prove' anything, it provides evidence for hypotheses. And there is much more evidence for the hypothesis that diet soda is safe for human consumption than otherwise. It would take a lot of work to upend this, and so far, nothing really substantial has been done.

danblick 9y ago

I'm not suggesting we ignore evidence; I'm just saying we should be honest about what the evidence really shows and also honest about our inability to collect conclusive evidence at times. I agree that mouse studies can show that megadoses of these sugar substitutes aren't lethal and probably won't cause cancer. But humans aren't mice and we don't live in lab cages, so animal studies don't answer the question I'm really interested in (~"will accepting artificial sweeteners into my diet improve my health?"). What would be the right experiment to answer that question? Has that experiment actually been performed, and would it be practical? Changes in human behavior might be hard to observe and quantify, and there are always practical limits to sample sizes. Sometimes it's very, very hard to design a study that actually answers the question you're interested in, but neither the scientists nor anyone else really has an incentive to be humble about that. (Most scientists want to make their work seem impactful.)