4 ms·

Yeah, germ theory of disease is silly. The doubling of life expectancies since the late 1800s just feels too industrial. We should go back to when everything w

Yeah, germ theory of disease is silly. The doubling of life expectancies since the late 1800s just feels too industrial. We should go back to when everything was just so much more natural.

andai 9y ago
You said it, brother!
contingencies 9y ago
This is a flippant dismissal that is perhaps important to address. Science is not a binary thing: hackers of all audiences should know that you can respect science while admitting partial knowledge of the world and embracing holistic (or less fully informed, yet well evidenced) modes of action. In short, daveguy's argument simultaneously presents a false dichotomy and shifting the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof based upon the implied assumption that formal, academic science is the only true source of evidence. In fact, there are many valid sources of information other than science, and many of its outputs are near philosophical anyway. For example, monocultures are weak would be scientifically founded, philosophical perspective for holistic thinking and against the implication. PS. In fact my comment was mostly aimed at the folly of human behavior (overoptimization for macro-visible pathogens and backslapping self-assessment of broad self-assumed understanding when mounting evidence shows just how little we know about even human biology), not claiming that industry is bad, mmkay?
- daveguy 9y ago
  It was not a flippant dismissal. I was simply trying to make the argument that the basis of cleanliness in food processing has done pretty fucking well. You confuse monoculture with cleanliness. We don't want diverse culture soups in our processing. What we deliberately put in our body we want to be well identified culture or no culture at all. I was pointing out a serious flaw in your reasoning based on over a century of results based on scientific progress. It's easy to dismiss food safety as "industrial" when the very real alternative is pathogenic disease outbreak. There is nothing false about that dichotomy. Science is the sole source of evidence. If your woo philosophy produces better outcomes, then put up or shut up. Burden of proof has not been shifted. Burden of proof is with the challenger. Increased food safety is the status quo with a century+ of life expectancy improvements.
  - contingencies 9y ago
    Science is the sole source of evidence Evidence is a loaded word in that it has a specific scientific meaning. Information is less so. As sources of information, are gut instincts to be dismissed? Do you wait for a scientific analysis to be peer-published before running away from danger? Are traditions to be dismissed? Many forms of traditional lore have been validated through subsequent scientific study: are they valueless prior? Law is largely opine and tradition with appeals to random existential and other fallacies, not science, yet does generally fine in guiding human behavior in many societies. Similarly, most people don't know the law, they 'get a sense of it'. Should they cease to live because they don't have time for a law degree? You are table-thumping on formal and reductive reasoning yet conveniently ignoring the broader biological, physical and indeed scientific reality that we have an imperfect understanding of the world. This does not dismiss in any way the achievements of science, and my original comment was made to encourage people to laugh at our folly in making great rational advances while missing the forest for the trees. Your comments are, sadly, while probably well meaning, providing mostly nought but a great example.
    - daveguy 9y ago
      By science I mean the scientific method. Again, put up or shut up. I cited the positive health effect of the last century as evidence that the scientific method has worked out well. I am not ignoring that we have imperfect knowledge. That's why science isn't over. Ignoring our evidence based understanding and health improvement outcomes over a philosophical argument that our knowledge isn't complete (it never will be) is the definition of folly. Ignorance is not an argument for more ignorance.
- bmelton 9y ago
  I don't claim any knowledge on the matter above that of a layperson, so please don't take this as picking sides, as I'm far too uninformed to do so intelligently... that said, would it not be considered appropriate for the body populace to get their dirt exposure through play, sport, gardening or other activities that bring them into contact with it, while simultaneously applying germ theory to our food processing, preparation, emergency rooms, etc?
  - contingencies 9y ago
    There's not enough land for most people to have a garden, and it's a rare sporting venue in major world cities that is now (a) based on proper dirt, with an ecosystem (b) not pumped full of chemicals (c) used by a large percentage of the population for sports that would readily and regularly facilitate eating dirt. Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly.
    - t123 9y ago
      On the contrary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land Not counting huge land-masses in central africa and I'd also be skeptical of the numbers provided for Khazakstan and Mongolia
      - t123 9y ago
        iow a 2ar garden for every human being currently living on our planet with still plenty of room left and this with only using land that's already deforested.. (+ we could easily grow a lot food on water. the tech is already here, waiting to be assembled - although not needed) .. this is meant to be a philosophical-kind-of-post, and its appropriate to recap that the 2 most important limiting factors in terms of population growth are (low)childhood mortality, (freely-available)education and a (working) social safety net (if an educated woman could have children without risks in her late 40s and live an active live up to her 90s ,,)
        contingencies 9y ago
pizza 9y ago
They're not making a naturalistic fallacy. They're saying that our understanding of environmental influence of internal makeup is incomplete. What they're saying would extend our theory, and potentially our lives, too. It could also create new inventions, pushing us to become even more artificial in a technological/medical sense.

Yeah, germ theory of disease is silly. The doubling of life expectancies since the late 1800s just feels too industrial. We should go back to when everything was just so much more natural.

andai 9y ago

You said it, brother!

contingencies 9y ago

This is a flippant dismissal that is perhaps important to address. Science is not a binary thing: hackers of all audiences should know that you can respect science while admitting partial knowledge of the world and embracing holistic (or less fully informed, yet well evidenced) modes of action. In short, daveguy's argument simultaneously presents a false dichotomy and shifting the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof based upon the implied assumption that formal, academic science is the only true source of evidence. In fact, there are many valid sources of information other than science, and many of its outputs are near philosophical anyway. For example, monocultures are weak would be scientifically founded, philosophical perspective for holistic thinking and against the implication. PS. In fact my comment was mostly aimed at the folly of human behavior (overoptimization for macro-visible pathogens and backslapping self-assessment of broad self-assumed understanding when mounting evidence shows just how little we know about even human biology), not claiming that industry is bad, mmkay?

daveguy 9y ago
It was not a flippant dismissal. I was simply trying to make the argument that the basis of cleanliness in food processing has done pretty fucking well. You confuse monoculture with cleanliness. We don't want diverse culture soups in our processing. What we deliberately put in our body we want to be well identified culture or no culture at all. I was pointing out a serious flaw in your reasoning based on over a century of results based on scientific progress. It's easy to dismiss food safety as "industrial" when the very real alternative is pathogenic disease outbreak. There is nothing false about that dichotomy. Science is the sole source of evidence. If your woo philosophy produces better outcomes, then put up or shut up. Burden of proof has not been shifted. Burden of proof is with the challenger. Increased food safety is the status quo with a century+ of life expectancy improvements.
- contingencies 9y ago
  Science is the sole source of evidence Evidence is a loaded word in that it has a specific scientific meaning. Information is less so. As sources of information, are gut instincts to be dismissed? Do you wait for a scientific analysis to be peer-published before running away from danger? Are traditions to be dismissed? Many forms of traditional lore have been validated through subsequent scientific study: are they valueless prior? Law is largely opine and tradition with appeals to random existential and other fallacies, not science, yet does generally fine in guiding human behavior in many societies. Similarly, most people don't know the law, they 'get a sense of it'. Should they cease to live because they don't have time for a law degree? You are table-thumping on formal and reductive reasoning yet conveniently ignoring the broader biological, physical and indeed scientific reality that we have an imperfect understanding of the world. This does not dismiss in any way the achievements of science, and my original comment was made to encourage people to laugh at our folly in making great rational advances while missing the forest for the trees. Your comments are, sadly, while probably well meaning, providing mostly nought but a great example.
  - daveguy 9y ago
    By science I mean the scientific method. Again, put up or shut up. I cited the positive health effect of the last century as evidence that the scientific method has worked out well. I am not ignoring that we have imperfect knowledge. That's why science isn't over. Ignoring our evidence based understanding and health improvement outcomes over a philosophical argument that our knowledge isn't complete (it never will be) is the definition of folly. Ignorance is not an argument for more ignorance.
bmelton 9y ago
I don't claim any knowledge on the matter above that of a layperson, so please don't take this as picking sides, as I'm far too uninformed to do so intelligently... that said, would it not be considered appropriate for the body populace to get their dirt exposure through play, sport, gardening or other activities that bring them into contact with it, while simultaneously applying germ theory to our food processing, preparation, emergency rooms, etc?
- contingencies 9y ago
  There's not enough land for most people to have a garden, and it's a rare sporting venue in major world cities that is now (a) based on proper dirt, with an ecosystem (b) not pumped full of chemicals (c) used by a large percentage of the population for sports that would readily and regularly facilitate eating dirt. Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly.
  - t123 9y ago
    On the contrary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land Not counting huge land-masses in central africa and I'd also be skeptical of the numbers provided for Khazakstan and Mongolia
    - t123 9y ago
      iow a 2ar garden for every human being currently living on our planet with still plenty of room left and this with only using land that's already deforested.. (+ we could easily grow a lot food on water. the tech is already here, waiting to be assembled - although not needed) .. this is meant to be a philosophical-kind-of-post, and its appropriate to recap that the 2 most important limiting factors in terms of population growth are (low)childhood mortality, (freely-available)education and a (working) social safety net (if an educated woman could have children without risks in her late 40s and live an active live up to her 90s ,,)
      - contingencies 9y ago

pizza 9y ago

They're not making a naturalistic fallacy. They're saying that our understanding of environmental influence of internal makeup is incomplete. What they're saying would extend our theory, and potentially our lives, too. It could also create new inventions, pushing us to become even more artificial in a technological/medical sense.