5 ms·

>End of discussion. Science is not a static. Believing absolutely in a specific scientific result and refusing to accept that it may be wrong is as harmful to

by gatmne 9y ago

>End of discussion. Science is not a static. Believing absolutely in a specific scientific result and refusing to accept that it may be wrong is as harmful to our advancement as those who refused to acknowledge that the earth isn't flat (they also used their limited understanding to justify their position). To reuse your opening statement, you'd also win a Nobel Prize if you could conclusively prove that "your cell phone cannot cause cancer" and "any radio signal from a cell phone [doesn't]."

dwaltrip 9y ago
> Believing absolutely in a specific scientific result and refusing to accept that it may be wrong is as harmful You are missing the primary thrust of the argument. They are saying: "This goes against known science -- proving otherwise would be a massive scientific discovery which would require reconceptualizing a century of work. This is highly unlikely". Assuming the commenter is operating with robust scientific understanding [1], then there isn't any dogmatic belief here. [1] I haven't researched this cellphone cancer thing personally so I can't strongly argue that point one way or another. However, my cursory understanding is that there isn't strong evidence for it.
- manmal 9y ago
  I looked up „Dogma“: Prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group. Seems to be exactly what a lot of folks here are trying to do - „non-ionizing radiation cannot cause cancer, period.“
  - dwaltrip 9y ago
    It's called "strong opinions weakly held". There are good scientific reasons to think cellphones don't cause cancer. However, if enough compelling evidence was found otherwise, then it would be important to update our understanding accordingly.
    - shintakezou 9y ago
      The wording “X causes Y” is slippery. Saying “X increases the probability of Y”, is another thing. Thinking about smoke, with “smoke causes cancer” I expect every smoker to have cancer. It isn't so. If the effect of X on the probability that Y occurs is too much small, maybe it's just that we haven't enough statistical data (yet) to see it. Then, even if the effect could be statistically seen, telco companies could always say that it's safer than driving a car… Or a new business for body-cellphones shields could be made… Or, more likely, some people will pay more attention at to where they put their cellphones.

by gatmne 9y ago

dwaltrip 9y ago

> Believing absolutely in a specific scientific result and refusing to accept that it may be wrong is as harmful You are missing the primary thrust of the argument. They are saying: "This goes against known science -- proving otherwise would be a massive scientific discovery which would require reconceptualizing a century of work. This is highly unlikely". Assuming the commenter is operating with robust scientific understanding [1], then there isn't any dogmatic belief here. [1] I haven't researched this cellphone cancer thing personally so I can't strongly argue that point one way or another. However, my cursory understanding is that there isn't strong evidence for it.

manmal 9y ago
I looked up „Dogma“: Prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group. Seems to be exactly what a lot of folks here are trying to do - „non-ionizing radiation cannot cause cancer, period.“
- dwaltrip 9y ago
  It's called "strong opinions weakly held". There are good scientific reasons to think cellphones don't cause cancer. However, if enough compelling evidence was found otherwise, then it would be important to update our understanding accordingly.
  - shintakezou 9y ago
    The wording “X causes Y” is slippery. Saying “X increases the probability of Y”, is another thing. Thinking about smoke, with “smoke causes cancer” I expect every smoker to have cancer. It isn't so. If the effect of X on the probability that Y occurs is too much small, maybe it's just that we haven't enough statistical data (yet) to see it. Then, even if the effect could be statistically seen, telco companies could always say that it's safer than driving a car… Or a new business for body-cellphones shields could be made… Or, more likely, some people will pay more attention at to where they put their cellphones.