4 ms·

Well, yes, it does actually. Not all 'common sense' solutions have the same impact. I will never understand this line of anti-science thinking. In the past, all

Well, yes, it does actually. Not all 'common sense' solutions have the same impact. I will never understand this line of anti-science thinking. In the past, all sorts of 'obvious' advice turned out to be terribly wrong. For example, in the past, before knowledge of infectious disease, people would have told you that you didn't need scientific inquiry to understand how to stay well, just avoid 'bad air'. This was terrible advice as the air could be crisp and clear, but still contaminated with viruses or bateria, while polluted air could be free of the same agents. Another example is low-fat diets. These are now known to not be as healthy as purported, and indeed for men, it is known that such a thing would actually lower testosterone, so maybe it's not just simply a matter of putting into motion the abstract ideal of 'treating yourself well', but actually a matter of offering targeted, specific advice. We should not substitute 'common sense' with actual, careful study.

XorNot 7y ago
A better example is the food pyramid, which was just, hilariously, hugely wrong advice for the entirety of my childhood and formative years.
rjf72 7y ago
Miasma theory [1], as you are referencing, was not "obvious advice" - it was the scientific consensus, worldwide, for thousands of years in terms of the propagation of illness. Germ theories had been suggested by numerous people for many centuries, but a problem is that miasma theory was deeply entrenched as the consensus view and could also explain most things such as people who are around sick people also getting sick. It's a theory that was extremely difficult to falsify until it became undeniably wrong once we developed the technology to actually be able to literally see bacteria. On top of scientific inertia, another issue is that "actual, careful study" often fails to detect things that are really there. A great example of this is scurvy. Scurvy at one time was one of the most virulent diseases there was. It killed many millions of people during the age of sail alone and long-term voyages simply accepted the reality that they would likely lose a significant portion of their crew to scurvy. [2] We now know that scurvy is simply caused by a lack of vitamin C, but one problem with resolving the scurvy mystery over time is that the actual cure sounds absurdly hokey and superstitious. Oh you're dying from this absolutely awful disease that's causing your entire body to deteriorate and rot from the inside out? Here, suck on some limes - it'll cure you! And scientific trials to test the "lemon theory" (which had been written about for hundreds of years) failed to show any meaningful success. The reason is that exposing lime juice to light, air, and certain metals used in storage/delivery (all as happened during experimentation) worked to greatly reduce its vitamin c content. It was also confounded by the fact that fresh meat also has lots of vitamin C. So you notice claims that fresh fruits seem to cure scurvy and fresh meats also seem to cure scurvy. This now led to the scientific view that the problem was caused by tainted food. So forth and so on, stumbling very awkwardly along again until we reached an era of technology where we could isolate and measure 'vitamin C' and finally prove, once and for all, it was indeed the root cause. As a fun aside, vitamin C was not initially named ascorbic acid. It was named hexuronic acid. It was renamed to antiscorbutic (against scurvy) acid, shortened to ascorbic, once it's effect was proven once and for all. This is also where the slang of a limey for a British sailor came from. They were one of the first nations to require a regular dosing of lime for their sailors. So there's always a balance in life. It's important for the evolution of our entire species that not everybody believe the exact same thing. Common sense is usually right, but sometimes it's very wrong. And science is usually right, but sometimes it's very wrong. People diverging from the norm to pursue their own views and values is something that benefits everybody as they work as completely volunteer guinea pigs. And it's often the case both that common sense ends up complimenting science, as well as science complimenting common sense. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scurvy#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scurvy#History
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tathougies 7y ago
  Science doesnt mean forming a consensus. You are arguing for allowing competitive ideas which is the most scientific thing you can do
yawboakye 7y ago
It's wrong to lump common sense advise together with the previously-scientific-until-proven-otherwise low-fat diets. Common sense here, in my opinion, should refer to what has been generationally observed. Even if there's mistakes in there, our bodies would have evolved to handle them well. It's when we try to substitute what has been a generational practice with careful study that we go wrong. Because careful study is not careful enough, and often makes the common mistake of prescribing new things, food, actions, processes, etc.
ddgflorida 7y ago
The low-fat diet craze you used as an example originated from "scientific study". I'll stick to common sense and moderation.

XorNot 7y ago

A better example is the food pyramid, which was just, hilariously, hugely wrong advice for the entirety of my childhood and formative years.

rjf72 7y ago

Miasma theory [1], as you are referencing, was not "obvious advice" - it was the scientific consensus, worldwide, for thousands of years in terms of the propagation of illness. Germ theories had been suggested by numerous people for many centuries, but a problem is that miasma theory was deeply entrenched as the consensus view and could also explain most things such as people who are around sick people also getting sick. It's a theory that was extremely difficult to falsify until it became undeniably wrong once we developed the technology to actually be able to literally see bacteria. On top of scientific inertia, another issue is that "actual, careful study" often fails to detect things that are really there. A great example of this is scurvy. Scurvy at one time was one of the most virulent diseases there was. It killed many millions of people during the age of sail alone and long-term voyages simply accepted the reality that they would likely lose a significant portion of their crew to scurvy. [2] We now know that scurvy is simply caused by a lack of vitamin C, but one problem with resolving the scurvy mystery over time is that the actual cure sounds absurdly hokey and superstitious. Oh you're dying from this absolutely awful disease that's causing your entire body to deteriorate and rot from the inside out? Here, suck on some limes - it'll cure you! And scientific trials to test the "lemon theory" (which had been written about for hundreds of years) failed to show any meaningful success. The reason is that exposing lime juice to light, air, and certain metals used in storage/delivery (all as happened during experimentation) worked to greatly reduce its vitamin c content. It was also confounded by the fact that fresh meat also has lots of vitamin C. So you notice claims that fresh fruits seem to cure scurvy and fresh meats also seem to cure scurvy. This now led to the scientific view that the problem was caused by tainted food. So forth and so on, stumbling very awkwardly along again until we reached an era of technology where we could isolate and measure 'vitamin C' and finally prove, once and for all, it was indeed the root cause. As a fun aside, vitamin C was not initially named ascorbic acid. It was named hexuronic acid. It was renamed to antiscorbutic (against scurvy) acid, shortened to ascorbic, once it's effect was proven once and for all. This is also where the slang of a limey for a British sailor came from. They were one of the first nations to require a regular dosing of lime for their sailors. So there's always a balance in life. It's important for the evolution of our entire species that not everybody believe the exact same thing. Common sense is usually right, but sometimes it's very wrong. And science is usually right, but sometimes it's very wrong. People diverging from the norm to pursue their own views and values is something that benefits everybody as they work as completely volunteer guinea pigs. And it's often the case both that common sense ends up complimenting science, as well as science complimenting common sense. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scurvy#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scurvy#History

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tathougies 7y ago
Science doesnt mean forming a consensus. You are arguing for allowing competitive ideas which is the most scientific thing you can do

yawboakye 7y ago

It's wrong to lump common sense advise together with the previously-scientific-until-proven-otherwise low-fat diets. Common sense here, in my opinion, should refer to what has been generationally observed. Even if there's mistakes in there, our bodies would have evolved to handle them well. It's when we try to substitute what has been a generational practice with careful study that we go wrong. Because careful study is not careful enough, and often makes the common mistake of prescribing new things, food, actions, processes, etc.

ddgflorida 7y ago

The low-fat diet craze you used as an example originated from "scientific study". I'll stick to common sense and moderation.