3 ms·
Isn't it pretty much established science, not confirmation bias, that smoking is indeed universally bad? I mean, even if a handful of good things may come from
by stronglikedan 7y ago
Isn't it pretty much established science, not confirmation bias, that smoking is indeed universally bad? I mean, even if a handful of good things may come from it, it's still overwhelmingly bad for overall health. To be clear, I'm talking about the act of inhaling a combusted substance, smoke, not vapor.
- gridlockd 7y agoThe fact that there's so much data on the dangers of smoking causes confirmation bias. However, science is never complete. It's not inconceivable that, say, smoking causes some changes that are protective/hormetic in some cases. That doesn't imply it's a worthy tradeoff to be a lifelong smoker, of course. The question is, what are the fact that we aren't trying to find, because it goes completely against our expectations?