3 ms·

I don't see anyone doing a Galileo here. Nobody's arresting this guy for speaking. I do see him being dismissed a lot. Ultimately the burden of proof is on him

by api 6y ago

I don't see anyone doing a Galileo here. Nobody's arresting this guy for speaking. I do see him being dismissed a lot. Ultimately the burden of proof is on him as he is the one proposing an alternative hypothesis. He is free to meticulously document his work, propose studies, etc. It should also be possible to investigate his hypothesis by studying cultures that still do consume harder foods vs. individuals of the same genetic background who have migrated into the modern world and now consume softer stuff.

darkerside 6y ago
This is what I'm talking about. I realize it's not state/church sponsored censorship, but the scientific community does suffer from groupthink and orthodoxy. When bringing up somebody's name immediately makes a group mad, it's usually because they are having an emotional reaction to a potential loss of power. It sounds like he is dedicating his life's work to building that alternative case, without the support of major academic or scientific institutions. I agree it should be easily provable or disprovable. Since it makes people so angry, and still hasn't been disproven, I'm inclined to think this hypothesis is worth more investigation. > The Mews have enraged the orthodontic community with the caustic, uncompromising way they’ve promoted their theories. They and the coterie of nontraditional practitioners who follow them often occupy the furthest reaches of the orthodontic fringe, written off for decades as a small but troublesome band of cranks and kooks. They almost never speak at mainstream conferences. Their papers, if they publish them, tend to appear in obscure, fourth-rate journals or profit-driven industry magazines. British and American orthodontic researchers told me that nearly every claim the Mews have put forth is wrong. Kevin O’Brien, a leading academic orthodontist in the U.K., described their work to me as “mostly discredited.” When I mentioned Mew to a prominent American orthodontist, he cut me off. “John Mew is an idiot,” he said. “A total idiot.”
- rsynnott 6y ago
  > They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown If you bring up Andrew Wakefield with a doctor, they may well be annoyed, but it's very much not because they think he's right. Note that the offending orthodontist is treating adults even though he claims his treatment only works on kids. That this is happening at all actually seems to speak to surprisingly poor regulation of dentistry; if you were a surgeon who was selling a treatment which was not generally regarded as safe or effective, and _you yourself_ claimed it probably wouldn't work for the patients you were providing it to, you would have issues.
  - darkerside 6y ago
    What I've learned in life is that when all the arguments against are ad hominem, there's usually something political going on. He may not be right, but that doesn't mean he's not on to something.

by api 6y ago

darkerside 6y ago

This is what I'm talking about. I realize it's not state/church sponsored censorship, but the scientific community does suffer from groupthink and orthodoxy. When bringing up somebody's name immediately makes a group mad, it's usually because they are having an emotional reaction to a potential loss of power. It sounds like he is dedicating his life's work to building that alternative case, without the support of major academic or scientific institutions. I agree it should be easily provable or disprovable. Since it makes people so angry, and still hasn't been disproven, I'm inclined to think this hypothesis is worth more investigation. > The Mews have enraged the orthodontic community with the caustic, uncompromising way they’ve promoted their theories. They and the coterie of nontraditional practitioners who follow them often occupy the furthest reaches of the orthodontic fringe, written off for decades as a small but troublesome band of cranks and kooks. They almost never speak at mainstream conferences. Their papers, if they publish them, tend to appear in obscure, fourth-rate journals or profit-driven industry magazines. British and American orthodontic researchers told me that nearly every claim the Mews have put forth is wrong. Kevin O’Brien, a leading academic orthodontist in the U.K., described their work to me as “mostly discredited.” When I mentioned Mew to a prominent American orthodontist, he cut me off. “John Mew is an idiot,” he said. “A total idiot.”

rsynnott 6y ago
> They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown If you bring up Andrew Wakefield with a doctor, they may well be annoyed, but it's very much not because they think he's right. Note that the offending orthodontist is treating adults even though he claims his treatment only works on kids. That this is happening at all actually seems to speak to surprisingly poor regulation of dentistry; if you were a surgeon who was selling a treatment which was not generally regarded as safe or effective, and _you yourself_ claimed it probably wouldn't work for the patients you were providing it to, you would have issues.
- darkerside 6y ago
  What I've learned in life is that when all the arguments against are ad hominem, there's usually something political going on. He may not be right, but that doesn't mean he's not on to something.