3 ms·

>The interesting thing about this whole episode is that it serves as a wonderful illustration of the self-correcting nature of the scientific method. This is a

by danssig 15y ago

>The interesting thing about this whole episode is that it serves as a wonderful illustration of the self-correcting nature of the scientific method. This is actually not very good PR for science. The wonderful illustration here is that after billions of dollars and millions of lives we realized we were wrong? What system couldn't do that? To me, what this actually illustrates is the mistaken way we use science today: Today: "Ok, it looks like it's probably fat that's bad. Ok, everyone! No more fat" And everyone laughs and points at all the stupid uneducated fundies still eating fat. Tomorrow: "Oh, we were totally wrong about everything we said. Ok, everyone! Stop what ever you're doing!" And now we get to laugh at all the stupid people who don't eat fat anymore. Scientific method never proves anything, it's only good for disproving things. If a (valid, i.e. falsifiable) theory doesn't get proven wrong we develop more and more confidence. That still doesn't mean it's right though.

jinushaun 15y ago
The problem isn't science or the scientific method. It's marketers and salesmen (laypersons) that take one scientific study and go crazy with it. The studies themselves are probably littered with probabilities, statistics and caution conclusions. That doesn't work when you're trying to sell snake oil. Just look at the whole anti-oxidant craze with cranberries, pomegranate and acai berries. Suddenly people are buying gallons of juice. The scientists didn't do that.
- forensic 15y ago
  You haven't looked into the scientific bungling behind this particular issue. It was not a political failure, it was a flat out scientific failure.
- danssig 15y ago
  >It's marketers and salesmen (laypersons) that take one scientific study and go crazy with it. In most case; scientists are salesmen/marketers. They have to be because they're salaries come from grant money. There are plenty of examples of scientists themselves trumping things up.
jodrellblank 15y ago
What system couldn't do that? Religion, for one. Alternative medicine for another. Any fixed mindset philosophy that has no feedback loop between "reality" and "what it advocates". You know tomorrow is predicted to be judgement day, right?[1] Do you think that guy/group is going to change his/their philosophy one iota when tomorrow is not judgement day? Even when they've predicted it before and been wrong before? [1] http://search.google.com/search?q=judgement%20day%20may%2021st%202011 http://search.google.com/search?q=judgement%20day%20may%2021... and http://www.wecanknow.com/ http://www.wecanknow.com/ claims "the date of the rapture of believers will take place on May 21, 2011 [..] Study the proofs that God has so graciously given in His Word showing us that these dates are 100% accurate and beyond dispute.". In a couple of days, find those people and ask about their "100% accurate and beyond dispute" claims.
- danssig 15y ago
  >Religion, for one. Wrong. All religions have, in fact, adjusted to changing realities. The Pope has made changes, the Jews don't sacrifice animals anymore, etc. You have a point with "alternative medicine" though.

by danssig 15y ago

jinushaun 15y ago

The problem isn't science or the scientific method. It's marketers and salesmen (laypersons) that take one scientific study and go crazy with it. The studies themselves are probably littered with probabilities, statistics and caution conclusions. That doesn't work when you're trying to sell snake oil. Just look at the whole anti-oxidant craze with cranberries, pomegranate and acai berries. Suddenly people are buying gallons of juice. The scientists didn't do that.

forensic 15y ago
You haven't looked into the scientific bungling behind this particular issue. It was not a political failure, it was a flat out scientific failure.
danssig 15y ago
>It's marketers and salesmen (laypersons) that take one scientific study and go crazy with it. In most case; scientists are salesmen/marketers. They have to be because they're salaries come from grant money. There are plenty of examples of scientists themselves trumping things up.

jodrellblank 15y ago

What system couldn't do that? Religion, for one. Alternative medicine for another. Any fixed mindset philosophy that has no feedback loop between "reality" and "what it advocates". You know tomorrow is predicted to be judgement day, right?[1] Do you think that guy/group is going to change his/their philosophy one iota when tomorrow is not judgement day? Even when they've predicted it before and been wrong before? [1] http://search.google.com/search?q=judgement%20day%20may%2021st%202011 http://search.google.com/search?q=judgement%20day%20may%2021... and http://www.wecanknow.com/ http://www.wecanknow.com/ claims "the date of the rapture of believers will take place on May 21, 2011 [..] Study the proofs that God has so graciously given in His Word showing us that these dates are 100% accurate and beyond dispute.". In a couple of days, find those people and ask about their "100% accurate and beyond dispute" claims.

danssig 15y ago
>Religion, for one. Wrong. All religions have, in fact, adjusted to changing realities. The Pope has made changes, the Jews don't sacrifice animals anymore, etc. You have a point with "alternative medicine" though.