2 ms·

That kind of writing has the assumption that science is a closed book and that we already know everything, but we don't, and we are not even close to knowing. M

That kind of writing has the assumption that science is a closed book and that we already know everything, but we don't, and we are not even close to knowing. Materiel sciences, medicine, physics... are far from 1+1=2. Scientists are trying to ask questions and try to find answers, that is all. Not knowing what question to ask does not mean that there isn't an issue with something, it tells something else about us. > thus it is impossible to find it Entrenching our selves in beliefs just makes us dogmatic, and dogmatic people do not ask questions, they do not doubt in anything, they "know". Same in times of Spanish Inquisition and same today. Just different subjects. The same attitudes have people who believe that Earth is flat. No evidence can help there. As for every evidence - they will come up with something more delusional to confirm their own belief that Earth is flat. If you say let me take you to this rocket, so you can see the Earth, they would say "you projected picture on my helmet it is not real". Same goes with harmful things if you like meat you will believe that eating animals is good for them, that they do not suffer, do not have feelings etc. When we develop applications, we do not say, hey this application is impenetrable, it is the safest application in the world ever, it does not need testing, just ship it (I do not know what is your line of work). But we constantly ask how can we destroy what we just built. Be sure, if you do not do it some hacker out there will do it for you, and it will hurt significantly more. Yes, it is true these analogies are not the same; nature is infinitely more complex, and our knowledge even smaller. Issue is picking side. Scientist does not picks sides, s/he seeks questions and answers. I am not saying in any way that "5G is deadly run for your lives"; but I do say, as I said from the beginning of this thread, we do not know, and we need to do long term and short term exposure studies, so we can get more data. As without data you're just another person with an opinion. What to search? Many things, for every kind of molecule, compound, cell, tissue or body functionality, we should do a study. If that is too much, for a starter if we know that 5G penetrate skin for instance, than do all bits about the skin. Even if we do not find anything, we will probably learn something in the process... When I asked you the question, I was hopping you will follow scientific method, and say: explore, think, ask questions, find answers, do the research... In the end, something just 3 years ago. https://phys.org/news/2017-10-effect-electromagnetism-years.html https://phys.org/news/2017-10-effect-electromagnetism-years.... I wish you all the best.

bawolff 6y ago
And i don't disagree that we should always be seeking. There may be new methods that we don't yet know, new threats, new risks. Science is after all not Math, and does not have the type of rigorous 100% proven answers that math enjoys, nothing is ever 100% settled. But we still live in the real world, and have to take action based on imperfect knowledge. The line between "this appears safe, we should make consumer products out of it" and "this appears questionable, we should hold off on it" has to be drawn somewhere. In my view the anti-5g crowd seems to be holding 5g to a different standard than pretty much everything else in the world. If they claimed that 5g lacked sufficient safety data, and foreswore 5g along with everything else that had a similar level of safety data, i would be able to respect that. But that generally does not seem to be the case. As you say, in a very technical sense, this is not a question of science. Science can help us place bounds on the risk and inform the decision making. The actual decision making is a normative question. It is a question of values: what level of risk is appropriate? Science can't tell you what you should do, just at most what is likely to happen for a given choice. Fundamentally my objection to the anti-5g crowd is it seems to want to take a significantly lower risk tolerance for 5g relative to pretty much anything else, without a compelling argument for why a different standard should be in place for just this technology.

bawolff 6y ago

And i don't disagree that we should always be seeking. There may be new methods that we don't yet know, new threats, new risks. Science is after all not Math, and does not have the type of rigorous 100% proven answers that math enjoys, nothing is ever 100% settled. But we still live in the real world, and have to take action based on imperfect knowledge. The line between "this appears safe, we should make consumer products out of it" and "this appears questionable, we should hold off on it" has to be drawn somewhere. In my view the anti-5g crowd seems to be holding 5g to a different standard than pretty much everything else in the world. If they claimed that 5g lacked sufficient safety data, and foreswore 5g along with everything else that had a similar level of safety data, i would be able to respect that. But that generally does not seem to be the case. As you say, in a very technical sense, this is not a question of science. Science can help us place bounds on the risk and inform the decision making. The actual decision making is a normative question. It is a question of values: what level of risk is appropriate? Science can't tell you what you should do, just at most what is likely to happen for a given choice. Fundamentally my objection to the anti-5g crowd is it seems to want to take a significantly lower risk tolerance for 5g relative to pretty much anything else, without a compelling argument for why a different standard should be in place for just this technology.