4 ms·

The thing that really bothers me about Weinstein's approach is that, while he and his wife are scientists, they're exceedingly quick to assert their hunches as

The thing that really bothers me about Weinstein's approach is that, while he and his wife are scientists, they're exceedingly quick to assert their hunches as scientific fact. They wear their scientist labels on their sleeves but their thinking is far more ideological. In a recent podcast about fluoridation in tap water, they were talking about how they avoid iodized salt, because iodine is a reactive chemical and you don't want to OD on it. Ludicrous. You'd sooner die from the sheer quantity of salt you'd have to ingest before the iodine even starts to become a problem.

api 5y ago
It’s no different from religious fundamentalists who put their own whims and ideologies into God’s mouth. They’re just replacing God with science, but it’s the same schtick.
fighterpilot 5y ago
Isn't iodine deficiency a common thing?
- roywiggins 5y ago
  it was more of a thing before they started adding it to salt, yeah
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    You need to check, though, because it's not added to all salt. Yes if you buy traditional "table salt" such as sold by Morton, it is iodized. Kosher salt, sea salt, salt crystals for use in a grinder, and other "natural" salts are generally not.
  - Igelau 5y ago
    Goiters. Not cool.
pjc50 5y ago
> podcast about fluoridation in tap water This has been a staple of crazies since, what, the 50s? I'm reminded of the speech from the deranged general in Dr Strangelove: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/characters/nm0001330 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/characters/nm0001330 You could fit that right into a modern rightwing podcast without it being out of place.
- cvwright 5y ago
  Or, you know, the citizens of hyper progressive Portland, Oregon, who voted down a measure to finally fluoridate the city’s tap water less than 10 years ago.
kingsuper20 5y ago
It could be that part of the problem is that you only see their public persona. Start adding all the weasel words to imply that you think that something is 73% likely to be mostly true and you lose an audience Everyone (well, most everyone) could stand to examine their own problems (well, issues) with stating opinions as fact.
- ar-jan 5y ago
  It's funny because that's actually literally the kind of thing they do on the show in question, for which there is apparently quite a sizable audience. For example around April or May 2020 Bret presented a model assigning probabilities for various scenarios of lab leak vs zoonotic origin of Sars-Cov-2 (the kind of discussion for which they were branded conspiracy theorists for a long time).
AlbertCory 5y ago
I believe the Latin name for your post is ad hominem i.e. "Weinstein is a bad person." Maybe you could address what he actually said, instead of attacking him & Heather? I watched the video [1] I assume you're talking about. The word "reactive" is never spoken (I searched). While I do buy iodized salt and I'm not worried about it, their concerns about getting too MUCH iodine are measured and well-spoken. The concerns about fluoridation are, too (that the evidence for it is very thin, and the fluoride in water is not the same compound as was tested). Again, these are not wild-eyed conspiracists. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1oPcYDFPRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1oPcYDFPRU
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
abnry 5y ago
The thing is, you've had Nobel Prize winners like Linus Pauling promote vitamin C as a panacea. Or Dawkins use his biology credentials to say something about philosophy/religion. Scientists using their credentials to give credence to whatever their particular argument in whatever domain is nothing new. In fact, it is part of what the Weinstein's general critique of the scientific realm is. Perhaps they lack the self-awareness to see when they do it themselves, but in my mind, no way are you going to somehow paint them as _worse_ than any other PhD scientist talking with their credentials.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  >Or Dawkins use his biology credentials to say something about philosophy/religion. It may be hard to imagine now, but at the time several major religious institutions had hard positions on subjects his biological knowledge was relevant to. His writings were instrumental in bringing about the retreat of those institutions from certain corporeal claims.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  You're conflating several things. Dawkins making philosophy hot takes is not in the same category as promoting Vitamin C as a panacea for disease, which is literally just scientifically wrong. As is Weinstein's claim about tap water, which is probably the offshoot of some sort of "the government is mindcontrolling us with tapwater" conspiracy which they have bought into because both Weinstein's have gone completely and utterly mad.
temp8964 5y ago
I don't see how this comment has anything to do with the article. They are scientists and they made errors outside of their field. Unless you can prove this is common to them. I don't see how this particular error they made is relevant to the discussion at all.
zepto 5y ago
> they're exceedingly quick to assert their hunches as scientific fact I have literally never heard them do this - they are exceedingly careful not to in general. > they were talking about how they avoid iodized salt, because iodine is a reactive chemical and you don't want to OD on it What fact did they state was scientific about this?
ar-jan 5y ago
> In a recent podcast about fluoridation in tap water, they were talking about how they avoid iodized salt, because iodine is a reactive chemical and you don't want to OD on it. That's a total fabrication. Here's what they actually said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_iJaExg2_4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_iJaExg2_4. To summarize their point: the fluoridation of drinking water and toothpaste is unjustified, because what is used is not the fluoride salt that has been demonstrated to have benefits for stronger bones/teeth, and on top of that the distribution method is absurd because you can't control for how much water people drink. Then Bret brings up that iodized salt is a similar case in that the distribution method via table salt doesn't allow you to titrate, but that it has nevertheless been a success that solved major problems. That they personally don't use iodized salt because you only need to avoid a deficiency, which is also achieved via a balanced diet, is a separate point.
nickysielicki 5y ago
Fine, so he’s an idiot. Who cares! It changes nothing to me. The entire idea of outlawing misinformation and fake news is absurd. Let him speak, let his viewers be misinformed, the world keeps on turning.
machinehermiter 5y ago
I wouldn't listen to the Weinstein's about anything but so what if they do? Should they have their mouths taped shut? This is the society you want to live in? I just don't understand when someone posts something like this. Not to mention, as all times a ton of what we think of as correct today will be proven false in years to come.

api 5y ago

It’s no different from religious fundamentalists who put their own whims and ideologies into God’s mouth. They’re just replacing God with science, but it’s the same schtick.

fighterpilot 5y ago

Isn't iodine deficiency a common thing?

roywiggins 5y ago
it was more of a thing before they started adding it to salt, yeah
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  You need to check, though, because it's not added to all salt. Yes if you buy traditional "table salt" such as sold by Morton, it is iodized. Kosher salt, sea salt, salt crystals for use in a grinder, and other "natural" salts are generally not.
- Igelau 5y ago
  Goiters. Not cool.

pjc50 5y ago

> podcast about fluoridation in tap water This has been a staple of crazies since, what, the 50s? I'm reminded of the speech from the deranged general in Dr Strangelove: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/characters/nm0001330 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/characters/nm0001330 You could fit that right into a modern rightwing podcast without it being out of place.

cvwright 5y ago
Or, you know, the citizens of hyper progressive Portland, Oregon, who voted down a measure to finally fluoridate the city’s tap water less than 10 years ago.

kingsuper20 5y ago

It could be that part of the problem is that you only see their public persona. Start adding all the weasel words to imply that you think that something is 73% likely to be mostly true and you lose an audience Everyone (well, most everyone) could stand to examine their own problems (well, issues) with stating opinions as fact.

ar-jan 5y ago
It's funny because that's actually literally the kind of thing they do on the show in question, for which there is apparently quite a sizable audience. For example around April or May 2020 Bret presented a model assigning probabilities for various scenarios of lab leak vs zoonotic origin of Sars-Cov-2 (the kind of discussion for which they were branded conspiracy theorists for a long time).

AlbertCory 5y ago

I believe the Latin name for your post is ad hominem i.e. "Weinstein is a bad person." Maybe you could address what he actually said, instead of attacking him & Heather? I watched the video [1] I assume you're talking about. The word "reactive" is never spoken (I searched). While I do buy iodized salt and I'm not worried about it, their concerns about getting too MUCH iodine are measured and well-spoken. The concerns about fluoridation are, too (that the evidence for it is very thin, and the fluoride in water is not the same compound as was tested). Again, these are not wild-eyed conspiracists. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1oPcYDFPRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1oPcYDFPRU

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

abnry 5y ago

The thing is, you've had Nobel Prize winners like Linus Pauling promote vitamin C as a panacea. Or Dawkins use his biology credentials to say something about philosophy/religion. Scientists using their credentials to give credence to whatever their particular argument in whatever domain is nothing new. In fact, it is part of what the Weinstein's general critique of the scientific realm is. Perhaps they lack the self-awareness to see when they do it themselves, but in my mind, no way are you going to somehow paint them as _worse_ than any other PhD scientist talking with their credentials.

whatshisface 5y ago
>Or Dawkins use his biology credentials to say something about philosophy/religion. It may be hard to imagine now, but at the time several major religious institutions had hard positions on subjects his biological knowledge was relevant to. His writings were instrumental in bringing about the retreat of those institutions from certain corporeal claims.
Barrin92 5y ago
You're conflating several things. Dawkins making philosophy hot takes is not in the same category as promoting Vitamin C as a panacea for disease, which is literally just scientifically wrong. As is Weinstein's claim about tap water, which is probably the offshoot of some sort of "the government is mindcontrolling us with tapwater" conspiracy which they have bought into because both Weinstein's have gone completely and utterly mad.

temp8964 5y ago

I don't see how this comment has anything to do with the article. They are scientists and they made errors outside of their field. Unless you can prove this is common to them. I don't see how this particular error they made is relevant to the discussion at all.

zepto 5y ago

> they're exceedingly quick to assert their hunches as scientific fact I have literally never heard them do this - they are exceedingly careful not to in general. > they were talking about how they avoid iodized salt, because iodine is a reactive chemical and you don't want to OD on it What fact did they state was scientific about this?

ar-jan 5y ago

> In a recent podcast about fluoridation in tap water, they were talking about how they avoid iodized salt, because iodine is a reactive chemical and you don't want to OD on it. That's a total fabrication. Here's what they actually said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_iJaExg2_4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_iJaExg2_4. To summarize their point: the fluoridation of drinking water and toothpaste is unjustified, because what is used is not the fluoride salt that has been demonstrated to have benefits for stronger bones/teeth, and on top of that the distribution method is absurd because you can't control for how much water people drink. Then Bret brings up that iodized salt is a similar case in that the distribution method via table salt doesn't allow you to titrate, but that it has nevertheless been a success that solved major problems. That they personally don't use iodized salt because you only need to avoid a deficiency, which is also achieved via a balanced diet, is a separate point.

nickysielicki 5y ago

Fine, so he’s an idiot. Who cares! It changes nothing to me. The entire idea of outlawing misinformation and fake news is absurd. Let him speak, let his viewers be misinformed, the world keeps on turning.

machinehermiter 5y ago

I wouldn't listen to the Weinstein's about anything but so what if they do? Should they have their mouths taped shut? This is the society you want to live in? I just don't understand when someone posts something like this. Not to mention, as all times a ton of what we think of as correct today will be proven false in years to come.