5 ms·
GP didn't say that the science of sun exposure is "settled." Also, that UV damages DNA and causes cancer isn't simply a "proposed" mechanism, it's been tested
by dsizzle 4y ago
GP didn't say that the science of sun exposure is "settled."
Also, that UV damages DNA and causes cancer isn't simply a "proposed" mechanism, it's been tested many times.
I would say pure "observation" per se has little value -- for it to be scientifically valid it needs to seek explanations.
- taeric 4y agoObservational studies are certainly science. Any claim against that is going to be hard to defend. The mechanism isn't really at question. But just as sun exposure can kill grass, so to can lack of sun. We know that humans don't do photosynthesis, but it seems reasonable to ask if we do get other benefits. Note. Is reasonable to ask and study. Is not reasonable to just assume the conclusion.
- dsizzle 4y agoBy "observational" studies I realize you probably just meant studies where they don't manipulate a variable (which, while less than ideal, it is indeed science), whereas I was making a more philosophical point, a la Popper https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/778918-the-belief-that-science-proceeds-from-observation-to-theory-is https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/778918-the-belief-that-scie...
- taeric 4y agoAh, makes sense. You are correct in what I was referencing. To your point, I would expect most observational studies to be done with the expection of validating understood mechanisms.