3 ms·

Having read the article and the comments here, I feel like we're missing the main point. The point of the article wasn't actually about smoking. At least that'

Having read the article and the comments here, I feel like we're missing the main point. The point of the article wasn't actually about smoking. At least that's not what I took from it. I also don't think the author is genuinely claiming there's a conspiracy here. Instead, what I took from it, is that being a scientist does not mean you're immune to prejudicial opinion, and that the scientific community is not immune to its own dogmas. In theory, the scientific method should resolve that. But in practice, scientists (including the medical community) are just as apt as anyone to want to confirm their biases and dismiss difficult evidence. I also think when it comes to anything involving public policy, things can quickly devolve to no longer being about scientific inquiry but rather about supporting or attacking positions. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the author just wants everyone to start smoking and stop listening to their doctors. But that's not how it came across to me. I think it's more a call for critical thinking and fairness. Just because an issue has been politicized, doesn't mean we should pick a side. For what it's worth, I'm opposed to smoking and and supportive of vaccines. But if the day comes where there is strong evidence to suggest switching positions on that, I'd like to think I'll be open minded enough to do so. Final point, briefly touched on in the article: Nicotine deserves more research. Almost all research on nicotine is in terms of smoking tobacco. Nicotine on its own could very well prove to be an important medical drug. Same for all drugs... THC, CBD, whatever the active substance in cocaine and heroin are. They should all be studies rigorously and without moral judgment.

oblib 4y ago
You did a great job of summing up what I felt after reading the article and then reading comments here. I've lived long enough to see things that folks have pointed out get scorched by naysayers and later confirmed to be true. One example that's stuck with me over the years is where Monarch Butterflies spend the winter. When I was growing up we were told "No one knows", and that was true. Then, in the 1970s, some guy and his girlfriend, who were not scientists, (Kenneth C. Brugger & Catalina Aguado) announced they'd found out where they migrate, high up in the mountains in Mexico, and they were immediately trashed by "professionals" who were quoted in the "News". At time it seemed very odd to me that they were so quickly and harshly dismissed by the "experts" who hadn't been able to find or confirm where they went. I prefer to keep an open mind, and in this case it's not a huge leap for me to believe there may be something to this. I wouldn't recommend folks start smoking tobacco but it's worth more study. There is still vastly more that we don't know than we do know about biology here on earth and that will be the case for at least a very long time and quite possibly, and most likely, our entire human existence.
- juve1996 4y ago
  For every random "expert" who is right there are likely millions of wrong ones. In tech terms, it's like the "idea" guy. We need to have some level of curation, that yes, will be wrong at singular time points. The point of a process is continual improvement, not being perfect at every singular point in time. That includes studies too. The process takes time. Unfortunately the government and public have to act ahead of time. And the media of course has to make their $$$.
  - oblib 4y ago
    > For every random "expert" who is right there are likely millions of wrong ones. That's fair to say. But it's always best to be curious and open to learn from others. Years ago an older friend of mine gently chided me by telling me "You can learn something from everyone". I needed that at the time and it truly changed me. I started looking for that to see if it was true and found it is. You still have to sift out the bullshit, and fair to say that's truer now than back then, but it's worth the effort to look for it.
juve1996 4y ago
> I also don't think the author is genuinely claiming there's a conspiracy here. So the author calls it a "cover up." A "Great" cover-up. But he's not really saying it's a cover-up? Either outcome is bad: it's either clickbait (hence loses my trust), or he's claiming a cover-up when there isn't one. > In theory, the scientific method should resolve that. But in practice, scientists (including the medical community) are just as apt as anyone to want to confirm their biases and dismiss difficult evidence. Over time the scientific method works. People change. Facts don't. Evidence accumulates, and opinions are changed.
- nickelcitymario 4y ago
  > Either outcome is bad: it's either clickbait (hence loses my trust) This is fair. I do think it's only suggested in the headline, not the article. I don't trust anyone, though, so the use of clickbait doesn't make me trust him any less. Also, I don't think the article requires trust. It's an idea, a theory, with which you can look at the evidence and decide on your own. Just like any other article out there. That being said, lack of trust is one of the biggest problems in the world today, by my estimation, so it's not like I'm offering any solution here. > Evidence accumulates, and opinions are changed. Agreed in full. I'm not arguing against science or the scientific method. I'm simply saying we need to be aware that adopting the scientific method does not, in it of itself, inoculate us from bias. Which I'm pretty sure is a statement any scientist would agree with, so I'm not sure we're disagreeing about anything at all.

oblib 4y ago

You did a great job of summing up what I felt after reading the article and then reading comments here. I've lived long enough to see things that folks have pointed out get scorched by naysayers and later confirmed to be true. One example that's stuck with me over the years is where Monarch Butterflies spend the winter. When I was growing up we were told "No one knows", and that was true. Then, in the 1970s, some guy and his girlfriend, who were not scientists, (Kenneth C. Brugger & Catalina Aguado) announced they'd found out where they migrate, high up in the mountains in Mexico, and they were immediately trashed by "professionals" who were quoted in the "News". At time it seemed very odd to me that they were so quickly and harshly dismissed by the "experts" who hadn't been able to find or confirm where they went. I prefer to keep an open mind, and in this case it's not a huge leap for me to believe there may be something to this. I wouldn't recommend folks start smoking tobacco but it's worth more study. There is still vastly more that we don't know than we do know about biology here on earth and that will be the case for at least a very long time and quite possibly, and most likely, our entire human existence.

juve1996 4y ago
For every random "expert" who is right there are likely millions of wrong ones. In tech terms, it's like the "idea" guy. We need to have some level of curation, that yes, will be wrong at singular time points. The point of a process is continual improvement, not being perfect at every singular point in time. That includes studies too. The process takes time. Unfortunately the government and public have to act ahead of time. And the media of course has to make their $$$.
- oblib 4y ago
  > For every random "expert" who is right there are likely millions of wrong ones. That's fair to say. But it's always best to be curious and open to learn from others. Years ago an older friend of mine gently chided me by telling me "You can learn something from everyone". I needed that at the time and it truly changed me. I started looking for that to see if it was true and found it is. You still have to sift out the bullshit, and fair to say that's truer now than back then, but it's worth the effort to look for it.

juve1996 4y ago

> I also don't think the author is genuinely claiming there's a conspiracy here. So the author calls it a "cover up." A "Great" cover-up. But he's not really saying it's a cover-up? Either outcome is bad: it's either clickbait (hence loses my trust), or he's claiming a cover-up when there isn't one. > In theory, the scientific method should resolve that. But in practice, scientists (including the medical community) are just as apt as anyone to want to confirm their biases and dismiss difficult evidence. Over time the scientific method works. People change. Facts don't. Evidence accumulates, and opinions are changed.

nickelcitymario 4y ago
> Either outcome is bad: it's either clickbait (hence loses my trust) This is fair. I do think it's only suggested in the headline, not the article. I don't trust anyone, though, so the use of clickbait doesn't make me trust him any less. Also, I don't think the article requires trust. It's an idea, a theory, with which you can look at the evidence and decide on your own. Just like any other article out there. That being said, lack of trust is one of the biggest problems in the world today, by my estimation, so it's not like I'm offering any solution here. > Evidence accumulates, and opinions are changed. Agreed in full. I'm not arguing against science or the scientific method. I'm simply saying we need to be aware that adopting the scientific method does not, in it of itself, inoculate us from bias. Which I'm pretty sure is a statement any scientist would agree with, so I'm not sure we're disagreeing about anything at all.