3 ms·

I think it's absolutely bonkers - it really blows me away - that we have such debate on the effects of single molecules, studied for untold millions of human ho

I think it's absolutely bonkers - it really blows me away - that we have such debate on the effects of single molecules, studied for untold millions of human hours. And yet many people think we can improve on nature; tinkering and toying with vastly more complex machinery and life, that we barely understand. We are still discovering entire structures in the human body, ffs, yet are seemingly happy to allow vast monocultures of corporate and for-profit GM crops; 'trusting the science'. The lies are as thin as our topsoil's gonna be soon. I love the idea of scientific progress, and understanding things, but this attitute of 'trust the men in white coats with everything even though we don't understand Vitamin C or D all that well' is truly mind-boggling. *: I assume the people down-voting this think I'm talking smack on science - read again. I'm talking about scientism, and hubris, and appeals to authority. Which if you were paying any attention whatsoever the last 3 years you ought to know are big problems right now.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> we have such debate on the effects of single molecules Most complex systems have simple limiters, almost by definition of the latter. You don’t need to solve fluid dynamics and combustion physics to understand that more air through a carburettor causes an internal combustion engine to run faster.
- mandmandam 3y ago
  But we don't understand the effect of Vitamin C, or D. Your analogy is deeply flawed. We understand engines well enough, but we don't truly understand the machinery of even a single cell of our body. We have broad strokes - take C for a cold. Take D in winter. But there are trained scientists who disagree with even these statements! We have people making a mockery of Nobel Prize winners over it! Where have you ever seen such debate about combustion engines.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > we don't understand the effect of Vitamin C, or D Sure. But we know they are important. Despite being “single molecules.” > We have broad strokes - take C for a cold. Take D in winter. But there are trained scientists who disagree with even these statements! Because they appear unsubstantiated. You’re describing treatments. That’s a different ball game. > We have people making a mockery of Nobel Prize winners over it Pauling did not win his Nobel for vitamin C.
    - mandmandam 3y ago
      > Sure. But we know they are important. Despite being “single molecules.” The point is that there's huge debate on how they work, why they work, whether they work for this and that, etc, despite them being about as tiny and simple in form as you could ask for. And as far as I know no one has ever claimed that Vitamin C and D are not single molecules, so I've no idea why you put that in quotes. It's relevant that they're not, for example, the mixture of hundreds or even thousands of synergistic and antagonistic compounds, in various quantities, found in every single plant. > Because they appear unsubstantiated. You’re describing treatments. That’s a different ball game. Taking C for a cold, or D in winter, is NOT unsubstantiated - there are studies that show effect, and studies that show no effect. It's debated. That's exactly my point, that even these simple and tiny molecules inspire massive confusion and debate. It's in no way like an engine. The body and how it processes things like vitamins is so, so much more complex. You can say this same thing about thousands of molecules and simple substances, which the scientismic community stands behind despite huge debate - SSRIs, anti-psychotics, glyphosate, etc. We don't understand them, and vested interests in white coats want us to believe otherwise. Remember tobacco being promoted by doctors? It wasn't that long ago. The point, again, is this: that if we can have so much uncertainty about such tiny and simple things, why would we believe it's safe to muck about with our food supply (GMO monocultures), or to declare glyphosate safe and cover the planet with it, or claim that mRNA vaccines are utterly harmless (despite immediate evidence to the contrary, as now proven beyond doubt). Remember CFCs, PFAS, thalidomide? These things are fundamentally different from your example of a simple combustion engine. They're complex on a level far beyond our current ability to comprehend. Even if we think we know what's going on, we really, really don't. We have hints, we have hunches, we have incomplete models with giant and dangerous holes in.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> we have such debate on the effects of single molecules Most complex systems have simple limiters, almost by definition of the latter. You don’t need to solve fluid dynamics and combustion physics to understand that more air through a carburettor causes an internal combustion engine to run faster.

mandmandam 3y ago
But we don't understand the effect of Vitamin C, or D. Your analogy is deeply flawed. We understand engines well enough, but we don't truly understand the machinery of even a single cell of our body. We have broad strokes - take C for a cold. Take D in winter. But there are trained scientists who disagree with even these statements! We have people making a mockery of Nobel Prize winners over it! Where have you ever seen such debate about combustion engines.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > we don't understand the effect of Vitamin C, or D Sure. But we know they are important. Despite being “single molecules.” > We have broad strokes - take C for a cold. Take D in winter. But there are trained scientists who disagree with even these statements! Because they appear unsubstantiated. You’re describing treatments. That’s a different ball game. > We have people making a mockery of Nobel Prize winners over it Pauling did not win his Nobel for vitamin C.
  - mandmandam 3y ago
    > Sure. But we know they are important. Despite being “single molecules.” The point is that there's huge debate on how they work, why they work, whether they work for this and that, etc, despite them being about as tiny and simple in form as you could ask for. And as far as I know no one has ever claimed that Vitamin C and D are not single molecules, so I've no idea why you put that in quotes. It's relevant that they're not, for example, the mixture of hundreds or even thousands of synergistic and antagonistic compounds, in various quantities, found in every single plant. > Because they appear unsubstantiated. You’re describing treatments. That’s a different ball game. Taking C for a cold, or D in winter, is NOT unsubstantiated - there are studies that show effect, and studies that show no effect. It's debated. That's exactly my point, that even these simple and tiny molecules inspire massive confusion and debate. It's in no way like an engine. The body and how it processes things like vitamins is so, so much more complex. You can say this same thing about thousands of molecules and simple substances, which the scientismic community stands behind despite huge debate - SSRIs, anti-psychotics, glyphosate, etc. We don't understand them, and vested interests in white coats want us to believe otherwise. Remember tobacco being promoted by doctors? It wasn't that long ago. The point, again, is this: that if we can have so much uncertainty about such tiny and simple things, why would we believe it's safe to muck about with our food supply (GMO monocultures), or to declare glyphosate safe and cover the planet with it, or claim that mRNA vaccines are utterly harmless (despite immediate evidence to the contrary, as now proven beyond doubt). Remember CFCs, PFAS, thalidomide? These things are fundamentally different from your example of a simple combustion engine. They're complex on a level far beyond our current ability to comprehend. Even if we think we know what's going on, we really, really don't. We have hints, we have hunches, we have incomplete models with giant and dangerous holes in.