4 ms·

Which science don't you trust, the science that once said smoking is harmless or the science which currently says smoking is harmful? Or do you cover all your b

by krapp 2y ago

Which science don't you trust, the science that once said smoking is harmless or the science which currently says smoking is harmful? Or do you cover all your bases and just not trust science regardless?

janalsncm 2y ago
It’s a category error. “Science” doesn’t have a pope. It isn’t whatever the latest scientist says. Science is a process for figuring things out.
wahern 2y ago
Was there ever any sustained science that claimed smoking was harmless? AFAIU, smoking was considered by the general population as not good for you health since at least the early 20th century, and before then as at least a vice (as was caffeine!). By mid century there was sustained scientific output showing clear links to cancer, solidifying cigarettes as an acute hazard to your health even if the scope and magnitude of the harms were less than we know today. Tobacco companies and their defenders countered this sentiment using the same tools used today--dissembling, whataboutism, and your basic FUD techniques. You can't look at ads promoting cigarettes and assume most people accepted what they're communicating at face value. Anyhow, almost everybody knows today that, for example, eating too much sugar is bad for you, but the majority of the population still does it. That's how humans behave. Often times people do something because it's bad, taboo, or dangerous. And not everybody centers their lifestyle around good health; some people are just trying to get through the day. Today we still have doctors who smoke, dentists who drink soda, etc, though those particular vices are less popular than they once were. And let's not forget, while cigarette smoking has been in free fall doctors have been happily handing out prescriptions to smoke marijuana, even though inhaling marijuana smoke is at least as harmful as cigarettes (most people smoke it less frequently, but that's beside the point). Just because something is accepted as normal doesn't mean the harms are being outright denied.
jdietrich 2y ago
"The science" never said that smoking is harmless. Concerns were being raised as early as the 1930s and epidemiological evidence had conclusively demonstrated the link between tobacco smoking, lung cancer and cardiovascular disease by the early 1950s. The tobacco industry pursued a relentless campaign to cast doubt on that science, which was so successful that even today people imagine that there was once an actual controversy. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2085438/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2085438/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Frank_Statement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Frank_Statement
- ty6853 2y ago
  The tobacco industry also shifted to the most deadly form, cigarettes. Casual low use cigar smokers that don't inhale ( proper way to smoke cigar ) iirc have lower lung cancer and higher life expectancy than non smokers. Pipes and cigar were generally better especially when used in moderation even against moderate cigarette smoking. Although generally the US just has bad tobacco habits. 'European' style smoking of a cigarette with coffee a couple times a week likely will kill you slower than whatever was going to get you like cooking and eating smoky grilled meats.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago
    What are you implying here? That Europeans don't get addicted to nicotine?
renewiltord 2y ago
One who believes in that line trusts neither, one imagines. The thing that people often misunderstand about not trusting something is that it is different from believing it is guaranteed to be wrong. Not trusting something means that it doesn't provide evidence. i.e. if you don't trust some source X, and X provides some evidence X_A about some event A then not trusting them means that P(A|X_A) ~= P(A) your prior probability. People often interpret the "I don't trust X" statement to be "belief in the opposite", i.e. P(¬A|X_A) = 1. This is obviously stupid since someone you distrust could happily manufacture evidence for ¬A and then you'd conclude P(¬¬A|X_¬A) = 1 so they could make you believe anything, which is obviously not something you want someone you distrust to do to you.
- skygazer 2y ago
  I'm not sure that's correct in practice. The people that harbor vocal distrust in agencies, professions, etc. really do seem more apt to directly believe whatever is in opposition to the "distrusted" message. While your proposal remains a logical alternative to them, adoption seems markedly low.
- fullshark 2y ago
  Nah, they "believe" in that line when the science says anything that contradicts their priors. When the science says anything that confirms them they ingest and cite it gladly.

by krapp 2y ago

janalsncm 2y ago

It’s a category error. “Science” doesn’t have a pope. It isn’t whatever the latest scientist says. Science is a process for figuring things out.

wahern 2y ago

Was there ever any sustained science that claimed smoking was harmless? AFAIU, smoking was considered by the general population as not good for you health since at least the early 20th century, and before then as at least a vice (as was caffeine!). By mid century there was sustained scientific output showing clear links to cancer, solidifying cigarettes as an acute hazard to your health even if the scope and magnitude of the harms were less than we know today. Tobacco companies and their defenders countered this sentiment using the same tools used today--dissembling, whataboutism, and your basic FUD techniques. You can't look at ads promoting cigarettes and assume most people accepted what they're communicating at face value. Anyhow, almost everybody knows today that, for example, eating too much sugar is bad for you, but the majority of the population still does it. That's how humans behave. Often times people do something because it's bad, taboo, or dangerous. And not everybody centers their lifestyle around good health; some people are just trying to get through the day. Today we still have doctors who smoke, dentists who drink soda, etc, though those particular vices are less popular than they once were. And let's not forget, while cigarette smoking has been in free fall doctors have been happily handing out prescriptions to smoke marijuana, even though inhaling marijuana smoke is at least as harmful as cigarettes (most people smoke it less frequently, but that's beside the point). Just because something is accepted as normal doesn't mean the harms are being outright denied.

jdietrich 2y ago

"The science" never said that smoking is harmless. Concerns were being raised as early as the 1930s and epidemiological evidence had conclusively demonstrated the link between tobacco smoking, lung cancer and cardiovascular disease by the early 1950s. The tobacco industry pursued a relentless campaign to cast doubt on that science, which was so successful that even today people imagine that there was once an actual controversy. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2085438/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2085438/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Frank_Statement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Frank_Statement

ty6853 2y ago
The tobacco industry also shifted to the most deadly form, cigarettes. Casual low use cigar smokers that don't inhale ( proper way to smoke cigar ) iirc have lower lung cancer and higher life expectancy than non smokers. Pipes and cigar were generally better especially when used in moderation even against moderate cigarette smoking. Although generally the US just has bad tobacco habits. 'European' style smoking of a cigarette with coffee a couple times a week likely will kill you slower than whatever was going to get you like cooking and eating smoky grilled meats.
- HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago
  What are you implying here? That Europeans don't get addicted to nicotine?

renewiltord 2y ago

One who believes in that line trusts neither, one imagines. The thing that people often misunderstand about not trusting something is that it is different from believing it is guaranteed to be wrong. Not trusting something means that it doesn't provide evidence. i.e. if you don't trust some source X, and X provides some evidence X_A about some event A then not trusting them means that P(A|X_A) ~= P(A) your prior probability. People often interpret the "I don't trust X" statement to be "belief in the opposite", i.e. P(¬A|X_A) = 1. This is obviously stupid since someone you distrust could happily manufacture evidence for ¬A and then you'd conclude P(¬¬A|X_¬A) = 1 so they could make you believe anything, which is obviously not something you want someone you distrust to do to you.

skygazer 2y ago
I'm not sure that's correct in practice. The people that harbor vocal distrust in agencies, professions, etc. really do seem more apt to directly believe whatever is in opposition to the "distrusted" message. While your proposal remains a logical alternative to them, adoption seems markedly low.
fullshark 2y ago
Nah, they "believe" in that line when the science says anything that contradicts their priors. When the science says anything that confirms them they ingest and cite it gladly.