3 ms·

You don't actually believe that pseudo science bullshit, do you? Please tell me you jest / troll. That article / interview is just full of half-assed science an

You don't actually believe that pseudo science bullshit, do you? Please tell me you jest / troll. That article / interview is just full of half-assed science and made up bullshit.

sizzle 12y ago
From the nautilus article: She calls her theory “TILT,” short for Toxicant Induced Loss of Tolerance. TILT posits that a surprising range of today’s most common chronic conditions are linked to daily exposure to very low doses of synthetic chemicals that have been in mass production since World War II. These include organophosphate pesticides, flame-retardants, formaldehyde, benzene, and tens of thousands of other chemicals." Given this is HN, I would like to believe that you understand what a 'theory' is. I found that it was an interesting theory and nicely parallels with the article from the OP. Whether I believe the theory or not is irrelevant. I'm sharing knowledge cause it's fascinating.
- BinaryIdiot 12y ago
  It's not sharing knowledge it's spreading "theories" that are well known to be incorrect. Spreading pseudo science, regardless of how much you believe in it, is not a good thing. These people are great at constructing a narrative that everyone would love to believe. Wouldn't it be great if this single thing was the cause of ALL of these aliments? Unfortunately life doesn't work that way but our minds are great at drawing invalid correlations.
  - sizzle 12y ago
    take your pick: knowl·edge ˈnälij ; noun 1.facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. 2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. "the program had been developed without his knowledge" synonyms: awareness, consciousness, realization, cognition, apprehension, perception, appreciation Prove the article wrong if you are so compelled to do so. Part of the reason I share things on HN is for the discussion it creates, which expands my knowledge so I can form educated opinions. I appreciate this aspect of HN, it's why I keep coming back so please, inform me with some links, resources, or research and relieve my of my pseudo-scientific ignorance or stop telling me I'm wrong.
- vertex-four 12y ago
  The term you're looking for is a hypothesis, not a theory, as far as I can tell, because you've provided no evidence that it is correct by way of double-blind studies, and I am struggling to find anything at all of this "Toxicant Induced Loss of Tolerance" past "we looked at some graphs and came up with an explanation after the fact". Statistics can be used to explain anything, the trick to avoiding the issue is to come up with the explanation and an independent experiment first. Science doesn't operate on a basis of "I'll make stuff up and make people prove me wrong". A hypothesis is worthless on its own, and is decidedly not knowledge.
tptacek 12y ago
Comments written in this tone have the fun property of being even more toxic when they're correct, which I'll stipulate that you are. They have a high valence, because people recognize and relate to the underlying correct argument even though it's hidden behind a cloud of snark. The force they exert realigns the thread towards meanness. And, obviously, they're embarrassing for the correct side of the debate, which has been caricatured. Please, please don't write like this here.

You don't actually believe that pseudo science bullshit, do you? Please tell me you jest / troll. That article / interview is just full of half-assed science and made up bullshit.

sizzle 12y ago

From the nautilus article: She calls her theory “TILT,” short for Toxicant Induced Loss of Tolerance. TILT posits that a surprising range of today’s most common chronic conditions are linked to daily exposure to very low doses of synthetic chemicals that have been in mass production since World War II. These include organophosphate pesticides, flame-retardants, formaldehyde, benzene, and tens of thousands of other chemicals." Given this is HN, I would like to believe that you understand what a 'theory' is. I found that it was an interesting theory and nicely parallels with the article from the OP. Whether I believe the theory or not is irrelevant. I'm sharing knowledge cause it's fascinating.

BinaryIdiot 12y ago
It's not sharing knowledge it's spreading "theories" that are well known to be incorrect. Spreading pseudo science, regardless of how much you believe in it, is not a good thing. These people are great at constructing a narrative that everyone would love to believe. Wouldn't it be great if this single thing was the cause of ALL of these aliments? Unfortunately life doesn't work that way but our minds are great at drawing invalid correlations.
- sizzle 12y ago
  take your pick: knowl·edge ˈnälij ; noun 1.facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. 2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. "the program had been developed without his knowledge" synonyms: awareness, consciousness, realization, cognition, apprehension, perception, appreciation Prove the article wrong if you are so compelled to do so. Part of the reason I share things on HN is for the discussion it creates, which expands my knowledge so I can form educated opinions. I appreciate this aspect of HN, it's why I keep coming back so please, inform me with some links, resources, or research and relieve my of my pseudo-scientific ignorance or stop telling me I'm wrong.
vertex-four 12y ago
The term you're looking for is a hypothesis, not a theory, as far as I can tell, because you've provided no evidence that it is correct by way of double-blind studies, and I am struggling to find anything at all of this "Toxicant Induced Loss of Tolerance" past "we looked at some graphs and came up with an explanation after the fact". Statistics can be used to explain anything, the trick to avoiding the issue is to come up with the explanation and an independent experiment first. Science doesn't operate on a basis of "I'll make stuff up and make people prove me wrong". A hypothesis is worthless on its own, and is decidedly not knowledge.

tptacek 12y ago

Comments written in this tone have the fun property of being even more toxic when they're correct, which I'll stipulate that you are. They have a high valence, because people recognize and relate to the underlying correct argument even though it's hidden behind a cloud of snark. The force they exert realigns the thread towards meanness. And, obviously, they're embarrassing for the correct side of the debate, which has been caricatured. Please, please don't write like this here.