3 ms·

'There are studies that swing either way' <> 'scientifically false' That is my whole point.

• rjurney 17y ago
  That is correct. He made an assertion of fact, and the assertion was scientifically false.
  • dejb 17y ago
    Applying the words 'scientifically false' to any unproven proposition is ridiculous. Under that criteria most statements made by people would be 'scientifically false'. What point would there be in saying that? When a statement is made in isolation it could mean many things 'I think that X' || 'I've heard that X' || 'Most people think X' || 'It seems likely that X' || 'It is scientifically proven that X' You've obviously chosen the last one but there is no clear reason why. Even then it would strictly speaking be 'factually incorrect' not 'scientifically incorrect'. The interpretation most people (i.e. the correct interpretation) of 'scientifically false' is 'scientifically disproven'. When you make a statement like this you muddy the waters for those you aren't alert. Look at it logically. Let's say further studies do turn out show that organic food does actually have more micro-nutrients (as you seem to accept there is some possibility of). So the original statement magically transforms from being 'scientifically false' to scientifically true'?