Not "crackpot", but certainly anti-science. People feel so "special" nowadays, they feel empowered to believe whatever they like including the mistaken belief that tobacco products do not cause cancer.
It's quite simple; People need to be smart enough to understand facts from fiction...no matter the source...
This is a great example of a claim that has so much evidence, it would be exhausting to do it justice. Which of the 60 proven carcinogens do I start with? https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-642-16483-5_5846
In every age, in every place, human beings have inquired into the material universe that surrounds them. Every human being that has made such an inquiry, had opinions about the nature of the universe. Some believed in a supernatural creator, nature, natural processes, something, or nothing. Human beliefs about the mysteries of life and the universe are legion. Some of these humans employed sound scientific methodology, regardless of their philosophical opinions. They produced 'good science,' that added to the human knowledge base. Some employed bad scientific methodology, to promote an agenda. We call this 'bad science,' or fraud. They delayed or subtracted from the human knowledge base with belief driven propaganda, to promote an agenda, not understanding. These same humans are with us, in every time and place. Claims and assertions are inadequate to define truth, so skepticism and scrutiny are necessary tools, in any pursuit of knowledge. 'Science', is a method of discovery, employing skepticism, scrutiny, and observable repetition. It is not beholden to any ideology or philosophical belief. Any who pretend to 'own' science, are agenda driven propagandists. Scientific 'facts', must be proven by scientific methodology, not merely asserted by elites. History is full of wrong scientific beliefs, and agenda driven propaganda. How has humanity changed, so this is no longer a factor? The problem is not science, nor ever has been. The problem is psuedo-scientISTS, who hijack the pursuit of Truth for their personal beliefs and biases. Good science, AND pseudo-science, have been around since man began to inquire. Anti-science is declared and mandated by elites. Good science is only revealed through sound scientific methodology, and cares nothing about credentials.
First, you have not described a causal mechanism. Second, you appear oblivious to the distinction between correlation and causation. I do not pretend more than a superficial understanding of what you quoted, and I doubt yours is much better. What I'm pretty sure of, nonetheless, is that none of it explains why some smokers live into their 90s cancer-free, or how non-smokers get lung cancer. Too bad the distinction between that and truth is lost on you. I'm sure it is, to those who misunderstand the term. To be sure. What that has to do with anything I said is anyone's guess.
History includes many mistakes, because humans don't know it all and make mistakes (or do bad science as you note). Scientific method is specifically designed to eliminate mistakes as fast as possible. In fact, one could argue that's its primary focus. Your last two points are far too abstract to be of any value. You charge "elites". But, you don't identify these "elites" or even discusses any practical method by which they COULD be identified. You denigrate credentials, but credentials are one of the serious methods of selecting qualified voices. Your direction here is HIGHLY misleading and of NEGATIVE value.
I have often heard the best arguements for smoking from smokers. I remember a chain smoker from early on, Fred, he had a family and was a long time smoker, first, the Dog Ginger, I loved that Dog, a gentle lassie like collie, one day petting her, I found a large mass, it was cancer, abd she was put down, very sad, then Fred died of cancer a few years later, then Lee, his wife, I happened to be between assignments and attended her funeral by chance, cancer. .. The fact that smoking kills is no longer theory only, it is a fact.
I independent is a good thing, that is why I follow no Political Party, or Politics in general. I am Apolitical. Study up on the Tobacco issue, it literally has no redeeming value whatsoever, except raising Billions of Dollars of Federal Tax Revenues, and the associated Health costs are Astronomical, C.O.P.D. alone due to Tobacco use is off the charts and the staggering cost of therapeutic modalities.
You said you want a causal mechanism. I posted it. You denied that a causal mechanism is known. You failed to recognized your claim as false. Do you now admit your claim is false or do you deny the science posted. And I'm 100% positive my understanding of what I posted is better than yours. Now you want to know why it doesn't apply to everyone. Obviously either some people have some level of protection others don't, or it is merely a matter of statistics. As for getting lung cancer. Firstly, smoking isn't the only thing that causes cancer. And some people may have a genetic predisposition to lung cancer. What would you like to change the subject to this time while avoiding the answers?
Thanks for this devastating critique of 'pseudo science'. There are too many people on this forum pushing tripe like 'creation science' flat Earth & denying the vast amounts of evidence for climate change and the role of human activity in it. Good to see someone standing up to such rubbish in such a forthright fashion. People pushing ideologically driven agendas such as those do indeed hijack the pursuit of truth for their own agendas.
I once heard a celebrated oncologist interviewee on the BBC flagship news and current affairs program, Today, describe cancer as' 80% bad diet (including the chemicals in booze and fizzies, as well as in food per se - my in-parentheses text), and 20% bad luck. That made perfect sense to me.
There's no reason I should, obviously, since the pronouncements of authority figures hardly constitute knowledge ipso facto. As to the factuality of the quote, I pass no judgment; but of course only gullible laymen would take it as science on its face. I doubt it. Right neighborly of you to admit, if only in a roundabout way, that you haven't the foggiest idea - though I daresay it doesn't do much for your case. Seeing you obviously don't know what causes cancer in general, and thus can hardly know whether a physical cause is even necessary, I think such pronouncements can be reasonably dismissed.
I would not say that the scientific method was 'designed'.. at least not by man.. 'discovered' or even 'evolved' would be more accurate. Human mistakes, and even fraud and protectionism are standards amoung the human animal, and should not be mixed in with scientific methodology. Hardly. I clearly defined elites. I WARN of looking to credentials , instead of sound scientific methodology. THAT is the problem facing our culture.. trusting 'experts!', instead of real science. If you want to trust self appointed experts, go ahead. I prefer to follow reason and science. That is the central point of this thread. 'Science!', is NOT some mystical, ethereal, voodoo feeling, that only High Priests or Witch Doctors can interpret for the ignorant huddled masses. It is much more democratic, and is there for ANYONE who wants to learn. Unfortunately, indoctrination passes for science, these days, and bobble headed nodding at experts replaces scrutiny and examination.
I think you're just talking about the method of design. It's certainly true that it wasn't all thought out in one step. But, very little of anything that is thought out has been thought out in one step. It doesn't work that way. Of COURSE we don't want that mixing. Nobody wants that. The point of the design of science is to prevent it as much as possible and to remove such as rapidly as possible. Scientific method is designed with that as a principle objective. I WARN of looking to credentials , instead of sound scientific methodology. THAT is the problem facing our culture.. trusting 'experts!', instead of real science. If you want to trust self appointed experts, go ahead. I prefer to follow reason and science. That is the central point of this thread. 'Science!', is NOT some mystical, ethereal, voodoo feeling, that only High Priests or Witch Doctors can interpret for the ignorant huddled masses. It is much more democratic, and is there for ANYONE who wants to learn. Unfortunately, indoctrination passes for science, these days, and bobble headed nodding at experts replaces scrutiny and examination.[/QUOTE] I don't see where you even ATTEMPTED to define the "elites" you fear. The denialism we're seeing today is what is coming from those who are NOT elite, who are NOT qualified, who do NOT have adequate credentials in the field they are addressing, whose results are NOT accepted by the majority of those whose life's work has been the study of specific areas of climate. I agree we need to be careful about sources. But, the idea that credentials, experience, review by others, etc. are not part of that is ridiculous. Yes, it's democratic. But, NO the voice of each individual who decides they want to blog somewhere is NOT equal - not even slightly.
I have a lot of irons in the fire right now.. I'm not ignoring the thread or anyone. ..many interesting points, and i have a witty comeback in the works. Unfortunately I have a life.. as pathetic as it is... and i don't have the time, right now. I'll be back, asap. Bombastic prose and over the top hyperbole will soon return.
My input here its not Christians and other faiths who are fundamentalist leaning tend to go to their faiths book first, then science if it not in opposition is welcomed. Now that does mean Aspects of Some Sciences (Astronomy, Geology), Evolution both come to mind for example ages of the Universe they will say nope YEC takes precedence but they will accept there are Black Holes or that Volcanos work certain ways without issues. Now this will limit science education but to them that isn't much of an issue either the faith book is first, is The Truth and therefore the core of their life. That an some sciences are evil outright cloning and some kinds of genetic engineering for example and they oppose those with high moral pressure.
The left is just as guilty as the right. (1) there are only 2 genders male and female (2) being gay is a choice, there is no homosexual gene (3) science tells us that gmo crops are safe (4) science states that a fetus is a human being There are many more instances, but the list becomes too long. And we haven't even gotten into global warming/ cooling, climate change. The one thing that is certain, science is never 'settled' and the most famous scientists in history, went against the ''settled" normal views of the time.
