A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
-Robert A. Heinlein
It's important to note that this conversation was split off from another thread, and if there is any confusion on the continuity and flow of how this thread starts off that this note clears things up.
Chris Kott wrote:Science isn't an art. Pointing out the self-correction mechanisms that science has built into the approach, the ability for science to be wrong and get corrected, isn't a clever way to denounce the scientific approach.
Greg Mamishian wrote:
Chris Kott wrote:Science isn't an art. Pointing out the self-correction mechanisms that science has built into the approach, the ability for science to be wrong and get corrected, isn't a clever way to denounce the scientific approach.
That's fine, Chris. : )
I never expect agreement... so it's totally all right with me that we each hold a different view.
Science can be completely wrong, even for decades, and its wrong conclusions are religiously accepted by the general public as truth...
...until objective reality asserts itself so completely as consequences of events that the truth can no longer be denied.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
-Robert A. Heinlein
Chris Kott wrote:Why does this all make me think of idiot politicians conflating local weather events with large-scale shifts in climate?
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
-Robert A. Heinlein
Chris Kott wrote:The people who take science dogmatically are rarely scientists, because the very notion is anathema to the scientific method.
It's the people with the purse strings that either dumb the message down for the consumption of the non-thinkingly dogmatic, or fabricate scientistic studies that counterfeit the actual article for profit.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
-Robert A. Heinlein
Chris Kott wrote:The existence of alternative points of view doesn't speak to their relevance.
“The most important decision we make is whether we believe we live in a friendly or hostile universe.”― Albert Einstein
William Bronson wrote:Greg seems to see science as primarily consisting of the bad variety, suspect till proven trustworthy.
I, for example see capitalism as an inherently amoral, but inevitable force that needs to be carefully controlled in order to enjoy prosperity
Phil Stevens wrote:In fact, I don't recall a specific scientific condemnation of cholesterol.
Phil Stevens wrote:I was specifically referring to dietary cholesterol (our bodies produce the stuff, too)
Because organic matter decomposes really fast in my garden and in my compost, it is impossible for organic matter to last long enough to change into a fossil form
There are also chemical analyses that can tell you, with some precision, what the composition of crude is, and there aren't mineral sources for those components
Standing on the shoulders of giants. Giants with dirt under their nails
ut my understanding is that studies done in the 50s compared different dietary levels with blood cholesterol and came up with that conclusion quoted earlier.
Standing on the shoulders of giants. Giants with dirt under their nails
So maybe in the case of oil genesis the minerals all turn into carbon-based petro. :-)
Standing on the shoulders of giants. Giants with dirt under their nails
Standing on the shoulders of giants. Giants with dirt under their nails
Tj Jefferson wrote:....In most industries people have almost stopped reading low impact journals. One of the frustrating things I have experienced (and I bet Dr Redhawk can confirm) is that now we can track the number of people who read an article, and the writing process takes me more hours than the number of people who read the article unless it is something compelling. .....
“The most important decision we make is whether we believe we live in a friendly or hostile universe.”― Albert Einstein
Moderator, Treatment Free Beekeepers group on Facebook.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/treatmentfreebeekeepers/
It's time to get positive about negative thinking -Art Donnelly
using your "whiff test" hueristics are not a bad idea! If it makes intuitive sense to you that is using a deep and time-tested method. There are pitfalls but having a coherent approach (i.e. natural processes are generally better than artificial ones) is a good way to stay sane and make progress.as the science catches up I seem to be choosing pretty good
Standing on the shoulders of giants. Giants with dirt under their nails
John Weiland wrote:
Tj Jefferson wrote:....In most industries people have almost stopped reading low impact journals. One of the frustrating things I have experienced (and I bet Dr Redhawk can confirm) is that now we can track the number of people who read an article, and the writing process takes me more hours than the number of people who read the article unless it is something compelling. .....
Although the proliferation of lower quality journals is, IMHO, not necessarily a good thing due to the sloppiness of the manuscript reviews and editorial oversight, I actually welcome the fact that much is being published that would not find its way into other journals. Certainly, this means that the onus is then on the reader to be able to examine the experimental design, the type and quality of the results obtained, and the interpretation of those results by the author(s) in order to determine how much 'weight' to give to the findings. But often these articles are publishing on some aspect that, while not significant to the overall advancement of knowledge, may be significant to investigators who are part of the discipline. I'm aware of the 'high-impact' journals, but was trained long ago to give critical review to ALL publications in science journals and cringe when I hear others comparing notes on 'impact factor'. A more concerning development is the increase in 'scientific review' articles by non-research professionals who nevertheless hold advanced degrees: There are increasing numbers of such articles that ostensibly summarize the 'state of the literature', but in which the author has made no attempt to critically assess the studies being cited in that review. The result is 'misinformation creep', where certain ideas gain validity strictly out of being referenced in multiple review articles without scrutiny. And all of this is happening *before* the press gets a hold of it! :-/
Standing on the shoulders of giants. Giants with dirt under their nails
And Michael, the Cochrane report seems to be dominated with drug studies, and a maze to try and access specific information. In what context do you use it? What specifically qualifies it as a "gold standard?"
Moderator, Treatment Free Beekeepers group on Facebook.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/treatmentfreebeekeepers/
It's time to get positive about negative thinking -Art Donnelly
The wishbone never could replace the backbone.
nancy sutton wrote:Well, Greg, we will have to disagree. I have changed my mind in the face of 'contrary' facts. I think Prager was describing his own modus operandi : )
Sonja Draven wrote:I wouldn't have believed it before I watched her die and I don't expect anyone here to either. It is just my story. She is just one person and one anecdote. But there is a link if you want to follow it.
Sonja Draven wrote:Research and information from a doctor with many years of service as a heart doctor and who isn't into the flash like Dr Greger:
http://www.dresselstyn.com/site/articles-studies/
For what it's worth, i am not trying to convince anyone. I mostly keep my mouth shut about food and nutrition around here. I know the prevailing belief and understand. I watched my mom follow Mercola and Weston Price for years. I did it too albeit less devoutly. But she was perfect in her practice, and had great genes going for her too.
Organic, no plastic, no microwaves, no processed food, no eating out, no sugar, natural sweeteners in small amounts, minimal (soaked) grains, fermented foods, grass fed local meat, coconut oil, spring water, etc. Exercise and hard work, etc Etc. She was healthy into her 70s. No Doctor visits. Clearly the healthy way to live, right? And then she wasnt feeling well for a couple months. Probably nothing. And suddenly she had a colon cancer diagnosis and died 3 weeks later.
After that it was clear to me that something I had believed and she had followed was wrong and lots of research led me to go to plant based whole foods.
I wouldn't have believed it before I watched her die and I don't expect anyone here to either. It is just my story. She is just one person and one anecdote. But there is a link if you want to follow it.
Standing on the shoulders of giants. Giants with dirt under their nails
bob day wrote:There is no doubt that there are many unhealthy vegans, and healthy omnivores.
Standing on the shoulders of giants. Giants with dirt under their nails
Greg Mamishian wrote:Heard a great comment from Dennis Prager with which I totally agree.
"Studies either confirm what you already know by your own common sense...
...or they're wrong."
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
-Robert A. Heinlein
Chris Kott wrote:
Greg Mamishian wrote:Heard a great comment from Dennis Prager with which I totally agree.
"Studies either confirm what you already know by your own common sense...
...or they're wrong."
This is actually a great example of what I see to be the problem.
Science very strictly embodies the idea that the most effective learning is done through failure.
The process must integrate the idea that the purpose of scientific experiment is to learn from results that don't fit the hypothetical narrative, to cycle back on itself and rewrite the hypothesis until it reflects the evidence and conclusions produced through experimentation.
It's also the flavour of scientific skepticism I dislike the most. It implies that everyone in the pursuit of knowledge of any kind, for any reason, is unreasonably biased and arrogant, which, in my opinion, is unreasonably biased and arrogant. It leaves no room for discussion, because all arguments are then painted with the same brush of unsupported skepticism.
At the end of the day, I like it when science doesn't need suffer anyone's belief.
Can't .... do .... plaid .... So I did this tiny ad instead:
paul's patreon stuff got his videos and podcasts running again!
https://permies.com/t/60329/paul-patreon-stuff-videos-podcasts
|