Anti-Science views?

[Ehrenpanzer]

Hey don't blame me, I didn't want science to become articles of faith. Blame modern day scientists who have sold out to the left so that science can now fit into whatever narrative happens to be fashionable on the day.

Ken Ham? Is that you?

[Spectral]

All fad diets are bullshit.

It's all about moderation, amount of C in/C out. As well as how quickly energy turns to fat. (Carbs turn to fat pretty damn fast) Fat is really difficult to break down.

Of course each person is different over all. BUT ... fad diets are bullshit. Including keto and atkins.

This is largely true, but a really incomplete understanding - lipostatic mechanisms are still not particularly well understood and role of hormones like leptin in hunger and fat regulation just isn't well known enough to really hammer everything out. There's clearly a significant role for insulin resistance in causing obesity as well.

So, yeah, "eat more green things, eat less sugar, and move more" is good advice for weight loss, the "C in/C out" paradigm is just not very good for explaining fine-tuned regulation of weight that's actually observed in practice.

[Ehrenpanzer]

So basically, you believe your religious texts over science. That or you are too ignorant to understand the science in all cases.

In a nutshell, this is basically what is wrong with America.

[Orbitus]

In a nutshell, this is basically what is wrong with America.

Which is why I can't wait for a 'federation' as seen in Star Trek, where pretty much all religion has been debunked and relegated to obscurity because science has explained it all away.

[Underverse]

I have some specific ideas that generally come from my experiences and tend to conflict with prevailing medical science.

1 - Pathogenesis of acne. I don't think the prevailing idea on this is correct; some studies suggest that inflammatory events begin prior to bacterial colonization, shifting cause from bacterial to underlying inflammation that can in some cases be caused by reactions to foods or intestinal flora. This is still a minority view among dermatologists, but I think it will become more accepted in the future.

2 - Pathogenesis of heart disease. With so many different actors involved here, the cause tends to be oversimplified. Molecular biologists simplify for epidemiologists simplify for doctors simplify for patients, and what you end up with is something along the lines of 'cholesterol causes heart disease, here have some statins and you'll be fine'. To make things worse, corporations capitalize on these oversimplifications to market their foods. There's just so much garbage in this field. In truth, cholesterol is probably necessary but not sufficient to drive the formation of arterial plaques, and things like lipoprotein modifications (via glycation, oxidation from blood sugar spikes and pollution/smoke exposure) and inflammatory context (diabetes) are true drivers behind the disease.

[Underverse]

This is largely true, but a really incomplete understanding - lipostatic mechanisms are still not particularly well understood and role of hormones like leptin in hunger and fat regulation just isn't well known enough to really hammer everything out. There's clearly a significant role for insulin resistance in causing obesity as well.

So, yeah, "eat more green things, eat less sugar, and move more" is good advice for wait loss, the "C in/C out" paradigm is just not very good for explaining fine-tuned regulation of weight that's actually observed in practice.

Yeah I'll second this. People like to trot out the 'calories in, calories out' bit, and while it's true, it's also an oversimplification that preys on semantic errors in their opponents' arguments. Calories in involves food intake, but it also involves efficiency of absorption, efficiency of macromolecule degradation in the intestines, enzyme levels/polymorphisms, hormone responses, food composition (fiber, protein), vitamin concentrations and more effects that aren't captured by a simple calorie label. Calories out involves basal metabolic rate, polymorphisms in catabolic enzymes, hormone responses, vitamin concentrations and so forth - and this number isn't something that can be quantified by your treadmill.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I'm not sure you can say science is a fad. It's been around for awhile you know. If you're referring to a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals trying to seem intelligent by acting interested in science while not actually investing the time to understand anything then that's also happened for as long as science has been around. You're just more aware of it because of the internet.

I also find your statement super ironic. "Science has become a fad. I feel that way because I see science being made into a fad"

Solid writing there.

- - - Updated - - -



No. It hasn't. This statement makes it clear you don't know what science really is.

- - - Updated - - -



This just reinforces that clear fact that you just don't understand something you've never invested the time to learn. That doesn't mean it's wrong or made up to fit a narrative.

Is there "bad" science? Of course, but then you can make a valid, logical argument why it's bad. That's a general "you" not a you "you" because obviously you can't.

Yes, that writing reflects what science has become in the fad form, a chain of unending nonsense circle jerks, and where arguments generally range from semantics to woefully misapplications.

That is on average when people are out and our right lying.

Science has been around for a while even as the scientific method was being ironed out there was science (Quackery) then, that really wasn't science at all. 90% of what is argued online is typically one person arguing one point of view they got from somewhere else with another person who did the same thing, post links back and fourth.

For the best entertainment, simply watch two people argue who both ripped off links and copy pasta from somewhere else to try to bolster their either irrelevant or completely non existent argument.

The internet to cheap marketing the over all interest in science on the level it is now is a fucking fad, much in the way say Christian ROCK was Christian MOVIES. If you don't think much of the same bullshit comes from the same place regardless to what someone claims Atheist or Religious it's the same thing.


It's a fad, it will die, and more importantly people along with their alternative facts and flat earth bullshit, are probably going to snuff out any real possibility in a general sense to direct interest in science in any real or productive way.


BUT DUDE CHICKS DIG NERDS!

[Doctor Amadeus]

My point was that you made an argument essentially saying, "X is Y because I think X is Y" You didn't make a sensible argument at all.

I'm not disagreeing that this doesn't happen. I'm just saying you're using the word fad wrong. This has always happened. It's just more apparent and escalated because of the internet.

I'm not sure why you think this will ever change as long as the internet is around. And even if one day it's not, people will still suck at science but try to act smarter than they really are. It's not a fad.

Well it happens to often and it isn't because of low I.Q or intelligence, but it is fucking stupidity and people are electing it because they think the shit is funny. And when it gets so bad that morons are arguing the god damn world is flat or 6000 years old, it stopped being funny a long time ago.

Einstein warned about out technology out pacing out humanity.

As for the internet, it's not like we are just arguing chocolate vs vanilla ice cream which is the best. It's literally arguing bullshit and people depending on ideology or political leanings co sign this shit.


I don't care if it someone you like, I don't care if their famous. Wrong is wrong for more than just looking cool or appearing non partisan.

People need to call out the rampant bullshit, or not even science a tool can save us. Because as it sits right now, Science is a fad. Or at least become nothing more than that.

[Verzen]

What the fuck? Science has NEVER been about creating a theory and working to disprove them. That's literally the opposite of how it works. I can't disprove that you have no idea what you're talking about. So, I guess it's fact.

SCIENCE!

This is actually not true. In order to be scientific, it MUST be falsifiable. But other than that, science is about disproving ideas. You can never prove anything in science. You can disprove things, though.

[McFuu]

I guess, on climate change. I agree humans have an impact on climate change, just not as big an impact as people think. There were hotter times then now, and ice ages before man, so I think there is too much blame on us. Also, even if we made 10X pollution as we do now, I would still drive vehicles with the most powerful, gas guzzlingest engine I can find because I love it. Fuck emission restrictions. I want to bring by Cadillac's with 8.2 Liter V8 engines, etc.

Lastly, all humans have their own agenda, and I think people can bend and tweak information to suit what they want. I don't think we can ague the earth is round, because we have photos of the earth from space. Even if someone said it was fake, you can see the curve of the earth out on the ocean on a calm clear day for example. However, if someone tells me this rock is 100 million years old, I just have to take their word for it, as I have no way to prove otherwise.

The scientific consensus on climate change is exactly that, we are making an impact but science doesn't really know if our level of impact matters in the long run. And what is meant by that is will our very fractional speeding up of warming on the Earth actually matter.

[Glorious Leader]

This is largely true, but a really incomplete understanding - lipostatic mechanisms are still not particularly well understood and role of hormones like leptin in hunger and fat regulation just isn't well known enough to really hammer everything out. There's clearly a significant role for insulin resistance in causing obesity as well.

So, yeah, "eat more green things, eat less sugar, and move more" is good advice for weight loss, the "C in/C out" paradigm is just not very good for explaining fine-tuned regulation of weight that's actually observed in practice.

Macro nutritioal goals play a large part in both weight gain and loss. Keto is legit imho and ive lost weight by severaly restricting carbohydrate intake. I had too. Diabetes is no joke.

[Sky High]

It is true that some people view science as a source of absolute truth, which it is absolutely not.

Who knew Mac from it's always sunny actually exists in the real world. Actually.... it's sadly not that surprising.

[Kuntantee]

I explicitly stated to avoid race. Don't talk about race.

Rejecting IQ as a well validated measure of ability is roughly on par with denying climate change.

IQ measures (more precisely ranks) a subset of human abilities that may or may not be applicable to a variety of situations. One that comes to mind is ability to make the right decision under stress/pressure/time constraint. I am good at logic, but terrible at making fast decisions like... absolutely terrible. An IQ test doesn't measure it and I am pretty sure a fighter jet pilot is required to have that ability. All in all, IQ is a good measure for logical/analythical abilities but that's probably about it and to be fair, it is enough to be successful in most conventional settings and that's what misleading most people imo.

[Endus]

The scientific consensus on climate change is exactly that, we are making an impact but science doesn't really know if our level of impact matters in the long run. And what is meant by that is will our very fractional speeding up of warming on the Earth actually matter.

The only reason for that uncertainty is because we're already outside any natural cycles in geological history that we could use as a prior example to build from. We can make some assertions as to some broad strokes, based on how much slower natural processes have affected global conditions, but the rapidity of anthropogenic warming is completely unprecedented.

Science can't literally see the future. Scientists aren't psychics. And this smacks of blaming them for not being such. Of course we can't literally see the future and know exactly how it will unfold. That doesn't call science into question; it establishes that we're humans, and science can only build from data, and is thus necessarily going to be cautious about stuff for which there is no direct data to draw from.

It doesn't mean we don't know that the planet will keep warming. It means we don't know what kind of catastrophic snowball effects might be triggered by such warming, or how badly they'll affect human society. The direct consequences of the warming alone are bad enough, and that's where scientists mostly stick to, unless you ask them about what they think might be possible.

That's when you'll get references to things like algal blooms, the shifting of major ocean currents and in particular the North Atlantic Current, which has a significant warming effect on Western Europe as a whole (London, England is at about the same latitude as Calgary, Alberta, by way of example). Or the possibility of superstorms, or major desertification impacts, or what have you. Those concepts involve extrapolation from past warming cycles, but those occurred MUCH more slowly, and so exactly how secondary effects will crop up is a little uncertain. Making changes more rapidly generally doesn't smooth things, however.

[Frontenac]

Who knew Mac from it's always sunny actually exists in the real world. Actually.... it's sadly not that surprising.

I don't understand. Who is Mac?

[Spectral]

Macro nutritioal goals play a large part in both weight gain and loss. Keto is legit imho and ive lost weight by severaly restricting carbohydrate intake. I had too. Diabetes is no joke.

Yeah, when I was about 17 years old and kinda chubby I shed 30 pounds with keto. I think for most people, it's the easiest way to lose weight. It can also be an efficient dietary strategy for extreme endurance sports, FWIW.

More broadly, I think it's important to note that there's a lot of variance across individuals, to the point where giving generalized advice just isn't very good. I run a lot and eat a fairly typical runner diet with lots of rice and pasta. I don't seem any worse for it, but I surely wouldn't recommend it to someone that was either sedentary or only did light exercises.

- - - Updated - - -

IQ measures (more precisely ranks) a subset of human abilities that may or may not be applicable to a variety of situations. One that comes to mind is ability to make the right decision under stress/pressure/time constraint. I am good at logic, but terrible at making fast decisions like... absolutely terrible. An IQ test doesn't measure it and I am pretty sure a fighter jet pilot is required to have that ability. All in all, IQ is a good measure for logical/analythical abilities but that's probably about it and to be fair, it is enough to be successful in most conventional settings and that's what misleading most people imo.

My money is on high IQ people making better decisions under stress/pressure/time constraint than low IQ people, on average. I don't think your example is particularly good here. Maybe this will occasionally be swamped by other factors, but on average, I would expect high IQ people to have an even larger advantage over low IQ people under time constraints than when everyone has plenty of time. Tests like the Wonderlic support my contention.

[McFuu]

The only reason for that uncertainty is because we're already outside any natural cycles in geological history that we could use as a prior example to build from. We can make some assertions as to some broad strokes, based on how much slower natural processes have affected global conditions, but the rapidity of anthropogenic warming is completely unprecedented.

Science can't literally see the future. Scientists aren't psychics. And this smacks of blaming them for not being such. Of course we can't literally see the future and know exactly how it will unfold. That doesn't call science into question; it establishes that we're humans, and science can only build from data, and is thus necessarily going to be cautious about stuff for which there is no direct data to draw from.

It doesn't mean we don't know that the planet will keep warming. It means we don't know what kind of catastrophic snowball effects might be triggered by such warming, or how badly they'll affect human society. The direct consequences of the warming alone are bad enough, and that's where scientists mostly stick to, unless you ask them about what they think might be possible.

That's when you'll get references to things like algal blooms, the shifting of major ocean currents and in particular the North Atlantic Current, which has a significant warming effect on Western Europe as a whole (London, England is at about the same latitude as Calgary, Alberta, by way of example). Or the possibility of superstorms, or major desertification impacts, or what have you. Those concepts involve extrapolation from past warming cycles, but those occurred MUCH more slowly, and so exactly how secondary effects will crop up is a little uncertain. Making changes more rapidly generally doesn't smooth things, however.

I'm 100% there with you. I get this. The difference between the science and politics of climate change is huge right now. And some statements you've made push into that territory. Namely mentioning a snowballing effect, or saying the rapid change doesn't smooth things out. Problem is we have no idea, Doomsday predictions falls outside of science. The Earth has been much warmer than it currently is, and in fact we are in a period of lower temps and weather stability. Our current climate is outside of what we would consider usual for the Earth.

In the large scheme of things, human pollution has added a volcano eruption or two worth of damage to the environment. Its hard to predict if it's significant. One of the reasons we should slow our output is because of the uncertainty. But attributing Extinction level events to human involvement is baseless, seeing as there have been plenty of climate related Extinction level events without us. It could just be our time.

The easiest like example of the fervor being created by this is the people who think it's not safe to bring children in the world because the world is getting so violent. When in reality it's never been more peaceful.

[Sky High]

I don't understand. Who is Mac?

This guy

[Frontenac]

This guy

Okay, I'm not at all like that guy. What I am saying is that people are looking for knowledge that is set for all time. They want their questions answered once and for all. That Mac guy is exactly like that. He's in search of absolute, and he rejects science because some scientists or thinkers were wrong (by the way, Aristotles as a scientist, really?). And some people are ready to believe any word spouted out by a guy because it has Ph.D. at the end of his name. Well, science does not believe in absolute truths. Theories are accepted while they work. When observations contradict them, they are modified or discarded. This is how science progresses.

[TheEaterofSouls]

I believe there might be an afterlife, unconscious reincarnation might exist. and maybe their's something outside our universe,? I'm not saying these things exist, just that I hope they do. Won't know the 1st til im dead tho. Will never know the other 2. But I don't follow religion and am agnostic.