OrgoneConclusion said:

The ONLY people who use these two words together are sensationalist reporters and people trying to promote pseudoscience with highly questionable 'evidence'. It is a made up position as an appeal to emotionalism. Nothing more.

In real science, no subject is off-limits or out-of-bounds. There may be silly endeavors such as 'Free Energy', but nothing is verboten (short of immoral extremes like cruel Nazi science experiments on live subjects).

---

Icelander said:

Actually this is a very serious problem in "science" advancement.  Human bias or outright lying and manipulation.

This is why science has no more change of "saving us" than anything else has.

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

The ONLY people who use these two words together are sensationalist reporters and people trying to promote pseudoscience with highly questionable 'evidence'. It is a made up position as an appeal to emotionalism. Nothing more.

In real science, no subject is off-limits or out-of-bounds. There may be silly endeavors such as 'Free Energy', but nothing is verboten (short of immoral extremes like cruel Nazi science experiments on live subjects).

---

Science is a social phenomena, therefore many subjects are 'subject' to the subjectivity of social expectations/beliefs/desires.

Science now adays, is incredibly short sighted and closed to many useful endeavors.

The health science research industry is incredibly corrupt. Almost all major health science studies are funded by some of the wealthiest people in the world - who have aquired their profit/wealth/status from people's illness.

I guesse its not a question of corruption, but are you naive enough to think that these types will ever fund research that slows their profit? How can these wealthy people make money if people are healthy and pharmaceuticals actually heal disease, rather than inhibit the symptoms of it. Would it be to far fetched to say that they also put chemicals in those pharmaceuticals that create more disease???

Again, can you expect them to be looking out for you and not their profits?

Which one do you think is more important to them?

johnm214 said:

Icelander said:

Actually this is a very serious problem in "science" advancement.  Human bias or outright lying and manipulation.

This is why science has no more change of "saving us" than anything else has.

---

I think its much less so the case in science as the expectation is for the evidentiary basis to be well presented so that the matter may be verified: this is indeed the manner in which fraud is generally detected once commited, such as in the case of that stem cell thing some years back.

Contrast this with "experience" which are related through people that might lie and yet there is no obvious way to rule out their claims or simply "folk wisdom"/"old wives tales" where the same problem applies to a large extent.

Science is particularlly useful, and I think this is a point those like Mr. Mushrooms who criticize it cant overcome, since the conclusions of a paper are considered worthless without a firm evidentiary basis.  Claims that cannot be tested are automatically dismissed, and those which are faulty are dismissed after testing.

I agree science won't "save us", but I do think it is particularly strong on this particular point (fraud).  Of course the critics seem to think of science as some data in a textbook for which you are expected to have faith in, but this is a problem of education rather than science, which has nothing to do with authoritative conclusions and faith.

---

You forget that science is only as good as the direction it moves in.

Imagine if overnight scientific studies were funded to find out whether or not intuition is a real phenomena, instead of trying to find a cure for cancer?

What you forget is that if studies are not funded on a particular subject, there is no conclusion about that subjects use to the human experience.


Take for example, the raw food vegan diet. There is no evidence scientifically that this diet can eliminate almost any disease in the world. Have I seen anecdotal evidence that proves it has more power to help people with disease than pharamaceuticals? 100% I have.

My brother for example, suffered for 5 years with a skin condition that was treat with over 11 different creams/pills.



He looked kind of like this, except he was lucky enough not to have anything on his face but his body was covered identically to this kid. And yes he was given ringworm treatment, even went to a naturopath.

I put him on a raw food diet, after hearing of its ability to heal cancer/arthritis and skin disease.

His disease literally was gone after one month, just 28 days.

He is not off the diet, but still keeps some components of it(intake of fruit/greens) with no relapse.

My point is ultimately that the direction of science determines its influence, negative or positive on the human experience.


Forget the fact that it is very easy to alter data without the peer reviewing community knowing any better. Consider that those which review the scientific study CAN ONLY and STRICTLY criticize the methodology and not the data, so there is definite room for altering numbers for the benefit of those that fund the research.

Icelander said:

Well pure science is never the problem but when someone is funding your research and giving you a job with benefits to come up with stuff "they can use" that may often happen. All you have to do is emphasize the positives and down play or bury the negatives.

I'm not comparing science to anything else here.

---

Few people grok the truth behind this. I consider you lucky.

AlphaFalfa said:

OrgoneConclusion said:

The ONLY people who use these two words together are sensationalist reporters and people trying to promote pseudoscience with highly questionable 'evidence'. It is a made up position as an appeal to emotionalism. Nothing more.

In real science, no subject is off-limits or out-of-bounds. There may be silly endeavors such as 'Free Energy', but nothing is verboten (short of immoral extremes like cruel Nazi science experiments on live subjects).

---

Science is a social phenomena, therefore many subjects are 'subject' to the subjectivity of social expectations/beliefs/desires.

Science now adays, is incredibly short sighted and closed to many useful endeavors.

The health science research industry is incredibly corrupt. Almost all major health science studies are funded by some of the wealthiest people in the world - who have aquired their profit/wealth/status from people's illness.

I guesse its not a question of corruption, but are you naive enough to think that these types will ever fund research that slows their profit? How can these wealthy people make money if people are healthy and pharmaceuticals actually heal disease, rather than inhibit the symptoms of it. Would it be to far fetched to say that they also put chemicals in those pharmaceuticals that create more disease???

Again, can you expect them to be looking out for you and not their profits?

Which one do you think is more important to them?

---

Icelander said:

I spent most of my working life in the Natural foods and health industry and unfortunately this field is going the way of the mainstream health industry. Flawed studies being used to sell basically worthless products for huge profit margins.  I've had to go back to food being my medicine. I eat mostly raw (even meat and eggs and dairy) and Organic and I feel much healthier (and wealthier) then when I was taking five to 10 bucks worth of supplements a day

---

Quote:

Science is a social phenomena, therefore many subjects are 'subject' to the subjectivity of social expectations/beliefs/desires.

---

Icelander said:

That's a bummer about your injuries.  I've had two knee surgeries but still hike for a couple hours each day.  I think when they fail I may check out at that time.  I'll have to see how I feel.  I have my helium tank at home and ready to go.

I eat junk food but try to maintain a major percentage of healthy food.  I'm not trying for a lot of years. I'm almost sixty and frankly I've about seen enough of this non sense.

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

Yeah, uncooked dry rice is super healthy, easy to digest and great for your teeth.

---

I am starting to question if you are slow or have  a mental handicap.

Where does it say that I eat that.

OrgoneConclusion said:

Yeah, uncooked dry rice is super healthy, easy to digest and great for your teeth.

---

Where in my post did  say that I ate that?

OrgoneConclusion said:

It is only one of the most-consumed staples in the world that would be nearly impossible to eat raw. Not everyone can afford a quart of freshly pressed carrot juice every day. What would you have them substitute for rice that is cheap and locally available?

---

Since when were we involving these other factors into the equation?

Do you want to just argue for the sake of arguing????


I don't suggest it, you will probably loose.



Look, I am telling you what is ideal/the best I know.

Thats what we were talking about until captain context changed the situation.