A surprising cause of cancer?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

It's clear to me this guy doesn't know a damn thing about what he's talking about, so why would I trust him to lead me into the unknown?

Would you quit reading a good novel just because the author got numerous geographic, historical and other verifiable allusions in his story all bollixed up?

The value to me of this material was not in its science, but in its suggestions of other ways in which living material may be organized, interact and be sensitive.

But that's OK -- that's all I had to offer -- you have taken it for what you figured it was worth (apparently something less than amusement value.) Life is good.

[ASH]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

The value to me of this material was not in its science, but in its suggestions of other ways in which living material may be organized, interact and be sensitive.

But that's OK -- that's all I had to offer -- you have taken it for what you figured it was worth (apparently something less than amusement value.) Life is good.

Guess I didn't approach the article in the spirit in which it was offered; sorry if I became combative.

One thing about being 35 is that I have several decades ahead of me during which the pat certainties of my youth can be overturned. Perhaps that humbling experience will leave me more open-minded.

[nedtheguy]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

redacted

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

Guess I didn't approach the article in the spirit in which it was offered; sorry if I became combative.

No problem. It is a pleasure to deal with people who are as they are.

One thing about being 35 is that I have several decades ahead of me during which the pat certainties of my youth can be overturned. Perhaps that humbling experience will leave me more open-minded.

Ah, you are blessed. There is hope for you yet, young man.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

So, back to ASH's comment yeah, we must be confident in our conclusions, because we are all playing whack-a-mole against the abuse of science from people trying to make a buck. They fight dirty, we have to stick to our principles

So ... scientists are the good guys and charlatans the bad guys, huh ?

Well, someone once remarked that while figures don't lie, liars can sure enough figure.

In other words, they were saying I think that accurate bookkeeping is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for financial integrity.

I claim that the same can be said of the scientific method. While a quite useful tool for the advancement of our knowledge, use of the scientific method is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for complete or valid understanding of our universe. Indeed, even stronger, it precludes in my view much essential understanding, and is almost never the starting point for even that to which it does end up being usefully applied.

There is, I will grant, some modicum of danger that readers will overly trust such pseudo-scientific articles that bear no mark of the scientific method. The answer to that danger however is not to recommend that everyone spurn such articles and rather place their trust in "scientific experts", for such wide ranging "trust in experts" itself becomes all too easily corrupted by those in influential positions.

[ASH]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

use of the scientific method is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for complete or valid understanding of our universe.

Yeah. We definitely differ on this one. I have to say that use of the scientific method is exclusively necessary to form a valid understanding of our universe. A complete understanding is impossible by any method.

There is such a thing as having such an open mind that your brains fall out.

[jk]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

i think you guys differ on the meaning of the word "understanding." i gather cow's definition refers to a non-rational [not necessarily irrational] sense of things. my own definition matches ash's.

another interpretation i can offer, however, points to godel's theorem, which says that any axiomatic system [that includes arithmetic] will include true statements which cannot be proven by the rules of deduction within that system. [the unprovable statements must be true, since if false there will be a counterexample.] i suppose one could argue that there is some corresponding limitation to scientific method, i.e. that there are true unprovables. but then science never proves anything; it only fails to falsify.

still a third interpretation would point to the limits of scientific method in application. for example, i like to tell my patients that the practice of medicine is not science, although it is informed by science. this is because of the limited and statistical nature of our knowledge, which can shed light on choices for an individual, but only probabilistic light. i suppose quantum uncertainty will - in a deeper way- limit our ability to predict individual events, and in that sense leave us with limited "understanding."

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

i think you guys differ on the meaning of the word "understanding." i gather cow's definition refers to a non-rational [not necessarily irrational] sense of things.

Well, duh, yeah. I dare say 99% of what you understand you have not subjected to testing by the scientific method, and much of that could not be "scientifically" tested if one tried, at least not practically.

It may be that you understand that your wife, your dog, your child and your mother love you. Have you tested this scientifically? Most of us have not done so in any manner that could be called scientific. You may understand that some (you fill in the blank) politician in your capital city is a jerk. Have you tested this scientifically?

For a different example, how do you scientifically test Gödel's incompleteness theorems? You don't. These theorems are in the realm of mathematical logic, not in the realm of testable and reproducible physical reality.

[c1ue]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

Well, duh, yeah. I dare say 99% of what you understand you have not subjected to testing by the scientific method, and much of that could not be "scientifically" tested if one tried, at least not practically.

Actually, I think you are exaggerating the percentage.

Germ theory is very well tested scientifically - the eradication of smallpox is a good example.

Viral theory is also very well tested scientifically - the controlling of polio is another example.

Transplants, etc etc are further examples of scientifically derived and tested precepts in medicine.

The present limitations of medicine are not due to its basic concepts being untested by science, these limitations are a function of a combination of highly complex systemic interactions in the general human body and somewhat variable genetic differences between different humans, further complicated by environmental and behavioral patterns.

The example I use for this is the man suffering from bronchiolitis obliterans - or popcorn butter lung:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/us...RIMcoC8NJiIASA

A furniture salesman, the man was becoming increasingly short of breath. He had never smoked and was overweight. His illness had been diagnosed as hypersensitivity pneumonitis, an inflammation of the lungs usually caused by chronic exposure to bacteria, mold or dust. Farmers and bird enthusiasts are frequent sufferers.

But nothing in the Colorado man’s history suggested that he was breathing in excessive amounts of mold or bird droppings, Dr. Rose said. She has consulted to flavorings manufacturers for years about “popcorn workers’ lung,” and said that something about the man’s tests appeared similar to those of the workers.

“I said to him, ‘This is a very weird question, but bear with me. But are you around a lot of popcorn?’ ” Dr. Rose asked. “His jaw dropped and he said, ‘How could you possibly know that about me? I am Mr. Popcorn. I love popcorn.’ ”

The man told Dr. Rose that he had eaten microwave popcorn at least twice a day for more than 10 years.

“When he broke open the bags, after the steam came out, he would often inhale the fragrance because he liked it so much,” Dr. Rose said. “That’s heated diacetyl, which we know from the workers’ studies is the highest risk.”

A fat, smoking, fake butter snorting patient.

It may be that you understand that your wife, your dog, your child and your mother love you. Have you tested this scientifically?

I would note that love is a highly subjective emotion for humans.

Dogs and horses love you if you feed them and physically care for them irrespective if you respect them.

Humans may or may not - as innumerable divorces can attest to.

Would you quit reading a good novel just because the author got numerous geographic, historical and other verifiable allusions in his story all bollixed up?

The value to me of this material was not in its science, but in its suggestions of other ways in which living material may be organized, interact and be sensitive.

I wouldn't stop reading the novel - because my objective is to be entertained.

If on the other hand, the publication were a history or some other purported non-fiction, I would drop it like the flaming turd it is.

For a different example, how do you scientifically test Gödel's incompleteness theorems? You don't. These theorems are in the realm of mathematical logic, not in the realm of testable and reproducible physical reality.

Exactly right. You can't test something which is exclusively a mental construct.

But then, mathematics isn't science

All arithmophobia aside, the problem with testing mental constructs is that there can be no objective criteria to test against.

It would be like going to the "Twilight" series writer and forcing him/her to prove the "Twilight" world is consistent - there is no objective criteria to test against.

Literally, if said writer is the author, and does not directly contradict something previously written, then said output is consistent.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

Actually, I think you are exaggerating the percentage.

The existence of many examples of some scientific testing from many disciplines doesn't discredit my percentage at all, except perhaps for some nerd who has no ordinary life outside of his studies of science.

My claim remains -- most of what we know involves other sorts of understanding than those to which scientific testing methodology applies. For that matter, even in those areas of science, most knowledge (history of it, common practices, tools, terminology, ...) is not tested scientifically, nor could nor should be.

Understanding simply comes in many diverse forms.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

All arithmophobia aside, the problem with testing mental constructs is that there can be no objective criteria to test against.

You haven't spent many years working in the foundations of mathematical logic and set theory, have you?

The objective standards against which work is evaluated there are quite strong. I'm not saying the standards relate to the ordinary physical world, or that those not trained in the discipline can understand them very well, or even that those who are trained can always evaluate work easily, but I am saying that for those who work in that area, there is just as much a sense of a coherent material and order being discovered, which persists in its structure and properties, even those we do not yet understand, as bridge designers get (I presume) with concrete and steel and support structures.

Others may remember where they were when JFK died. I remember where I was when Kurt Gödel died.

[we_are_toast]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

So, back to ASH's comment yeah, we must be confident in our conclusions, because we are all playing whack-a-mole against the abuse of science from people trying to make a buck. They fight dirty, we have to stick to our principles.

This is a real understatement. But the abuses go beyond those who directly have their dollars at stake. There are those who have belief systems based on some emotional need, and who will simply deny (usually based on a twisted pseudo-science argument) to protect those beliefs.

Yeah. We definitely differ on this one. I have to say that use of the scientific method is exclusively necessary to form a valid understanding of our universe. A complete understanding is impossible by any method.

I would just add that "today" the scientific method is exclusively necessary to reach a real understanding of how our universe functions. I am completely open to anyone who can present a better system, but so far, all challenges quickly break down into some form of "I believe", or "whack-a-mole burden shifting". Any system trying to reach a true understanding of the world around us, must be based in rationality, or by definition they would be irrational. The problem is, most people who follow "I believe" or pseudo-science claims, are admitting to a degree of irrationality, and can not be swayed by rational (scientific) arguments.

This is where our education system has failed us. By teaching the scientific method at an early age, and why the scientific method was developed, maybe the practice of rational thinking would spread to all aspects of our lives and society. But it appears the opposite is happening, "I believe" holds equal weight with volumes of data and logical arguments. A path of irrational thinking can be traced to almost every major problem the world faces today.

Einstein may have thought God doesn't play dice, but humanity is sure making the future one big crap shoot.

[c1ue]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

You haven't spent many years working in the foundations of mathematical logic and set theory, have you?

I dunno, I guess the years I spent learning all the various aspects of mathematics related to my eventual engineering degree, culminating in quantum mechanics and its associated math via 4 years at Caltech, clearly didn't teach me nothing compared to what you apparently know.

And note I didn't say Godel was wrong.

In the context of an artificial construct, of course nothing objective can be proven.

Which is what I said the first time around.

Mathematical logic is perfectly consistent in its own realm - but it is not directly associable with any form of objective reality because it is intended to be a pure derivation of one aspect of reality.

You can say that Mathematics is reality because it describes 2+2=4, just as adding 2 apples to 2 apples yields 4 apples, but my point is that this argument is invalid because the term 2+2=4 was created to abstract the reality of the apples.

As one is an abstract descriptor of the other, there is consistency but the abstraction itself does not have anything directly to do with the reality.

It would be like saying your mirror image is you.

All sorts of tests can be run with perfect fidelity, until you depart from being in front of the mirror.

This is a real understatement. But the abuses go beyond those who directly have their dollars at stake. There are those who have belief systems based on some emotional need, and who will simply deny (usually based on a twisted pseudo-science argument) to protect those beliefs.

Indeed. The Crichton speech I just posted puts this statement in highly ironic context.

[housingcrashsurvivor]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

"orient your bed, like an antenna, away from the direction of the local FM/TV transmission tower."

[jk]

Re: A surprising cause of cancer?

The existence of many examples of some scientific testing from many disciplines doesn't discredit my percentage at all, except perhaps for some nerd who has no ordinary life outside of his studies of science.

ad hominem

My claim remains -- most of what we know involves other sorts of understanding than those to which scientific testing methodology applies. For that matter, even in those areas of science, most knowledge (history of it, common practices, tools, terminology, ...) is not tested scientifically, nor could nor should be.

Understanding simply comes in many diverse forms.

arguing over the meaning of words. choose your definition; choose your conclusions.