Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience
In reply to the discussion: Youtube scientist C0nc0rdance addresses the pseudo-science against flouridation of drinking water. [View all]Boston_Chemist
(256 posts)28. A couple of hints for you:
A. Science is not a democracy.
That "MOST" scientists think this or that does not mean that there isn't an alternative to the consensus lurking somewhere. Relying on preponderance of opinion among experts *can* be a reliable way of interpreting nature, but one ought to be ready for surprises. For instance, *MOST* scientists thought that the transmutation of elements was impossible, but then along came the Curies and Lise Meitner, showing that various decay modes would break heavy nuclei down to lighter nuclei. Kind of like a rational version of Alchemy.
B. Scientific results are extremely vulnerable to political meddling.
You read about these problems all the damn time, with alarmed pundits commenting on how Big Pharma has hijacked academic research, or how the Bush administration repeatedly interfered with climate change research to suit this or that corporate interest.
That "MOST" scientists think this or that does not mean that there isn't an alternative to the consensus lurking somewhere. Relying on preponderance of opinion among experts *can* be a reliable way of interpreting nature, but one ought to be ready for surprises. For instance, *MOST* scientists thought that the transmutation of elements was impossible, but then along came the Curies and Lise Meitner, showing that various decay modes would break heavy nuclei down to lighter nuclei. Kind of like a rational version of Alchemy.
B. Scientific results are extremely vulnerable to political meddling.
You read about these problems all the damn time, with alarmed pundits commenting on how Big Pharma has hijacked academic research, or how the Bush administration repeatedly interfered with climate change research to suit this or that corporate interest.
TopBack to the top of the page
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
ShareGet links to this post
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
53 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Youtube scientist C0nc0rdance addresses the pseudo-science against flouridation of drinking water. [View all]
MarkCharles
Dec 2011
OP
Please don't bother to get all the facts about Dental Fluorosis, nor bother to listen to the ..
MarkCharles
Dec 2011
#6
I get it, you don't argue from epidemiological grounds, you argue based upon
MarkCharles
Dec 2011
#8
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. n/t
laconicsax
Dec 2011
#12
What is it with the english language that makes it so difficult for some to understand it?
Boston_Chemist
Dec 2011
#21
You brought up Mercury. If you don't like the results, you have only yourself to blame. n/t
laconicsax
Dec 2011
#24
23% with Fluorosis? More like nearly 40%. Did you even read the CDC study?
Boston_Chemist
Dec 2011
#30
I am not here to educate you or entertain your conspiracy theories. n.t.
Boston_Chemist
Dec 2011
#34
It's all good, so long as you stop believing this "Fluoridation is Good" nonsense. n.t.
Boston_Chemist
Dec 2011
#38