what exactly is wrong about that statement? Are you saying people who believe in chakras and crystal healing are not gullible? How is that?
where did i say this? We were discussing scam based on science and you were fast to give examples that people get scammed by completely different things on regular bases
there's just so many things wrong with your arguments that i don't even know where to start.
maybe do not begin at all because clearly by now you are just arguing for the lols
ok, for example, many years ago smoking tobacco was thought to have various health benefits. Then science marched on and it was found that it is incredibly harmful and causes lung cancer. If you had been alive at that time you'd probably been all "oh evil science has tricked me into smoking! Now they say it's bad for me, i'll never believe in science again!"
why would scientists claim tobacco was ever good ? Oh wait, maybe they get paid off well by the tobacco companies. Proof you cannot rely on science because it always gets donations from powerful players in the economical industry
let's see if i can make this simple for you...
that is pretty simple. I understood it well, but its incomplete
scientists are not perfect nor infallible, nor does any real scientist claim to be. Scientists make observations based on experiments, and publish their findings based on the available data and methods. When new inventions are made, and new and better methods are found, obviously sometimes scientist discover that earlier scientists, working with older methods and tools, have been wrong. Here's what's great about science: They will point out the mistake and let people know the new information, no matter how long the contrary has been believed. So when time goes on, we know more and more about how things work. This is a good thing.
i agree with this except if scientists aknowledge mistakes, they should always release their medical journals with caution and be responsible for what happens. They do it way too often releasing statements not yet verified 100% and they do it so often, it can confuse everyone. Bottom line, responsibility, honor and dedication must be applied
what a childish and simplistic argument.
not sure what you refer to but this one right here is pretty childish
i'm facepalming so hard here i don't even...
you strike me as too emotional to discuss anything. Maybe you are a girl ?
so you want a convenient scapegoat. You want to blame an abstract entity, "science", for your own mistakes? It doesn't work that way.
you do the same thing with religion.
yes, there are people who do "bad science". People who publish results from sloppy experiments. If some "scientist" comes ahead with a study that says "eating 10kg of pineapple a day will make you immortal" and you go ahead and start doing it. Then, a few days later, groups of other scientists - this time, hard working professional scientists - review those results and refute the first study, and they let you know that eating that much pineapple is actually harmful and will probably kill you. Now, who is at fault here: Science or you for jumping to conclusions too quickly? Hint: It's not science.
so science jumping to conclusions too quickly is not responsible at all ?
but the fact is, just because some people do bad science, does not make science itself any less valid as a method of acquiring information. Your argument is basically like this:
Some x is y, therefore, all x is y.
yes but the existence of some x being y is still worrisome enough
can you see the error here? "some scientific study is wrong, therefore, all of science is wrong" does not compute.
science has too much influence on modern society and simple mistakes can be costly. I said it many times over and over, there must be responsibility and some moral values enforced in science community not to be in a hurry to publish quick researches without 100% proof
why don't you look up
logical fallacy in wikipedia - oh i'm sorry, is that too
scientific for you?
unrelated
this is just more drivel.
not sure what is this about
this is a common tactic of you nutjobs. You present one half-assed argument that doesn't even hold water, then you follow with "i can give a 100 more of these". Well, i'm sorry to inform you, but whether it's a baby-finger sized nugget you dug from your panties or a truckload of manure from the old farm, shit is still shit, and it won't be any less smelly.
us nutjobs ? Paranoid much ? Im not part of any organization unlike you it seems.
Overall i shouldnt even reply to this. Seems very personally oriented try for an insult
do you have a better alternative to science, then? I'm curious to know how you propose us to gather information if not by the scientific method and research. Although at this point i'm pretty convinced you're just trolling, and i'm not really expecting you to come up with anything resembling sentience, but hey, you never know.
not trolling, but im pretty you tried to troll few times here and there.
If you are not expecting, then you will not receive. Im not going to tell you of what i see as alternative since you seem ungrateful and very bitter in your arguments
--------
next patient!
<--- are you imagining you are a doctor now ? First it was a scientist, now a doctor. In science and medical community they call this schizophrenia !
---------
bullshit. There's no statistically significant study that would show such a thing, that would rule out other factors, such as the prevalence of fluoridated toothpaste. The only argument you could possibly make is that since fluoridated toothpaste is so common, maybe water fluoridation is not strictly necessary. But that's again, with regards to the topic at hand, a total non-sequitur. As for these:
You posted the same link over and over, and each link points to pubmed search page with no search arguments.
You're damn right it hasn't, since the links you posted had no substance whatsoever.
How convenient for you that you refrain from posting links to the actual studies. Unfortunately for you, i managed to find the study in question. It's here:
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=s0102-311x2007001600018&lng=en&nrm=iso
the studies linking fluoride with low iq have been largely discredited, btw. They usually only show the effect with much higher dosages of fluoride than is recommended for tap water.
The same applies for this particular study you cite here. From the study:
Moctezuma is the only one here where the fluoride levels are within the recommendations. The other 2 sample areas have 5.3mg/l and 9.4mg/l, way over the recommended fluoride content - so in other words, this study sets the lowest point of reference to a place where fluoride contents are (near to) recommended levels, and two other sample areas with way higher levels, so for the purpose of proving the harmfulness of fluoride on
recommended dosages this study is absolutely worthless. So, it shows fluoride can be harmful if the dosage is 5-9 times the recommendation. Big deal! Almost anything is harmful if you take 5-9 times the recommended amount.
Next case:
The same applies also to this study:
http://www.sid.ir/en/viewpaper.asp?...f dental medicine;summer 2006;19;2 (47);80;86
the recommended levels are around 1-1.5 mg/l. This study is also done with 2.5 times the recommended dosage. Thus, proving exactly nothing. And look at the error margins on those mean iq:s...
Need i go on?
Ok, the same study says on page 4:
Are you starting to see a pattern here?
This is just a repeat of the last one. The same obviously applies here.
Conclusion: All your studies show that fluoride can be harmful in concentrations that are way over the recommended 1-1.5 mg/l. So what? This is nothing new. The dosage makes the poison. I have yet to see a single study that would question fluoride's safety on the dosage levels that are usually recommended for tap water.
Fact is... You can't get reliable facts from fear-mongering nutjob sites.