Criminally Careless Use of Science, Without Knowledge by 6ixStringJack

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Personally, I find this a million times more offensive than my personal choice to smoke and the idea that you might have to breath it in when you're going to the bar to poison your livers. Especially since, unlike beer, EVERYBODY needs to drink water.

My water tastes fine...but if you are really concerned, I suggest Diet Dr. Pepper (tastes like Regular Dr. Pepper...just no calories).

Oh, you might like this:

http://www.ameribev.org/industry-issues/healthy-balanced-diet/beverage
-ingredients/soft-drink-ingredients/index.aspx

H

Ask the women around here how many flavored "Flintstones" birth control pills they've ingested over the years. Parts per million we're talking about I'm sure. It's still more than we were ingesting "second-hand" 100 years ago.

After reading your link, I'd be almost more inclined to tell people to drink diet pop for sustanance. Sadly though, man-made flavors can mean anything from a benign cherry-flavored additive to an MKULTRA PN conspiracy theory which worked so subtely that you wouldn't even be aware of the possiblity of such a thing until right this second when you're reading because the idea would have otherwise never crossed your mind.

Something to think about.... or not....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 13, 2008 7:25 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

6ix- Once again you're putting the blame squarely where it doesn't belong (scientists) just to protect your personal sacred cow (corporations).

So, since I now know you're an anti-science anarchist, OOC how would pro-corporate anarchism obviate this problem, exactly? I mean, isn't it those wonderful corporations who took those scientific discoveries like antibiotics and anti-convulsants and Viagra and birth-control pills and put them into full production to "give people what they want"?

I'll bet, when we discover that the nanoparticles discovered by scientists and so gleefully and precipitously adopted by industry have invaded our neurons, you'll be there with a pitchfork and stave, totally ignoring corporate/ capitalist responsibility.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 13, 2008 9:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
6ix- Once again you're putting the blame squarely where it doesn't belong (scientists)

I think he's physically incapable of looking at any problem without immediately thinking "how can I blame science for this?".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 13, 2008 9:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

What he really wants to do is somehow blame the anti-smoking faction. But since he can't, I guess blaming science is the next best thing.

Why don't those pesky resarch scientists just bury their heads in the sand?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 13, 2008 10:07 AM

Look on the bright side - you're prolly getting extra nicotene from the residue of all those patches Big Pharma is selling to get their foot in the door of our market.

I don't get where on earth you could ever take Jack as pro-corporate, Siggy - he hates Big Pharma as much as I do, and in case you didn't notice, that's where much of the blame lies.

You assholes whinge about us poisoning your air, and yet somehow it's not ok for us to whinge about y'all poisoning our water ?

Come on now, quid pro quo - for all the crap nonsmokers have foisted on us, much of it straight out-and-out bullshit, I think we gotta right to bust some chops here.

Of course, the irony is that this will no doubt put $$$ in the hands of the bottled water industry, which is not only just lightly filtered tap water for the most part, but also facing it's own set of taxes right on schedule, ain't that a bitch, eh ?

Why don't those pesky research scientists start standing up to Big Pharma instead of takin the money to nod, smile and look the other way ?

How bout that, yes ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 13, 2008 10:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Why don't those pesky research scientists start standing up to Big Pharma instead of takin the money to nod, smile and look the other way ?

That's where all the data came from, didn't it? Pesky researchers.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 13, 2008 10:24 AM

KIRKULES

For years scientists and politicians have been telling us that smokers and fat people need to pay for the excess cost of their health care costs. Now a new study shows just the opposite is true. Maybe we should start encouraging people to smoke and eat fatty foods as a way of saving tax dollars.

"Smokers and the obese cheaper to care for, study shows"
"Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it does not save money, according to a new report".
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/05/healthscience/obese.php

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 13, 2008 12:00 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Frem: BTW, while I find it touching that you came to 6ix's defense

Quote:
You assholes whinge about us {smokers} poisoning your air, and yet somehow it's not ok for us to whinge about y'all poisoning our water ?

that's not who he blamed and not what he wrote.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 13, 2008 12:15 PM

SERGEANTX

I for one would like to see science take ethical issues more seriously. Something like a Hippocratic Oath applied to other disciplines. I suppose they already have these sorts of things out there, but I'd like to see them elevated to the forefront. We'll be waiting for a long time if we're thinking that politics or religion or going to lead us out of this mess.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 13, 2008 1:33 PM

How bout you ask him what he meant, then ?

No, it didn't come across so well, but that is what I got as the gist of it - your mileage may vary, but he's right there to ask, so I think we should do so.

As for those pesky folk who exposed this, good on them, that's what they SHOULD be doing, and I think a little housecleaning is in order by using peer-review to put the arm on some of the "pet" research folk instead of looking the other way out of professional solidarity - we're finally seeing SOME beginnings to that, but the problem is that a lot of the stuff coming out because of it contradicts what folks WANT to believe.

No profession is immune to corruption, it would be laughable to believe it is, but in the field of science corruption can be dangerous on a scale that's pretty vast even if it's not immediately visible.

And so I think a lower tolerance for it would be justified.

Same thing I just said, mind - only using a lot more words to do it.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 13, 2008 1:49 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Scientists should be ethical?

What about calling for corporations to be ethical? After all, aren't they driving the crisis? Or do they get to be sociopathic actors because we just can't imagine anything different?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 13, 2008 4:25 PM

Erk?

I think you might have me confused with someone else, given that i'm all in favor of downright violence in response to injury or abuse at the hands of corporations - not to mention the fact that imma IWW member.

How bout some idea of how to force them to be, since every time unions and labor have tried it, the Gov has stepped in on the corpie side ?

How bout some answer to the fact that they can outright buy laws, politicians, ad campaigns at whim, while us on the recieving end can't ?

Us peons have tried it, repeatedly, look at the history, and mostly all we got was our ass kicked, with the Gov that is supposed to keep them in line helping it right along.

You got any ideas on the matter I'd sure hell like to hear em.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 13, 2008 7:58 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Personally, I find this a million times more offensive than my personal choice to smoke and the idea that you might have to breath it in when you're going to the bar to poison your livers. Especially since, unlike beer, EVERYBODY needs to drink water.

My water tastes fine...but if you are really concerned, I suggest Diet Dr. Pepper (tastes like Regular Dr. Pepper...just no calories).

Oh, you might like this:

http://www.ameribev.org/industry-issues/healthy-balanced-diet/beverage
-ingredients/soft-drink-ingredients/index.aspx

H

There ya go, drink Diet Dr. Pepper with saccharin so you get cancer and die, then don't need to worry about drug in the water. great.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 13, 2008 8:24 PM

Err, he was being ironic and sarcastic (when isn't he) he knows that.

Only it's Aspartame, not Saccharin, which is even worse, meh.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
6ix- Once again you're putting the blame squarely where it doesn't belong (scientists) just to protect your personal sacred cow (corporations).

So, since I now know you're an anti-science anarchist, OOC how would pro-corporate anarchism obviate this problem, exactly? I mean, isn't it those wonderful corporations who took those scientific discoveries like antibiotics and anti-convulsants and Viagra and birth-control pills and put them into full production to "give people what they want"?

I'll bet, when we discover that the nanoparticles discovered by scientists and so gleefully and precipitously adopted by industry have invaded our neurons, you'll be there with a pitchfork and stave, totally ignoring corporate/ capitalist responsibility.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

Wow Signy.... And you'd think you would know me by now.

I don't blame the scientists at all. I blame all of the gullible little idiots who idolize science and scientists as the end all be all to any conclusion they make about their own life decisions and in turn force their views about how others should live and behave on everyone else. (Very similar to how a religious person might do the very same thing, in the name of God or Allah or Zeus... and we all know how the Spaghetti worshipers react to that). This is particulary infuriating when one study has them believing something as absolute truth one day and another study comes out a week later telling them to believe the exact opposite. Sometimes, there are multiple scientific studies by the so-called "experts" at the same time which give evidence in direct contradiction to each other, leaving the easily manipulated scieneophiles to just pick a side and fight amongst each other.

I'm talking about the Surgeon General coming out and telling everyone that I am destroying the Ozone layer with my smoking and killing babies by giving them SIDS. Then the same assholes never come out and tell the public, "HEY! YOUR GRANDCHILDREN WILL BE STERILE AND BARREN BECAUSE OF GENERATIONS OF YOU DRINKING THE LEFTOVER SHIT FROM THE PILLS BIG PHARMA HAS BEEN SHOVING DOWN YOUR GULLIBLE DIPSHIT THROATS!!!"

I'm really just giving a big

to any asshole hypocrite who would infringe upon my right to smoke while mindlessly popping pills which I will, and am currently, ingesting second-hand just because they aren't happy or don't feel good or their parents didn't love them enough.

Did you know that in the hometown I grew up in, it is now a punishable offence to be caught smoking a cigerette outside of your home, even if it is on your own property?

Is this the America you want to live in? Is that the America our forefathers envisioned?

As for the rest of your anti-6ix rant, I honestly have no clue what you're talking about. You must be mistaking me with somebody else if you believe that I think corporations are my sacred cow. I hate the man just as much as the next guy. Whether the man be cops or judges or lawyers or corporations. Just ask my boy Hero....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 14, 2008 11:03 PM

Don't I at least deserve to hear you defend your accusations of me Signy? There were some pretty harsh posts up there about me which I believe to be so unabashedly misguided that I'd like you to defend them now.

I believe your dilemma here is that in your mind anyone who is bullheaded enough to not believe everything that the "experts" tell us, and anyone who doesn't buy into Science as the greatest thing mankind has ever accomplished, must be a Neo-Con, pro-corpo, religious zealot.

I know that would make it very simple to argue my thoughts here the way that you have if I were so easily pigeonholed as you would have done to me here.

I don't think that it's necessary for me to dig up tons of threads which would paint a very different picture of me than you have tried to here. I believe my track record in the RWED speaks for itself.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 15, 2008 6:58 PM

Got a lot to cover, bear with me.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I don't get where on earth you could ever take Jack as pro-corporate, Siggy

I was kinda wondering myself, I was thinking maybe I missed an rather revealing thread or two but I guess not.

Quote:
he hates Big Pharma as much as I do, and in case you didn't notice, that's where much of the blame lies.

You sure? Seems to me that this is probably the result of people chucking old pills down the drain, doesn't seem very business-like to let frequently expensive drugs get dumped by the corps. I could be wrong though.

Quote:
I think we gotta right to bust some chops here.

I don't care if you bust some chops, long as they're the right chops. Problem I have with 6ix is that he's so focused on the scientists that he doesn't notice the people who are really to blame.

Quote:
Why don't those pesky research scientists start standing up to Big Pharma instead of takin the money to nod, smile and look the other way?

Stand up to them how? They don't work they don't get paid, they don't get paid they don't eat. I've never heard of a scientists union (maybe you have) but if the current batch of scientists quits they'll probably just be replaced by foreigners (or more rather new foreigners since America doesn't produce enough scientists to fill demand) who are willing to look the other way for the paycheck they'll be getting. Besides...

Quote:
From Siggy:
That's where all the data came from, didn't it? Pesky researchers.

...as happens so often scientists are the ones who found the problem.

Quote:
From Sarge:
I for one would like to see science take ethical issues more seriously.

I heard a while ago that there was a movement among the scientific community to adopt universal ethical standards. Haven't kept tabs on it so I don't know what the status is.

Quote:
I suppose they already have these sorts of things out there, but I'd like to see them elevated to the forefront.

I don't know if you are part of the community, but I personally have no idea how much emphasis is placed on ethics. I imagine it varies based on environment, corporate labs are probably short on ethics, research-only and university labs are probably much better.

Quote:
We'll be waiting for a long time if we're thinking that politics or religion or going to lead us out of this mess.

Damn straight.

Quote:
From Frem:
by using peer-review to put the arm on some of the "pet" research folk instead of looking the other way out of professional solidarity

Again I'm not part of the community but from what I've seen there isn't a whole lot of emphasis on professional solidarity, if you are wrong your colleagues are going to correct you, publicly if you've already published, privately if they catch the error before you publish. Science isn't the field for people who can't take constructive criticism.

Quote:
we're finally seeing SOME beginnings to that, but the problem is that a lot of the stuff coming out because of it contradicts what folks WANT to believe.

And then someone else publishes something that says what they DO want to hear and regardless of holes or refutation they hold on to that publication as vindication for their own beliefs.

Quote:
No profession is immune to corruption, it would be laughable to believe it is, but in the field of science corruption can be dangerous on a scale that's pretty vast even if it's not immediately visible.

True, but a some of the blame for that goes on the media, they love to publish big science stories that they distort for maximum controversy and then drop the subject leaving people with mistaken ideas about what has and hasn't been supported. If the media and the populace were more interested in comprehensive science coverage then the problem would be smaller as they would cover the follow-up to the big story.

Quote:
From 6ix:
I blame all of the gullible little idiots who idolize science and scientists as the end all be all to any conclusion they make about their own life decisions

Indeed because making uninformed decisions by pulling conclusions about the way the world works out of our asses is a much better way to go.

Quote:
This is particulary infuriating when one study has them believing something as absolute truth one day and another study comes out a week later telling them to believe the exact opposite.

Well there's two ways to go about it, you can stick with your first answer no matter what, stay the course no matter how much evidence piles up against the original conclusion, or you can incorporate the new information to make a (hopefully) better decision. One way is smart the other way is stupid, I'll let you decide which is which.

Quote:
Sometimes, there are multiple scientific studies by the so-called "experts" at the same time which give evidence in direct contradiction to each other

And if you give it a few years it will usually sort itself out and a consensus will develop, that is the way science works after all.

Quote:
Did you know that in the hometown I grew up in, it is now a punishable offence to be caught smoking a cigerette outside of your home, even if it is on your own property?

That really sucks, as a clarification I don't support banning smoking in private residences or businesses.

Quote:
anyone who doesn't buy into Science as the greatest thing mankind has ever accomplished

What would you nominate? Menthol?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 15, 2008 7:59 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Err, he was being ironic and sarcastic (when isn't he) he knows that.

Only it's Aspartame, not Saccharin, which is even worse, meh.

-F

I didn't have a can to read from. The ingreediment list I found via web said it contained Saccharin.
Ok, so Saccharin causes cancer and death, and Aspartame causes paralysis and death, so maybe one is worse than the other - but neither compares to the horror of the Tri-Chloral (pesticide) Sucralose!! Of course, with the gobs of money being made, the industrial chemical company which makes the Chlorine product Sucralose can spend gazillions on adverts to convince you that Chlorine-based Sucralose is really the same thing as sugar! And diabetes, metabolism, high blood pressure, liver & kidney, and headache pharmaceuticals are making more money every day!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 15, 2008 9:02 PM

Hey Fred.... think I pretty much agree with you on most of that actually...

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:

You sure? Seems to me that this is probably the result of people chucking old pills down the drain, doesn't seem very business-like to let frequently expensive drugs get dumped by the corps. I could be wrong though.

Actually, a larger culprit here is the fact that the human body doesn't absorb much of the drugs we've been ingesting. I'm sure throwing old pills away does plenty of damage too. Who knows how much drugs are in the water supply because of cleaners/shampoos/parishables that end up in the water supply as well?

Quote:
I don't care if you bust some chops, long as they're the right chops. Problem I have with 6ix is that he's so focused on the scientists that he doesn't notice the people who are really to blame.

I'm really not that focused on the Scientists at all. Perhaps I didn't make that clear in my rants, or you are just reading what you want to hear.... Maybe you took Signy's gripe and ran with it. Perhaps a little of all of the above.

I'm pissed off really at my own peers who buy into all of this bullshit and let it rule the way we live and allow the Government to force us to live as a result of all the fearmonguering which they have orchestrated. "They" being the Government, Corporations, Big Pharm, the Media, etc...

My own personal stake in this, which I've never hidden, is the blatant infringment of my rights as a smoker and the overstepping of liberties which have been taken against us in the last decade. This story (and I'm confident many others like it) just serve to illustrate just how little "They" actually care about any of our health. This is all about the bottom line.

For decades now, we've been ingesting these pills which we have created through the use of Science. This doesn't make the Scientists bad, and I don't believe we've got millions of mad-scientists worldwide enacting their genocidal plot. It just so happens that we're doing exactly what the title of my thread states:

Criminal Use of Science, Without Knowledge

I suppose that I could have added Ethics as well. One way or another, the criminal use of Science without Knowledge or Ethics, will be the eventual means to our end as a species. If we don't up the knowledgable and ethical use of the many things which Science continues to provide us, it will be our downfall, whether it be by infertility, nuclear war, or cloning an army of Storm Troopers.

From what you said about respecting a person's right to smoke on their property or a businesses decision to allow or disallow it, I'm assuming that we're pretty much on par here.

Quote:
I heard a while ago that there was a movement among the scientific community to adopt universal ethical standards. Haven't kept tabs on it so I don't know what the status is.

This is all well and good, but who decides what the Ethical standards are? If it's any of the "They" entities I've mentioned above, there might as well not be any Ethical standards involved. We'd likely all be better off without them.

Quote:
...corporate labs are probably short on ethics, research-only and university labs are probably much better.

I would definately have to agree here, although I think with all the Government grants that University labs get I'm really not too optomistic about the heightened enlightenment at the University level either.

Quote:
Again I'm not part of the community but from what I've seen there isn't a whole lot of emphasis on professional solidarity, if you are wrong your colleagues are going to correct you, publicly if you've already published, privately if they catch the error before you publish. Science isn't the field for people who can't take constructive criticism.

Sure... but a lot of studies are funded by companies with vested interest in particular results. This research in many cases can be replicated in many circumstances, but I would say just as many cannot be replicated in another environment. If for no other reason that "Trade Secrets" prohibiting it.

Plus.... why is nobody talking about this issue that I brought up about the rivers and lakes? Why is it only now getting just a sliver of the attention it diserves? Why is it only now not being something casually dismissed as a tin-foil hat consipiracy? There have been people talking about this for years that were just dismissed as crackpots.

Quote:
And then someone else publishes something that says what they DO want to hear and regardless of holes or refutation they hold on to that publication as vindication for their own beliefs.

Sure... Any rabid anti-smoker is living, breathing proof of that.

Quote:
True, but a some of the blame for that goes on the media, they love to publish big science stories that they distort for maximum controversy and then drop the subject leaving people with mistaken ideas about what has and hasn't been supported. If the media and the populace were more interested in comprehensive science coverage then the problem would be smaller as they would cover the follow-up to the big story.

You can't even get a follow-up to an interesting story that has nothing to do with Science. The mainstream media today is the biggest propoganda machine the world has ever seen. We're left with unanswered questions to stories everyday and they all just sit somewhere in the back of our minds without any closure. Easier to keep us down when our minds are muddled with a million unanswered, and trivial, questions.

Quote:
Indeed because making uninformed decisions by pulling conclusions about the way the world works out of our asses is a much better way to go.

That's not what I'm saying. But don't only publish the anti-smoking studies when there are plenty of studies which range from neutral to positive for smoking too. (examples of which posted above by another RWEDer, sorry I forget who) If people are going to make objective and informed choices, then the bias needs to be thrown out and the proles need to see the entire picture.

Quote:
Well there's two ways to go about it, you can stick with your first answer no matter what, stay the course no matter how much evidence piles up against the original conclusion, or you can incorporate the new information to make a (hopefully) better decision. One way is smart the other way is stupid, I'll let you decide which is which.

Or there is a third way to go about it. Never buy 100% into anything they tell you. Take a little bit here and a little bith there, keep them in mind and base where you would like to live and your activities according to what you believe. They're going to tell you milk is bad today, and then they're going to tell you that milk is good tomorrow. Are you going to only drink milk when they say it's fit for human consumption?

Quote:
And if you give it a few years it will usually sort itself out and a consensus will develop, that is the way science works after all.

Right... and when these consensuses finally are made, we lose our ability to allow people to smoke in the establishments we own, or smoke on their own property. I don't really like it when half the data is thrown out the window before consensus because there is an agenda. Not to mention the justification for pissing on the Constitution because of results of Scientific studies.

Quote:
That really sucks, as a clarification I don't support banning smoking in private residences or businesses.

Good for you Fred. You're one of the good guys.

Quote:
What would you nominate? Menthol?

hmmmmmmm.... prolly a tie between Menthol and thong bikinis.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 15, 2008 11:34 PM

Quote:
There have been people talking about this for years that were just dismissed as crackpots.

*raises hand*

My interest in our piss poor water quality standards and testing got sparked in 1987 when I heard about a town in north texas that due to low level mercury exposure via the water supply, the whole town prettymuch all went bonkers at once - and it wasn't till many years later they figured out why, I believe (not sure) the original story I read it from was in Readers Digest, if anyone else might remember it.

It also caught my attention in the littleton/aurora area just before the Columbine incident, as violent crime and behavior jumped almost 400% even if you discount the school shootings, combined with a few incidents of *really* oddball behavior previous and afterwords.

Add to it one of the primary nearby industries is solar cell production, which produces mercury as a waste product (they donated some solar units to run the town redlights) a badly run wastewater treatment setup that uses some of the runoff to irrigate local crops and the fact that the township, small as it is, has a special collection unit for household toxic disposal, and throw in an antiquated and much bitched about sewage system, and it brings one to wonder if possibly a combination of low level exposure in combination with prescription medication may have caused not only the shooters aberrant behavior, but a lot of the really oddball stuff that went on just before and after that.

No proof of anything, mind you, other than a few EPA complaints against the wastewater treatment plant and local industries, but it's an interesting theory, when you think about it.

But I gave up addressing water quality and our lacking standards for it a long while ago cause I got sick of being shouted down about it every time I bothered to gripe, no matter how much data in hand, they just didn't wanna hear it cause "official" people told em it was fine.

Guess we're seeing a sea change in how much stock people put in the word of "official" folk anymore, and any way you slice it, that's a good thing.

Also - Scientists Union ?
Now that's a ball we could run with, it's got merit, utility, and makes a lot of sense, even if once organized they'd catch a lotta hell from folks like PN for being a conspiracy, lol.

It would make slanting research a hell of a lot harder to do, cause you'd have to convince EVERYBODY to look the other way, not just the folk in your own dept or office....

Thoughts on that, and how to do it, would be welcome - and I will pass them on to the IWW and see if they have any input.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 17, 2008 10:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Who knows how much drugs are in the water supply because of cleaners/shampoos/parishables that end up in the water supply as well?

Indeed, I'm doing my part by not cleaning my place until after it develops it's own ecosystem.

Quote:
I'm really not that focused on the Scientists at all. Perhaps I didn't make that clear in my rants, or you are just reading what you want to hear.... Maybe you took Signy's gripe and ran with it. Perhaps a little of all of the above.

I'd vote for all of the above.

Quote:
...One way or another, the criminal use of Science without Knowledge or Ethics, will be the eventual means to our end as a species.

From what you said about respecting a person's right to smoke on their property or a businesses decision to allow or disallow it, I'm assuming that we're pretty much on par here.

More or less, I'm sure you remember some of thee epic evolution threads I've been in with Anti, one of the major reasons for threads like that is that without a comprehensive understanding of how the world works and how we affect that it's impossible to make good decisions about what to do. People like Anti want to weaken the education system (whether they intend to or not that is what achieving their goals would do) and weak education is part of the reason we have people who do horrifically damaging things, they simply have no idea of the consequences of their actions.

Quote:
This is all well and good, but who decides what the Ethical standards are? If it's any of the "They" entities I've mentioned above, there might as well not be any Ethical standards involved.

Well the idea was that the scientists would develop the standards themselves, independent of any major "They"'s the only real influence that governments would have is the already enforced issue of ethics and legality, something that is considered ethical but not legal or legal but ethical.

Quote:
I would definately have to agree here, although I think with all the Government grants that University labs get I'm really not too optomistic about the heightened enlightenment at the University level either.

The difference is that most government grants are given with the knowledge that not all science succeeds thus the only significant pressure to succeed comes from the standard desire to advance science. A corporate lab has constant pressure to provide a beneficial answer regardless of whether or not its correct. That's not to say that a government funded study WON'T end up biased or leaning towards a pre-determined answer just that they are less likely to. Also, independent labs and colleges get funding from non-government sources as well while corporate labs get all their money from the corp.

Quote:
Sure... but a lot of studies are funded by companies with vested interest in particular results. This research in many cases can be replicated in many circumstances, but I would say just as many cannot be replicated in another environment. If for no other reason that "Trade Secrets" prohibiting it.

Perhaps, but even that doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be found to be flawed, many papers are debunked without even testing the hypothesis just by demonstrating that the logic is flawed or the conclusion is a nonsequitur. There is always problems with replicating difficult or expensive experiments.

Quote:
Plus.... why is nobody talking about this issue that I brought up about the rivers and lakes? Why is it only now getting just a sliver of the attention it diserves? Why is it only now not being something casually dismissed as a tin-foil hat consipiracy? There have been people talking about this for years that were just dismissed as crackpots.

There have been environmentalists bringing it up for a long time, there's probably been an enormous amount of studies supporting it, but it doesn't get media attention. Scientists are, as a general rule, not media whores, most are content to do their work, publish it and move on, most don't want to get involved in messy public battles where their names will be dragged through the mud by the media or their opponents. Even when they speak up that have highly science-tuned social skills, they expect people to be on the level and debate in a factual manner, I don't think I need to tell you that that's rarely the case.

Quote:
You can't even get a follow-up to an interesting story that has nothing to do with Science.

Unless the follow-up is titillating or controversial in and of itself.

Quote:
Or there is a third way to go about it. Never buy 100% into anything they tell you. Take a little bit here and a little bith there, keep them in mind and base where you would like to live and your activities according to what you believe.

That's not a third way, it can still end up in either of the above categories, whether you are willing to accept new information and incorporate it or reject it out of hand is the question.

Quote:
They're going to tell you milk is bad today, and then they're going to tell you that milk is good tomorrow. Are you going to only drink milk when they say it's fit for human consumption?

I'm going to look at who is saying what and their justification for changing their minds. You love examples from nutrition but there's an inherent flaw in using them, nutrition is a highly subjective field. One nutritionist who creates a very low-cholesterol diet can say that eggs are extremely good for you because the major problem with eggs (high cholesterol) is offset by the rest of the diet, another nutritionist with a diet that isn't quite so low can't recommend eggs because the cholesterol is a problem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 7:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Also - Scientists Union ?
Now that's a ball we could run with, it's got merit, utility, and makes a lot of sense

I don't think you would get much interest though, correct me if I'm wrong but don't unions usually come out of mistreatement by employers? From what I've seen employers are usually pretty good to their scientists, the only people who can be said to be mistreating them are the media and the occasional pseudo-scientists, neither of which a union would be likely to change.

Quote:
Thoughts on that, and how to do it, would be welcome

Unfortunately I can't really think of anything, unions are not my area of expertise.

Quote:
and I will pass them on to the IWW and see if they have any input.

Question, I did a little poking last night (meaning I read the wikipedia entry) and it says that the IWW wants to abolish the wage system, can you elaborate? What exactly that means and what they propose to replace it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:18 AM

I'll copy the relevent bit here, Fred.

Mind, this is one of the spots in which I disagree with them, as they favor a more socialist system, and I favor a more ruthless division of the spoils in which folk are paid by percentage of profit in accordance of how much of the end products "value" was produced by their actions - and the problem of freebies is that it comes at a cost of ever more exploitive and less efficient systems (aka Government) to manage them.

Wouldn't mind subsidising the education of Doctors and Teachers though, sure hell a better use of my tax dime than more bombs.

POSTED TEXT BELOW
(Disclaimer: As stated above, Frem does not agree with this proposal.)
========================
What are wages?
Wages or salaries are the money given to us by the boss in return for a set amount of time we spend at the job. We get so much an hour, or so much a month. Whether we've spent the day working hard or had to "look busy" much of the time, we receive exactly the same amount.

But for the same eight hours of employment, people are paid greatly varying amounts. We are paid different rates for doing the same job in different locations (i.e., truck assemblers get paid more in Windsor than in Vancouver) and for doing different jobs in the same location (i.e., in Vancouver accountants are paid more than daycare workers). Even when we're employed by the same company in the same building, various tasks are often paid at varying rates (i.e., electricians, assembly line workers, secretaries).

These differences in pay are mostly a result of events which happened in our past: our history. Certain jobs get a particular rate of pay because of some decisions by the boss. Other jobs get a particular rate of pay because of actions taken by our forefathers and foremothers. As teachers grew more militant. for example, that task changed from a low-paying to a better-paying one. Overall, unionized jobs show the results of past fights for better pay and conditions.

On the other hand, a failure to stay militant results in lower comparative wages There was a time in B.C.'s history when woods workers overall were among the highest-paid blue-collar employees. No longer.

On every job, a number of excuses are offered to explain why I should get more pay than you, and why he or she receive more than both of us combined. Years of education and training are often cited, though this education is largely supported out of taxes we all pay. So those who receive this education really benefit twice. Meanwhile, should employees with four years of university receive more than employees with seven years of an apprenticeship?

Another argument is that some people have more responsibility or take more risks. This can be in connection with our own life or others' lives, or concerned with valuable items or money. But then, why aren't those who work at the most hazardous jobs (as determined by Workers' Compensation Board statistics) the most highly paid? Or. why don't bank tellers earn a lot of money?

Should the people who produce what society needs most be the best paid? This would mean that farmers and agricultural laborers who produce our food would be among the highest paid people. They aren't now! And those who manufacture our clothing are still often immigrant women working for very, very low pay in sweat-shop conditions. And the host of non-union carpenters and others building our housing aren't very well reimbursed for their work, either.

What's wrong with wages?
As can be seen, then, the present wage system is totally irrational. It is a hodge-podge of differing amounts paid to people for a range of often-contradictory "reasons". In fact the work of all of us (however humble) is equally necessary to keep this society going.

About the only sure conclusion that can be gathered from the present wage system is that the further up the corporate ladder from actually producing goods or services a person is, the more money he or she takes home.

As well, most of us are really paid only enough to meet our basic needs. Advertising makes sure we consume as much as possible, and the widespread extension of credit makes sure we spend most of our lives in debt.

Besides being irrational, the present wage system is completely undemocratic. We are constantly told by teachers, the media and politicians that we are free citizens of a democracy. But this democracy ends for us the moment we show up for work. On the job we not only do not make the decisions, but we have to obey the orders of people we definitely did not elect to rule over us.

If we don't like it, we are "free" to quit. After that, we can either "freely" starve to death or "freely" agree to obey the orders of some other employer on some other job.

When we are employed, we get as wages only a part of the value of what we produce. We are therefore robbed at the point of production; this is the true meaning of exploitation. Besides our wages, the product of our labor goes to pay for raw materials, for research and development, for things our community needs (paid for in the form of taxes) and for profits taken by the already rich owners and managers.

It's true that in any social system workers would not be able to receive as wages the complete value of the product of our labor, for all systems require plant maintenance, research and development, etc. But the decision as to how to divide up among these categories the wealth produced as a result of our work is not made by us.

Until we who produce this wealth can decide ourselves how it will be used, there is no such thing as a "fair" wage or salary for any of us.

Finally, the wage system as a whole defines our society. Who can really determine what we are "worth"? To classify people according to "worth" is undemocratic, anti-human, a vestige of a barbarous past. All human beings have worth by nature of their humanness. It is only a step from classifying people according to "worth" to deciding to exterminate the "unworthy". The roots of the Russian Gulag and the German gas chamber lie within the wage system.

In our society today, we pretend there are paying jobs for all who "want to work" and those who have such jobs enjoy the best things of life. The rest of society - housewives, the unemployed, senior citizens and so on - has to settle for a lower standard of living and/or being dependent on the personal goodwill of those who are presently employed.

No one has ever proven that our society can provide a constantly-growing number of jobs to match population growth and displacement by technology. Indeed, the evidence is that society can't. But under the wage system, society is still organized to offer rewards and punishments, praise and blame, as though these wage-paying jobs are available for all.

What would replace the wage system?
The present irrational, undemocratic wage system has to go. What the I.W.W. offers in its stead is not a blueprint, but an opportunity. We believe a reorganization of society is needed so that decision-making on the job as well as off is made democratically.

Since human beings are remarkably ingenious, we believe different groups of people will come up with different democratic alternatives to the present way of running society.

Wouldn't this be a happier place to live if the available work and resources were more equally shared than at present?

Shouldn't we put an end to the traffic in human flesh - where we have to compete with others just like ourselves as we sell our talents and time and selves to the highest bidder in order to get a means of livelihood?

How much of what we do at our job is really necessary, helpful, ecologically beneficial, moral?

How can there be world-wide unemployment on a planet where much of the population is starving, ill-housed, ill-clothed, illiterate? Why is the world so organized that although there is an enormous amount of work to be done there is a shortage of jobs?

Do schools really have to stress competition (if two people help each other, that's "cheating") and ranking (you "pass," I "fail")? What would society be like if education instead stressed co-operation and full development of the self as part of the whole community?

Is a barter- or money-based marketplace the only possible means by which we all can provide each other with what we need for a good life?

Why shouldn't things of which there is an actual or achievable abundance - such as basic food stuffs, basic clothing, public transport, etc. - be made "free"? Of course, nothing is "free" since we have to work to produce things. However, many goods and services such as primary and secondary education, libraries, roads, water and sewage systems, utilities, etc. in many countries are out of the price system and free to the user. How many other common items could be free?

Abolition of the wage system, as the I.W.W. sees it, would profoundly change how we work and how our work affects our lives, our community, our planet. We want a society where everyone's basic mental and physical needs are automatically met - a healthy, ecologically-sound society which battles against the formation of social hierarchies.

At present the wage system creates and perpetuates a wide range of injustices, drastically narrowing the potential of what it means to be a human being. Wages are necessary only in a society of compulsion. Abolition of the wage system is a step working people every place have to take if we are ever to build a better world, rather than. just exchange one set of bureaucrats and bosses for another.

Vancouver General Membership Branch of the IWW, 1984.
========================

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 12:49 PM

I have to say that a lot of that is IMO kinda loopy, probably deserves it's own thread but I do wholeheartedly agree that this isn't right:
"About the only sure conclusion that can be gathered from the present wage system is that the further up the corporate ladder from actually producing goods or services a person is, the more money he or she takes home."

That is definitely a failing of our system.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 1:36 PM

Yep, was my take on it too - there's some right good points in there, but whoever wrote it shoulda put the blunt down first, cause they was "on something".

I still favor the percentage model.

-F
*Yanno, that wouldn't be a bad discussion to have, tho I bet it goes flamewar within 27 posts.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 2:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I still favor the percentage model.

I like the idea, not so sure how it would actually work out, how do you quantify the value of a manager for instance?

Quote:
*Yanno, that wouldn't be a bad discussion to have, tho I bet it goes flamewar within 27 posts.

Wouldn't be surprised.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 4:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I blame all of the gullible little idiots who idolize science and scientists as the end all be all to any conclusion they make about their own life decisions and in turn force their views about how others should live and behave on everyone else.

I'm just going to say it once. People who arrive at conclusions about how to live their lives (or how YOU should live your life) as the result of some study or another ARE NOT SCIENTISTS.

Those folks, usually with MDs after their names, ARE NOT SCIENTISTS.

People who do that are called junk scientists or pseudo-scientists. Please, there is a difference between real science and junk science. Please do not confuse the two. If you need more info on how to distinguish, just let me know.

Not everyone who comes out with a study is a scientist, ok?

Thank you.

--------------------------
The real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn't misled you into thinking you know something you don't actually know.
-- Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 4:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Why don't those pesky research scientists start standing up to Big Pharma instead of takin the money to nod, smile and look the other way ?

My husband is a professional research scientist (or was until recently). I ask him that all the time. Why don't you chemists stand up and let the rest of us know that fluorine is poisonous and shouldn't be in drinking water? Why don't you tell the rest of the world that mercury is a bad thing to put in things you inject into children? Why don't you expose medical research for the scientific fraud that it is?

He hems and haws, but it comes down to this. They are usually so focused on their specific esoteric fields of research that they don't actually make the connection of general information they know to the real world. Scientists are people who are just as susceptible to the Religion of the State and Religion of Medicine as anyone else, despite their expertise and objectivity in their own fields.

Here is an example. He showed an eminent mechanical engineer he knew a video of WTC7 falling, then commented, "Doesn't that look like a demolition job?" They discuss various technical aspects of that job, after which the engineer says, "Yep. That sure looks like a demolition job. Do you want to go to lunch?" Then he goes on to vote for Bush. Serious disconnect between technical knowledge and political / religious beliefs.

He's had similar experiences with scientists after showing them medical research. They will admit, yep, that's crap, then go on and take whatever their docs prescribe.

My husband personally doesn't shout warnings from the mountaintop because he thinks that usually ends as well as telling people not to pay taxes. Nuff said.

--------------------------
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.
--Mark Twain

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 8:14 PM

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Pseudoscience.html
http://www.mydigitallife.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&
id=1035182&Itemid=43

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
If you need more info on how to distinguish, just let me know.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 3:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Pseudoscience.html
http://www.mydigitallife.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&
id=1035182&Itemid=43

I'm sorry Fred. None of these websites provide criteria for distinguishing between pseudoscience and science. Mostly, they provide criteria for identify sheer bullcrap or claims that may be true, but have no real evidence to substantiate them. You don't need criteria for that. Just use common sense.

Moreover, they want to label something as pseudoscience simply for being different. All these authors cite being inconsistent with mainstream literature or "established fact" as a characteristic of pseudoscience. If that is the case, then Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin would be pseudoscientists right off the bat.

Right now, most of the literature out there on pseudoscience is name calling. "Science" is a label everyone wants to slap onto his own position for status and credibility, and "Pseudoscience" is the label people slap on to the positions of everyone who disagrees with them.

Both sides are full of shit. If someone is trying to use "science" to convince you to support a position of "truth" (whether mainstream or alternative), as in the "true" and "right" way to live, they are already practicing junk science.

Science is an equal opportunity skeptic. So if someone says, this study proves mercury causes autism, science would poke holes in the study. If someone says, this study proves mercury *doesn't* cause autism, science would poke holes in *that* study. There is no such thing is "established fact" in science, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a junk scientist.

Maybe I will write my own list of criteria after all.

--------------------------
Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.
-- Richard Feynman

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 5:19 AM