Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
science wrong again >

science wrong again

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

science wrong again

Old 06-21-2015, 09:21 AM
  #31  
Nontypical Buck
 
olsaltydog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Onslow County, NC
Posts: 1,856
Default

It didn't and the conversation stopped when some of us received pm's in regards to continuing to debate with you. So I stopped debating with you.
olsaltydog is offline  
Old 06-21-2015, 09:53 AM
  #32  
LBR
Boone & Crockett
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mississippi USA
Posts: 15,296
Default

Wasn't referring to you. You didn't debate anyway.
LBR is offline  
Old 06-22-2015, 05:40 AM
  #33  
Nontypical Buck
 
olsaltydog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Onslow County, NC
Posts: 1,856
Default

Trans fats became widely used in the 40's, I see no correlation in what today's job requirement is to what it was then. There may have been no requirement for hire, and alot of things where tried during those years, doesn't make them scientifically sound, approved, or created.

Also many assume that the FDA studies and does all sorts of things before approving items for use. This is simply not true, trans fats are a derivative of oils extracted from vegetables for the most part. Look into German chemist Wilhelm Normann. He created the process in the early 1900's and most assumed that since it came from oils from items everyone was already eating, then it should be OK as well. Problem is, it was an assumption with no scientific backing at all.

Additionally heart disease/ cholesterol, and other effects caused by trans fats are not an immediate study. Would take years to find them out and cholesterol was also just beginning to be understood. It is still being researched today to understand good cholesterol and bad cholesterol.
olsaltydog is offline  
Old 06-22-2015, 06:17 AM
  #34  
LBR
Boone & Crockett
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mississippi USA
Posts: 15,296
Default

More on the topic of the thread.

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/default.htm

FDA invests significant resources in research to:
  • Further scientific knowledge about potential food hazards
    FDA sets scientific standards for testing foods for various contaminants,...
    We also help ensure that regulatory decisions about foods are science-based and transparent.
    Read selected scientific publications and presentations by FDA's scientists and researchers.
    •Scientific Publications by FDA Staff
    •More on Science and Research at FDA

    It's all over the FDA site--the above is from just one page. There's no way to conclude that the FDA doesn't use science in it's determinations. I was looking to see how often they re-check a particular product, but all I have found so far is new regs come out every so often...3 years? I forget--3 or 4.

    Once again, is it a bad thing for the FDA to use science? Not in my opinion. The point remains the same. Science isn't foolproof. Science fails quite often. Saying "because science said so" doesn't trump everything else.

    Stating those facts doesn't make anyone "anti science". Doing such is about as honest and mature and calling someone a racist for disagreeing with bho's political policies.
    LBR is offline  
    Old 06-22-2015, 06:18 AM
      #35  
    Boone & Crockett
     
    Oldtimr's Avatar
     
    Join Date: Jul 2014
    Location: south eastern PA
    Posts: 12,953
    Default

    Artificial transfats were developed in France when Napoleon offered a reward for anyone who could make a butter like product that cost less than butter. As a result, margarine came on the scene. It used be colored yellow to look like butter but in the US laws were passed to prevent coloring it yellow. IF any of you are old enough to remember Oleo margarine,, ask people who were around during WWII, it came with a capsul of coloring that you broke and mixed with the margarine to make it lok like butter. Most margarines today have trans fats in them, it is what makes them solid. Actually there are transfats in food without it being added, most times from frying in oil and acids in the food cooked in high temp oil creates transfats. The stuff has been around a long time.
    Oldtimr is offline  
    Old 06-22-2015, 07:11 AM
      #36  
    Nontypical Buck
     
    olsaltydog's Avatar
     
    Join Date: Jun 2013
    Location: Onslow County, NC
    Posts: 1,856
    Default

    Originally Posted by LBR View Post
    More on the topic of the thread.

    http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/default.htm


    [/LIST]




    It's all over the FDA site--the above is from just one page. There's no way to conclude that the FDA doesn't use science in it's determinations. I was looking to see how often they re-check a particular product, but all I have found so far is new regs come out every so often...3 years? I forget--3 or 4.

    Once again, is it a bad thing for the FDA to use science? Not in my opinion. The point remains the same. Science isn't foolproof. Science fails quite often. Saying "because science said so" doesn't trump everything else.

    Stating those facts doesn't make anyone "anti science". Doing such is about as honest and mature and calling someone a racist for disagreeing with bho's political policies.
    Difference between 1940 and 2016. Science was not used until recently, with the earliest study in regards to trans fats affects on people being done in '76 if I remember correctly. Science was not a part of this items approval but a part of this items removal.

    Scientist lie, science does not, so which one actually fails. That is the difference.
    olsaltydog is offline  
    Old 06-22-2015, 07:20 AM
      #37  
    LBR
    Boone & Crockett
     
    Join Date: Feb 2003
    Location: Mississippi USA
    Posts: 15,296
    Default

    Difference between 1940 and 2016. Science was not used until recently, with the earliest study in regards to trans fats affects on people being done in '76 if I remember correctly.
    So, if the studies didn't start until '76, that's still almost 40 years. Not what I'd call recent.

    Scientist lie, science does not, so which one actually fails. That is the difference.
    What difference does it make? Without the scientists, science doesn't exist. A scientist doesn't have to be dishonest to be wrong or make a mistake, although dishonest scientists seem to be a big part of the problem.

    Bottom line, for whatever reason, science is not infallible. It can be and has been wrong time and time again. That is the point, along with pointing out this fact doesn't make someone "anti science".

    It was that ludicrous accusation that got all this started to begin with.

    Last edited by LBR; 06-22-2015 at 09:21 AM. Reason: typo
    LBR is offline  
    Old 06-22-2015, 08:28 AM
      #38  
    Nontypical Buck
     
    olsaltydog's Avatar
     
    Join Date: Jun 2013
    Location: Onslow County, NC
    Posts: 1,856
    Default

    Originally Posted by LBR View Post
    So, if they studies didn't start until '76, that's still almost 40 years. Not what I'd call recent.



    What difference does it make? Without the scientists, science doesn't exist. A scientist doesn't have to be dishonest to be wrong or make a mistake, although dishonest scientists seem to be a big part of the problem.

    Bottom line, for whatever reason, science is not infallible. It can be and has been wrong time and time again. That is the point, along with pointing out this fact doesn't make someone "anti science".

    It was that ludicrous accusation that got all this started to begin with.
    I was never part of that accusation but I don't agree with your assertion that science has been wrong. Would you say a gun is wrong for someone misusing it, no. You have even said that yourself. Would you say the Bible is wrong for people's misuse of it, be honest now. This is the perfect parallel to what you are saying. I just don't see how you can continue saying science was wrong, without showing anything to back it up.
    olsaltydog is offline  
    Old 06-22-2015, 09:10 AM
      #39  
    LBR
    Boone & Crockett
     
    Join Date: Feb 2003
    Location: Mississippi USA
    Posts: 15,296
    Default

    I was never part of that accusation but I don't agree with your assertion that science has been wrong.
    It's not my assertion--it's a common fact. First, the definition of science, just to put everyone on the same page. Fact vs. opinion/personal definitions.

    1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
    the mathematical sciences.


    2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

    3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.

    4. systematized knowledge in general.

    5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

    6. a particular branch of knowledge.

    7. skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

    What we are talking about here, and in general, is numbers 2, 4, and 5.

    Would you say a gun is wrong for someone misusing it, no. You have even said that yourself.
    Of course not, and I stand by what I said 100%. In that example, a gun is a tool. Science can be used and misused as a tool. That doesn't make it right or wrong, and I've never said or implied otherwise in that scenario. That isn't the only definition of science.

    Would you say the Bible is wrong for people's misuse of it, be honest now. This is the perfect parallel to what you are saying.
    Again, in that scenario you are using it as a tool. I've been honest from the beginning, and don't appreciate the implication. It's in no way a parallel to what I've been saying when I say science can be wrong and is fallible.

    I just don't see how you can continue saying science was wrong, without showing anything to back it up.
    Refusing to acknowledge a fact doesn't make that fact disappear. The definition of science I am referring to is knowledge. Definitions 3, 4, and 5.

    At one time, it was a scientific "fact" that the Earth was flat. It was a scientific "fact" that spontaneous generation occurred. It was a scientific "fact" that some races were sub-human. It was a scientific "fact" that there was a brontosaurus...then it was a "fact" there wasn't...now it's a "fact" there may have been. Depending on which scientist you ask, man-caused climate change is a "fact"...or it's not. It was a scientific "fact" that Pluto was a planet. Now it's a scientific "fact" that it's not.

    Knowledge is subject to change as we learn more, as different people develop different opinions, as things change.

    So, as we have stated time and again, science is not infallible, it's not foolproof, it can be/has been/will be wrong.

    Not all of it. 2 + 2 will always = 4. On the other hand, in the 70's it was scientific "fact" we were about to encounter a new ice age. Then it was a scientific "fact" that the polar ice caps were melting and we were going to loose places like NY and CA to the ocean. Science was wrong, just like it was wrong about the Triple Crown, just like it's been wrong about lots of other things and will be wrong about lots more.

    Not sure how much clearer it can be.
    LBR is offline  
    Old 06-22-2015, 09:26 AM
      #40  
    Nontypical Buck
     
    olsaltydog's Avatar
     
    Join Date: Jun 2013
    Location: Onslow County, NC
    Posts: 1,856
    Default

    Originally Posted by LBR View Post
    It's not my assertion--it's a common fact. First, the definition of science, just to put everyone on the same page. Fact vs. opinion/personal definitions.




    What we are talking about here, and in general, is numbers 2, 4, and 5.



    Of course not, and I stand by what I said 100%. In that example, a gun is a tool. Science can be used and misused as a tool. That doesn't make it right or wrong, and I've never said or implied otherwise in that scenario. That isn't the only definition of science.



    Again, in that scenario you are using it as a tool. I've been honest from the beginning, and don't appreciate the implication. It's in no way a parallel to what I've been saying when I say science can be wrong and is fallible.



    Refusing to acknowledge a fact doesn't make that fact disappear. The definition of science I am referring to is knowledge. Definitions 3, 4, and 5.

    At one time, it was a scientific "fact" that the Earth was flat. It was a scientific "fact" that spontaneous generation occurred. It was a scientific "fact" that some races were sub-human. It was a scientific "fact" that there was a brontosaurus...then it was a "fact" there wasn't...now it's a "fact" there may have been. Depending on which scientist you ask, man-caused climate change is a "fact"...or it's not. It was a scientific "fact" that Pluto was a planet. Now it's a scientific "fact" that it's not.

    Knowledge is subject to change as we learn more, as different people develop different opinions, as things change.

    So, as we have stated time and again, science is not infallible, it's not foolproof, it can be/has been/will be wrong.

    Not all of it. 2 + 2 will always = 4. On the other hand, in the 70's it was scientific "fact" we were about to encounter a new ice age. Then it was a scientific "fact" that the polar ice caps were melting and we were going to loose places like NY and CA to the ocean. Science was wrong, just like it was wrong about the Triple Crown, just like it's been wrong about lots of other things and will be wrong about lots more.

    Not sure how much clearer it can be.
    You place major emphasis on "facts" that are not actually facts. Science never said any of that, it was individuals. The facts will always be what they are, the planet was viewed as flat and believed to be flat, but that was not a fact. Misusing the term "fact" doesn't make it so. The fact would be the planet is a sphere or orb, and was proven when someone actually used science to prove it, and confirmed with a trip around the world and re-confirmed with the first satellites and men in space. All your examples are not scientific facts, but opinions that falsely utilized the term fact.

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
    olsaltydog is offline  

    Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

    Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.