# Problems With the Scientific Method

## What are the problems with the scientific method?

• ### None

• Total voters
15
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well at p=1 I would have to agree with you.

I think we've passed the 6 sigma mark for quality of discussion parameters.

KNow what? I've got a goddamned frickin' splitting headache. I'm taking drugs and going to bed.

g'nite.

KNow what? I've got a goddamned frickin' splitting headache. I'm taking drugs and going to bed.

g'nite.

k, gnite supe.

Newtonian mechanics is true. Except in high gravity or at high relative speeds. Then it's superseeded by general or special relativity.

This'll do, it applies to QM as well.

So Newton isn't true, it's a partial description. It's good enough for everyday use, but not the truth.

Just as "the best way to get from my home to work is the number 9 bus".
Which doesn't run on Sundays, but I don't go to work on Sundays.

I think. I maybe lost track about three pages back.

Night Supe.

This'll do, it applies to QM as well.

So Newton isn't true, it's a partial description. It's good enough for everyday use, but not the truth.
So you see, this is where we have an issue. Regarding math and binary propopositions of existence there is absolute truth and falsity. A thing exists or it does not. This is the truth or falsity of logical necessity. A thing cannot 98% exist (unless maybe in the QM world?) by sheer definition. Let's call this "quantitative" truth. 1 or 0. No shades of gray.

But the truth of newtonian mechanics, or relativity, or QM as THE TRUE description/explanation of nature is "qualitative". I would say that you can never assign a 1 or 0 to the proposition that QM is the truth of reality. In fact, QM states that the truth can never be obtained inasmuch as knowing, for sure, the ultimate position/momentum state of a particle. But is this really true???

Oh! You like phalic things, don't you?
Only my own buddy. Only my own.

This thread was inspired by medicine-related news. For a long time, it was believed that lycopene, a substance found predominantely in tomatoes, helped to fight cancer. However, recent research shows that lycopene actually worsens cancer! At the same time, they now believe that apple peel is very helpful to fight against cancer.

Ok. I'm not a genius, but there is only one truth. Lycopene is either helpful or harmful. So why does one research shows that it's helpful and the other harmful?

There are litteraly shed loads of chemicals availiable in the market which are supposed to fight cancer, none work, but give people false hope.

My mother worked for a company which developed anti cancer drugs in the UK, the chemicals made were totally experimental but the company marketed each one as a cure for cancer, She was the head bioinformatician in the company where everyone else was a pharmacist or epedemiologist, and after analysing every singe one of the chemicals and frequently telling management that these chemicals are in the wrong application, and had adverse effects, the management continued its manufacture. My mother quit after this came out., as selling cancer patients drugs under the pretext of cure, while only making profit is fundamentaly wrong.

Corporation needs to be taken out of science, for science to do it's job freely,

Eating tomato or apple wont do a damn thing for your cancer, the contents of chemical X is too low. The problem is that will this chemical once extracted and turned into medicine do anything.

Last edited:
There is no problem with the scientific method. The only inconsistencies that occur are through human interpretation of the method. Although the scientific method was created by man, it was created by many men and through a trial and error process spanning the entire existence of humanity, maybe even further than that. The scientific method is the cumulative work of humans trying to figure out the most accurate and efficient process to gather predictive information.

The problem is that science has been separated from every other subject when, in reality, the methods of science are connected to all things that we do and/or know. Science, instead, should not be called science but rather should be the backbone of everything we are interested in, even religion. It is simply the best method of investigation that we've come up with in our entire existence so far. I believe it will remain so, no matter what it is called, simply because its nature calls for it to be constantly examined and modified for greater accuracy.

Eating tomato or apple wont do a damn thing for your cancer, the contents of chemical X is too low. The problem is that will this chemical once extracted and turned into medicine do anything.

Only if you think therapeutic. In reality, both deficiency and excess of nutrients are harmful to the system. Also there may be other mitigating factors missing in the model.

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/96/23/1743
The Beta-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial (CARET) tested the effect of daily {beta}-carotene (30 mg) and retinyl palmitate (25 000 IU) on the incidence of lung cancer, other cancers, and death in 18 314 participants who were at high risk for lung cancer because of a history of smoking or asbestos exposure. CARET was stopped ahead of schedule in January 1996 because participants who were randomly assigned to receive the active intervention were found to have a 28% increase in incidence of lung cancer, a 17% increase in incidence of death and a higher rate of cardiovascular disease mortality compared with participants in the placebo group.

Only if you think therapeutic. In reality, both deficiency and excess of nutrients are harmful to the system. Also there may be other mitigating factors missing in the model

Not to any majour effect. Unbalanced nutrient intake is common, and the over use of the radical chemical compounds in foods is also very rare, as people don't eat bags of apples or fresh tomatoes every day.

Current health problems are based on cooking oil, as people eat large quantities of fried food, chocolate, chips. etc.

Experiments on mice in the cancer research centre of the UK in Dundee, showed extensive damage to mice who were kept on a diet containing cooking oil, most died in half the time compare to the healthy mice. These were cancer, liver failure, lung problems, immune problems

Eating too many apples or tomatoes is'nt to blame, we've had exposure to fruit through out our evolution, and most likely have a tolerance to radical bahaviour caused by the compounds they may contain. Oils, extract and such are new, and we have an array of health problems caused by them

Not to any majour effect. Unbalanced nutrient intake is common, and the over use of the radical chemical compounds in foods is also very rare, as people don't eat bags of apples or fresh tomatoes every day.

Current health problems are based on cooking oil, as people eat large quantities of fried food, chocolate, chips. etc.

Experiments on mice in the cancer research centre of the UK in Dundee, showed extensive damage to mice who were kept on a diet containing cooking oil, most died in half the time compare to the healthy mice. These were cancer, liver failure, lung problems, immune problems

Eating too many apples or tomatoes is'nt to blame, we've had exposure to fruit through out our evolution, and most likely have a tolerance to radical bahaviour caused by the compounds they may contain. Oils, extract and such are new, and we have an array of health problems caused by them

And what did I say different?

Nutrition is preventative (or palliative) while pharmacology is therapeutic.

I disagreed to the comparison of over use of Lycopene and over use of nutrients. Over use of lycopene can only exist pharmocologically.

Overuse of nutrients is linked to other problems, it is'nt considered cancerogenic, like certain saturated fats and oxidants may be.

Other than that we're on the same page.

I disagreed to the comparison of over use of Lycopene and over use of nutrients. Over use of lycopene can only exist pharmocologically.

Overuse of nutrients is linked to other problems, it is'nt considered cancerogenic, like certain saturated fats and oxidants may be.

Other than that we're on the same page.

You mean saturated fats and oxidants are not nutrients? ROS is required for immune function and saturated fats for visceral stability of structure.

How exactly do you define a nutrient?

You mean saturated fats and oxidants are not nutrients? ROS is required for immune function and saturated fats for visceral stability of structure.

How exactly do you define a nutrient?

It tastes good? :shrug:

Corporation needs to be taken out of science, for science to do it's job freely
Absolutely. Or strict regulation.

Eating tomato or apple wont do a damn thing for your cancer, the contents of chemical X is too low. The problem is that will this chemical once extracted and turned into medicine do anything.
I suppose if a bit of a chemical can kill off a few cancer cells, then, in the right quantities it could treat cancer...

:shrug:

Certainly worth a shot...

You mean saturated fats and oxidants are not nutrients? ROS is required for immune function and saturated fats for visceral stability of structure.

How exactly do you define a nutrient?

My bad, Put it this way, There are certain chemicals whos function is considered
cancerogenic. Saturated fats in turn are, and oxidants contained in foods also are. The reason these are considered a threat are their extensive use in everything, Saturated fats in oils, and things like creatine in red meats. But food
specific substances, whos intake is low on average can be dismissed, one bacause it's rare and secondly because it dos'nt cause cancer, but limits the abillity to control it should it occur. Esspecially ones with such low concentration in the specific food. A person eating apples by the kilo, should rather worry about iron poisoning then the substances which limit his ability to control mutating cells when they occur.

My bad, Put it this way, There are certain chemicals whos function is considered
cancerogenic. Saturated fats in turn are, and oxidants contained in foods also are. The reason these are considered a threat are their extensive use in everything, Saturated fats in oils, and things like creatine in red meats. But food
specific substances, whos intake is low on average can be dismissed, one bacause it's rare and secondly because it dos'nt cause cancer, but limits the abillity to control it should it occur. Esspecially ones with such low concentration in the specific food. A person eating apples by the kilo, should rather worry about iron poisoning then the substances which limit his ability to control mutating cells when they occur.

You're still looking at nutrients as pharmacological. Chronic diseases are the cumulative result of long term abuse, whether deficiency of micronutrients, imbalance or od'ing on macronutrients.

Nutrients follow a U shaped curve in terms of effects and being of low concentration does not mean it is less damaging, the low concentrations themselves may be the primary cause of the damage!

Status
Not open for further replies.