National Geographic: The War on Science ... All Fluff!!!

originally posted by: iDope
a reply to: Speckle

Does that linked graph really show that 100 out of 100 children will be autistic by approx 2035? Why does it go up to 120? You cannot have 120 people with autism out pf 100. Oh wait, fetuses? Multiple personalities? Unless it is in thousands, but it does not say. And General Population? I am going to be Autistic in the near future, although I require no vaccines and refuse to take any and haven't had a single shot for over 10 years?

The graph is an illustration of the statistical fallacy known as "extrapolation to infinity." This happens when the results of a small sample are extrapolated indefinitely without taking real world effects into account. For example, if you were able to walk x feet in y minutes, then 2x feet in y minutes the next day, you can calculate that you will be walking at the speed of light within the month.

Edit to add: The fact that people make this error all the time is a sign of how poorly science and math have been taught lately.

a reply to: Speckle

The temperature goes up and down every night. I pump gas, drink water and eat bread like everyone else. My awareness is evolving by leaps and bounds, I am vaccinated by truth.

a reply to: Speckle

You're just hitting all the hot button topics on the science denialism front. Basically though, your arguments can be summed up as such, "I don't want to believe the science behind this stuff so I'll make up a bunch of plausible sounding reasons to discredit science."

How about providing evidence of corporate corruption of the entire science community? How about producing some scientific studies that have REAL evidence that corroborate your claims? Where are the links to the Russian and Chinese studies on fluoride that you claim American scientists are ignoring? It's always the same crap with these threads. "Scientists are lying." "Scientists are just saying these things to get funding." "Scientists don't want to rock the boat." Yet there is never any proof to corroborate these assertions. Just a bunch of reasoning that makes it sound plausible. Yet when you actually LOOK at how science is performed, all those assertions quickly break down.

For instance, the scientific method works through the peer review process. Anyone can review the evidence and pick it apart. Scientists make their careers by proving other scientists wrong. Maintaining the status quo gets you nowhere in the scientific community. Second, science is conducted worldwide by scientists from all over the world. Any corporate strangleholds on a topic to produce flimsy results would quickly be overshadowed by REAL science from elsewhere. You even USE this concept to try to disprove fluoride science (yet fail to produce evidence that you are telling the truth).

These threads always follow the same patterns. "Science is wrong, but I'm not going to produce evidence on why".

The fundamental issue in this OP, as well as what the NatGeo article addresses, as well as probably 99% of what we discuss interminably on ATS is belief.

Science is not belief. There is a reason that those that went before us chose the word for "knowledge" to represent what we know as science.

Something is either known, not known, or indeterminable at the present time.

If it is known, it is either true or untrue, in another way of saying it, it is either factual or supported by facts OR it is non-factual and no evidence supports the idea/concept.

If a quality does not fall into these categories, it is not addressed by science.

Science is hardly the only way humans interact with our world, however. We react purely on emotion and belief probably over 90% of the time, even those of us who try so desperately not to. Why? We are survivors. Survivors often have to make very rapid decisions that may or may not be scientifically/rationally sound, e.g. fight or flight. These often operate somewhat below a conscious level, at the level of instinct, intuition, etc.

The best scientific methods that we have developed to date are designed to remove as much human belief and emotion as far away from a given matter under consideration as possible. That is another reason science constantly renews itself based on the newest data available.

The forces that wish to control the human population ... religious, political, industrial, etc., prey on this deeply embedded evolutionary trait by focusing our collective and individual attention not primarily on science but upon BELIEF.

As long as a person is operating on belief, rather than science ... they are imminently controllable.

It seems much more reasonable that there exists a genuine "war on science" sponsored either individually or jointly by the "powers that be."

a reply to: Entreri06

You are missing my point as well, no worries, our different views are what make this worldly experience so unique!

Enjoy your belief in the infallibility of the church of science and I will enjoy my tin foil hat skepticism!

a reply to: elementalgrove

I know you're responding to another member ... but would you please expand on your concept of "the infallibility of the church of science" please?

I ask because the phrase makes absolutely no sense to me at all, given the meaning of the words you used as I understand them.

Thank you kindly for any response.

a reply to: darkbake

I'm definitely not on board with GMOs being safe, but vaccinations have been used by Billions of people for decades.

Only in the USA would people think it's reasonable to start questioning their safety after 60 + years.

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: Entreri06

You are missing my point as well, no worries, our different views are what make this worldly experience so unique!

Enjoy your belief in the infallibility of the church of science and I will enjoy my tin foil hat skepticism!

Lmao!!! That's the difference! Science doesn't claim to be infallible..that's religion. Science has zero problem admitting they are wrong and fixing their theory.

The funny thing is in science the guy who disproves a theory gets rich and famous too. There is zero reason to continue down a false road for science as a whole. Yea some big wig might want to lie to keep his theory relevant, but any/every assistant he has could instantly take his place by busting it wide open.


The thing about alternative theories that conspiracy fans ignore. Is that your theory doesn't need to explain the mystery your looking into. It has to fit EVERYTHING! There can't be anything found in nature that disagrees with your theory at all.


Like the holographic moon stuff Ive seen lately. Sure the moon being a hologram might explain the crazy "moon waves" your camera picked up. But that's not all a holographic moon has to explain. It has to explain EVERYTHING we see. Tides, orbit mathematics, exc, exc, exc.

originally posted by: babybunnies
a reply to: darkbake

I'm definitely not on board with GMOs being safe, but vaccinations have been used by Billions of people for decades.

Only in the USA would people think it's reasonable to start questioning their safety after 60 + years.

Hey human stupidity knows no borders!!! :p

a reply to: Entreri06

I see you missed the facetious nature of my comment!!

I chose those words deliberately, the "infallibility of the church of science" is one of my favorite expressions! Due to people like you somehow believing that the scientific community is not corruptible with money.

Now I would like to narrow this down a bit, specifically the medical and food industry scientific communities is what I am focusing upon.

Take for example The Vioxx recall and the FDA

While the drug was removed from the market on Sept. 30, 2004, it was just the beginning of the controversies surrounding it. The U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigated the company for its deceptive and strong-arm marketing practices. An FDA scientist who discovered the Vioxx heart connection early on said his FDA bosses forced him to quash information that was potentially damaging to Merck. Government officials continually question the relationship between Merck and the FDA.

This is one of many scandals that highlight the collusion between big pharma and the FDA, but barely scratches the surface on the shady behavior of the Pharmaceutical industry in general.

This leads me to be highly skeptical of the "peer" reviewed reassurances about the "safety" of vaccines. On the same token I am highly skeptical about the safety of GMO's., high fructose corn syrup which for some reason has been allowed into just about everything, the highly toxic food color additives, and lets not forget Aspartame!

a reply to: Gryphon66

It is because of the above that I thoroughly enjoy using the "infallibility of the church of science" comment!

In a perfect world science would be allowed to function as it needs to, however I look around the world and see the utter destruction of the environment, people sicker than ever with the incidence of heart disease, stroke, neurological disorders, allergies, obesity, gastrointestinal, increasing at staggering rates and I can not say that science and the scientific method has been applied in its pure form.

Hence my continued skepticism and my facetious attitude towards those who believe that the scientific community is immune to corruption! I hope that helps understand my statement, I apologize about the delayed response, was away from the comp for a bit!