I'm watching your blog with interest. I am most interested in true scientific scepticism. In that aspect, I am interested in seeing exposed - the false claims of creationism, of climate change denial, of the anti-vaccination, and anti-fluoride brigades.
I note with pleasure that your blog is sceptical of "hormesis", and also that you used a diagram that I designed, (on that hormesis page). I haven't had time yet, to check out this blog - but I am ever aware of the soft pro nuclear pseudo science tat is now permeating the media.
Well thank you, Bob I am ever aware of my own tendency to paranoia and risk of falling into conspiratorial thinking. But I'm also aware of the people who call me "hysterical". "emotional" (I didn't know that emotion is such a bad thing?), and most of all, the accusation that I am not an "expert". It sometimes seems, in Australia, that only "experts" can have an opinion. It is an effrontery for non experts to speak out ?
Oh , and by the way - I forgot, previously, to mention the anti wind lobby, and its "wind turbine sickness".
You will need to identify the latest scientific consensus document that studies whatever issue has your interest. Then, when an expert says something not in line with the consensus, raise hell. Those documents can be hard to undertand, so you will have to work hard or find someone who can simplify it for you.
Every honest scientist knows that they are to stick with the consensus. It's like medicine...a doctor has to stick to consensus medicinal treatments or he can be found negligent. Most scientists behave well, a few do not, but there isn't often any recourse like in medicine.
Mmmmm - On the whole, yes - stick with consensus. But - there are some wobbly areas. For example - worthy bodies like the Heart Foundation, Stroke Foundation make a big thing of animal fats being bad for diet - and they favour vegetable fats etc. And a big fuss about cholesterol. Hence "junk foods" - hamburgers etc are demonised. There's a medical/public health consensus on that.
However, there's no real evidence that eating animal fats causes the body to have high cholesterol in blood, nor that cholesterol, in itself, does any harm. Meanwhile increasing public intake of fructose goes on - much of it hidden in processed foods. And fructose is looking more and more likely as the cause of obesity, heart disease, strokes, even dementia. And there's some evidence that vegetable fats are more likely to be harmful than are animal fats. (At least there is now public discussion on this - so perhaps that "consensus" isn't as solid as the media would have it.)
There are scientific consensus bodies. You need to identify those bodies. They are typically established by government and have members who are elected by their peers as being expert and objective. The members change over time which helps prevent forming a bubble.
In the U.S. our National Academy of Sciences is held in the highest esteem.
Consensus doesn't mean everyone agrees (is "solid"). It means a rational, objective methodology has been applied by a group of experts to reach a conclusion. That group will be contacting many other experts as they sift through the issues. That group will send their conclusions out to many other experts prior to publishing their results for final feedback.
If any errors are raised immediately after publication they will be fixed, but this is very rarely the case.
Eventually, the science will evolve and a consensus report will be out of date, but rarely are there monumental changes.
The bigger point is that EVERYONE should stick with the consensus. Scientists know to instruct people according to the consensus. If he/she thinks the consensus is out of date, he/she can explain why and then you can await the next consensus to see if he/she's right.
Or, if an immediate need, validate what he/she claims with others for verification. If it's logical, evidence-based and confirmed by others, it's probably right. And then see what the consensus says later as a check.
I'm watching your blog with interest. I am most interested in true scientific scepticism. In that aspect, I am interested in seeing exposed - the false claims of creationism, of climate change denial, of the anti-vaccination, and anti-fluoride brigades.
ReplyDeleteI note with pleasure that your blog is sceptical of "hormesis", and also that you used a diagram that I designed, (on that hormesis page).
I haven't had time yet, to check out this blog - but I am ever aware of the soft pro nuclear pseudo science tat is now permeating the media.
You are warmly welcomed and we look forward to your input. Thanks for designing that diagram!
ReplyDeleteWell thank you, Bob
ReplyDeleteI am ever aware of my own tendency to paranoia and risk of falling into conspiratorial thinking.
But I'm also aware of the people who call me "hysterical". "emotional" (I didn't know that emotion is such a bad thing?), and most of all, the accusation that I am not an "expert". It sometimes seems, in Australia, that only "experts" can have an opinion. It is an effrontery for non experts to speak out ?
Oh , and by the way - I forgot, previously, to mention the anti wind lobby, and its "wind turbine sickness".
Well, you seem to be catching on to good critical thinking skills. Some experts want to entice others to fall for the argument from authority fallacy:
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
You will need to identify the latest scientific consensus document that studies whatever issue has your interest. Then, when an expert says something not in line with the consensus, raise hell. Those documents can be hard to undertand, so you will have to work hard or find someone who can simplify it for you.
Every honest scientist knows that they are to stick with the consensus. It's like medicine...a doctor has to stick to consensus medicinal treatments or he can be found negligent. Most scientists behave well, a few do not, but there isn't often any recourse like in medicine.
Mmmmm - On the whole, yes - stick with consensus.
ReplyDeleteBut - there are some wobbly areas.
For example - worthy bodies like the Heart Foundation, Stroke Foundation make a big thing of animal fats being bad for diet - and they favour vegetable fats etc. And a big fuss about cholesterol. Hence "junk foods" - hamburgers etc are demonised.
There's a medical/public health consensus on that.
However, there's no real evidence that eating animal fats causes the body to have high cholesterol in blood, nor that cholesterol, in itself, does any harm.
Meanwhile increasing public intake of fructose goes on - much of it hidden in processed foods. And fructose is looking more and more likely as the cause of obesity, heart disease, strokes, even dementia. And there's some evidence that vegetable fats are more likely to be harmful than are animal fats.
(At least there is now public discussion on this - so perhaps that "consensus" isn't as solid as the media would have it.)
There are scientific consensus bodies. You need to identify those bodies. They are typically established by government and have members who are elected by their peers as being expert and objective. The members change over time which helps prevent forming a bubble.
ReplyDeleteIn the U.S. our National Academy of Sciences is held in the highest esteem.
Consensus doesn't mean everyone agrees (is "solid"). It means a rational, objective methodology has been applied by a group of experts to reach a conclusion. That group will be contacting many other experts as they sift through the issues. That group will send their conclusions out to many other experts prior to publishing their results for final feedback.
If any errors are raised immediately after publication they will be fixed, but this is very rarely the case.
Eventually, the science will evolve and a consensus report will be out of date, but rarely are there monumental changes.
The bigger point is that EVERYONE should stick with the consensus. Scientists know to instruct people according to the consensus. If he/she thinks the consensus is out of date, he/she can explain why and then you can await the next consensus to see if he/she's right.
Or, if an immediate need, validate what he/she claims with others for verification. If it's logical, evidence-based and confirmed by others, it's probably right. And then see what the consensus says later as a check.