Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Cyanide and Peudoscience
Damn you guys for bring this topic up (this was one that I wanted to talk about someday if I ever get on your program). You guys touched on this subject for a few minutes but I'd like to emphasis this. When I was initially told about this from my friend, he mentioned that this cure was given by god. Whenever you hear a appeal to a higher power in any claim, like “The government doesn’t want you to use something that god provided us†(insert Scientists for government) You should always always always be skeptical of these claims. I noticed especially with this cyanide topic that ever website that has information that talks in favor of this pseudoscience talked of a conspiracy by someone else who is keeping this information from them (god fearing Christians, or conspiracy theorists). They do this to appeal to a side of you that won’t criticially think about the topic.
I’d also mention a correction for I believe Scott who said it would kill you. Taking these fullish pills won’t necessarily kill you unless you overdose on them. The does of cynide in the pills (or apple seeds especially) is small enough that it doesn’t do much real damage. However, people really trying to cure there cancer may kill themselves by taking to much of the pills and overdosing on it. But really this doesn’t matter just don’t take the pills!
Oh yea, and to correct Rym, after Rym and I debunked my friends they did eventually come around to realizing that it probably wasn’t a real cure and I’ve started to make inroads with them in convincing them of the merits of Evolution over ID. So I think as long as they are not totally blind you might have a chance of convincing people what is pseudoscience and what is real science. Anyhow, I better get back to work. Post those Conversations Rym I can’t find my copy of them.
I’d also mention a correction for I believe Scott who said it would kill you. Taking these fullish pills won’t necessarily kill you unless you overdose on them. The does of cynide in the pills (or apple seeds especially) is small enough that it doesn’t do much real damage. However, people really trying to cure there cancer may kill themselves by taking to much of the pills and overdosing on it. But really this doesn’t matter just don’t take the pills!
Oh yea, and to correct Rym, after Rym and I debunked my friends they did eventually come around to realizing that it probably wasn’t a real cure and I’ve started to make inroads with them in convincing them of the merits of Evolution over ID. So I think as long as they are not totally blind you might have a chance of convincing people what is pseudoscience and what is real science. Anyhow, I better get back to work. Post those Conversations Rym I can’t find my copy of them.
Comments
I'll root through my email archives when I get a chance.
However, I generally find that once religion gets mixed up into things like this, you can't really debunk someone's beliefs in the pseudoscience without threatening their religion too (at least, that's how they take it), so it's generally insanely difficult if not outright impossible to convince someone like that of your point.
As I said in the 'cast, at some point, you reach a wall with some people, and they irrationally brush off your evidence in favor of their convictions because, well, faith is a powerful tool. Unfortunately, it is often wielded by the wrong sorts of folks with the wrong sorts of intentions.
I might expound a bit on how to distinguish good science from bad science and pseudoscience, once I get home.
Pseudoscience is also something that greatly irks me, ESPECIALLY Intelligent Design. The problem was made absolutely worse by the fact that the media and big magazines like Time actually put Evolution and ID against each other, as if they were both on the same scientific level. What-the-fuck. You can't even test ID. It has no explanatory power and no predictive power - which is what good hypotheses/theories are supposed to have. >_< Guhh.
On that note, is it even possible to have "competing theories?" As I understand it, a supported hypothesis (or even a widely accepted, well-grounded theory) only holds until any possible falsifications occur or a hypothesis with better explanatory power comes along. If evolution was wrong and had "gaps," as ID proponents claim it does, then evolution wouldn't even be AROUND to "compete" with ID. I mean, no one is still standing around debating which treats depression better, lobotomies or clinically-tested medicine. *rolls eyes* I'm sure the process of debunking a theory is slower and more complicated than that. But please, correct me if I'm wrong/not understanding. "OMG my theory wins!!111oneone"
On another note: Rym, thanks for telling everyone about chiropracty(sp). I didn't really even know what it was before you brought it up - I thought it was just massage therapy or something (and hence ignored it.) I had no idea they were allowed to DIAGNOSE things! >_> I'll make sure no one I know ever goes to one.
A theory, basically, is drawn from a large body of data gathered about a specific topic or set of related topics in a scientific field. Generally, one does not set out to create a theory; rather, after a period of repeated observations about a particular phenomenon, the data gathered from testing a wide variety of hypotheses is used to construct a theory. From the theory, one can generate more hypotheses and thus further refine said theory.
It IS possible to have competing theories; this is prevalent in areas of physics mostly, where there is a lot of data and not all of it points to the same conclusion. It is wholly possible to have a large body of data in regards to an observed phenomenon and draw multiple different or competing conclusions from that data. The idea behind any gathering of evidence is to of course devise a single inclusive model that fits the majority of the data and can at least attempt to explain outliers; however, that is not always possible, and the process of refining a theory often involves throwing different theories into combat with each other and having them do battle.
Of course, as always, this is the process of SCIENCE, and no conjecture that cannot be scientifically verified can participate in this process or be said to be in competition with any scientific theory.