Fascinating (Score: 1) by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-10-21 14:38 (#2TJ8) I've been paying closer attention to other fields of science recently, and wasn't aware of any of this stuff, so I find it endlessly fascinating. Every generation, I think, is willing to laugh at the false theories that previous generations accepted as fact before eventually finding there was a better explanation, without taking the time to wonder how many of their "facts" will eventually be overturned by future scientists looking for more accurate explanations.That this stuff is happening - in the USA, at least - despite a culture increasingly hostile to the "educated elite" and whatever other impolite names the likes of Sarah Palin came up with for people who like science - is even more fascinating. Kudos to the boffins! Re: Fascinating (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-21 18:48 (#2TJN) It's a debate I keep having... Trying to convince people not to too-firmly base their conclusions on some currently accepted theories where the supporting evidence is weak or there are known unresolved problems. Just because nobody has disproven theory X yet, doesn't mean it's a good idea to go out and start bloodletting sick patients...DNA/genomics was particularly solid, but had some red-flags in the form of obvious outward differences of DNA-identical twins, which epigenetics is now helping to resolve. http://multiples.about.com/od/funfacts/a/Identical-Twins-And-Dna.htmI am similarly cautious about theories on dark matter, most conclusions drawn from the rather patchy fossil record, etc.It's more of a nuisance with nutritional or diet theory-of-the-week, and generally people not well-informed enough to see Dr. Oz and his ilk as the bald-faced lying flim-flam artists they are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_Oz#Scientific_validity
Re: Fascinating (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-21 18:48 (#2TJN) It's a debate I keep having... Trying to convince people not to too-firmly base their conclusions on some currently accepted theories where the supporting evidence is weak or there are known unresolved problems. Just because nobody has disproven theory X yet, doesn't mean it's a good idea to go out and start bloodletting sick patients...DNA/genomics was particularly solid, but had some red-flags in the form of obvious outward differences of DNA-identical twins, which epigenetics is now helping to resolve. http://multiples.about.com/od/funfacts/a/Identical-Twins-And-Dna.htmI am similarly cautious about theories on dark matter, most conclusions drawn from the rather patchy fossil record, etc.It's more of a nuisance with nutritional or diet theory-of-the-week, and generally people not well-informed enough to see Dr. Oz and his ilk as the bald-faced lying flim-flam artists they are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_Oz#Scientific_validity