Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums - Reply to Topic
Thread: Thinking Critically Reply to Thread
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
12-04-2011 08:37 AM
snowjeeper man wish I could take a big dump right now...
12-04-2011 05:09 AM
dreampow I admit I didn't have a very thorough look, just a peak and I perhaps got the wrong impression.

Also has something to do with the fact that we still don't have any snow at my local mountain.

that makes me more disagreeable in general (just ask my wife).

Should have a big dump in the next two weeks and it will be on.

First trip planned for the 18th19th and 20th. Can not wait.

Impressive moderating by mr Donutz.
12-03-2011 09:35 PM
AcroPhile Dreampow, I agree with everything you said in your last post. My misunderstanding was pretty well summarized by Donutz. I work in the scientific field although not in academia but I do understand how far reaching is the impact of funding on the direction that research takes and I do not deny that scientists get 'paid off' in one sense of the word or another. One area I still will disagree with you on is on the quality and objectiveness of the Skeptoid podcast. Listen to a couple more episodes, I'm sure you will nothing objectionable about his reporting or research. All of his work is cited using very reputable sources and his methodology for arriving at his conclusion is sound. In addition, he readily accepts any emails with rebuttals or corrections. He also publishes an episode every couple of weeks containing errors, corrections, and omissions.
12-03-2011 08:51 PM
Donutz Dreampow, I think you and Acrophile are having different arguments. I think he's more bothered by the idea that you might think, like many creationists seem to, that everything is just an opinion, i.e. if I say that DNA mutates and you say it doesn't, that's a wash because the vote is 1/1. What you're talking about is political reality, and I don't think anyone's going to argue that.

I could be way off base though.
12-03-2011 07:42 PM
dreampow Acrophile,

I get what you are saying and I will agree that a lot of scientific research is genuine as are many medical practices.
I studied Biological sciences to a masters level at Oxford university so I think I know a thing or two about the scientific process. I understand the workings of the human body, immune system and pathogens that infect it.
In its ideal form its exactly as you say. Free, impartial, independent and only concerned with the facts.

As someone who has been in the scientific world at the top of its hierarchy, I know first hand that it is far from what you imagine it to be. Both my parents are academics and taught at universities here in the UK. One of my Dads buddies who hasn't retired yet happens to be in medical research at the uni where my Dad taught until he retired (one of the best in the UK).

My dads friend agrees with me on this and often bitches at length about it because he hates the current system, but has to jump the hoops to support his family. Its all about getting and keeping funding. Thats the name of the game.
Not finding the truth.
Because most funding is provided by mega corps in one form or another there is significant pressure on scientists to study topics and produce results that are consistent with the desires of the people providing the funding.

The WHO has had many scandals where the "independent" scientists recommend certain drugs (eg tamiflu). If the WHO recommends it then whole countries will buy vast quantities of it. In the case of tamiflu and on many many other occasions it has been later proven that the independent scientists were receiving pay outs from the companies that make the drugs. On top of that these recommended drugs are often not tested properly for side effects (especially for flu because when a new strain appears there is a rush to get the vaccine and sell it quickly before a new mutation or strain appears). In a case in Japan several teenagers had hallucination type responses and lost the plot jumping out of windows from several stories up.

It was not suicide more like an epileptic fit and the mother of several of the kids was with them at the time but couldn't stop them because they were totally in a hysteric rage.

The drugs were withdrawn from the market, but no charges were made. If that were someone taking alternative treatment that suddenly flipped out and jumped out of a window the person providing the treatment would be locked up.

I am not trying to say all all science is wrong or anything like it. I enjoyed studying biology and most of what I learned is fact and based on real research. Sadly particularly in the medical field there are often agendas other than "truth" leading the research.

Of course they like to portray it as an independent honest search for the truth/facts. That appeals to people.
Ask anyone who has been on the inside of the scientific community and you will get a different answer.

Success rates for treatments are also notoriously dubious.

Modern medicine has provided excellent treatments and results for many illnesses. There are dubious practices too.
Like anything else you need to do your own research and understand your options before making an informed choice.
I am no means pro alternative treatment either. There are many con men selling shit that does nothing in that arena too.

The vibe I picked up from this dude with the podcasts was quite strongly pro modern medicine / science and anything else is bullshit. Perhaps I got it wrong, but that seemed like his opinion to me.

Also Snowjeeper. I work for myself and do something I love to do. I also grow food and live as independently from the system as I can. I am no drone.
12-03-2011 12:42 PM
AcroPhile Dreampow, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. There is no opinion involved. For every episode there is a very thorough bibliography involved. Almost all of which are reputable peer reviewed journals. As time goes on and we are able to collect more data , scientific theory will change accordingly with knowledge. Science, unlike politics, does not have an agenda! There are only observations and data from which theories and scientific laws come from. If science finds some new data that is incongruent with existing scientific theories then the theories are changed. No God or government involved here. The problem is that the lay public picks and chooses which bits of science they choose to believe. If an article in a Medical review journal describes the function of the heart, you probably won't dispute the fact that its pumps blood throughout the body but if a medical journal has the results of the efficacy of a new treatment for heart disease then you dispute it? If you believe that alternative treatments work as well or more so than modern medicine just do a simple search on Pubmed. You'll find tens of thousands articles, but just don't choose to not believe the information they contain because it may say something you don't like or understand.
12-03-2011 08:16 AM
snowjeeper That's what the system wants you to think. You'll be a corporate drone, and you'll like it.
12-02-2011 10:08 PM
dreampow I'll be whatever I like to be
12-02-2011 08:58 PM
Originally Posted by dreampow View Post
He has his opinions just like everyone else, you really believe its totally objective?

No human being is totally objective.

I agree with this guy on quite a few points, but by no means all.

Just as everything else I would take it with a pinch of salt (which is consistent with what he is saying I guess).

At the end of the day its up to us to find our own stance on things. To me critical thinking and logic are valuable tools but not the only tools we have to decide things. I spent years in the world of science where everything is supposed to be about critical thinking and logic. Reality is its often warped by concerns for funding.
He had good experiences with modern medicine and is to some extent championing it IMO. I know many people who have had really bad experiences (operations that made things worse, side effects worse than the original condition etc,etc) and great experiences with alternative techniques.

Of course some conditions are better treated with modern medicine while others are not IMO. Plenty of bullshit alternative treatments and plenty of bullshit pharmaceutical products too.

I like going with my instincts and gut feelings as well as critical thinking. Right now I am looking for a house. Of course I want to make sure its sound structurally and will do all the logical checks. Once the checks are done I go with my gut feeling about a place to make the final choice. I have always trusted my gut instincts about people too, not scientific but its worked for me.
I am not dissing this guy or trying to start an argument, just sharing my opinion.
12-02-2011 08:09 PM
Originally Posted by snowjeeper View Post
Sounds like a paradox to me!
Attachment 6752


This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome