FET-500

Well, I guess I am sorry that you can't see the obvious but it goes to making the larger point doesn't it? The "authority" in this instance is not a person but an entity; science itself. The statement that questioning underlying science would indicate a "problem" could not be a more clear example.

Read it again... "Everybody knows that if you switch the switch, the light comes on. If your questioning includes the science underlying that, then you've got a problem, because if you are not deranged now, you certainly will be before you get the lid back on that can of worms. We just can't be constantly harking back to revisit stuff that has been shown to work a gazillion times all over the world. Otherwise we'd never move on. Never take an aspirin?"

What is going on there is a rather confused appeal to authority. There are people responding to a thread about science, who a completely unaware that "science" is not a monolithic structure where everyone agrees about everything. "Everybody knows that if you switch the switch, the light comes on. If your questioning includes the science underlying that, then you've got a problem, because if you are not deranged now, you certainly will be before you get the lid back on that can of worms. We just can't be constantly harking back to revisit stuff that has been shown to work a gazillion times all over the world. Otherwise we'd never move on. Never take an aspirin?" Epistemologically, this is equivalent to the attribution of miracles to God, (which we should not question...) It is an appeal to authority, a classic logical fallacy. "We just can't be constantly harking back to revisit stuff that has been shown to work a gazillion times all over the world." ...but this is how science works. If not for an insanely harsh review process (which currently appears dysfunctional) we'd be talking about phlogiston or how breathing "bad air" was causal to illness. Science is conditional, as humans accrete knowledge, science changes with it. Lavoisier was able to displace the phlogiston theory but it stood for more than 100 years as foundational science. If Charles Laveran had listened to such advise about "constantly harking back", we'd still be under the belief that smelly air was the cause of disease. Perhaps that too far back in time for one to relate to? We could discuss the infighting surrounding Alfred Wegener's theory of plate tectonics...the movements in the crust of the Earth that we are all very familiar with, were not accepted by science until the mid-1960's. Because science is conditional, we must constantly revisit the cherished beliefs and assess their "truth" in this new light. This is not "harking" this IS the process. "Otherwise we'd never move on." The only way that could happen is for us to all become equally incurious and accept that which we've been told. [h=1][/h][h=1][/h]

That is some interesting stuff. I had only recently learned of this when reading a book about the lulzsec hackers, one of whom had sound to color synesthesia. Joni Mitchell is said to have described sounds while recording as colors.

That makes absolutely no sense.

So, I ask you....What about that would not cause a "reasonable" person to doubt science? B/T/W...Newton went off the rails as well, succumbing to mercury poisoning from all of that alchemy. Yes, it apparently happens to the best of them.

Honestly, you first have to inform yourself on a bit of history here. Contradictory evidence was presented, again and again but it was suppressed. In more modern times this was done ACTIVELY. The dietary cholesterol myth was one largely created and promoted by Ancel Keys Ancel Keys - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia When Dr. Atkins introduced his diet, the A.M.A. attempted to destroy and discredit him but that wasn't new and neither was his diet. When William Banting introduced his diet low-carbohydrate in the 1850's the same occurred. Seriously, with hundreds of millions of dollars spent on Ancel Keys' junk science alone, it would be FOOLISH not to question the current group-think regarding climate and a variety of other topics. If you think in a heightened political environment, where funding is scarce that a scientist can just hand in his homework for peer review and all is good, you are unfamiliar with the sport. By the way, it is no surprise for Matt and Trey of South Park to be ahead of the F.D.A. on this arc.

Yeah...no kidding. I'm guessing at this point that your familiarity with Linus is name recognition, you really did have to read that page. Linus Pauling, the great Nobel laureate molecular biologist was America's leading expert in quack science. Do you think that a Nobel laureate being ass-backwards on both D.N.A. and nutrition could cause a reasonable person to give pause?

Your argument is both a non sequitur and an appeal to authority...well done:) Dietitians are often molecular biologists.

It would be interesting to perform such an experiment with individuals "suffering" with synesthesia and then ask them what they could see. What is the "color" of 32k?[h=1][/h]

Research since the 19th Century has indicated that the current dietary guidelines ARE CAUSAL to obesity; something so well known that it was subject to parody on South Park. Given this, it's not only reasonable to question science, it's the only rational response.

"Linus Carl Pauling (February 28, 1901 – August 19, 1994)[4] was an American chemist, biochemist, peace activist, author, and educator. He was one of the most influential chemists in history and ranks among the most important scientists of the 20th century.[5][6] Pauling was one of the founders of the fields of quantum chemistry and molecular biology.[7] For his scientific work, Pauling was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1954. In 1962, for his peace activism, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. This makes him the only person to be awarded two unshared Nobel Prizes. He is one of only four individuals to have won more than one Nobel Prize (the others being Marie Curie, John Bardeen, andFrederick Sanger). Pauling is also one of only two people to be awarded Nobel Prizes in different fields, the other beingMarie Curie.[8] He promoted orthomolecular medicine, megavitamin therapy, dietary supplements, and taking large doses of vitamin C." Linus Pauling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You mean like this? Though it's doubtful any will become Nobel laureates, members of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee reversed on 40 years worth of junk science. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/nutrition-panel-calls-for-less-sugar-and-eases-cholesterol-and-fat-restrictions/?_r=0

It is the purpose of reasonable people to doubt science, which is itself a philosophy of systematic doubt. I'd start with W.K.Clifford's Ethics of belief Ethics of belief - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." "The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them; for then it must sink back into savagery." Science IS doubting and attempting to disprove a stated theory, a process that begins with peer review. Why would or should the "reasonable" person be excluded? With reasons provided almost constantly for the reasonable person to doubt science, such as the recent sudden reversal of five decades of medical advise about dietary cholesterol and similar 180* turn-around regarding peanut and food allergies, the reasonable person should not be relaxing their skepticism. For anyone holding the notion that "science" is a big consensus of like-thinking individuals, well you can start here : The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia