Anti-science sentiment
May. 5th, 2014 06:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alex_antoninA combo of two Tumblr posts I made.
News had a thing about “cocamide DEA” being a carcinogen, and so I looked it up, and it is basically just fatty acids from coconut oil. Which makes me think the tests for its carcinogen properties need to be re-done, being careful to use animals that are not under stress (like the mice that are afraid of male scientists), because I really doubt that it’s actually a carcinogen.
At the very least, the studies need to be gone over with a fine-toothed comb and the results laid out plainly in simple language. Because I strongly suspect a misinterpretation of the results. Especially since, the way a lot of these tests are run, WATER comes up as a carcinogen. So pardon me if I ignore cocamide DEA’s supposed carcinogen status.
Furthermore, I have to wonder how reliable tests on animals are anyway, because different animals react differently to the same things. Humans can eat chocolate without a problem, but dogs and other animals are poisoned by it. Even within a species, some individuals are allergic to things other individuals are fine with. So you have to take most of these scientific studies about carcinogens with a pound of salt.
Science is really good at finding out the amount of certain elements in a solution, and in figuring out how much of something is outright toxic, but so far it kind of sucks at figuring out how carcinogenic things are, because if we believe all the studies about carcinogens at face value, then every damn thing in the universe causes cancer.
~ ~ ~
I kind of understand a lot of people's anti-science attitudes, because there is indeed a lot of shit science going on. Results we can't count on because of the way the experiments are done, or because the mice or whatever were under stress which alters the results, lots of studies being run by biased researchers or funded by biased groups paying for specific results, European researchers getting different results than America researchers and therefore get European countries banning different substances, perfectly natural substances found in foods like coconuts being labeled carcinogenic, and science reporting being mostly shit that leaves people who listen to it poorly informed. That last one really needs to be cracked down on, because half a truth is worse than an outright lie.
Where the line between sense and idiocy can be drawn, however, is that sensible, educated people recognize that there are areas science is good at, and areas where it's not so good or could be improved by keeping corporate money out of science. Idiocy is discounting EVERYTHING science says; sense is being skeptical but open minded about results of scientific studies done in the areas that science sucks at. Because some of those results are valid, even if most are shit. It's difficult to figure out which is which, but worth the effort to find out.
News had a thing about “cocamide DEA” being a carcinogen, and so I looked it up, and it is basically just fatty acids from coconut oil. Which makes me think the tests for its carcinogen properties need to be re-done, being careful to use animals that are not under stress (like the mice that are afraid of male scientists), because I really doubt that it’s actually a carcinogen.
At the very least, the studies need to be gone over with a fine-toothed comb and the results laid out plainly in simple language. Because I strongly suspect a misinterpretation of the results. Especially since, the way a lot of these tests are run, WATER comes up as a carcinogen. So pardon me if I ignore cocamide DEA’s supposed carcinogen status.
Furthermore, I have to wonder how reliable tests on animals are anyway, because different animals react differently to the same things. Humans can eat chocolate without a problem, but dogs and other animals are poisoned by it. Even within a species, some individuals are allergic to things other individuals are fine with. So you have to take most of these scientific studies about carcinogens with a pound of salt.
Science is really good at finding out the amount of certain elements in a solution, and in figuring out how much of something is outright toxic, but so far it kind of sucks at figuring out how carcinogenic things are, because if we believe all the studies about carcinogens at face value, then every damn thing in the universe causes cancer.
~ ~ ~
I kind of understand a lot of people's anti-science attitudes, because there is indeed a lot of shit science going on. Results we can't count on because of the way the experiments are done, or because the mice or whatever were under stress which alters the results, lots of studies being run by biased researchers or funded by biased groups paying for specific results, European researchers getting different results than America researchers and therefore get European countries banning different substances, perfectly natural substances found in foods like coconuts being labeled carcinogenic, and science reporting being mostly shit that leaves people who listen to it poorly informed. That last one really needs to be cracked down on, because half a truth is worse than an outright lie.
Where the line between sense and idiocy can be drawn, however, is that sensible, educated people recognize that there are areas science is good at, and areas where it's not so good or could be improved by keeping corporate money out of science. Idiocy is discounting EVERYTHING science says; sense is being skeptical but open minded about results of scientific studies done in the areas that science sucks at. Because some of those results are valid, even if most are shit. It's difficult to figure out which is which, but worth the effort to find out.
