| Ganoncrotch said: Published Sept 12th... 5000 views, what am I missing here with this? |
the mainstream media.
Hate to say it but the reality is the established regime do not want a cure for cancer. I've learned this when I invested with venture capital for a startup biotech company. No, I am not bitter or I lost money. They have many pipelines for income besides the cancer cure. I'm secure.
The drug companies are incredibly corrupt and greedy. If they see some potential cure come out of left field, I guarantee you, if there is any real potential, they will acquire it and then shelve it. I don't think people realise the money that is made from palliative care and "Official treatments".
And then there is the ridiculous red tape and the road blocks all due to "ethics" boards that quite often have conflicting interests.
Just look up the top companies in the world and see how many are drug companies and the picture is realised. I probably sound like some crazy conspiracy guy but I'm sorry, this is the reality of the world we live in.
In saying that, the founder of the company I have invested in is still pursuing the treatment of cancer (and it happens to be another Australian based company). He's altruistic and refuses to make the company public because he knows that any potential cure will be shelved if sold.
Dulfite said:
You mean the same science that is constantly telling us, one year, that something is healthy, and three years later tells us it causes some deadly thing, and then four years later tells us that was all just a misunderstanding? The same science that tells us that cells were the smallest building block, then corrects itself saying its atoms, then correct itself and says its basis? The same science that was clueless about dark matter for years? Science has nothing to do with facts, it is just a neverending grind to the realization that we, as humans, never have, do not now, and never will fully understand the universe in our own capacity. I'm positive that there is a catch to this "super fruit" that "science" will no doubt reveal to us (only to contradict that revelation years later). Honestly, it's like people act like science should always be trusted when, historically speaking, it is always disproving itself to the point that it never should have been trusted in the first place. It is all nonsense. |
Science is the best understanding we currently have of the universe given the information available. The fact that our general understanding of the universe is constantly evolving to accomodate more data as they become available is a feature not a bug.
...
Torillian said:
Science is the best understanding we currently have of the universe given the information available. The fact that our general understanding of the universe is constantly evolving to accomodate more data as they become available is a feature not a bug. |
My point is that it will be a never ending "evolving" process, if you will, and yet we have people claiming *insert one of the hundreds/thousands of "scientific breakthroughts" discovered every year here* that whatever discovery is made is absolute and revolutionary, only to claim it was misguided years later. If a company kept coming out with a new phone every year, claiming it will do so and so features and it never lived up the expectation, would you keep buying products from them or start to put your trust in another company?
SkepticallyMinded said:
The internet doesn't work. Computers don't work. Cars don't work. Planes don't fly. The moon doesn't exist. Trans fats are totally healthy. The Earth is flat. Food science is relatively new, it's not surprising some studies report X and other studies report Y. Scientific inferences are merely best explanations for a given set of data. Given set A one team derives X, given set B another team derives Y. Stay in school kids! |
The internet has improved, as have computers, cars, and planes. Food science and other forms of science are just in a cycle of constantly disproving things that were apparently proven 5-10 years before. You don't see people realizing that 10 gigs of ram is not, in fact, better than 5 gigs of ram so that isn't comparable.
Dulfite said:
The internet has improved, as have computers, cars, and planes. Food science and other forms of science are just in a cycle of constantly disproving things that were apparently proven 5-10 years before. You don't see people realizing that 10 gigs of ram is not, in fact, better than 5 gigs of ram so that isn't comparable. |
I trust you're intelligent enough to realize that merely because one particular study is controverted in a particular field of science does not mean that an entire field of scientific discovery is null and void? Surely you aren't so naive as to draw such an invalid inference?
Suppose tomorrow Einstein's theory of relativity is controverted, do we throw out the entirety of physics? Of course not; it would be utterly asinine to do so.
If you're under the misapprehension that the fields of biology and genetics are "constantly disproving themselves" then I would implore you to actually enroll in a University of your choice and actually pursue a degree in said fields. The bounty of known science in these particular fields is truly astounding, most of which has stood firm for eons.
Dulfite said:
My point is that it will be a never ending "evolving" process, if you will, and yet we have people claiming *insert one of the hundreds/thousands of "scientific breakthroughts" discovered every year here* that whatever discovery is made is absolute and revolutionary, only to claim it was misguided years later. If a company kept coming out with a new phone every year, claiming it will do so and so features and it never lived up the expectation, would you keep buying products from them or start to put your trust in another company? |
Well I think this misconception that "science" is going against its own word every month is due to how the media reports scientific discoveries. When you read the actual article most of these news stories are based on they are much more humble and try to be as conservative as possible with what their results could mean. Go read the results and discussion section of the science articles these news stories are based on and you'll see what I mean.
...
"Wonder cure for cancer" = snake oil
Dulfite said:
You mean the same science that is constantly telling us, one year, that something is healthy, and three years later tells us it causes some deadly thing, and then four years later tells us that was all just a misunderstanding? The same science that tells us that cells were the smallest building block, then corrects itself saying its atoms, then correct itself and says its basis? The same science that was clueless about dark matter for years? Science has nothing to do with facts, it is just a neverending grind to the realization that we, as humans, never have, do not now, and never will fully understand the universe in our own capacity. I'm positive that there is a catch to this "super fruit" that "science" will no doubt reveal to us (only to contradict that revelation years later). Honestly, it's like people act like science should always be trusted when, historically speaking, it is always disproving itself to the point that it never should have been trusted in the first place. It is all nonsense. |
Science is a method of understanding reality. The best thing about science is, that you use it to disprove and proof hypotheses. It's the best thing we currently have. Food science is difficult. There is still a lot of stuff we don't know and a lot of stuff that's difficult to experiment with. The media likes to takes certain studies as a hyperbole and spread it like that. if you qualified your hypothesis as a theory. You obviously try to challenge it at all cost to either disprove it or strenghten it.
Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3
Torillian said:
Well I think this misconception that "science" is going against its own word every month is due to how the media reports scientific discoveries. When you read the actual article most of these news stories are based on they are much more humble and try to be as conservative as possible with what their results could mean. Go read the results and discussion section of the science articles these news stories are based on and you'll see what I mean. |
My argument is more against the people claiming there are "breakthroughs" (which, I agree, is the media) than science or scientists itself. If someone figures something out, realizing it may not ultimately be true, but still finds it interesting to share with the world, then fine that is ok and sometimes can be great. But the moment I read things about "Bob" finding out some piece of rock can do some miraculous thing, I get suspicious.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
