Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Provide Your Sources
Options
Replies
-
Christine_72 wrote: »not_my_first_rodeo wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I could understand "citing ones sources" if i was a member of an Academic forum full of scientists and teachers.. But I'm not and nor am i am back at school
Sure there are studies that prove and disprove just about everything, but just because a study says such and such is safe does not mean that it is safe for everyone and some people dont experience negative side effects when ingesting said substance, for example.
I much prefer to read about peoples individual experiences and thoughts. Sure, there are some far out and just plain stupid advice and personal accounts posted here, but anyone with a modicum of common sense can pretty easily sift through the BS. We're all adults here, and we must all learn from personal experience as well as our mistakes.
Just because a study says it's so, doesnt make it so for every individual on the planet.
I think the point is that someone saying "I read this thing uh somewhere"and presenting that as scientific evidence is not necessarily valid.
I don't read many posts prefaced with "This scientific journal proves my theory". The majority are borne from peoples personal experiences and what they read on the google machine. Sure if someone says they came to their conclusion from reading a study, then ask where they read it and move on. Don't ridicule them for 10 pages and keep repeating "the onus is on you" blah blah blah
I'm not anyone's Mother on here, and forcing them to prove to me they're not lying or they are making something up, like i used to do with my children comes across a tad obnoxious imo. The pièce de résistance is "I'm calling you out for the lurkers who may be reading this" as if it is their God given moral duty to educate the masses :huh:
If you ever step into a diet soda thread, you inevitably see someone say "Don't drink diet soda, it causes cancer." IMO, this is really big statement that someone should be prepared to back up - you're telling people that this thing they consume all the time is going to kill them. So of course, knowing what we know, we say "No, it doesn't, it's been studied to death, it's safe." At which point the thread either moves on, or more cancer fearmongering comes out (and we invoke the name of Aaron, who reluctantly comes in to fight the good fight). This is where sources and studies are important. If you're super sure that diet soda is going to give you cancer, I want to know why. I want to know where your information is coming and why you think it's a valid source. "I heard it somewhere" or "I read it somewhere" or "I had an aunt who got cancer and she drank a lot of diet soda" is NOT acceptable in these situations; the onus IS on you to show why you're making big, scary claims.
IMO, "I read somewhere that some people get headaches from diet soda" is an example of something that doesn't really need a source. People on the board can say if they do or don't get headaches when drinking diet soda. It's not a life-threatening condition, it's not a reason most people would cut out diet soda (if you don't get headaches from it, it doesn't affect you negatively, so you can keep drinking it), and it's not controversial or blatantly untrue.6 -
chocolate_owl wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »not_my_first_rodeo wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I could understand "citing ones sources" if i was a member of an Academic forum full of scientists and teachers.. But I'm not and nor am i am back at school
Sure there are studies that prove and disprove just about everything, but just because a study says such and such is safe does not mean that it is safe for everyone and some people dont experience negative side effects when ingesting said substance, for example.
I much prefer to read about peoples individual experiences and thoughts. Sure, there are some far out and just plain stupid advice and personal accounts posted here, but anyone with a modicum of common sense can pretty easily sift through the BS. We're all adults here, and we must all learn from personal experience as well as our mistakes.
Just because a study says it's so, doesnt make it so for every individual on the planet.
I think the point is that someone saying "I read this thing uh somewhere"and presenting that as scientific evidence is not necessarily valid.
I don't read many posts prefaced with "This scientific journal proves my theory". The majority are borne from peoples personal experiences and what they read on the google machine. Sure if someone says they came to their conclusion from reading a study, then ask where they read it and move on. Don't ridicule them for 10 pages and keep repeating "the onus is on you" blah blah blah
I'm not anyone's Mother on here, and forcing them to prove to me they're not lying or they are making something up, like i used to do with my children comes across a tad obnoxious imo. The pièce de résistance is "I'm calling you out for the lurkers who may be reading this" as if it is their God given moral duty to educate the masses :huh:
If you ever step into a diet soda thread, you inevitably see someone say "Don't drink diet soda, it causes cancer." IMO, this is really big statement that someone should be prepared to back up - you're telling people that this thing they consume all the time is going to kill them. So of course, knowing what we know, we say "No, it doesn't, it's been studied to death, it's safe." At which point the thread either moves on, or more cancer fearmongering comes out (and we invoke the name of Aaron, who reluctantly comes in to fight the good fight). This is where sources and studies are important. If you're super sure that diet soda is going to give you cancer, I want to know why. I want to know where your information is coming and why you think it's a valid source. "I heard it somewhere" or "I read it somewhere" or "I had an aunt who got cancer and she drank a lot of diet soda" is NOT acceptable in these situations; the onus IS on you to show why you're making big, scary claims.
IMO, "I read somewhere that some people get headaches from diet soda" is an example of something that doesn't really need a source. People on the board can say if they do or don't get headaches when drinking diet soda. It's not a life-threatening condition, it's not a reason most people would cut out diet soda (if you don't get headaches from it, it doesn't affect you negatively, so you can keep drinking it), and it's not controversial or blatantly untrue.
LOL fair call, yes I've read plenty of the diet soda threads, which is why i choose not read them anymore.. I will admit, i choose to stay away from diet anything and aspartame and soda in general. One, because of the constant influx of I'm addicted to soda posts, It reminds of the term "liquid handcuffs" where you cant go a day without drinking a can or 10. And 2, my very unscientific gut feels on aspartame. But no, i would never go around telling all the diet soda drinkers that they're gonna drop dead of cancer due to drinking this stuff. What people choose to put in their own bodies is honestly none of business or concern.0 -
Also, I wonder if a study one day came out that said aspartame et al does cause cancer. Going by the posts saying "pry my soda out of my cold dead hands", if any of them would quit drinking it? Or would they run the gauntlet and say it's not going to happen to me, like smokers and alcoholics do to justify their "habit" ??0
-
Christine_72 wrote: »Also, I wonder if a study one day came out that said aspartame et al does cause cancer. Going by the posts saying "pry my soda out of my cold dead hands", if any of them would quit drinking it? Or would they run the gauntlet and say it's not going to happen to me, like smokers and alcoholics do to justify their "habit" ??
At this point, everything causes cancer... so I am going out with enjoyment. The way I look at it, all the major killers in the world are largely obesity driven. So even if aspartame could increase the chances of cancer by some percentage, it would be low.. much lower than the chances of dying in a car crash. And in my area, the average person gets in a crash once every 4.5 years.6 -
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof4
-
Christine_72 wrote: »Also, I wonder if a study one day came out that said aspartame et al does cause cancer. Going by the posts saying "pry my soda out of my cold dead hands", if any of them would quit drinking it? Or would they run the gauntlet and say it's not going to happen to me, like smokers and alcoholics do to justify their "habit" ??
At this point, everything causes cancer... so I am going out with enjoyment. The way I look at it, all the major killers in the world are largely obesity driven. So even if aspartame could increase the chances of cancer by some percentage, it would be low.. much lower than the chances of dying in a car crash. And in my area, the average person gets in a crash once every 4.5 years.
I would say the major killer is smoking.
And in the world, infectious diseases.
Not obesity, on a world level.
However, yes, risks need to be seen in perspective- for example I accept that eating processed meat above certain levels does increase bowel cancer risk ( no, don't have source at hand) but that doesn't mean I never eat a sausage again. It means I eat them in sensible amounts with minimal risk.
Likewise alcohol in excess, well known link to liver failure ( again, no source, sorry) - that doesn't mean I never have a glass of wine with dinner, it means I dont drink to excess.
Likewise it is not inconceivable that a study may show an increased risk of cancer with excessive amounts of soda. It hasn't yet but maybe it will.
If and when it does, I will limit my I take to a moderate amount with a minimal risk.
Since I only drink it in moderation now ( just like my sausages and alcohol intake, in fact) it is unlikely to change anything for me.0 -
paperpudding wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Also, I wonder if a study one day came out that said aspartame et al does cause cancer. Going by the posts saying "pry my soda out of my cold dead hands", if any of them would quit drinking it? Or would they run the gauntlet and say it's not going to happen to me, like smokers and alcoholics do to justify their "habit" ??
At this point, everything causes cancer... so I am going out with enjoyment. The way I look at it, all the major killers in the world are largely obesity driven. So even if aspartame could increase the chances of cancer by some percentage, it would be low.. much lower than the chances of dying in a car crash. And in my area, the average person gets in a crash once every 4.5 years.
I would say the major killer is smoking.
And in the world, infectious diseases.
Not obesity, on a world level.
However, yes, risks need to be seen in perspective- for example I accept that eating processed meat above certain levels does increase bowel cancer risk ( no, don't have source at hand) but that doesn't mean I never eat a sausage again. It means I eat them in sensible amounts with minimal risk.
Likewise alcohol in excess, well known link to liver failure ( again, no source, sorry) - that doesn't mean I never have a glass of wine with dinner, it means I dont drink to excess.
Likewise it is not inconceivable that a study may show an increased risk of cancer with excessive amounts of soda. It hasn't yet but maybe it will.
If and when it does, I will limit my I take to a moderate amount with a minimal risk.
Since I only drink it in moderation now ( just like my sausages and alcohol intake, in fact) it is unlikely to change anything for me.
Something you said made me think of something. Generally the people who make comments about aspartame and cancer are also those who do plenty of other things that arent good for health, like drinking or smoking. I laugh becauase i can count on one hand the number of drinks i have in a given year, never smoked or done drugs, i am a healthy weight and i exercise. But i do drink 50oz of diet soda (its my one vice). Ironically my BIL is one of those people. I laugh and point out how he doesnt exercise, eats horrible, drinks often and is gaining weight.3 -
Christine_72 wrote: »not_my_first_rodeo wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I could understand "citing ones sources" if i was a member of an Academic forum full of scientists and teachers.. But I'm not and nor am i am back at school
Sure there are studies that prove and disprove just about everything, but just because a study says such and such is safe does not mean that it is safe for everyone and some people dont experience negative side effects when ingesting said substance, for example.
I much prefer to read about peoples individual experiences and thoughts. Sure, there are some far out and just plain stupid advice and personal accounts posted here, but anyone with a modicum of common sense can pretty easily sift through the BS. We're all adults here, and we must all learn from personal experience as well as our mistakes.
Just because a study says it's so, doesnt make it so for every individual on the planet.
I think the point is that someone saying "I read this thing uh somewhere"and presenting that as scientific evidence is not necessarily valid.
I don't read many posts prefaced with "This scientific journal proves my theory". The majority are borne from peoples personal experiences and what they read on the google machine. Sure if someone says they came to their conclusion from reading a study, then ask where they read it and move on. Don't ridicule them for 10 pages and keep repeating "the onus is on you" blah blah blah
I'm not anyone's Mother on here, and forcing them to prove to me they're not lying or they are making something up, like i used to do with my children comes across a tad obnoxious imo. The pièce de résistance is "I'm calling you out for the lurkers who may be reading this" as if it is their God given moral duty to educate the masses :huh:
To me, those who show such attitude seem more oriented on misinforming the masses.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »not_my_first_rodeo wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I could understand "citing ones sources" if i was a member of an Academic forum full of scientists and teachers.. But I'm not and nor am i am back at school
Sure there are studies that prove and disprove just about everything, but just because a study says such and such is safe does not mean that it is safe for everyone and some people dont experience negative side effects when ingesting said substance, for example.
I much prefer to read about peoples individual experiences and thoughts. Sure, there are some far out and just plain stupid advice and personal accounts posted here, but anyone with a modicum of common sense can pretty easily sift through the BS. We're all adults here, and we must all learn from personal experience as well as our mistakes.
Just because a study says it's so, doesnt make it so for every individual on the planet.
I think the point is that someone saying "I read this thing uh somewhere"and presenting that as scientific evidence is not necessarily valid.
I don't read many posts prefaced with "This scientific journal proves my theory". The majority are borne from peoples personal experiences and what they read on the google machine. Sure if someone says they came to their conclusion from reading a study, then ask where they read it and move on. Don't ridicule them for 10 pages and keep repeating "the onus is on you" blah blah blah
I'm not anyone's Mother on here, and forcing them to prove to me they're not lying or they are making something up, like i used to do with my children comes across a tad obnoxious imo. The pièce de résistance is "I'm calling you out for the lurkers who may be reading this" as if it is their God given moral duty to educate the masses :huh:
To me, those who show such attitude seem more oriented on misinforming the masses.
May be true for some... But for me, i try hard not to dole out advice about things i haven't had personal experience with myself.3 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »not_my_first_rodeo wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I could understand "citing ones sources" if i was a member of an Academic forum full of scientists and teachers.. But I'm not and nor am i am back at school
Sure there are studies that prove and disprove just about everything, but just because a study says such and such is safe does not mean that it is safe for everyone and some people dont experience negative side effects when ingesting said substance, for example.
I much prefer to read about peoples individual experiences and thoughts. Sure, there are some far out and just plain stupid advice and personal accounts posted here, but anyone with a modicum of common sense can pretty easily sift through the BS. We're all adults here, and we must all learn from personal experience as well as our mistakes.
Just because a study says it's so, doesnt make it so for every individual on the planet.
I think the point is that someone saying "I read this thing uh somewhere"and presenting that as scientific evidence is not necessarily valid.
I don't read many posts prefaced with "This scientific journal proves my theory". The majority are borne from peoples personal experiences and what they read on the google machine. Sure if someone says they came to their conclusion from reading a study, then ask where they read it and move on. Don't ridicule them for 10 pages and keep repeating "the onus is on you" blah blah blah
I'm not anyone's Mother on here, and forcing them to prove to me they're not lying or they are making something up, like i used to do with my children comes across a tad obnoxious imo. The pièce de résistance is "I'm calling you out for the lurkers who may be reading this" as if it is their God given moral duty to educate the masses :huh:
To me, those who show such attitude seem more oriented on misinforming the masses.
I always wonder what the point of passive-aggressive insults like this are. So anyone who thinks it is worthwhile to correct a false claim of fact is bent on misinforming the masses?
And back to Christine's comments, I'm actually more interested in discussing what works psychologically too, but that's going to be personal and depend on specifics to at least a large extent, so asserting "people must do this" should be corrected, and is not, in fact, about personal results.
What I see happen sometimes is someone will say something like "you should not skip breakfast or you will binge later in the day" or "you must not eat after 6, or your non-working night time metabolism won't burn it off and you will gain fat." People jump in and point out that this is a dieting myth (because the plethora of dieting myths is in many of our opinions why it feels overwhelming to people and are harmful), and then the person who repeated the myth as fact, perhaps embarrassed, asserts "why are people being mean, I was just saying what worked for me." No, if you were saying what worked for you (as I often do, and think is helpful), you'd have said "I find it helps me not eat too much if I stop eating at 6," "have breakfast," whatever).
Gianfranco, maybe I'm reading too much into one of your vague comments, but I suspect you are on about the strawman that people try to discourage nutritious eating, and I don't see that at all. Saying that you don't have to (although you can if you want) eliminate sugar or cheese or pasta or whatever or go low carb to have a healthful diet or eat absolutely nothing processed (which no one saying that ever seems to actually do) is IMO the opposite of saying don't care about or learn about nutrition. It's encouraging a focus on what an actual healthful diet is.13 -
FWIW, I read to learn, not so I can prove a point on some message board. I don't bookmark studies, articles, etc, so I rarely have sources at the ready if my thoughts don't fit all nice and tidy with what others think.
That's fine, as long as you aren't responding to someone's request for advice by giving them ridiculous, terrible advice that you "read somewhere."
There are times when spewing incorrect "facts" can be legitimately harmful.8 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Also, I wonder if a study one day came out that said aspartame et al does cause cancer. Going by the posts saying "pry my soda out of my cold dead hands", if any of them would quit drinking it? Or would they run the gauntlet and say it's not going to happen to me, like smokers and alcoholics do to justify their "habit" ??
There are such studies about aspartame and tons of other things. One study doesn't prove anything, which is why posting one isn't all that helpful. It isn't really science unless it's repeatable, so until someone is able to replicate the results of the study it's not worth much. To really get a clear picture you have to look at the bulk of scientific consensus, which is why if a person can find 10 studies (that really say what the person says they say) I'm a lot more likely to take them seriously.
If there were 10 well designed studies proving that aspartame increases cancer risk, my next question would be "in what dosage?" If the dosage were small, say 2 cans of soda per day, then I would probably cut back or stop drinking it. If the dosage is huge, say 35 cans of soda per day, then I wouldn't worry too much about it. I'd also want to know how much it actually increases cancer risk. If it only takes my chances from 25% to 26% then I probably wouldn't care much. It would have to be a pretty dramatic result for me to worry about it. But I'm not much of a worrier anyway when it comes to that sort of thing. I suspect if you asked a bunch of diet soda drinkers this same question you'd get loads of different results.4 -
Christine_72 wrote: »not_my_first_rodeo wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I could understand "citing ones sources" if i was a member of an Academic forum full of scientists and teachers.. But I'm not and nor am i am back at school
Sure there are studies that prove and disprove just about everything, but just because a study says such and such is safe does not mean that it is safe for everyone and some people dont experience negative side effects when ingesting said substance, for example.
I much prefer to read about peoples individual experiences and thoughts. Sure, there are some far out and just plain stupid advice and personal accounts posted here, but anyone with a modicum of common sense can pretty easily sift through the BS. We're all adults here, and we must all learn from personal experience as well as our mistakes.
Just because a study says it's so, doesnt make it so for every individual on the planet.
I think the point is that someone saying "I read this thing uh somewhere"and presenting that as scientific evidence is not necessarily valid.
I don't read many posts prefaced with "This scientific journal proves my theory". The majority are borne from peoples personal experiences and what they read on the google machine. Sure if someone says they came to their conclusion from reading a study, then ask where they read it and move on. Don't ridicule them for 10 pages and keep repeating "the onus is on you" blah blah blah
I'm not anyone's Mother on here, and forcing them to prove to me they're not lying or they are making something up, like i used to do with my children comes across a tad obnoxious imo. The pièce de résistance is "I'm calling you out for the lurkers who may be reading this" as if it is their God given moral duty to educate the masses :huh:
I know you're being sarcastic with the phrase "God given moral duty to educate" (which is a very nice use of pathos, by the way; it's an effective tool to shame and mock since former positive concepts like God, moral, and duty have become very negative in much of our culture; and don't get me started on the hostility to education). However...
Isn't the *entire point* of a classical liberal education in a democracy to share the knowledge and critical thinking that an educated person has earned for the betterment of society as a whole?
This is something that I would constantly reinforce with my students when I taught: that the pain and suffering they faced in my research methodology classes was to help them become effective, thinking citizens who would make a contribution across all aspects of our culture, not just as a cube jockey in their narrow field of study.
Every time there is a debate and sources are brought out, readers are getting a free 300-level mini-course in "Critical Thinking and Persuasion in the Sciences and Social Sciences", which personally I think is pretty damn awesome. Reading and debating, or just listening to the debate, even if it's just on teh googlez and MFP, is one of the most powerful ways to learn. Look at the interesting, knowledgeable discussion contained in this thread alone.
Of course, if one is being overly obnoxious, on either side of the debate, it's not effective persuasion because poor character (ethos) is being shown. It is DEFINITELY not just the analytical among us who are guilty of being obnoxious (but it seems that the analytical are, indeed, guilty of being the most persuasive).5 -
"jmbmilholland wrote: »
Every time there is a debate and sources are brought out, readers are getting a free 300-level mini-course in "Critical Thinking and Persuasion in the Sciences and Social Sciences", which personally I think is pretty damn awesome. Reading and debating, or just listening to the debate, even if it's just on teh googlez and MFP, is one of the most powerful ways to learn. Look at the interesting, knowledgeable discussion contained in this thread alone.
Of course, if one is being overly obnoxious, on either side of the debate, it's not effective persuasion because poor character (ethos) is being shown. It is DEFINITELY not just the analytical among us who are guilty of being obnoxious (but it seems that the analytical are, indeed, guilty of being the most persuasive).
I don't disagree with this at all, but I do think that a lot of threads outside the debate forum get derailed by the battle of the sources, which tends to wander off into realms that have nothing to do with the original question. I envision the OP slowly backing away, possibly waiving a wooden cross.3 -
"jmbmilholland wrote: »
Every time there is a debate and sources are brought out, readers are getting a free 300-level mini-course in "Critical Thinking and Persuasion in the Sciences and Social Sciences", which personally I think is pretty damn awesome. Reading and debating, or just listening to the debate, even if it's just on teh googlez and MFP, is one of the most powerful ways to learn. Look at the interesting, knowledgeable discussion contained in this thread alone.
Of course, if one is being overly obnoxious, on either side of the debate, it's not effective persuasion because poor character (ethos) is being shown. It is DEFINITELY not just the analytical among us who are guilty of being obnoxious (but it seems that the analytical are, indeed, guilty of being the most persuasive).
I don't disagree with this at all, but I do think that a lot of threads outside the debate forum get derailed by the battle of the sources, which tends to wander off into realms that have nothing to do with the original question. I envision the OP slowly backing away, possibly waiving a wooden cross.
Ha ha! It's true. But it kind of serves them right for starting another sugar or diet pop thread instead of reading the five billion threads that already exist.
5 -
jmbmilholland wrote: »"jmbmilholland wrote: »
Every time there is a debate and sources are brought out, readers are getting a free 300-level mini-course in "Critical Thinking and Persuasion in the Sciences and Social Sciences", which personally I think is pretty damn awesome. Reading and debating, or just listening to the debate, even if it's just on teh googlez and MFP, is one of the most powerful ways to learn. Look at the interesting, knowledgeable discussion contained in this thread alone.
Of course, if one is being overly obnoxious, on either side of the debate, it's not effective persuasion because poor character (ethos) is being shown. It is DEFINITELY not just the analytical among us who are guilty of being obnoxious (but it seems that the analytical are, indeed, guilty of being the most persuasive).
I don't disagree with this at all, but I do think that a lot of threads outside the debate forum get derailed by the battle of the sources, which tends to wander off into realms that have nothing to do with the original question. I envision the OP slowly backing away, possibly waiving a wooden cross.
Ha ha! It's true. But it kind of serves them right for starting another sugar or diet pop thread instead of reading the five billion threads that already exist.
I do wonder about that. Sometimes you'll see 2 or 3 threads with virtually the same title going at the same time. It baffles me.3 -
"jmbmilholland wrote: »
Every time there is a debate and sources are brought out, readers are getting a free 300-level mini-course in "Critical Thinking and Persuasion in the Sciences and Social Sciences", which personally I think is pretty damn awesome. Reading and debating, or just listening to the debate, even if it's just on teh googlez and MFP, is one of the most powerful ways to learn. Look at the interesting, knowledgeable discussion contained in this thread alone.
Of course, if one is being overly obnoxious, on either side of the debate, it's not effective persuasion because poor character (ethos) is being shown. It is DEFINITELY not just the analytical among us who are guilty of being obnoxious (but it seems that the analytical are, indeed, guilty of being the most persuasive).
I don't disagree with this at all, but I do think that a lot of threads outside the debate forum get derailed by the battle of the sources, which tends to wander off into realms that have nothing to do with the original question. I envision the OP slowly backing away, possibly waiving a wooden cross.
I'm sure most posters just expect a simple and concise reply to their questions. Being blinded by scientific studies and 5 page articles explaining the intricacies of human physiology and how this chemical reacts with that chemical is probably a little more than they bargained for or even wanted/needed.
5 -
Christine_72 wrote: »"jmbmilholland wrote: »
Every time there is a debate and sources are brought out, readers are getting a free 300-level mini-course in "Critical Thinking and Persuasion in the Sciences and Social Sciences", which personally I think is pretty damn awesome. Reading and debating, or just listening to the debate, even if it's just on teh googlez and MFP, is one of the most powerful ways to learn. Look at the interesting, knowledgeable discussion contained in this thread alone.
Of course, if one is being overly obnoxious, on either side of the debate, it's not effective persuasion because poor character (ethos) is being shown. It is DEFINITELY not just the analytical among us who are guilty of being obnoxious (but it seems that the analytical are, indeed, guilty of being the most persuasive).
I don't disagree with this at all, but I do think that a lot of threads outside the debate forum get derailed by the battle of the sources, which tends to wander off into realms that have nothing to do with the original question. I envision the OP slowly backing away, possibly waiving a wooden cross.
I'm sure most posters just expect a simple and concise reply to their questions. Being blinded by scientific studies and 5 page articles explaining the intricacies of human physiology and how this chemical reacts with that chemical is probably a little more than they bargained for or even wanted/needed.
It's a real tragedy that so many people think scientific knowledge is evil or frightening or makes them feel bad about themselves.12 -
Christine_72 wrote: »"jmbmilholland wrote: »
Every time there is a debate and sources are brought out, readers are getting a free 300-level mini-course in "Critical Thinking and Persuasion in the Sciences and Social Sciences", which personally I think is pretty damn awesome. Reading and debating, or just listening to the debate, even if it's just on teh googlez and MFP, is one of the most powerful ways to learn. Look at the interesting, knowledgeable discussion contained in this thread alone.
Of course, if one is being overly obnoxious, on either side of the debate, it's not effective persuasion because poor character (ethos) is being shown. It is DEFINITELY not just the analytical among us who are guilty of being obnoxious (but it seems that the analytical are, indeed, guilty of being the most persuasive).
I don't disagree with this at all, but I do think that a lot of threads outside the debate forum get derailed by the battle of the sources, which tends to wander off into realms that have nothing to do with the original question. I envision the OP slowly backing away, possibly waiving a wooden cross.
I'm sure most posters just expect a simple and concise reply to their questions. Being blinded by scientific studies and 5 page articles explaining the intricacies of human physiology and how this chemical reacts with that chemical is probably a little more than they bargained for or even wanted/needed.
It's a real tragedy that so many people think scientific knowledge is evil or frightening or makes them feel bad about themselves.
I don't feel it's any of those 3 things
If someone asks for a study then yeah post away, but i'd hazard a guess that most folks do not. It's the battle of the science wars that end up derailing threads, when really there was no need to get so indepth in the first place.
You work in the science field @tomteboda , correct? So i can understand if you feel slighted by some peoples disinterest.
0 -
MelanieCN77 wrote: »There should be a posting rule, where if you say something like "research says" or "studies show" or "I read somewhere that" that you have to provide a link or at least a title and author reference to your source.
Source?3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions