Interesting article in Science

[punk-a-doodle]

that may be the only logical thing but I was referring to the defiance of the science that says smoking causes cancer if it were true or logical in its conclusions we all would have cancer if we smoke.

I have never read a scientific study that says 'smoking always causes cancer'. If I did, I'd be checking the funding sources on that one.

I think enough people have jumped in on that one to describe the distinctions between statments like 'cause and effect' or 'increased risk' and how these do not translate to 'definite outcome'.

My whole point was when you put your trust in a system of everything must be logical to be truth you are buying into a erroneous system, you must allow for those things that are unexplainable.

So, science on smoking is illogical and inexplicable, but science doesn't allow for the unexplained and is therefore highly flawed? Trying to follow how the first quote led into the second one.
That aside, yes, science is generally defined loosely as something akin to:
the systematic study of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms
So yep, anything that is 'unexplainable' is not regarded as scientific fact. But that's cool with science, because scientific study is a process, and it doesn't really dig absolutely proving the non-existence of things. The Jersey devil may not be very high on scientists' "to study" list, but saying that the Jersey devil is not 'scientifically understood/recognized/factual", is not the same as saying "it without a doubt does not exist". Just don't go around saying, "the Jersey devil is completely real, and it is out to steal my underwear, and that's a scientific fact", and science will be like, "we're cool man". Your neighbors however....maybe not so much. Many people do value some sort of logic or evidence when someone is trying to state that something is an educated opinion or a fact...even if it isn't a scientific one.​

 

[chickened]

sci·ence (sns)
n.
1.
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
5. Science Christian Science.




science (sns)
The investigation of natural phenomena through observation, theoretical explanation, and experimentation, or the knowledge produced by such investigation. Science makes use of the scientific method, which includes the careful observation of natural phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis, the conducting of one or more experiments to test the hypothesis, and the drawing of a conclusion that confirms or modifies the hypothesis. See Note at hypothesis.



If you use an unknown ingredient in a study would not the experiment be flawed? The results questionable?

It seems science is evolving from my school days. I have no problem with science finding a cure for this or that but when they try to use science to "make life better" or "find the missing link" I think science becomes like a light traveling through space forever searching for something that never satisfies. We look to science to find a way to better our life out of a sense of fear and that very well could be the reason that studies, exploration and research never ends, I mean where will we go next to find our contentment? Mars? some other planet or what.

On the subject of smoking, deliberately inhaling any smoke/irritant would not take a scientific study to determine it is not good for you. Those studies were designed to sue tabacco companies.
Quote:
I have never read a scientific study that says 'smoking always causes cancer'. If I did, I'd be checking the funding sources on that one.

I think enough people have jumped in on that one to describe the distinctions between statments like 'cause and effect' or 'increased risk' and how these do not translate to 'definite outcome'.

My whole point was when you put your trust in a system of everything must be logical to be truth you are buying into a erroneous system, you must allow for those things that are unexplainable.

So, science on smoking is illogical and inexplicable, but science doesn't allow for the unexplained and is therefore highly flawed? Trying to follow how the first quote led into the second one.
That aside, yes, science is generally defined loosely as something akin to:
the systematic study of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms
So yep, anything that is 'unexplainable' is not regarded as scientific fact. But that's cool with science, because scientific study is a process, and it doesn't really dig absolutely proving the non-existence of things. The Jersey devil may not be very high on scientists' "to study" list, but saying that the Jersey devil is not 'scientifically understood/recognized/factual", is not the same as saying "it without a doubt does not exist". Just don't go around saying, "the Jersey devil is completely real, and it is out to steal my underwear, and that's a scientific fact", and science will be like, "we're cool man". Your neighbors however....maybe not so much. Many people do value some sort of logic or evidence when someone is trying to state that something is an educated opinion or a fact...even if it isn't a scientific one.​

 

[Royd]

Logic tells me that when you give people easy money for coming up with silly hypothesis', pretty soon, it becomes a lifestyle. It also tells me that man is basically lazy and seeks the path of least resistance. My evidence is in the scientific community, itself. Wasting money, while trying to force the rest of humanity into some narrow parameters of living, with a thousand life threatening hypotheticals is not logical. Good grief, if I listened to the scientific community, and all of their doomsday experiments, the only science I would be interested in is ballistics.

 

[punk-a-doodle]

If you use an unknown ingredient in a study would not the experiment be flawed? The results questionable?

It depends what you are studying, and what you mean by 'unknown'. For instance, in a medical study, it is quite common to set up a control group and a drug of unknown or unproven properties.

It seems science is evolving from my school days. I have no problem with science finding a cure for this or that but when they try to use science to "make life better" or "find the missing link" I think science becomes like a light traveling through space forever searching for something that never satisfies.

You have no problem with science finding a medical cure (ie. making life better), but you have a problem trying to use it to make life better? Not really sure where that is going.
Yep, science is an expanding and changing category. Just within the area of animal models, much has changed and evolved along with our understanding in relevant areas.

We look to science to find a way to better our life out of a sense of fear and that very well could be the reason that studies, exploration and research never ends, I mean where will we go next to find our contentment? Mars? some other planet or what.

Maybe you do, but that is not where my interest in science lies. I do know many who do pretty much everything guided by fear though. That trait marks several personality disorders and types which science has helped categorize.

On the subject of smoking, deliberately inhaling any smoke/irritant would not take a scientific study to determine it is not good for you. Those studies were designed to sue tabacco companies.

To sue tobacco companies, to understand mechanisms for addiction, to study metabolic and hormonal changes and how different stimulants effect them, to study how disease and environment/gene interaction works, to study DNA mutations via carcinogens, etc. And I think we already covered the difference between scientific fact and:
"I say smoking is bad for y'all"
"Well I say smoking doesn't do anything bad 'cause my granny lived to be 103, and she smoked a pack everyday"
"You're both wrong because..."
etc.​

 

[MamaRoo]

Quote:
I completely don't understand what you're talking about. The goal of science is to understand things, not make people do things.

 

[welsummerchicks]

The reason people reject the study is because they don't like its findings, as usual. Or how the media wrote it up.

Generally, researchers who do experiments on animals stress very strongly that it 'raises interesting questions', NOT that all their findings translate perfectly to humans. It's someone else in the media, who makes ridiculous claims about what the study proves.

Persnally, I find absolutely nothing surprising in the idea that animals that are attacking other animals have a tendency to give birth to animals that attack other animals.

I see absolutely nothing irrational about that. I would EXPECT science to find such a thing. It's quite possible that animals can inherit a tendency to be more aggressive. They may not inherit an 'aggression gene' or an 'aggression hormone'. It could be that their vision or anxiety levels are abnormal, and that can be inherited. It could be that they have higher cortisol levels, also inheritable. THey may even LEARN to be aggressive by seeing their parents be aggressive. Not that such early learning is necessarily so easily removed from an animal!

Too, the research is useful in an immediate practical way. Farmers may in the near future cull parent birds that are aggressive, or take them out of the breeding flock. That could be very good. The other animals would be pecked on less and would be under less stress themselves.

Many many assumptions may be made, most of them upsetting and unnecessary. One assumption is that this study means humans do not CHOOSE to abuse their children. That is to be perfectly honest, an irrational conclusion about what this study proves.

We don't like that idea because we want to think of child abuse a punishable choice. LIke many crimes, any biological tendency is automatically viewed as an EXCUSE and an effort to be declared innocent or not guilty due to diminished responsibility. There's often a bizarre conclusion made that ANY disorder or disease could possibly excuse a crime. The trouble with that assumption is that our legal system isn't constructed that way.

It also makes us feel better because if child abuse is a choice, we have less likelihood of falling into it. We want to believe we can control all our behavior by choice, so we have a strong bias there.

And also, it seems we think it would be easy to stop abusing children, simply choose not to.

No, actually, biology isn't destiny. First of all, there is no method at all for determining who INDIVIDUALLY will abuse children currently. What we know of human biology of abuse of children applies to large groups of people and tendencies, not individuals.

For example, it is well established in the social science community as well as out there in the trenches in our human services agencies, that abusive HUMAN PARENTS DO, IN FACT, TEND TO HAVE CHILDREN WHO GROW UP TO BE ABUSERS. WHY is not known. EXACTLY which individuals will become abusers is also not known. Many people have a theory, but like many theories, we can't exactly set up an experiment in which we abuse one group of children and not another group. But it is fairly obvious that child abuse is not a good idea. That REALLY should not be rocket science at this point. It is not really unusual for abusive parents to make abusive children.

No, biology is not destiny. But a person has to be willing to accept an awful lot of help, guidance and structure, to buck biology.

And we would also find that some people's behavior is not fixable - and they should not be parents. But to prevent them from breeding we'd have to turn our country into a police state and scrap our constitution. That isn't about to happen. We don't punish people for crimes they haven't yet done.

THAT SAID - the research has shown that abusers very often tend to have abusive children. THat much we know. But that is a STATISTIC - no one can point to a given individual abuser and say for sure that that specific child will be an abuser. Even thought there's a strong pattern, not everyone will follow that pattern.

As an example, sociology scientists have been studying for years, why 'Superkids' exist. 'Superkids' are raised in horrible environments - abusive or neglectful families and everything that goes along with it. Perhaps the studies have not followed 'Superkids' long enough, and they become troubled later(people often develop psychological problems later in life that seem to relate to earlier difficulties). But for now, as near as we can tell, 'Superkids' exist. In one memorable case a boy had a mother who beat him and refused to feed him as 'all food was poisoned'. This little boy was fearless, and made sure he had a full tummy every mealtime, he seemed to be little affected by beatings, he said, 'oh yes, sometimes mom lets fly'. He was not fearful or timid or seeming to suffer in any way. WHat is going on here? HIs siblings were anxious and fearful and confused. WHy do 'Superkids' exist? No one is quite sure yet. And this fact remains - MOST abused kids suffer negative consequences. Could counseling, medication or other treatments help anxious, angry, confused children feel better? That's why we need to study 'Superkids'. It may be years more before we understand 'Superkids' - or new longer term studies may prove these kids succumb to psychological distress later on. Our 'Superkids' may not exist at all.

"Smoking causes cancer", but only in a subset of smokers. That's not a terribly difficult concept to grasp - neither is the fact that as yet, no one can tell you if you will get cancer from cigarettes or not. If you choose to smoke, you have a chance of getting cancer, no one is yet marketing a blood test that will reveal if you're one of the unlucky ones or not.

Since cigarettes are linked to a large number of diseases, many people choose not to smoke. Most likely, future research will clarify why not all people who smoke get cancer. The fact that a percentage of smokers get lung cancer - that and having seen someone die of lung cancer, has turned me into a non smoker. Many others have made the same decision.

There are many possibilities as to why not all smokers get lung cancer.

They are undiagnosed - they die of cancer, but cause of death is unknown.

THey are diagnosed with another form of cancer that metastasized from the original lung cancer (not at all unusual - the original cancer is often missed).

They die of some other medical cause before the cancer becomes severe enough to be noticed.

They die in an accident.

They have a gene or genes, that cause their body to create more of certain substances, and those substances cause them to not get lung cancer, or for it to grow so slowly it never is obvious.

Even already, some researchers are finding not all people are susceptible to every type of cancer.

There's already some evidence that some people have high levels of various genes or substances (like tumor necrosing factor - TNF) that may halt some cancers. Does a difference in amount of TNF in the body actually halt some types of cancer? More research may show that it does. MAY. For now, it seems more TNF in the body may (MAY) cause spinal discs to deteriorate, evenwhile it's protecting from some cancers, though only hints are available at this point. More research is needed.

MOST research brings up possibilities - the possibility gets dug into, and the truth gets exposed bit by bit, like digging through layers and layers of sediment by a river bank tells us how the river flow has changed over time and when floods have happened. But you can, at some point say - 'that's a very telling piece of data - I ain't goin' to build a house on this river bank.

Quite early on, tobacco companies had research in hand that showed that a percentage of smokers get cancer. They knew that it was a horrific and often fatal disease, that it led to other cancers, and they knew that they were putting customers at risk.

However, at this point, researchers are making incredible progress in cancer research. We have to remember that while all cancers alter cell growth, each type of cancer is unique. Some cancers are triggered by viruses, for example, and some are not.

Research has already shown us the mechanism by which tobacco affects cell growth, so we know the mechanism that causes lung cancer. That is quite clear. Just because much of the research is not publicized in the media or people don't understand it, does not follow that it is meaningless.

 

[welsummerchicks]

Quote:
Theoretical science would imply putting nothing into practice, however advances in medicine belie this assumption.

Based on all available evidence, smoking CAN cause cancer. That's not the same as saying it DOES. They are very different statements, although the uneducated reader could easily misinterpret them. A cut CAN cause a scar, but it doesn't always.

This is incorrect. Cigarettes can and do actually cause cancer. The genetic mechanism has been known for a good long time.

Non smokers account for about fifteen percent of lung cancer cases only. In those cases, other lung irritants are responsible.

Hamilton, W; Peters TJ, Round A, Sharp D (December 2005). "What are the clinical features of lung cancer before the diagnosis is made? A population based case-control study". Thorax (BMJ Publishing Group) 60 (12): 1059–1065. doi:10.1136/thx.2005.045880. PMC 1747254. PMID 16227326. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1747254.

You want to smoke? Fine. But don't spread misinformation or out and out lies. It is very well established that the vast majority of lung cancer sufferers smoke and the mechanism behind tobacco's action is well known and has been for decades. All the people in my family who died of lung cancer, all smoked very heavily.

 

[MamaRoo]

Yes, the majority of lung cancer sufferers do/did smoke, however it's my understanding that you can't reverse the statement. It's not true that the majority of smokers get lung cancer.

What I meant by my statement of DOES was 'does every time'. Technically, I think smoking causes changes in the lung epitheilia that can lead to cancerous growth.

My grandmother smoked until well into her 90's. She had other issues, but not cancer.

 

[welsummerchicks]

The fact that some people don't get cancer from smoking is important because they may have a gene or chemical in their bodies that prevents them from getting cancer. Or perhaps even just one kind of cancer. That's why the issue is being studied so intensively.

As another example, it has always puzzled researchers why the medieval plagues didn't just keep killing people til everyone died. The answer has only come to light recently. It seems that a sustantial number of people that survived did so because of a gene that prevented them from getting as sick from the plague. In fact the research so far, indicates that everyone that died in the medieval bubonic plagues may NOT have had that gene.

Why study that? Well, as researchers originally suspected, this knowledge can help us prevent other diseases today.

 

[chickened]

So what you are saying is if you live long enough and smoke you WILL get cancer? I am not sure on that one and the logic gods on here would disagree with you I am still out on the logic part.
Quote:
Theoretical science would imply putting nothing into practice, however advances in medicine belie this assumption.

Based on all available evidence, smoking CAN cause cancer. That's not the same as saying it DOES. They are very different statements, although the uneducated reader could easily misinterpret them. A cut CAN cause a scar, but it doesn't always.

This is incorrect. Cigarettes can and do actually cause cancer. The genetic mechanism has been known for a good long time.

Non smokers account for about fifteen percent of lung cancer cases only. In those cases, other lung irritants are responsible.

Hamilton, W; Peters TJ, Round A, Sharp D (December 2005). "What are the clinical features of lung cancer before the diagnosis is made? A population based case-control study". Thorax (BMJ Publishing Group) 60 (12): 1059–1065. doi:10.1136/thx.2005.045880. PMC 1747254. PMID 16227326. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1747254.

You want to smoke? Fine. But don't spread misinformation or out and out lies. It is very well established that the vast majority of lung cancer sufferers smoke and the mechanism behind tobacco's action is well known and has been for decades. All the people in my family who died of lung cancer, all smoked very heavily.