The example you gave with food isn't really based on science. It's based on food lobbies for certain results. For example the meat industry will pay "scientists" to say meat cures cancer, when the reality is more than likely the opposite. These are multi-billion dollar industries. Of course science is not infallible, there are plenty of theories today that will be disproven in the future just as many theories in the past have been disproven by knowledge accumulated today.
But then there are scientific theories that are more than likely "facts" that can't be disputed. Is the world round? or flat? You will have flat-earthers swear they know more than 100s of years of scientific inquiry on the subject. I believe the earth is a sphere, thanks to scientific knowledge, which includes astronauts taking pictures and discussing the shape of the earth from the moon or in orbit, to the observations of similar planets and their rotations on their axis within our own solar system.
Then there is climate change. I think common sense should help anyone on that. If you were to inject a drop of a harmful chemical in your body, the drop may be small enough that your body can handle it, if you were to repeatedly inject yourself with a larger dose every day, your body will more than likely shut down. The earth is an eco system much like the human body. Inject the earth with chemicals that skew the natural composition of that system and you are bound to get the same kind of reaction your body received. An overwhelming majority of scientists, people who have dedicated their lives in the pursuit of knowledge in this specific area agree global climate change is affected in part by man made pollution. But of course all of us have the right to disagree it doesn't mean anything, people have the right to not believe, but that can be very dangerous. As polluting the earth for idealogical beliefs can only damage everyone. In my mind, on certain topics I would rather trust the consensus of individuals who dedicate their lives in the pursuit of knowledge to the best of humanity's abilities as opposed to someone sitting on a couch and formulating their opinion. Saying that I do agree with the spirit of what you are saying in this post, it's import to always have a critical and skeptical mind.
not really. Depends on the way the meat is processed (at least this is what the evidence shows)
watch this. you will love it
watch this
Yes, but to what degree and whether this is reversible is another story. watch the video.
everyone is in it for the profit. consensus doesn't really cut it.
"not really. Depends on the way the meat is processed (at least this is what the evidence shows)"
Most evidence shows that man was meant to be a herbivore. The body has a hard time digesting meat. Most evidence also shows that red meat is the major cause of certain cancers in the colon. I guess we'll have to definitely agree to disagree on the other 2 points. ;)
Not really man. Human intestines, stomach and processing proteins reveal otherwise.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/should-humans-eat-meat-excerpt/
As you can see, plenty of evidence all over the place :)
Sure, eating meat is a choice, but what I am saying is most evidence points towards red meat causing colon cancer whether processed or not, and there are many scientific articles on whether the human body was designed more for being a herbivore as opposed to a carnivore. But then again that particular part of science is the one with the most questions, ironically, whether it's about the brain or body, most sciences on the human condition is speculative. We can't even cure the common cold... but the attainment of knowledge is getting there.
Truth is not democratic. Meat doesn't cause problems. Nothing does. The problem is always the quantity not the nature of food.
there are zero studies for this. please do try to find one.
viruses such as cold have evolved along us. They are part of us. We just get flares of them much like some people get with herpes. We can't "cure" it because of the "stealth" nature of the virus to remain almost undetectable from our immune system.
I'm going to say again when it comes to food, a lot of the science is skewed by lobbyists.... as stated in the original post so it's a waste of time for us to "argue" on that. Does that make sense?
"viruses such as cold have evolved along us. They are part of us. We just get flares of them much like some people get with herpes. We can't "cure" it because of the "stealth" nature of the virus to remain almost undetectable from our immune system."
Curing the body of viruses is not impossible. One day we may indeed come up with the cure for the common cold, I am just saying we obviously aren't there yet. ;) When I say "cure" I mean if you catch a virus that causes a cold there may be a medicine in the future that gets rid of it within say an hour... it's very possible and likely in the future.
//I'm going to say again when it comes to food, a lot of the science is skewed by lobbyists.... as stated in the original post so it's a waste of time for us to "argue" on that. Does that make sense?//
ok so, you can't make an argument either way. everyone has their own agenda.
yes. everything is possible i guess.
besides as I said in my original post, a lot of the "science" regarding food and meat is skewed by lobbyists... please see original post. I really don't believe in most "evidence" out there on that topic because it can and has been skewed for the profit motive. But when it comes to "Flat Earth" or "Climate Change" there is no profit motive... the motive is knowledge and in the case of "Climate Change" the motive is the survival of life on this planet.
There is massive profit actually in Climate change politics. pushing "renewables" instead of fossils is a multibillion dollar industry.
So you would like to stay with forms of energy that are 100s of years old as opposed to progressing towards newer and cleaner forms of energy that don't pollute the earth? If we have that ideology for the rest of the things in life we would still be riding horses and not have invented anything else for transportation. Technology advances and usually leads to better and more efficient forms of energy etc. It's a positive thing if newer forms of energy are profitable, and in fact as of recently they are showing to be more profitable than older forms like coal for example... but coal dug it's trenches first... and it is fighting to survive. *had to make some typo edits
Not really. I am just saying that the transition and allocation is more about money rather than "saving the environment". Heck Obama was the greenest guy ever and still tanked all the environmental initiatives. It is mostly about lobbying.
yes and so far nuclear energy is the most efficient and less dangerous than all the rest. alternative energies cover only 3 % of the total global needs. there is way too much hype with very little to show.