Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

Almost there. Really. And yet, we still have examples where those that smoke never exhibit or develop a cancer. All of the process above is valuable, but if it doesn't explain given the same set of circumstances why one does, and then another does not exhibit a cancer. Goes back to something discussed earlier, folks are fundamentally different. The thing that kills you might not ever kill me. And isn't that a super awesome justification for continued diversification.. Also why the direction of current cancer research has stopped looking for the monolithic cure. We won't ever actually find one. What I expect we will find is a method that describes genomic markers that are available.

 

So let's cut to the chase here. So far we have drluggit, Josephwalker, and yguy arguing that smoking does not cause cancer. Right? Please correct me if I'm wrong on your position.

So given that do you guys:

1. Reject that cigarette smoke is a pollutant.

2. Reject that the public has a right to know about the risks of cigarette smoking.

3. Reject the ban on cigarette advertising.

4. Reject the imposition of extra fees on cigarette smokers for health and life insurance.

5. Reject the idea that the government should spend tax payer money to fund campaigns to reduce smoking.

6. Reject the ban on smoking in public places.

7. Reject local ordinances that ban smoking in private places which also provide public accommodation.

Note that each of these was born out of the abundance of evidence that exposure to cigarette smoke (regardless of whether it is first-hand or second-hand) causes serious health problems up to and including death.

 

Really, you being obtuse is sophomoric. Clearly, there is a difference between discussing the veracity of your claims vs some BS retreat to absoluteism that you're now initiating.

But, perhaps you've taken your own approach. Created a data set, made some assumptions, and generated a probability that your little outburst here might be accurate. Yeah. Got it.

 

Then just answer the question so that I don't have to guess at it. Do you accept the scientific consensus that smoking causes cancer or not?

And you can't blame me for assuming the answer to this question is no. You've been trying to undermine the arguments of the scientific consensus the whole time. No?

 

So many issues here, where to start. First, it's a question of characterization. As in, this idea of "scientific consensus". Clearly, I must "accept" because there is a lot of material out there where studies have been conducted in an attempt to establish the method of cigarette smoke causing cancer. There isn't anything else to do, is there? That clearly though, isn't an indication of whether those studies have in fact produced actual evidence of their claim, does it? The question you should ask, is can we have faith, and confidence in the studies sufficient to create a certainty of their claims. Clearly, I am not one of those folks who believe that sufficient evidence of study would make me comfortable that could be construed as a scientific conclusion. Clearly, I think there is a possibility, but we also have empiric evidence that also indicates that the conditions that might produce the cancer will effectively produce it. No?

I have been transparent, and clear about this. That you would whine now about having to "guess" well, that's perhaps more an indication to me that there might be more than one of you using the profile and clearly, you don't communicate. This isn't hard. I'm not "undermining scientific consensus" because, frankly, there isn't one to undermine. Scientists aren't in the business of creating consensus, just observable evidence and outcomes. Politicians look for and demand consensus. I'm sure you can appreciate which camp I see you in.

 

I'm not sure if this is a yes or a no. It actually sounds like a maybe, but I'm not sure. So let me ask you this. If 6 decades of research isn't enough to convince you then what is? Can you even be convinced?

Science is absolutely about forming a consensus. This prevents charismatic individuals from overthrowing thousands or tens of thousands of lines of evidence based on a single publication, experiment, or study. If you think you've made the heroic discovery that has eluded everyone then you need to first convince them and then they need to try and replicate your work. This is what tripped up Fleischmann and Pons with their alleged cold fusion experiment. They held a provocative press conference, which is well outside the established method in science by the way, to report a discovery that would upend the very nature of science. The problem...no one could replicate their work. They didn't do anything fraudulent. I don't even think it was bad science. I just think they made an honest mistake. At any rate the scientific process correctly vetted that failure in science because not because of a lack of consensus on their claim, but because everyone was falsifying it.

 

Wrong.

So you haven't discovered anything until other people agree that you've discovered it. Have I got that right?

 

Absolutely. For example, cold fusion has yet to be discovered (and likely never will IMHO) because other scientists couldn't replicate Fleischmann and Pons' experiment. That's the thing about science. If you're really doing it then everybody else should be able to do it too.

 

I don't suppse any counterexamples come to mind.

 

What about particle wave duality? Everybody can replicate Thomas Young's famous double slit experiment. So it has overwhelming support among the scientific community. It is scientific consensus.

 

So the way you figure it, the discoveries made by Young in that experiment didn't qualify as discoveries before everyone could duplicate them. Have I got that right?

 

Well yeah. How else would you know if it was legit or not? I mean, if I posted on this forum claiming that I discovered a 5th force of nature how many people would be believe me on my word alone?

 

Beside the point.

If you actually discovered it, that wouldn't matter, obviously.

 

It is the point. Scientific consensus is rarely, if ever, born from one claim alone. It is born from the abundance of evidence.

 

Like hell it is.

In case you've forgotten, the subject here is discovery, which obviously precedes consensus.

 

You're deflecting and diverting by playing semantic games. You only get credit for a discovery if your discovery is real. You're using the term a priori whereas I and the scientific community use the term a posteriori. When scientists speak of a "discovery" it is almost always a posteriori. The a posteriori semantics of "discovery" is standard vernacular unless otherwise noted or implied (like with mathematical deductions).

Did Fleichmann and Pons discover cold fusion?

Did Blondlot discover n-rays?

Did Carezani discover autodynamics?

Did Shawyer discover radio frequency resonant cavity reactionless thrust?

None of these have established scientific consensus yet the claims have been put worth. Do you consider them discoveries?

 

You're projecting.

Do you really not understand that that is not a necessary component of discovery?

Really?

Maybe that has something to do with the stultification of science over the last half century or so.

Did Copernicus discover that the geocentric model couldn't be reconciled with observations?

By your reasoning, his discovery did not occur until it became the consensus view. Enjoy.