44 replies to this topic

[churchill]

You believe what John Ioannidis claimed in his paper is true? However if you believe that then does this not invalidate the studies that you are relying on as evidence?

Anecdotal evidence, is an experiment with one person and no control, only worse. Imagine if you read a study like that, you would think it was a joke right? What is the specific evidence you are talking about in your personal case? How do you know it is not just the placebo effect, or a confounding factor, how did you control for this?

I want to check what you are specifically arguing for. Is it
1) Smoking increases life expectancy, or at least does not reduce it.
and/or
2) Stopping smoking decreases life expectancy.

Will get back to you on the papers once I have had a chance to look more deeply into them.

My bad on the Google, you did mention the keyword search term, the very first time you told the OP to Google it.

An example of you misquoting me or misunderstanding me... I said
"You cannot extrapolate non human experiments and say that the same will occur in humans. This is basic science."
I also said
"Causation can only every be inferred it cannot be known."
You then said.
"Churchill, you've just argued that you will not accept a hard scientific experiment as evidence of causation."
Which is not what I said. I said that causation cannot be known, that does not mean that I will not accept hard scientific evidence.

[Joseph_Dantes]

"You believe what John Ioannidis claimed in his paper is true?"

Yes.

"However if you believe that then does this not invalidate the studies that you are relying on as evidence?"

Which ones? I'm not "relying" on any them. However the animal studies did employ proper controls and methodology. I am skeptical of directly extrapolating the beneficial findings to humans, but I think the evidence is enough to tilt the judgment towards an alternative explanation of the correlations between smoking and human illness.

Anecdotal evidence does not always involve one person. An anecdote is merely a story.

I read with great interest Seth Robert's butter experiment, in which he was able to shave milliseconds off his arithmatic answer time by consuming butter, in a repeatable result.

You say individual experimenters' evidence lacks a "control." In the study sense, of course this is true. However, studies lack longitudinal repetition of the finding. An individual experimenter typically obtains the result, returns to his previous state, and obtains it again, repeatedly and with varying environmental variables. If the magnitude of the effect is large, he can isolate precisely what is causing it with greater agility than large, clumsy, expensive studies.

I have repeatedly stated that the thesis I'm committing to defending is that the case against smoking is built on weak correlational evidence.

Re misreading, you quote yourself deceptively. Here's what you said:

"Just because an experiment has a control group and one variable is isolated does not in of itself make for an experiment which will enable you to identify correlation vs causation, at the very least you have the problem of the inherent biases of the experimenter. Causation can only every be inferred it cannot be known."

And I wrote: "Churchill, you've just argued that you will not accept a hard scientific experiment as evidence of causation."

The sentence structure, "Just because... does not make... at the very least ... problems," with its subject being a hard scientific experiment, suggests this was indeed what you were arguing, or at the least dancing close to arguing.

You said a great deal more than merely objecting to animal science and making a general philosophical point. Again, that's a deceptive self-quotation.

Your point also made no sense. If one variable is indeed isolated and altered as you posit, this demonstrates conclusively that the finding is due to causation, not correlation. Bias would invalidate the finding but not imply it was a mere correlation.

Therefore I concluded you were simultaneously demonstrating poor debate strategy and illogic by attacking hard scientific experiments in general.

[churchill]

Are you actually interested in getting to the truth or are you just interested in having an argument? It seems at the moment it is the latter. Tell me what evidence would I need to prove to you that smoking does in fact kill? At the moment that no evidence I could provide would make you change your mind?

What is the evidence that you are relying on? Your argument is neither clear nor succinct. You muddy the waters by citing studies which you don't believe in. Just stick to your evidence, that you do believe in. Is the MRFIT study part of your strong evidence? I assume the mill study is, and I also assume that the non-human smoking data is, what else? If you want to prove that smoking is not the cause of the early death of smokers, then give me an alternate explanation and back it up with the evidence.

You continue to make false assumptions about what I wrote, and to misunderstand it. I have already restated what I said a couple of times.

You wrote "Your point also made no sense. If one variable is indeed isolated and altered as you posit, this demonstrates conclusively that the finding is due to causation, not correlation. Bias would invalidate the finding but not imply it was a mere correlation. "
It does not matter because if there is a bias in the underlying study then the results are meaningless. This is what the John Ioannidis paper was getting at (which you said you agreed with).

John Ioannidis is a direct attack on hard scientific experiments in general, and you believe it, yet you also say that you believe in hard scientific experiments, you are the one being illogical.

[Joseph_Dantes]

I argue to either learn that I'm wrong or sharpen my case. This is the first full fledged smoking debate I've had, and the results are quite encouraging. Far better than my opinions on pollution and fish fared recently in another thread.

You still cannot grasp the concept of a skeptical position rather than an affirmative case. What is this, church? There's nothing wrong with citing studies which don't merit devout unquestioning faith.

"Just stick to your evidence, that you do believe in."

Boy, you would have a huge problem talking with Socrates.

I can see that you desperately want to hear the affirmative case that smoking is good for you. I can only suggest again that you read Nightlight's posts. The argument is complicated and mentally challening. There's no way I can duplicate it here, although I've dropped hints.

"If you want to prove that smoking is not the cause of the early death of smokers, then give me an alternate explanation and back it up with the evidence."

I don't want to prove smoking doesn't cause early death. I want to prove that the case against smoking is weak. One is a statement about the world, the other is a critique of an argument. Guess which is easier to make.

Secondly, you're committing a logical fallacy. Even if we had no alternate explanations, that would not mean the current model is true. Lack of imagination is not a proof.

Your inability to understand logic and debate demonstrates that you're completely out of your depth here. I doubt you could successfully reassemble Nightlight's fragmentary arguments. You may be better off waiting 20 years for the consensus to say "Oops" and catch up.

"It does not matter because if there is a bias in the underlying study then the results are meaningless."

Correct, but this was not your initial statement. Changing it now doesn't help you.

"John Ioannidis is a direct attack on hard scientific experiments in general, and you believe it, yet you also say that you believe in hard scientific experiments, you are the one being illogical."

At the rate you're constructing straw men, you could underbid China for Farm and Fleet's scarecrow order.

Ioannidis doesn't reject all hard scientific experiments. Neither do I. You've failed to wrap your head around his nuanced argument on how flaws can arise in the work of all-too-human scientists.

Furthermore, it is not illogical in the least of me to cite flawed studies to counter other flawed studies. You continue to fail to grasp the role of the critic and skeptic.

EDIT: You asked what evidence would change my mind. Correlational studies are enough for a prima facie case that smoking is bad. The hard animal science overturned this. To accomplish a second reversal, I'd probably require more hard science, either animal or human. However I remain open to other forms of evidence.

Edited by Joseph_Dantes, 13 November 2010 - 09:54 PM.

[churchill]

Your evidence is weak and your arguments are poor, your just wasting my time. Shame really if you had done a better job and done it without the rudeness you could have had a convert.

I await some more of your pithy comments, or rather I don't.

[Logan]

what this boils down to is do you have peer reviewed literature that advises smoking cigarettes may be beneficial in humans?

You can take your peer review fetish and cram it where the globe doesn't warm, right next to your FDA pyramid.

I see that you may be young and rebellious. Maybe your viewpoint will change as you get older, mature, and a little wiser. My opinion on many things has changed as I've grown a bit older and I've become less rebellious against convention.

You don't have any good evidence that quitting smoking is detrimental to heath. Plus, if you are so high on anecdotal evidence, ask the people that quit smoking how they feel compared to how they felt when they were smoking(I'm talking about a several months to a year or more after quitting, not the few months after quitting when they are still adjusting) Everyone I know who smoked and quit feels considerably better since quitting-better endurance, more energy, better breathing, sick less often, etc. My father still smokes, and he still coughs throughout the night. I wonder if this cough would be gone had he quit several years ago. Maybe one does feel worse shortly after quitting as their body goes through stressful withdrawal. But I see no good argument for quitting smoking being detrimental to health in the long run.

[Joseph_Dantes]

Churchill, my intention was never to convert you, as you still fail to understand, but to defend my assertion that the case for smoking being unhealthy is weak, which I have successfully done. Your decision to not read Nightlight's arguments is your own, and has nothing to do with me. Take some responsibility.

Morganator, I have excellent evidence that quitting is bad for your health in the short term. That is the most clearly established thing about smoking. I am simply not presenting that case at this time. Copious evidence, animal and otherwise, exists if you look into it.

Re coughing, I find that manufactured cigarettes generate a cough, but handrolled ones from smooth tobacco don't.

EDIT: It is very unlikely that I will become better disposed towards consensi, which are inherently the opinions of people of average intelligence, over time, considering that the dietary consensus kept me in a zombie like state of ill health for the majority of my life. One doesn't tend to forget a decade and a half of imprisonment in a biological hell easily. Not to mention the subsequent awakenings in religion, theology, political philosophy, history, human biodiversity, social dynamics, physics, astronomy, pharmacology, morality, etc that awaited me.

I believe it was Mark Twain who said that any time one finds oneself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and think.

Edited by Joseph_Dantes, 14 November 2010 - 10:25 PM.

[firespin]

Churchill, my intention was never to convert you, as you still fail to understand, but to defend my assertion that the case for smoking being unhealthy is weak, which I have successfully done. Your decision to not read Nightlight's arguments is your own, and has nothing to do with me. Take some responsibility.

Morganator, I have excellent evidence that quitting is bad for your health in the short term. That is the most clearly established thing about smoking. I am simply not presenting that case at this time. Copious evidence, animal and otherwise, exists if you look into it.

Re coughing, I find that manufactured cigarettes generate a cough, but handrolled ones from smooth tobacco don't.

EDIT: It is very unlikely that I will become better disposed towards consensi, which are inherently the opinions of people of average intelligence, over time, considering that the dietary consensus kept me in a zombie like state of ill health for the majority of my life. One doesn't tend to forget a decade and a half of imprisonment in a biological hell easily. Not to mention the subsequent awakenings in religion, theology, political philosophy, history, human biodiversity, social dynamics, physics, astronomy, pharmacology, morality, etc that awaited me.

I believe it was Mark Twain who said that any time one finds oneself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and think.

^^^Just from reading this I can't believe you guys are wasting time with this Joseph_Dantes troll. If he is not a troll then he is a real idiot.

Joseph_Dantes if you are serious then smoke as much as you want(even more). It can only be a good thing someone dumb enough to believe smoking is not unhealthy despite strong evidence that its bad do not reach immortality.

I guess the value of debating him can be so he doesn't spread his ignorance to young or uninformed visitors, but hopefully clowns like him are banned soon.

Edited by firespin, 14 November 2010 - 10:51 PM.

[Joseph_Dantes]

I could be wrong, firespin, but I believe it is beyond the pale of civil discourse to ungrammatically wish death upon the opposing side.

[churchill]

Churchill, my intention was never to convert you, as you still fail to understand, but to defend my assertion that the case for smoking being unhealthy is weak, which I have successfully done. Your decision to not read Nightlight's arguments is your own, and has nothing to do with me. Take some responsibility.

Morganator, I have excellent evidence that quitting is bad for your health in the short term. That is the most clearly established thing about smoking. I am simply not presenting that case at this time. Copious evidence, animal and otherwise, exists if you look into it.

Re coughing, I find that manufactured cigarettes generate a cough, but handrolled ones from smooth tobacco don't.

EDIT: It is very unlikely that I will become better disposed towards consensi, which are inherently the opinions of people of average intelligence, over time, considering that the dietary consensus kept me in a zombie like state of ill health for the majority of my life. One doesn't tend to forget a decade and a half of imprisonment in a biological hell easily. Not to mention the subsequent awakenings in religion, theology, political philosophy, history, human biodiversity, social dynamics, physics, astronomy, pharmacology, morality, etc that awaited me.

I believe it was Mark Twain who said that any time one finds oneself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and think.

Neither of us won the argument, in a debate you would have a panel of judges that decide who win. You seem to love jumping to conclusions without proving anything.

If you are rude to people, is it surprising to you that they are more rude back? If you want people to attack your argument rather than you then you should remove the emotional language from your postings. Saying something like 'whining and passive aggressive manipulation' is almost guaranteed to get you a negative reaction.

[Joseph_Dantes]

"Neither of us won the argument, in a debate you would have a panel of judges that decide who win."


By this logic a judges' panel decision is always correct.


"You seem to love jumping to conclusions without proving anything."


I didn't need to prove anything to win.


"If you are rude to people, is it surprising to you that they are more rude back?"


no.


"If you want people to attack your argument rather than you then you should remove the emotional language from your postings."


It makes no difference whatsoever to me.


"Saying something like 'whining and passive aggressive manipulation' is almost guaranteed to get you a negative reaction. "


And yet it was demonstrably true. Objectively verifiable observations are not insults, even if they make the subject unhappy.

[churchill]

@JD
Trolling I see. Congratulations your the first person on my ignore list!

[Joseph_Dantes]

Given all that you refuse to read, you're placing me in undeservedly illustrious company.

The thing that first hooked me on Nightlight's arguments, back when I still thought he was crazy, was how irrationally emotional his opponents were.

[Destiny's Equation]

Aromatherapy is also free from any side effects.

ANYTHING with a low boiling point is going to be highly reactive. Duh!

Inhaling VOCs accelerates the aging process, the side effects are not noticable only because 1. the damage sneaks up on one gradually 2. the temporary "glow" masks all else.

If anyone is considering experimenting with aromatherapy after reading this thread, please read about my hellish neurodegenerative disease first:

http://www.longecity...erapy-disaster/
http://www.longecity...-social-skills/
http://www.longecity...rative-disease/

Can't say I've ever smoked, but that would have been far better for me than this. If I were less skilled at the delicate art of giving my body the right nutrition at the right times I would probably not be here right now. I am teetering at the very edge of life...looking down.

[Destiny's Equation]

How is it that smell goes "directly" to the brain and sound, sight and so on do not? Don't the smell signals travel along nerve fibers same as other senses?

"The pleasant smell is what triggers your brain" is a bunch of bunk. Exposure to second-hand crack smoke will result in agitation, but no one then goes on to argue "the unpleasant smell of the crack triggers an emotional response".

It is the pharmacological effects. Volatile oils, once in the bloodstream, easily cross the BBB.

Back when I was frying my brain with an aromatherapy inhaler I did a little experiment. When I held it to my nose (as the instructions said to) I got a slight mind-boosting effect, but when I put it in my mouth and sucked on it directly like a cigarette the effect was far more pronounced.