Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Do you suffer from Pseudo-Skepticism? [View all]merrily
(45,251 posts)73. This article alludes to some of what I posted and also to some of what you posted.
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20071114_cardio-tobacco/
Including what I posted about studies commissioned by the tobacco companies and their internally done studies. (They kept secret the results they did not like.)
And now they are doing studies to back up false claims about more modern forms of smoking.
It was not only lay people who were fooled, but also doctors. This article says that, as of 1960, many doctors not only believed smoking was okay but actually smoked themselves, furthering the impression that cigarettes must be safe. (Near the end of the 1800s was when people began to suspect a connection between smoking and lung cancer, so 1960 was quite far into the "linking" process.)
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/2/87.full
So, again, it not a matter of science selling out. However, if I see a newspaper report about a study that supposedly concluded that lots of salt is great for my health and I see that a company in the business of selling salt commissioned the study, I might squint, based on what I know the tobacco companies did.
Including what I posted about studies commissioned by the tobacco companies and their internally done studies. (They kept secret the results they did not like.)
And now they are doing studies to back up false claims about more modern forms of smoking.
It was not only lay people who were fooled, but also doctors. This article says that, as of 1960, many doctors not only believed smoking was okay but actually smoked themselves, furthering the impression that cigarettes must be safe. (Near the end of the 1800s was when people began to suspect a connection between smoking and lung cancer, so 1960 was quite far into the "linking" process.)
One source of information for the history of ignorance is the polling data amassed by professional opinion research agencies and their tobacco industry counterparts. In 1954, for example, George Gallup sampled a broad swath of the US public to ask: do you think cigarette smoking is one of the causes of lung cancer, or not? 41% answered yes, with the remainder answering either no or undecided.30 Even large numbers of doctors remained unconvinced. In 1960, in a poll organised by the American Cancer Society, only a third of all US doctors agreed that cigarette smoking should be considered a major cause of lung cancer. This same poll revealed that 43% of all American doctors were still smoking cigarettes on a regular basis, with occasional users accounting for another 5%.31 With half of all doctors smoking, it should come as no surprise that most Americans remained unconvinced of life-threatening harms from the habit.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/2/87.full
So, again, it not a matter of science selling out. However, if I see a newspaper report about a study that supposedly concluded that lots of salt is great for my health and I see that a company in the business of selling salt commissioned the study, I might squint, based on what I know the tobacco companies did.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
75 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Than that puts us at the unsatisfying situation the article describes where we
el_bryanto
Feb 2015
#11
These planes came in off the Pacific Ocean in formation side-by-side, not a usual commercial route.
hunter
Feb 2015
#45
Thanks for clarifying. However, ftr, calling something paranoia does not make it paranoia.
merrily
Feb 2015
#28
Because posters who aren't aware that Richard Hofstader has been dead for 45 years really, really,
msanthrope
Feb 2015
#40
That you missed the point of my question entirely msanthrope, doesn't mean I should stop.
merrily
Feb 2015
#41
I would argue my degree qualifies me to call bullshit on your bullshit.
Act_of_Reparation
Feb 2015
#50
What bullshit would that be? My whole point from go on this was that Hofstader was not a
merrily
Feb 2015
#51
I never said he was diagnosing someone. I said that calling something paranoia does not make
merrily
Feb 2015
#57
My reply 6 simply disagreed with your assertion that I had defined "paranoia" differently than
merrily
Feb 2015
#66
I am not the only one who is at a loss for what you are trying to say.
Act_of_Reparation
Feb 2015
#74
I believe I have read it (but a while back) - I'm not sure what your point is. nt
el_bryanto
Feb 2015
#22
Hofstadter argued paranoia is a fixture of American political thought.
Act_of_Reparation
Feb 2015
#25
The Cronkite era was also an aberration in that most of the big on air names had come
merrily
Feb 2015
#69
It may depend upon what is being questioned and why. And who funded the study and why.
merrily
Feb 2015
#62
there was broad consensus in the medical and scientific community regarding tobacco...
mike_c
Feb 2015
#71
In the 1940's and 50s, studies were cited to show the evidence of a link was inconclusive at best.
merrily
Feb 2015
#72
This article alludes to some of what I posted and also to some of what you posted.
merrily
Feb 2015
#73
But are the choices actually binary, or is that suggestion in itself a sort of a call to abandon
Bluenorthwest
Feb 2015
#8
I think most or all of us question with the goal of perceiving the universe as realistically as
merrily
Feb 2015
#46
I like to think that "turning the burden of proof upside down" is a right wing phenomenon.
pampango
Feb 2015
#17
If they devalue anything, it's media and government officials, which combination
merrily
Feb 2015
#70
Mark Twain and I often laugh about this, especially when we're sipping elixir
Brother Buzz
Feb 2015
#35
While that kind of topic certainly falls under the umbrella of "Pseudo-Skepticism"
kentauros
Feb 2015
#53
Do you believe it is possible to prove a negative, or ask for people to do so?
uppityperson
Feb 2015
#55
Our Doubt is based on the obvious capture of our government by financial interests
RunInCircles
Feb 2015
#56