No, I think people get confused when people start “voting” on whether a particular scientific theory is accurate, or asserting that a particular theory is true because they have accumulated the most studies on their side, or call people who don’t agree with them that a certain scientific theory is incontrovertible names (like “anti-science,” or “people who hate science.”). I think the vast majority of Americans who have taken science in school understand that science is theory that is subject to change.
There are plenty of things that are settled science, but we don’t always have all the available evidence and politics do often get in the way. Nutrition science seems particularly susceptible to outside influences.
One of the best and readable examples of how this works is the first chapter or two of* Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe* where Simon Singh goes through the process of how science figured out that the earth revolves around the sun. I don’t think that theory is subject to change any more though we are still arguing about what constitutes a planet.
I don’t think the vast majority of Americans have a very good understanding of science at all.
I suppose the theory itself may not be subject to change and is therefore settled science, but if the gravitational pull of the sun or planets changed, then it is possible that the theory might no longer apply. The idea that the Earth will always revolve around the Sun is not static or absolute or settled, and is therefore subject to change.
I had one of my carpenters debate at some length w me that an icecube tray filled w boiling water will freeze faster than an icecube tray filled w cold water.
That makes no sense. Science says the Earth does revolve around the sun. It certainly doesn’t say it always will.
[quote]
No one has said everyone should avoid gluten at all costs.
Hey, you’re spoiling my get-rich strategy for marketing gluten-free bottled water![/quot]could you make it fat free and sugar free too?
Artificial sweeteners scare me. People are afraid of all kinds off additives in their food except pure chemicals to sweeten. Makes no sense to me. Sugar just has to be better for you. As does butter instead of chemicals and milk instead of liquified nuts…
Were you guys able to solve that problem?
What’s a “pure chemical”? Your body doesn’t know whether something that hits it was made by a plant or in a plant.
Not exactly…
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/technically_the_earth_does_not_orbit_the_sun.html
Did your level of science education include concepts like “frames of reference”?
Almost philosophical in nature, but key to many things in Physics.
No, it didn’t, but I am more of a humanities person, so I tend to focus on the plain meaning of words, like “revolves,” when having a conversation with the general public.
I don’t know if they still do it, but I remember that you could always find “No Cholesterol!” claims on a bag of greasy, salty potato chips. That used to crack me up.
Hm, okay, what could be any more plain than what The Google kicks up?
Here you are;
re·volve (verb)
3rd person present: revolves
- move in a circle on a central axis. *"overhead, the fan revolved slowly"* synonyms: go around, turn around, rotate, spin "a fan revolved slowly"
- move in a circular orbit around. * **"the earth revolves around the sun"*** synonyms: circle, travel, orbit "the moon revolves around the earth"
It is true that Google uses the word “revolves” in a sentence that way. But is it correct? I am not a scientist, I just read stuff about science.
the fear of cholesterol has never been based on science.(the history of the cholesterol scare is interesting and was a flimsy theory tossed out in the 1950’s and it rapidly caught on…like the sky is falling) A lot of people want to think if they just do the “right thing” with their diet and exercise they can control their health outcome, kind of like if I am disciplined and work hard at it…I will have a long and healthy life as a reward for my exercise and diet but reality is … genetics is 99.9% of what your destiny is(minus accidents, natural disasters, pandemics, war etc)
many of my older relatives who ate low fat yogurt,oat bran and had a small piece of grilled skinless chicken and told me my cheeseburger is a heart attack on a bun and when I get older I will regret eating it…now have some rethinking to do. in fact I think the low fat diet is not only not helpful it is not healthy!
@zobroward, when I worked cardiac critical care, I could have been rich if I had a dollar for every time I heard the following:
Patient: “But doc, I don’t understand! I have low cholesterol, I eat right, I run a million miles a week. How did I end up with a heart attack?!”
Doc: “You didn’t read the fine print when you picked your parents.”
Human body and food is NOT NOT NOT a “simple system.” Food and nutrient/vitamin needs, even in the simplest early research (the 1930s), were already recognized as varying with age and hormonal status. The needs of a post-menopausal woman are enormously different from that of a 18-year-old boy. And we know nearly nothing about the needs of any population other than white males in their twenties (on whom most of the nutritional-needs studies are based).
It’s called the Mpemba effect.
Someone upthread mentioned " global warming".
To be more accurate, I believe the term is climate change.
[you should see the cherry blossoms in Seattle](http://www.komonews.com/weather/blogs/scott/Seattle-sets-twin-records-for-warmest-February-winter-on-record-294516031.html?mobile=y)
go read any of the books by Gary Taubes. You may not agree with conclusion that insulin underlies obesity, but his description of the practices of researchers (and he says he deliberately avoids calling them scientists) in the field is chilling.