- You just made up article titles to prove your point.
- You call out the USA for no particular reason, because your arguments apply equally to other countries.
- You don't provide any alternative to "science", which according to you is inherently flawed, which makes pretty much any discussion with you pointless.
- Those points I used are real arguments being made today. I don't have exact quotes/links, but they do exist. There are people who believe those 3 items are perfectly correct. I admit item#3 is a bit of an exaggeration, but there is an alleged issue of over-diagnosis of ADD. I'm not saying they're wrong, but just saying to keep in mind that there is a lot of money that would be lost if those 3 things were to be discovered false.
- I called out the USA because this article is about the USA. Also I noted in italics that I wasn't saying it was only USA.
- Indeed, I don't have any alternative. Though I did mention I like the idea of multiple countries doing the study to see if everyone reaches the same conclusion. I'm just saying there is something to be said for a bit of skepticism. We know how long it took for science to decide tobacco was bad for you. It wasn't like they didn't know before, it just took a long time to push past the greed & corruption that kept the data hidden. Just saying to always keep a critical mind with these things. Afterall, this article here is calling out exactly what I'm claiming.
EDIT: And I see my original comment has been upvoted out of the graveyard during my commute to work, so I guess there are people who agree with what I'm trying to say.
Cite proper studies on these things, and don't cherry pick results you like, give me a fair sampling of all research. If the data supports your claim, I'll believe it.
Leaving aside the fact that different countries are basically irrelevant here, what you are describing is a scientific consensus. These are always founded not on a single or even a handful of studies, but rather on many, many studies and mountains of evidence, meta-studies analyzing the studies, independent verification of results, and so forth. Science doesn't move forward by individual studies - that's a common misconception - it moves forward when enough of those studies accrue that a clear consensus emerges and shifts the prevailing paradigm. This is also why the lone brilliant genius who overturns everything with their piercing insight is such a stupid meme - even Einstein had to verify his results and wait for the rest of the community to double check his work.
And that's why it's a fallacy to place too much weight on a single study, and an even bigger fallacy to disregard places where there is, in fact, a clear consensus - e.g. cellphones don't cause cancer, global warming and evolution are real, etc...
I've never believed otherwise. This is why when I'm debating an issue with someone and they throw up research papers and claim "See? science says so!", I don't really know what to say. I don't think issue is specific to behavior-related studies either. I highly suspect USA's science data when it's related to something that makes lots of money or promotes a certain predominant view point. Not to say it doesn't happen in other countries, but we're talking about USA right now. Specifically things like:
- Studies show corn syrup not harmful
- Studies show cellphones don't cause cancer
- Studies show 1 in 2 children need meds for ADD
These are not exact quotes, just giving a general idea. I suspect these things because if they turn out not to be true, millions of dollars to some big corp entity somewhere would be lost. Or maybe they need science-data to justify their funding. There's just too much money tied up in scientific results to trust they haven't been tampered with. What I like to see, is when many countries do studies and they all come up with similar results.
</tinfoilhat> EDIT: Yeah, I see this getting downvoted but I stand by what I said. Science is influenced by money a great deal these days; you should reserve a little bit of skepticism for scientific results that have close ties to supporting a belief required for bigcorp to keep making money.