Anti-reality culture

[ClubV12]

...gets out the can opener,,,, whirrrrrrrr,,,,, Ok here come the worms.

Give an example of a belief SDA's cling to that science has falsified. :)

[Tom Wetmore]

How about the belief that coffee and tea are bad for your health... or that drinking alcohol kills brain cells... or that spices in food are bad for you... or that masturbation leads to insanity, etc.

[Bravus]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

Pseudoscience would then largely consist of clinging to something that science has falsified.

I think you are kind of talking in circles about "false science," and I don't mean that disrespectfully. False science is saying something is "science" without having yet proved it, or "falsified" it.

I think I am starting to understand why you feel frustrated when others don't have & use the same level of knowledge as you seem to; but I would be more careful in the types of conclusions I came up with over that.

It's a good reminder, thanks, and I'll definitely try to keep it in mind. I try not to get impatient, and suspect I sometimes sound as though I am when I'm really not, but trying to see the ideas and issues from the perspectives of others is essential. I'll kepp on trying.

[ClubV12]

"...belief that coffee and tea are bad for your health... or that drinking alcohol kills brain cells... or that spices in food are bad for you... or that masturbation leads to insanity, etc."

Brain cell production is reduced from extensive alcohol use, brain cell production increases when alcohol is removed. Now, how you would say that in the 1800's in such a way that people could understand it? How about, "alcohol kills brain cells"!

Is coffee good or bad? The jury is still out. Even Ellen White mentions that coffee, used sparingly and under the right conditions is not entirely bad. But don't miss the principle in this counsel (or other counsel). Coffee is not your friend, some of it's bad effects are well known, others are controversial. There are some benefits and some of those are controversial. Like alcohol, moderation in all things.

Are spices bad for you? Again, the jury is out! Some spices have been shown to have benefit, some are clearly bad. There is very little hard data on the long term effects on health from the use of spices. We know certain spices can certainly cause trouble. The counsel remains consistent with what we know, and what we don't know today. When it comes to spices, exercise caution. Moderation in all things.

The masturabtion issue has been a vigorous debate within the Adventist community for years. Some take the current popular position that it has no negative impact what so ever under any circumstances. Not so fast! Any "sex counselor" worth his/her salt would not advocate over doing it to the point of it becoming a mechanical reflex. Moderation, once again, is the key here. One of the BIG reasons Ellen White cites as abuse is the fantasies often employed. Again, modern "sex counselors" agree that not all fantasies are healthy. Other impacts, noted by the prophet, cannot be proved or disproved by modern science. Opposing THEORIES (best guess) are offered, but little "proof" can be shown. What DOES lead to "insanity"? A question that can never be fully answered. Does masturbation play a roll? You cannot "prove" or rule that in or out scientifically.

In the absence of rock solid scientific proved without a doubt and no debate issues I'll have to go with the Lords messenger's opinion on these matters.

[abelisle]

How about the belief that coffee and tea are bad for your health... or that drinking alcohol kills brain cells... or that spices in food are bad for you... or that masturbation leads to insanity, etc.

Hmm . . . then 90% of the population is insane or approaching insanity? ? ?

[Tom Wetmore]

Maybe that explains the abundant evidence of insanity exhibited around here...

[ClubV12]

Yeah, I would say that IS true abelisle!

How many have an understanding of the impending doom of this planet and care enough to seriously consider it?

But you missed the point as it concerns "moderation in all things" as opposed to sexual disfunction.

[Tom Wetmore]

The alcohol kills brain cells did not originate with EGW since she never uses the words "cell" or "cells" in a biological sense. Your rationalizing conjecture of brain cell production as a basis is misplaced.

I would be interested to know a specific reference from EGW's writings about moderation in the use of spices, coffee, tea or alcohol, or masturbation moderation.

As for your "rock solid proved" and the jury still being out thoughts, please go back and read the posted definitions of science and pseudo-science...

[ClubV12]

Tom, you were the one who specified "brain cells", not me. It is an established fact, that brain cell production is decreased with alcohol use. Thats not psuedo-science, it's not an opinion, it needs no definition of "science", it doesn't require an EGW quote. It is what it is.

Ellen White advocates moderation in ALL things. The counsel is as solid today as it was in her time.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

For decades scientists believed that the number of nerve cells in the adult brain was fixed early in life. If brain damage occurred, then, the best way to treat it was by strengthening the existing neurons, as new ones could not be added. In the 1960s, however, researchers found that new neurons are indeed generated in adulthood—a process called neurogenesis (29). These new cells originate from stem cells, which are cells that can divide indefinitely, renew themselves, and give rise to a variety of cell types. The discovery of brain stem cells and adult neurogenesis provides a new way of approaching the problem of alcohol–related changes in the brain and may lead to a clearer understanding of how best to treat and cure alcoholism (30).

For example, studies with animals show that high doses of alcohol lead to a disruption in the growth of new brain cells; scientists believe it may be this lack of new growth that results in the long–term deficits found in key areas of the brain (such as hippocampal structure and function) (31,32). Understanding how alcohol interacts with brain stem cells and what happens to these cells in alcoholics is the first step in establishing whether the use of stem cell therapies is an option for treatment (33).

The complete source

[ClubV12]

"...studies with animals show that high doses of alcohol lead to a disruption in the growth of new brain cells;"

Thats what I'm talking about! Ellen White expresses it in term of "nerves of the brain" and "the flow of electrical currents", like SYNAPSE activity! She was not trained in medical terminology, not to mention the substantial lack of medical knowledge of her time. And yet, her counsel rings true today. Even Tom makes the connection as it relates to Ellen White's statement that "alcohol kill's brain cells". It's a reasonable interpretation of what she was trying to say at that time.

[fccool]

Quote:

Ellen White expresses it in term of "nerves of the brain" and "the flow of electrical currents", like SYNAPSE activity! She was not trained in medical terminology, not to mention the substantial lack of medical knowledge of her time.

I think a better explanation would be that she's read a lot of contemporary literature on the subject and expressed many ideas in her books.

Masturbation leading to insanity was one of the contemporary ideas proven to be absolutely false... even if we take excessive cases. In most cases it's quite the opposite correlation.

Mentally unstable people are the ones who get addicted. And such mental instability actually develops by their upbringing from birth. It's a fairly recent research, but there's evidence coming out that addictive behavior does stem from early brain development of a child.

[fccool]

If I understand it correctly, then this thread is rather making some observation's that much of the Christians are unwilling to let go of:

1) There's a difference between belief (faith) and fact... we are not talking about origins and cosmology here.

2) People of faith are much eager to go for the pseudo-scientific explanations that are rooted in faith rather than facts.

I don't think there's anything worth being "offended" about, as there's some tension on this thread. If you believe in Biblical version of the world, the you are not going by ample facts. You are going by faith.

Likewise, if you are more scientifically-minded, then you would prefer facts instead of faith.

YET, in the end ... pragmatically speaking, all of us will choose the road that makes sense for us individually. If it makes sense for a person that God created the world in 6 days, and that the Earth is 6k old, and that flood sped "falsifies" a lot of the scientific data we get today, then perhaps it's because their mind is wired towards such disposition? They would rather be safe in faith than dig for the unknown.

If one is more inquisitive and scientifically minded, then I think that one does not merely questions faith, but likewise questions science. Science in many cases works by "best possible explanations". Such explanations exist only until better ones come.

I think that the real issue here is not pseudo-science, but rather a question of faith and science co-existing without conflict?

For people of faith, the problem is inevitably... what if science is in conflict with faith? And usually the answer is: THE SCIENCE IS WRONG.

It's sort of a Harold Camping's mentality on May 22nd. I.E. I'm still right, even though everyone thinks I'm wrong. Jesus did come "spiritually", just because we did not see it, does not mean that I'm wrong. That guy has "faith", yet most of us would call such faith a delusion.

Likewise, still holding on to the idea that masturbation causes insanity is plainly delusional.

[ClubV12]

"...she's read a lot of contemporary literature on the subject."

That could be argued depending on what she said and what year she said it in. But more to the point is she had ability to pick and choose from contemporary literature or popular opinion and boldy state her views on the subject without introducing error.

Take this statement for instance, currently in vogue, the popular thinking, often portrayed as "absolute proof".

"Masturbation leading to insanity was one of the contemporary ideas proven to be absolutely false." I suppose some also believe creationist have been "proven to be absolutely false" as well? There is no "absolute proof" in either case. Making such a bold statement as "absolute proof" to support one's position reinforces the concept that pseudo science exists as much within the scientific community as it does the christian community.

[Overaged]

How about the belief that coffee and tea are bad for your health... or that drinking alcohol kills brain cells... or that spices in food are bad for you... or that masturbation leads to insanity, etc.

One of the things we find with many such "studies" is that they just cloud the issue. The most recent one I saw was a local hospital here that published a "study" in their monthly newsletter saying how wine was good for you because of a chemical it contained which is "good for the heart," and therefore, for "helping prevent heart attacks."

Only thing this "scientific" study by a renouned local doctor forgot to mention was that the same chemical could be found in unfermented grapes, in amounts of approx 10 times as much!

The so called "anti-oxidant" effects of coffe is the same line of "science." There's a few things the "studies" forget to mention.

[Overaged]

Maybe that explains the abundant evidence of insanity exhibited around here...

You shouldnt talk like this about yourself in public Tom; it's bad for your health and will undo the wonderful effects of all that coffee you drink.

[fccool]

Quote:

Making such a bold statement as "absolute proof" to support one's position reinforces the concept that pseudo science exists as much within the scientific community as it does the christian community.

So, we can't absolutely prove that the boiling temperature of the water is 100C? We can't absolutely prove that if I throw the rock up, it will come down?

Also, there's no absolute way of proving sanity of a sample of 100 teens who masturbate regularly?

[ClubV12]

You are correct. The boiling point of water can be absolutely established and the rock will come down.

Which has "absolutely" nothing to do with 100 teenage boys "going blind".

[fccool]

Sort of does, if you don't try to disconnect what I'm trying to do and once again put a spin on it:

Let me digest your logic a bit:

a) Creationists can't be disprove absolutely.

We can't absolutely disprove that masturbation causes blindness and insanity

c) Therefore you can't take that it does not as an absolute fact

My logic:

a) There are certain ways that scientific method works (Rocks do fall, and water boils)

There have been a varieties of studies on masturbation

c) None of those studies even remotely support the idea

Yet, for some odd reason, you call my position "pseudo-scientific" and unsupported, and make a claim that because it can't possibly be proven to be absolute statement, therefore there's some validity in the claim that E.G.White can be right about that????

Do you see any irony in the above?

[phkrause]

GP, so what I'm seeing is there are those that just want to defend the consumption of alcohol, coffee, tea etc., no matter what. So what, that its been proven that alcohol doesn't kill brain cells, but one thing it has been proven to do is kill others! Has it not????? So EGW got something a little wrong, as far as alcohol, but in the big picture she didn't, alcohol does kill. In my life span which covers 60+years I've know more people to die of alcohol than anything else. As far as coffee, tea and the likes, every study that I've read changes its mind every 6-12 months. Coffee is good for you, Oh no its not good for you, Oh sorry that was wrong its now OK, Oh where sorry this year its found to be bad, but maybe next year we will find its got some good benefits. Its like smoking, for years they said its not addictive, than all of a sudden like majic, oh sorry it is addictive. Lets stop the semantics and look at the big picture here, look at all the disease we have in the world! Where does it come from?? The air we breath, the food we eat, and the things we drink!!!! So what does that tell us????? That we should defend bad habits????? And if I'm wrong that they are bad habits than forgive me. But one thing is sure I will not tell anyone that they can't smoke, drink alcohol, coffee, tea, do drugs, they can do that if they want and pay the consequences, whatever that might be.

[Tom Wetmore]

Tom, you were the one who specified "brain cells", not me. It is an established fact, that brain cell production is decreased with alcohol use. Thats not psuedo-science, it's not an opinion, it needs no definition of "science", it doesn't require an EGW quote. It is what it is.

Ellen White advocates moderation in ALL things. The counsel is as solid today as it was in her time.

I think you may be misunderstanding what I am saying, making unwarranted assumptions about it or simply twisting it to suit your perspective... I am not sure which.

I am not disputing the validity of what CoAspen has posted. I was already cognizant of it when I posted what I did. Nor am I the one that keeps trying to connect the "alcohol kills brain cells" idea with EGW, because in fact she says no such thing, which I also know. I was merely responding to a suggestion of pseudo-scienctific ideas the continue to persist among Adventists. (Believe or not, not all ideas among Adventists have their origin with EGW...)

Alcohol consumption disrupting neurogenesis in the brain of the drinker (not permanently or irreversible) is quite different than the pseudo-science that drinking alcohol kills brain cells (quite terminal and irreversible) even with moderate drinking. The latter notion has been in vogue for years among advocates of total abstinence from alcohol as a means of scarring people from drinking so much as a drop of the poison. And Adventist temperance promoters still cling to the idea even though it has no scientific support. This erodes credibility. And as Bravus frequently reminds us, truth matters.

And I am still waiting for those EGW specific statements about moderate use of spices, coffee, tea, alcohol or masturbation.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

"Masturbation leading to insanity was one of the contemporary ideas proven to be absolutely false." I

You seem to disagree with the above statement.

Give us proof that it is correct.....listening....listening......

[CoAspen]

[Gerr]

Bravus seemed to have picked out, IMO, the most extreme case in the link he provided. There must be hundreds of Adventist scientists. I doubt they or any SDAs would take their position. They can't all be doing pseudoscience. One of the foundational principles of science is that whatever is accepted as true has to be verifiable by experimentation. When it comes to origins, we are no longer dealing with science. We are now delving into philosophy or belief, because the beginning of life and the universe is neither observable nor repeatable. If a Christian scientist (not the Mary Baker Eddy kind)is deemed unscientific for believing in miracles or divine intervention, a scientist who rules out this possibility is no less unscientific, IMHO. So we are faced with two opposing world-view, neither of which could be verified by experimentation. It is no wonder then that even while looking at the same exact scientific data, would come to totally different conclusions.

I think that what most Creationists bristle about and would label as pseudoscience, at least for me, is when a scientist try to pass as fact something that is only a conjecture since it cannot be verified by experimentation.

[Bravus]

Let me just note that 'pseudoscience' was a term introduced by someone else, and is a bit of a sidetrack from my perspective. I'm not sure it's useful in the current discussion. And I'm *certainly* not claiming that all SDA scientists are doing it: quite the reverse, I'm sure (almost) all SDA scientists are doing good solid science.