You might disagree with the hypothesis, but it's at least as falsifiable as Evolution.
Name a single set of global average temperature and global average CO2 observations, past, present or future, that would falsify Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
For evolution, it's simple - find a modern rabbit fossil in the precambrian.
a steady increase in global average temperature will have negative effects on the environment and human society at large.
What observations would falsify that hypothesis (regardless of the cause of warming)? Could we look to warmer periods in human history, and colder periods in human history, and measure negative effects?
However, the fact that data is being acquired and interpreted, and the fact that it is under scrutiny, is what makes the entire process scientific and worthwhile in the first place.
Lots of astrologers acquire planetary and star data, and scrutinize it thoroughly - that doesn't make it scientific. Science starts off with the falsifiable hypothesis, and thus far, you haven't explained what observations, past, present or future, that would make you revisit your basic premise.
Global warming relies heavily on the greenhouse effect, that's falsifiable.
Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming also relies heavily on the existence of humans, and that's falsifiable too. However, the mere existence of humans doesn't imply in any sort of way that they much be the cause of catastrophic global warming:)
Heck, astrology relies heavily on the orbits of the planets, and that's falsifiable too - but you'll never find a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis for astrology, now will you:)
Well, basically it would require that our fundamental understanding of physics be wrong, because that's what the theory is based on.
The fundamentals of CO2 physics in no way force us to believe that CO2 is an overwhelming driver of climate, nor that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophe on any timescale. Extrapolating a complex hypothesis from fundamental physics requires a bunch of steps, *each one* which must be subject to strict scrutiny and falsifiability.
#2, #3 - what observations, past, present or future, would falsify those hypotheses?
After all, rising temperatures happen all the time (as do falling temperatures). Ice core records actually show a *lag* between temperature changes and CO2 changes - which turns causality around on its head.
Rising temperatures happened well before humanity existed. We've had global warming and global cooling and global staying the same for the entire history of the planet.
The question is, what observations would convince you that rising temperatures are due to natural variation, and not human activity (much less that they'll be catastrophic)?
Natural climate change is the null hypothesis (since climate changed well before humanity came into play). CAGW, which cites both warm temperatures and cold temperatures as "consistent" with their hypothesis, does not make any falsifiable predictions.
...require any science taught in schools to have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis.
Evolution qualifies, creationism doesn't.
Astronomy qualifies, astrology doesn't.
Oh, and FWIW, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming *doesn't* qualify, unless of course some brave soul would like to make a clear falsifiable hypothesis statement for it:)
tl;dr - between gluten mucking with our brain proteins and the super blood sugar spiking features of grains, our idea that this is some sort of healthy food is terribly misplaced.
Excess calories and inactivity cause weight gain and eventually type 2 in many people
Excess fat accumulation is caused by chronically elevated insulin levels, because fat cells are instructed to hold onto fat (rather than cycle it through the body) under the influence of insulin. Calories are not the forcing variable here (although you may be driven to eat more calories to make up for the calories that have been stored in your fat cells, since your muscle cells are starving).
You might as well say that excess calories and inactivity cause height gain, and eventually result in growth in many people - but we know that it's growth hormone that regulates that. Yes, while a child is growing they may eat more (calories), and they may sleep more (that typical teenage lethargy), but they aren't growing *because* they're eating more and sleeping more -> causation works in the other direction. They're eating more and sleeping more because they're growing.
So if you think someone is fat because they're eating more and sleeping more, you've actually got causality backwards -> they're eating more and sleeping more because they're fattening. The cause of the fattening is insulin.
Let's be clear - type 2 diabetes, as in "if you eat lots of sugar and starch you'll require insulin injections" never goes away.
However, type 2 diabetes, as in "you need to take insulin injections every day to survive" *can* be overcome. The method is simply - stop eating blood sugar raising carbohydrates.
It is not carbohydrates per se, it is carbohydrates in very easily digestable form that transform into blood sugar very quickly and require massive amounts of insulin that are the problem
Sure, you're right, fibrous carbohydrates, like say broccoli, or green beans, with a low glycemic index, not too bad for you. However, that "healthy" whole grain bread, that'll spike your blood sugar levels like crazy. Stop eating *starchy* and *sugary* carbohydrates, and feel free to splurge on spinach.
it contains stuff that makes the body _believe_ there is sugar. So you get the same insulin rush,
B.S. If artificial sweeteners caused the same insulin rush, I'd never go into ketosis, and I drink a six pack of diet coke a day. I've been in ketosis for nearly 3 years now. Try again:)
The bottom line is this - diabetes, obesity, cancer, heart disease, and other chronic diseases are all linked to chronically elevated insulin levels. Those insulin levels are elevated by chronically elevated blood sugar levels. The only food that significantly raises your blood sugar levels are, you guessed it, sugary and starchy carbohydrates.
Except people like the OP, I guess, who think that a slice of orange with all its evil carbohydrates is going to drop his life expectancy by a decade.
Look around you. If you see someone who is obese, diabetic, has heart disease, cancer, or any number of other chronic disease, you can pretty much bet that they've been carbohydrate poisoned.
Some people can handle a diet filled with oranges. Some people can handle a diet with occasional oranges. And then you've got some people for whom oranges are going to drop your life expectance by a decade.
I poisoned my body with carbohydrates for over thirty years, and was on my way to an early grave due to high blood pressure, obesity, bad cholesterol, and pre-diabetes. When I stopped poisoning my body with carbs, I dropped 50 pounds, my blood pressure normalized, my blood sugar normalized, and my cholesterol got better. And now, nearly five years later, I can't imagine living any other way.
Now you're right, some people have some real addiction problems, and can't let go of the cocaine, or heroin, no matter what it does to their bodies or lives. But that doesn't mean we don't continue to counsel them to quit the things that are hurting them.
Atkins? I thought you were dead. Remember: just because you have scurvy, it doesn't mean you're a pirate.
Well, Atkins died of a skull fracture after slipping on ice, not his diet. The vegan physician that pretexted to get his medical records, and then tried to smear him when his body bloated over five days in ICU, well, we'll just leave that as an exercise for the reader.
As for scurvy, you'll note that it was caused by eating hard tack (carbohydrates), not due to a lack of fresh fruit. Inuit and Masai lived for generations without anything except animal protein and fat, and were notoriously healthy before the western diet with carbs came in:)
Claiming that everyone will be healthy and live forever if we just ban corn, potatoes and white bread is just silly.
Not forever, but probably close to 114 years old - that seems to be the upper limit despite lowered infant mortality and greater management of chronic disease.
Point of fact, the diseases of civilization have followed the spread of carbohydrates in our diets. The mechanism is well understood (blood sugar/insulin), and the coincidence of these diseases of civilization give us reason to believe they are related.
So, how do we organize our society for the reduction of carbohydrates in the diet, and an increase of healthy animal fats and proteins? Do we have enough arable land to support the meat animals necessary to feed all of our society? Can animal husbandry overcome the problems of omega3/6 fatty acid balance and still maintain industrial efficiency? I don't know. But the fact of the matter is that the road to health is in the opposite direction of corn, potatoes and wheat bread.
- the easy, cheap availability of carbohydrates doesn't make carrots expensive or hard to find.
I'm sorry, you've now changed your statement - first it was "cheap, healthy food products", and now it's "carrots" (which, fun fact, can be quite starchy).
I think you've got to define "healthy food products" before you go any further. "Carrots" is definitely not the basis for a healthy diet. Grass-fed hamburger, pork ribs, grilled chicken and fish are a basis for a healthy diet. In short, animal fats and proteins are the basis of a healthy diet.
So, given that, yes, the cheap availability of carbohydrates (including carrots), crowds out healthy food products.
Untestable, unfalsifiable hypotheses are pseudo-science. I could make the claim that my thought processes are the cause of all miraculous healing on the planet, and that with just a little donation from every last man, woman and child, I could do even *more* miracles. You'd be quite justified in dismissing my claims as quackery.
The best indicator of heart disease is triglyceride level/HDL, which, is adversely impacted by chronic insulin levels. The AHA is a marketing organization, and don't understand the science.
Cancer cells outcompete other cells because they thrive in a high blood sugar environment - a corollary to high insulin levels.
Fat cells are driven to hold onto fat by insulin. Basic biochemistry.
Alzheimer's - the damage done to the brain cells also correlates with insulin, being "Type III" diabetes as it were.
Sad, but true. Mass production of corn and grain thanks to generous government subsidies ends up being the cheapest feed for food animals, screwing with their omega3/omega6 fatty acid balances. Grass fed stuff ends up being more expensive than the cheap meats, which while certainly better than carbs, are still tainted by them in some way.
I'd love to imagine feeding the world on grass fed beef, but I'm not sure if we've actually got enough arable land to sustain that practice for all of humanity.
Treat them as individual practices, and just process of elimination. If we discover that acupuncture is useless for everything except fighting one specific viral infection, great, we'll stop telling people to use it for all the placebo effects, and just have them use it if they come back with that particular virus.
In fact, you make that your Acupuncture 101 course - what we've determined it cannot do. Eventually, it just ends up being a huge list, but my bet is that when it comes down to it, applying the rigorous scientific method and testing falsifiable hypotheses, acupuncture simply cannot stand on its own.
You misunderstand average lifespan versus individual lifespan.
Infant mortality kept "average lifespan" ridiculously low. People weren't decrepit at age 28, they just happened to have three dozen brothers and sisters that died at age zero. Once you got past that infant mortality, humans pretty much last until about 114-115 years old (barring your chronic diseases of civilization, or predation by animals, or some other act of god.
Imagining people as old and decrepit at age 40 because the average lifespan where they live is 28 is a misunderstanding of how average lifespan is calculated, and what it really shows us.
So yeah, all of the magic behind acupuncture and placement points and whatever other junk may not be true, but that doesn't change that there's something about the process of acupuncture that seems to help.
I believe we call that the "placebo effect."
It really does help, and science should work to figure out why so we can make it better,
Now *that's* an interesting idea - how do we make the placebo effect more effective!
a properly-designed experiment with controls and metrics to assess the health of the participants.
I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear - what is your technical definition of "raw food"?
I'm just saying one can examine the question of whether it is effective, i.e., it does present a falsifiable hypothesis.
I'm sorry, again, I'm losing you on definitions - because "raw" doesn't correspond to some actual difference that we've got an easy measure for (let's say, like glycemic index), you're not presenting a falsifiable hypothesis. Any contrary information from an experiment, and you'll just say "oh, that wasn't *really* raw". Specifics, if you have them.
Come to think of it, all of the items on the list we're discussing can pose hypotheses that are falsifiable.
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, where both hot temperatures and cold temperatures are considered validations of "predictions" is clearly not falsifiable. Every possible observation is asserted as compatible through ad hoc special pleadings.
How would you state the falsifiable hypothesis of raw foodism?
What observations would convince you that a "raw food diet" (however you'd like to define that), was not anymore beneficial to health, than say, any given low-glycemic diet? Is there a definition of "raw" that simply limits maximum temperature the food has gotten to, or some variant of that?
I'd offer that say, a diet of raw potatoes, sugar beets, rice and wheat would be deleterious to health, as measured by insulin response. Maybe there's a definition of "raw food" that I just haven't been exposed to.
"Both treatment groups, "true" and sham acupuncture, experienced decreases in the intensity of arm pain, arm symptoms, and noted improvement in arm function. However, patients in the sham acupuncture group improved more than patients in the "true" acupuncture group in the intensity of arm pain and just as much in measures of arm function and grip strength."
I know that there cheap, un-patentable, foods that will help clear up illnesses.
Actually, you got that backwards. There are cheap, plentiful foods that cause most, if not all chronic diseases. We call these foods "carbohydrates", and we subsidize them as we grow them, and subsidize the medical care necessary to fix the problems that they cause.
The "diseases of civilization" (heart disease, cancer, obesity, diabetes, alzheimers), are all variants of chronically elevated insulin levels, which, fun fact, is caused by excess carbohydrate consumption. How much is excess? Well, depending on the person, as low as 40g/day.
Slashdot Mirror
Name a single set of global average temperature and global average CO2 observations, past, present or future, that would falsify Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
For evolution, it's simple - find a modern rabbit fossil in the precambrian.
What observations would falsify that hypothesis (regardless of the cause of warming)? Could we look to warmer periods in human history, and colder periods in human history, and measure negative effects?
Lots of astrologers acquire planetary and star data, and scrutinize it thoroughly - that doesn't make it scientific. Science starts off with the falsifiable hypothesis, and thus far, you haven't explained what observations, past, present or future, that would make you revisit your basic premise.
Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming also relies heavily on the existence of humans, and that's falsifiable too. However, the mere existence of humans doesn't imply in any sort of way that they much be the cause of catastrophic global warming :)
Heck, astrology relies heavily on the orbits of the planets, and that's falsifiable too - but you'll never find a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis for astrology, now will you :)
The fundamentals of CO2 physics in no way force us to believe that CO2 is an overwhelming driver of climate, nor that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophe on any timescale. Extrapolating a complex hypothesis from fundamental physics requires a bunch of steps, *each one* which must be subject to strict scrutiny and falsifiability.
#2, #3 - what observations, past, present or future, would falsify those hypotheses?
After all, rising temperatures happen all the time (as do falling temperatures). Ice core records actually show a *lag* between temperature changes and CO2 changes - which turns causality around on its head.
Rising temperatures happened well before humanity existed. We've had global warming and global cooling and global staying the same for the entire history of the planet.
The question is, what observations would convince you that rising temperatures are due to natural variation, and not human activity (much less that they'll be catastrophic)?
Natural climate change is the null hypothesis (since climate changed well before humanity came into play). CAGW, which cites both warm temperatures and cold temperatures as "consistent" with their hypothesis, does not make any falsifiable predictions.
...require any science taught in schools to have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis.
Evolution qualifies, creationism doesn't.
Astronomy qualifies, astrology doesn't.
Oh, and FWIW, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming *doesn't* qualify, unless of course some brave soul would like to make a clear falsifiable hypothesis statement for it :)
Grains may be the most evil carbs of all.
I refer you to http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/
tl;dr - between gluten mucking with our brain proteins and the super blood sugar spiking features of grains, our idea that this is some sort of healthy food is terribly misplaced.
Excess fat accumulation is caused by chronically elevated insulin levels, because fat cells are instructed to hold onto fat (rather than cycle it through the body) under the influence of insulin. Calories are not the forcing variable here (although you may be driven to eat more calories to make up for the calories that have been stored in your fat cells, since your muscle cells are starving).
You might as well say that excess calories and inactivity cause height gain, and eventually result in growth in many people - but we know that it's growth hormone that regulates that. Yes, while a child is growing they may eat more (calories), and they may sleep more (that typical teenage lethargy), but they aren't growing *because* they're eating more and sleeping more -> causation works in the other direction. They're eating more and sleeping more because they're growing.
So if you think someone is fat because they're eating more and sleeping more, you've actually got causality backwards -> they're eating more and sleeping more because they're fattening. The cause of the fattening is insulin.
Let's be clear - type 2 diabetes, as in "if you eat lots of sugar and starch you'll require insulin injections" never goes away.
However, type 2 diabetes, as in "you need to take insulin injections every day to survive" *can* be overcome. The method is simply - stop eating blood sugar raising carbohydrates.
Sure, you're right, fibrous carbohydrates, like say broccoli, or green beans, with a low glycemic index, not too bad for you. However, that "healthy" whole grain bread, that'll spike your blood sugar levels like crazy. Stop eating *starchy* and *sugary* carbohydrates, and feel free to splurge on spinach.
B.S. If artificial sweeteners caused the same insulin rush, I'd never go into ketosis, and I drink a six pack of diet coke a day. I've been in ketosis for nearly 3 years now. Try again :)
The bottom line is this - diabetes, obesity, cancer, heart disease, and other chronic diseases are all linked to chronically elevated insulin levels. Those insulin levels are elevated by chronically elevated blood sugar levels. The only food that significantly raises your blood sugar levels are, you guessed it, sugary and starchy carbohydrates.
Actually, it's simpler than that - it's "stop eating the bun on all those cheeseburgers, put down the fries and don't drink sugary sodas".
Type 2 diabetes is caused by carbohydrate intake. Stop eating carbs, and the type 2 diabetes goes away.
Look around you. If you see someone who is obese, diabetic, has heart disease, cancer, or any number of other chronic disease, you can pretty much bet that they've been carbohydrate poisoned.
Some people can handle a diet filled with oranges. Some people can handle a diet with occasional oranges. And then you've got some people for whom oranges are going to drop your life expectance by a decade.
I poisoned my body with carbohydrates for over thirty years, and was on my way to an early grave due to high blood pressure, obesity, bad cholesterol, and pre-diabetes. When I stopped poisoning my body with carbs, I dropped 50 pounds, my blood pressure normalized, my blood sugar normalized, and my cholesterol got better. And now, nearly five years later, I can't imagine living any other way.
Now you're right, some people have some real addiction problems, and can't let go of the cocaine, or heroin, no matter what it does to their bodies or lives. But that doesn't mean we don't continue to counsel them to quit the things that are hurting them.
Carbohydrates hurt people.
Fun fact - carbohydrates leach vitamin C from your body. Sailors got it because they spent months eating hard tack rations.
Take a couple of guys, send them to live with the Inuit for a year without a single fruit or vegetable...no scurvy.
Watch one of these lectures if you want substantiation: http://garytaubes.com/lectures/
Well, Atkins died of a skull fracture after slipping on ice, not his diet. The vegan physician that pretexted to get his medical records, and then tried to smear him when his body bloated over five days in ICU, well, we'll just leave that as an exercise for the reader.
As for scurvy, you'll note that it was caused by eating hard tack (carbohydrates), not due to a lack of fresh fruit. Inuit and Masai lived for generations without anything except animal protein and fat, and were notoriously healthy before the western diet with carbs came in :)
Not forever, but probably close to 114 years old - that seems to be the upper limit despite lowered infant mortality and greater management of chronic disease.
Point of fact, the diseases of civilization have followed the spread of carbohydrates in our diets. The mechanism is well understood (blood sugar/insulin), and the coincidence of these diseases of civilization give us reason to believe they are related.
So, how do we organize our society for the reduction of carbohydrates in the diet, and an increase of healthy animal fats and proteins? Do we have enough arable land to support the meat animals necessary to feed all of our society? Can animal husbandry overcome the problems of omega3/6 fatty acid balance and still maintain industrial efficiency? I don't know. But the fact of the matter is that the road to health is in the opposite direction of corn, potatoes and wheat bread.
I'm sorry, you've now changed your statement - first it was "cheap, healthy food products", and now it's "carrots" (which, fun fact, can be quite starchy).
I think you've got to define "healthy food products" before you go any further. "Carrots" is definitely not the basis for a healthy diet. Grass-fed hamburger, pork ribs, grilled chicken and fish are a basis for a healthy diet. In short, animal fats and proteins are the basis of a healthy diet.
So, given that, yes, the cheap availability of carbohydrates (including carrots), crowds out healthy food products.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20040612014111data_trunc_sys.shtml
Absolutely it does.
Untestable, unfalsifiable hypotheses are pseudo-science. I could make the claim that my thought processes are the cause of all miraculous healing on the planet, and that with just a little donation from every last man, woman and child, I could do even *more* miracles. You'd be quite justified in dismissing my claims as quackery.
Well, there's the argument that all acupuncture is placebo :)
The best indicator of heart disease is triglyceride level/HDL, which, is adversely impacted by chronic insulin levels. The AHA is a marketing organization, and don't understand the science.
Cancer cells outcompete other cells because they thrive in a high blood sugar environment - a corollary to high insulin levels.
Fat cells are driven to hold onto fat by insulin. Basic biochemistry.
Alzheimer's - the damage done to the brain cells also correlates with insulin, being "Type III" diabetes as it were.
Watch some lectures, and get back to me: http://garytaubes.com/lectures/
Sad, but true. Mass production of corn and grain thanks to generous government subsidies ends up being the cheapest feed for food animals, screwing with their omega3/omega6 fatty acid balances. Grass fed stuff ends up being more expensive than the cheap meats, which while certainly better than carbs, are still tainted by them in some way.
I'd love to imagine feeding the world on grass fed beef, but I'm not sure if we've actually got enough arable land to sustain that practice for all of humanity.
Treat them as individual practices, and just process of elimination. If we discover that acupuncture is useless for everything except fighting one specific viral infection, great, we'll stop telling people to use it for all the placebo effects, and just have them use it if they come back with that particular virus.
In fact, you make that your Acupuncture 101 course - what we've determined it cannot do. Eventually, it just ends up being a huge list, but my bet is that when it comes down to it, applying the rigorous scientific method and testing falsifiable hypotheses, acupuncture simply cannot stand on its own.
You misunderstand average lifespan versus individual lifespan.
Infant mortality kept "average lifespan" ridiculously low. People weren't decrepit at age 28, they just happened to have three dozen brothers and sisters that died at age zero. Once you got past that infant mortality, humans pretty much last until about 114-115 years old (barring your chronic diseases of civilization, or predation by animals, or some other act of god.
Imagining people as old and decrepit at age 40 because the average lifespan where they live is 28 is a misunderstanding of how average lifespan is calculated, and what it really shows us.
I believe we call that the "placebo effect."
Now *that's* an interesting idea - how do we make the placebo effect more effective!
I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear - what is your technical definition of "raw food"?
I'm sorry, again, I'm losing you on definitions - because "raw" doesn't correspond to some actual difference that we've got an easy measure for (let's say, like glycemic index), you're not presenting a falsifiable hypothesis. Any contrary information from an experiment, and you'll just say "oh, that wasn't *really* raw". Specifics, if you have them.
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, where both hot temperatures and cold temperatures are considered validations of "predictions" is clearly not falsifiable. Every possible observation is asserted as compatible through ad hoc special pleadings.
More background from Popper: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
How would you state the falsifiable hypothesis of raw foodism?
What observations would convince you that a "raw food diet" (however you'd like to define that), was not anymore beneficial to health, than say, any given low-glycemic diet? Is there a definition of "raw" that simply limits maximum temperature the food has gotten to, or some variant of that?
I'd offer that say, a diet of raw potatoes, sugar beets, rice and wheat would be deleterious to health, as measured by insulin response. Maybe there's a definition of "raw food" that I just haven't been exposed to.
Actually...not quite.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/04/sham_acupuncture_is_better_than_true_acu.php
"Both treatment groups, "true" and sham acupuncture, experienced decreases in the intensity of arm pain, arm symptoms, and noted improvement in arm function. However, patients in the sham acupuncture group improved more than patients in the "true" acupuncture group in the intensity of arm pain and just as much in measures of arm function and grip strength."
Actually, you got that backwards. There are cheap, plentiful foods that cause most, if not all chronic diseases. We call these foods "carbohydrates", and we subsidize them as we grow them, and subsidize the medical care necessary to fix the problems that they cause.
The "diseases of civilization" (heart disease, cancer, obesity, diabetes, alzheimers), are all variants of chronically elevated insulin levels, which, fun fact, is caused by excess carbohydrate consumption. How much is excess? Well, depending on the person, as low as 40g/day.