Quote:
Originally Posted by SizzleChest
the deception is in the lack of specifics. instead of saying red meat can cause cancer, give us the facts. red meat has been linked to X amount of cancer cases in the united states for 2008, for example. if you can't positively link the cause to the effect, then in my opinion, the claim should be disregarded. also, the hormones given to cattle would be the most likely cause of cancer and not the beef itself. again, lack of specifics.
|
The problem with your argument is that the general public does not have the knowledge to go into those "facts". I highly doubt the general public will know much about how hormones work or even how cancer works. They probably know just what is on the surface like "Hormones help you grow" and "Cancer is bad!" without knowing the mechanisms behind them at all.
And if you knew anything about science and research, you would know that there is never a link from cause to effect. There is only correlation and correlation does not mean causation. In the view of science, we only have the best guess until proven otherwise. During testing, we can only reject the null hypothesis rather than accepting the alternative hypothesis (not the same thing).
So if you wanted specifics, it would be like talking about quantum physics to Stephen Hawking. You wouldn't have a clue in the world what it meant and it would only be what he told you he was saying. He would be giving you a whole pile of shit but you would still take it as "fact" because he told you it was and you have no idea what it is. Same thing with the "specifics" and "facts" behind the research.