| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Jim Green wrote:
Wooo, Folks, a claim of crackpottedness without data is also
crackpottedness.
True. Also called Pseudoskepticism.
"Data" is my direct personal experience informed by medical texts: Carbon
dioxide is a metabolic waste product, and to produce massive CO2 overload
in your blood, just hold your breath as long as possible. Holding your
breath is difficult NOT because you run out of oxygen, but instead because
CO2 builds up in your blood, and it causes your body's CO2-detecting
chemosensors to complain. Try searching on keywords "respiratory control"
and "carbon dioxide".
I reason thus: in your body, massive CO2 overloads are an everyday
occurrence, so if they are dangerous, then any mild excercize is
dangerous. To inject large amounts of CO2 into your bloodstream, just run
around the block, or hold your breath for 60 seconds. On the other hand,
drinking a can of coke does not make you feel like you're out of breath
(your internal CO2 detector gives little or no response.) If a can of
coke injects CO2 into your blood (and it probably does), the amount of CO2
is MUCH smaller than you get from simple exercize. If the CO2 in coke is
worrisome, then walking around the block is highly dangerous!
Does anyone have anything substantive or a suggestion of where to inquire
further? Surely this claim was not drawn out of the aether.
That's *exactly* where these claims come from. In my experience, at least
99% of apparantly crazy claims ARE crazy. The remaining 1% are extremely
valuable anomalies which can lead to new fields of science. But even if
the percentage was lower, we should wonder where the truely crazy claims
come from. Many come from "random mutations" of existing rumors, as
studied by UL experts such as Jan H. Brunvand (search his name for lots of
info.) If you've heard an interesting story from a friend of a friend,
then usually it's from a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend...
(etc.), with mistakes and changes added to the story upon each retelling.
Such stories easily mutate, so a huge variety of interesting stories are
essentially generated right out of nothing. A warning about Nutrasweet in
cola becomes a warning about the carbon dioxide, then the story spreads.
But if you hear the story from many sources, that many people couldn't be
wrong? But they are!
Recent debate on various anomaly forums exposes an interesting spectrum:
"Credulous believers" "Skeptics" "Sneering Scoffers"
|------------------------------|----------------------------|
A "believer" is totally credulous, and will accept certain information as
true without needing any evidence. A "Scoffer" is totally closed minded,
and will reject certain information as false without needing to look at
any evidence. Both types suffer from fixed beliefs. In the middle are
people who are neither. Historically they have called themselves by the
name "skeptic", but unfortunately the Scoffers have coopted this name in
the last few decades, and "skeptic" today brings to mind scoffers such as
members of CSICOP, rather than open minded scientists who wish to
investigate reported anomalies rather than rejecting them out of hand.
About the CO2 claim, a Believer would say "prove to me that CO2 in cola is
NOT dangerous", while a Scoffer would respond with thoughtless derision. A
pure skeptic would say "show me some evidence, otherwise this story is
'unproved' and can simply be ignored." I'm not a pure skeptic. I know
that human beings are swimming in internal CO2, so if people are spreading
warnings about soft drinks, most likely it was about Nutrasweet as slow
poison, and someone along the line misremembered this as the CO2 being
dangerous.
Hey, here's a recent topic: barium oxide is nasty stuff, and in the 1950s
was used as phosphor on the inside of fluorescent tubes. Back then, if a
fluorescent tube shattered, you'd want to clear the room, and wear masks
during cleanup. BaO is no longer used in lighting. But today you'll find
people wanting to evacuate the room because the MERCURY in a shattered
fluorescent tube is lethal. The "warning" story persisted, even though
the serious danger went away. Human minds seem programmed to latch onto
"warning" stories and spread them to their neighbors. It makes some sense
that "false warnings" would become an ongoing problem.
((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA 206-789-0775 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L