"If you tried watching the video again you might notice that she doesn't make an assertion that Chlorpropham causes cancer."
Not only did she assert that it causes cancer, she asserts that it is causing cancer in humans. "With all the chemicals, no wonder so many people are getting diagnosed with cancer".

"She says that there have been studies that have shown animals to grow tumors after prolonged exposure to the chemical."
Which is false. There has been one study that showed that it initiated skin cancer in mice, but a later study did not confirm those findings.

"It is an easy inference to make that it probably isn't good for other mammals either."
But that's not what she said and has nothing to do with her experiment.

"Her assertion is that too many chemical additives in general in our food supply may have a factor in increased cancer diagnosis in general."
No, her assertion is that this chemical, along with other unnamed chemicals, is causing cancer in humans. Her experiment does not support that for either the unnamed chemicals or chlorpropham. Her experiment dealt only with growth rates for one vegetable that had been treated with one specific growth inhibitor.

"Besides, her experiment isn't about cancer."
That's my point. She did an experiment involving potato growth and her conclusion was that a variety of unnamed chemicals cause cancer. Bad science. Again, an adult's fault, not hers.

If you tried watching the video again you might notice that she doesn't make an assertion that Chlorpropham causes cancer. She says that there have been studies that have shown animals to grow tumors after prolonged exposure to the chemical.

What I quoted was only a portion of the website about chlorpropham (Bud Nip) toxicity. If you were not too lazy to click on the link I provided in my comment above you would have found "Carcinogenic Effects: Long-term exposure to chlorpropham may cause tumors (2). In one experiment chlorpropham initiated skin cancer in mice" (/PMEP) in the same report. The Pesticide Management Education Program website does suggest that more studies should be done to link chlorpropham exposure to cancer, but they are pretty clear that it has toxic effects on laboratory animals. It is an easy inference to make that it probably isn't good for other mammals either.

What the girl says after is: "With all of the chemicals it's no wonder so many people age getting diagnosed with cancer." Her assertion is that too many chemical additives in general in our food supply may have a factor in increased cancer diagnosis in general.



Besides, her experiment isn't about cancer. It is about the results of her attempt to grow sprouts from root vegetables. The information she provides about toxicity of chlorpropham is simply the result of using a google search to find out what else Bud Nip does besides inhibiting plant growth.

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

(This is about the adults guiding her, not the girl...)Even if what she said is true, it has nothing to do with what she was testing so it's bad science. If she doesn't cite her source, then she's not properly reporting what she found. What you quoted above still doesn't support her assertion that the additive can cause cancer in animals, and that an unnamed number of chemicals, presumably added to food, cause cancer in humans.

(This is about the adults guiding her, not the girl...)Even if what she said is true, it has nothing to do with what she was testing so it's bad science. If she doesn't cite her source, then she's not properly reporting what she found. What you quoted above still doesn't support her assertion that the additive can cause cancer in animals, and that an unnamed number of chemicals, presumably added to food, cause cancer in humans.

It's amusing that no one here can actually just present their views without acting all incredulous "OMG I CANT BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE OMG UR SO DUMB OMG!!!" How about you just let your logic speak for itself. If you want to talk about intelligence, I scored 149 on my last IQ test..how about you? You science worshippers are more dogmatic and sensitive than any religious person I know, and that's the truth.

You can repeat something is true over and over again, as forcefully and dramatically as you want..there are no, and I repeat ZERO true transitionals. Yes of course every fossil is a transitional by definition..lol..but we're talking about actual records showing a change in kind to another kind. There aren't any. Here is a list of all the best ones science has found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

And here is the disclaimer:

Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor

Read that a few times and let it sink in. None have ever been found, those are all extinct side branches, not true transitionals. Why don't you get a background and know you're talking about before you try to get into a debate with someone, let alone imply they themselves are ignorant.


>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
>> ^shinyblurry:
And of course there is the embarassment of not having any true transitional forms..which should be abundent by now I would think.

Oh god.
Every animal and every fossil there ever was, is, and ever will be, IS a transitional form, by definition. If we limit ourselves to the human/homo linaege , please check out a video I recently posted about human evolution: http://videosift.com/video/Human-Evolution-and-Why-it-matters
If you watch that video, you will see how scientists are working to piece togheter a very large number of hominids with a large variety. its not like "Apes turned into human" in some neat movie-style morph, but a complex mess up populations of gradually more humanoid apes, the large majority of which formed long lineages that lived for thousands of years, before joining the vast collection of extinct species. Its become increasingly clear that we are one of many branches, and the last surviving in the hominid group so far.
The "no transitional fossils" is a laughable strawman argument, deeply ignorant and dishonest at the same time, in other words, typical creationist nonsense.
As for Irreducible complexity, , this is the most "sciencey" of the creationist drivel out there, but its still drivel. It's not even bad science, its just meaningless white noise designed to baffle people who has no knowledge of biology.

>> ^shinyblurry:
And of course there is the embarassment of not having any true transitional forms..which should be abundent by now I would think.


Oh god.

Every animal and every fossil there ever was, is, and ever will be, IS a transitional form, by definition. If we limit ourselves to the human/homo linaege , please check out a video I recently posted about human evolution: http://videosift.com/video/Human-Evolution-and-Why-it-matters

If you watch that video, you will see how scientists are working to piece togheter a very large number of hominids with a large variety. its not like "Apes turned into human" in some neat movie-style morph, but a complex mess up populations of gradually more humanoid apes, the large majority of which formed long lineages that lived for thousands of years, before joining the vast collection of extinct species. Its become increasingly clear that we are one of many branches, and the last surviving in the hominid group so far.

The "no transitional fossils" is a laughable strawman argument, deeply ignorant and dishonest at the same time, in other words, typical creationist nonsense.

As for Irreducible complexity, , this is the most "sciencey" of the creationist drivel out there, but its still drivel. It's not even bad science, its just meaningless white noise designed to baffle people who has no knowledge of biology.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you here. God isn't a myth. At the very least, God is an idea, and a philosophical conception. Let me ask you this, since you're science minded..Is the postulate of a creation really that irrational? Why is it so unlikely that it was? You may not agree with a particular account of creation, but just the basic question of how the Universe got here..why does creation seem unlikely to you?

I mean, for a species that hasn't even left its backyard, don't you think its a bit premature to rule that out? That in itself is bad science..as well as the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to support that view. Only a lack of evidence is pointed to, but as William Lane Craig says, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yes, religion has been misused. Evil people can abuse anything, especially Gods authority. Personally, I don't agree with anything the catholic church has done. If they are Christians, it's only by the skin of their teeth. There have also been evil atheists, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot..and others who slaughtered tens of millions of their own people. It's human nature that is the problem here.

I know you don't believe in a spiritual reality, so you just don't get this video at all. It's not about the mans insight, he is describing an experience. This video is kind of chopped up..if you really want to evaluate it, watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9f2n0xPZ3k ..it's an interview which is much more indepth and makes some things clear which are not apparent.

For instance, when he goes to hell..he experiences being there for an eternity..not just a few minutes like it seems in the video..he describes being there for a vast amount of time, being self-aware the entire time and vividly recounting the thoughts that he had. He also goes into supreme detail of the experience he had with Jesus in going over his entire life, and secrets God revealed to him..not only that but he spends perhaps months with Jesus learning from Him and the angels in a question and answer session.

When he finally gets back, it turns out he was only unconscious for a moment..so all that time that had passed only equaled a moments time here. Plenty about this experience is unique, and intriguing. I would humbly submit that it is your lack of curiousity about the subject, mixed with the judgements you already have, that prevent you from seeing that.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
there is a bias, all communities have a common ground. i just don't think the bias is against people of faith as much as it is a bias in favor of empirical evidence and against perpetuating bad science and myths. all myths, not just ones of a religious nature. and all bad science, not just creationism. i generally don't upvote atheist videos either. because they're often loaded with self righteousness and bad arguments. i do however, upvote good science and i do upvote thoughtful insight. i just didn't find this mans insight particularly insightful or original. people often have religious experiences when facing death, i have absolutely nothing against that. and i can understand the need to believe in an afterlife. i think spirituality is deeply personal and deeply powerful and deeply beautiful and fascinating. i think religion, however, is a massive power game and i think power breeds massive corruption... see the history of the catholic church and the influence of the christian right on todays political landscape.

Actually, he is just pointing out that the affirmative position that God doesn't or/and can't exist takes as much of a leap as saying he does exist. In spite of evidence, a positive or negative position isn't rational. Which is why I have always said that the agnostic atheist position (of which I am, so totally no bias) is the most logical. I haven't been presented with a certain case either way, so I am resolved in saying I don't know, and I don't know that I can or can't know. Don't confuse the last part of his statement that non-belief = non-existence. Claims of non-existence are indeed faith biased (if they have no evidence), but a non-belief is a different animal.


I would like to point out, though, his second rung is completely flawed. There is no compelling reason to believe those odds about life being 1 in a trillion. You would need to know several things, like what is the density of life in our universe, under what conditions could that life exist under...but most importantly, and the knife in its face, why life couldn't exist under different circumstances. To answer that last question you would have to know every condition life could happen under...and we don't even know how ours happened really. So that figure is complete horeshit, bad science, bad philosophy, bad reasoning.

There is a second reason it is bad reasoning and that is assumes that life is something intended. There is this great economic theory which I have been using in other places now from called "Spontaneous order". It is exactly what is sounds like. That via a system of random rules and interactions, order seems to derive. So you have this tangle of rule sets in the universe, but it was a mathematical certainty that over time, solar systems would most likely form, that there would be rocks, suns, and planets. It is flawed reason to think life is any different than rocks. Rocks are just as "special" as life, and just as meaningless as the vast emptiness of space. He is begging the question that life is any different from any other of the orders and forces that innately exist in this world. This is a logical fallacy that exist in all intellectual design arguments. Begging the question fallacies are hard to spot when you have an moral position to the topic. The reason is, begging the question fallacies validate. Meaning that if the premises is true, the conclusion is as well...but assuming the premises is true is faith and not logic.

I have realized that in my own intellectual constructions, I haven't used completely sound logical arguments either. As homework, I have self assigned myself the homework of studding and rooting out all the fallacies that exist in my philosophy as it stands. I found a useful tool for this as well, others would be appreciated. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html

Upvoted this video because it is mostly good with some silly bits that I don't agree with either...but that is far better than par for course on many things of this nature...namely many of the Hitchen's videos on here...his philosophy is so flawed, and damn mean.

>> ^asynchronice:

Could be wrong here, but it seems the seem is to try and flip the burden of proof arguement from:
"There is no good evidence for the existence of god, therefore it is rational to believe there is no god."
to
"There is no good argument for fully disproving the existence of God, therefore there must be a God."
I see what he did there.

right on IATB.
i think maybe we are talking about two seperate,yet similar,issues.
i am addressing the willy nilly diagnosis of the majority of people who have been diagnosed and then subjected to mind altering chemicals which have been proven to not be very effective.
how can you speak to someone for an hour and decide they are bi-polar and then put them on an anti-psychotic?
thats crazy.
it seems you are addressing the very REAL and tragic mental disorders in which medication may be a persons only real hope for a somewhat normal existence.
and in that regard i totally agree with you.
now you may disregard alternative methods in treating someone diagnosed with bi-polar and that is ok and your right but i feel it is not something to be dismissed so lightly.
please understand i am not dismissing the science,that would be foolish of me.i am not a luddite.i just feel treatment and healing will not come solely from chemicals.
i have anecdotal evidence but thats not exactly proof of anything except for my own experience.

in my opinion other avenues should always be pursued before we zombify people.there is a growing amount of data concerning the healing power of affection and love concerning us humans which is not surprising to me.
so while this man has taken a spiritual lilt to his approach,i would just call it being human.

this is a societal issue.on how our culture has become so materialistic as to strip us of our humanity.a constant barrage of "you are not good enough,smart enough,sexy enough but you WILL be if you buy this or that useless piece of crap".
mass marketers=satans little helpers.
is it any wonder that our society is lonely,depressed,anxiety ridden?
it really should not come as too much of a shock to those paying attention and is an entirely different conversation.

thanks for the recommendation on the books!
very awesome of you to offer to pay for them as well! appreciated but no need.the bad science one does look interesting and i will check it out (no chemistry in there right? cuz i suuuuck at chemistry).

p.s:dont feel bad trashing this dudes videos.berticus has to hold his down from exploding when i post one of this guys vids.

I was going to attempt to respond to as many items as I can but I decided to instead try something different.

There are two books that I think you should read and that I think you'd greatly enjoy. One is called "The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer" by Siddhartha Mukherjee and that other is called "Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks and Big Pharma Flacks" by Ben Goldacre.

Look into them a bit, read the descriptions. I recommend The Emperor of All Maladies because it is contains an extremely good account of the progress of the medical industry and it uses cancer research as a cornerstone. Though, I think you'll particularly like Bad Science, especially the section where the author goes into a scathing critique of where mainstream medicine has it's problems. It's actually a really funny book too.

Hell, I'll even buy Bad Science for you and have it shipped where ever you want.

Ok, I will say one thing in response to what you've said. I don't like the idea of a humanistic take on this issue because these problems aren't limited to humans. There is a range of mental conditions that humans experience that have been observed in other animals as well. In the case of mental illness, as in most cases, humans aren't special; we just think we are because we have the perspective that we're looking on everything from the outside.

The reason why I tear apart videos like that is because it's based on flawed reasoning, logical fallacies, misrepresentations and misunderstandings of science and scientific facts, and generally irrational modes of thought. The solution that I'm providing is that the video's topic, and the presenter are full of nonsensical ideas and that real evidence based research should be valued to a higher degree than some guy with his untested and/or unsupported hypothesis.

BAD SCIENCE. They need a naked butt control group to make sure the spandex shorts aren't inadvertently affecting the elasticity of the buttock upon impact. I think this experiment should be redone, and I am willing to sacrifice my valuable research time TO DO IT RIGHT!

Man, is this bad science. How does it fail me, shall I count the ways.

>> ^Payback:

So... "vittamins" are bad?


When does he say this?

Your video, "Bad Science" talk by the Guardian’s Ben Goldacre, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I explained my judgment on Science videos. Since you don't seem to have been around when I established the channel, you should know that I have always ruled that just because a sift discusses science does not make it worthy of being in the Science channel. There are a bunch of bad science and pseudo-science videos I have booted out (homeopathy, water fluoridation conspiracies, evil vaccines, etc.) because they have misinformation and straight up incorrect theories.

Another great thing about science is that publications are judged by people with graduate degrees and correlating levels of knowledge so that people who know what they're talking about get a say.

Oh, and I am, in fact, debating whether this video is true, and that is why it doesn't belong in Science. Science aims at objective truth. Fuck this nonsense about "discuss the controversy". Shit doesn't fly up in Science.

>> ^chilaxe:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rembar" title="member since September 28th, 2006" class="profilelink">rembar,
We're debating not whether this video's argument is true, but whether it represents legitimate debate dealing with science.
It's hard to imagine why debate about the factors underlying differential rates of science publication wouldn't be considered 'dealing with science and of interest to those interested in science.' If something is controversial, we add a controversy tag.
The great thing about science is there aren't authority figures who make personal judgments about what represents legitimate debate.

2 seconds into this trailer and I'm pissed off... all radio waves leave earth at the same fucking speed, saying that in 2009 we sent out a message further than any before implies that we found a way to send messages faster than before...

Bad science pisses me off...