I can understand this (sometimes I've reacted the same way), but it's irrelevant with our discussion.I am emotional obviously because I care deeply about how science is being used and regarded and I disagree with people who claim "science says"/"science does" when it does no such thing. You are not responsible for how I feel about this matter; however, I will not sit and let such general claims pass.
It is irresponsible, because if you are correct, then there is no such a concept as "personal responsibility".You are misrepresenting what I'm saying. A closer analogy to what I'm saying is "there are many reasons why people smoke apart from personal responsibility and we don't know all of them as yet. blaming individuals does not help the situation. Understanding the various factors and coming up with a plan to address a wide swathe of them is better than pinning it on an oversimplified 'people are lazy/bad' explanation". No number of adjectives that you use makes what I say any less untrue.
Of course there are several factors that could predispose us to chainsmoking for instance. Of course some of them could be inherited through the DNA methylation patterns of our parents. And there has to be several other factors as well. I've never denied this.
But tell me: where lies the responsibility of the individual if everything is determined in advance?
Sometimes, you can make conscious choices (even if you're influenced or predisposed to some of them in particular). Walking more than a mile a day is one of these conscious choices. Banning junk food is another. I'm not claiming it will be enough to instantly solve your particular obesity issue, but according to statistics, it might help. And so far, according to our limited current state of knowledge, lack of proper exercice and lack of nutritional education seem to be the factors the most correlated with the current obesity pandemic. Don't you agree? Can you prove me I'm wrong, or will you stubbornly stay in denial?
Of course you can repeat like a parrot that correlation doesn't always imply causation. You would be right, but you would not adress the issue nor will you answer my question (and you know it).
If you have a new radical evidence to show, please do. I'm curious.
That's obvious, but that has nothing to do with the logic you are trying to use here.Again misrepresenting what I'm saying. My path of reasoning is that we may not understand everything about something but when our understanding of the situation changes with new data, our attitudes should also shift.
The question is not whether we do not take new ideas into account, everybody does. You're being trivial and defensive.No one is objective, obviously. But claiming to know everything about a situation, over-simplifying based on the oldest models of epidemiology and being stubborn despite being confronted with new ideas is just bad science.
You're judging me in terms of morality, with your own emotions. I haven't and I don't care.
I'm just concerned with your logics and the resulting epistemological model. And to use your own words, bad logic means bad science.
Once again, if you deny everything, then you can't conclude anything. If you deny the possibility that we can make responsible choices, then why should we continue this discussion?
So far, you're using the same tactics that the Tobacco industry used in the past, very similar to global warming deniers. It is leading us to nowhere.