Why the Internet annoys chemists

[HuckleB]

http://sciblogs.co.nz/open-parachute/2015/09/10/why-the-internet-annoys-chemists/

"Here are some of chemists’ pet peeves about discussion on social media and the internet in general. The list is from the article 5 simple chemistry facts that everyone should understand before talking about science posted on the blog The Logic of Science.

Everyone who has attempted to discuss issues like vaccination or fluoridation with opponents will have come across these arguments which the author describes as “based on a lack of knowledge about high school level chemistry.” This ignorance doesn’t seem to prevent the perpetrators of these arguments presenting with extreme confidence and fervour. When challenged they often question the scientific credibility of their critics and urge them to “do some research!”

...

“I often encounter people who will claim to agree with everything that I have said thus far, but they still insist that “artificial” chemicals (a.k.a. chemicals that simply are not found in nature) are bad for you and shouldn’t be consumed, injected, etc. There are several critical problems here. First, remember again that all chemicals are dangerous at a high enough doses and safe at a low enough dose. That is just as true for artificial chemicals as it is for natural chemicals. Second, this claim is nothing more than an appeal to nature fallacy. Nature is full of chemicals such as cyanide and arsenic that are dangerous at anything but a very low dose, so there is no reason to think that the “naturalness” of a chemical is an indicator of its healthiness.

Further, remember that chemicals are nothing more than arrangements of elements. There is absolutely no reason to think that nature has produced all of the best arrangements or that we are incapable of making an arrangement that is safe or even better than what nature produced. I constantly hear people say that we cannot improve on nature, but that is an utterly ludicrous and unsupportable claim, and I would challenge anyone to give me a logical syllogism that backs it up. Really think about this for a minute, if you are of the opinion that artificial chemicals should be avoided, try to defend that position. Ask yourself why you think that. Can you give me any reason to think that they are bad other than simply that they aren’t natural (which we have just established is a fallacy)?”

..."


The piece should be read as a whole.

[TlalocW]

1. Also they're sick of Chemistry Cat

TlalocW

[bvf]

2. Thanks, great preview!

Kicking to come back for all of it.

[cprise]

3. The real fallacy is blanket approval of commercial products

Just because industries employ scientists doesn't mean there is sufficient criticism and review to prevent harm.

And of course, using the same specious argument as the blogger, the fossil fuel industry is also a practitioner of "science" and their products are just as "natural" as any others.

In ecology (a branch of science) one learns that promises about chemicals never breaking down, not leaching or otherwise polluting have often been false. Western industrial culture has its own pseudo-scientific bent in that it overwhelmingly fears (and preaches against) unintended consequences in the realm of markets. So they fund politicians who deny the value of regulation, and distort or suppress research to make the risks of new, exotic substances appear low. But worse than this, they seldom permit an ecological point of view into their research or PR efforts and this absence of ecology from their thoughts and writings is the basis of their pseudoscience.

A large part of ecology today is about assessing risks (hence the Precautionary Principle), including unintended consequences on our bodies and the physical environment, the biosphere... the consequences that matter most. But there is scarcely any whiff concern for the larger picture coming from the "scientific" advocates of strange chemicals in our food, GMOs, big pharma. Like genetic engineers pursuing a new market and steadfastly denying the probable evolution of pests, the result is that they make "scientific" assurances that are stripped of scientific context.

The question I have is: How should people react to a pattern of abusing chemistry?

From the same website...... http://sciblogs.co.nz/guestwork/2014/06/03/in-defence-of-some-science-scepticism-a-lawyers-view/

[kristopher]

4. +1

Excellent reply.

[HuckleB]

8. A pointless red herring is not an excellent reply.

Ever.

[HuckleB]

7. That's a red herring. No one gives such blanket approval.

Perhaps you should respond to the actual content of the OP.

[cprise]

10. A one-sided argument against strawmen "chemophobic consumers"

No thanks.

If the author (is that you?) acknowledged anything outside of his narrow agenda he might be able to write better, more balanced material. He actually makes the mirror-image mistake that he pillories... a compound is a compound is a compound and that's that.

There's no mention about why some compounds might break down or react more readily than others, or about conditions that would cause this, or that chemists may not understand all of the dynamics. That aspect is reductionist fallacy, and the whole piece skirts fallacious argument from authority.

[HuckleB]

11. Funny how the supposed "strawmen" can be found on the Internet daily...

... including at DU. In fact, the OP would clearly be a great response to some of your own posts. Hmm.

Your response just went from pointless to ridiculous.

[bananas]

5. Ironically, that's an anti-science woo-woo article.

Point #3 is especially egregious:

3: There is no difference between “natural” and “synthetic” versions of a chemical

There are so many things wrong with that section it's hard to believe it was written by a chemist.
And yet it was.

[HuckleB]

6. LOL! Nice try.

[hack89]

9. So what is the difference?

given two samples of a substance, are you saying it is easy to tell the difference between natural and synthetic?

[HuckleB]

12. You'll be waiting a long time for that poster to answer that question.