Clean Living.....

[thestrangequark]

Deks, it actually sounds like you and I are pretty much in agreement, it was just your initial statement in that post, "Genetics don't have much of an impact on this..." that made it sound as though you were completely discounting genetics when they do have a great effect.

The one thing I do disagree with you on is your opinion of science/scientists. A necessary quality of a good scientist is an open mind. I do think a lot of people mistake critical thinking for a lack of an open-mind, but skepticism and open-mindedness are not mutually exclusive. And I'd also suggest that, although there is often inconsistency in studies, these inconsistencies are frequently overhyped, misrepresented, or misunderstood. It's not science that needs to be taken with a grain of salt -- the scientific method itself specifies that one must question one's results: the grain of salt is built in -- it's not science, but statistics that need to be taken with a grain of salt. Any company can twist statistics to sell a product...any Fox "news" story can play up unexpected study results to make it sound as if science is unreliable. The idea that science cannot be trusted because of changes and inconsistencies is a common misconception, but it is one founded in a fundamental misunderstanding of how science actually works.

Sorry for the tangent, it's just a peeve of mine.

 

[Deks]

Trust is a factor that to a degree implies aspect known as 'faith' and 'belief' even.
I'm sorry, but I'm just not the type of individual who conforms to that kind of a premise because I find them limiting (in any shape or form).
To that end, even if people do proceed along certain findings/directions/whatever, what I think its critical is to allow for the possibility (encourage it even) that it could be wrong (and that it also should be questioned).
Without that, we just end up dabbling in absolutes, and that easily leads to dogmatic type of behavior which was seen as highly pervasive throughout our history (and damaging).

 

[thestrangequark]

Trust is a factor that to a degree implies aspect known as 'faith' and 'belief' even.
I'm sorry, but I'm just not the type of individual who conforms to that kind of a premise because I find them limiting (in any shape or form).
To that end, even if people do proceed along certain findings/directions/whatever, what I think its critical is to allow for the possibility (encourage it even) that it could be wrong (and that it also should be questioned).
Without that, we just end up dabbling in absolutes, and that easily leads to dogmatic type of behavior which was seen as highly pervasive throughout our history (and damaging).

I agree absolutely with everything you just said here. Except fot the 'trust' thing...I'm a little unclear as to where that came from or where you're going with that. Anyway, the thing is, science as process and method, agrees with what you've said too. I'm pointing out that the misconception is that the scientific method is somehow inconsistent with your line of thinking, when it is in fact the epitome of open-mindedness. Of course science considers new ideas, that is the very foundation of science! And of course science changes, grows, and evolves; otherwise we'd still be carting around in wagons and bleeding people who have the flu. You're equating critical thinking with dogmatic thinking, when they're very much opposite things. Now, there have certainly been dogmatic scientists, and some very persistent and tenacious theories that were later proved false, but the scientist and science aren't one and the same.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI[/yt]

 

[Deks]

I don't think that I was equating critical thinking with dogmatic.
If anything, critical thinking implies the ability to question established notions, while dogmatic thinking is something akin to: 'No, this is what evidence says is happening and that's final'.

There's an obvious difference... the latter is an apparent heavy fixation on something which easily turns into 'belief' or 'truth', while the former questions it (searching for alternative explanations, keeping an open mind to the possibility it could be wrong).

My point is based in the very possible premise where I noticed how a great deal of people don't really employ critical thinking but instead like to go along with what is 'established' (for the moment) without necessarily questioning it.
Even certain scientists... like the one who stated something along the lines: 'we can now say with 100% certainty that neutrinos did not travel at FTL speeds' (I'm not sure of the exact wording, but I do remember that "100% certainty" was mentioned).
Now THAT kind of a statement easily caters to the notion of 'absolute' (which of course the rest of the populace might be inclined to follow because it comes from an accredited individual).
If the person wanted to sound scientific then what would in my opinion sound better would be something akin to: 'Currently employed experiment and methods seem to (at this time) support the theory of Relativity and that neutrinos did not travel at FTL speeds in the first experiment - to that end, these findings are of course subject to possible change in the future.'

I also think (though I could be wrong) there were numerous scientists throughout history who simply didn't want to admit to the mere possibility that they could be mistaken.
I've personally encountered doctors and scientists alike who were very rooted in such an approach - either because it was a notion that was commonly shared among everyone, or due to personal ego's (other factors could have been present of course and keep the possibility in mind, but the two I mentioned seemed to be the most pervasive/apparent).

 

[C.E. Evans]

Genetics, plenty of sleep and rest each day, not being on a lot of medications, along with an ability not to be overly stressed about things--any or a combination of them will also do that for you.

Genetics don't have that much of an impact on this...

Notice that I said "any or a combination of [different factors]." That means it may not be one particular thing that applies to everyone.

But I do believe that genetics are a factor in certain cases--one in particular is my own family. My great-grandmother, grandmother, mother, and myself have always looked younger than we actually are. That's just simply a family trait.

 

[Captain_Nick]

People always think I'm significantly older than I am, but I think that has more to do with my magnificent beard more than anything.

Post pix plz

 

[thestrangequark]

I don't think that I was equating critical thinking with dogmatic.
If anything, critical thinking implies the ability to question established notions, while dogmatic thinking is something akin to: 'No, this is what evidence says is happening and that's final'.

There's an obvious difference... the latter is an apparent heavy fixation on something which easily turns into 'belief' or 'truth', while the former questions it (searching for alternative explanations, keeping an open mind to the possibility it could be wrong).

My point is based in the very possible premise where I noticed how a great deal of people don't really employ critical thinking but instead like to go along with what is 'established' (for the moment) without necessarily questioning it.
Even certain scientists... like the one who stated something along the lines: 'we can now say with 100% certainty that neutrinos did not travel at FTL speeds' (I'm not sure of the exact wording, but I do remember that "100% certainty" was mentioned).
Now THAT kind of a statement easily caters to the notion of 'absolute' (which of course the rest of the populace might be inclined to follow because it comes from an accredited individual).
If the person wanted to sound scientific then what would in my opinion sound better would be something akin to: 'Currently employed experiment and methods seem to (at this time) support the theory of Relativity and that neutrinos did not travel at FTL speeds in the first experiment - to that end, these findings are of course subject to possible change in the future.'

I also think (though I could be wrong) there were numerous scientists throughout history who simply didn't want to admit to the mere possibility that they could be mistaken.
I've personally encountered doctors and scientists alike who were very rooted in such an approach - either because it was a notion that was commonly shared among everyone, or due to personal ego's (other factors could have been present of course and keep the possibility in mind, but the two I mentioned seemed to be the most pervasive/apparent).

I think most of this discussion seems to be rooted in misunderstandings and the sometimes unclear nature of having a text-based dialogue, as it seems by this statement that we agree on most things.

I think the only qualm I have with your argument is that you seem to be extrapolating the behaviors of a few individuals to the process and body of knowledge that are science (but again, that may just be me misinterpreting your meaning, and if that's the case, please ignore what comes next ). I run into this a lot...and it tends to come from people who see science as a kind of faith, when it's not. There certainly have been bad scientists: in two senses of the word -- bad as in damn well nigh evil, like the dude who faked a correlation between vaccines and Autism, starting this idiotic decades-long vaccination denial bullshit that is still claiming lives, and bad as in of poor caliber. And there have been poorly designed experiments, data that has been misunderstood or manipulated, theories that were good science but nevertheless proved wrong, etc, etc. However, the fact that we're having this discussion is proof that science does work. I think the problem is that the populace in general is not well practiced or experienced in critical thinking, and so are easily manipulated or persuaded by evidence that seems scientific, whether it be pseudoscience or true science that is being badly presented or, shall we say "massaged" to appear to hold a significance greater, lesser, or different to the actual results. But science is simply a tool, and as such has no power to manipulate the masses or inspire dogmatic thinking -- it's just a hammer sitting in a toolbox. And like a hammer, it can be used well, to drive a nail, or it can be used to bash someone's skull in.