Luc Turpin

1- Never thought that you were personally biased towards me. My comment was meant in general terms. 2- Do not want to control anything except myself determining when the headwind is too strong to make progress. 3- 'Just because you don't wish to talk about anymore doesn't mean I don't want to talk about it anymore'; good one; you’re right; chuckled 😊

Very good question swansont; because I did not think about it while I was always trying to defend myself, I guess!

Why am-I being asked to back up my contention when others are not being asked to do so also? I am the champion of links to studies and citations and references on this forum. And when I do so, people pick at the details of the citations or references or whatever and miss the general point that I am trying to make. A quick search of the net provides ample back up for my contention. Maybe not the best, but here is but one of them: "Moral, social, political, and other “nonepistemic” values can lead to bias in science, from prioritizing certain topics over others to the rationalization of questionable research practices. Such values might seem particularly common or powerful in the social sciences, given their subject matter. However, I argue first that the well-documented phenomenon of motivated reasoning (emphasis mine) provides a useful framework for understanding when values guide scientific inquiry (in pernicious or productive ways). Second, this analysis reveals a parity thesis: values influence the social and natural sciences about equally, particularly because both are so prominently affected by desires for social credit and status, including recognition and career advancement. Ultimately, bias in natural and social science is both natural and social— that is, a part of human nature and considerably motivated by a concern for social status (and its maintenance). Whether the pervasive influence of values is inimical to the sciences is a separate question." - Bias in science by Joshua May. My contention, which is very contentious apparently, is that a mechanistic worldview rules over science and that this is running counter to the objectivity principle of science. Again, let me move on!

Not off topic and already moved on! Galileo who? just joking! 😊

Ok, then I will move on; thereby silencing once again a divergent point of view. You are makinig the case for me!

Trying hard to understand; my pea brain is not computiing; can you expand?

Without prejudice to anyone, here Is a good example of biasness in science. The question raised begs to be answered in a certain way. If I bring up spiritual-enlightened experiences as a possible causation in the advent of religion, I find myself automatically outside of the parameters set by the question. I contend that this happens more subtly, yet often in science; biasness taking on the form of selective "rational-reasoning" in scientific enquiry. The search of small “t” truths as aptly stated by Eise is then skewed towards a predictable-consensus accepting outcome. A pernicious way of having one’s worldview invite itself at the dinner table. Like minded thinking attracts like minded people; or is it the other way around?

I was thinking about your comment on nitrosamines and had prepared a response to Charon Y containing evidence that mouthwash is detrimental to NO metabolism, and also stating that there is overwhelming evidence on the harmful effects of processed meat and meat consumption in general on health. However, as you indicated, we are far off topic, so I will not post my original text. Thanks for the reminder and for answering the original question.

As stated in my first response to you, "correct on the first part". NO "is" the active compound, but derived from nitrates. So, again, you are correct. And I am also correct, because you would not get to the beneficial vasodilation effect of NO and the health benefits that this entails without nitrates. Took my cue to use "nitrates" from this chapter in Dr. Greger's book: "Vegetable Nitrates to Combat Artery Aging".-"A meta-analysis of a dozen randomized, controlled human trails found that between two-thirds of a cup to two cups of cooked greens worth of nitrates significantly improved artery functions in the arm and legs or legs, and...., this translates into clinical benefit, for example, enabling peripheral artery disease patients to walk 18 percent longer without pain". The two references provided in my original post also make mention of nitrates in their tittles, not NO. The diagram provided in my post before this one was to explain in more detail the pathway to NO, not to dispute your assertion. Your statement is entirely correct. But if it enables "peripheral artery disease patients to walk 18 percent longer without pain", this then seems to show that it has some sort of an effect on health and wellbeing that is independent or additional to all of the other good stuff. Compromised arterial functions occurs in many health issues. Hope everyone is eating their veggies and not using mouthwash.

Please see diagram Or video https://nutritionfacts.org/video/antibacterial-toothpaste-harmful-helpful-or-harmless/ As for health benefits, here is a study of many on the topic with significant results. The study also showed that people who consume moderate to high amounts of nitrate-rich vegetables showed these specific benefits: A 15% lower risk of heart failure A 12% lower risk of heart disease A 17% lower risk of stroke https://www.verywellhealth.com/nitrates-5218792#:~:text=Benefits of Nitrates&text=5 The study also showed,17% lower risk of stroke A good read on all matters related to health is "How not to Age" by Michael Gregger - 13,000 references You were correct On the first part, but not on the second part

Regular use of a mouthwash is not recommended as it will also kill off the good bacteria on your tongue that are needed to metabolize nitrates from nitrate-rich vegetables (e.g. green vegetable). Nitrates are beneficial to the cardiovascular system as they dilate arteries and improve blood circulation. Athletes use beet juice nitrate boosters to enhance aerobic capacity. If they gargle with mouthwash, they lose the edge. Video: (just click anywhere on the page if you do not wish to subscribe, but want to see the video) https://nutritionfacts.org/video/antibacterial-toothpaste-harmful-helpful-or-harmless/ References: 1- Bondonno CP, Liu AH, Croft KD, et al. “Antibacterial mouthwash blunts oral nitrate reduction and increase blood pressure in treated hypertensive men and women”, AM J Hypertens. 2015;28(5)-5. 2- Rosier BT, Buetas E, Moya-Gonzalvez EM, Artacho A. Mira A. “Nitrate as a potential prebiotic for the oral microbiome. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):12895.

Still vague, even for me!

Agree to the first part and will work on my definition of spirituality.

Spirituality as in a need to be good-moral, not necessarily religious with God. My spirituality light, as stated earlier, "simply implies sacredly offering back our atoms and molecules to the universe upon passing away". Its to resist our evil nature as best as possible. Also, I find it personally supernatural that all of this (our universe) has been made possible through a single random quantum fluctuation. Maybe there is a force out there that puts it all together. I contend that it may be consciousness, but there is only circumstantial evidence at this time pointing in that direction.

Thank you for the precision!

God did not write the bible, humans did! Spirituality "light" avoids all of these religious pitfalls. Its a mannequin without a dress up!

Maybe something, maybe nothing! Agree!

Not meant as a personal attack. Wanted to point out that maybe you are just intolerant of intolerant religions, and could be convinced of being tolerant of tolerant religions

A goodless society can be as evil as a god loving society! Not all religions or adepts of religion are intolerant. You seem to be against parts of religion, but throwing the baby with the bath water.

Light spirituality causing only small traffic jams. From a random quantum fluctuation to "a bit of a human brain the size of half a grain of rice: 57,000 cells, 150 million synapses"- what a ride! Maybe the studies showing that it's all my fault are not entirely correct.

I will not shy away from taking a stance. A worldview of holism, idealism and spirituality “even if it only implies sacredly offering back our atoms and molecules to the universe upon passing away” – as indicated in a recent post. Mechanistic-materialism is part of reality, but not its fundamental essence. Both God and Godless extremists exist, with each often having devastating effects on humanity.

Relishing in awe every moment of it 😊 Not really sure that matter/energy really put a spanner in the works. Right ho! on living for the moment.

All from Nothing and All for Nothing! In a bit of a human brain the size of half a grain of rice; 57,000 cells, 150 million synapses and 23 centimeters of blood vessels. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/biological-puzzles-human-brain-visual “Webb’s image covers a patch of sky approximately the size of a grain of sand held at arm’s length by someone on the ground – and reveals thousands of galaxies in a tiny sliver of vast universe” NASA’s Webb Delivers Deepest Infrared Image of Universe Yet - NASA All of this from atoms and molecules randomly colliding with one another and for the ephemeral purpose of survival of the genetically fittest. Wasted matter, energy, order and complexity at the grandest of scale. But why am I even aware of all of this? _____________________________________________________________________________________ An Eclectic Look at Serotonin, God and Machines Note: originally destined for the “Serotonin” topic in the psychiatry and psychology section, but diverging too much from the thread’s main subject matter. How many have unnecessarily suffered from psychiatry pursuing a dogmatic serotonin approach to depression. The notion of a genetic defect being compensated by a molecule did not come about solely on account of evidence, but also, I contend, as a way of promulgating a mechanistic worldview. Other explanatory models of depression existed at the time, but a genetic-serotonin model fitted best with a mechanistic worldview. It was also very profitable. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. How many times during our recent history have we unleashed the powers of a godless machine worldview to devastating effect on unsuspecting populations. One only has to think of communism (Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Stalin) as examples of this view wreaking havoc onto the world. Or how about Hitler’s anti-communist, but scientifically “proven” supremacy of the Aryan race. All the while, materialistic capitalism without a soul was faring no much better with its exploited masses (think Guatemalans picking fruits and vegetables under a brutal sun and a cloud of pesticides). Or still yet Neo-Darwinism with its diminutive role of humanity predicated upon “unassailable” original “truths” for which some are now being brought back into question. There is also more to the story than originally thought. Again, has anyone ever asked how negatively the theory, in its original form, had impacted the world? Rather than pause and think, things just moved along without a mere mention of consequences. Adding to this, everything is still being deducted away and reduced down to fundamentals without reference to context. With all of this said, those clamouring for religion as being the scourge of the earth suffer from a severe state of advanced selective amnesia. Let spirituality rule our inner world even if it only implies sacredly offering back our atoms and molecules to the universe upon passing away. The world leaving us behind will be better off then.

Then this disqualifies me from participation in this forum.

Good point! Did not get what Dawkins din't get I think that I got close to the line with my statement about "you are entirely right and I am entirely wrong". I think that CharronY and Phi for All did not like that one. But, my weak excuse is that I was getting exasperated at the null effect that I was having on the conversation. The fault is mine. I listen to these fine people, because they know more than I, but the point is: how can I present a different perspective without toppling the apple cart? I thought that this was also part of science. I'd hate to be banned and hope that they will tolerate my excentric ways. Thanks for the guidance my friend.