Is drinking milk bad for Humans?!?!

DeletedUser563

im loving how people can twist terms. According to any introductory course in science anyone that study any field in it and adheres to the theoretical protocols of science is a scientist. In fact even more so for a person that has a masters degree. A B Sc degree can have quite a few majors we like to bind them all under the term Bachelor of Science and consider such people as scientist and a person that works in them as scientist. But the easiest way to disprove any argument is by discrediting the authority and then just saying what he says is wrong without referring to any facts and then saying his opinion is bought . the said person to whom we can attribute that nonsense will never admit he is wrong in anything. It is not in his makeup. Arguing or debating with such persons is in my personal experience a complete and utter waste of time. Victor there is no need to argue the fact that he is a scientist. He gives classes and is in his day to day job applying the principles of the food sciences to his clients which is apparently athletes. He is giving a qualified opinion based on other studies.. I am assuming it was not writers that conducted these studies or journalist. Now I can go further and say according to my knowledge the studies would follow a certain procedure and requirements. my author would have discredited these studies if they were not up to par. You cannot just say a person's opinion is bought. Now study his credentials there was no mention of him working for any association that has anything to do with milk. If you have a good search engine like copernic pro you will be able to find the actual studies by searching for the key words he used. but you must understand the said poster and the futility of going on with this argument as you see he is a scientist in every field of science. And no he doesnt have a bachelor in that field he has a doctors degree. The only analogy I can think of is your hard core sport fan. Which can in some people be a scary manifestation. Therefore just my relaxed opinion as frankly I am not going to spend days or even hours researching stuff for some internet flame posts which anyway has no value for myself and which I know is not correct . Now I have given different takes based on my personal experience. That was ridiculed. I then went and searched a post which I know has some merits in. Well ..well here we are still. yesterday in another thread said poster referred me to sources which was in direct contradiction in spirit to the cause he was fighting for. I am only here to discuss these matters and my opinion of them and dont like people always making sarcastic or insulting comments . Rather than going down the anger path I will take the l high road and just ignore him. That is mostly the way others in RL would anyway react to him. When I also post I try to see the humor in a subject but i see little humor or good social interaction in this forum. Furthermore when I leave I think we will have 6 or 7 posters again here discussing all the threads. Now I am not one to dictate to Innogames but think if this forum does not change it is a waste of their money and not really conducive to the spirit of the global forum which is a game forum. So you can carry on and try and pick almost impossible topics,us topics etc etc but your are just alienating the rest of the forum . In fact the only person that brought any worthwhile topic to the fore was -neo-. That was fun but I assume belittling other posters is also fun.

Lastly the way said posters replies and answers any question is just unscientific. I have never heard anyone claiming that a person with a master of science degree is not a scientist. But then again you must understand that I am often a mischievous poster. I deliberately made an error as to the M.S.. Yesterday I made a joke on a completely false interpretation of the topic. Well as far as it was not intentional said poster completely fell into this trap whereby i lawnmowered him in my response. In fact his reply was the best piece of character suicide I have seen in quite a while. if anyone had any good thing to say about him they would have forever turned their back on him. The reason I do this is because i have kind of a whacked sense of humor and find such things very funny i.e. playing dumb or making obvious errors. So please be wary when replying to my posts as most times you will get mr serious but others you will get the leprechaun playing all kinds of twisted tricks on you. Sometimes just to push your buttons , sometimes to push you over the edge but mostly just to have a good and long laugh at your responses.

Ps I also have grown quite tired of posting on this forum but return mostly out of boredom as i have nothing to do or are waiting on the game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Hellstromm said:
Meh, it's a popular lay notion, but it's not true.
Click to expand...

Yes, because you're an expert on everything and no expert would disagree with you. I disagree, it IS true. Every field has different schools, some more extreme in their differences than others, depending on how EXACT of a science the field is, and nutrition is, in fact, no exception.

Just saying it's not true doesn't mean it's not true.
 

DeletedUser

Waaa to Jakkals, this is the debate & discussion section.

Anyway, according to your broad, and wrong, interpretation, a nurse is a scientist, a tax collector is a scientist, a McDonalds' restaurant manager is a scientist, an airline stewardess is a scientist. After all, they all obtained a science degree...

Indeed, according to your assertions, Jakkals, I'm a scientist. You seriously want to stick to that ridiculous, and over-broad interpretation? I mean, it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about but, even knowing this, I find your assertions stretching out beyond the point of absurdity.

Elmyr, your statement was that there are equal parts to contention on scientific issues. That is incorrect, and that is what I was disputing. It's also important to differentiate theoretical debate from facts. There are, indeed, scientific debates on theoretical and speculative issues, but scientists don't debate the facts, philosophers and crackpots do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser563

If he is working in the field he is a scientist. My niece is an actual food scientist. At first she developed different tasting yoghurts for a company. Then she worked in a cereal company where she basically just checked that manufacturing was hygienic. I know the university department where she studied and in fact they would be what you refer to as scientist and in fact i wonder if the english name of her studies would be nutrition but she is anyway a highly qualified food scientist. She is abroad now perhaps next year she will work for a sports team and work out diets for them or whatever. I dont know what her work involves and in how directions she can take it but if she wrote an article I would not question her credentials. That is what in effect the other posters is trying to tell you and which you so deliberately ignore.
 

DeletedUser

Hellstromm said:
Elmyr, your statement was that there are equal parts to contention on scientific issues. That is incorrect, and that is what I was disputing. It's also important to differentiate theoretical debate from facts. There are, indeed, scientific debates on theoretical and speculative issues, but scientists don't debate the facts, philosophers and crackpots do.
Click to expand...

Experts are divided over the health implications of milk
Click to expand...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-157291/Treating-food-allergies-replacements-milk.html

Experts seem to be divided on this subject.
 

DeletedUser

hehe, back to that ridiculous anecdotal circular reasoning Jakkals. You seriously need to take a course in critical thinking. Your gross dependency on fallacious reasoning is atrocious. I don't know your sister, nor do i know her educational background or whether she's given herself a nice label because it makes her sound more respectable. I see no point in participating on that speculative tangent.

The issue here is that of the author to the article you presented, and specifically the article itself, which provides no attribution. As usual you are trying to derail that point, likely because it's an inconvenient fact that undermines your entire argument. Ah well, I'm sure if your sister wants to go out with me, she can pursue me on her own. No need for you to try and play Cupid. ;)

edit: I'm sorry Elmyr, could you point out to me the scientists in contention, or any attributed scientific studies, in that article?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser563

By the way could anyone tell me the problems associated with lactose intolerance. I see this mentioned as one of the reasons why milk would be bad for you. Does it like give you a rash or something?
 

DeletedUser16008

HS your rigid thinking of what constitutes a scientist or not or indeed fact is laughable on a lot of subjects. It is mostly scientific studies that "claim" or publish "findings" you like to post yet without a thought pour scorn on any other profession that has a different opinion or findings, a lot are professionals no less than a scientist in expertise.

Outside of physics chemistry engineering there is a whole realm of ifs, maybes and possibles. Heck a few years ago scientists were pouring scorn on the quantum world where nothing plays out as expected. Why the rigid and often belligerent attitude to other professionals and specialists in their own fields ? its not logical you know.
 

DeletedUser16008

Jakkals said:
By the way could anyone tell me the problems associated with lactose intolerance. I see this mentioned as one of the reasons why milk would be bad for you. Does it like give you a rash or something?
Click to expand...

You fart and get indigestion a lot i believe :p although that's not a scientific fact ... unless your operating on the quantum level and then youll get all of the probelms and none all at the same time everywhere :)
 

DeletedUser

Lactose intolerance imposes diarrhea, constipation, and a right nasty bout of pain-inducing gas. Undiagnosed and otherwise avoided, may result in gastritis, proctitis, hemmorhoids, obstructive polyps, blockage and inflammation requiring medical intervention, diverticulitis, infection, etc and so on.
 

DeletedUser

Victor, a question for you. Would you say a nurse is a scientist?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser16008

Hellstromm said:
Lactose intolerance imposes diarrhea, constipation, and a right nasty bout of pain-inducing gas. Undiagnosed and otherwise avoided, may result in gastritis, proctitis, hemmorhoids, obstructive polyps, blockage and inflammation requiring medical intervention, diverticulitis, infection, etc and so on.
Click to expand...

Like I said you fart and get indigestion...

To answer your other Q HS is a nurse a scientist ? You fail to clarify your question so ill have to answer best I can covering all bases but i fail to see what that has to do with the debate but here goes.

scientist [ˈsaɪəntɪst]
n
a person who studies or practises any of the sciences or who uses scientific methods.

or if you prefer

(sī'ən-tĭst)
n.
A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.

A nurse does practise medicine and the sciences and use scientific method... so in the context of the dictionary yes a nurse could be by definition considered a scientist.

Im not and have never suggested a nurse you find on the regular hospital ward is a scientist. So in that context personally no. However.

There is nursing science such as below and if a person wished to enter the study of say Nutrition with a Phd or Doctorate in medical background it would in fact make them a Nutrition scientist yes.

http://nursing.jhu.edu/academics/programs/doctoral/phd/

As to the Fields of Science.Here are many of the terms used to describe various fields of scientific study but not all of them.

Acoustics The study of sound.
Aeronautics Aircraft design, construction, and navigation.
Agronomy science of soil management and crop production
Anatomy The study of organisms and their parts.
Anthropology The study of the origin, behavior, and the physical, social, and cultural development of humans.
Archaeology The study of past human lives by examining remaining material evidence.
Astronomy The study of outer space.
Astrophysics The branch of astronomy that deals with the physics of stellar phenomena.
Bacteriology The study of bacteria, especially in relation to medicine and agriculture.
Biochemistry The study of the chemical substances and processes in living organisms.
Biology The science of life and living organisms
Botany The study of plants.
Cardiology The medical study of the heart.
Cartography The art or technique of making maps or charts.
Chemistry The science of the composition, structure, properties, and reactions of matter, especially of atomic and molecular systems.
Cosmology The study of the physical universe considered as a totality of phenomena in time and space.
Crystallography The science of crystal structure and phenomena.
Ecology The study of organisms and their environment.
Embryology The study of the formation, early growth, and development of living organisms.
Endocrinology The study of the glands and hormones of the body.
Entomology The scientific study of insects.
Enzymology The study of the biochemical nature and activity of enzymes.
Forestry The science and art of cultivating, maintaining, and developing forests.
Gelotology The study of laughter.
Genetics The study of heredity and inherited traits.
Geochemistry The chemistry of the composition and alterations of the solid matter of the earth or a celestial body.
Geodesy The geologic science of the size and shape of the earth.
Geography The study of the earth and its features.
Geology The scientific study of the origin, history, and structure of the earth.
Geophysics The physics of the earth and its environment, including the physics of fields such as meteorology, oceanography, and seismology
Hematology The study of the blood and blood-producing organs.
Histology The study of the microscopic structure of animal and plant tissues.
Horology The science of measuring time and making time pieces
Hydrology The study of the properties and effects of water on earth.
Ichthyology The study of fish.
Immunology The study of the immune system of the body.
Linguistics The study of language and phonetics.
Mechanics Design, construction, and use of machinery or mechanical structures.
Medicine The science of diagnosing and treating disease and damage to the body.
Meteorology The study of weather and atmospheric conditions.
Metrology The science of measurement.
Microbiology The study of microorganisms and their effects on other living organisms.
Mineralogy The study of minerals, including their distribution, identification, and properties.
Mycology The branch of botany that deals with fungi.
Neurology The study of the nervous system and disorders affecting it.
Nucleonics The study of the behavior and characteristics of nucleons or atomic nuclei.
Nutrition The study of food and nourishment.
Oceanography The exploration and study of the ocean.
Oncology The study of the development, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of tumors.
Optics The study of light and vision.
Paleontology The study of prehistoric life through fossils.
Pathology The study of disease and its causes, processes, development, and consequences.
Petrology The study of the origin, composition, structure, and alteration of rocks.
Pharmacology The science of the composition, use, and effects of drugs.
Physics The science of matter and energy and interactions between the two.
Physiology The study of the functions of living organisms.
Psychology The study of the mental process and behavior.
Radiology The use of radioactive substances in diagnosis and treatment of disease.
Robotics The science of technology to design, fabrication, and application of robots.
Seismology The study of earthquakes.
Spectroscopy The study of radiant light.
Systematics The science of systematic classification.
Thermodynamics The study of relationships and conversions between heat and other forms of energy.
Toxicology The study of poisons and the treatment of poisoning.
Virology The study of viruses and viral diseases.
Volcanology The study of volcanoes and volcanic phenomena.
Zoology the study of the structure, physiology, development, and classification of animals.

To sum it up this is how I see a scientist and one who can use the title.

Scientists are usually experts in a particular field, study a subject and that is what makes them a scientist Which means for example a practising doctor is not a scientist ...exactly the same qualification with another that has chosen to study medicine or research a specific area would make him a scientist
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

No, but that was part of the argument I was having with Jakkals. That, and the stupid article he thought to build a podium upon. The bulk of his incessant ramblings over these past few pages has been about the author, a not-scientist, and the article, a not- peer-reviewed op-ed and one without any attribution. My argument is, and has been, that you can't attempt to invalidate peer-reviewed studies with an op-ed (opinion piece). It's not logical and is definitely laughable.
 

DeletedUser563

According to science you are both wrong. I am not certain about the course but it is something like the Doctrine of science which said he would be considered a scientist. Let me give you an example according to both your definition a practicing archaeologist would not be a scientist. Most of his work however is documented in a scientific manner. So although most of his work like CRM reports usually is of little archaeological interest when he stumble in his day to day activity on a find and write a article on it, it may be. By both your definitions he would not be considered a scientist yet this article could be the next big thing like a direct link from homo erectus to homo sapiens or a sub species of homo erectus etc. Yet you will demerit his work by your narrow definition. Yet I can tell you that most of them is very meticulous in their work and will day to day practice his science even though from day to day there may nothing more than 20 year old cow bones etc or bottle caps or whatever. We can apply circle logic and I can even tell you that no archaeologist can conduct a study from his office he must also practice it in the field or anyway collect the data there. Any study must show his practise:how he collected the data and other information etc. Fundamentally the bachelor of science and master is the definition of a scientist. In any court of law Mister Aragon qualifications would be accepted for example. Therefore you are in fact just nitpicking. Well i'm not an archaeologist but you could ask Mwfossils on world 1 to confirm this as he is actually one.

Even if you still dont accept his credentials unless you are in fact a food scientist I cant see how you can counter his arguments. He was also not unscientific in his article where logic dictated a maybe he added a maybe. if he was bought he could just have colored the fat loss different he didnt showing his true intent which was to write a article for the normal man on street which I doubt anyone in the thread can claim their not. And you could just have gone further and studied for counters to his arguments. Do we really need to bring scientific studies here which magically found its way on the internet. I think that is too tough a ask but feel free to set that requirement so that no one can debate here.
 

DeletedUser

Is a nurse a scientist: That depends. There are Forensic Nurses, they conduct qualitative And quantitative research. There is even a division of nursing called Nurse Sciences who also conduct research. Both branches can and do contain scientists.
 

DeletedUser563

iggy i think to bring this topic on topic again we must move the debate What is a scientist? to a seperate thread. im going out to play pool /darts in a minute or so so anyone else can start that topic then.

what about a computer scientist. most people study computer science as their major. Not everyone are going to bring out the next programming language so although most will not add a personal contribution that enlarge the body of knowledge are we going now as far as to say he cannot ever refer to himself as a computer scientist. He cannot consider himself as a member of the brethren scientist a bachelor of scientist therefore Luckily in our country we have organizations where person register at and everybody that has the qualification and registered at the bodies may use the description scientist. I will however return and search for mister aragon sources later
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top