Even D-ascorbate is capable of reducing things in vivo. While it is true only l-ascorbate is recognized by enzymes, it is also true that all natural sources of ascorbic acid are the l-enantiomer.
but what this list is showing us, is that there are common misconceptions about the degree of truth. Alot of things on that list are 'sketchily' true, but in 'fundamentalist' reality - are broad statements of common misconception.
I think near everything on that list has a basis in truth, but is not the whole and full truth, and in not knowing the definite truth, we allow ourselves to be manipulated by our fears and pulled into a false sense of security by our desires, for the benefit of no-one but a profit making machine or a political agenda.
Afterall, a drug company could sell us some very expensive drugs containing 'ascorbic acid' - and people would flock to buy them thinking they were doing themselves some benefit, but unless it was L-ascorbic, it could be completely useless.
Sorry, read the whole thing, still not seeing anything spectacularly new or interesting in there.
People in position of power have *always* used propaganda and lies to influence the masses. Period. End of story.
And, given that the piece was so *incredibly* poorly referenced, with assertions made without citations to back them up...
...how certain are you that you haven't swallowed a big chunk of propaganda?
but why do people desire to be lied too and accept this crap? In not knowing the truth from the propoganda, we allow ourselves to be led like sheep to the slaughter. Infact some people positively desire it. Why?
Because that's how people are. Thinking is too hard, it's much better to be told what to do. Sure, they may claim they want freedom to think, but really, most people are just looking for a surrogate mommy or daddy to lead them by the hand through the big scary world. It's the reason behind most religious organizations, and it's the reason behind political spin and propaganda.
Cue Devo's _Freedom of Choice_.
The irony is, in accepting the article you linked to at face value, without requiring it to back up its claims, you fell prey to the same trap. It looked like what you wanted to hear, and on the face of it, it spoke with an air of authority, so you accepted it. Oops.
This is where the Big Bad Science has a leg up - it requires evidence, and it requires logic, and it requires a trail of proof. It's not perfect, and a lot of people just cite the most recent references, without ever going back and double-checking the original sources of data, but the point is that you *CAN*. That article? No way to track down those claims one way or the other. If you didn't know any better, you might just swallow them as true, lock, stock, and barrel.
See, the thing about the Vitamin-C/ascorbic acid thing is... every scientist knows that only one form is bioreactive. That's true for almost *ALL* lab-produced chemicals. The thing is, in most simple reactions in the lab, the two chiral forms are produced in equal amounts. So for a given 100mg of lab-produced ascorbic acid, 50mg is pure Vitamin C, 50mg is less effective, but not useless. The claim, therefore, that ascorbic acid != Vitamin C is hogwash. This is high school chemistry.
So, now that that one's been shown to be bunk, how does that make you feel about the authenticity of the other claims, since you can't check any of them?
See, the thing about the Vitamin-C/ascorbic acid thing is... every scientist knows that only one form is bioreactive. That's true for almost *ALL* lab-produced chemicals. The thing is, in most simple reactions in the lab, the two chiral forms are produced in equal amounts. So for a given 100mg of lab-produced ascorbic acid, 50mg is pure Vitamin C, 50mg is less effective, but not useless. The claim, therefore, that ascorbic acid != Vitamin C is hogwash. This is high school chemistry.
So, now that that one's been shown to be bunk, how does that make you feel about the authenticity of the other claims, since you can't check any of them?
Were not talking about what every scientist knows, were talking about what average Joe on the street 'thinks' he knows, and theres a big difference, because if you aren't privvy to the absolute knowledge, you can be led right down the garden path.
As you've shown, only 50% of lab produced Ascorbic Acid is Vitamin C - 50% of it is not. Those privvy to this knowledge know this, but a vast majority do not.
Now I didn't mean to get into a discussion about Vitamin C. I'm using it as an example. Misconceptions are always based around not being privvy to the knowledge, and when you are ignorant of the whole truth, the half truth can be used against you to deceive you into holding an opinion that is based on truth, but not true.
Im sure no one really gives a fuck about vitamin C - but there are larger issues, some of which have become knowledge - like WMD in Iraq - where not being privvy to the complete set of facts and information can lead us into a postion of ignorance, which leads to a public misconception in which the information is used to bolster the publics misconception and as such - like there was a bit of a 'half truth' in there being WMD's in Iraq - there 'WERE' but not when we 'INVADED' - OK, crap vitamin C doesn't kill innocent people, but intentionally CRAP intelligence does.
What really happened is that alot of people saw that list at the start of the article, and thought thats a pile of shit because they were convinced by their 'misconceptions' and therefore the whole article must be shit.
And the whole article is referencable - in this internet age every single thing on that list is referencable and verifyable if you can be bothered. It seems most people prefer their misconception and cant be bothered. And when this happens you are zombied sheep walking to an abbatoir.
Whats worse, is that the governments know this is how the vast majority of people are.
Really - soon there wont be a need to even formulate the propaganda.
Were not talking about what every scientist knows, were talking about what average Joe on the street 'thinks' he knows, and theres a big difference, because if you aren't privvy to the absolute knowledge, you can be led right down the garden path.
As you've shown, only 50% of lab produced Ascorbic Acid is Vitamin C - 50% of it is not. Those privvy to this knowledge know this, but a vast majority do not.
Now I didn't mean to get into a discussion about Vitamin C. I'm using it as an example. Misconceptions are always based around not being privvy to the knowledge, and when you are ignorant of the whole truth, the half truth can be used against you to deceive you into holding an opinion that is based on truth, but not true.
Im sure no one really gives a fuck about vitamin C - but there are larger issues, some of which have become knowledge - like WMD in Iraq - where not being privvy to the complete set of facts and information can lead us into a postion of ignorance, which leads to a public misconception in which the information is used to bolster the publics misconception and as such - like there was a bit of a 'half truth' in there being WMD's in Iraq - there 'WERE' but not when we 'INVADED' - OK, crap vitamin C doesn't kill innocent people, but intentionally CRAP intelligence does.
You're right, but the example picked, vitamin C, was a really piss-poor one because it's something that every high school graduate in the US should know. And, you missed the point - the article claimed that they simply weren't equivalent, it made no reference to supporting material, nor did it provide any evidence or argument on its own. It asserted a half-truth as true, and you swallowed it... which is precisely what the article is touting as evil incarnate.
So basically, it boils down to: question what you're told, ask for proof, ask for original source references, and require the one making assertions to back up their claims solidly before accepting them at face value.
Sounds like science to me.
It also sounds like what you *didn't* do when accepting the claims in that article as truth.
Were not talking about what every scientist knows, were talking about what average Joe on the street 'thinks' he knows, and theres a big difference, because if you aren't privvy to the absolute knowledge, you can be led right down the garden path.
As you've shown, only 50% of lab produced Ascorbic Acid is Vitamin C - 50% of it is not. Those privvy to this knowledge know this, but a vast majority do not.
Now I didn't mean to get into a discussion about Vitamin C. I'm using it as an example. Misconceptions are always based around not being privvy to the knowledge, and when you are ignorant of the whole truth, the half truth can be used against you to deceive you into holding an opinion that is based on truth, but not true.
Im sure no one really gives a fuck about vitamin C - but there are larger issues, some of which have become knowledge - like WMD in Iraq - where not being privvy to the complete set of facts and information can lead us into a postion of ignorance, which leads to a public misconception in which the information is used to bolster the publics misconception and as such - like there was a bit of a 'half truth' in there being WMD's in Iraq - there 'WERE' but not when we 'INVADED' - OK, crap vitamin C doesn't kill innocent people, but intentionally CRAP intelligence does.
It do not make an huge difference that only half of the acid is absorbed. It's also the case for many drugs where only half the quantity is levogyre. That's not really a big deal
BTW, if you have a normal diet, you don't really need a vit C supply
What really happened is that alot of people saw that list at the start of the article, and thought thats a pile of shit because they were convinced by their 'misconceptions' and therefore the whole article must be shit.
Wrong, bucko. Like I said, I read the whole thing to the end. I looked for references, I read the bibliography, and I even checked a couple of them.
So maybe what you really think happened, is just to make yourself feel better that the article *is* shit.
Quote:
And the whole article is referencable - in this internet age every single thing on that list is referencable and verifyable if you can be bothered. It seems most people prefer their misconception and cant be bothered. And when this happens you are zombied sheep walking to an abbatoir.
OMFG. Hypocricy much? Did *YOU* do any reference checking? Did *YOU* question *ANYTHING* in that article?
And I'm sorry, but in case you hadn't noticed, *ANYTHING* can found on the Internet. I can find you pages that 'prove' that Elvis is alive and living at Area 51 with his alien lover, for fuck's sake.
Quote:
Whats worse, is that the governments know this is how the vast majority of people are.
Yes, yes they are.
Quote:
Really - soon there wont be a need to even formulate the propaganda.
Obviously. You've proven that quite thoroughly. Hook, line, and sinker.
Nothing, really, as I stated at the beginning. It's just not anything *new*.
People are sheep, organized bodies of power have always taken advantage of that. Modern advertising techniques are just writing down what leaders have done since time immemorial.
There's. Nothing. New. Here.
Unfortunately, the article tries to give itself a weight of authority by spouting completely unsubstantiated (and often wrong) bits of information as 'proof' that they should be trusted. Classic propaganda technique. "Trust us! See? Only *we* know the truth!"
The article does precisely what it says is evil and bad, and tries to aggrandize itself (and the author) by spouting old news as something new and shiny... and is therefore pretty worthless.
I suppose if you'd never stopped to consider the topics, it might seem like some big breakthrough, but consider that in getting so excited about the truthiness of it, you exercised the same lack of thought that anyone else who falls to spin does.
ie, what did you learn? To think for yourself, or just shift the desire to be led to a new master?
Nothing, really, as I stated at the beginning. It's just not anything *new*.
People are sheep, organized bodies of power have always taken advantage of that. Modern advertising techniques are just writing down what leaders have done since time immemorial.
There's. Nothing. New. Here.
Unfortunately, the article tries to give itself a weight of authority by spouting completely unsubstantiated (and often wrong) bits of information as 'proof' that they should be trusted. Classic propaganda technique. "Trust us! See? Only *we* know the truth!"
The article does precisely what it says is evil and bad, and tries to aggrandize itself (and the author) by spouting old news as something new and shiny... and is therefore pretty worthless.
I suppose if you'd never stopped to consider the topics, it might seem like some big breakthrough, but consider that in getting so excited about the truthiness of it, you exercised the same lack of thought that anyone else who falls to spin does.
ie, what did you learn? To think for yourself, or just shift the desire to be lead to a new master?
whats considered *new* is really a state of mind. Every piece of information is *new* the first time you hear it. Its nothing *new* that Jesus-never-existed as a physical person in Palestine circa 1st C. - Thats been known to the elite for 2000 years, but the majority dont know this. Its nothing *new* that Apple make the best consumer operating system. This has been known for 20 years, so why does Apple have a 3% market share - most people dont know apple makes an alternative. Is nothing *new* that propaganda takes place. The educated have known this for thousands of years, but joe schmoe still laps it all up. All of these things are known to people privvy to the best information of the whole story.
As shown a vast majority of people dont have the slightest clue of these things, and it needs to be pointed out again and again for infinity so that people can be saved from their own ignorance and stupidity.
Profit controls virtually everything you see, read, hear and more disturbingly, what you think - And it needs to be pointed out regularly, because for someone, this might be *new* information, and they might want to act on it, lest they (un) willingly become another mindless drone.
whats considered *new* is really a state of mind. Every piece of information is *new* the first time you hear it. Its nothing *new* that Jesus-never-existed as a physical person in Palestine circa 1st C. - Thats been known to the elite for 2000 years, but the majority dont know this. Its nothing *new* that Apple make the best consumer operating system. This has been known for 20 years, so why does Apple have a 3% market share - most people dont know apple makes an alternative. Is nothing *new* that propaganda takes place. The educated have known this for thousands of years, but joe schmoe still laps it all up. All of these things are known to people privvy to the best information of the whole story.
As shown a vast majority of people dont have the slightest clue of these things, and it needs to be pointed out again and again for infinity so that people can be saved from their own ignorance and stupidity.
Profit controls virtually everything you see, read, hear and more disturbingly, what you think - And it needs to be pointed out regularly, because for someone, this might be *new* information, and they might want to act on it, lest they (un) willingly become another mindless drone.
While a worthy goal, perhaps you could find example literature that doesn't rely on the same sheep-think to make sure it is believed.
Not really - poke holes in the methodology and logic asserting there is a connection. Show that the axiomatic assumptions of the research leading to a published conclusion are false and contradictory. Hell, give it a *try* at least, to cast a shadow of a doubt that is larger than the evidence of a connection to date.
I'm pretty positive that the positions of the stars have very little connection with what my morning meeting is going to be like. Can I *prove* a lack of connection? Not really. But with out *any* evidence of a connection at *all*, I think I'm pretty safe in going with the obvious bet on this one.
Comments
Even D-ascorbate is capable of reducing things in vivo. While it is true only l-ascorbate is recognized by enzymes, it is also true that all natural sources of ascorbic acid are the l-enantiomer.
I think near everything on that list has a basis in truth, but is not the whole and full truth, and in not knowing the definite truth, we allow ourselves to be manipulated by our fears and pulled into a false sense of security by our desires, for the benefit of no-one but a profit making machine or a political agenda.
Afterall, a drug company could sell us some very expensive drugs containing 'ascorbic acid' - and people would flock to buy them thinking they were doing themselves some benefit, but unless it was L-ascorbic, it could be completely useless.
Sorry, read the whole thing, still not seeing anything spectacularly new or interesting in there.
People in position of power have *always* used propaganda and lies to influence the masses. Period. End of story.
And, given that the piece was so *incredibly* poorly referenced, with assertions made without citations to back them up...
...how certain are you that you haven't swallowed a big chunk of propaganda?
but why do people desire to be lied too and accept this crap? In not knowing the truth from the propoganda, we allow ourselves to be led like sheep to the slaughter. Infact some people positively desire it. Why?
Cue Devo's _Freedom of Choice_.
The irony is, in accepting the article you linked to at face value, without requiring it to back up its claims, you fell prey to the same trap. It looked like what you wanted to hear, and on the face of it, it spoke with an air of authority, so you accepted it. Oops.
This is where the Big Bad Science has a leg up - it requires evidence, and it requires logic, and it requires a trail of proof. It's not perfect, and a lot of people just cite the most recent references, without ever going back and double-checking the original sources of data, but the point is that you *CAN*. That article? No way to track down those claims one way or the other. If you didn't know any better, you might just swallow them as true, lock, stock, and barrel.
See, the thing about the Vitamin-C/ascorbic acid thing is... every scientist knows that only one form is bioreactive. That's true for almost *ALL* lab-produced chemicals. The thing is, in most simple reactions in the lab, the two chiral forms are produced in equal amounts. So for a given 100mg of lab-produced ascorbic acid, 50mg is pure Vitamin C, 50mg is less effective, but not useless. The claim, therefore, that ascorbic acid != Vitamin C is hogwash. This is high school chemistry.
So, now that that one's been shown to be bunk, how does that make you feel about the authenticity of the other claims, since you can't check any of them?
See, the thing about the Vitamin-C/ascorbic acid thing is... every scientist knows that only one form is bioreactive. That's true for almost *ALL* lab-produced chemicals. The thing is, in most simple reactions in the lab, the two chiral forms are produced in equal amounts. So for a given 100mg of lab-produced ascorbic acid, 50mg is pure Vitamin C, 50mg is less effective, but not useless. The claim, therefore, that ascorbic acid != Vitamin C is hogwash. This is high school chemistry.
So, now that that one's been shown to be bunk, how does that make you feel about the authenticity of the other claims, since you can't check any of them?
Were not talking about what every scientist knows, were talking about what average Joe on the street 'thinks' he knows, and theres a big difference, because if you aren't privvy to the absolute knowledge, you can be led right down the garden path.
As you've shown, only 50% of lab produced Ascorbic Acid is Vitamin C - 50% of it is not. Those privvy to this knowledge know this, but a vast majority do not.
Now I didn't mean to get into a discussion about Vitamin C. I'm using it as an example. Misconceptions are always based around not being privvy to the knowledge, and when you are ignorant of the whole truth, the half truth can be used against you to deceive you into holding an opinion that is based on truth, but not true.
Im sure no one really gives a fuck about vitamin C - but there are larger issues, some of which have become knowledge - like WMD in Iraq - where not being privvy to the complete set of facts and information can lead us into a postion of ignorance, which leads to a public misconception in which the information is used to bolster the publics misconception and as such - like there was a bit of a 'half truth' in there being WMD's in Iraq - there 'WERE' but not when we 'INVADED' - OK, crap vitamin C doesn't kill innocent people, but intentionally CRAP intelligence does.
And the whole article is referencable - in this internet age every single thing on that list is referencable and verifyable if you can be bothered. It seems most people prefer their misconception and cant be bothered. And when this happens you are zombied sheep walking to an abbatoir.
Whats worse, is that the governments know this is how the vast majority of people are.
Really - soon there wont be a need to even formulate the propaganda.
Ascorbic Acid is completely useless to the body unless it is of the L-enantiomer type - which is then known as vitamin C.
Scientific mumbo-jumbo. Everyone knows that D works fine if you look into a mirror when you swallow it. The people can't be fooled.
Were not talking about what every scientist knows, were talking about what average Joe on the street 'thinks' he knows, and theres a big difference, because if you aren't privvy to the absolute knowledge, you can be led right down the garden path.
As you've shown, only 50% of lab produced Ascorbic Acid is Vitamin C - 50% of it is not. Those privvy to this knowledge know this, but a vast majority do not.
Now I didn't mean to get into a discussion about Vitamin C. I'm using it as an example. Misconceptions are always based around not being privvy to the knowledge, and when you are ignorant of the whole truth, the half truth can be used against you to deceive you into holding an opinion that is based on truth, but not true.
Im sure no one really gives a fuck about vitamin C - but there are larger issues, some of which have become knowledge - like WMD in Iraq - where not being privvy to the complete set of facts and information can lead us into a postion of ignorance, which leads to a public misconception in which the information is used to bolster the publics misconception and as such - like there was a bit of a 'half truth' in there being WMD's in Iraq - there 'WERE' but not when we 'INVADED' - OK, crap vitamin C doesn't kill innocent people, but intentionally CRAP intelligence does.
You're right, but the example picked, vitamin C, was a really piss-poor one because it's something that every high school graduate in the US should know. And, you missed the point - the article claimed that they simply weren't equivalent, it made no reference to supporting material, nor did it provide any evidence or argument on its own. It asserted a half-truth as true, and you swallowed it... which is precisely what the article is touting as evil incarnate.
So basically, it boils down to: question what you're told, ask for proof, ask for original source references, and require the one making assertions to back up their claims solidly before accepting them at face value.
Sounds like science to me.
It also sounds like what you *didn't* do when accepting the claims in that article as truth.
Pot, kettle.
Were not talking about what every scientist knows, were talking about what average Joe on the street 'thinks' he knows, and theres a big difference, because if you aren't privvy to the absolute knowledge, you can be led right down the garden path.
As you've shown, only 50% of lab produced Ascorbic Acid is Vitamin C - 50% of it is not. Those privvy to this knowledge know this, but a vast majority do not.
Now I didn't mean to get into a discussion about Vitamin C. I'm using it as an example. Misconceptions are always based around not being privvy to the knowledge, and when you are ignorant of the whole truth, the half truth can be used against you to deceive you into holding an opinion that is based on truth, but not true.
Im sure no one really gives a fuck about vitamin C - but there are larger issues, some of which have become knowledge - like WMD in Iraq - where not being privvy to the complete set of facts and information can lead us into a postion of ignorance, which leads to a public misconception in which the information is used to bolster the publics misconception and as such - like there was a bit of a 'half truth' in there being WMD's in Iraq - there 'WERE' but not when we 'INVADED' - OK, crap vitamin C doesn't kill innocent people, but intentionally CRAP intelligence does.
It do not make an huge difference that only half of the acid is absorbed. It's also the case for many drugs where only half the quantity is levogyre. That's not really a big deal
BTW, if you have a normal diet, you don't really need a vit C supply
An excess of vit C is bad for health either.
Scientific mumbo-jumbo
If I hold you over the edge of a cliff, will I get a better fuck?
What really happened is that alot of people saw that list at the start of the article, and thought thats a pile of shit because they were convinced by their 'misconceptions' and therefore the whole article must be shit.
Wrong, bucko. Like I said, I read the whole thing to the end. I looked for references, I read the bibliography, and I even checked a couple of them.
So maybe what you really think happened, is just to make yourself feel better that the article *is* shit.
And the whole article is referencable - in this internet age every single thing on that list is referencable and verifyable if you can be bothered. It seems most people prefer their misconception and cant be bothered. And when this happens you are zombied sheep walking to an abbatoir.
OMFG. Hypocricy much? Did *YOU* do any reference checking? Did *YOU* question *ANYTHING* in that article?
And I'm sorry, but in case you hadn't noticed, *ANYTHING* can found on the Internet. I can find you pages that 'prove' that Elvis is alive and living at Area 51 with his alien lover, for fuck's sake.
Whats worse, is that the governments know this is how the vast majority of people are.
Yes, yes they are.
Really - soon there wont be a need to even formulate the propaganda.
Obviously. You've proven that quite thoroughly. Hook, line, and sinker.
People are sheep, organized bodies of power have always taken advantage of that. Modern advertising techniques are just writing down what leaders have done since time immemorial.
There's. Nothing. New. Here.
Unfortunately, the article tries to give itself a weight of authority by spouting completely unsubstantiated (and often wrong) bits of information as 'proof' that they should be trusted. Classic propaganda technique. "Trust us! See? Only *we* know the truth!"
The article does precisely what it says is evil and bad, and tries to aggrandize itself (and the author) by spouting old news as something new and shiny... and is therefore pretty worthless.
I suppose if you'd never stopped to consider the topics, it might seem like some big breakthrough, but consider that in getting so excited about the truthiness of it, you exercised the same lack of thought that anyone else who falls to spin does.
ie, what did you learn? To think for yourself, or just shift the desire to be led to a new master?
Edit: speeling mistak
Nothing, really, as I stated at the beginning. It's just not anything *new*.
People are sheep, organized bodies of power have always taken advantage of that. Modern advertising techniques are just writing down what leaders have done since time immemorial.
There's. Nothing. New. Here.
Unfortunately, the article tries to give itself a weight of authority by spouting completely unsubstantiated (and often wrong) bits of information as 'proof' that they should be trusted. Classic propaganda technique. "Trust us! See? Only *we* know the truth!"
The article does precisely what it says is evil and bad, and tries to aggrandize itself (and the author) by spouting old news as something new and shiny... and is therefore pretty worthless.
I suppose if you'd never stopped to consider the topics, it might seem like some big breakthrough, but consider that in getting so excited about the truthiness of it, you exercised the same lack of thought that anyone else who falls to spin does.
ie, what did you learn? To think for yourself, or just shift the desire to be lead to a new master?
whats considered *new* is really a state of mind. Every piece of information is *new* the first time you hear it. Its nothing *new* that Jesus-never-existed as a physical person in Palestine circa 1st C. - Thats been known to the elite for 2000 years, but the majority dont know this. Its nothing *new* that Apple make the best consumer operating system. This has been known for 20 years, so why does Apple have a 3% market share - most people dont know apple makes an alternative. Is nothing *new* that propaganda takes place. The educated have known this for thousands of years, but joe schmoe still laps it all up. All of these things are known to people privvy to the best information of the whole story.
As shown a vast majority of people dont have the slightest clue of these things, and it needs to be pointed out again and again for infinity so that people can be saved from their own ignorance and stupidity.
Profit controls virtually everything you see, read, hear and more disturbingly, what you think - And it needs to be pointed out regularly, because for someone, this might be *new* information, and they might want to act on it, lest they (un) willingly become another mindless drone.
whats considered *new* is really a state of mind. Every piece of information is *new* the first time you hear it. Its nothing *new* that Jesus-never-existed as a physical person in Palestine circa 1st C. - Thats been known to the elite for 2000 years, but the majority dont know this. Its nothing *new* that Apple make the best consumer operating system. This has been known for 20 years, so why does Apple have a 3% market share - most people dont know apple makes an alternative. Is nothing *new* that propaganda takes place. The educated have known this for thousands of years, but joe schmoe still laps it all up. All of these things are known to people privvy to the best information of the whole story.
As shown a vast majority of people dont have the slightest clue of these things, and it needs to be pointed out again and again for infinity so that people can be saved from their own ignorance and stupidity.
Profit controls virtually everything you see, read, hear and more disturbingly, what you think - And it needs to be pointed out regularly, because for someone, this might be *new* information, and they might want to act on it, lest they (un) willingly become another mindless drone.
While a worthy goal, perhaps you could find example literature that doesn't rely on the same sheep-think to make sure it is believed.
Just an idea.
Message: good.
That article: horrible.
Prove it.
Great thing about science, you can provide evidence.
But it's rather hard to prove a non-connection.
How many people understand that compounds can have non-identical mirror images?
But it's rather hard to prove a non-connection.
Not really - poke holes in the methodology and logic asserting there is a connection. Show that the axiomatic assumptions of the research leading to a published conclusion are false and contradictory. Hell, give it a *try* at least, to cast a shadow of a doubt that is larger than the evidence of a connection to date.
I'm pretty positive that the positions of the stars have very little connection with what my morning meeting is going to be like. Can I *prove* a lack of connection? Not really. But with out *any* evidence of a connection at *all*, I think I'm pretty safe in going with the obvious bet on this one.