If the mind can exert positive epigenetic pressure via behaviour to promote the actvitiy of these genes, then the mind exerts a protective and reparative force on DNA. — Benj96
Do you have any references that provide data to justify this claim? I can believe that changes in behavior will improve health and help let us live longer. Unless you have evidence, I am skeptical that it can change our DNA. — T Clark
Yes, I agree. There is evidence to show that smoking causes cancer. — T Clark
The claim in the OP isn't that behavior can cause damaging genetic changes that cause disease — T Clark
Yes, I agree. There is evidence to show that smoking causes cancer. — T Clark
. It mostly talks about the general affects of ageing not genetic causes of disease — T Clark
It also claims "...there is a direct link between the mind and DNA." — T Clark
Metaphorically, yes. Not the way you think it works. All life has a cycle. A wild tree with fruits has no stress or disorder or mind to direct it. But its fruits, too, will rot at the completion of the cycle.This is how the mind protects DNA. And how DNA protects the order that confers a healthy mind. — Benj96
True, there are mitigating factors that can increase the average life expectancy. There was another thread in the forum that talked about lifespan. Advances in medicine and human conditions contributed to an increase in life expectancy. I mentioned that improving the quality of drinking water alone had contributed a lot to the well being of people.The claim in the OP isn't that behavior can cause damaging genetic changes that cause disease. It is that human behavior can cause positive genetic changes that will increase life expectancy. It mostly talks about the general affects of ageing not genetic causes of disease. It also claims "...there is a direct link between the mind and DNA." — T Clark
A wild tree with fruits has no stress — L'éléphant
I was expecting you would say this. In that case, we're not talking about the same stress as human stress. It becomes, all conditions are stressors. Which moots your point.According to who? Trees undergo stress like we do. The stressors may not be the same. But a tree can experience detriment to it's growth potential. — Benj96
It becomes, all conditions are stressors. Which moots your point. — L'éléphant
Therefore, there are living things that aren't stressed out like some humans are stressed out.If all conditions were inherently stressors, then life would not exist because it would be stressed into oblivion. — Benj96
FWIW, I find pseudoscience debunking to be providing a positive contribution — wonderer1
Therefore, there are living things that aren't stressed out like some humans are stressed out. — L'éléphant
That's what you think. Those who take antibiotics are slowly killing themselves. When you take antibiotics, you're not letting the natural processes of your body to do its job. Have some faith in the process -- let your body do its thing.Bacteria are stressed by the presence antibiotics. Humans are not or far less stressed by the presence of antibiotics. — Benj96
Define this word please.apkky — Benj96
Those who take antibiotics are slowly killing themselves. — L'éléphant
Those that take don't take antibiotics kill themselves faster. — Benj96
Define this word please — L'éléphant
And if I don't understand what you're saying, I can ask you to clarify. That's not an insult. — L'éléphant
No, that's a ridiculous criteria which would make it impossible for anyone to point out pseudoscience. — wonderer1
Science is actually about articulating a rational explanation to counter someone's views rather than saying "that's just pseudoscience".
Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
Scientific methodology includes the following:
Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)
Evidence
Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
Repetition
Critical analysis
Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment
One operates off rational thought, the other off personal bias.
I'm all ears for a cohesive reasoning as to why it's pseudoscience. I'm not all ears however for unsupported determinations of pseudoscientifism.
When this kind of thing comes up in a thread, I generally make my case once or twice and then bow out. I don't see any reason to disrupt the conversation. Please don't take that as criticism of you.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.