1415

submitted 3 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

167 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago

Ignorance? As you defend pink salt and radioactive bracelets as the next frontier of science?

I'm well aware of the radical changes to known science in the past, from the ultraviolet catastrophe to the Michelson-Morley experiment to phebotinum and even to expanding earth models.

Yet for every folk remedy that yeilds an asprin, there are a dozen colloidal silvers, for each inoculation there's several ear candlings, and for each acupuncture, several Non-Contact Therapeutic Touchs.

A rock from walmart doesn't have access to any cancer curing or anti-aging energy powers, no matter how hard to believe science to be blind. Are there scientifically undiscovered remedies in use today? Certainly. Is dried turtle brain going to cure your ED? No!

Come back when the next xbox can cure cancer wirelessly and detect ghosts.

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

you are making things up and pretending I said things I didn't.

I specifically disclaimed that crystals do not cure cancer and magnetic bracelets don't work, and then provided a couple incontrovertible proofs that electromagnetic fields("energy") affect physiological processes ("frequencies") to demonstrate the limited scientific understanding and allowance of the meme.

you are caught up on the simple existence of random, inanimate objects that do not have significant clinical effect on physiological processes and incorrectly extending those false analogies to the particular relevance of electromagnetic fields that do have clinical effect on physiological processes.

Your false assumption is that because dried turtle or rocks or Xboxes don't cure specific diseases(irrelevant and illogical examples that you fabricated and are arguing against all by yourself), energy does not affect frequencies(despite incontrovertible historical and current proof, that you admit to, that energy does affect frequencies).

The illogical and unscientific examples you are making up by yourself to have something to argue against?

Those are false.

Electromagnetic fields affecting physiological processes, specifically tissue regeneration in the referenced studies?

That is true, and proof that science is still discovering new uses for "energy", even though you and OP were unaware of those advancements.