Originally Posted by snakelegs
It is the same ole topic of evolution rehashed to look impressive by the mighty accurate BBC...
it is easy to congregate a group of scientists in a room and have them hammer in the importance of one particular theory.. it loans it credence and authority.. by no means am I stating that it isn't an option, but it is very faulty one and doesn't allow much room for voices that challenge its shortcomings.. in and of itself has become a new religion. Where science fails to correct itself and accept a confutation to the very crux of its hypothesis is when it becomes a religion all its own with its own adherents of quasi-scientists/ zealots peddling in theories as facts!
It makes you wonder out of all the theories in the world, why this one in particular received the most attention?
for simplicity sake, let's take Dr. John Sampson's theory of retrograde menstruation as a cause of endometriosis
, seems plausible for all intensive purposes, that blood traveling backwards carrying in its midst endometrial cells, can implant itself in the vicinity, and this endometrial like tissue acts very much like the linning of the uterus, responding to hormones and may shed from where it shouldn't cause various other nuisances to millions of women-- well how does this theory reconcile for women who have retrograde menses but never develop endometriosis? or how does it reconcile it for women who devlop endometriosis in the lung or the nose or the liver, far away from uterine blood? Someone else sits down and challenges the theory, states no it is spread via lymphatics, another says it is iatrogenic due to doctor error, no it is environmental, no cells can naturally morph into others as a result of hormone therapy, no it is auto-immune in origin, no it favors only hispanic women because of genetics.. Do we actually know? we can theorize, and the theories appear very plausible and by folks who have earned their place in the scientific community, but we don't peddle theories as facts and then impugn those who theorize differently...You'd be interested to know that today the theory most people accept is Dr. Sampson's, but the question marks are left in the areas that his theory fails to address!
there is no war here, no conspiracy theories, no monkey waging war speaking on behalf of everybody.. I admit it was a fascinating piece of PR, but it is incredibly pitiful when scientists concede to the same propaganda (ish) Bull ****, that politicians resort to.. There is simply regular folks from all walks of life who can use some abstraction to challenge conventional wisdom and demand better answers from those 'authority sounding figures'!
I'd like to see a documentary on Dr. Sampson and his studies.. or are his studies not sensationalistic enough for the theoretically inerrant and omnicompetent BBC to merit another whopping 50 minute of my time?