Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Science from the 30's, 40's 50's and 60's: Smoking is good for you! Light up a Camel cigarette!.
This is corporate propaganda from that era, not science.
Corporations often hire scientists and pay them, not to do science, but to (at best) finesse it or (at worst) subvert it to produce the desired results they want to promote.
Although for instance the tobacco and fossil fuel industries have long employed scientists to pursue quasi-research, this particular ad campaign isn't even involved with faux science controlled by corporate puppeteers. It's just alleged endorsements by doctors, most of whom, in that day, probably smoked and had their own rationalizations for doing so.
This is corporate propaganda from that era, not science.
Corporations often hire scientists and pay them, not to do science, but to (at best) finesse it or (at worst) subvert it to produce the desired results they want to promote.
Although for instance the tobacco and fossil fuel industries have long employed scientists to pursue quasi-research, this particular ad campaign isn't even involved with faux science controlled by corporate puppeteers. It's just alleged endorsements by doctors, most of whom, in that day, probably smoked and had their own rationalizations for doing so.
So it's not science, but scientists?
Weird. I wonder if that stuff happens today....like...I don't know....maybe someone might have a vested interest in convincing the world that the earth is getting warmer because of SUV's?
Oh...I don't know....maybe Al Gore making hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars from it? Other organizations making huge profits off of selling carbon credits?
Science is a function of actually following the scientific method. If you are selling cigarettes and hire scientists to determine whether cigarettes are harmful, guess what research conclusions you're apt to be heavily biased towards, and what conclusions your pet scientists are going to know you are biased towards? What the employer is fishing for are studies that can be construed to minimize, question or deny the link between smoking and lung cancer, emphysema and the like. Which is just what tobacco companies did for decades.
But these ads that E posted are mostly pre-truth-in-advertising ad claims. The claim that X number of doctors find brand Y cigarettes "less irritating" is the funniest of them. They are still irritating. Less irritating than what? And how did you come up with X? My guess is it's not even a real number.
The Arthur Godfrey ad claims "scientific proof" but that a nebulous "medical specialist" (that could be a medical statistician or nurse) followed a "group" of unmentioned size (might have been 6 people for all we know) for 10 months and reported "no adverse effects". That is not a description of a valid scientific study. Where is the group size, where is the control group, where is the double-blind design, what was actually being looked for? In 1940 they didn't really even know WHAT to look for.
So no ... these ads don't describe scientists doing science. It is someone claiming scientific justification or making arguments from authority.
And no ... even scientists by training cannot do valid science without properly designed studies with transparency, accountability and protection from undue influence, financial or other penalties for the 'wrong" findings, etc.
So ... where did the actual scientific findings about the harms of smoking happen? Outside of the tobacco industry, properly designed independently funded studies determined this in a scientifically valid manner. Without looking into the exact history, which I'm fuzzy on, I would guess that insurance companies, health care advocates and victim advocacy groups pushed for solid science to be done and fought the battle against the disinformation campaign of the tobacco industry -- and won historic sanctions to boot, as I recall.
This is how you creationists can destroy what you fancy to be the false science behind evolution. Band together, with actual scientists (not graduate students, mechanical engineers and hobbyists), promulgate a scientifically valid alternate hypothesis, publish research results for peer review, and the truth shall out.
Science is a function of actually following the scientific method. If you are selling cigarettes and hire scientists to determine whether cigarettes are harmful, guess what research conclusions you're apt to be heavily biased towards, and what conclusions your pet scientists are going to know you are biased towards? What the employer is fishing for are studies that can be construed to minimize, question or deny the link between smoking and lung cancer, emphysema and the like. Which is just what tobacco companies did for decades.
But these ads that E posted are mostly pre-truth-in-advertising ad claims. The claim that X number of doctors find brand Y cigarettes "less irritating" is the funniest of them. They are still irritating. Less irritating than what? And how did you come up with X? My guess is it's not even a real number.
The Arthur Godfrey ad claims "scientific proof" but that a nebulous "medical specialist" (that could be a medical statistician or nurse) followed a "group" of unmentioned size (might have been 6 people for all we know) for 10 months and reported "no adverse effects". That is not a description of a valid scientific study. Where is the group size, where is the control group, where is the double-blind design, what was actually being looked for? In 1940 they didn't really even know WHAT to look for.
So no ... these ads don't describe scientists doing science. It is someone claiming scientific justification or making arguments from authority.
And no ... even scientists by training cannot do valid science without properly designed studies with transparency, accountability and protection from undue influence, financial or other penalties for the 'wrong" findings, etc.
So ... where did the actual scientific findings about the harms of smoking happen? Outside of the tobacco industry, properly designed independently funded studies determined this in a scientifically valid manner. Without looking into the exact history, which I'm fuzzy on, I would guess that insurance companies, health care advocates and victim advocacy groups pushed for solid science to be done and fought the battle against the disinformation campaign of the tobacco industry -- and won historic sanctions to boot, as I recall.
This is how you creationists can destroy what you fancy to be the false science behind evolution. Band together, with actual scientists (not graduate students, mechanical engineers and hobbyists), promulgate a scientifically valid alternate hypothesis, publish research results for peer review, and the truth shall out.
I find it amazing that you apparently think that ONLY those that disagree with you can be biased and surround themselves with 'scientists' that manufacture the answer they want.
Weird. I wonder if that stuff happens today....like...I don't know....maybe someone might have a vested interest in convincing the world that the earth is getting warmer because of SUV's?
Oh...I don't know....maybe Al Gore making hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars from it? Other organizations making huge profits off of selling carbon credits?
I don't know what part of the world you live in nor how observant you have been over your life but where I lived, I witnessed climate change. Winters became shorter and summers longer. Where I live now, people talk about how different the weather was were when they were young. We also have retreating glaciers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
