- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Misinformation campaigns increasingly target the cavity-fighting mineral, prompting communities to reverse mandates. Dentists are enraged. Parents are caught in the middle.
The culture wars have a new target: your teeth.
Communities across the U.S. are ending public water fluoridation programs, often spurred by groups that insist that people should decide whether they want the mineral — long proven to fight cavities — added to their water supplies.
The push to flush it from water systems seems to be increasingly fueled by pandemic-related mistrust of government oversteps and misleading claims, experts say, that fluoride is harmful.
“The anti-fluoridation movement gained steam with Covid,” said Dr. Meg Lochary, a pediatric dentist in Union County, North Carolina. “We’ve seen an increase of people who either don’t want fluoride or are skeptical about it.”
There should be no question about the dental benefits of fluoride, Lochary and other experts say. Major public health groups, including the American Dental Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, support the use of fluoridated water. All cite studies that show it reduces tooth decay by 25%.
I’m struggling with this.
You’re saying that because science was wrong about something else, it must be wrong about fluoride?
I think that if you really dig into it, you’ll find that arsenic use wasn’t supported by science, but rather snake oil salesmen.
This is where your confusion comes from. I never said it’s wrong about fluoride.
My point is that unless you understand the science yourself, you have faith in other people who do. Scientific consensus has been wrong in the past, and it will be wrong again in the future.
Everyone saying with such certainty that fluoride is good or bad without understanding the science themselves just highlights how most people treat science like a religion.
That’s just not true. By it’s very nature, what we describe as “science” is reproducible. That means faith is not required.
If you understand the science yourself, then you’re correct.
The problem is that most people don’t understand the science and just have faith in other people who might.
No, my point is that because “science” is reproducible, you do not need faith in the people producing said science, nor do you need to understand it.
You merely need to confirm that it has been reviewed and accepted by other people who do understand it.
Have faith.
Semantics.
To me, faith is belief without evidence.
The science is the antithesis of faith, because it’s a system of evidence and confirmation.
If you want to water “faith” down to mean the acceptance of evidence which you have not personally tested then it becomes meaningless. That’s flat earth stuff. “I personally have not seen the curvature of the Earth therefore it is flat”.
It’s a system that has been routinely wrong before.
Do you think it’s never going to be wrong again? That’s having faith.
False, disingenuous, straw man.
“Routinely wrong” is not an apt description of the scientific method.
I didn’t say science will never be wrong.
Feel free to have the last word but I’m not going to try to reason you out of an unreasonable position. Good day sir.