I'll bite. The science, as far as I understand it, clearly demonstrates the addictive properties of nicotine and the negative health effects of smoking.
The alternative theory I've heard is that there are secondary benefits to moderate consumption of cigarettes (moderate in this case being three to five per day) due to appetite suppression and creation of a 3rd place accessible during working hours. Some would also suggest that, at least in institutional environments (hospitals, universities, corporate campuses and manufacturing facilities), the food court/cafeteria and the accompanying array of fast food have replaced the cigarette break.
In this view, we haven't really solved any problems. We've just shifted the damage into a form that society finds to be more palatable. What if we could bring back the cigarette break and in the process boost people's community engagement, mental health and significantly reduce the obesity epidemic all in one hrrrm...
TL:DR; The way that most tobacco is produced causes it to contain Polonium-210. Can we at least agree that putting Polonium-210 into the human body is not great?
Have we done a RCT on polonium ingestion? All I'm asking for is a consistent epistemological threshold. Justifying belief based on what amounts to a scientific "vibe" isn't rational knowledge independent of its veracity.
Click the first link from 1964, look up the dosage in rems. Then look up the lethality of that amount of radiation, noting that the effects of radiation are largely cumulative.
If you want to find something actually interesting in all of this, read this piece about this industry reaction.
I've conversed on this before. Inconsistent justifications for beliefs undermines science.
It's no different than insisting that belief in a drug's efficacy rests on RCTs. I'm legitimately unfamiliar with polonium ingestion trials so I don't have a justification for believing that it is harmful.
I want to be very clear that I'm not arguing that polonium isn't harmful - I believe it is. I just don't have justification for that belief. I believe that it's important to understand the difference between true beliefs and justified true beliefs.
Do I accept as fact that polonium is radioactive? Yes. Do I accept as fact that radioactive elements are poisonous to humans when absorbed? Yes. Do I accept as fact that Polonium from inhaled smoke particles will be absorbed? Yes.
The logical positivism part. It brings with it a host of assumptions. Of course, you're free to believe in them, but I don't think logical positivism is justifiable. That's generally why science today is built on falsifiability rather than verifiability.
I understand this thread started with you objecting to the assumption that polonium is harmful to humans. Going so far as to suggest that anything short of an RCT is not enough.
Yet even if I read RCT results concluding polonium to be harmless, I would distrust that conclusion, not my understanding.
Somehow we're doing this epistemology thing differently. It feels to me like you live in a world of impossibly high standards. Or you just like to argue hypotheticals.
