Please provide scientific proof in the form of peer reviewed research or delete your comment. There is no room for these kinds of wild and ridiculous statements without proof.
> Please provide scientific proof in the form of peer reviewed research or delete your comment.
I want to caution against this kind of gatekeeping on a forum like Hacker News.
We all adore the scientific method; nobody wants to dispute its worth and value to the species.
However,
1) As we've seen again and again in a wide array of fields, many of the systems of peer-review have failed to guarantee (or in some cases even provide reasonable assurance) that the results are robust and true. There is an ongoing replicability crisis in a number of fields, including health-related fields.
2) There is still value in logical assertions made without scientific proof; there is nothing wrong with taking personal observation and applying inductive reasoning as part of the toolchain of decision making.
> There is no room for these kinds of wild and ridiculous statements without proof.
I don't find anything wild or ridiculous inherent in the suggestion that the human body is capable of basic self-maintenance, nor that exposure to pathogens or other undesirables is a causal factor in the building of immunity and other defenses.
People can point to epistemology all they want, but from a practical perspective bunk is bunk and if you insist on rigorously refuting every crackpot you come across, your community will be overloaded by bunk.
I want to caution against this kind of gatekeeping on a forum like Hacker News.
We all adore the scientific method; nobody wants to dispute its worth and value to the species.
However,
1) As we've seen again and again in a wide array of fields, many of the systems of peer-review have failed to guarantee (or in some cases even provide reasonable assurance) that the results are robust and true. There is an ongoing replicability crisis in a number of fields, including health-related fields.
2) There is still value in logical assertions made without scientific proof; there is nothing wrong with taking personal observation and applying inductive reasoning as part of the toolchain of decision making.
> There is no room for these kinds of wild and ridiculous statements without proof.
I don't find anything wild or ridiculous inherent in the suggestion that the human body is capable of basic self-maintenance, nor that exposure to pathogens or other undesirables is a causal factor in the building of immunity and other defenses.