After reading through commercial web sites, personal web sites, newsgroups, and blogs, I realized that a new format might be best, in the context of enhancing scientific understanding, which led me to create this moderated newsgroup. The purpose of this format is to allow anyone who wishes to ask a science-related question or to post scientific evidence on any issue for which the scientific method can be applied (thus, religion is not to be discussed here, for example). You are required to either ask a scientific question, or make a statement and then support it with scientific evidence. Any other kind of post, or one that has a very long, rambling statement, or ones that contains personal attacks, for example, may be deleted.

Let's take an example: On the issue of "global warming," you can ask what the evidence is for it, you can ask for clarification on something, or you can make an argument for or against it, but if you do the latter, then you must supply evidence that is directly on point. If you start a new thread, it is almost always necessary to state what the underlying scientific hypothesis is, unless you cannot determine it and are asking for someone to explain it to you. In many cases of scientific debate, at some point, after the evidence is presented, one person may decide that a particular interpretation is best, while another thinks that it is not. There is nothing wrong with this, particularly when on point experiments have not been done or can't be done.

One of the reasons I thought such a forum was necessary involves my investigations into various scientific claims. Being trained in evidence analysis in graduate school, which, I was taught, requires a command of the relevant literature, I was surprised at how so many "scientific experts" were so poorly acquainted with the relevant evidence. Many seemed to simply be repeating statements made in textbooks, but without the warnings one often finds in the books, such as "it is believed that" or "it is reasonable to assume that" or "the tentative evidence seems to suggest that."

A scientific debate format eliminates these problems, and is straightforward. It involves making an assertion, either a hypothesis or a criticism of a hypothesis, and then supporting your statement with relevant evidence, and that is what will be attempted here. Those who post will not be permitted to deflect attention away from the issue at hand, which often occurs on unmoderated newsgroups, for instance. This is why it is so important to be precise with language. For example, in the case of the "essential fatty acid" claim, there must be evidence demonstrating that one cannot live (or will deteriorate rapidly, such as in "scurvy") without a dietary source of these molecules, or else there is no reason to use the term "essential" - it violates basic principles of logic. To claim that these molecules are "essential" because the body cannot synthesize them violates logic, because either you must first demonstrate the death or rapid deterioration if one does not consume more than the trace amounts of these molecules that one can hardly avoid on any common "non-starvation" diet, or you are claiming that anything the body cannot make itself is "essential," which would mean that just about everything is "essential." The latter is what one might call an absurdity, and will not be permitted here.

But, as Sir John Maddox asked, "Is there a danger, in molecular biology, that the accumulation of data will get so far ahead of its assimilation into a conceptual framework that the data will eventually prove an encumbrance? Part of the trouble is that excitement of the chase leaves little time for reflection. And there are grants for producing data, but hardly any for standing back in contemplation."

Source: Nature 335, 11 (1988).

My strength in, as I see it, is that I seek to understand evidence by thinking about it in the context of conceptual frameworks. The key question then becomes, which framework is best? This is where human reason and an insistence on the use of the scientific method has always seem to lit the way. Instead, what many do is to cite one or a small number of "studies," some of which may have been directly refuted, and then make a very specific claim, with no consideration for any conceptual framework. For example, in the context of how many "ordinary" people receive "scientific news" these days:

"Scientific meetings are an important forum for researchers to exchange ideas and present work in progress. But much of the work presented is not ready for public consumption," said Schwartz. "The studies have undergone limited review and findings may change substantially by the time the final report is published in a medical journal."

Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060611100745.htm

Some researchers are not ashamed to admit that they are in the early stages of their investigation, and that they are "probing" around to see if their ideas are worth pursuing. However, most act as if there will never be any new developmentsm, even though the mainstream media is constantly reporting on studies that contradict each other. An example of research where the scientists are willing to admit that they are pondering an idea that interests them is the following:

J Hypertens. 2006 Sep;24(9):1687-1696.

Renal artery stenosis and accelerated atherosclerosis: which comes first?

Fava C, Minuz P, Patrignani P, Morganti A.

Renal artery stenosis (RAS) is usually observed in hypertensive patients with extensive atherosclerosis. There is some evidence that in these patients the atherosclerotic process and the consequent target-organ damage is more severe than in hypertensive patients without RAS. In this review we will entertain the hypothesis that some of the humoral factors that are activated by RAS may contribute to accelerate the progression of atherosclerosis. Several studies identified RAS as a predictor of cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, although in most cases the contribution of blood pressure per se to the progression of vascular lesions could not be determined. As a result of experimental RAS, hypertension and increased oxidative stress are stimuli for atherosclerosis as well as cardiac and renal damage. In the presence of RAS, the renin-angiotensin system is stimulated, and it has been shown that angiotensin II exerts proinflammatory, pro-oxidant and procoagulant activities in experimental models and humans. The potential contribution of reactive oxygen species to the prohypertensive and proatherosclerotic effects of RAS is supported by evidence that nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate, reduced form oxidase is specifically stimulated by angiotensin II, an activity not shared by epinephrine. Moreover, angiotensin II triggers the release of aldosterone, endothelin 1, thromboxane A2 and other derivatives of the arachidonic acid metabolism, all of which can further and independently aggravate cardiovascular damage. Epidemiological and experimental evidence so far available suggests that accelerated atherosclerosis can be both the cause and the consequence of RAS.

I think it's worth pointing out here that in the field of astrophysics,example, for it does seem as though the scientific method is "alive and well." Though I have not investigated this literature to anywhere near the degree to which I've investigated various biomedical and nutritional claims, from the reports I've read, there seems to be no thought of dismissing data that contradicts accepted notions. I will provide the following as an example of this "healthy" orientation:

Title: Big Bang Theory Saved.

An apparent discrepancy in the Big Bang theory of the universe's evolution has been reconciled by astrophysicists examining the movement of gases in stars.

Professor John Lattanzio from Monash's School of Mathematical Sciences and Director of the Centre for Stellar and Planetary Astrophysics said the confusion surrounding the Big Bang revolved around the amount of the gas Helium 3 in the universe.

"The Big Bang theory predicts a certain amount of Helium 3 in the universe," Professor Lattanzio said. "The trouble is, low mass stars (about one to two times the size of our sun) also make Helium 3 as a side product of burning the hydrogen in their cores...

Near the end of a star's life there is a 'core flash' and it was at around this time that the computer models revealed a small instability in the movement of the gases in the star. "When we looked at this in 3D we found this hydrodynamic instability caused mixing and destroyed the helium 3 so that none was released into space," Professor Lattanzio said.

"This apparent problem with the Big Bang has been solved -- the helium 3 in the universe comes from the Big Bang and low mass stars, although they produce helium 3, do not release any into the universe because they destroy it."

Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061026185625.htm

I will conclude this section by citing some passages by the famous theoretician of the scientific method (and one by a contemporary scientist):

"The task of researchers is to try to falsify as many theories as possible."

Karl Popper (quoted from http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/tour/step16.htm).

QUOTE: Science as Falsification by Karl R. Popper

(The end of this section refers directly to astrology - PL)

With Einstein's theory the situation was strikingly different. Take one typical instance - Einstein's prediction, just then confirmed by the finding of Eddington's expedition. Einstein's gravitational theory had led to the result that light must be attracted by heavy bodies (such as the sun), precisely as material bodies were attracted. As a consequence it could be calculated that light from a distant fixed star whose apparent position was close to the sun would reach the earth from such a direction that the star would seem to be slightly shifted away from the sun; or, in other words, that stars close to the sun would look as if they had moved a little away from the sun, and from one another. This is a thing which cannot normally be observed since such stars are rendered invisible in daytime by the sun's overwhelming brightness; but during an eclipse it is possible to take photographs of them. If the same constellation is photographed at night one can measure the distance on the two photographs, and check the predicted effect.

Now the impressive thing about this case is the risk involved in a prediction of this kind. If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted. UNQUOTE.

Source: http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/falsification.html

"Is there a danger, in molecular biology, that the accumulation of data will get so far ahead of its assimilation into a conceptual framework that the data will eventually prove an encumbrance? Part of the trouble is that excitement of the chase leaves little time for reflection. And there are grants for producing data, but hardly any for standing back in contemplation."

John Maddox, from "Finding wood among the trees." Nature 1988; 335:11.

A postscript: scientists still seek to falsify Einstein's relativity, for example: QUOTE: An international research team led by Prof. Michael Kramer of the University of Manchester's Jodrell Bank Observatory, UK, has used three years of observations of the "double pulsar", a unique pair of natural stellar clocks which they discovered in 2003, to prove that Einstein's theory of general relativity - the theory of gravity that displaced Newton's - is correct to within a staggering 0.05%. UNQUOTE.

Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060914094623.htm