Is alcoholism a disease or something else?

and the drug people are claiming that alcohol and drugs are the same thing so they can share the budget!
Click to expand...

and why do you suppose they are saying that?
Because they just want the money?
That is a crime in science...

Or perhaps the DATA suggest's it.... perhaps..... *nudge*...... *poke*..... huh...huh....huh!

Science according to my wife:
Science changes according to DATA that comes in, including shifting budgets and research.

Science according to the people attacking me on this thread:
Scientists are money grubbers and are willing to lie and fudge data to get more money.

This forum used to be rational and pro-science.
I mean seriously.
They say something just becaus they "want money"
I would expect such a conspiracy theory from Jenny Mcarthy, but you guys?

---and---
It is a flat our insult to my wife.
You are calling her a money grabbing W----
 
Last edited:
zerospeaks said:
and why do you suppose they are saying that?
Because they just want the money?
Click to expand...

Because that's what the article says! You STILL haven't read the damn thing!! Incredible.

Science according to the people attacking me on this thread:
Scientists are money grubbers and are willing to lie and fudge data to get more money.
Click to expand...

Strawman argument. Now you're just babbling.

This forum used to be rational and pro-science.
Click to expand...

It still is, that's why you're being attacked. You are highly irrational.

I would expect such a conspiracy theory from Jenny Mcarthy, but you guys?
Click to expand...

If you had actually read this thread, you would have noticed where I predicted someone would eventually start calling people CTers.

It is a flat our insult to my wife.
You are calling her a money grabbing W----
Click to expand...

Hey, you posted the article and it was supposedly from her, so if she's insulted then she hasn't read the :talk034: thing either.

By the way zerospeaks, since you last "left" this thread, it only took you 7 minutes to jump back on and spout more nonsense once I replied. Third times the troll.
 
Last edited:
Never desubscribed to the thread.
I just keep marking the times where we reach an empass.
Is that how you spell em pass? Ya know, a point at which we can no longer make any head-way.

It's late, Im bored... I'll respond, I even took a moment to read the article for you...
HOLY RUSTED METAL BATMAN WHAT's THIS?!?!?

From the article:
Proponents of consolidation argue that because illegal-drug abusers and addicts often also abuse alcohol, their maladies are best understood and treated under the auspices of one institute. "The idea of a single strong institute that powerfully pushes forward the frontier in addiction research is certainly exciting," says Daniele Piomelli, a pharmacologist at the University of California, Irvine, who is funded by both institutes. Still, he adds, "the big risk is that in the end the overall funding will decrease, because we have one institute instead of two".
Click to expand...

They are pushing to do this under the threat of LOSING MONEY!! Why that almost seems as though they don't care about money and are guided by what the scientific data points at...... but we know thats impossible because scientists just fight over money... they don't care what the data says.... RIGHT?
 
Last edited:
"The idea of a single strong institute that powerfully pushes forward the frontier in addiction research is certainly exciting,"
Click to expand...

Funny, there is no mention of disease, just abuse and addiction.



the big risk is that in the end the overall funding will decrease
Click to expand...
 Here is what you needed to highlight..

It is about money.. There is nothing wrong with scientists making money ( .. a living ), and no ever said it was, or that they are money grubbers, but your wife is being disingenuous if she wants to claim there is not a lot of competition for grant money in scientific circles.
If you can show the other guy is barking up the wrong tree, then guess who gets a bigger piece of the pie..
 
Last edited:
zerospeaks said:
Im trying to leave a discussion on which I am not an expert and my opinion was found to be wrong.
No shame in that.
You should try it sometime.
Click to expand...

You sure made a lot of assertions that you never backed up and in fact you ridiculed a lot of people, when asked to defend your assertions, you continued them, now you say you are leaving.
I often admit I am wrong.
 
zerospeaks said:
Ya know, a point at which we can no longer make any head-way.
Click to expand...

We were at an impasse LONG before you noticed it.

I even took a moment to read the article for you...
Click to expand...

Would suit you better if you read it for YOURSELF, so you can comprehend it.... and so you don't keep making a boob out of yourself.

Nope... I thought you were finished... wait for it....

They are pushing to do this under the threat of LOSING MONEY!! Why that almost seems as though they don't care about money and are guided by what the scientific data points at...... but we know thats impossible because scientists just fight over money... they don't care what the data says.... RIGHT?
Click to expand...

There it is again!! :D This is actually becoming pretty hilarious.

If you read the whole article instead of data mining for sentences that confirm your bias, you would have understood what it is that pharmacologist meant. You didn't, so you don't.

The key word here is the word "overall." The guy said that risk was the overall funding would go down because the entities would be consolidated. The money argument still stands! If drug addiction research gets $4 million and alcohol gets $6 million, then together they might just get $8 million instead of $10 million. Even if they got $10 million, they'd have to split it because it's one entity. That means the alcohol research people would take a huge paycut which they don't want. If alcoholism is considered a "disease" while addiction is not a disease, then alcohol research will get more money.

I can't believe you don't get it. I really can't believe it. Your wife is an expert, right? How the hell does she not get it? Can't she explain it to you? Have her read the article, too. For herself and you, not for us. Maybe you guys could read it together. Maybe you could learn to admit when you're wrong.

Or you could keep grasping at straws and backpedalling trying to make yourself infallable. Good luck with that.
 
Last edited:
Ok. we get it.
You think scientists are just saying alcoholism is a disease to get more money.
No need to be a complete jerk about it.

I bet they are just saying evolution is a theory to get more funding too...:rolleyes:

BTW.
What you are claiming in unfalsifiable. It is just an accusation that could be thrown at absolutely anything.
Vaccines don't really work, they just make the data say it does to get funding.
The continents don't really move... they just say that in order to get funding.

I have heard the "scientist are just concerned about funding" argument a million times but never on the JREF. What happened here while I was away?
 
Last edited:
AGW discussions are no longer allowed.
Click to expand...

I don't know why, it's only a matter of time before the scientists say Global warming is causing Alcoholism... I mean, there is so much funding to be had!
 
zerospeaks said:
Ok. we get it.
You think scientists are just saying alcoholism is a disease to get more money.
No need to be a complete jerk about it.
Click to expand...
Nothing I said and I disagree (it is not called a disease by some because of a desire to make money), it is a disease under some defintions and not under others.
Mainly it is a behavioral disorder like over eating, it has very strong physical consequences, some people have a genetic or biological predisposition, others who are alchol addicts do not.
 
Nothing I said and I disagree, it is a disease under some defintions and not under others.Mainly it is a behavioral disorder like over eating, it has very strong physical consequences, some people have a genetic or biological predisposition, others who are alchol addicts do not.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with that.
I got a problem with the accusation being made (not by you) currently with ZERO evidence being presented to back it up. That scientists will reclassify things intentionally to get funding.
Falsifying data is the highest crime in science.
...and if the guy was accusing a specific scientist I would dare say he would be walking the rope of libel and defamation of character.
 
Dancing David said:
some people have a genetic or biological predisposition, others who are alchol addicts do not.
Click to expand...
Nice assertion. I doubt you or anyone can actually demonstrate it. Our knowledge of dna needs to advance a bit before you tout that blanket statement.
 
"Nice assertion. I doubt you or anyone can actually demonstrate it. Our knowledge of dna needs to advance a bit before you tout that blanket statement."
Click to expand...

Didn't you get the memo? This is the assert something without evidence and act like a jerk while doing it thread.
 
zerospeaks said:
I have no problem with that.
I got a problem with the accusation being made (not by you) currently with ZERO evidence being presented to back it up. That scientists will reclassify things intentionally to get funding.Falsifying data is the highest crime in science.
...and if the guy was accusing a specific scientist I would dare say he would be walking the rope of libel and defamation of character.
Click to expand...

Reclassifying things to get funding is not at all equivalent to falsifying data.

GB
 
Reclassifying things to get funding is not at all equivalent to falsifying data.
Click to expand...

The scientist that sleeps with me everynight disagrees with you.
From wikipedia because I am lazy

Forms of scientific misconduct include:
fabrication – the publication of deliberately false or misleading research, often subdivided into:
Obfuscation – the omission of critical data or results. Example: Only reporting positive outcomes and not adverse outcomes.
Fabrication – the actual making up of research data and (the intent of) publishing them, sometimes referred to as "drylabbing".[4]
Falsification – manipulation of research data and processes in order to reflect or prevent a certain result.[5]
bare assertions – making entirely unsubstantiated claims
Click to expand...
 
"Nice cut and paste from Wiki -
You seemed to have missed the part about ' Reclassifying things to get funding .. '."
Click to expand...

No I didn't. Explain how reclassifying something to get more funding when the data does not indicate it should be classified as such is NOT fudging... or falsifying data?
 
zerospeaks said:
No I didn't. Explain how reclassifying something to get more funding when the data does not indicate it should be classified as such is NOT fudging... or falsifying data?
Click to expand...

Because Reclassifying ISN"T fudging or falsifying data. It's simply changing terms and redefining, which scientists do all the time, whether for funding or not. Pluto was recently downgraded from being a planet due to a "reclassification."

GB
 
Hey, google talk is really cool. It's like skype! Instantly talk to someone in real time, what a marvelous modern age we live in.


me: hey
Her: hey
me: if a scientist purposefully reclassified something just in order to get a piece of the funding pie, is that scientific misconduct?
Her: well, yes... unless it's something that should be reclassified because it isn't getting enough funding because it's not classified correctly
to be honest, grants often get sent to teh wrong "study group"
which is the group (by category, essentially, of research type) that determines if it's worth funding compared to other submitted grants in that group
if you get sent to the wrong study group, then you might not get funded b/c that group is flooded with other grant proposals.
many people get low scores that way
so it really depends on teh context i guess
me: they are claiming alcoholism is being classified as a disease so it can receive more funding
Her: that's crap. plain and simple. {emphasis mine}
*****, i don't knwo why you are still arguing with these people, but you should just walk away
Click to expand...

then she said some adjectives I don't need to repeat.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom