Science Forums 2

[HydrogenBond]

I agree with your distinction. I also believe social scientists are trying to nail down the facts. The social theorists are shaping the future with that. There are many factors that shape the social theorists. Religion is one thing. Atheism is another. There is politics as well as economics. The last may be one of the strongest, since it means money in the pocket. That means a new fad or some novelty item to create market share.

Let me show you, what I see. Atheism does not believe in God. To the atheist the entire religious thing is suspect. What that is extrapolated too is, if religion says it, it must be wrong. So we will do the opposite.

I showed the example; gluttony was a sin. To the atheist, sin belongs to religion and does not enter their equation. So, if you wish to eat extra it is not a sin, but can affect health. But then science works under the politically correct assumption obesity is nobody's fault, except maybe because of the free market who sells the fast food. Beyond that science is funneled to find causes outside of free will and choice, such as genetics.

I have in the past, discussed obesity from the angle of an energy balance between input and output. It is that simple, since beyond this will create perpetual motion. That is not a weighted argument, under the political science. The reason is, it shifts the discussion back to old fashion will power and self awareness, which was helped with the gluttony-sin connection. The atheist social theorist will fight this, since it shift back to religious common sense. It has to be someone else's fault so resolution will only occur if someone else gives you a diet, trains you at the gym, point out the green food, come up with the magic pill, etc. It is based on moving the herd back and forth between the latest social fads.