How can a autodidact without formal education propose his theory?

[ajb]

Can anyone self-learn and make discoveries?

Just about anyone can learn about science, you have online resources, as well as university and public libraries.

 

As for discoveries, I would say that is less likely in general. For experimental sciences you need a good lab. For both experimental and theoretical sciences you need to understand the culture and standards required. In my opinion, most people without formal training just don't really know what is involved in research. I am sure we can find exceptions to this.

[John Cuthber]

Autodidact isn't a choice. Can anyone self-learn and make discoveries?

 

I can learn from others if the knowledge isn't coming from a limited mind. I've learned things from few people on here.

 

I said B12 supplementation. Not food. You misunderstood.

 

The army loves to shoot guns. No instinct, especially when the animal is shot from 20+ yards away.

I never said it was a choice: I said you had mis-defined it.

How have you come to the decision that any of the minds here are limited?

Do you realise that many here have come to the same conclusion about you (not least because of the logic faults you have displayed)

Do you really think we are all wrong, and you are the only one who is right?

How would you react if you saw someone else acting like that (i.e. making clear errors but claiming to be the only one who is right)?

No, I understood, you didn't.

Animals do not need vit B 12 supplements: if they did they would die out in the wild.

Yet they survived just fine in the world before we came along.

They continued to survive with our care and exploitation (take your pick- it doesn't alter the argument) for centuries before we had a clue that B12 existed.

 

Obviously, at that point they were getting their b 12 from their food.

 

Clearly, farming practice has changed and, it seems, the food which we provide them is inadequate- that's why we add b12.

If we gave the animals proper food, they wouldn't need the supplements.

 

So, as I said (and you misunderstood), animals don't need supplements- they need proper food.

 

My dad still has his army issue knife and a bayonet. They would roughly f*** all squared use at 20 yards.

 

Incidentally, if you want make discoveries in amateur science, I recommend astronomy. Of course that relies on not living in an area with too much light pollution.

[Consistency]

I never said it was a choice: I said you had mis-defined it.

How have you come to the decision that any of the minds here are limited?

Do you realise that many here have come to the same conclusion about you (not least because of the logic faults you have displayed)

Do you really think we are all wrong, and you are the only one who is right?

How would you react if you saw someone else acting like that (i.e. making clear errors but claiming to be the only one who is right)?

No, I understood, you didn't.

 

I said that being an autodidact isn't a choice. What is an autodidact in your own words? Are you one?

Some are limited and some aren't limited. Making assumptions instead of asking for clarification is a sign of being limited.

I never thought or said you are all wrong and I am the only one who is right. You've made assumptions about what I said.

What may seem as errors to you is misunderstanding. Ask for clarification.

 

Animals do not need vit B 12 supplements: if they did they would die out in the wild.

Yet they survived just fine in the world before we came along.

They continued to survive with our care and exploitation (take your pick- it doesn't alter the argument) for centuries before we had a clue that B12 existed.

 

Obviously, at that point they were getting their b 12 from their food.

 

Clearly, farming practice has changed and, it seems, the food which we provide them is inadequate- that's why we add b12.

If we gave the animals proper food, they wouldn't need the supplements.

 

So, as I said (and you misunderstood), animals don't need supplements- they need proper food.

 

I agree. The cows should be eating quality grass, migrate, fast naturally and produce their own B12 but the majority of cows don't since they eat grains.

 

How do you know they were getting B12 from their food?

 

You didn't say "proper food". You said "food". If you would have said "proper food", I would have asked for clarification on what you consider is proper food.

 

Incidentally, if you want make discoveries in amateur science, I recommend astronomy. Of course that relies on not living in an area with too much light pollution.

 

I don't have a want to make discoveries. I don't have a choice in what I see.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Consistency

[John Cuthber]

"Making assumptions instead of asking for clarification is a sign of being limited."

So you say that all scientists are "limited".

 

You asked "Can anyone self-learn and make discoveries?"

And my answer is "if you want make discoveries in amateur science, I recommend astronomy." It's fairly clear that it would generalise.

BTW, the reason I didn't say "proper" was that it would have been a statement of the obvious.

However, instead, you "assumed" that I was wrong.

Congratulations you have just defined yourself as "limited".

Since you can't learn from others and you can't learn from limited people you have just declared that you can't learn.

[Consistency]

Do you believe that doing experiments equates to making assumptions?

Nice way of twisting my words. It isn't a statement of the obvious since I was talking about B12 supplementation and you brought food into the mix out of no where without clarifying what you said by adding "proper".

[John Cuthber]

Get a grip.

You can't talk about vitamins, particularly deficiency states, without talking about food,

If you are not supplementing the B12 provided by food, what are you supplementing.

 

There is more to science than experiment. As was discussed at some length- it is a vital part of science, that it make assumptions.

 

It remains the case that you assumed that I was wrong (rather than, perhaps a little careless with language).

So you made an assumption: end of debate. No "twisting of words" needed.

And you indicated what you mean my a limit mind thusly "Making assumptions instead of asking for clarification is a sign of being limited."

So, you included yourself in the "limited" people.

 

You also said "I can learn from others if the knowledge isn't coming from a limited mind."

and you said "Autodidact implies a person who can only learn by teaching oneself."

And, in the title of the tread you imply that you are an autodidact.

 

And, once again, you are saying that you are the one who is right and that I'm twisting words.

Nope, you are just plain wrong.

I pointed it out, that's all

[Consistency]

Get a grip.

You can't talk about vitamins, particularly deficiency states, without talking about food,

If you are not supplementing the B12 provided by food, what are you supplementing.

 

Natural food yes. Now I know what you mean.

 

Like I said, I know how humans force bacteria to produce it and take it away.

 

You're the chemistry expert and you can't see how humans force bacteria to produce B12?

 

There is more to science than experiment. As was discussed at some length- it is a vital part of science, that it make assumptions.

 

You didn't understand what I asked and what I have been saying all along.

 

hy·poth·e·sis/hīˈpäTHəsis/

Noun:

 

A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

 

as·sump·tion/əˈsəm(p)SHən/

Noun:

 

A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof(evidence).

 

What's the difference?

 

Hypothesis means having limited evidence while an assumption means having absolutely no evidence.

 

Making an hypothesis builds on a subject while making assumptions leaves a person ignorant.

 

When it comes to doing an experiment, the experimenter should not be making assumptions but merely adopt a "I don't know what is going to happen attitude" and let the science speak for itself. Then when they have the evidence from experiment.. only then start making hypotheses with the other evidence in their brain. Also adopting a "don't believe everything you read until you see the actual evidence" is beneficial.

 

A thing that is limited about the scientific method is how the possibility of creators is rejected and excluded from the equation. We neither can prove nor disprove the possibility of creators but this shouldn't give anyone the right to eliminate the creator(s) variable from the equation.

 

You also said "I can learn from others if the knowledge isn't coming from a limited mind."

and you said "Autodidact implies a person who can only learn by teaching oneself."

And, in the title of the tread you imply that you are an autodidact.

 

By limited mind, I don't mean limited in intelligence, memory and any other attributes of a scholar.

 

By limited mind, I mean being limited in viewpoints. A non limited mind is a mind of an autodidact, which means having many many viewpoints. I could probably learn from another autodidact if I ever run into one but the chances of that are slim.

 

I am far from perfect. I lack the professional language skills which are neccessary to write up what I discover in the first place.

[John Cuthber]

That post is wrong on so many levels it's difficult to know where to start.

Humans don't force bacteria to make B12.

The bugs were making it before we evolved.

We permit them to make it, by giving them good growing conditions in fermentation vessels.

We also let them make the stuff in our guts but we don't "force" them to do anything so when you say

"I know how humans force bacteria to produce it and take it away."

or "You're the chemistry expert and you can't see how humans force bacteria to produce B12?"

you are plainly talking nonsense.

 

 

Let's look again at the first assumption cited here

You said "Its an assumption that we humans produce it through fermentation".

 

Hardly: for a start, while I agree that WIKI isn't always right, it's generally fairly well informed about non-controversial things like the industrial production of B12 and it says that the production is by fermentation. and they cite a reference

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00253-001-0902-7

 

 

Yet you also say "an assumption means having absolutely no evidence."

 

 

Anyway, re "By limited mind, I mean being limited in viewpoints."

so far, you have only accepted one viewpoint- your own.

And you have continued to do so even when it has been shown that you are clearly wrong.

So, once again, you say:

you can only learn from yourself.

You can't learn from limited minds and

you have a limited mind.

 

Good luck learning anything.

[Consistency]

That post is wrong on so many levels it's difficult to know where to start.

Humans don't force bacteria to make B12.

The bugs were making it before we evolved.

We permit them to make it, by giving them good growing conditions in fermentation vessels.

We also let them make the stuff in our guts but we don't "force" them to do anything so when you say

"I know how humans force bacteria to produce it and take it away."

or "You're the chemistry expert and you can't see how humans force bacteria to produce B12?"

you are plainly talking nonsense.

 

 

Let's look again at the first assumption cited here

You said "Its an assumption that we humans produce it through fermentation".

 

Hardly: for a start, while I agree that WIKI isn't always right, it's generally fairly well informed about non-controversial things like the industrial production of B12 and it says that the production is by fermentation. and they cite a reference

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00253-001-0902-7

 

 

Yet you also say "an assumption means having absolutely no evidence."

 

 

Anyway, re "By limited mind, I mean being limited in viewpoints."

so far, you have only accepted one viewpoint- your own.

And you have continued to do so even when it has been shown that you are clearly wrong.

So, once again, you say:

you can only learn from yourself.

You can't learn from limited minds and

you have a limited mind.

 

Good luck learning anything.

 

So much ignorance in this post that I don't even know where to begin. Please go study bacteriology before saying anything else and please stop with the evolution rubbish.

 

We produce it through fermentation, can we absorb it? No. So.. It doesn't matter. What I meant was that its an assumption that we humans produce it through fermentation and absorb it.

 

I don't agree with your viewpoints however ajb made some excellent points which I agree with.

 

When you're missing information, It doesn't mean that you think I am wrong, it means that you lack the information to know. Thats all.

[John Cuthber]

"So much ignorance in this post that I don't even know where to begin."

Well, it's your post, and I'm not arguing about that aspect of it.

 

BTW, calling evolution "rubbish" on a science website is, at best, likely to get you laughed at.

 

Did you not realise that?

 

 

What bits of bacteriology do you think I need to work on?

It's not my field, but I'm sure the µbiologists at work would be happy to explain it to me.

 

"What I meant was that its an assumption that we humans produce it through fermentation and absorb it."

For a start, that may be what you meant, but it isn't what you said. Anyway, nobody makes that assumption.

It has been documented for decades that the B12 ends up in the sewer (from which it can be recovered): we don't absorb the stuff made in our guts.

 

If "we" made it (well, really "the bugs" made it, but, as you say, "I lack the professional language skills which are necessary to write up what I discover in the first place.") then we wouldn't need it as part of or diets.

We do, a few vegans have demonstrated that.

 

When you say things that are wrong it doesn't mean I think you are wrong, it means you are wrong.
It's not a viewpoint.

 

 

Seriously, it's difficult to know what you are calling a "theory" but most of what you have said is demonstrably tripe.

Why not just explain the essence of your "theory" by posting it here.

If it gets shredded then it was never valid: if it survives then you will be better placed to get a journal to publish the details.

Edited March 2, 2013 by John Cuthber

[Ringer]

Please go study bacteriology before saying anything else and please stop with the evolution rubbish.

FFS. This is the only sentence I wish I would have read in this thread. It would have let me know that the entire discussion was useless.

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Consistency,

If you are going to make claims please back them up with evidence! Our rules are quite clear on the subject.

[Consistency]

All the data I have collected says that B12 is produced by propionibacterium acnes and other propionibacterium species found in the sebaceous glands at 37C when eccrine sweat makes its way into the sebaceous gland and stimulates growth, B12 biosynthesis and maybe other vitamins however light inhibits the first enzymes of both pathways which produce Aminolevulinic acid and this is because Aminolevulinic acid is a molecule that reacts with light and causes cell damage. Basically... all organisms and plants which use the porphyrin/chlorophyll biosynthetic pathway are inhibit by light to produce Aminolevulinic acid. Other porphyrins might react with light.. this I am not 100% certain of.

 

A lot of people believe that eccrine sweat is salt and water with toxins but thats just made up nonsense. Why would the body dump toxins on the skin? Simply... It wouldn't. -- Eccrine sweat contains amino acids for microorganisms growth, minerals, vitamins, B12 transport proteins, the stimulatory molecule which stimulates microorganism growth on the skin, B12 production and maybe other vitamins production, and other nutrients.

 

All this information can be easily found by using google.

 

Eccrine sweat is also for tanning the skin with light. I don't know how the photochemistry works between sweat, skin and light; I just know from experience that I can only tan if I sweat under the Sun. I would like to know how this happens.

Edited March 2, 2013 by Consistency

[John Cuthber]

Aminolevulenic acid has no chromophore that would allow it to react with light.

So your assertion that "Aminolevulinic acid is a molecule that reacts with light and causes cell damage." is impossible.

 

"Why would the body dump toxins on the skin?"

to get rid of them. It is known to do this.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/urea+frost

 

So, to say "Simply... It wouldn't" is, again, wrong.

 

"Eccrine sweat is also for tanning the skin with light. I don't know how the photochemistry works between sweat, skin and light;"

The people who do know understand how it happens and you have got it wrong.

Tanning takes place deep in the skin, below the surface (obviously, or it would wash off).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanocyte

[Consistency]

I haven't read the research I collected in over a year. I misunderstood.

 

Topical aminolevulinic acid is converted into a potent photosensitizer, protoporphyrin, in human hair follicles and sebaceous glands. http://www.nature.com/jid/journal/v115/n2/full/5600771a.html

 

ALA synthase light/dark activity:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16662450

http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/70/1/219.long

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16922603

 

High urea/uric acid levels are caused by the intake of animal products. It has nothing to do with natural sweat per se.

 

If you read the wikipedia page.. you can see that there are molecules which stimulate melanogenesis. Maybe there is a molecule in sweat which does that because I tan very fast under the Sun when I sweat.

Edited March 2, 2013 by Consistency

[John Cuthber]

Ho Hum

This

"High urea/uric acid levels are caused by the intake of animal products. It has nothing to do with natural sweat per se."

makes no sense for a number of reasons.

The cause of high urea levels is generally kidney trouble.

Any protein, whether animal or vegetable (or fungal, for that matter) will produce urea if it is oxidatively degraded in the body. If the kidneys don't get rid of it, the urea is passed to the sweat glands for disposal.

There is nothing "unnatural" about urea in sweat- it's usually there in small quantities.

 

In any event, the cause of the high urea levels isn't the issue is it?

The point is that the body dumps this toxic material onto the skin via the sweat.

So when you said "Simply... It wouldn't" you were wrong

And you are still wrong.

 

Fundamentally, if we made and absorbed significant amounts of b12 in our sebaceous glands then nobody would get b12 deficiency.

They do, so we don't.

[Consistency]

Animal products don't contain high amounts of purines which get converted to uric acid?

 

I wasn't talking about uric acid as the toxic substance. You came up with it.

 

Naturally.. a person with kidney trouble will not be excreting large amounts of urea out onto the skin. As you stated.

 

I am going to do some searching in the enzymes of the microorganisms on the skin. Maybe some of them have the enzymes to break down urea.

 

 

Fundamentally, if we made and absorbed significant amounts of b12 in our sebaceous glands then nobody would get b12 deficiency.

They do, so we don't.

 

The majority of us don't go to a sauna and most of us wear clothes which absorbs the sweat.

 

We could produce large amounts if we lived butt naked in the tropics. We are tropical mammals unless you can live in the winter without shelter and heat.

Edited March 2, 2013 by Consistency

[John Cuthber]

"I wasn't talking about uric acid as the toxic substance. You came up with it."

No I did not.

Learn to read.

Urea is not uric acid.

 

"Naturally.. a person with kidney trouble will not be excreting large amounts of urea out onto the skin. As you stated."

Yes they do.

That's why I was able to cite a medical dictionary describing it.

And that's why your assertion is still wrong.

Why don't you just admit that you were mistaken?

[Consistency]

I mean't without kidney trouble as you wrote it. I wrote it wrong. It is not that I am mistaken, it doesn't apply to humans who eat a plant-based diet. I am not going to reward bad behavior and accept excuses for eating animal products.

 

Animal products don't contain purines and ammonia? And GI tract bacteria doesn't produce ammonia from the putrefaction of meat?

[John Cuthber]

I wrote it wrong. It is not that I am mistaken,

LOL

[Consistency]

Nice cherry pick! LOL.

 

I mean't the second part I wrote wrong. Not the first.

 

I am not mistaken because it doesn't apply to me(a plant eater).

[John Cuthber]

Plant eaters also produce urea (I already pointed that out- but you didn't read it or understand it).

They too will excrete the stuff in their sweat especially if their kidneys fail.

 

And, if you did something outrageous like look at the wiki page you would see that "Some exogenous organic compounds make their way into sweat".

Probably the best known example is the excretion of this stuff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sotolon

after eating curry.

 

So, stop pretending that you were right.

You said "Simply... It wouldn't": you were wrong

 

Incidentally, probably the most widely discussed purines are those in DNA and caffeine.

Plants contain those too, but that only matters if you were talking about uric acid and nobody was until you introduced it because, it seems, you didn't know what you were talking about.

[Consistency]

"They too will excrete the stuff in their sweat especially if their kidneys fail."
LOL If is a big word.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8893161
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/treating-kidney-failure-through-diet/

I understood that any EXCESS protein gets converted to urea through the urea cycle but its irrelevant because plant-based diets don't negatively effect kidney function.

The cause of high urea(and uric acid) levels is generally kidney trouble.

And what causes kidney trouble in the first place... Obesity? Eating too much processed red meat? High uric acid levels?

 

The point is that the body dumps this toxic material onto the skin via the sweat.

 

Urea is beneficial to the skin... http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/09546639609086881

 

Read this for urea vs uric acid... http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090412125723AAXRC2n

 

Urea being toxic is an exaggeration.

 

Urea itself is not toxic. This was demonstrated by Johnson et al. by adding large amounts of urea to the dialysate of hemodialysis patients for several months and finding no ill effects.

http://www.nugowiki.org/index.php/Urea#Biological_Function

 

Urea was non-toxic to a 10 week-old pig in an acute dose as high as 16 g/kg body mass. Ten % m/m urea in pig food over a period of 5 days was also without apparent deleterious effect.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7047739

Edited March 2, 2013 by Consistency

[John Cuthber]

If is a big word, so is especially.

Your sweat will contain urea.

 

Here are the details of urea toxicity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uremia

 

It's not normally considered toxic because it's excreted so rapidly.

 

 

"And what causes kidney trouble in the first place... Obesity? Eating too much processed red meat? High uric acid levels?"

Lots of things, infection would be the obvious one which you have deliberately missed off your list because it doesn't suit your bias.

 

On the other hand, I can't find any reliable link source which says eating red meat leads to kidney disease.

High oxalate levels from some foodstuffs like rhubarb and tofu also contribute to kidney damage but I guess you are ignoring them because they are from plants and so they also don't fit with your world-view.

High uric acid levels are likely to give rise to kidney damage and gout. One of the best known risk factors for gout is drinking wine. But, since it's not animal derived I guess you won't pay it any attention.

I already pointed out that plants are noted sources of purines which are metabolised to uric acid and, again, you seem not to accept that aspect of reality.

 

 

"I understood that any EXCESS protein gets converted to urea through the urea cycle but its irrelevant because plant-based diets don't negatively effect kidney function."

Well, for a start you need to do some research.

Individual amino acids (as opposed to total protein) can also be in deficit or excess (though, in some cases they can be interconverted).

There are some amino acids which are "essential" i.e. the body can't make them so it needs to get them from food.

Unless your diet has exactly the right ratios of all these amino acids some of them will be in excess and that excess will be converted to urea.

Some of that urea (which is toxic, whether you like it or not) is excreted in the sweat.

 

Also, non-plant based diets also don't adversely affect kidney function so your tacit claim that they do is false.

 

And you seem not to have answered the other point- the fact is, that other stuff is excreted in sweat too.

You remain wrong.

[Consistency]

Lots of things, infection would be the obvious one which you have deliberately missed off your list because it doesn't suit your bias.

 

Plant-eaters that eat their leafy greens have the strongest immune systems. While everyone I came in contact with this winter had the flu... the flu virus didn't even budge my immune system. Shitty diet equates to near defenseless immune system.

 

On the other hand, I can't find any reliable link source which says eating red meat leads to kidney disease.

High oxalate levels from some foodstuffs like rhubarb and tofu also contribute to kidney damage but I guess you are ignoring them because they are from plants and so they also don't fit with your world-view.

 

"Processed" red meat with added ammonia, nitrites and other toxic molecules.

 

Plant-eaters have healthy gut flora... we have high levels of oxalate degrading bacteria because leafy greens contain molecules which stimulate the growth of these bacteria... which can also degrade cellulose!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxalobacter_formigenes

http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v66/n1/full/ejcn2011141a.html

 

High uric acid levels are likely to give rise to kidney damage and gout. One of the best known risk factors for gout is drinking wine. But, since it's not animal derived I guess you won't pay it any attention.

I already pointed out that plants are noted sources of purines which are metabolised to uric acid and, again, you seem not to accept that aspect of reality.

 

There is a big difference between drinking wine and alcoholism. The later causes gout.

 

Plants are low in purines and low in protein. Ultimately... urea and uric acid levels will be low or non-existent.

 

Unless your diet has exactly the right ratios of all these amino acids some of them will be in excess and that excess will be converted to urea.

 

This is more likely when eating animal products.

 

Some of that urea (which is toxic, whether you like it or not) is excreted in the sweat.

 

Please learn how to read and stop wasting my time. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16422263

 

Its toxic at unnatural high levels.

 

And you seem not to have answered the other point- the fact is, that other stuff is excreted in sweat too.

You remain wrong.

 

In meat-eaters.

 

You remain misinformned.