> It doesn’t really matter to me if there is a proposed mechanism already or not. Phenomena exist before we are able to describe it mechanistically after all.
Right. But then you’re talking about something that could happen, or that could not. If you are thinking about something you do not observe, then not having any hypothesis as to how it could work makes the whole endeavour useless, to the level of the Russell teapot.
You could just as validly speculate that the pink colour is harmful because of Venus’ influence resonating with the water memory and justify your point of view with the same “there are things we don’t know” argument.
Two observations specifically on electromagnetic radiation:
- if this were actually a thing, we’d have seen the signal in epidemiological data, considering that WiFi has been around for 25 years and is used by ~billions of people, and cell phones are even older and more used
- we do know quite a lot about the effect of radiation on matter. We might not know everything there is to know, and biology adds a layer on top, but e.g. the energy transfer from some microwave radiation to biological tissue is limited by very well-known Physics.
We know that occasionally an atom gets knocked out of its position, and that even though most of the time it’s fine, it can occasionally cause problems, which is why UV sunlight is bad. We know how X or γ radiation interacts with matter and is more likely to affect molecules. Saying that “there are things we don’t know” is misleading in that the subject is actually very well known, even if we don’t know everything, particularly on the biology side.
It is perfectly valid to be skeptical by default. But in face of evidence and a solid body of knowledge, we should also be skeptical about our own skepticism.
> Modern science works well when the fruit is low hanging statistically, but thats not always the case for every question.
That is quite far from the truth. In reality it’s quite the opposite. Science is incremental, with occasional breakthroughs. But most of its progress is through constant grinding on tiny subjects, very far from low-hanging fruits. You have lots of different people, each one exploring their own ideas and hypotheses. In a field so important and popular as the effect of technology on human biology, there are thousands upon thousands of researchers competing, each one trying to find a better idea than their colleagues. This system is actually very good at exploring weird, goofy-sounding hypotheses because the reward is so important.
