Eric Herboso

"Please know that you are loved by many people. I don't mean this in a trite way. You really and truly are." - Eric Herboso

"No. I'll quote from the very same paper that this article is citing: > The discrepancies found suggest that both phenomena are phenomenologically and behaviourally dissimilar. Medical Xpress has somehow stated the exact opposite of what the study found. How in the world they could get it quite this wrong is completely beyond me. See for yourself by clicking the link at the bottom of the article you cited, which takes you to the [abstract on Science Direct](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...). I do not get why they have all these quotes from the scientists. Why are the scientists giving quotes that make it seem like they found evidence for this relationship when their own abstract clearly states that they didn't?" - Eric Herboso

"Excellent review. I ordered one of their sample packs as well, and was extremely impressed. They've definitely earned another customer in me. I'll also be recommending them to my dad's real estate company, which is another ten people. Moo should be paying you for the business this review has drummed up. BTW, Jan Richards sent me here. (c:" - Eric Herboso

"I doubt people will see [my response there](http://www.reddit.com/r...), since the thread is already a week old. But since it gives what I think is a definitive answer, I may as well post it here, too: > I'm late to the party here, but you might want to look at this [Nov 2011 paper on the topic](http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328). It shows definitively that quantum states are ontic, not epistemic -- assuming mild assumptions. > In other words, quantum states are NOT statistic entities. Rather, "distinct quantum states must correspond to physically distinct states of reality." > This paper is not the last word on the topic, given that it assumes three preconditions that have yet to be definitively shown. But these assumptions are shared by most in the field: > * Physical properties of individual systems are well-defined. This is patently obvious to most people, though a few do dispute it. The problem is that..." - Eric Herboso

"I'm late to the party here, but you might want to look at this [Nov 2011 paper on the topic](http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328). It shows definitively that quantum states are ontic, not epistemic -- assuming mild assumptions. In other words, quantum states are NOT statistic entities. Rather, "distinct quantum states must correspond to physically distinct states of reality." This paper is not the last word on the topic, given that it assumes three preconditions that have yet to be definitively shown. But these assumptions are shared by most in the field: * Physical properties of individual systems are well-defined. This is patently obvious to most people, though a few do dispute it. The problem is that we never see systems in isolation; only in combination with other systems. Yet I think most people will readily agree that individual systems have rules. * It's possible to have two independent systems. Again, it is very rare to find someone willing to challenge this assumption. Basically,..." - Eric Herboso

"USA Today and Time do not do studies; they report them. If you provide links of these stories, I'll be able to see which studies they cite. I'd like to look into them to verify if they're good science or not." - Eric Herboso

"One issue might be the studies you're choosing to cite in your comment. Unfortunately, the vegan community is filled with fake studies and over-hyped results. It's hard to blame these vegans; they're only trying to promote an ethical diet by making claims that vegan diets are healthiest. But in the end, they tend to do more harm than good if their science is flawed. I notice that you mentioned colon cancer in your post; can you post what studies you're referring to? Some studies that have historically made this claim (such as the China study) are notoriously bad to the point where they really need to be thrown out. I haven't read the literature since the end of last year, so maybe something new has come along in the past few months, but the last time I checked, there were no reputable studies that linked meat consumption to cancer. If we want to be taken seriously, we need to stop spreading bad studies as though they are good. Animal welfare is very important, and we should convince..." - Eric Herboso