Announcement

**Guest** · 04-05-2016, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by dc101

I'm not an expert in restoration, nor am I particularly experienced with oils. ...... Additionally, there are certain essential oils that are "cicatrisant," that is, promote skin regeneration and growth. There are a number of them. My recipe uses two that I had in my first aid stock..... .

1. The classical definition of "cicatrisant" is scar formation. Not "skin growth" or so-called "regeneration", and I would imagine that 'scar' isn't a word we restorers want to hear. So.......

2. Please define "promote skin regeneration and growth" vs cause skin regeneration and growth. Tell us the difference, we're interested, or some of us are. I know I am. In other words ...promote? Or support? Or 'facilitate'? All indirect, all vague to the point of buzz words, separate from cause, with no description of the actual process. What do you mean exactly.

3. Here's what we do know so far: Skin expansion (as past research has discovered, and as the clinical setting uses on a regular basis, and as we do it) happens as a result of cycles of applied tension as a stimulus, causing a multi cascade of intrinsic biochemical factors, the end result of which is mitosis beyond the maintenance rate. How does your biochemistry background allow you to accept that a mere topical substance, completely foreign to those biochemical factors and the body's biochemistry overall, affecting only the top layers of skin and completely outside of the expansion/accelerated mitotic process, end-run the natural process?

4. And how does "moisturizing", a la your post title, have anything to do with any of this, ie "skin growth"? Sorry, but that doesn't sound scientific. Sounds more like the wording of an advertisement. Everybody's free to think and do what they will, as you certainly are, sir. But to imply science in all of this is to make defining the science in it necessary; to make it real and consistent with biochemistry, in other words.

(I just might get an email from Distalero on this one)

**dc101** · 04-05-2016, 06:06 PM

You raise some great questions. My assumption is that the fault is mine, and that my articulation could have been clearer.

In the essential oil world, cicatrisant is used to describe any oil that helps to lessen or hide scars. The are categorized as having properties that affect the overall health of damaged skin. In that sense, a cicatrisant essential oil is an essential oil for scars.

Clearing an ambiguity: I am in no way claiming that essential oils or any moisturizer can cause, of it's own accord, skin growth. If this were the cause, fr would be greatly simplified!

Like I said in my post, when I started researching essential oils I thought it was extremely unscientific and "new agey." I reference my biochemistry background just as general knowledge, and a working knowledge of how "science" is generally done in the modern world. The fact is, modern western research into the properties of essential oils is extremely new. But they've been around forever, and chances are, you've probably used them. Do a few searches and you'll see research papers published at the NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) on these oils. It's not systematic at all, but they are there for some.

Moving forward.

I've seen articles in FR that refer to proper nutrition. Maybe some specifics, like taking Vitamin C (from it's researched role in collagen synthesis). Do internal supplements cause skin growth? No, because some people restore without them, others take them. Parenthetically, it would be extremely difficult to conduct a study that shows restoration difference between those that take vitamin C supplements and those that do not, but it could in theory be done, and it may be interesting. So some people believe in internal supplements. My question: what about the exterior?

You seem to be arguing that external "supplements," by being external, cannot do anything because they're simply topical. This would be patently false, as there are many topical treatments of even standard pharmaceutical preparations: nicotine patches, topical aspirin (Spain has this for muscle injuries), Your skin is a permeable barrier. This is why we wear gloves when working with some chemicals, they can literally enter your bloodstream.

Even if I was done with my FR, years from now, and I reported back to you (having used my moisturizer the entire time), I couldn't scientifically prove to you that it has any effects, because there's no control to compare it to.

So, I offer my moisturizer as another possible assist to FR. I've used essential oils in my first aid kit for over a year for a number of treatments. I would advocate, based on my hunches, that moisturizing can be more than merely cosmetic. Below I'll synthesize my hunches upon which my opinion-hypothesis is based:

Pulling or "tensioning" skin is a stimulus that I would call micro-trauma. I'd call a true skin tear a real trauma, not a micro-trauma. I like using micro-trauma because its not naturally occurring, it's induced by an exterior agent.
Coconut oil is straight up beneficial for your skin. I've used it on small cuts and boils for great effect, much faster than when I used this previously. Now cuts and boils aren't micro-trauma's, they're more properly wounds. Wet (clean) wounds heal faster than one's you dry out, until the very last stage of the healing process. We use oils for open wounds all the time, but generally things like petroleum jelly are found in the more "traditional" treatments (Neosporin). Your skin is very permeable, even when you don't have an open wound. Any oil placed on the skin doesn't just evaporate, it actually goes down deep into your skin layers.
When your body heals wounds it's growing new cells. Wounds generate scar tissue, and obviously the micro-trauma of applied tension doesn't cause true scar tissue (otherwise we wouldn't restore), but rather a more subtle form of skin growth.
Essential oils have real physiological effects. Peppermint is extremely potent, it's a vasoconstrictor (closes up your blood vessels), which is also why it's so extremely cooling. People use it for migraines, just as some might also have a cup of coffee (caffeine as another vasoconstrictor).
The essential oils that they call cicatrisant (there are a number of them) generally improve your blood flow to a localized area. When you're in wound care, they make you quit smoking (personal experience), because nicotine decreases your blood circulation. Better circulation means better skin healing (aka growing skin). I bet this is also why some FR people recommend physical exercise.
Geranium and Rosemary both happen to do this. I was surprised when I (skeptically) followed a recipe to make an oil/cream for when you have a cold. It smelled exactly like Vic's Vapo-Rub. This is what Rosemary smells like. It opens your sinuses.

I've already stated that I can't make scientific conclusions because I don't personally have empirically observable data to compare with a control group. I'm also not making necessary arguments... FR is empirically possible without any form of moisturizing.

When you're circumcised you've got a big dried out member, compared to if you were intact. For me, I believe moisturizing to be not just cosmetic, but also healthy for your skin. From my own experiences I know that the oils do something (whether coconut or essential oils) beneficial for my body in a particular circumstance. I'm going to give it a shot. My stretching skin looks great. My hypothesis is that it's not simply cosmetic, so I'll try it out. At the end of the day, I can't "prove" anything to you, for previously stated reasons.

I really appreciate the questions. I'll probably clean up my article a bit to make it shorter and more articulate. I also like to write a lot, as evidenced by this post!

**will54** · 04-06-2016, 07:10 AM

Thanks- something else to think about- many roads to Rome.

**parsecskin** · 04-06-2016, 07:30 AM

Bottom line is that healthy, moist skin grows better than beat up and dry scaly skin. The other part that people miss is staying hydrated. DRINK LOTS OF WATER. This can be a double edged sword in that you will need to remove your device to pee! Since you should remove your device at about 3-4 hrs anyway, drink a lot of water an hour before you remove it to time your need to pee while you are taking a break. Water is essential to total body health and most people don't drink any where near enough water.

**dc101** · 04-06-2016, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by parsecskin

Bottom line is that healthy, moist skin grows better than beat up and dry scaly skin.

That's definitely the TL;DR version of my overly lengthy thoughts. Thanks!

In my restoration "reboot", it seems like I'm seeing more guys use some kind of aloe vera. What's the generally feeling about moisturizing (with anything)? I assumed that my post would start some kind of conversation about moisturizing in general, and I'd be interested to gauge the community's use or feelings towards it.

Moisturizing, of any kind, has always seemed important to me. It also seems like it's own double-edged sword, insofar as some methods require tape... and if moisturizing + tape, you'll always have to do a good washing of the oils before anything will adhere to the skin.

+1 for water. I'd agree that people generally don't drink enough water. After spending some time in Arizona, I've worked water a lot more into my everyday life!

**Guest** · 04-06-2016, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by dc101

You raise some great questions. My assumption is that the fault is mine, and that my articulation could have been clearer.

In the essential oil world, cicatrisant is used to describe any oil that helps to lessen or hide scars. The are categorized as having properties that affect the overall health of damaged skin. In that sense, a cicatrisant essential oil is an essential oil for scars.

Clearing an ambiguity: I am in no way claiming that essential oils or any moisturizer can cause, of it's own accord, skin growth. If this were the cause, fr would be greatly simplified!

Like I said in my post, when I started researching essential oils I thought it was extremely unscientific and "new agey." I reference my biochemistry background just as general knowledge, and a working knowledge of how "science" is generally done in the modern world. The fact is, modern western research into the properties of essential oils is extremely new. But they've been around forever, and chances are, you've probably used them. Do a few searches and you'll see research papers published at the NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) on these oils. It's not systematic at all, but they are there for some.

Moving forward.

I've seen articles in FR that refer to proper nutrition. Maybe some specifics, like taking Vitamin C (from it's researched role in collagen synthesis). Do internal supplements cause skin growth? No, because some people restore without them, others take them. Parenthetically, it would be extremely difficult to conduct a study that shows restoration difference between those that take vitamin C supplements and those that do not, but it could in theory be done, and it may be interesting. So some people believe in internal supplements. My question: what about the exterior?

You seem to be arguing that external "supplements," by being external, cannot do anything because they're simply topical. This would be patently false, as there are many topical treatments of even standard pharmaceutical preparations: nicotine patches, topical aspirin (Spain has this for muscle injuries), Your skin is a permeable barrier. This is why we wear gloves when working with some chemicals, they can literally enter your bloodstream.

Even if I was done with my FR, years from now, and I reported back to you (having used my moisturizer the entire time), I couldn't scientifically prove to you that it has any effects, because there's no control to compare it to.

So, I offer my moisturizer as another possible assist to FR. I've used essential oils in my first aid kit for over a year for a number of treatments. I would advocate, based on my hunches, that moisturizing can be more than merely cosmetic. Below I'll synthesize my hunches upon which my opinion-hypothesis is based:

Pulling or "tensioning" skin is a stimulus that I would call micro-trauma. I'd call a true skin tear a real trauma, not a micro-trauma. I like using micro-trauma because its not naturally occurring, it's induced by an exterior agent.
Coconut oil is straight up beneficial for your skin. I've used it on small cuts and boils for great effect, much faster than when I used this previously. Now cuts and boils aren't micro-trauma's, they're more properly wounds. Wet (clean) wounds heal faster than one's you dry out, until the very last stage of the healing process. We use oils for open wounds all the time, but generally things like petroleum jelly are found in the more "traditional" treatments (Neosporin). Your skin is very permeable, even when you don't have an open wound. Any oil placed on the skin doesn't just evaporate, it actually goes down deep into your skin layers.
When your body heals wounds it's growing new cells. Wounds generate scar tissue, and obviously the micro-trauma of applied tension doesn't cause true scar tissue (otherwise we wouldn't restore), but rather a more subtle form of skin growth.
Essential oils have real physiological effects. Peppermint is extremely potent, it's a vasoconstrictor (closes up your blood vessels), which is also why it's so extremely cooling. People use it for migraines, just as some might also have a cup of coffee (caffeine as another vasoconstrictor).
The essential oils that they call cicatrisant (there are a number of them) generally improve your blood flow to a localized area. When you're in wound care, they make you quit smoking (personal experience), because nicotine decreases your blood circulation. Better circulation means better skin healing (aka growing skin). I bet this is also why some FR people recommend physical exercise.
Geranium and Rosemary both happen to do this. I was surprised when I (skeptically) followed a recipe to make an oil/cream for when you have a cold. It smelled exactly like Vic's Vapo-Rub. This is what Rosemary smells like. It opens your sinuses.

I've already stated that I can't make scientific conclusions because I don't personally have empirically observable data to compare with a control group. I'm also not making necessary arguments... FR is empirically possible without any form of moisturizing.

When you're circumcised you've got a big dried out member, compared to if you were intact. For me, I believe moisturizing to be not just cosmetic, but also healthy for your skin. From my own experiences I know that the oils do something (whether coconut or essential oils) beneficial for my body in a particular circumstance. I'm going to give it a shot. My stretching skin looks great. My hypothesis is that it's not simply cosmetic, so I'll try it out. At the end of the day, I can't "prove" anything to you, for previously stated reasons.

I really appreciate the questions. I'll probably clean up my article a bit to make it shorter and more articulate. I also like to write a lot, as evidenced by this post!

1. Then it's a misuse of the word; not very confidence inspiring;

2. You claim that "moisturizing" causes "skin growth" in your post title. Are you backing off from that now?;

3. Small point, but there are no "articles" in foreskin restoration; that's a misuse of that term, which makes me wonder;

4. I'm not arguing that "topicals" as a category can't have an effect, I'm arguing that the topicals you mentioned, ie moisturizers (and here I'm emphasizing) DON'T HAVE AN EFFECT ON EPIDERMAL MITOSIS. That's your oblique argument here, not mine. So using a straw man argument here, which you've done by trying to lump an unknown, a "hunch" in with knowns, not only isn't scientific, it isn't logical. But here's the thing, you started the discussion and you're trying to associate Science with what you now describe as ......."

5. "Hunches". They simply aren't enough when you try to describe something in the context of science. But at least you are honest about this in a roundabout way.

6. Your list of effects from essential oils is meaningless in the context of epidermal mitosis, but at least you aren't trying to draw a real parallel here. Of course, there is the possible, and possibly unfortunate. exception of (and again I'm emphasizing) PEPPERMINT as a vasoconstrictor. I'm sure you meant peppermint extract. I hope; peppermint oil is something entirely different, and potentially dangerous. Know why a vasoconstrictor is potentially problematic? Because science knows that the cascade of intrinsic factors that mediate mitosis I mentioned ARE PRIMARILY BLOOD BORNE. Would you want to "constrict" this mechanism? I wouldn't. Not on a hunch. And not knowing a smidge of PERTINENT, CONTEXTUAL biochemistry, not to mention knowing a bit about the anatomy and physiology of epidermis (some of your points above aren't true, by the way). Now if you meant peppermint oil then I'm really worried, because that isn't peppermint at all (you really should explain that to the readers);

Sorry, but your implications of "hunch", in combination with "science"standing there with a red face, are a push-me/pull-me straw man argument. Science has nothing in general to do with what you've posted, let alone the specific science of epidermal mitosis, so I don't know how you're gonna clean that up without tossing it, and maybe starting a ...say, "cosmetics" argument.

But then it doesn't have to be scientific, as long as you don't mention science. If you want a softer, shinier, fragrant dick, then go for it. But you did refer to science, in association with "skin growth", so I responded. I didn't make high school debate team, and have this here bronze plated trophy for nuthin', ya know

(Distalero...where are you?)

**dc101** · 04-06-2016, 04:30 PM

I thought it was a pretty simple concept, and it makes sense to me. I'm not advertising something. I appreciate you taking issue with some points, and that's fine. My title doesn't actually claim that moisturizing causes skin growth, that's your interpretation. A "moisturizer for restoration" doesn't necessarily mean moisturizers cause restoration. It could mean that. It could also mean it's a moisturizer you can use during restoration. What's restoration other than skin growth? Hence, my title isn't necessarily misleading.

If it makes you feel better, I can rename the title to be "A Moisturizer Formula." Happy?

I've got a hunch and an opinion. With the collapse of the old site, there's not a ton of forums where people swap information. I perceive the restoration community to be a pretty creative place. People share ideas and techniques. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't work. Maybe it works for some, and not for others.

That's the spirit in which I offer my technique. Every technique starts out as an idea, and then may or may not be proven over time. I pretty clearly stated, in the opening paragraph, that this was just my opinion.

I believe that this is a community of swapping ideas, even half-baked ones. I wanted to submit my idea into the repository. If someone searches for moisturizing and restoration, they might not find anything, but now I've given out an idea.

I made the (lack of) certainty of my arguments pretty clear. What if you've restored for a year and hit a brick wall, but you've never moisturized? It might be worth a try. What if you're gaining really slowly and you've never moisturized? It might be worth try.

It seems like everyone gets stuck and then wants to search for new ideas. I gave mine, feel free to disagree.

**Guest** · 04-06-2016, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by dc101

I thought it was a pretty simple concept, and it makes sense to me. I'm not advertising something. I appreciate you taking issue with some points, and that's fine. My title doesn't actually claim that moisturizing causes skin growth, that's your interpretation. A "moisturizer for restoration" doesn't necessarily mean moisturizers cause restoration. It could mean that. It could also mean it's a moisturizer you can use during restoration. What's restoration other than skin growth? Hence, my title isn't necessarily misleading.

If it makes you feel better, I can rename the title to be "A Moisturizer Formula." Happy?

I've got a hunch and an opinion. With the collapse of the old site, there's not a ton of forums where people swap information. I perceive the restoration community to be a pretty creative place. People share ideas and techniques. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't work. Maybe it works for some, and not for others.

That's the spirit in which I offer my technique. Every technique starts out as an idea, and then may or may not be proven over time. I pretty clearly stated, in the opening paragraph, that this was just my opinion.

I believe that this is a community of swapping ideas, even half-baked ones. I wanted to submit my idea into the repository. If someone searches for moisturizing and restoration, they might not find anything, but now I've given out an idea.

I made the (lack of) certainty of my arguments pretty clear. What if you've restored for a year and hit a brick wall, but you've never moisturized? It might be worth a try. What if you're gaining really slowly and you've never moisturized? It might be worth try.

It seems like everyone gets stuck and then wants to search for new ideas. I gave mine, feel free to disagree.

LOL, you won't let go of the subterfuge, so I have to give you that much.

Do you really think that moisturizing needs a technique? We can let the readership decide that one.

We talk about tugging methods here, so we have some ground to stand on in terms of technique (not much), but moisturizing is just that: an application of a topical substance which only affects some of the top, dead, layers of skin. If it penetrated then you wouldn't see the puffed up "moisturized" layer al la all those TV ads. Otherwise we are water filled meat bags, gotta lotta water, thanks. Dead layers (gettin' ready to flake off) = not biologically active, so......no effect on the stratum basale, so........no effect on mitosis. And certainly no end-run on the intrinsic process of a mitotic rate beyond that of maintenance, ie skin expansion. That's what we're interested here. Some of us, anyhow.

So, if some person interested in restoration, or moisturizing his genitals for that matter, arrives here and somehow comes to believe that there is a connection between the two (a false connection, by the way, that is very old and beat to death at this late date), then you, sir, have mislead that person. Hence my reply. I don't see the point in misleading, other than, I suppose, attracting those with a like-minded 'quasi fetish' someone said in another post, or those who received magical thinking in their mother's milk, or, sitting in front of the TV watching those same ads.

But hey, I'm currently being called a bully, maybe for this thread too, so take heart, I may not be here much longer to help you spiff up your "hunch", so you can go to town, as the old saying went. Bet you'll miss me, though.

**dc101** · 04-06-2016, 06:58 PM

Frankly, Info, I personally find the way you've handled your objections uncharitable and questionable, but that is matter for a private message, not a public forum post. Instead, I've been trying to engage the good points that you bring up, as a way to better articulate my technique.

But, your general approach is very interesting and apropos to the conversation. Uncritically your arguments and position seem to stem from a form of "scientism." You know the biological processes involved in mitotic replication, and so do I.

Essentially I've proposed a hypothesis. I've made it abundantly clear (I added an introductory disclaimer) what I am saying, and what I am not saying, and therefore you'd be hard pressed to be misled if you stumbled upon my post.

The fact is, oils and essential oils in particular are a part of the healing traditions of the world. Only in recent years are there published medical journals that are looking at particular essential oils. Lavender and Clove are good examples. Every scientist begins with a hypothesis. I recognize the scientific method, and acknowledged that my hypothesis is not testable. I can't publish a paper. For that matter, no technique that the restoration movement has developed can be published into a scientific research paper. So many different methods, and self-reporting. You could do a study, but it'd take a lot of professionally (controlled!) gathered data.

The fact is, you value (as we all do) the source of your principle. We generally understand how cells divide. Yet, "science" has not exhausted all of it's knowledge in this area. There can always be more experiments. My principle comes form a different source. You may call it "unscientific", and it is, because the principle comes from unscientific common wisdom. Call it hokus-pokus, that's totally fine by me.

You let your restoration be guided by your principles. I'll use those same principles, and also create some of my own.

This whole community is essentially one of experimentation. The pioneering restorers had a hypothesis, and they went with it, and it worked. Why can't we explore new areas, openly?

**Guest** · 04-06-2016, 07:21 PM

The thing about scientific revelation is that it's repeatable. In fact that's part of the rigor, and the basic definition of scientific truth. So it isn't my "scientism" that I rely on or cater to, it's Science's repeatable revelation I trust because it has passed that rigorous testing, test after test. "Look, see?" says the hopeful scientist, with (in deadpan voice)"That's just what we'll do" from his peers.

You have to start somewhere in the chaos, and 'repeatable' is a really good place to start. You can rely on it assuming certain parameters. And, as far as a parallel path goes, there has to be some sort of link (according to Science's own rigorous standards) between "over there in left field" and the repeatable, to even consider a hypothesis that would include the parallel path. A link, a connection, even just a similarity, certainly a part to play in an unknown aspect of causation, in the repeatable process.

That's the issue: where does "essential oils" come into the repeatable and therefore known process. I don't see the link in mitosis. So here's the suspicion (which you're calling uncharitable?): "New Age-y" thinking (your words) never seems to recognize this. In fact, they not only ignore it, they often disparage the repeatable, ie science (when they're even aware of it).

They see the chaos, so they seem to just want a shortcut, an easy answer; "just slather it on and watch ...should work because I hear it does this, and this, and this....". But Science allows no shortcuts, and those of us who trust the repeatable want something established before we leap, especially when it contradicts the known and repeatable. That "repeatable"; it's a bitch when you're looking for a shortcut or another way. And...... need I say, the Universe never allows somethin' for nuthin', especially in natural law (which also happens to be one of Science's observations

)

But nobody's stopping ya, just questioning your wording, so go for it. I enjoyed this.

And for the general readership: http://www.oc.lm.ehu.es/Fundamentos/...%20Factors.html

Page not available - PMC

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC52661/

Just a moment...

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/o90-194

These are just overviews of a very complex process with multiple factors involved.

**dc101** · 04-07-2016, 12:34 AM

Info, thanks for this reply, I appreciate it. Look, I'm going to assume we're generally a bunch of "bros" here. We're guys. We also have a particular form of body issues (AKA foreskin). I'm going to assume that you have a very strong background in science, and I'll actually assume that you work in the field. Me, I was basically born and bred to be a researcher, and studied in undergrad, I just never worked in any lab science. So, combining these two things... essential oils, to my scientific background seems incredibly skeptical. I didn't buy into any of it. I still don't really buy into a lot of it (notice that I didn't post any links to holistic sites that claim health benefits of oils).

So, I know myself pretty well, and that includes my own scientific biases. Knowing myself, I also figure that others are probably like me, hence the "bros" comment. What guy is going to take serious "essential oils." Have you been to these stores? Come on, most guys wouldn't darken the doors of these places!!!! So, I don't expect to be taken seriously by everyone.

On the other hand, this is a public forum. I totally expect to be called out and asked to re-articulate my articulations to better conform to the community. I'm trying to speak to a particular audience. On the other hand, I've enjoyed our little repartee, because it truly must be a back and forth. From your earlier comments, you have to accept that I can also ask you to be more articulate. From my own science background, I've realized very strongly that most people do not understand the philosophy of science. Most don't understand the limits of the methodology of science, and this is particularly what I'm challenging you on. You've clearly challenged me, and that's fantastic, I absolutely welcome it. But (and this is why I used the word uncharitable), I'm asking you to put aside your own biases, challenge my articulations, and also be aware of the limitations in your own argumentation. It's a two-way street.

So, for a continuing intellectual argument (this is for a certain kind of pleasure, not an exercise in violence or hostage taking), I have to make some oblique points to what I perceive to be your general argument.

Let's say you and I both share the commonly accepted (empirically derived) explanations of cellular division (in this context, skin growth). I make a hypothetical claim (my personal opinion, based on a hunch, or a belief) that X might just increase the rate of skin growth. I cannot prove my claim without empirical observation, controls, and multiple data sets. At the same time, you cannot absolutely reject my claim. You have no empirical research with which to deny that "X increases the rate of skin growth." If you reject my claim, and we're both committed to an empirical investigation, I have to counter-argue: "please show me your empirical observations that show that X does not increase the rate of skin growth, it would greatly simplify my life! I wouldn't waste a lot of time doing the research! But, if you don't have that data, then you cannot refute my hypothesis."

Just as my hypothesis is based upon a hunch, so too is your rejection of my claim. You seemed to side-step this argumentation earlier by arguing prudent investigation, "parallel paths." You're right, to a point. Would a university lab do research on the chemical properties of lavender, if it had never done any research on this plant product before, and no one else has? Probably not! And they'd be extremely justified in doing so. But you cannot argue that my point is invalid just because, through prudence and practicality, no one would do the research. To scientifically refute my claim, you must actually use empirical observation. And hey, like I said before, you'd save me time!!

My second major point. Every empirical claim is bounded by its own data set. You can probably infer that something else will act in the same way, but if it's outside of your empirical data, then you cannot prove it. Why? Science, based on empirical observation, can only create models upon that which it actually observes. If you haven't observed it, then you cannot conclude that it fits the model. These are the limitations of the scientific method, to disagree is to grossly misunderstand the field.

For instance, Einstein proved that Newton's models work for most situations. But they do not work for all situations. He found data that didn't fit into Newton's model, and therefore he had to create his own model. Newton's laws of physics are limited by the data upon which they are founded. They can probably but not necessarily be applied to all observable phenomenon.

So, coming full circle. You and I, committed to a scientific approach, both recognize that I cannot, will not, and did not claim that coconut oil, geranium oil, and rosemary oils cause skin growth, nor increase the rate of skin growth. I was explicitly clear that my particular hypothesis, for all practical purposes is scientifically unverifiable. At the end of my restoration, I cannot conclude that it was fast "because of my moisturizer", but neither can you say that "the moisturizer had no effect whatsoever." So, this is an impasse, and it is necessarily an impasse. But speaking of straw-man arguments, please take the time to carefully read what I am saying, and what I am not saying, and not just what you think I said. It'll just waste both our time if you think I'm saying something that I am not.

I'm not a "new agey" crack. I didn't come here and feed you all some nonsense about how this is a miracle cure and speeds up restoration. Come on. Could I stay here if I did that?!

But, moving forward, I would greatly appreciate if you would not use condescending language to speak of my hypothesis. You might think it's ridiculous, but that is your own personal opinion, based upon personal beliefs. You have to give me the benefit of the doubt, as I do you, and realize that however ridiculous you think it is, you in fact do not possess the empirical data to refute my hypothesis.

I love this sort of conversation, hence the Homerian epic post. I write it because people need to be very critical of what they invoke "science" for. There are a billion things that we do on a daily basis that have not been proved by a peer-reviewed scientific organization. But that does not make the things you do wrong, or false. Understand the method of "science," and that necessarily involves knowing what it can, and cannot validly say based upon the limitations of its methodology.

Announcement

Moisturizing for Skin Growth: A Recipe

Moisturizing for Skin Growth: A Recipe

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment