You’re right, I used a wrong word there. It wasn’t science, more like public perception maybe? I’d consider lack of research as a part of science, though.
I’m not sure what better word would fit there instead. I wouldn’t say it’s the fault of marketing, I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt that they thought it’s actually healthier to use this kind of filter.
The comparison that sparks to my mind are vapes. There’s AFAIK lack of research that can tell us anything about long term issues, but a lot of people consider it as healthier. But in this case, common sense is also not correct - because it kind of makes sense that it probably isn’t, and it’s just marketing.
But in the case of an asbestos filter, I can see why people (and common sense at the time) would asume that it helps.
So, I guess common sense is the word that I should’ve used, because that’s what was wrong at the time.
You’re right, I used a wrong word there. It wasn’t science, more like public perception maybe? I’d consider lack of research as a part of science, though.
I’m not sure what better word would fit there instead. I wouldn’t say it’s the fault of marketing, I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt that they thought it’s actually healthier to use this kind of filter.
The comparison that sparks to my mind are vapes. There’s AFAIK lack of research that can tell us anything about long term issues, but a lot of people consider it as healthier. But in this case, common sense is also not correct - because it kind of makes sense that it probably isn’t, and it’s just marketing.
But in the case of an asbestos filter, I can see why people (and common sense at the time) would asume that it helps.
So, I guess common sense is the word that I should’ve used, because that’s what was wrong at the time.