If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:22:52 -0300, James Warren
wrote: [...] Overall science has done a pretty remarkable job... ...IN SPITE of the many frauds, fakirs, phonies, criminals, ignoramuses, and arrogant greedy *******s who claim to practice it. There aren't as many as you seem to think. Actually there are probably more than I think. That is because it is hard to get away with fraud and criminal acts. There's a whole bunch of them doing it right now, and it was very easy for them to get away with it, due to a general illiteracy regarding science today. Even many so-called scientists are scientifically illiterate. And of a lack of critical thinking skills. It's not confined to any particular field, but virology, cancer, and climatology are particular corrupt today. Why? Because, as Willie Sutton once said, That's where the money is. Other scientists are constantly replicating other's work. While other so-called scientists actually hide their work, the algorithyms and programs of their computer models, etc., so that other scientists can't find their errors. They even go to great lengths to hide their data, so that only the Boys In The Club have access to it. See: "global warming" in general, and "Climategate" in particular. Fraud and crimes are sooner or later revealed and then the reputation is lost. Yes, when they are dead and buried, if then. But all the wasted money, the needless deaths, pain and suffering, are all but forgotten. -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:26:06 -0300, James Warren
wrote: [...] You've managed to convince yourself that HIV causes AIDS, that HPV causes cervical cancer, yet you've never read even one scientific paper that proves it, because there aren't any. I don't exactly know what lead you to your sudden conversion to low-carb from the Standard American Diet, etc., but I doubt it was a controlled, randomized scientific study, or because your doctor recommended it. So...what was it? It was a plausibility argument that made it worth a try. So...you must think it's similarly plausible that a person can have AIDS in the U.S., but if he walks across the border to Canada, he might not? You must also think it's plausible for a supposedly infectious disease to infect almost exclusively gay men, IV drug abusers, and hemophiliacs in the U.S., Canada and Europe, but infect 10s of millions of heterosexuals in Africa, Asia, and Latin America? And that one little, mostly harmless, retrovirus, very similar to all other retroviruses, can all of a sudden cause 26 different diseases? All of which have been around for a long time before anyone ever said the word "AIDS"? I could go on and on, but it seems that you are the victim of selective implausibility. Unfortunately, I don't think there's an app for that. -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:16:11 -0300, James Warren
wrote: [...] The problem seems to be that science isn't perfect. Sometimes mistakes are made and when that happens the anti-science folks take the opportunity to slam it. You've got it backwards, as usual. No, science isn't perfect, and yes, mistakes are made, but it's the *real* scientists, the ones who adhere to The Scientific Method, and the generally curious, who end up correcting them. I couldn't be further from an anti-science person. I virtually worship at the altar of The Scientific Method. Which is why I abhor what's being passed off as "science" these days. You would too, if you had a freakin' clue. -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On 5/22/2012 3:15 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:22:52 -0300, James Warren wrote: [...] Overall science has done a pretty remarkable job... ...IN SPITE of the many frauds, fakirs, phonies, criminals, ignoramuses, and arrogant greedy *******s who claim to practice it. There aren't as many as you seem to think. Actually there are probably more than I think. That is because it is hard to get away with fraud and criminal acts. There's a whole bunch of them doing it right now, and it was very easy for them to get away with it, due to a general illiteracy regarding science today. Even many so-called scientists are scientifically illiterate. And of a lack of critical thinking skills. It's not confined to any particular field, but virology, cancer, and climatology are particular corrupt today. Why? Because, as Willie Sutton once said, That's where the money is. Other scientists are constantly replicating other's work. While other so-called scientists actually hide their work, the algorithyms and programs of their computer models, etc., so that other scientists can't find their errors. They even go to great lengths to hide their data, so that only the Boys In The Club have access to it. See: "global warming" in general, and "Climategate" in particular. Fraud and crimes are sooner or later revealed and then the reputation is lost. Yes, when they are dead and buried, if then. But all the wasted money, the needless deaths, pain and suffering, are all but forgotten. I think you are lost in paranoia. You seem to subscribe to all the conspiracy theories. You also arrogantly think that the only one capable of rational thought is yourself. You are caught in a rut that you can never escape without a total retreat. I can't see you doing that. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On Tue, 22 May 2012 11:12:34 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: [...] Overall science has done a pretty remarkable job... ...IN SPITE of the many frauds, fakirs, phonies, criminals, ignoramuses, and arrogant greedy *******s who claim to practice it. Hmm, this from the guy who thinks Duesburg is some kind of God and authority on HIV and AIDS? Duesberg is no god, but he *is* a real scientist, one who adheres to The Scientific Method, and someone who has the courage to call out the fakirs, frauds, phonies, etc., even at great cost to him personally. Read his book. He even names names. Asshole. -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On 5/22/2012 3:29 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:26:06 -0300, James Warren wrote: [...] You've managed to convince yourself that HIV causes AIDS, that HPV causes cervical cancer, yet you've never read even one scientific paper that proves it, because there aren't any. I don't exactly know what lead you to your sudden conversion to low-carb from the Standard American Diet, etc., but I doubt it was a controlled, randomized scientific study, or because your doctor recommended it. So...what was it? It was a plausibility argument that made it worth a try. So...you must think it's similarly plausible that a person can have AIDS in the U.S., but if he walks across the border to Canada, he might not? Does this happen often? I doubt it. You must also think it's plausible for a supposedly infectious disease to infect almost exclusively gay men, IV drug abusers, and hemophiliacs in the U.S., Canada and Europe, but infect 10s of millions of heterosexuals in Africa, Asia, and Latin America? Yes. And that one little, mostly harmless, retrovirus, very similar to all other retroviruses, can all of a sudden cause 26 different diseases? All of which have been around for a long time before anyone ever said the word "AIDS"? Your premise is wrong. HIV is not mostly harmless. I could go on and on, but it seems that you are the victim of selective implausibility. Unfortunately, I don't think there's an app for that. The weight of evidence definitely favors the HIV causes AIDS argument. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On 5/22/2012 3:35 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:16:11 -0300, James Warren wrote: [...] The problem seems to be that science isn't perfect. Sometimes mistakes are made and when that happens the anti-science folks take the opportunity to slam it. You've got it backwards, as usual. No, science isn't perfect, and yes, mistakes are made, but it's the *real* scientists, the ones who adhere to The Scientific Method, and the generally curious, who end up correcting them. *Real* scientists are those scientists you agree with, right? I couldn't be further from an anti-science person. I virtually worship at the altar of The Scientific Method. Which is why I abhor what's being passed off as "science" these days. You would too, if you had a freakin' clue. Actually, I do have a clue. You seem to be a cultist rather than a scientist. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:36:05 -0300, James Warren
wrote: [...] But all the wasted money, the needless deaths, pain and suffering, are all but forgotten. I think you are lost in paranoia. And I think you're a lazy and gullible simpleton. So there. You seem to subscribe to all the conspiracy theories. Nope, only to certain UNSCIENTIFIC theories. The ones I've studied from asshole to elbow. You also arrogantly think that the only one capable of rational thought is yourself. Nope, but between Trader, you, and me, yes, I'm apparently the only one of us who is capable of rational thought. The evidence for that is to be found throughout this newsgroup, where the two of you are totally incapable of even considering contrarian opinions and viewpoints. You are caught in a rut that you can never escape Thanks, I hope I never escape from this rut myself! -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:39:35 -0300, James Warren
wrote: [...] So...what was it? It was a plausibility argument that made it worth a try. So...you must think it's similarly plausible that a person can have AIDS in the U.S., but if he walks across the border to Canada, he might not? Does this happen often? I doubt it. You doubt it because you don't have a clue about either HIV or AIDS. The AIDS definition is different in Canada than the U.S. There's also the Banqui definition, used mostly in Africa. You could be AIDS-free in the U.S., but fly to Kenya and see a doctor? All of a sudden you have AIDS. Do you know any other disease that works like that? You must also think it's plausible for a supposedly infectious disease to infect almost exclusively gay men, IV drug abusers, and hemophiliacs in the U.S., Canada and Europe, but infect 10s of millions of heterosexuals in Africa, Asia, and Latin America? Yes. Wow. Can you name any other virus that is so selective? Do you know anything at all about viruses? And that one little, mostly harmless, retrovirus, very similar to all other retroviruses, can all of a sudden cause 26 different diseases? All of which have been around for a long time before anyone ever said the word "AIDS"? Your premise is wrong. HIV is not mostly harmless. Yes, it is. Read Duesberg's book. I could go on and on, but it seems that you are the victim of selective implausibility. Unfortunately, I don't think there's an app for that. The weight of evidence definitely favors the HIV causes AIDS argument. No, it doesn't. But the "Friends of Bob" (Gallo) currently have their finger on that scale, and they aren't about to take it off anytime soon. -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:46:28 -0300, James Warren
wrote: You've got it backwards, as usual. No, science isn't perfect, and yes, mistakes are made, but it's the *real* scientists, the ones who adhere to The Scientific Method, and the generally curious, who end up correcting them. *Real* scientists are those scientists you agree with, right? I think I made myself pretty clear there; did you injure your head too? What else could account for your third-grade reading skills? I couldn't be further from an anti-science person. I virtually worship at the altar of The Scientific Method. Which is why I abhor what's being passed off as "science" these days. You would too, if you had a freakin' clue. Actually, I do have a clue. You seem to be a cultist rather than a scientist. Okay. I plead guilty. I am a life-long member of The Cult of The Scientific Method. We have our headquarters in Pasadena. I can send you an application if you like, but be forewarned, we don't allow useful idiots to join, and imposters are routinely beheaded. Sigh. What a maroon. -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Eating slowly | jjrb230 via WeightAdviser.com | General Discussion | 4 | August 21st, 2006 06:30 PM |
Slowly, slowly | Alan | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 13 | October 26th, 2005 02:49 PM |
Shrinking slowly! | sandy | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | October 9th, 2004 08:00 PM |
Is low-carbing successful if you go slowly?? | wilson | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 14 | March 9th, 2004 12:49 AM |
changing slowly | Susan Jones-Anderson | General Discussion | 16 | October 3rd, 2003 01:01 AM |