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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
James Warren wrote:
wrote: I don't understand the slams directed at science in general either. Overall science has done a pretty remarkable job ... 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. Science is the best method we have, despite the errors, of finding out about the world. Those who slam it don't come up with anything as good as science, let alone better than science, to replace it. If there was to be something better then science would jump on it and *it* would be part of science. People don't understand that science is a process and that it has mature and immature fields. They see photographs of atoms that demonstrate that the atomic theory of chemistry is fact. They see the products of genetic engineering that demonstrate the theory of molecular biology is fact. So they expect immature sciences like medicine, astrophysics and climateologt to be fact as well. Then when the predictions of an immature field change they have a negative reaction. Medicine is an immature science. Nutrition is a part of medicine. Thus the predictions of nutrition keep changing. It's part of the deal of how science works. Folks on this newsgroup have paid attention to the fact that low carb works for a lot of people. Some scientists have noticed some have not. Part of the process. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On 5/22/2012 3:56 PM, Dogman wrote:
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. It is just possible that gullibility is the central characteristic of those who fall victim to conspiracy theories. Conspiracies do exist and if you believe enough of them chances are pretty good that one of them will turn out to be true, but you will have to believe an awful lot for that to happen. So there. There indeed. You seem to subscribe to all the conspiracy theories. Nope, only to certain UNSCIENTIFIC theories. The ones I've studied from asshole to elbow. I gather you are an expert in all those areas of specialization that you have denounced as frauds and unscientific. Congratulations on your expansive erudition. 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. I bow down to you, oh rational one. You are caught in a rut that you can never escape Thanks, I hope I never escape from this rut myself! I consider very unlikely myself. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On 5/22/2012 4:04 PM, Dogman wrote:
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? Yep. Just about all the psychiatric diseases. It is to be expected when the symptoms are all over the map and definitive tests are not done. 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? Different lifestyles and probabilities of exposure account for it. 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. It this your Bible? 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. Yeah it does. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On 5/22/2012 4:10 PM, Dogman wrote:
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. You plead the scientific method but you ignore the science, clinging to your cult leader instead. Sigh. What a maroon. There is none so righteous as the self-righteous. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On Tue, 22 May 2012 16:32:32 -0300, James Warren
wrote: [...] And I think you're a lazy and gullible simpleton. It is just possible And sometimes it's just probable, as in your case. You seem to subscribe to all the conspiracy theories. Nope, only to certain UNSCIENTIFIC theories. The ones I've studied from asshole to elbow. I gather you are an expert in all those areas of specialization that you have denounced as frauds and unscientific. Congratulations on your expansive erudition. Why, thank you, James! I wish I could say the same of you, but, alas, I can't. 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. I bow down to you, oh rational one. Get off your knees, plebe, and go read Duesberg's book! If ever there was a motto you should embrace, it's: "Read more, write less." -- 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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On Tue, 22 May 2012 16:36:51 -0300, James Warren
wrote: 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? Yep. Just about all the psychiatric diseases. *Infectious* disease is implied here! 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? Different lifestyles and probabilities of exposure account for it. Heterosexuals don't have sex in the U.S., Canada, and Europe? Jeez louise, I was right. There's just no there there. 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. It this your Bible? It's my favorite book regarding AIDS, yes. What's yours? Oh, I see. You've never read a book on AIDS. That figures. 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. Yeah it does. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. No, just a gullible simpleton. Frankly, I like my team better. Nota bene: James, it's obvious that you get most of your scientific information from MSNBC, and that you don't know enough about AIDS to even ask sensible questions. Go read Duesberg's book. Then come back and discuss AIDS with me. -- 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 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On 5/22/2012 4:26 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
James Warren wrote: wrote: I don't understand the slams directed at science in general either. Overall science has done a pretty remarkable job ... 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. Science is the best method we have, despite the errors, of finding out about the world. Those who slam it don't come up with anything as good as science, let alone better than science, to replace it. If there was to be something better then science would jump on it and *it* would be part of science. People don't understand that science is a process and that it has mature and immature fields. They see photographs of atoms that demonstrate that the atomic theory of chemistry is fact. They see the products of genetic engineering that demonstrate the theory of molecular biology is fact. So they expect immature sciences like medicine, astrophysics and climateologt to be fact as well. Then when the predictions of an immature field change they have a negative reaction. Medicine is an immature science. Nutrition is a part of medicine. Thus the predictions of nutrition keep changing. It's part of the deal of how science works. Folks on this newsgroup have paid attention to the fact that low carb works for a lot of people. Some scientists have noticed some have not. Part of the process. Well said. Medicine is, indeed, an immature science. I have often lamented that there is precious little science in nutrition science. The soft sciences like medicine and the social sciences have a long way to go to reach maturity. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On Tue, 22 May 2012 16:39:53 -0300, James Warren
wrote: [...] There is none so righteous as the self-righteous. "We have no words for speaking of wisdom to the stupid. He who understands the wise is wise already." -G.C. Lichtenberg -- 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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On 5/22/2012 4:43 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 16:32:32 -0300, James Warren wrote: [...] And I think you're a lazy and gullible simpleton. It is just possible And sometimes it's just probable, as in your case. You seem to subscribe to all the conspiracy theories. Nope, only to certain UNSCIENTIFIC theories. The ones I've studied from asshole to elbow. I gather you are an expert in all those areas of specialization that you have denounced as frauds and unscientific. Congratulations on your expansive erudition. Why, thank you, James! I wish I could say the same of you, but, alas, I can't. I understand. 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. I bow down to you, oh rational one. Get off your knees, plebe, and go read Duesberg's book! If ever there was a motto you should embrace, it's: "Read more, write less." Ahem! You write much more than I do. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On Tue, 22 May 2012 16:57:07 -0300, James Warren
wrote: [...] I gather you are an expert in all those areas of specialization that you have denounced as frauds and unscientific. Congratulations on your expansive erudition. Why, thank you, James! I wish I could say the same of you, but, alas, I can't. I understand. If only you did. [...] I bow down to you, oh rational one. Get off your knees, plebe, and go read Duesberg's book! If ever there was a motto you should embrace, it's: "Read more, write less." Ahem! You write much more than I do. Tha's because I've already done the reading part, unlike you. -- 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 |