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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Studies" and anecdotes.
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 07:45:10 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: [...] No, actually, this stunning indictment comes from the British Medical Journal, Dr. Ben Goldacre, and a "study" published in Nature. Because I know how much you and James "I'm no sock puppet!" Warren love "studies"! I'm merely the messenger, and you know what they say you shouldn't do to messengers, right? If you really dislike studies so much, what you replace them with? It's not that he dislikes studies. There must be a contest going on somewhere for the clueless dimwit who uses the most straw man arguments in a single post. James is apparently after your record, Trader Boy. Everyone knows that you're the straw man champion for this newsgroup, and it's apparently a lifetime appointment. James would stand a better chance in a different newsgroup (e.g., alt.support.voodoo), because there is no way he could ever unseat you here. I'm going to forward his name to LinkedIn. So that anyone looking for a clueless dimwit, someone who can't read for comprehension, and is forced to use straw men arguments, or no arguments at all, can more easily find him. He just dislikes ones that don't agree with his preconceived notions. He'll ignore a thousand of those, and find one that agrees with his views and use it. I don't ignore any studies. I read them all, and when some of them don't adhere to the Scientific Method (and most don't, as my post clearly illustrated), I discard them. Given that you still don't understand what the Scientific Method actually is, and isn't, you're forced to cling to CRAP and psychobabble. Look at the mountain of studies one has to ignore to come to the conclusion that HIV is harmless and not the cause of AIDS, Look at the mountain of studies one has to ignore to come to the conclusion that low-carb diets don't work, are bad for our health, etc. Look at the mountain of studies one has to ignore to come to the conclusion that trans fats are bad for our health. Look at the mountain of studies that one has to ignore to come to the conclusion that global warming is real, and that "we're all gonna die!" in a few years. Look at the mountain of studies that one has to ignore to come to the conclusion that it's smart to tell diabetics to eat MORE carbs, especially "healthy whole grains." I could go on indefinitely, but you get the idea. I.e., "mountains of studies" don't mean ****. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw In fact on that one, there isn't even a single study that shows HIV isn't the cause of AIDS. I've asked for such a study repeatedly and all we got were crickets. I explained that already. You just can't understand me. Because you may be the dumbest person in New Jersey, including Snooki Polizzi. No, make that the entire East Coast. At the same time, I've referred him to NIH which has an entire webpage with links to all the studies done over many years that show HIV is the cause of AIDS and he calls that PR hype. Until just recently, the NIH had all kinds of "studies" that showed that trans fats weren't bad for you, that sugar is good for you, and still maintains that low-carb diets are unhealthy, and that wheat is actually good for you, etc. The NIH is just as political, and just as greedy, as any other organization. What is the difference between a study and a "study"? One is a study that supports his view, the other is one that demolishes it. If a study comports with the Scientific Method, it's a study. If it doesn't, it's a "study." In the same way that I'm smart, and you're "smart." 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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Studies" and anecdotes.
On 10/3/2012 1:09 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 07:45:10 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] No, actually, this stunning indictment comes from the British Medical Journal, Dr. Ben Goldacre, and a "study" published in Nature. Because I know how much you and James "I'm no sock puppet!" Warren love "studies"! I'm merely the messenger, and you know what they say you shouldn't do to messengers, right? If you really dislike studies so much, what you replace them with? It's not that he dislikes studies. There must be a contest going on somewhere for the clueless dimwit who uses the most straw man arguments in a single post. James is apparently after your record, Trader Boy. Everyone knows that you're the straw man champion for this newsgroup, and it's apparently a lifetime appointment. James would stand a better chance in a different newsgroup (e.g., alt.support.voodoo), because there is no way he could ever unseat you here. I'm going to forward his name to LinkedIn. So that anyone looking for a clueless dimwit, someone who can't read for comprehension, and is forced to use straw men arguments, or no arguments at all, can more easily find him. He just dislikes ones that don't agree with his preconceived notions. He'll ignore a thousand of those, and find one that agrees with his views and use it. I don't ignore any studies. I read them all, and when some of them don't adhere to the Scientific Method (and most don't, as my post clearly illustrated), I discard them. Given that you still don't understand what the Scientific Method actually is, and isn't, you're forced to cling to CRAP and psychobabble. So anecdotes are important to the Scientific Method by randomized controlled studies are not. Curious and interesting. You're beginning to sound like George Hammond of SPOG (Scientific Proof Of God) fame. Anyway, angry ad hominem attacks don't make for good arguments. Look at the mountain of studies one has to ignore to come to the conclusion that HIV is harmless and not the cause of AIDS, Look at the mountain of studies one has to ignore to come to the conclusion that low-carb diets don't work, are bad for our health, etc. Look at the mountain of studies one has to ignore to come to the conclusion that trans fats are bad for our health. Look at the mountain of studies that one has to ignore to come to the conclusion that global warming is real, and that "we're all gonna die!" in a few years. Look at the mountain of studies that one has to ignore to come to the conclusion that it's smart to tell diabetics to eat MORE carbs, especially "healthy whole grains." I could go on indefinitely, but you get the idea. I.e., "mountains of studies" don't mean ****. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw In fact on that one, there isn't even a single study that shows HIV isn't the cause of AIDS. I've asked for such a study repeatedly and all we got were crickets. I explained that already. You just can't understand me. Because you may be the dumbest person in New Jersey, including Snooki Polizzi. No, make that the entire East Coast. At the same time, I've referred him to NIH which has an entire webpage with links to all the studies done over many years that show HIV is the cause of AIDS and he calls that PR hype. Until just recently, the NIH had all kinds of "studies" that showed that trans fats weren't bad for you, that sugar is good for you, and still maintains that low-carb diets are unhealthy, and that wheat is actually good for you, etc. The NIH is just as political, and just as greedy, as any other organization. What is the difference between a study and a "study"? One is a study that supports his view, the other is one that demolishes it. If a study comports with the Scientific Method, it's a study. If it doesn't, it's a "study." In the same way that I'm smart, and you're "smart." Asshole. ....................../´¯/) ....................,/¯../ .................../..../ ............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\ ........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') .........\.................'...../ ..........''...\.......... _.·´ ............\..............( ..............\.............\... |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
BLIMPS REJOICE! "Grilled" At KFC Means You Can Gobble More Pieces OfChicken Than The Original "Boogies On A Bone" Fried Artery-Cloggers! | Lil' Barb | General Discussion | 2 | November 25th, 2009 08:47 AM |
BUSH NATION: 36.2 Million Human Beings HUNGRY! Your "CompassionateConservative" Says, "Hell, Ah'm Retirin' Soon." | Kilicrankie P. Smith | General Discussion | 2 | November 19th, 2008 04:10 PM |
"Friends are born, not made." !!!! By: "Henry Brooks Adams" | [email protected] | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | February 1st, 2007 04:27 PM |
Mark Twain's "Smoking is Good for You" , and "Being Fat Can SaveYour Life" | Jbuch | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | January 20th, 2007 03:20 PM |
define "healthy" or "fit" or "athletic" | oregonchick | General Discussion | 7 | September 16th, 2006 12:30 AM |