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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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