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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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