|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 25, 2020 20:54:04 GMT
As I was saying elsewhere there are ads on TV all day for lawyers who won judgements against "scientists." Will you never learn? Scientists are just regular human beings with the same flaws as anyone else. Again, statistical analysis is not science ceteris paribus, however much you worship at its feet. It would be helpful to your claim to, first, meaningful define what you mean by scientists (which I know you can't or won't since you have said as much) and then to link, or show, one of these adverts that are 'on all day'. I don't know what it is like in Arlon County, but in the UK the adverts are regularly all about claiming compensation for accidents not one's fault and not any perceived or anticipated failures by 'science'. There has been a lot of talk lately about the high level of compensation paid out by the NHS for medical failures certainly but this is not in the context of 'science' as you would have it, just the failures and cover up by medical institutions after failure of care. Otherwise, all things being equal, (the same as the pretentious ceteris paribus you so often trot out) your unsubstantiated and un-defined claims can be dismissed with the same force as they are usually made. Hey, how are you doing? Warm? Well fed? You seem to be following the conversation better than usual. Perhaps social media is just the thing for improving that. The amount and severity of problems in medicine might well vary from time to time and place to place. Let's just say they do make the news once in a while. I could tell you that there is a vast difference between analyzing a problem with statistical analysis with a myriad of unmanageable variables and the direct connection of an effect to some well described cause. That is the truth. It is not "pretentious" to state it.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 25, 2020 21:01:31 GMT
It would be helpful to your claim to, first, meaningful define what you mean by scientists (which I know you can't or won't since you have said as much) and then to link, or show, one of these adverts that are 'on all day'. I don't know what it is like in Arlon County, but in the UK the adverts are regularly all about claiming compensation for accidents not one's fault and not any perceived or anticipated failures by 'science'. There has been a lot of talk lately about the high level of compensation paid out by the NHS for medical failures certainly but this is not in the context of 'science' as you would have it, just the failures and cover up by medical institutions after failure of care. Otherwise, all things being equal, (the same as the pretentious ceteris paribus you so often trot out) your unsubstantiated and un-defined claims can be dismissed with the same force as they are usually made. Hey, how are you doing? Warm? Well fed? You seem to be following the conversation better than usual. Perhaps social media is just the thing for improving that. The amount and severity of problems in medicine might well vary from time to time and place to place. Let's just say they do make the news once in a while. I could tell you that there is a vast difference between analyzing a problem with statistical analysis with a myriad of unmanageable variables and the direct connection of an effect to some well described cause. That is the truth. It is not "pretentious" to state it. I am sorry that you were unable to address my points. But not really surprised.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 25, 2020 21:56:55 GMT
Hey, how are you doing? Warm? Well fed? You seem to be following the conversation better than usual. Perhaps social media is just the thing for improving that. The amount and severity of problems in medicine might well vary from time to time and place to place. Let's just say they do make the news once in a while. I could tell you that there is a vast difference between analyzing a problem with statistical analysis with a myriad of unmanageable variables and the direct connection of an effect to some well described cause. That is the truth. It is not "pretentious" to state it. I am sorry that you were unable to address my points. But not really surprised. It seems to be impossible for him to give a definition of science or scientist (unquoted), so what he means when he quotes them is anyone's guess.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 25, 2020 22:30:39 GMT
Classic Arl(n)on sequitur. Still no examples of where you (or any non-scientist) caught scientists lying? It doesn't matter whether they're liars or just hopeless busybodies, they're still wrong. Show an example where you (and other non-scientists) have proved scientists wrong about any current scientific consensus. Go ahead, I'll wait.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 25, 2020 22:39:51 GMT
As I was saying elsewhere there are ads on TV all day for lawyers who won judgements against "scientists." Will you never learn? Scientists are just regular human beings with the same flaws as anyone else. Again, statistical analysis is not science ceteris paribus, however much you worship at its feet. It would be helpful to your claim to, first, meaningful define what you mean by scientists (which I know you can't or won't since you have said as much) and then to link, or show, one of these adverts that are 'on all day'. I don't know what it is like in Arlon County, but in the UK the adverts are regularly all about claiming compensation for accidents not one's fault and not any perceived or anticipated failures by 'science'. There has been a lot of talk lately about the high level of compensation paid out by the NHS for medical failures certainly but this is not in the context of 'science' as you would have it, just the failures and cover up by medical institutions after failure of care. Otherwise, all things being equal, (the same as the pretentious ceteris paribus you so often trot out) your unsubstantiated and un-defined claims can be dismissed with the same force as they are usually made. On this I actually know what Arlon is referring to. In the US there are, indeed, frequent ads for lawyers who have class-action lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies who have manufactured/sold medications that were later discovered (by scientists, no less) to be linked to diseases, cancers, etc. that the companies didn't know about at the time. These medications must first past FDA regulations to be sold to begin with, and that means extensive clinical trial testing by scientists. Unfortunately, many negative effects of such medications only come with long term usage and aren't discovered in the initial clinical trials, even the ones that last years. Arlon weirdly interprets this as scientists "lying," (now he's backtracked that claim to simply saying scientists were "wrong"), which is bizarre given that it's scientists who discover that these medications cause whatever they cause! So I guess his point is that "scientists can be wrong, and are corrected by later scientists as we learn more?" If so, I think everyone would say "duh, that's the bedrock of how our scientific knowledge advances!" Here's a link that lists many of the medications for which there are now ongoing lawsuits against: www.enjuris.com/pharmaceutical-liability/defective-drugs.html
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 26, 2020 0:24:49 GMT
It doesn't matter whether they're liars or just hopeless busybodies, they're still wrong. Show an example where you (and other non-scientists) have proved scientists wrong about any current scientific consensus. Go ahead, I'll wait. I do not recognize that method. In fact I have written prolifically on how it is not a scientific method.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 26, 2020 0:31:46 GMT
It would be helpful to your claim to, first, meaningful define what you mean by scientists (which I know you can't or won't since you have said as much) and then to link, or show, one of these adverts that are 'on all day'. I don't know what it is like in Arlon County, but in the UK the adverts are regularly all about claiming compensation for accidents not one's fault and not any perceived or anticipated failures by 'science'. There has been a lot of talk lately about the high level of compensation paid out by the NHS for medical failures certainly but this is not in the context of 'science' as you would have it, just the failures and cover up by medical institutions after failure of care. Otherwise, all things being equal, (the same as the pretentious ceteris paribus you so often trot out) your unsubstantiated and un-defined claims can be dismissed with the same force as they are usually made. On this I actually know what Arlon is referring to. In the US there are, indeed, frequent ads for lawyers who have class-action lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies who have manufactured/sold medications that were later discovered (by scientists, no less) to be linked to diseases, cancers, etc. that the companies didn't know about at the time. These medications must first past FDA regulations to be sold to begin with, and that means extensive clinical trial testing by scientists. Unfortunately, many negative effects of such medications only come with long term usage and aren't discovered in the initial clinical trials, even the ones that last years. Arlon weirdly interprets this as scientists "lying," (now he's backtracked that claim to simply saying scientists were "wrong"), which is bizarre given that it's scientists who discover that these medications cause whatever they cause! So I guess his point is that "scientists can be wrong, and are corrected by later scientists as we learn more?" If so, I think everyone would say "duh, that's the bedrock of how our scientific knowledge advances!" Here's a link that lists many of the medications for which there are now ongoing lawsuits against: www.enjuris.com/pharmaceutical-liability/defective-drugs.html I think it's great how you can tell the liars from the hopeless busybodies, is that your superpower? They can appear much the same to everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 26, 2020 0:33:56 GMT
Show an example where you (and other non-scientists) have proved scientists wrong about any current scientific consensus. Go ahead, I'll wait. I do not recognize that method. In fact I have written prolifically on how it is not a scientific method. A consensus is not a method, a consensus is agreement reached when scientists follow the scientific method and reach the same conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 26, 2020 0:34:19 GMT
On this I actually know what Arlon is referring to. In the US there are, indeed, frequent ads for lawyers who have class-action lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies who have manufactured/sold medications that were later discovered (by scientists, no less) to be linked to diseases, cancers, etc. that the companies didn't know about at the time. These medications must first past FDA regulations to be sold to begin with, and that means extensive clinical trial testing by scientists. Unfortunately, many negative effects of such medications only come with long term usage and aren't discovered in the initial clinical trials, even the ones that last years. Arlon weirdly interprets this as scientists "lying," (now he's backtracked that claim to simply saying scientists were "wrong"), which is bizarre given that it's scientists who discover that these medications cause whatever they cause! So I guess his point is that "scientists can be wrong, and are corrected by later scientists as we learn more?" If so, I think everyone would say "duh, that's the bedrock of how our scientific knowledge advances!" Here's a link that lists many of the medications for which there are now ongoing lawsuits against: www.enjuris.com/pharmaceutical-liability/defective-drugs.html I think it's great how you can tell the liars from the hopeless busybodies, is that your superpower? They can appear much the same to everyone else. Arl(n)on sequiturs appear to be your superpower.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 26, 2020 0:37:56 GMT
I am sorry that you were unable to address my points. But not really surprised. It seems to be impossible for him to give a definition of science or scientist (unquoted), so what he means when he quotes them is anyone's guess. Is your computer in good working order? I suspect more than that is not. Ceteris paribus distinguishes the most dependable science.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 26, 2020 0:40:38 GMT
I do not recognize that method. In fact I have written prolifically on how it is not a scientific method. A consensus is not a method, a consensus is agreement reached when scientists follow the scientific method and reach the same conclusion. Wrong you are, a consensus is what cattle follow. Did I mention I wouldn't hire you to clean my swimming pool? So much gets overlooked.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 26, 2020 0:44:37 GMT
A consensus is not a method, a consensus is agreement reached when scientists follow the scientific method and reach the same conclusion. Wrong you are Yoda you aren't
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 26, 2020 0:54:53 GMT
It seems to be impossible for him to give a definition of science or scientist (unquoted), so what he means when he quotes them is anyone's guess. Is your computer in good working order? I suspect more than that is not. Ceteris paribus distinguishes the most dependable science. Yes, I had all the tubes tested and replaced the bad ones recently. My random number generators are fine too.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 26, 2020 1:14:40 GMT
Is your computer in good working order? I suspect more than that is not. Ceteris paribus distinguishes the most dependable science. Yes, I had all the tubes tested and replaced the bad ones recently. My random number generators are fine too. Don't let the punch cards get wet.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 26, 2020 17:44:29 GMT
It seems to be impossible for him to give a definition of science or scientist (unquoted), so what he means when he quotes them is anyone's guess. Ceteris paribus distinguishes the most dependable science. .... Something Arlon which cannot meaningfully define, he previously assured us. And yet here he is LOL
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 26, 2020 22:09:09 GMT
Wrong? Scientists? What about and why? It is one of the few areas of human endeavour where there must be a consensus on science by many scientists in the peer review system before knowledge is accepted, and experimental results can be replicated by others. As I was saying elsewhere there are ads on TV all day for lawyers who won judgements against "scientists." Will you never learn? Scientists are just regular human beings with the same flaws as anyone else. Again, statistical analysis is not science ceteris paribus, however much you worship at its feet. It 'could' be argues, as you say that scientists are regular human being with all that goes with that. The DIFFERENCE in science is the collaboration and peer review system that distinguishes science from other (most) academic specialties. The sum of human knowledge which you seem to take for granted when using a computer which is the result of co-operative, collaborative science, is the peer review system which you neither seem to understand or account for in any of your stupid diatribes on the subject of science. You are THAT stupid and stubborn. BTW Statistical analysis is one of many tools used in science, nothing else, you idiot.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 27, 2020 9:53:48 GMT
As I was saying elsewhere there are ads on TV all day for lawyers who won judgements against "scientists." Will you never learn? Scientists are just regular human beings with the same flaws as anyone else. Again, statistical analysis is not science ceteris paribus, however much you worship at its feet. It 'could' be argues, as you say that scientists are regular human being with all that goes with that. The DIFFERENCE in science is the collaboration and peer review system that distinguishes science from other (most) academic specialties. The sum of human knowledge which you seem to take for granted when using a computer which is the result of co-operative, collaborative science, is the peer review system which you neither seem to understand or account for in any of your stupid diatribes on the subject of science. You are THAT stupid and stubborn. BTW Statistical analysis is one of many tools used in science, nothing else, you idiot. You're still delusional. Scientists have absolutely nothing other people in any other disciplines do not have. The most important thing to remember with "peer review" is that you are not one. Of course that can be problematic in any discipline.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 27, 2020 9:58:03 GMT
As I was saying elsewhere there are ads on TV all day for lawyers who won judgements against "scientists." Will you never learn? Scientists are just regular human beings with the same flaws as anyone else. Again, statistical analysis is not science ceteris paribus, however much you worship at its feet. Every doctor or scientists can make a mistake or even deliberately lie. It’s called malpractice, so there’s a means to get rid of such charlatans medical practitioners and snake oil salesmen. What do you call it when a pastor deliberately lies? What’s the mechanism to find out his or her mistakes? Because I would think ratio for false preachers is higher than false scientists. How do you get rid of a false priest? However, your not interested in truth, you just to be want to be seen as clever. Free.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 27, 2020 9:59:24 GMT
Ceteris paribus distinguishes the most dependable science. .... Something Arlon which cannot meaningfully define, he previously assured us. And yet here he is LOL In your avatar, which character is supposed to be you, if either?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 27, 2020 14:27:28 GMT
.... Something Arlon which cannot meaningfully define, he previously assured us. And yet here he is LOL In your avatar, which character is supposed to be you, if either? Non sequitur noted.
|
|