A Party of Haters

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

Sure, that is why extensive research is needed along with the ability to understand what is real, and what is not and then actually discuss one’s research with one’s Dr.  If someone is making decisions based only on what they read on WebMD, or some other medical site, they would be wrong just like someone blindly following what a Dr. says.

 

   One of the reasons they set up research trials like they do, double blind and controlled, is because otherwise the results tend to gravitate to where you expect them to be (or want them to be). If a website has any agenda at all, it is going to be the same thing. They will present the data/information/factoids that support what they have already concluded, and not the other way around. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

14 minutes ago, sl1pstream said:

But that's like saying the theory of evolution is just a guess.

It was, and some of it holds up now, some of it clearly doesn't, the nature of guesses and how wide one wants to subjectively make the goalposts:

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2018/09/darwin-evolution-crispr-microbiome-bacteria-news/

https://www.wired.com/2014/12/fantastically-wrong-thing-evolution-darwin-really-screwed/

 

With these key areas of TOE being discredited, that should have one suggest that it's "likely" the TOE was, in the grand scheme, somewhat true, and invoke the agnostic position of "we don't know". Admitting one doesn't know allows them to.. find out. Presuming you know it all is a barrier to knowledge, "evolution". As someone mentioned in a thread invoking Ariely, we are hardwired to be irrational, and this is one of those areas, where people MUST have an ending, a conclusion. This erroneous hard wired thinking is what helped facilitate religion, and clearly is doing the same thing in the sciences. But the beauty of knowing some of this is, we can do something about it.

 

When one decides its settled and stops being open to challenges and skepticism, they become no different than a religion, and the key is in the pointless pedantry of words rather than process and outcome. This is what has become of the climate sciences, thanks to its hijacking by the religious, and why this matter is decided by equally religious means.

 

Edited April 9, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

22 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

I wouldn't say that. Qualifications are important in knowing that a doctor is better than the average bear. Does the doctor know his stuff? Have they had unique potential training to understand rarer diseases that might not be considered by others? My disease is an old one, but it's also rare and not commonly thought about or taught by doctors any more. In the UK people die from it because of a lack of proper training and protocol. One doctor got into quite a bit of trouble saving the lives of many hundreds of persons that were misdiagnosed and in wheelchairs, all because he was seemingly the only one that had the unique training enough to recognize what was going on. He took a different approach to treatment. Then a broad advocacy group started to make the government aware of proper protocols. We don't have that kind of group in the US, and it's where I've studied a lot about the condition. So I knew to expect that the doctor was likely going to send me down the rabbit hole to test for things that had a possibility of existing but likely was not the cause. Yes I wasn't happy that my doctor sent me for numerous tests for a condition I didn't have, but I understood why he did it. There was a possibility I did indeed have it afterall, based on my symptoms and bloodwork. It would be irresponsible of him probably not to test for it, because I could die otherwise and then he'd be in trouble. Alternatively though I could also die from the condition I have. The doctor either has enough specific training to recognize what's going on or they need to eliminate possibilities.

If you're going to go back to the qualifications argument, then, were they legally allowed to practice? Chances are very high that yes, they were. They had the qualifications. 

 

But qualifications doesn't mean one inherently trusts them. 

 

Which goes back to the point of this branch of discussion, there's no logical reason to invoke appeal to authority. It's highly flawed, and easily abused. But the more we challenge things, the more we ensure something is accurate, and invoke skepticism, the more we find our capability of better decisions, and in the end, tend to have better outcomes.

 

I've had my own bouts with health, and coincidentally, had to throw off a litany of doctors myself because they were being precisely like what you described. They were being "by the book", were not aggressive in getting it solved, were not into challenging "experts". This is religious thinking and has no place in science. Yet, if I'll juxtapose for a second, this is exactly what's being done on the climate matter.

Edited April 9, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[nykolos 711]

On 4/7/2020 at 5:44 PM, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Isnt New York under water by now? 

You're leaving out Miami, which instead of being under quarantine, should be 20 feet underwater right now,  And let's not forget the North Polar Ice cap, which on Dec 13th 1999 Prophet Al Gore stated it would be completely ice free within 5 to 7 years.. Gore uses and relies on rigged computer models to advance climate activism, and the MSM reports on it as "Fact"  LMAO

 

Computer models deliver a hypothesis, NOT a FACT!  hence "Fake News"