I coined the term “America’s Quack” to describe Dr. Mehmet Oz as a riff on how Oprah Winfrey had branded him as “America’s Doctor.” (At least I think I did; it’s entirely possible that someone else thought of it first and I just popularized the term.) Whatever the case, it’s been a long time since I’ve written about Dr. Oz. Indeed, when last I wrote about Dr. Oz, it was in the context of how Oprah Winfrey, though her elevation of Dr. Oz and “Dr. Phil” McGraw, had a lot to answer for in terms of the current state of medicine in popular culture during the pandemic. At the time, which was quite early in the pandemic, both Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil were promoting COVID-19 minimization and denial, with Dr. Oz having gotten into trouble in particular for suggesting that we should open the schools again because “only” 3% more people might die, even referring to opening schools as a “very appetizing opportunity.” He did eventually apologize (sort of), but not before memes like this had popped up.
This happened in April 2020. No, seriously. It happened only a month after the World Health Organization (WHO) had declared COVID-19 a global pandemic.
Meanwhile Dr. Phil was going on and on about how the mental health toll of lockdowns would supposedly kill more people than COVID-19 would. Indeed, thinking back on these two that early in the pandemic reminded me how, when it comes to COVID-19 contrarian takes and minimization, certain messages were baked in very, very early, some with the help of Dr. Oz, who famously also enthusiastically embraced Dr. Didier Raoult’s bad science used to promote hydroxychloroquine as a miracle treatment for the coronavirus. It turned out to be the Black Knight of COVID-19 treatments and ineffective.
So I suppose that I shouldn’t be surprised to have learned the other day that Dr. Oz plans to run for the Senate in Pennsylvania to become the new Senator Rand Paul, namely the quackiest physician to have been elected to the Senate:
Dr. Mehmet Oz, a cardiothoracic surgeon and television personality, is running for the US Senate in Pennsylvania as a Republican, according to an op-ed published Tuesday in the conservative Washington Examiner.”During the pandemic, I learned that when you mix politics and medicine, you get politics instead of solutions. That’s why I am running for the U.S. Senate: to help fix the problems and to help us heal,” Oz wrote.The 61-year-old Oz will join a Republican primary field that already includes Philadelphia-area businessman (and 2018 lieutenant governor nominee) Jeff Bartos and Carla Sands, who served as US ambassador to Denmark in the Trump administration. Another potential Republican candidate is David McCormick, a former official in the Treasury Department under President George W. Bush.
The race in Pennsylvania to succeed retiring Republican Sen. Pat Toomey has been shaken up in recent weeks, primarily by the departure of GOP candidate Sean Parnell, who was endorsed by former President Donald Trump.
“Pennsylvania needs a conservative who will put America first,” Oz said in a 60-second video on his campaign website.
Even more consistent with Dr. Oz’s history, he doesn’t even live in Pennsylvania. For years, he’s lived in New Jersey, while his clinical practice and the studios where he tapes his show are both in New York City. Last year, though, he voted absentee thusly:
Yes, carpetbagging is entirely consistent with the Oz ethos, as he’s been a grifter through and through for a very long time, promoting all manner of quackery on The Dr. Oz Show. Indeed, over all the years that I’ve been writing about Dr. Oz, there’s one thing that’s always puzzled me about him, namely how someone who was such a promising young surgeon-scientist three decades ago could have fallen so far—from a scientific and medical standpoint, that is. He has been, after all, making a ton of money and enjoying incredible fame, thanks to his embrace of quackery. Even more frustrating, even though Dr. Oz has disgraced himself more times than I can remember, he remains faculty in good standing at Columbia University. Indeed, he’s more than faculty in good standing there. He’s actually a full professor in the department of surgery and even vice-chair! Unsurprisingly, he’s also been also the director of Columbia’s Cardiovascular Institute and Integrative Medicine Program since the 1990s. In other words, he does hold high ranking positions in Columbia University’s department of surgery and integrative medicine program.
Given the rigors of taping a daily TV show more than nine months out of the year, I’ve always wondered when Dr. Oz finds time to see patients and operate, especially given that cardiothoracic surgery is not a “low intensity specialty.” Cardiac surgeons deal with very sick patients, and it takes a great deal of dexterity and training to be able, for instance, to sew bypass grafts to coronary arteries, which are not exactly large vessels, and the postoperative care is a 24/7 thing, not for part time surgeons. I’ve speculated that he must have the most understanding partners in the world, because it’s likely they who have to care for Dr. Oz’s postoperative patients while he’s gallivanting about taping his shows, doing interviews, and just in general grifting. (Unsurprisingly, his faculty profile lists him as not accepting new patients, despite the long list of clinical interests included.) As brilliant as I’ve heard him described as a surgeon back in the day, today I don’t think I’d want Dr. Oz to operate on me or any of my family members, no matter how brilliant and talented he might have been a quarter century ago.
However Dr. Oz manages to pull off being a heart surgeon, administrator for his department, director of his university’s integrative medicine program, and host of a popular daytime medical talk show, ever since Oprah Winfrey found him nearly two decades ago and elevated him from a promising young academic surgeon with a penchant for woo to America’s Quack I’ve been pointing out how much dubious medicine and outright quackery he’s been promoting over the years. I’m not talking “soft” quackery either. I’m talking quackery as bad as The One Quackery To Rule Them All (homeopathy) and even faith healing, as well as the promotion of the antivaccine views of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and even psychic scammers like John Edward and Theresa Caputo. In addition, he’s promoted unproven (and almost certainly nonexistent) links between cell phones and breast cancer, GMO fear mongering, By 2014, Dr. Oz’s reputation for quackery had gotten so bad that he was increasingly facing less than adoring press and was hauled before Senator Claire McCaskill’s (D-MO) committee for his unscrupulous boosterism for unproven weight loss supplements, where he was soundly humbled.
If you want an idea of just how low Dr. Oz had sunk as a doctor, I like to cite a hilarious misstep from several years ago. That’s when Dr. Oz’s social media people tried to do a an “Ask Dr. Oz” segment on Twitter under the hashtag #OzsInbox. Let’s just say that it backfired spectacularly and hilariously. In fact, even though it’s more than seven years later, I can’t help but post a couple of the fun Tweets that Dr. Oz’s hashtag inspired:
Good times, those were. Today, not so much. Here’s what I mean. Let’s take a look at Dr. Oz’s statement announcing his candidacy:
We are angry at our government and at each other.
We have not managed our crises as effectively as past generations. During the pandemic, I learned that when you mix politics and medicine, you get politics instead of solutions. That’s why I am running for the U.S. Senate: to help fix the problems and to help us heal.
Is Dr. Oz going to use homeopathy, crystals, psychics, or acupuncture to heal the nation? Inquiring minds want to know! I also can’t help but add a retort that when you mix—or, dare I say, “integrate”—quackery with medicine, you get quackery instead of medicine, which is what Dr. Oz has been peddling all these years. Of course, Dr. Oz is being disingenuous. It’s impossible to disentangle politics from medicine, especially in the middle of a global pandemic, because, while healthcare should be based in the best science (something Dr. Oz isn’t known for), how healthcare is paid for and administered is inherently political. Americans love to labor under the delusion that certain things, like medicine, should be “free from politics” even as seniors, for instance, denounce “socialized medicine” as they fiercely defend Medicare against anything that they perceive as potentially decreasing their benefits. It’s not just seniors either, although they are an easy target for this criticism (and, I note, I’m not nearly as far from being one of them as I’d like). It’s almost everyone, including those who labor under another delusion, namely that “free market” and “private sector” alone will ever be able to guarantee universal health insurance coverage.
Even school vaccine mandates have always been political. It’s just that they have until the last several years, generally been pretty nonpartisan, with a broad political consensus having existed that they are a good thing. Unfortunately, this political consensus behind them began to fray a decade ago and started to become increasingly politicized around five or six years ago, with antivaxxers succeeding more and more in making common cause with the right by opposing mandates based on “freedom,” “parental rights,” and opposition to government regulation. This tactic had been all too successful before the pandemic, too, and, worse, was turbocharged when COVID-19 hit. That’s when anti-“lockdown” and antimask protesters quickly made common cause with antivaxxers based on their shared antipathy to public health interventions, with all of them soon making common cause with the vilest conspiracy theorists, like QAnon, to the point that the Republican Party is now indisputably the antivaccine party. No wonder Dr. Oz fits in so well as a grifter and at least “antivax-adjacent” doctor!
Let’s go on to see what else Dr. Oz has to say announcing his candidacy:
Growing up as the child of immigrants, I witnessed my family’s sacrifices. My father grew up dirt poor (literally sleeping on a dirt floor) and loved this country as much as anyone already here. He saw the deep darkness of the alternatives. He taught me to study hard, enjoy the dignity of work, and serve others. My formative years were spent preparing for a lifetime of challenging operations.
I invented life-saving devices, trained young surgeons to save lives, and expected my days to be measured by countless people helped. But many patients came too late without appreciating their power to prevent chronic disease. I started changing this reality by leaving the safety of my medical practice to become the health expert on The Oprah Winfrey Show and, ultimately, the host of my own TV program. My training positioned me to make difficult decisions to help people in need and fight to empower my viewers.
You’ll excuse me if I have to stop typing briefly, so that I can make haste to the nearest toilet to vomit.
I get it. Dr. Oz’s father was poor. So what? Dr. Oz’s childhood was not spent in poverty. His father, in fact, owned quite a bit real estate by the time he died in 2019. Also, Dr. Oz graduated from elite universities and completed an elite surgical training program. As for those “difficult decisions,” how hard was it to decide to start doing a segment on Oprah Winfrey’s show when it was offered? Who would turn down such an opportunity, or, having succeeded at the segment, an offer by Oprah to produce his own daytime TV show? Let’s just look at his rationale, expressed in an old interview with Dr. Richard Green, the associate chief of cardiac, thoracic, and vascular surgery, a colleague of Oz’s:
I asked Green whether he’d want to be Oz’s patient, and he said, “If you did a poll of the staff at Columbia and asked them, ‘If you needed a heart operation and Mehmet was there, would you want him?’ they’d say yes.”
He then added, “He’s probably a little rusty right now.” He said Oz seemed to be operating less and less — from several hundred surgeries per year at his peak to a maximum of about 100 now — as he entertains more and more.
When I asked Green whether he thinks Oz has been corrupted by fame, he said, “I don’t think he’s a charlatan.” Green added that in addition to being a top-notch surgeon with impeccable credentials, Oz had long embraced alternative medicine. “In his earlier days, he always believed there was more to getting well than just a pill or an operation. I think there was a period of time he thought music had healing power. I think he’s very sincere in his belief.”
The same article notes that Dr. Oz’s belief in quackery goes way, way back to the early 1990s at least, or, as it was put, “ten years before he ever went on TV.” I also can’t help but note that Dr. Green dodged the question and didn’t say if he himself would have let Dr. Oz operate on him if he needed a heart operation. Dr. Green can’t fool a fellow surgeon in his response to such a question; a surgeon who thinks another surgeon is great will answer that question enthusiastically in the affirmative, rather than dodging it.
As for “empowering his viewers,” again, Dr. Oz has promoted all manner of quackery, likely influenced by his wife Lisa, who is a reiki master, whose father was also a cardiothoracic surgeon who embraced alternative medicine and Eastern mysticism, and whose mother was a true believer in homeopathy.. By 1995 others were calling him out for his quackery for letting reiki masters into his operating room.
He’s also always been all about the branding and grift. For example, since Dr. Oz announced his campaign, Sony Pictures, which syndicates his show, has had to make contingency plans to take his show off the air in Pennsylvania and any TV station whose signal can be received over-the-air in Pennsylvania. They even have a succession plan in place, in case Dr. Oz actually wins the nomination and has to spend 2022 campaigning:
Sony has a long-term plan if Oz wins the Republican nomination and spends 2022 running in the general election. Starting in mid-January, Oz’s daughter Daphne — a chef, author and TV personality — is slated to take over Oz’s time periods with a program called “The Good Dish,” according to two people familiar with the plan.
“The Good Dish” would replace “Dr. Oz” for at least the rest of the 2021-22 TV season, said one person who does business with TV stations that carry “Dr. Oz.” A representative for Sony Pictures Television had no comment on its plans. Daphne Oz is a judge on the Fox reality series “MasterChef Junior” and was a co-host on the ABC daytime series “The Chew.”
Leave it to Dr. Oz to add nepotism to his grifting. Back to Dr. Oz’s reasons for running:
The reality of our challenges has crystallized during the pandemic. Over 750,000 in the United States have died from the virus, a devastating toll for families and communities. Many of those deaths were preventable. COVID-19 became an excuse for the government and elite thinkers who controlled the means of communication to suspend debate. Dissenting opinions from leading scholars were ridiculed and canceled so their ideas could not be disseminated.
“Leading scholars.” I wonder whom he means by that. If he’s referring to people like John Ioannidis, Jay Bhattarchya, Marty Makary, and the like, all COVID-19 contrarian academics who have consistently minimized the threat from the virus (sometimes even declaring the pandemic “over” as long as a year and a half ago) and cast doubt on mitigation measures like masks and lockdowns, I can only laugh. These people have had an incredibly prominent voice, not just on Fox News and right wing outlets, but all over the news, including CNN, MSNBC, and mainstream outlets. In reality, Dr. Oz, being a quack himself, identifies with his fellow contrarians, quacks, astroturfers, and grifters, because he’s used the same schtick when he was being criticized for promoting pseudoscience on his show.
Next up, Dr. Oz predictably appeals to freedumb:
Instead, the government mandated policies that caused unnecessary suffering. The public was patronized and misled instead of empowered. We were told to lock down quietly and let those in charge take care of the rest. When we tested positive for the virus, we were also told to wait at home until our lips turned blue and we got sick enough to warrant hospitalization. To be clear, this is not a typical medical protocol. Elites with yards told those without yards to stay inside, where the virus was more likely to spread. And the arrogant, closed-minded people in charge closed our parks, shuttered our schools, shut down our businesses, and took away our freedom.
America should have been the world leader on how to beat the pandemic. Although we had some moments of brilliance, such as the gift to the world of mRNA vaccines made possible by President Donald Trump’s Operation Warp Speed, many great ideas were squashed. That’s not the America my parents came to. That’s not the one I grew up in. That’s not the one I want to leave behind.
First off, his accusations leave out important context. Dr. Oz’s version of “empowering” the public early in the pandemic consisted of promoting unproven drugs like hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (plus zinc, I suppose) as miracle cures for COVID-19 while pointing to the “appetizing” possibility of a tradeoff between opening schools and suffering “only” 3% more deaths. Dr. Oz clearly wants you to forget his misdirection and grifting since the very beginning of the pandemic.
Note the nod to Donald Trump, who is portrayed as promoting a “moment of brilliance” that led to the development of mRNA vaccines, despite how many times he minimized the pandemic, promoted unscientific ideas about it, and generally promoted a “don’t worry, be happy” approach to the virus that emphasized the economy over public health. I also can’t help but point out that Dr. Oz himself has supported antivaccine hucksters, featuring, for example, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on his show in 2014 to hawk his antivaccine book with “functional medicine” quack Dr. Mark Hyman. (He’s had Joe Mercola and Mike Adams on his show as well.)
In 2010, Dr. Oz gave an interview with Joy Behar that went thusly:
BEHAR: Well first of all, someone want to know there`s a rumor that your kids did not get flu shots or swine flu shots is that right?
OZ: That`s true, they did not.
BEHAR: Do you not believe in them for the kids or what?
OZ: No, I would have vaccinated my kids but you know I – I`m in a happy marriage and my wife who makes most of the important decisions as most couples have in their lives.
BEHAR: Yes.
OZ: Who absolutely refuses. And listen the kids are pretty healthy. We actually think two of them caught swine flu very early on anyway. So there`s no point vaccinating them again. And you know –
At the time, reading between the lines, I gathered that Dr. Oz’s wife was almost certainly vehemently anti-vaccine and that there might have been a bit of tension in the Oz household over the issue of vaccinating their children. I also said that he needed to grow a backbone and admit his responsibility too; throwing his wife under the bus by blaming her for the decision and washing his hands of it on national TV was cowardly, and, worse, he gave the impression that he’s not involved in the health decisions for his children. Either way, a doctor who is not sufficiently pro-science to risk some unpleasantness with his wife to at least try to get his children vaccinated is not a good physician.
Then there was this part of the interview:
BEHAR: What do you, on that same subject, what do you think about this controversy that`s going around about vaccinations and autism and other little things that happens to kids?
OZ: I think kids like the canary and the coal mine. That they are more susceptible to some of the toxins maybe our generation was able to overcome. That`s why we have a lot more allergies now. Perhaps one of the reason why we have more autism. But I don`t think it`s just the vaccine.
BEHAR: No.
These were standard antivaccine talking points that were embraced not just by antivaxxers but the “antivax-adjacent” or “antivax sympathetic,” as I call them. Dr. Oz tried to portray himself as “not antivaccine” by saying it’s not “just the vaccine,” implying that the vaccines are part of it.
Given all of that plus Dr. Oz’s having been active in Republican politics in New Jersey, it shouldn’t surprise anyone in the least that his lips are firmly clenched on Donald Trump’s posterior. First, it’s now pretty much impossible to get a major GOP nomination if you aren’t sufficiently obsequious to Donald Trump, but also, Dr. Oz’s relationship with Donald Trump has long been what I like to call a “huckster bromance,” exemplified when Trump appeared on The Dr. Oz Show. By April 2020, even New York Times columnist Frank Bruni was writing about the relationship as an “unholy alliance” of pandemic partners, even referring to them as a “match made in ratings-obsessed heaven” as he remembered:
I’ve written about him a few times and kept an eye on him over the years, because back in 2010, when I was a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, I was assigned an in-depth profile of Oz as a one-man wellness industry. He had just begun his TV show, and I spent hours hanging out with him on the set at 30 Rockefeller Plaza in Manhattan and elsewhere. I even stood just a few feet from him in an operating room at the NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center in Manhattan as he performed open-heart surgery on a 74-year-old woman. I remember that the white pages of the notebook in which I was scribbling ended up splattered with little red dots.
I also remember thinking again and again that the values of serious science and the values of television were perhaps incompatible. As I watched Oz and his producers try to sex up medicine for what they hoped would be many millions of daytime viewers, I watched him travel toward silliness.
Silliness, indeed. I’d say that his journey is complete. Unfortunately, if there’s one thing that Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, Representatives Louie Gohmert, Lauren Boebert, and Marjorie Taylor Greene—not to mention Donald Trump himself—have shown, it’s that being ridiculous does not mean you will lose. In fact, in the age of MAGA, it seems to be a superpower, particularly when they are sufficiently nasty and science-denying.
671 replies on “America’s Quack Dr. Oz is running for Senate to become the new Rand Paul”
At least he recognizes the coronavirus death toll and the usefulness of mRNA vaccines, sad as it is to have to say that.
As for quackery, well, some people’s ability to blow off cognitive dissonance over such things amazes me. I guess if you’re given loads of money and fame to do it, it’s easier. “It can’t be inconsistent if people love me and pay me for all of it just the same!”
@space_upstairs: “At least he recognizes the coronavirus death toll and the usefulness of mRNA vaccines, sad as it is to have to say that.”
LOL. You forget, Oz has already got his blame game down pat:
Don’t think he won’t throw vaccination and everything else under the bus too, the moment it’s to his profit.
I’d call Oz a whore, but that would be denigrating an ancient and honest profession that does not deserve lumped in with that grifting turd. At this point I’m more concerned about what it will take for mainstream America to acknowledge the overt fascism now parading in the room. A special on Oprah, perhaps?
Curious readers can look up Dr Oz house Cliffside Park for aerial views of his palazzo… er.. HOME and a PEOPLE magazine article showing interiors. He also has a little place in Palm Beach ( 18M USD) so I suppose he could run there instead if Pennsylvania doesn’t work out.
You may still be able to rent Dr. Oz’s $18 million Palm Beach swankienda, if you can come up with $95K a month, plus a $90K deposit.
Some of that might be needed to pay Oz’s legal bills, as he has filed a lawsuit against his sister over an inheritance.
“Their father, Mustafa Öz, died in 2019. He named his wife and three children as his heirs in 2003. However, he changed his will in 2008 to give all his assets to the Mustafa Öz Foundation in the U.S. He designated Dr. Oz as the person in charge of the foundation.”
“However, Nazlım Suna Öz presented a new will dated 2018 in a lawsuit against Mehmet Öz.”
“Dr. Oz countered with a legal action, claiming that the new will “was a forgery.””
“The lawsuit against the sister calls for her to be imprisoned for forgery and calls for a ban on travel abroad. The complaint also seeks the confiscation of any assets she received as an inheritance…”
“This isn’t the first time the siblings took their apparent conflict over their inheritance to court.”
“In 2019, Dr. Öz filed a complaint against his sister after an alleged stabbing attempt. He filed the complaint at the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, accusing his sister, whom he said suffers from psychological issues, of threatening to stab him on July 1, 2019…”
“Dr. Öz said he was afraid to enter his house in Istanbul because his sister owns firearms, the report said.”
http://welch.law/why-is-dr-oz-suing-sister-over-inheritance/
Home ownership comes with many responsibilities and headaches.
Thanks for the detailed breakdown. I’m on the fence as to whether having him still on the air or as a US senator will be worse, though I’m thinking senator would be worse. Maybe we will get lucky and an ugly primary campaign will sink him into disgrace? (seems unlikely)
re ” empowering his viewers”
Why is it that alties like those I survey are able to convince their marks that they’re gaining freedom, personal power and independence as they foster dependence upon pseudoscience, untested remedies and outright mimicking of shoddy thought processes like those that they profess with such confidence*?
It’s pathetic to hear a woo-meister misquote/ misspeak and then hear or read his followers say precisely the exact same thing! Lately, I[ve been hearing about how the nurse who fainted on camera after a Covid vaccine, died. Also, that the rate of people becoming ill/ dying of Covid is much higher amongst the vaccinated. I hear this repeatedly and we know about how repetition affects memory as does emotional content. It’s what quacks rely upon.
False hope passes for empowerment, especially for people who have hard- (or impossible)-to-treat health issues. There is more empowerment, of course, in facing and working with harsh realities, as, say, countries that have responded well to covid have shown. But this is counterintuitive for people brought up on “you can do/be anything you want if you try/wish hard enough” and endowed with a self-protective instinct to avoid cognitive dissonance such as “I’m smart yet I fell for bunk” or “I’ve done my best to take care of myself but I’m still sick”.
Can’t wait to see Oz try to convince the GOP’s mouth-breather base that they should support a Muslim as their Senate nominee. Comedy gold right there.
Don’t forget the lurking Swedenborgian Pig Iron Works and Transcendental Meditation.
GOP voters have proven perfectly capable of holding multiple mutually contradictory statements as Truth, so what’s one more when it serves the Greater Purpose?
As for Oz himself, his great wealth and enthusiastic collaboration with both the powerful and the masses just means he’ll be the last to go against the wall, as opposed to the first, so chances are excellent he’ll outlive all the damage done after a fully fascist GOP seizes power.
They’ll be fine with it as along as he fuels the hate on his fellow Muslims.
Oz has already sold out his medical ethics, so I’m sure selling out his religion won’t present any trouble. Besides, pretty sure his only true religion now is Power and Money, same as the rest of that GOP death cult.
Meanwhile, here’s how GOP believers treats Muslim representatives who don’t lick the Party’s boots:
https://www.theroot.com/rep-ilhan-omar-plays-disturbing-voicemail-death-threat-1848144865
Freedom of religion for me but not for thee.
Obligatory.
Interesting that you would get upset at Dr Oz and his two houses. When the executives at Pfizer and Moderna just made a BILLIONS of dollars EACH for a vaccine that doesn’t stop the spread of the virus.
So the fully vaccinated can get the omicron even after 3 shots.
msn.com/en-us/news/us/live-minnesota-health-officials-discuss-states-first-omicron-variant-case/ar-AARosUU
“The patient, who MDH said is vaccinated, developed “mild symptoms” on Nov. 22 and was tested on Nov. 24. The patient got a booster shot in early November.”
And the big grift keeps going on.
@Kay West: “When the executives at Pfizer and Moderna just made a BILLIONS of dollars EACH”
[citation required] (Better grammar wouldn’t hurt either.)
“for a vaccine that doesn’t stop the spread of the virus.”
Nirvana fallacy. Again. Gods you’re boring.
COVID vaccines reduce the chance of infection and greatly reduce the severity. Therefore they slow the spread of the virus. They might even stop it if everyone on the planet was fully vaccinated and taking reasonable precautions: all we need is to achieve an R₀ that is consistently less than 1.0, not a perfect 0 as you liars make out. More infectious variants like Delta and Omicron are not helping that goal, and as long as the virus runs rampant more such mutations will occur, increasing the risk of something really nasty evolving. But sure, burn it all down for your own greater glory. That will totally help.
I do get tired of the Nirvana fallacy. Basically, to antivaxxers, if a vaccine isn’t absolutely, positively 100% safe and effective and/or doesn’t completely block transmission, it’s worthless crap that shouldn’t be used. Yes, current COVID-19 vaccines are not sterilizing immunity vaccines (meaning that they are 100% effective in preventing transmission), but then I can’t think of a vaccine against a respiratory virus that produces sterilizing immunity.
@Orac:
Honestly, when you put it that way it seems kind of obvious that such a thing is unlikely to exist. Respiratory illnesses in particular would do much of their reproduction on an exposed bodily surface; the lungs and throat may be inside the body, but they’re still directly exposed to outside air. (It’s kind of the point.) Easy for the virus to get to, and easy for the virus to be physically ejected from so as to spread elsewhere.
This means it’s pretty much a guarantee that the virus will get through at least one round of replication on the first set of cells it interacts with across the surface of the throat before the body’s immune system even recognizes there’s something to respond to. In my obviously non-expert opinion, the only way to have a sterilizing vaccine against a respiratory virus would mean the individual cells in the lining of the throat and lungs would have to be incapable of being suborned by the virus in the first place.
Fire breathing dragons have sterilizing immunity to respiratory viruses. The problem is what to do about all the fire breathing dragons.
Is there something seriously wrong with you? I mean, you struggle to write an English sentence, reliably screw up what you’re presumably trying to communicate, and routinely barf up absolute gibberish as fact.
Some people confuse people and corporations…
Dr Oz is an individual who is worth 100M USD and earns 20M annually. Pfizer and Moderna are companies worth billions consisting of overpaid executives and many investors including institutional ones, such as pensioners and mutual fund holders. My SO has a fund that is predominantly Silicon Valley Tech but has some Moderna ( stock symbol MRNA).
Worth is based upon sales and anticipated sales. Even gossip can affect prices. If the product fails, the stock ( esp Moderna which is focused upon this innovation) can lose money. No one forces you to buy the product or the stock. Anyone with money can invest, buy or sell.. Performance and sales data are easy to obtain.
Oz on the other hand is selling a ephermeral dream. He miseducates people about health and how to live, promising results not consistent with his SBM education, training and experience. He spreads misinformation about illness and treatment. While most of the charlatans I survey do not have a reasonable education in medicine, Oz should know better. He does but he misleads his audience anyway relying upon his valid credentials to sell BS. He didn’t get so rich doing surgery.
Powerful RI, Narad. I have a friend request. Can you please petition Orac to release MJD from auto-moderation based on a recent hyper-provaccine medical paper?
https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2021-0649.pdf
Thanks!
Pfizer executive compensation is known:
https://www1.salary.com/PFIZER-INC-Executive-Salaries.html
It is millions (shareholder gains is another thing).
Do you prefer 19/20 possibility win to zero ? Vaccine is not 100% efficient, which does not mean it is 0%.
Quack profits are interesting, because they show that quacks are after your money. Perhpas they lie to get it.
Great article, Orac.
That’s all we need… Oz as a senator…
.
”During the pandemic, I learned that when you mix politics and medicine, you get politics instead of solutions. That’s why I am running for the U.S. Senate: to [introduce more politics into the public health arena under the false idea that I represent the science and not the partisan quackery…]
help fix the problems and to help us heal,” Oz wrote..
Orac appropriately said, “Yes, carpetbagging is entirely consistent with the Oz ethos, as he’s been a grifter through and through for a very long time, promoting all manner of quackery on The Dr. Oz Show.”
*** Applause ***
Well said, Orac – because carpetbagging is exactly what it is.
Apparently the high and mighty Oz doesn’t have to follow the rules that we mere mortals do.
Oh god, I’m not ready for the Wizard of Oz puns.
I am so, so glad that Orac has picked up on this. It’s a total mystery why this dangerous buffoon still has a faculty appointment anywhere and is not under investigation for malpractice. Personal note: I knew Oprah personally in Nashville in the late 70s and early 80s when she was an ambitious correspondent for WSM and was a fellow alumna of TSU. The evidence of her susceptibility to quackeroonies who could give her more exposure was evident even then. I left TSU after a few months when I got another fellowship. Her endorsement of discredited people such as the Dr. Phil incompetent and all her phony little nutritional advisors has been obvious for decades. There’s some kind of kickback deal going on with those sleazes, but this Oz person once earned solid credentials and is now way, way off the sleazy deep end. Why are they so cowardly about cutting him off for this dangerous misinformation to the public?! I don’t get it at all.
The grammar and spelling police are out in force
Denice, lots of people own Pfizer and Moderna. Lots of people have both in their 401k or pensions. I bought Moderna when Dr. Slaoui was appointed to warp speed. The US government gave Moderna lots of free money, they were never going to fail, even if they had never had a marketable product before.
To has, Narad,
As to the idea that the vaccine made billionaires of the upper tier of executives at drug companies I use no less then CNN.
“Covid vaccine profits mint 9 new pharma billionaires”
cnn.com/2021/05/21/business/covid-vaccine-billionaires/index.html
As to the position that the vaccine will slow or stop the spread, the vaccine may make the symptoms less, so people still go out and socialize and spread the virus even more.
“As to the position that the vaccine will slow or stop the spread, the vaccine may make the symptoms less, so people still go out and socialize and spread the virus even more.”
This is an inane statement.
Being vaccinated against Covid-19 makes one far less likely to get infected in the first place, and if there’s a breakthrough infection, transmissibility is less than with an unvaccinated person because the virus is cleared faster.
https://theconversation.com/no-vaccinated-people-are-not-just-as-infectious-as-unvaccinated-people-if-they-get-covid-171302
As to your feeble tu quoque effort, great wealth gained through sleazy activities detrimental to public health is far worse than great wealth attained by saving lives.
If the vaccines are really so terrible, company stocks will plummet and those paper CEO billions will be wiped out, while Oz will continue to harvest $$$ thanks to gullible.folks like you.
@Dangerous Bacon: “As to your feeble tu quoque effort”
Indeed. It’s as if Kay West thinks that her calling something a “big grift” automatically makes it so. It’s genuinely hard to tell if she’s being incompetent or disingenuous (or both).
And while it is true that pharma execs (like everyone else) are not above unethical or dishonest behavior (e.g. price gouging, Vioxx coverup, Shkreli fraud), there is absolutely no evidence of that happening here, nor has Kay West presented any. It’s the market that’s rewarded those execs by raising the value of their shares; it’s not company money to which they’ve helped themselves. Just as the market rewards those of us whose pension pots are partly invested in those companies as well. That’s capitalism working as it should.†
…
Simultaneously, Kay West is happy to indulge in half-truths, misdirections, innuendo, false accusations, and flat-out lies herself. And while she may be too dim to see the hypocrisy in her own behavior, its irony is not missed by us.
This is why none of us trust antivaxxers or a single word they say without reliable independent confirmation: because they’ve already dug their own personal and professional credibility into a hole so deep I doubt even they could find its bottom any more. Fool us twice…
—
† While us little folk may find such big-money capitalism distasteful, it’s still infinitely more respectable behavior than Oz’s cash-on-the-barrelhead grift.
I have to disagree that big-money capitalism is “infinitely more respectable behavior than Oz’s cash-on-the-barrelhead grift”.* But the overall morality of the two is hardly the point here. The issue at hand is the relationship between the economic/political practices and efforts to combat the COVID pandemic. The vaccines are by far the best chance we have to get out of this with minimum tragic consequences. Oz is not just selling medical snake-oil, but socio-political poison, shilling for Trumpian fascism. The public health consequences of THAT we can expect to be dire not just in relation to COVID, but any number of other crises down the line.
(The pharmas collectively may well be causing more harm than Oz individually simply by opposing Medicare Rx negotiation, opposing universal health care, etc. Hell, the industry will probably funnel money into his campaign if he gets the nomination, via their associated PACS etc. that back any number of right-wing candidates…)
I was surprised that there was no bulk buy negotiation of pharmaceuticals in the US. That’s some pretty bad behaviour all round and presumably grift on the part of politicians too?
“so people still go out and socialize and spread the virus even more”
Thus creating all the naturally acquired immunity that you guys idolise.
@Kay West: “As to the idea that the vaccine made billionaires of the upper tier of executives at drug companies I use no less then CNN.”
Thank you for the clarification and referencing your sources so we can check for ourselves. Because when you said “the executives at Pfizer and Moderna just made a BILLIONS of dollars EACH”, you made it sound like they were just paid billions of dollars, which is not the case. What has happened is that these companies’ shares, of which their execs own a portion, have recently gained a lot of value, because the market has decided those companies are now worth a lot more than they were a few years ago, based on recent and projected performance (profit and growth). You might not be a fan of capitalism (and there is plenty about it that is distasteful), but that’s how it works; there’s nothing untoward going on here.
So, a half-truth designed to cast a negative light and encourage misinterpretation and false stories. Congrats, you’re improving. Perhaps one day you’ll be able to state just the facts, and let others reach their own conclusions without you trying to bias them with manipulative language.
@Kay West: “As to the position that the vaccine will slow or stop the spread, the vaccine may make the symptoms less, so people still go out and socialize and spread the virus even more.”
Of course. That’s human nature and one of the reasons we see “waves”. You state this as if it were something we weren’t aware of. (There’s a reason I qualified “fully vaccinated” with “and reasonable precautions”.) But what’s your point? Are you saying people should get sick as dogs from the virus to stop them socializing? Or what?
The problem I have here is that I don’t see you antivaxxers saying or doing anything to discourage these thoughtless, selfish, reckless social behaviors which we know spread the disease; while saying and doing quite a bit to encourage it. Furthermore, some of you even seem to take great pride and pleasure in seeing infection rates skyrocket—perhaps because it validates your inherent superiority seeing so many untermensch sicken and die around you?
Okay, so here’s an idea: instead of you endlessly criticising what everyone else is doing, why don’t you formalise your own antivax policies in writing so everyone can understand your end goals and milestones, and convince us how your proposal will yield better outcomes than any other. Otherwise we can assume the reason you are sniping at absolutely everything else is to hide the fact that you don’t have any answers to offer yourself, and weigh your contribution accordingly.
” …while saying and doing quite a bit to encourage it.”
That’s what I’ve noticed too- from Del’s ” Let’s all catch this cold!” to advocacy against masks, PH measures and OBVIOUSLY vaccines, they promote disease by minimising its seriousness, over-rating “natural” immunity ( which is highly variable). and promoting going back to “normalcy” as soon as possible.
Even before news about Omicron, I was worried because colder weather and the holidays were coming in Europe and N. America.: people are indoors more, they interact with family/ friends more and possibly travel. Some people have a strange notion that because you “like” someone or they’re close family, they can’t POSSIBLY infect you with Covid.
The other day I found a statement about how likely people were to have a positive test result, get hospitalised or die if vaccinated but I can’t find it now so I won’t quote based on memory alone (Gov Murphy, Monday) – let’s just say that it’s nowhere near what scoffers suggest: it’s very low odds.
I couldn’t find the article I saw previously but here’s the CDC, today:
breakthrough Covid in fully vaccinated 0.863% ( all rounded to 3 decimal places)
in hospitals 0.0611%
who died 0.021%
Not what pseudoscientists would have you think.
You confuse executive with shareholder. They are different things.
You really are incredibly obtuse.
Contrast his website today (doctoroz . com) with that from a few months ago. https://web.archive.org/web/20211014120931/https://www.doctoroz.com/ apparently he’s trying to scrub his quackery from the web.
An odd thing to do considering his quackery is now his primary selling point, especially for this audience. But then, no-one could ever accuse Republican grifters of consistency†.
—
† A TV celebrity personally worth $100 MILLION ranting about “the elites”? Please! (Of course, the rubes will still lap it up and beg for more—and he knows it too. Grift all the way down.)
I just noticed that the background for Dr Oz is L’Oreal perhaps he might serve as a spokesmodel for them- virtually no grey hair at age 61. It could be all of the organic food and yoga but I doubt it. A subliminal message to followers: “I live right and look great! So can you!” -btw- it’s a much more professional dye job than another woo-meister I can name. It may be petty saying so but it’s merely another way of misleading viewers about natural health and extended youth.
This is not the first time Dr. Oz has tried to hide the evidence of his quackery, although it is the most extensive.
Didier Raoult has been… ahem… cough… cough… cough… sanctioned. Officially.
He won’t have sweets for desert.
I’m not the kind of person to promote the death penalty, far from it, but, honestly, when “sanctions” are so weak, we may just as well offer Didier Raoult a poney and a blowjob. Au nom du peuple français.
I believe a post would be in order to set the record straight concerning that appalling level of leniency. Which I believe to be outright morally condemnable.
Sick and tired of these kind of free pass to promote medical nonsense and, in the end, kill on the grounds of an ideology.
Sick and tired of fanaticism.
Preach it, mate. Science is a human institution and, as such, will always be subject to human frailties. But if science can’t maintain integrity despite that then it doesn’t have squat. All the more reason why scientists must keep their own house in good order; because if they won’t/don‘t/can’t do it, who can?
@ has
“All the more reason why scientists must keep their own house in good order; because if they won’t/don‘t/can’t do it, who can?”
Problem is Raoult is not only a “scientist”. He’s a civil servant.
The question is not about scientists keeping their house in order.
It’s about the government having the monopoly on how “scientists” are “keeping their house in order”.
The “ordre des médecins”, i.e. the medical board, is in itself a de jure administrative body. i.e. part of the state.
When Leonid Schneider questioned the university in Marseille on which Raoult’s institution depends, he was surprised to discover that a governmental body such as a french university (they all are state controlled and professors are civil servants with free speech curtailed by the “devoir de réserve”) does not feel obliged in any way to answer to him.
Because it only answers to the state. Not to civil society.
“There is a new book out titled: “Raoult A French Madness“. It is about Didier Raoult, microbiology professor, chloroquine guru, director of IHU Marseille and misogynous bully. But if you expected a scandal, a charlatan mandarin shamed and exposed for what he really is – I must disappoint you, this is France after all, and Raoult is still a national hero, admired and protected across all political spectra. His entire career was built on inherited privilege, delusion of grandeur, narcissism, dishonesty, bullying, metrics fetish, questionable research practices of all kinds, parochial and nepotist structure of French academia, and political buddy networks from left to the far-right. Raoult, an abysmally inept caricature of a conceited male scientist, seems to be a symptom of a national and a nationalistic psychosis, and will only go away when France snaps out of it. I’m not saying that because IHU yesterday publicly announced to report me to police, in a statement most obviously written by Raoult himself ?” — Leonid Schneider
I’m starting to wonder whether or not civil society even exists in France.
Nepotic society with a guru mentality and a militarised nanny state fetish.
Makes me want to puke in the vineyard…
@F68: “It’s about the government having the monopoly on how “scientists” are “keeping their house in order”.”
For that, I must redirect you to the citizenry. If government is out of control then that is their fault and their job to correct. And if they’re not doing so… well, y’all have a Very Great Problem indeed.
This is why good public science communication is so vital—for without popular understanding of how science works and what it is up to, it is impossible for the rest of us to determine if it is working correctly or if it is being abused from inside and/or outside its house. I suspect many scientists are deeply inexperienced and feel very uneasy doing this, and would much rather remain in their comfort zone if they can. But that is a fatal long-term error if good science is to endure. Science needs its children too.
To quote Ben Franklin again: “It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.”
And though cranks and ideologues will loudly proclaim that this is precisely what they are doing, they do not get to claim its ownership nearly so easily…for they cannot but betray themselves with one fatal “tell”:
Of all the authorities they claim to be questioning, there is one which of necessity remains inviolate: their own.
#Deicide. It’s the only way to roll.
@ has
“For that, I must redirect you to the citizenry. If government is out of control then that is their fault and their job to correct. And if they’re not doing so… well, y’all have a Very Great Problem indeed.”
The French do not think that way. The French think that the government is the citizenry, and that people not in the administration have no right to have a say.
You’ll have many Great Thinkers in France who keep arguing that “The People is Sovereign but does not Govern”. In a nutshell, we have a right to clap or boo, but not to speak.
Any citizen involvement in public affairs is systematically clamped down upon. It’s the State or nothing else. And if you want to have a say, you must become a civil servant. Before age 21, because, otherwise, you won’t have a decent enough ranking in your entrance exams as a civil servant to have a right to be taken seriously.
The french model is precisely that of a government that is out of control. By design.
The only way to control the government is by the administration: no spoil system; can never fire a civil servant (i.e. cannot fire Raoult), and, therefore, government may only be controlled by its own administration. Because it can’t fire civil servants. At all. The unfireability of civil servants is the cornerstone of the french vision of checks and balance. Independent judiciary ? Forget about it. Free speech ? Forget about it. Unfireability of civil servants ? Yah !! Kudos !!
But… citizenry ? Nah… that’s not the US, around here.
Being a “citizen” means voting every 5 years. Nothing more, nothing less. It has never meant “having a say in public affairs” around here. To have a say, you have to be part of the Republic. Civil servants are part of the Republic. Citizens are not: they are merely voters. And not part of the Republic.
It’s not an open system. But a closed one. Which is why you cannot project US attitudes about citizenry to a system that has been designed to precisely forbid that.
Which is why Raoult has a free pass. As Leonid Schneider discovered: the nepotic and parocchial structure of state-controlled french academia, where political ties matter more than the work being really done. BTW: can’t fire university professors too: they’re civil servants…
Bwahahahaha !!!
“La chambre disciplinaire de l’ordre des médecins sanctionne le microbiologiste pour avoir vanté la molécule, dont l’efficacité n’a jamais été démontrée, mais rejette l’accusation de « charlatanisme ».”
“The medical board’s disciplinary administrative court sanctioned the microbiologist (a.k.a. Didier Raoult) for having promoted the molecule, whose efficacy has never been proved, but rejects the accusation of “charlatanisme” [i.e. not a crank].”
State Science… at its best.
What matters is not that Raoult behaved like a crank. No, no, no, no…
What matters is that he promoted an unproven molecule.
But he’s not a crank. No, no, no, no…
No one has a right to call anyone a crank in France. Gets you sued by the medical board’s disciplinary administrative state-sanctionned court. As happened for FakeMed when they claimed that homeopathy does not work.
In fact, no one cares whether or not Raoult is a crank.
What matters is that Raoult spoke up. What matters is to discipline doctor’s free speech. What matters is that they do not cast disrepute over Medicine, the modern replacement of Religion, our Only Hope of Salvation. That’s the cardinal medical sin in France.
But being a crank is not a sin. That’s what the judgement means. Because no doctor may be a crank as long he has a piece of paper proving he went through his exams.
Bottom line: I will have to defend Raoult’s free speech. Because, officially, he’s not a crank.
If he gets declared a crank, then I will not defend his free speech.
For now, the State says that he has the right to shut down the free speech of someone who is not a crank. Not acceptable. No way.
Interesting comparison.
Most readers of this post are home owners,
During the house hunting, most people get pre-qualfied. They are provided with loan agreements (average 75 pages) and an addendum that contains, for lack of a better term ‘cliff notes” version of the loan, all the documents are legally binding on the lender. Most home hunters look over the paper work and especially the ‘cliff notes”. People are made aware of the payments, taxes and related fees and monthly payments. An independent third party reviews the documents BEFORE the buyer signs the loan agreement and goes over with the borrower and answers any and all questions These people who ask questions and review all the documents are considered ‘smart consumers”. The lender is under federal control and subject to lawsuits if they misrepresents any document
But the same consumer using the same amount of caution and being a “smart consumer”, if they are to want additional information regarding the vaccine, are met with derision, ridicule and name calling, and the information the FDA used to approve the vaccine will take 35 years to be fully released. A third party, independent reviewer (that can explain the results) does not exist. The provider of the vaccine does not need to provide any information on make up of the vaccine or the results of the clinical trials. On top of that the vaccine makers are exempt from lawsuits until 2024.
“In February, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. The 2005 law empowers the HHS secretary to provide legal protection to companies making or distributing critical medical supplies, such as vaccines and treatments, unless there’s “willful misconduct” by the company. The protection lasts until 2024.”
cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html
An to the people who question the 9 new billionaires, and comparing it to pay, what they get is stock options which are better than regular pay. Regular pay is taxed at 36% on the margin but a stock option pay is taxes at the capitol gains rate of 20-25%.
I went the conventional route when I bought my first house by trusting the bank and the government to play fair. I had no choice, since I have neither the education, interest or expertise to second-guess lawyers, financial officers and government regulators.
What a fool I was. If I had only searched on line, I could have found out about declaring myself a Sovereign Citizen and got my house for free! Not only that, I wouldn’t even need to pay property taxes!
At least, that’s what some internet rando tells me. It’s on the internet, so it must be true.
Do you ever get tired of pretending to know things? Y’know, like 50% mortality from having an abortion? (Did you every return to that one?)
The quoted text above is completely idiotic. Stock options have no value until exercised. The paper wealth (from May, but I’m sure it took you a while to scrape it off your shoe, or forehead, whatever) is a result of share appreciation, but you apparently can’t control yourself.
“Most readers of this post are home owners,”
Says who?
@Elderly John:
You should remember that we’re all getting Big Cheques from Big Pharma and Big Medicine. Which allows us all to buy Big Houses.
“An to the people who question the 9 new billionaires, and comparing it to pay, what they get is stock options which are better than regular pay.”
Well now, that’s interesting.
My understanding of stock options is relatively primitive, but it isn’t the same thing as being handed a big chunk of stock. What it means is that you are given an opportunity to buy stock in the company at the current stock price at a later time, and if shares have gone up in value by that time, you’re paying less than market value which can be a considerable advantage. If you’re receiving billions in stock options, that implies that you are still going to need quite a chunk of cash to buy in. The “People’s Vaccine Alliance” doesn’t indicate whether their claims of paper vaccine billionaires are based on receipt of options or actual company stock (I don’t see any documentation of their allegations in the press release). Even if the CEOs actually became worth billions on paper, that doesn’t mean they can easily sell their holdings and retire filthy rich.
From the executive compensation consultant firm Semmler Brossy:
“…executive officers generally start from a position that they cannot sell company stock, at least not easily. consider that to do so: First, they must be in compliance with their company’s own share ownership guidelines or retention and holding requirements. Second, they can’t act unless they are within an approved trading window (especially difficult for acquisition-oriented companies who may rarely have an open window). third — and often the toughest, especially for many ceos and cFos — there is a strongly held belief that any selling will signal to the market a weakening of confidence in the future.”
If I suddenly became worth billions of dollars because my company fooled everyone into thinking it had produced a valuable vaccine but that alert antivaxers were about to convince everyone of the Truth, I’d do my utmost to sell out while the getting was good and buy that island in the Bahamas. But I doubt we’ll see that happening.
Bottom line: this is more of Kay pontificating about something of which she’s ignorant, in an attempt to hide Emperor Oz’s lack of clothing.
‘My understanding of stock options is relatively primitive, but it isn’t the same thing as being handed a big chunk of stock. ‘
Correct. Example: my wife was a statistician at UpJohn (UpJohn/Pharmacia , Pharmacia, Pfizer) and received stock options in her final years before all research (mostly, but all statisticians) was shut down in Kalamazoo/Portage. It was not stock, and there was a time limit built in before she could exercise them. The problem was that by the time she could have used them the company stock was far below what it was when they were offered.
So yeah, K West is full of shit — but that’s what anti-vaccers are.
@DB:
Kay West couldn’t give two shits about Oz. All Kay West cares about is venting her monomania, making every discussion rotate around her. And credit where due: she has done a pretty good job on us too.
8/10. Distract, Deflect, Redirect, Control. Congrats, Kay, you manipulative weasel, on your new high score.
I was going to rant about this bullshit going down in my state, but he would actually be an improvement over Toomey.
Of course, that’s a very low bar. Like, REALLY low. I can’t come up with a metaphor that would really illustrate how low that bar is.
But I’ll still be working to put a Democrat in that seat.
I’m pretty sure that everyone here has had enough, Mitzi.
Public health measures to fight the pandemic are a vicious plot to create a “pathologized-totalitarian utopia”, and we are justified in responding with violence. That according to C.J. Hopkins who has a guest piece up on Mercola’s website, at least until Joe disappears it down the 48-hour memory hole. Excerpts:
“And a lot of us are angry, extremely angry … militantly, explosively angry.”
“We are not “vaccine hesitant” or “anti-vax” or “Covid-denying conspiracy theorists.” We are millions of regular working-class people, people with principles, who value freedom, who are not prepared to go gently into the globalized, pathologized-totalitarian night.
“We no longer give the slightest sh*t whether our former friends and family members who have gone New Normal understand what this is. We do. We understand exactly what this is. It is a nascent form of totalitarianism, and we intend to kill it — or at least critically wound it — before it matures into a full-grown behemoth.”
“Now, I want to be absolutely clear. I am not advocating or condoning violence. But it is going to happen…
Fighting totalitarianism inevitably entails violence. It is not my preferred tactic in the current circumstances, but it is unavoidable now that we’ve reached this stage, and it is important that those of us fighting this fight recognize that violence is a natural response to the violence (and the implicit threat of violence) that is being deployed against us by the New Normal authorities, and the masses they have whipped up into a fanatical frenzy…
This remaking of society is violent. It is being carried out by force, with violence and the ever-present threat of violence. We need to face that, and act accordingly.”
There’s a lot of additional frothing at the mouth and Nazi analogies, but the I’m-not-advocating-violence-but-we’re-gonna-have-to-be-violent dodge is the best part.
It’s not the nuttiest thing I’ve seen today, however. Mike Adams speculating that the Omicron variant is actually the cure for Covid-19 takes that prize.
You know it. Most of them are too cowardly to take the first shot, but that’s fine: they only need to rile the most unhinged of them to act out. That action then provides the rest of them with the permission they require to follow. Thus yesterday’s extreme becomes today’s New Normal. It is a well-worn, historically proven tactic, and it starts with controlling the rhetoric that frames their enemies as murderous Nazis with not even an ounce of irony. Because they are the victims, y’all.
See also: DARVO. All of these abuse mechanisms are well understood and copiously documented, so none of them have any excuse for not doing their homework. They don’t see it because they don’t want to know. And that is how even good people become Good Germans: very, very easily.
At least two of you are some what ignorant of the process. If someone is given stock options, for a an example 1,000 as of the 10 December 2021 stock price (this is the set price, some companies will set the option price at below market value.
The person receiving the option does not have to pay for the stock at the time the stock options were issued. The person receiving the stock option must hold the stock for a set time (usual practice is 180 days) but most people hold the stock longer in hopes it goes up (idw56old, your wife should have cashed out or sold the option to a 3rd party before the price fell below the set price, or you wife could have exercised the stock option (at a loss) and taken the tax write off, an accountant would have advised you what to do, rather then what you stupidly did.
Now these execs at the drug companies, don’t out right own millions of shares of company stock, but they can choose to sell these stock anytime after the set time (see above) the company set aside these shares in their books. The person who were given the stock options do not have to come up with the cash to buy the shares, they only need to sell the shares and pay the company back from the proceeds of the sale, then pay capitol gains on the sale of the difference in the purchase date cost and the sale date cost. If they chose to leave the company they can then purchase how ever many shares at the set price, most bank or investment brokers will gladly loan the money in these cases as they hold the stock as collateral.
And as Kay pointed out the tax on capitol gains is 20% while most income at that level is 36% on the margins. Most people are too uniformed to understand that W-2 income is for the average Joe. High income earners pay little income tax as they know the loopholes, just ask Warren Buffett.
Aside from your misunderstanding of how the process works, there still has been no documentation provided of what if anything the execs at Moderna et al did with the alleged stock options and what their actual worth is.
This remains a feeble diversion from the subject at hand: a quackery-promoting, publicity-seeking M.D. making millions off dangerous health advice, and running for a Senate seat for which he is grossly unqualified.
Try addressing that.
@DB: “This remains a feeble diversion from the subject at hand”
QFT. Kay West is really licking the bottom of the barrel in desperation. Hardly the killer blows she tells herself she’s landing.
Meantime, other people still dying.
“Capital” gains, Ed.
@Ed: Nobody cares. If Pfizer and Moderna execs did something criminal then prove it using evidence, not smear tactics. Otherwise, it is 100% irrelevant. The discussion here is pseudomedical fraudsters and your lame attempts to derail it only prove your own corruption.
Orac HATES any form of holistic natural healing, and any form of mysticism/spirituality. I mean HATES. I didn’t know anything about Dr. Oz before reading this article, since I don’t have a TV. I didn’t see anything here to make me hate him, or to think he’s a quack. Some people think it’s better to prevent chronic diseases with natural remedies and nutrition, rather than wait until you need surgery and toxic drugs. Wonder why Orac sees that as villainous quackery.
And his wife practices reiki, oh the horror! How the heck does Orac know if reiki works for some people or not? Just because it isn’t approved by the FDA and CDC, and the big drug companies haven’t spent millions researching it?
No, Orac, maintaining health doesn’t have to involve toxic drugs or surgery. Sometimes they are needed, but disease can often be prevented. And no, mysticism and spirituality are not stupid, just because you don’t happen to have any spiritual beliefs. You have a right to your worldview, but you don’t have a right to trash anyone who sees things differently. I doubt you have ever for one second tried to understand eastern mysticism. Have you?
Explain the history and purported mechanism behind reiki.
Did you know that, in 1998, an eleven year old girl carried out a blinded test on therapeutic touch practitioners in America? She simply prevented them from seeing if their hands were in position over a person’s arm of not. The results showed that they couldn’t detect the human ‘energy field’ that is an essential principle of their discipline. The study was so simple and effective that it was even published.
Much like electrosensitives cannot detect electric fields in properly blinded experiments. Dowsing practitioners cannot detect water underground in controlled circumstances etc etc. Acupuncture ‘works’ even if the needles are in completely the wrong place or don’t penetrate the skin.
I’m afraid that you are falling for the standard alt med mantra that there’s nothing to gain so it’s not worth investigating. In fact almost every eastern or mystic healing methodology HAS been tested and has been found wanting. There is no need for expensive studies and years of research. Just ones that test the central premise.
The best you can hope for is a good placebo effect. My partner had acupuncture for a while. She usually felt better after a session but it never helped anything in the long run.
Please don’t mention pyramids, crystals, copper bracelets or wrist magnets. Worldview is irrelevant. A hammer works the same for me as it does for a Tibetan monk. Anything that only works if you believe in it is wishful thinking.
Oh yes, I know, one little experiment negated all the millions of experiences people had with all forms of energy healing. Are you aware that medical research doesn’t work that way?
Pretty easy really. There is no possible mechanism of how it could work. Coupled with this there is plenty of research showing reiki is not effective for dozens of conditions.
There is NO possible mechanism IF you are devoted to the philosophy of “materialism,” or “naturalism.” IF you are an atheist and deny all forms of spirituality. Then, of course, their could be no possible mechanism.
As opposed to the philosophy of “evasionism”?
What is the mechanism otherwise?
Sure there is. “The” problem is that Indie Rebel seems to want to take occultism to the next “level.” (This isn’t so surprising in the context of Reiki, in which one essentially pays to climb the ladder to learn the magic mudras.* At least it’s– McPozzm–just petty crime, as opposed to, e.g., Scientology.)
It’s too bad, really, that I.R. is such a poor sportsman as to just up and change tack, because what’s really going on is an attempt not just to gain “powers,” i.e., haul mind across the great dualist crevasse to do the dishes and so forth.**
*Note the hydraulics invoked here.
**It seems like a backward approach to achieving immortality, but whatever.
@Indie Rebel: If only you could see the excruciating irony inherent in your screen name, you would shrivel in embarrassment. So perhaps it is safest for your ego that you apparently suffer no self-awareness at all.
But okay, let’s play:
Atheism is simply the Null Hypothesis applied to religion. There are—what—seven billion people on this planet who believe in gods. The problem is: they all believe in different gods. The Hindus believe in one lot of gods; the Abrahamists believe in another; the Buddhists different ones again. All of these belief systems are mutually incompatible; therefore, how can they possibly ALL be right?
Resolving this is a trivial logic problem, btw; absolutely no deep specialist knowledge of individual religions required.
So here are the solutions I have been able to think of myself:
You admit that you choose one of these systems to be true and reject all others as false because you want to believe that, OR
You declare that there is no such thing as truth and everything is a fiction (including your own experience), OR
You assert that all of these belief systems are equally false until and unless such time as one of them can be proven otherwise.
Now, if you can think of additional options then you are welcome to propose them. But in the end you must either choose one and stand by it, or admit you are too cowardly to do so. And since two of the above them will reveal you as hopelessly compromised in other ways, if you must choose of them then you’ll be wise to shut up so you don’t embarrass yourself thereafter. Otherwise, you pick the only answer that is logically consistent; and though that answer may make you feel uncomfortable and all alone in the universe, you can at least be assured that the universe doesn’t care how you feel in the slightest (so you can only go upwards from there).
…
And while you’re pondering which of the above doors is yours, consider this: even science is predicated on a fundamental belief, or assumption: that the universe does not lie. Because if a god can literally stop the Earth rotating in space then all of science is just another fiction which cannot be trusted any more than any other arbitrary belief system.
What differentiates science from all your other belief systems: that science tests god every single day. All any god has to do is to make the apple fall upwards instead of down, and scientists will accept the existence of god’s hand at work (and no doubt then spend the rest of eternity enthusiastically arguing about which of your claimed gods that hand actually belongs to). Until then, the initial predicate holds; and in the meantime we get antibiotics, microwave ovens, and the atomic bomb—which rather points to science working as expected. Evidence, y’all.
Likewise, what differentiates us from you is not the target or strength of our scientific belief, but how that belief is arrived at (by weighing ALL currently available evidence) and what is permitted to change that belief (new and better evidence which contradicts it). Religious beliefs are that which are preached by authority figures and embraced by those who want to believe. And they reject those beliefs at their peril. Scientific beliefs are that which are constantly tested to destruction by those who know there’s a Nobel prize in it if they prove them wrong; and still, in face of that endless onslaught, have yet to fall.
Which is to say: if you’re absolutely determined to come at science, you really need to understand just what it is you’re coming for. Because science not only endures your attacks, it also survives its own. And science is way better at doing it than you are.
—
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”—Sun Tzu
@Indie rebel You are claiming that reiki has material effects. So explain interaction with material objects
@Indie Rebel: You really are a flying fuckwit, aren’t you. “Eastern mysticism”? Same as Western mysticism; only the names of things change. It’s ALL irrational belief systems, sold and embraced by those who want to feel Speciaaaaaaaal without doing any of the hard work to actually earn that status.
Well guess what, sparky: nobody here is interested in what you believe, only what you can prove. And all you’ve proved to date is that you’re a steaming moron, whose only achievement in life is babbling incoherently about things you do not understand and do not wish to learn either.
So if all you want to do with your life is blow yourself, go ahead. Just have the common fricking decency to go away and do it in private so that we aren’t made to watch.
Actually, I take it back. Worldview isn’t completely irrelevant. There are things that people perceive differently due to their worldview. I’ve read that vanilla is perceived as sweeter in the West than it is in the East (although it is used in savoury recipes in the West). However, perception is subjective. Subjective or objective. Effects can be measured. If acupuncture makes you happier then good for you. Doesn’t mean it’ll cure cancer so pay for it out of your own wallet.
Interesting thing is that you think everything a “holistic” quack says must be true. What if he lies for his book ? Why do you think his ads are more truthful than others ?That is why somebody ask for proofs. This is hardly a form of hate. Call it consumer protection.,
I know nothing about Dr. Oz, and he may be a con artist for all I know. What I object to is Orac’s hatred of any kind of spiritual beliefs or healing. And I especially object to his denial that natural prevention of disease is better than drugs and surgery.
@Indie Rebel: “What I object to is Orac’s hatred of any kind of spiritual beliefs or healing.”
Oh dear, you are dismally slow. So exactly part of the following continues to escape you:
Either Show Us Your Evidence or Go Fuck Yourself.
Do you need shorter words? Drawn in crayon? What? Tell us so we can help you to understand. It should not be that hard.
“And I especially object to his denial that natural prevention of disease is better than drugs and surgery.”
Oh look. Yet another great fucking cloud of useless timewasting straw. You goddamn bore. Stop insulting our intelligence. If you’re only here to troll, at least do us the decency of trolling competently. Ass.
Note the clever conflation of spiritual beliefs with “healing.” No, “Indie Rebel,” the two are not the same, and one can reject quackery without having contempt or hatred for spiritual beliefs.
@Indie Rebel What you mean with natural ? Supplements and diets ? There are actually clinical trials about these. Results are not good.
Biological plausibility counts, too, Explain why natural healing should work,
@ Orac
“No, “Indie Rebel,” the two are not the same, and one can reject quackery without having contempt or hatred for spiritual beliefs.”
Which is precisely why my psychiatrist mom tried to section her sister as soon as she heard she went to buddhist lessons. 30 years ago. Things went kinetic. Because buddhism = psychosis. Of course. Everyone knows that buddhism = psychosis. It’s written black on white in more medical texts than I’d care to quote. At least in french.
In practice, I’ve heard way too many conflations of rejecting quackery as a front for religious intolerance in medical circles. Way too many. So, while, yes, it’s true and well and right that one can reject quackery without diving into bigotry, I’ve witnessed it going the other way round time and time again. Way too often. So I’m not buying it anymore.
These aren’t droids you are looking for. He can go about out business. “Move along”.
It always starts off with an unfounded and shocking statement and just gets more theatrical from there. And let’s not forget the outrage to ignore the point of the article.
I suggest you use your magnificent internet skills and search this site for articles about it, as well as Science Based Medicine. For the short version of an important piece of evidence, you should do a search for the venerable scientist, Emily Rosa.
I know all about the Emily Rosa experiment, and I have read SBM for many years. I know all about their materialist/naturalist/atheist philsophy.
The Rosa experiment was typical — “proving” something does not work with an underpowered defective experiment. It is WELL KNOWN by most experimental researchers that we do NOT accept the null hypothesis based on one experiment anyway. And we certainly do NOT assume an experiment with a small N is adequately powered and reliable.
Yet the Emily Rosa experiment is considered definitive proof by the atheist/materialists.
You think all forms of energy and information have already been discovered. You are sure about that. Everyone who differs must be ignorant and unscientific. Well no, it is people like you who have no real understanding of experimental science.
If you’re claiming that “energy healing” works, you need to point to the studies/clinical trials that demonstrate it exists and has value, not nitpick what research has been done while waving the “prove me wrong!” banner.
I have also read articles on SBM for years and never seen anything promoting “materialism” or “atheism”.* I suppose the charge of “naturalism” has some validity if it’s defined as understanding how things work through science, but it’s not the curse word you imagine.
*you forgot to mention satanism.
There goes another example of things I.R. doesn’t understand.
@Indie Rebel, you tedious tool. If you wish to claim the existence of heretoward undiscovered “energies”, the burden of proof is 100% yours. Either figure out for yourself how you can generate more compelling evidence than a 9 year-old child and go and frigging DO IT, or honestly admit your position is 100% a religious one; not grounded in evidence or science or anything else except your desperate pathetic cloying need to believe you are Speciaaaaaal.
So if you want to blather about “N”, here’s another N you should reflect on first. Because a great many far smarter more educated people than you have been completely utterly humiliatingly wrong about pretty much everything ever said or believed before you; and if that doesn’t give you pause for thought then you are even more unsalvageably foolish than we already take you for. You can lie to yourself if you want, but don’t spit in our faces by trying to lie to us. Because you absolutely suck at it.
“You think all forms of energy and information have already been discovered. You are sure about that”
No idea. Irrelevant.
Repeat after me. IF IT HAS AN OBJECTIVE EFFECT THEN IT CAN BE MEASURED. If you claim that a mysterious form of radiation is curing a particular condition, then you can prove that the condition is being cured. There is no such thing as a cure for a disease that only works if you believe it does. Your con artist fools in the alt med world usually claim to detect these mystery rays with their hands or with electronic equipment which they’ve knocked up in a garage. It can’t be that difficult to detect then can it?
Define “energy.”
“Yet the Emily Rosa experiment is considered definitive proof by the atheist/materialists”
Actually, it’s main impact is that a pre-teen proved that a bunch of adults were unable to distinguish fact from fiction.
Don’t worry though. That experiment was only one handful of dirt on the coffin of energy healing.
It was a simple but effective test of the basis of so-called energy medicine. The “healers” couldn’t detect life energy (or whatever the hell it’s called) hidden from sight any better than chance. That’s the metaphorical equivalent of: “They couldn’t find their asses with both hands, a map and a flashlight.”
How about you propose an experiment that proves that this heretofore undetected “energy” exists?T There’s a Nobel Prize awaiting you if you succeed.
I know that lots of people believe in reiki. What I don’t understand is how you can get Mehmet Oz, BS from Harvard, MD from U Penn, MBA from Wharton, 8 years at uni, God knows how many years in residence, etc, who has put in all that time, sweat, study and ends up paired up with reiki, which you can learn on a weekend retreat. How can he even stand it?
Unfortunately, doctors are not immune to magical thinking. I found that out 16 years ago when I started encountering so many doctors who denied evolution or were antivaccine.
Who said you can learn all about reiki in a weekend. And even if you could, what has that got to do with anything. I have NO opinion on Dr. Oz, and he might be a scammer for all I know. But the fact that he agrees with some alternative medicine ideas in no way invalidates his medical expertise. Lots of medical professionals have some alternative medicine beliefs. It’s only absolutists like this blog’s author who are crazed with hatred of anything that disagrees with atheism/materialism/naturalism.
(And calling yourselves naturalists makes no sense at all. We all believe in nature.)
Side effects of Reiki Level 1 Attunement
The attunement side effects of Reiki level 1 are mostly physical, due to the detoxing of your body and because it’s the first time you increase your vibration. Most negative side effects are part of the Reiki Healing Crisis which is not so common to happen after an attunement, but it has happened to some people.
I think it’s clear who the “crazed” one here is, Toonces.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/17/health/dr-oz-columbia-letter/
medcitynews.com/2015/04/physicians-feel-dr-oz-81-percent-think-resign-columbia-license-revoked/
http://www.ranker.com/list/dr-oz-is-fake/donn-saylor
I guess it’s a good thing, then, that you are the only one doing it.
I understand that Lisa Oz had a significant role in Oz’s embrace of alternative medical practices.
@Chris Preston: Oz’s wife may have been the one who sold it to him. But Oz was the one who chose to embrace it and propagate it to millions more. And it’s easy to guess why.
Pleasing lies vs painful truths. We are all susceptible. We all feel the temptation. We are all prone to personal weakness. And the one fundamental choice which each of us has is whether to indulge it or to push back.
You can infer much about a person just from knowing which of these choices they’ve made. Understand how and why they’ve arrived at that choice, see how they explain and justify it to themselves and others, and you will know their soul.
I’ve done the first…and lost almost everything to it. More than once. So now I do the other, and work to maintain it for as long I draw breath. To break it now, knowing the harm I can cause, would be to betray myself—and, infinitely worse, betray others as well. And that I will not do. For as flawed and toxic as I am, I maintain that absolute moral core which says harming others for ego and money is Wrong; and I’d forfeit life than sell it out. That’s my choice.
So when I call Oz and Kay and Kennedy Jr and Indie Rebel and all their ilk “abusive scum”, I do not do it to feel superior to them. I do it because I know myself. And in these people I see all the worst parts of me—except celebrated and championed as virtues, not damned and despised to be driven right out. They are the abusers, because they choose to make themselves that way. And no matter how hard they lie to themselves and to everyone else, the both of us know it.
re “diversions”, “de-railing”
This is common amongst alties: turn the discussion away from the central issue and towards the evils of corporations such as pharma, oil or banking in order to show your marks that you’re on the side of the ‘common people’. Usually, they extend their attacks to government, universities, institutions, and media as well who are never trustworthy.. In other words, they say, don’t believe any of them, believe me. All powerful entities and their officers are irredeemably corrupt as they maintain a decadent lifestyle, flying in private jets, island hopping and drinking wines valued at the equivalent of an average person’s net worth, nightly. Even if it were true, it is irrelevant.
Basically, alties rich** or poor, are advocating for products and practises that don’t work or at best, work minimally whilst they simultaneously divert consumers away from SBM that does work and has been shown to work through peer reviewed research. ( And yes, I know that there is questionable research about pharmaceuticals but we know this because it is public and further researchable). On the other hand, alties glorify the effects of herbs, foods, supplements and “energy medicine” relying primarily upon testimonial, practitioner reports and research in shoddy, pay-to-publish, journals.
Because I have surveyed one of these charlatans for over 20 years, I could point you to boatloads of misdirection that steers consumers away from reasonable information about lifestyle and treatment for serious medical conditions. Oz does the same: he just does it in a more sophisticated manner.
** Rich alties don’t hide their wealth but ostentatiously display it. I imagine their marks accept this because it is a reward for all of their “good work” and stands as a testament to their winning the pardigm shift. Lots of images of their estates on the net.
+
“Rich alties don’t hide their wealth but ostentatiously display it.”
Or you can hide your stash behind the toilet.
https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2021/12/02/money-checks-found-in-wall-of-joel-osteens-lakewood-church-years-after-600k-burglary/
*Osteen has preached repeatedly about finding the Cure. Money heals all.
Predators gonna predate. Just remember: these people wouldn’t succeed if a great many more people like Kay West and Indie Rebel didn’t deliberately enable them.
It was Ben Franklin who said “It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.” He didn’t say to pick and choose which authorities to hand a free pass.
Double standards—the hallmark of every coward.
—
“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”—President George W Bush, 16 words
Well, there’s also the entire body of knowledge of chemistry, physics and physiology negating “millions of experiences”.
But I’m nitpicking, I suppose.
There is nothing in chemistry, physics and physiology that would negate the existence of energies and fields not yet discovered by mainstream materialist science.
Nothing that proves it exists, either. How about proposing an experiment that does just this, since you know so much about the basics of experimental science?
If you were successful, that would shut us up but good.
I take it that you missed the collapse of SUSY. All you’ve done here is embarrass yourself.
Gotta count the “entities.”
This one also reaches for homebrew psychiatry:
This is, unexpectedly, a crock of shit. Before Florida, I would routinely hang out with Jerry, among others, in an ersatz, late-morning coffee klatsch in the park. He was quite open about the voices that came with his schizophrenia and reported that they were generally upbeat. His moods were a bit labile, but perhaps not so much as mine in the morning.
It’s as though Indie Rebel has devised a great way to drive people straight around the bend. “Spirit voices,” they’re out there.” G-d only knows what the next weird-ass shit comes after her laying this malicious routine upon anyone she can get her lunchhooks into.
@Narad: I wouldn’t mind so much if Indie Rebel was genuinely nuts; what’s objectionable is that they demand special privilege “just because”, even as we are watching their lamentable thought processes in real time. Nothing they have brought is novel or new: all they do is start from their predetermined conclusion then work backwards to rationalize it, and then get pissy that we are not impressed.
@IR: Look, dummy: we KNOW exactly what it is you are doing and why you are doing it. Because there is not a single one of us here who hasn’t done it ourselves at one time or another. Because that is the human condition.
What differentiates us from you is that we have come to recognize when, how, and why we are doing it; and why doing so is utterly, fundamentally incompatible with forming an honest, reliable understanding of how this universe works. So we make a conscious effort NOT to deceive ourselves, and all you do is roll in here and arrogantly piss on it.
What you’ve got there is religion. Nothing more. So stop insulting our intelligence and our integrity by insisting it is anything else and we are the ones being dishonestly wrong. You aren’t fooling anyone but yourself and you’re really pissing us off with your narcissistic nonsense. Especially nonsense that harms other people.
@Dangerous Bacon: “I have also read articles on SBM for years and never seen anything promoting “materialism” or “atheism”.* I suppose the charge of “naturalism” has some validity if it’s defined as understanding how things work through science, but it’s not the curse word you imagine.”
All SBM authors are atheists, and all who admire and agree with them are atheists. Naturalism is NOT defined as understanding through science. It is defined as the belief that nothing can exist except forces and fields already discovered by science. And it is the belief that all pre-modern belief systems — spirits, afterlife, gods, demons, etc. — are nothing but ignorant superstition.
If you think non-physical entities cannot exist, and if universal consciousness cannot exist, then you logically MUST be an atheist.
I am very familiar with the ideas of Gorski, and of SBM authors and their fans.
Not true.
Also most definitely NOT true.
Yes it is true. Anyone who claims to be a materialist/naturalist, yet believes in some kind of “god(s),” either does not understand materialism/naturalism, or does not understand the concept of “god.”
But materialism/naturalism is an irrational philosophy, so its believers are generally irrational.
So, is G-d immanent or transcendent?
@Indie Rebel Check Zeno of Citium He was materialist believed in Logos
Why? Is there ONE SBM author who is not an atheist? I doubt it. Maybe ONE “agnostic” who doesn’t care enough to be an atheist? Maybe one SBM reader who is confused enough to think you can be a materialist without being an atheist?
Be more specific. WHO isn’t an atheist here or at SBM? I bet you can’t name one.
I’m not. I’m not a theist either, nor an agnostic.
Sorry to hear it.
“But materialism/naturalism is an irrational philosophy, so its believers are generally irrational.”
Irrational = not based on logical reasons or clear thinking
Belief in something that cannot be proven to exist by any measurement or observational technique ever invented by humans isn’t exactly rational.
However, if we assume that humans have an innate ability to detect stuff that cannot be measured, then it follows that God could exist, detected by a hitherto unknown ‘mystic field’ organ. Hmmm. However, the logical conclusion of this is that EVERY god exists. All three million odd Hindu deities, the Abrahamic god, Norse pantheon (would the various Germanic differences count as new gods?), Greek/Roman, Chinese, Japanese and so on. On top of that you have every mythical being from the Sidhe to Coyote to Kitsune to the common or garden house ghost.
Homework for you Indie. Do all gods and mythical beings exist? If not, why? Can you logically defend the accuracy of your mystical field organ vs that of the Pope or a wandering Sadhu?
“detect stuff that cannot be measured”
Detection = measurement. We have a phenomenon and an instrument to measure it. There may be the immediate difficulties of repeatability and accuracy, but that does not alter the fundamental fact.
“Detection = measurement. We have a phenomenon and an instrument to measure it.”
Yes. That was a bit sloppy of me.
Wow, “spirit voices” and a globular blobular cosmic mind. Pretty indiscriminate occultism.
@Narad: “I’m not. I’m not a theist either, nor an agnostic.”
If you are not an atheist, or theist, or agnostic, maybe you believe in simulation theory? That is more or less what I believe in — the idea that the universe is made of information.
But simulation theory means there is likely to be a “spiritual,” non-material, information, basis of reality. And spiritual reality includes — yeah, spirits, gods, what have you.
So voila, you are a theist in spite of yourself, if you are ok with simulation theory.
Wait for it…
I conclude that you leap to conclusions. Clumsily. Simulation “theory” may well be the dumbest fucking thing I’ve heard of in all my natural-born days.
^ Moreover, “information” is not “non-material” — that’s simply misunderstanding Shannon.* This is the sort of thing that tends to plop out when a philosopher of science turns to Robitussin abuse rather than just taking a heady dose of LSD (as unpleasant as the experience might be if he tries to cling to the idea and winds up listening to a busy signal for eight hours).
It also implies the anthropic principle, beloved by people everywhere who refuse to believe that the string theory ship sailed a long time ago.
Sabine Hossenfelder has a fairly gentle take on the matter here: backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-simulation-hypothesis-is.html
And there’s plenty at Peter Woit’s joint, e.g., math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=583
*And likely the black hole information paradox, but my back hurts and I have a metric shit ton to try to get done. Try here; it doesn’t seem totally slovenly: symmetrymagazine.org/article/has-the-black-hole-information-paradox-evaporated
@Indie Rebel You should check your terms. Theist is one who believes in a personal God
@ Indie Rebel
“Naturalism is NOT defined as understanding through science. It is defined as the belief that nothing can exist except forces and fields already discovered by science.”
Nope. Wrong.
A naturalistic premise is that miracles may exist and be proven to exist if they satisfy David Hume’s criteria for what qualifies as a violation of natural order. Roughly.
This proves that the naturalistic position is open to refutation, criticism, amendments. It is therefore neither a dogma. Nor a “belief”, as you put it.
The twist is that no putative miracle has been able to pass Hume’s criteria.
Which means naturalism stands unchallenged.
Naturalism does not in itself negate, for instance, the legitimacy of the so-called Hard Problem of Consciousness.
Your understanding of naturalism as a dogma that prescribes an answer to the hard problem of consciousness is therefore false.
Legitimate questions that fall outside the perimeter of so-called naturalism do exist. Check out for instance the Chinese Room thought experiment by Searle. Or, if you’re into more medieval stuff, the problem of Porphyry’s five universals and the treatment Albertus Magnus gave to it following insights from Ibn Sina.
These are legitimate non-naturalistic questions that should legitimately be called scientific when recast into a view of science called consilience. Mathematics and Logic also have themselves been argued (somewhat sophistically on multiple counts) to fall outside the perimeter of naturalism and even of science. Denying them the status of science is, well… english bigotry biased towards empiricism. As a “response” to french bigotry based on cartesian rationalism.
Any question pertaining to knowledge falls inside the perimeter of Science. The correct definition of Science is simple: what is not BS. You should dive a bit deeper into negative theology or neti neti, Spiritual Guy… That’s the way you get your definitions straight.
Orac, for some time I have enjoyed your medical insights. In-between reading studies, I have used your website to balance out some of the misinformation. Unfortunately, I have found it a mix of politics and science, so, like a study produced by industry scientists, it has increasingly carried less weight with me. Now Rand Paul is a quack too? Your “insolence” seems to have become less respectful over time, as the quack category of those you disagree with increases. Granted, some are way off, but a few of your quacks are simply individuals or politicians who do not share your medical or political view…so you insult them. My search for medical or political truth will increasingly lead me elsewhere.
Respectfully-
Rand Paul is definitely a quack. He’s antivaccine and has been antivaccine going back many years. (No, don’t argue with me on this one. If you do, I’ll bury you in examples of his antivaccine statements, including his belief that vaccines cause autism.) He’s promoted unproven “miracle treatments” during the pandemic, like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. He’s opposed public health interventions like mask mandates. He’s not really a board-certified ophthalmologist; rather, he’s “certified” by a board that almost no hospitals recognize.
I could go on and on and on. Rand Paul is, if anything, worse than Dr. Oz because he is a powerful senator and can thus influence health policy a lot. Now Dr. Oz seeks to join Sen. Paul and develop the same sort of political power. Sorry—not sorry!—if I gored your ox.
@Orac: “Sorry—not sorry!—if I gored your ox.”
Not to worry, it was only a steer.
“Now Rand Paul is a quack too?”
Well yes, he is. He is also (as his daddy is) a liar, misogynist, racist, and all around vile person.
He’s also a board-certified opthalmologist. Even if he did have to invent his own board to get it.
@NumberWang
“Yet the Emily Rosa experiment is considered definitive proof by the atheist/materialists”
“Actually, it’s main impact is that a pre-teen proved that a bunch of adults were unable to distinguish fact from fiction.
Don’t worry though. That experiment was only one handful of dirt on the coffin of energy healing.”
A pre-teen who did not understand the basics of experimental science. If you want to show an effect does not exist, you have to make an adequate test for that effect. It’s very easy to under-power an experiment — a small N is a favorite trick. Or the wrong kind of subjects.
But the materialist/atheists were so thrilled with her result, they forgot all about the basics of experimental science. The trick works, and it is used often.
Well, where’s your sample-size analysis?
It’s always fun when someone demonstrates what “begging the question” actually means.
Nope. Indie, you still don’t understand the point. She hasn’t disproved the existence of a mystery energy field. She’s proved that the test subjects, who said they could detect it, were mistaken.
She proved it very simply. If they can detect a human energy field with their hands then they will always be able to tell if their hands are near a human energy field. They couldn’t. Make all the excuses you want, those people could not detect a human energy field.
I’m sure they all had their excuses. Bad day? Bad vibes? Wrong material in the blinding curtain?
I know it’s hard to believe, but terminal dumbshit Indie Rebel really does think that we are dismissing energy healing based on the result of one small experiment!
No! We dismiss it based on it the totality of evidence acquired over the last 300 years! Ms Rosa’s experiment may not have discovered anything new about the universe, but it told us plenty about the arrogance and stupidity of human nature, further confirming the working hypothesis that these so-called “energy healers” are all self-deceiving boobs.
And here’s the intractabl problem that IR willfully misses: If IR’s magic energy really did exist, there would be a bloody great unexplained hole right in the middle of this. And then every scientist with a grant application to fill would pounce on that mystery, all racing to be the one who solves it first. We’re not kidding: they really would win a Nobel Prize—and then some! ’Cos they’d be the most famous scientist since Newton and Einstein, as discoverer of the fifth fundamental force in the universe.
And yet, after 300 years, science has settled on 4 fundamental forces, and thus far has done a remarkably complete job of explaining how the universe works using just those four without any need for a fifth. IR tells us the reason they don’t recognise a fifth is because only Truly Special People can see its invisible hole and the magical energy that resides within, and everyone else who doesn’t see it is just big meanie poopie brains, and reasons.
We don’t need 300 years of science to tell us that IR is a pathetic auto-fellater who will never amount to anything in life, because IR has already provided the overwhelming evidence in every word they write. And when we try to nudge them in a more productive direction so they’ll stop embarrassing themselves, they double down instead. Deliberately clueless. Utterly irredeemable.
…
Hey, IR, your train is waiting at Platform 9¾. Run along and catch it now, you ridiculous waste of time and space.
Nope NumberWang, you don’t understand experimental science. When you have a small sample, it might not be representative of the population you are generalizing to., for example. And your test might not be valid.
You are assuming the subjects in that experiment were typical of energy healers, but maybe they were not. And maybe some of the subjects were able to detect the energy, but it might have been canceled out by others who did not.
And you are assuming the test was valid. Maybe the same subjects could have detected energy under different conditions.
And so on.
There are many reasons why we do not accept the null hypothesis based on one small experiment. If statin drugs, for example, were tested in a similar way and declared ineffective, you would never accept that conclusion.
It’s pretty ironic that you keep saying this while telling other people that they “don’t understand experimental science.”
Like how the aroma of mint “antidotes” homeopathic “remedies”?
“When you have a small sample, it might not be representative of the population you are generalizing to”
Finally, you actually say something sensible. You are correct. The TT practitioners may have all been con artists. Or really bad practitioners. They volunteered for The experiment though, so they could just as well have been the cream of the local crop.The experiment showed that they couldn’t detect an energy field though. Don’t spoil it with shite about ‘maybe in another situation’ though. That’s just making excuses. All these people thought that they would be able to ace the test. They didn’t.
Also, given your beliefs in mystic energy and faith healing, you really shouldn’t be spouting experimental theory that you don’t believe in.
TINW. I dismiss it because it’s rank Bad Fazzm with large dollops of smarm and self-aggrandizement — there’s about as much “indie” and “rebellious” about the trip as a seance.
@Indie Rebel: “A pre-teen who did not understand the basics of experimental science.”
That’s nice. And exactly how long have you had this fixation on 9 year-old girls? Perhaps you’d like to sit over there while you tell us all about it, hmm? †
—
† Just to demonstrate that Kay West, Indie Rebel, and friends are not the only ones who understand how sleazy manipulative yellow innuendo is done. However, we don’t do it because we are better than you and our arguments are better too. But, please, do keep going with your debased debasing slurs, thus proving our case for us: that you have nothing else to give because you are nothing but abusers yourselves.
So Dr. Oz has two homes and the ‘orac’ crowd is upset
Then Bernie Sanders and AOC must send you people in orbit. Sanders who’s only job was being mayor of a medium sized city, till he got elected to the senate, now he has 4 houses and is worth between 5 and 10 million dollars. Or how about AOC, 2 years ago she was living at home with her mom and bartending to earn a living. She’s now worth over 2 million dollars.
As to the sitting members of the senate, one got her nephew to publicly condemn land (eminent domaine)., then sell the land to her uncle for a nice hefty profit (using government money to finance it). Then turns around and sells the same land to a second senators husband for a hefty profit. Who then in turn sells it to a non-profit company building a high speed railroad (of course at a hefty gain).
Over 70% of all members of congress and the senate own shares of either Pfizer, Moderna or J&J. do you really believe there will be oversight on any of the development or production of those vaccines.
And you complain that a Doctor has two houses
“Meantime, other people still dying.”
Yep more people have died from Covid since Joe Brandon came into office (over 400,000) even with a vaccine, then died when Trump was in office and no vaccine.
And of course all you SBM types still can’t answer the question, Why is the death toll for the US so much higher 600 per million (808,608) with 68% vaccinated than India 6 per million (470,620) with only 38% vaccinated?
“And you complain that a Doctor has two houses”
No, the focus here has been on the useless woo and bad health advice that Dr. Oz has promoted while on the way to amassing his $100 million fortune, including marveling at the wonderful opportunity to send kids to school early in the pandemic, since (according to him) it would have meant a paltry 2-3% increase in mortality.
While his embrace of psychics, faith healing, astrology, iridology, homeopathy and ineffective drugs to treat Covid-19 has deservedly gained him contempt and ridicule, people like you are desperately trying to change the subject and flinging mindless tu quoques right and left.
Why are you so upset that Dr. Oscar Zoroaster Phadrig Isaac Norman Henkle Emmannuel Ambroise Diggs a.k.a. the Wizard of Oz is getting a deserved flaying, now that he’s announced a carpetbagging run for the Pennsylvania Senate from his mansion in New Jersey?
Stop stomping your little Rumplestilskin feet, you’re damaging the carpet.
The worst thing of course is that if elected, Oz will be able to work directly to get bad health policy enacted into law.
Despite the Kays of the world drooling at the prospect, this would not be a good thing.
The question I can’t answer is where you get your numbers. The latest figures from statista.com give a cumulative death rate in the USA of 2371 per million versus a rate of 343 per million. Pretty bad, but nowhere near the 100 to 1 discrepancy you claim.
But wait! There’s more. The Economist estimated the probable number of covid deaths by comparing total deaths to what would be expected, given previous years figures. The USA shows only a small discrepancy. India, on the other hand, had a huge discrepancy. They estimated a total of 2.3 million deaths from covid as of April 30, 2021 versus an official death toll of 200 thousand.. So as of that date, India had a cumulative death rate of about 1600 per million. Of course, it would be much more now.
Let’s look at another country. Canada now has a fully vaccinated rate of 76.5 per cent of eligible population. USA has a rate of 59.7 per cent. Canada has a cumulative death rate of 792 per million. The USA is 2371 per million, almost 3 times greater.
Well, this was a lot of work for a math-challenged person like myself. I hope you appreciate it. I also hope for world peace and a pony.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker
I’m going to correct my misunderstanding of Kay’s statement of the covid death toll in the USA being 600 times higher than that of India. She appears to be referring to the current death rate rather than the cumulative death rate. Mind you, I could still be wrong. Her writing is extremely confusing.
Anyhoo, let’s look at some other numbers. I feel confident that Kay is a republican, based on her anti-abortion rhetoric and referring to Pres Biden as “Joe Brandon”, for example. She might want to take a look at this report, which shows a strong correlation between covid death rate and vote percentage for Trump in US counties. This is also correlated with false beliefs about vaccine harms, and lower vaccination rates. I find this report compelling because the data is much more accurate than the numbers from India appear to be.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/12/05/1059828993/data-vaccine-misinformation-trump-counties-covid-death-rate
Incidentally, I found it amusing that Kay, who accused me of being a racist, appears to support Trump, the president who made racism great again.
What, doesn’t everybody cite statistics in terms of factors of 6?
Rinse out your drool bucket and ask yourself this: Why did India administer 10,000,000 vaccine doses yesterday if everything is so hunky-dory?
@ Kay
As usual you jump at believing anything that suits you. According to several websites “Ocasio-Cortez’s assets total no more than $31,000, according to her latest financial disclosure report. Based on the way personal finances are reported, they might be exceeded by her liabilities, which are reported to be as high as $50,000.” at: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/10/facebook-posts/aocs-net-worth-over-1-million-s-pants-fire/
And Bernie Sanders monies come from the sale of his books. So, what? at: https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a31437248/bernie-sanders-net-worth/
And the several articles I found on Bernie’s wealth make it clear that in the Senate he is on the lower end of wealth.
As for your earlier comment concerning liability for vaccines. One example. Smallpox was both endemic and came in waves that killed a minimum of 25% of a population. However, the smallpox vaccine killed 1 to 2 per million vaccines, so if an entire population was vaccinated, no one died, except 1 to 2 per million. It is impossible to ever be certain that any human endeavor won’t harm some minuscule number of people regardless of how many it benefits. However, given our legal system, a lawsuit from just one of those killed by the smallpox vaccine, especially given how juries sometimes act, could put a company out of business. There is actually a fascinating book by Marcial Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, “Medicine on Trial”, that documents how a jury put a company out of business, despite the plaintiff had NO disabilities remotely related to the produce, in this case, silicon breast implants. Juries assume companies have deep pockets and often feel sorry for the plaintiff, ignoring the evidence, just as you ignore lots of science, etc.
As for the mRNA Covid vaccine. I was a volunteer in the Moderna clinical trials. Before volunteering I read up on mRNA, found 20,000 papers on PubMed, National Library of Medicine’s online database, downloaded about 25, read carefully, Then did a search on mRNA vaccines, found around 500, read another 25, including development of mRNA vaccine for SARS. Passed animal trials, phase 1, and phase 2; but then SARS disappeared, so phase 3 cancelled. Then did search and read articles on S-Spike protein. Spent several weeks, then volunteered. Oh, forgot, went to FDA website, downloaded Moderna application and read and FDA website includes ton of papers, etc. on submissions by Moderna and minutes of various meetings that resulted in Emergency Use Approval. And now you can search PubMed and find 610 papers, just type in “Moderna Covid Vaccine”. You can find peer-reviewed, published papers that clearly found no severe outcomes for vaccines, whereas placebo groups ended up in hospital, etc.
VAERS is NOT a valid website for deciding the safety of vaccines. It receives about 1% of minor adverse events and up to 23% of serious adverse events, that is, that people think may be related to a vaccine. However, CDC does thorough investigation of serious adverse events, including obtaining medical records. And also compares with population known adverse events, e.g., on average 2,300 American have a heart attack every single day, so if someone gets a, for instance, flu vaccine, has a heart attack, they look at frequency of heart attacks before flu shot season, and previous years, adjusted for population. By analogy, imagine a crime is committed in a poor minority part of town. Police might bring in 20 suspects for questioning. Using yours and others approach to VAERS, then ALL must be guilty. Well, maybe, one, and, maybe, no one.
The 610 papers on just Moderna mRNA vaccines clearly show how it has saved lives, minimized hospitalizations, etc. And if they now found with a nasal pharyngeal swab that I have Covid-19, I could care less. Our bodies have permanent potentially pathogenic microbe held in check by our immune systems and temporary ones kept at bay and eliminated; but given my age, 75, if I even suffered mild flu-like symptoms, the vaccine was still worth it. I don’t live in world of absolutes. I have read literally hundreds of books and 1,000s of articles on histories of vaccine-preventable diseases, studied immunology, and microbiology, as well as epidemiology and vaccines have a benefits to harm ratio that is exponential.
One last example, oral polio vaccine. It caused up to a dozen cases per year; but prevented 20,000 or more and given that only about 1 in 100 infected with polio virus actually became paralyzed, probably a genetic predisposition, some of those paralyzed by the vaccine would have been paralyzed by the natural virus. Then a new improved version of the killed vaccine was developed and it worked as well and NO ONE paralyzed by it; but the oral was still used in developing nations because too difficult to reach small rural villages for 3 shots, so risk of a few vaccine-caused cases prevented literally 100s of thousands.
Note. I could easily give the URLs to FDA pages for Moderna Covid Vaccine, etc.; but why bother when you will continue in your fantasy unscientific world.
I really don’t want to begin posting comments; but you are such a despicable excuse for a human being that I couldn’t help myself
And it provides mucosal immunity.
@Kay West: “And of course all you SBM types still can’t answer the question, Why is the death toll for the US so much higher 600 per million (808,608) with 68% vaccinated than India 6 per million (470,620) with only 38% vaccinated?”
Confounders. e.g. Well-ventilated/outdoor/rural lifestyles will slow infection spread. In fact, there’s not a big difference between US and India when you compare officially recorded deaths as a percentage of officially recorded infections. Just 10%, which might be explained by far fewer Indians living to old age (i.e. the population in which the US has seen its highest death rates).
Underreporting. Massive, massive underreporting, by a self-serving bunch of appallingly incompetent corrupt liars—behavior you know all about.
So eff you, Kay West. You really are dirt.
@ Kay West
ABSTRACT: “India lacks an authoritative estimate of the death toll from the COVID-19 pandemic. We report excess mortality estimates from three different data sources from the pandemic’s start through June 2021. First, extrapolation of state-level civil registration from seven states suggests 3.4 million excess deaths. Second, applying international estimates of age-specific infection fatality rates (IFR) to Indian seroprevalence data implies a higher toll of around 4 million. Third, our analysis of the Consumer Pyramid Household Survey, a longitudinal panel of over 800,000 individuals across all states, yields an estimate of 4.9 million excess deaths. Each of these estimates has shortcomings and they also diverge in the pattern of deaths between the two waves of the pandemic. Estimating COVID-deaths with statistical confidence may prove elusive. But all estimates suggest that the death toll from the pandemic is likely to be an order of magnitude greater than the official count of
400,000.”
Abhishek Anand, Justin Sandefur, and Arvind Subramanian (2021 Jul). Three New Estimates of India’s All-Cause Excess Mortality during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Working Paper 589. Center for Global Development. Available at: https://cgdev.org/publication/three-new-estimates-indias-all-cause-excess-mortality-during-covid-19-pandemic
Where did you get your numbers? Did you do a thorough search or just jump at anything that confirms your unscientific, intellectually dishonest world? You do understand that India does NOT have the infrastructure for collecting accurate data that advanced democracies have?
Of course, given you believe social media claims about AOC’s worth, just more proof of your ignorance.
@Kay West You include cases happened before vaccination started (800000 is total number of US deaths) . Vaccination could hardly prevent them.
@TBruce: “It was a simple but effective test of the basis of so-called energy medicine. The “healers” couldn’t detect life energy (or whatever the hell it’s called) hidden from sight any better than chance. That’s the metaphorical equivalent of: “They couldn’t find their asses with both hands, a map and a flashlight.”
How about you propose an experiment that proves that this heretofore undetected “energy” exists?T There’s a Nobel Prize awaiting you if you succeed.”
You obviously have never done experimental research. The non-existence of an effect would never be accepted based on one small experiment.
And the existence of this energy is well known and not questioned in alternative science.
Oh, well then.
You’re ridiculous.
∗SPLORF∗</>
Here I was just thinking I’d ask whether it dissipates as heat (although this might be a perpetual motion machine in a sociological sense), and then this.
Sadly, I’m not calling Poe.
Explain error propagation to all us (tinu) poor sods.
You actually should prove existence of energy. Only existing energy is useful. You could make your experiment as big as you want,
@Indie Rebel: “And the existence of this energy is well known and not questioned in alternative science.”
LOL, you really are the dumbest stump in all the blasted forest.
Once again, for the terminally hard of learning:
Evidence or GTFO.
…On second thoughts, just GTFO. It is obvious you are incapable of backing up your delusional claims with evidence, while all the evidence you do present is of your own dishonesty, ignorance, and incompetence. So GTFO and go indulge your one-schmuck circle-jerk somewhere else already. Because we do not deserve to be subjected to your endless idiot spoogefest, you intellectual chub.
Somebody feels very threatened. OMG, what if atheism is wrong?
Atheism is right.
Period.
@Indie Rebel Asking you to prove your claims does not mean that anybody feels threatened. This always happens when someone claims something.
There is no such thing as alternative science. You are essentially saying make believe or what unicorns tell you while you sleep. Especially if you say it is not questioned. Can’t sleep? Put rice in your socks. It’s unquestionably a perfect treatment.
Science as we all know requires proof of existence based on rigorous observation techniques and a well written explanation of what was observed.
Dr. Oz seems to translate what might as well be what unicorns tell him in his sleep with a mixture of standard and delightfully absurd dietary advice. He may know better, but there’s good pay in playing the anti-reason grift. That people notice and comment about how useless his advice is strengthens medicine and health for everyone.
https://newrepublic.com/article/164356/dr-oz-senate-pennsylvania
https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/349/bmj.g7346.full.pdf
“There is no such thing as alternative science.”
You could try looking up alternative honesty and see if it’s next to that?
Before you continue your dishonesty IR, you do realize that the “healers” (scam artist) who took part in the therapeutic touch experiment said, prior to the experiment, that the setup was to their liking. It was only after they were shown to be charlatans that the complaints started.
Now, I’m sure, you’ll go back to your support for “healing” that does nothing but improve the bank accounts of horrible people who take advantage of the hopes of people who are sick.
You and your ilk have replaced “First, do no harm” with “Do nothing and get paid a lot for it.”
That depends on how big the proposed effect is.
You have obviously never done a power calculation.
You are also unfamiliar with Bayes’ theorem, which also applies here.
I am not familiar with Bayes’ theorem? How would you know what I am familiar with? That’s when you modify the statistics so it’s harder to reach significance for things you don’t want to believe.
Ah yes, more of that alternative science.
For accuracy, you need to start calling it opposite science.
@Indie RebelPeople usually change statistics, or experimental details.to prove their beliefs. Parapsychology is an example.
@ Everyone
After posting my comment above, I thought about it, and, except for the articles on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, already had everything else I mentioned, so I thought it might be worth the effort to create a reference list. Of course, as with AOC, Kay West will more than likely NOT check anything out or, if she does, will ignore anything that contradicts her world of fantasy. In any case:
References for mRNA vaccine and Vaccine Safety
Moderna Website
A Phase 3, Randomized, Stratified, Observer-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in Adults Aged 18 Years and Older
https://www.modernatx.com/sites/default/files/mRNA-1273-P301-Protocol.pdf
FDA
Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine
https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/moderna-covid-19-vaccine
[Scroll down page, lots of info]
PubMed
[Note. to avoid the papers resulting from current COVID-19, I limited search to 2018 and back. Also, of course, not all papers are original research, e.g., some meta-analyses, some reviews, some editorials; but the huge number on mRNA going back to 1960s tells us that we know a hell of a lot about mRNA. The mRNA vaccine results include details of several different developed vaccines, including SARS. And the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine search includes a number of studies done around the world, including comparing non-vaccinated with vaccinated.
mRNA 2018 and back
632,111 results
mRNA vaccines 2018 and back
5,133 results
S-Spike Protein 2018 and back
28 results
Moderna Covid-19 vaccine
523 results
One example:
Baden LR et al. (2020 Dec 30). Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine. New England Journal of Medicine. Available at:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7787219/
CDC Vaccine Safety website
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/index.html
Shimabukuro TT et al. (2015 Aug 26). Safety monitoring in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Vaccine; 33(36): 4398-4405.
Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632204/
Miller ER et al (2020 Nov 3). The reporting sensitivity of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for anaphylaxis and for Guillain-Barré syndrome. Vaccine; 38(47): 7458-7463. ABSTRACT Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33039207/ [Note. I have the entire paper]
An excellent, actual text only 160 pages, intro to immunology:
Lauren Sompayrac (2019). How the Immune System Works (6th Edition). Wiley-Blackwell. $36.99 at amazon.com
Anyone interested, I can suggest several more books; but they are around 800 pages.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Net Worth
“In a post shared more than 14,000 times, a Facebook user claims that Ocasio-Cortez “was broke” when she was first elected to Congress in 2018 but now has a net worth of more than $1 million. . . Financial disclosures that members of Congress are required to file show that it didn’t. Ocasio-Cortez reported assets of between $2,003 and $31,000 in her most recent financial disclosure, filed in September 2020, and student loan debt between $15,000 and $50,000.”
Rick Rouan (2021 Mar 10). Fact check: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s net worth is not close to $1 million. MSN. Available at: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fact-check-rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-net-worth-is-not-close-to-dollar1-million/ar-BB1eqoIj
Tom Keltischer (2021 Mar 10). AOC’s net worth over $1 million? That’s Pants on Fire!Politifact. Available at: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/10/facebook-posts/aocs-net-worth-over-1-million-s-pants-fire/#sources
References to above:
House of Representatives, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez financial disclosure report, May 15, 2019
House of Representatives, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez financial disclosure report, Sept. 12, 2020
Center for Responsive Politics, “Poorest new members, 116th Congress,” accessed March 10, 2021
Joel ( what did you get tired of sitting alone in your house with no one to rant against).
Nice links but that was her net worth from only 2020, since that time she has gets a cut of the financially successful documentary “Knocking Down the House” and she is in the process of a book deal as well. And she get 30,000 to 50,000 for speaking fees. not bad money for a bartender.
and please cite those links as you claim you can do it easily, if that were the case why can the FDA only release 500 pages a month?
And Bernie has 3 houses and people complain about Dr Oz’s 2 houses.
India has a population density of 386 people per square mile
United State population density of 83 people per square mile.
6 deaths per million vs 600 deaths per million is a lot of deaths to miscount.
Aarno
Trump on had 1 moths worth of vaccine time and he got blamed for 396,000 deaths in 12 months. Joe Brandon has been in office for 11 months with 13 months of vaccinations behind him and over 410,000 people have died with covid. The death rate has gone up/down and back up since the vaccination process started
has
And so has India has a “massive, massive underreporting by s self-serving bunch of appallingly incompetent corrupt liars”. And you claiming the whole Indian medical society and health ministry is in on the suppression of data? That is a very large conspiracy, if true.
I review your cited research ( on a side note I don’t believe we are to use the BMJ in citation on this site, see Orac post on what happened to the BMF). I did not find India mentioned in your cited work, did you just make up the numbers for India, how did you come up with your posted idea? If you were to look at the over all death rate for India it has fallen to its lowest point in over 70 years, or don’t the people of India know how to count dead bodies.
worldometers.info/coronavirus/worldwide-graphs/
@ Kay
I did post a comment with extensive URLs; but according to Orac if more than 2 URLs comment goes into screening file, so it will eventually be posted. You didn’t give a single URL for your claims about OCV?
You write: “India has a population density of 386 people per square mile
United State population density of 83 people per square mile.
6 deaths per million vs 600 deaths per million is a lot of deaths to miscount.”
Wow. India’s population is 1,399,714,465, Available at: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/india-population/
The U.S. is 330,000,000. So India has about 4.2 times U.S., population, density not relevant. And for the most part, U.S. cases of COVID have been in denser populated areas. Not honest to include deserts, prairies, etc. So above I gave stats that India has minimum about 4 million deaths, which you ignore, which is, at least, a tad higher than U.S. when adjusted for population.
You write: “I did not find India mentioned in your cited work, did you just make up the numbers for India, how did you come up with your posted idea? ”
I gave with URL in comment/reply to you above. Can’t you read???
As for: “And so has India has a “massive, massive underreporting by s self-serving bunch of appallingly incompetent corrupt liars”. And you claiming the whole Indian medical society and health ministry is in on the suppression of data? That is a very large conspiracy, if true.”
Not necessarily incompetent nor liars, simply inadequate resources as well as lack of public health officers in many of the villages, etc. On the other hand, they may also for political reasons suppressing data. Doesn’t matter the reason, I gave one article above and have several more.
You write: “Aarno
Trump on had 1 moths worth of vaccine time and he got blamed for 396,000 deaths in 12 months. Joe Brandon has been in office for 11 months with 13 months of vaccinations behind him and over 410,000 people have died with covid. The death rate has gone up/down and back up since the vaccination process started”
During the latter part of Trump’s time, lockdowns, masks, social distancing was being used; but people tired of this, together with idiots like you who discount the dangers of COVID, not just deaths; but hospitalizations and long COVID. And stats show that the much higher rates of hospitalizations during Biden’s Presidency are in states with lower vaccination rates and lower adherence to masks, etc. And I won’t bother giving URLs because, just as you ignore my comment including URL about India, you will ignore.
You write: “Joel ( what did you get tired of sitting alone in your house with no one to rant against).”
My comments above were explanations, not rants. However, I asked you awhile back how you have so much time to post comments. No reply. Pot calling the kettle black. Yep, I am alone, walk my dog a mile twice daily, play with frisby with him in backyard, read lots on numerous subjects, currently new text on immunology and Robert Kennedy Jrs book “The Real Anthony Fauci”. Yikes, I could tear apart almost everything he writes, though, as the old say goes “Even a broken clock gets the time right twice daily” so if I decide to write a review of the book, I will give credit for the small number of points he got right. And I donate plasma every four weeks and several times, keep calling, food banks if they need a volunteer. Will probably phone again soon. Yep, never smoked, barely tried alcohol, never, not even once, used any other recreational drug but caffeine. Became vegetarian in my 20s, then vegan; but take necessary vitamin supplements, not megadoses, e.g. B12 because can’t get from vegan diet, vitamin D3, and iron because blood donor. Have jogged, bicycled, swam, try to always use stairs, long walks, trained AIKIDO (poor reflexes and hand eye coordination; but was fun) and off and on moderate weight lifting. Literally I’ve outlived ALL my childhood friends and many from latter years. Before lockdown went to local YMCA almost every day, often drank coffee afterwards and went to lunch with various people Love it because they came from all over the globe. Since I traveled extensively and lived in five different nations, never married; but still in touch with several women I dated. You make it sound like living alone somehow affects ones cognitive skills. Absurd; but typical of you. However, once more: How do you find so much time to write comments?
@Joel: “Yikes, I could tear apart almost everything [JFK Jr] writes, though, as the old say goes “Even a broken clock gets the time right twice daily” so if I decide to write a review of the book, I will give credit for the small number of points he got right.”
Please do! I’m sure Orac’s other secret blog would be delighted to host a guest post!
—
Many hands make light work. Of liars and frauds.
@ Kay
Once one gets in public limelight, income usually does improve, AOC, according to reports, saves half her income as member of Congress her income is $174,000 plus housing allowance. If she now gets paid to give talks and for being in a film, so what? Nothing corrupt or dishonest; but please give URLs.
As for Bernie, three houses, so what? I have had friends who owned one house in city they lived in, a small cottage in country, for weekend getaways, and a condo in Washington, DC because often there. And given his age, income as Senator, etc. affording three houses within his income, no corruption involved.
I really don’t care about how many homes Dr. Oz owns; but about the unscientific claims he makes.
When young I voted for Robert Kennedy in primaries. There are wealthy people who are honest and compassionate and there are those who aren’t. And there are moderate income people also many honest and compassionate and some who aren’t. I don’t judge people by their wealth alone; but by their history, their actions, etc.
Wiping shit on other people is what Kay does to distract us from the fact she has nothing else. Tiresome but unsurprising. Movement antivaxxers are the poison that rots their own souls. Just to feel powerful. What a way to live.
@Joel: “As for Bernie, three houses, so what?”
Indeed. I assume one of those is his permanent home while a second is his Washington residence (i.e. required by the job). Maybe the third’s a nice holiday cottage out in the country somewhere. As long as he earned it all legitimately, who cares?
Incidentally, at one time my parents owned four properties (1 family home, 3 apartments), so one better than the Bern. Because they worked their asses off and invested every spare penny they had into property: buying cheap, doing up, renting out, and reinvesting. As kids we holidayed in a creaky old caravan, rarely ate out, watched a second-hand TV, didn’t wear flash clothes; as adults, our parents ensured that each of their kids owned their own apartment as a headstart in life. Because our parents were decent honest middle-class folks with an amazing work ethic who dedicated their lives to helping out others as well as their own. (They also did lots of fostering and charity work on top of full-time jobs.) Again, just amazing energy and dedication; certainly put me to shame. But who knows, maybe Kay would like to shit on them too?
Meantime Kay West’s slimy innuendo here only succeeds in proving Kay West to be an even more dishonest disgusting useless human than we already took her for. And, believe me, we already took her for Satan’s left rectal wart, so at this point we’re just morbidly curious to see how much lower Ms Backhoe can possibly go.
Kay West: “And so has India has a “massive, massive underreporting by s self-serving bunch of appallingly incompetent corrupt liars”. And you claiming the whole Indian medical society and health ministry is in on the suppression of data? That is a very large conspiracy, if true.”
Moron. It doesn’t need a “very large conspiracy”, just poor number gathering at local level and some crooked epidemiology at national government level to tie that crap data in a self-serving report. People aren’t officially dead if officials simply don’t bother to count the deaths. And India has more than enough corruption, ineptitude, and inadequate resources to go all around. In a vast nation of a billion people and enormous social disparity, lots of poor dead pople could easily go unnoticed even in a normal year. And these last couple years have been anything but.
The Modi government could easily give the Bush 43 regime a run for their money in terms of endemic corruption; and the Bush lot intentionally launched an illegal war that killed a good half million just because they wanted to. And all they did was rig a few well-placed reports too. Lying to get you want is not hard in itself, as you well know. The only challenge is getting away with it, and all that needs is for most people not to know, or not to care, or to be too preoccupied with all their own problems. No grand conspiracies; just lots of little people looking out for nobody but themselves.
Piece of piss, really. Just like you.
@Kay West: I chose the BMJ analysis because it discusses the enormous differences in accuracy of reporting in different parts of the world:
I have bolded a mention of India in particular, just for you.
At best, the official stats will tell us if COVID is trending worse or better within India from month to month (assuming the Modi government is rigging numbers differently from month to month). But you cannot directly compare the official stats for India to the US, because the accuracy of those numbers is completely different.
(And this is not even considering the huge environmental and lifestyle differences between the two nations, which will also likely generate very different case and death numbers.)
So if you wish to attempt a direct comparison of India vs US COVID deaths, you must first develop a decent estimate of underreporting in each country and multiply the official counts by that, and then compare the results (with suitably large error bars). To do anything else is useless at best; deliberately deceptive at worst. And since we already know you’re an absolute lying cnut, it’s safe to say here you’re doing the latter. Surprise! Didn’t work! Again. Give up, loser. It’s embarrassing for us, having to hand you your ass. And the incontinence…euwww.
@ Kay
Look at one comment just above. My list with URLs finally posted. And below two posts by Has, second includes quote from BMJ that reported Indian deaths probably only 10%.
Time to go into backyard to play with Frisbee and my dog.
But, I’ll ask once again, how do you find so much time to post comments?
And have you ever attempted to learn the basics of immunology, microbiology, history and current status of vaccine-preventable diseases, epidemiology, etc?
I realize, like Trump, you don’t need any of the above, just consider yourself “an intuitive genius” but that is a simple excuse for being too lazy to actually devote time and energy into learning the basics of the sciences related to vaccines, etc. And like Trump, a malignant narcissist, caring not a bit about the actual people being harmed, as long as it isn’t you, or, perhaps, a very few others that you care about.
I should have said this a few days ago but….
welcome Monsieur F!
And today, welcome Dr Joel!
I also find it distasteful to interact with many of Orac’s harshest critics/ reality denialists, so I try to write around them, addressing all readers, more reasonable people or regulars, in other words, forsaking lost causes for more achievable ends. Plus, it gives other SB commenters a chance to debunk nonsense.
I realize it is not easy to understand experimental science if you have not done it yourself. Fortunately, I had 4 years of experience while getting a PhD.
There are various reason why your experiment might be under-powered (not capable of detecting an effect if there is one) or not valid. You might have a small number of subjects, and/or they might not be representative of the population you are trying to generalize about.
The Emily Rosa energy healing experiment was very probably under-powered and non-valid. Suppose, for example, that a third of the subjects were able to detect the energy, and two thirds were not. Or suppose the test was unnatural and not conducive to detecting the energy. OR WHATEVER. In experimental psychology or medical research, the null hypothesis would NEVER have been accepted based on just one study like this.
NEVER.
For example, supposed you were testing the ability of statin drugs to prevent heart attacks. You have 20 subjects in each group, statin drug vs placebo. You give them the drugs for 3 weeks. You find no statistically significant different between the mean scores of the two groups.
If someone dared to publish that study you would be yelling “No fair to statins, we know they work.” (Even though they don’t actually do what they are advertised for, but that’s another problem.)
Maybe some of you can understand the folly of accepting null based on the Emily Rosa experiment. The only reason you like it is because it supposedly put energy healing to rest. No it did not.
And if the subjects really were scam artists, they never would have agreed to participate.
No one funds energy healing research that aims to be published in mainstream journals. Plenty has been published in alternative medicine journals. An plenty has been published in China, for example, where they believe in chi.
Johnny Carson debunked Uri Geller on the air, and it made people believe Uri all the more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Carson#Uri_Geller
@Indie Rebel: “I had 4 years of experience while getting a PhD.”
You should have spent 4 years on the beach getting stoned. You would have saved your money and been a lot more personable. Probably mounted better arguments too. What a waste of a university place.
What was your Ph.D. in, again?
“What was your Ph.D. in, again?”
A dumpster. But she dug it out.
Oh blah blah blah.
Come on, Dr Experimental Science Guru. You claim to know OH SO MUCH about experimental design, then show us how it’s done, Give us benighted fools an experiment design that would provide some evidence that this “energy” of which you speak actually exists. You can do it. After all, YOU’RE the expert.
I already said, many times, that one experiment is not enough to settle a question, in psychology, medicine, etc.
It usually requires some trial and error to get an adequate power and validity. As I said before, under-powered experiments are a favorite trick of the drug industry, and of parapsychology “debunkers.”
I didn’t ask for the One True Experiment that would prove to upset Reality (although that would be kinda cool). I asked for an experiment that would provide some (any?) evidence to support your claims. Your answer is mere obfuscation and distraction.
In other words: You’ve got nothing.
So you are against statins, but for reiki, I wonder is your PhD anyway related.
For statins there are clinical trials. For reiki much less so:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18410352/
If reiki masters could not detect qi in every occasion, how reiki is supposed to work ? One expreriment is enough to show that apple falls, because it falls every time,
What kind a skill you can learn during a weekend ? It cannot be very complex
I have a PhD in addition to my MD and have been funded by the NIH, ASCO, the DoD, and private foundations to do experimental science. I got my PhD in the 1990s. So let’s just say that I have a lot more experience than you at “experimental science.”?
But all 21 practitioners in the study claimed they could detect HEF. So you now want to posit that two thirds of them were lying?
Why not then just conclude that all of the participants were lying about their ability to detect HEF? Why stop at two thirds?
Generally, alties/ woo-meisters/ anti-vaxxers tell their audiences what they want to hear: easy answers for difficult questions, simple treatments for complex or deadly illnesses, guarantees rather than uncertainty and a just world that rewards the good and punishes the wicked without error.
Most of the people I survey include a spiritual or religious dimension to their models of health, hinting that following their advice is somehow sanctioned by higher authority as well as being called “scientific” ( only by them). They can’t explain how homeopathy or energy medicine works using everyday physics-chemistry-biology-physiology-psychology so they add esoteric imaginings to the mix. If the diet-exercise-supplement programme doesn’t cure their symptoms, it could be that patients weren’t spiritual enough or they had too many negative thoughts.
“You have to be happy to be healthy”, claims one of them. When followers foolishly fear vaccines, they are re-assured that their bad choice is indeed correct because vaccines don’t work or actually kill ( or aren’t even really vaccines). Difficult, painful or uncertain treatments for serious conditions are deemed useless or more dangerous than the condition itself and replaced by simple dietary advice or unobtrusive remedies like meditation or yoga that correct the underlying problem that led to illness usually labled as stress, lack of faith or modern living. Magic isn’t only in fantasy novels.
One of the alties I survey has claimed a cure for hiv/ aids: it’s not caused by a virus, it’s caused by not living right . Another tells his audience how to survive the oncoming apocalypse with packaged organic rations and sufficient ammunition stockpiles.
Other anti-vax proselytisers too numerous to mention attribute their children’s autism to post-natal interventions like vaccines rather than accept what SBM teaches about its origins probably to attempt to avoid the “stigma” of imperfection.
@NumberWang: “Also, given your beliefs in mystic energy and faith healing, you really shouldn’t be spouting experimental theory that you don’t believe in.”
Haha, now you have revealed your profound level of ignorance. You think “paranormal” beliefs contradict experimental science? One of the early experimental sciences was parapsychology. And parapsychology still is an experimental science.
You are just a fanatical atheist ideologue. No wonder you hang out here.
You got a couple punches to the face and I love it. Not nearly enough for your lying and promoted killing — child Killer Kay.
IMHO — Either you are insane or an anti-reason jobber. We know it here. We may need to spread the word because you want people to die but that isn’t normal. You love that people die. Everyone here will know you support Americans dying. Your posts are clear.
You are clearly insane and anti-American.
Valuing your Religion over honest, integrity, and human lives is an entirely American position, once you assert that only the 30% actually count and the rest can be rounded up and stuck in a cattle truck.
Which y’all are still perilously close to doing RN.
(Frankly if the titular Right wants to mass-murder-suicide itself as virtue-signalling performative art, the rest of us could at least offer politely to hold their coat.)
@Indie Rebel: “You think “paranormal” beliefs contradict experimental science?”
LOL, nope. Non-sequitur.
Whereas if experimental science contradicts paranormal beliefs, you have only two choices: toss the beliefs or toss the science. Which of those options you choose says everything about the sort of person you are, and whether or not you are capable of being honest with yourself (never mind with anyone else).
Consequently, we know which sort of person you are, because you provided us all the evidence yourself. What amuses us is that, for someone who claims to own a PhD, you do not seem to possess the brains to recognize that you have already blown your case, and that doubling-down will not salvage it. So all you are doing now is making an even greater fool of yourself, in front of an audience that is happy to encourage you to discredit yourself and wreck your cause for as long and as hard as you want. Saves us the work and might be sporadically entertaining, if nothing else.
Speaking of which, why are you and your inapropos keyboard shrieking here? Was Pharyngula closed for remodeling or something?
LOL, well that explains the Gumby logic.
Modulo a few thousand years, of course.
Parapsychology has zero experimental results, they always disappear when controös are tightened enough,
“No one funds energy healing research that aims to be published in mainstream journals. Plenty has been published in alternative medicine journals.”
No one is stopping energy medicine “researchers” from submitting their funded studies to mainstream journals. The papers wind up in alt med journals because they’re willing to accept crap (for a sizable fee, one assumes).
I for one can’t understand why parapsychologist Dean Radin*’s groundbreaking research on “healing intention” didn’t make it into the New England Journal of Medicine. Radin et al studied astrocyte cell growth in culture exposed to practitioners of a Japanese healing intention modality.** There were no reported effects on overall cell growth compared to cells bereft of healing intention, but the study was described as showing a positive growth effect anyway***, by means I do not fully understand because reading the paper made my brain hurt.
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/107555304322849020
*Dean is, of course, into quantum mechanics to explain his beliefs. If you don’t comprehend what the hell he’s talking about, it’s because you are unqualified to judge his work.
**in addition to sending waves of healing intention to the cell flasks, the practitioners sang and chanted, though it is unclear whether the cells “heard” them.
***facilitating astrocyte growth may not be such a good thing, as it is seen in glial scar formation and could be lead to an increased risk of primary or metastatic tumors. This doesn’t seem to have occurred to Radin.
And here was me thinking it was because Dean doesn’t understand the first thing about quantum physics.
Oh, girls, girls, you’re both pretty!
Yes. Yes, it is entirely possible that Dean is spouting quantum flapdoodle because he genuinely believes he knows what he’s talking about. And yes, it is also entirely possible that Dean is spouting quantum flapdoodle because he knows that his audience does not, and thus is simply playing a Galileo Gambit updated to Bohr.
However, you have both completely missed a third possibility!—that Dean’s true position is in fact a quantum superposition of the other two, where both are simultaneously right and simultaneously wrong, and will remain this way until such time as you wedge that fcuker’s balls in a vise and tighten it until all four finally collapse with a “pop!”
And, to be perfectly honest, I’m really starting to think that this is the only experimental science which should count, so the sooner we get our funding application submitted the better. For while it may or may not answer the great remaining mysteries of the universe, it will at least ensure that all these looneys and fraudsters can’t breed any more. #MarchingMorons
The anger expressed here by the atheists is understandable. When you have a strong belief in something you hate to see it threatened, so you fight back hard at anyone who questions your belief system.
Most of Gorski’s readers are devote atheists, as he is, and atheism makes you feel superior. Anyone with any religious or spiritual beliefs is ignorant trash needing to be stamped out. It is impossible to reason with a seething mob, because anger and reason are not compatible.
So I am honored to have my ideas perceived as such a dangerous threat to anti-spiritualism and atheism.
You, the other day: “All SBM authors are atheists, and all who admire and agree with them are atheists.”
I guess it’s progress for you now to be saying that only “most” of my readers are “devote atheists.” [sic]
Your ideas? That’s rich. This crap makes the rounds here every few years.
By the way, is the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops “anti-spiritualistic” and “atheist” (PDF)?
I’m guessing the writings of Thomas Merton are something else that you are unfamiliar with.
I love Christ and his teachings. Do you? You insult decent Christians and other devout loving human beings. We know you are a bad pugilist, propagandist, and human.
Because you show bigotry against people and also don’t know what the F you are talking about, it is clear you are dead bot. You know nothing but hate. Very clear. Your arguments clearly suck and promote hate. Loving people notice this and reject it. Why you don’t — hard to say. You hate people.
“estimation from multiple sources in India suggests that only 10% of covid-19 deaths have been officially reported.”
so India reports about 6 deaths a day and only reports 10% that rate, if true, is still lower then the 600 per day in the US.
You are accusing fraud, by claiming just a few people in both the local level and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and have that kind of control of the official numbers.
If you were to do a comparison of just deaths ignoring the listing of cause of death (covid). If India were to have the same/equal numbers of over all deaths in comparison to the US overall deaths, India’s death rate would need to be 15-20% higher then are reported, you really believe that over 2,500 extra people dying every day in India would not go noticed? That is a pretty large number of excess deaths to hide.
For you to make such a claim you would need more then just a thin sourced news article from 2 years ago. The article has nothing to do with covid, but bribes. Just a question who is paying a bribe to hide the covid data and to what end. More covid deaths would equate to more international aid.
For you to make this statement you have just described is what is actually going on in the global warming/climate change and is actually confirmed by their own emails and how they used their positions to get those who oppose them to be censored and de funded.
“Moron. It doesn’t need a “very large conspiracy”, just poor number gathering at local level and some crooked epidemiology at national government level to tie that crap data in a self-serving report.”
You have a small number of people who have instituted a “infill” (read make up) 50% of missing data from temperature records. These same people claim that the US weather service personnel couldn’t read thermometer and have adjusted the data over 1.2 degrees and are still adjusting data to this date. My father was a meteorologist for the US Weather Bureau for over 40 years, he would be appalled at how NOAA is now claiming he didn’t know how to read a mercury thermometer and how much they are adjusting his and his co-workers readings
Here is just a sample of how a small number of people (crooked as you described them) influenced the global warming climate change.
theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/hacked-climate-emails-analysis
“Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Cheers
Phil”
Mike,
… I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise… Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise…
Cheers
Phil “
So I might have to agree with you that poor number gathering and some crooked people at the national government make self serving reports.
“Data is easily manipulated, and massaged statistics have been used to prove points and enact policy for centuries. And today, it appears government agencies”
What, is this a contest?
Oh look, Kay West has got herself a little pet! Hump that leg, baby!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-57888460
https://www.cgdev.org/publication/three-new-estimates-indias-all-cause-excess-mortality-during-covid-19-pandemic
Seriously, can do this all day:
google.com/search?q=india+excess+deaths
The fact that India doesn’t count its own excess deaths—regardless of whether that lack of due dilligence is due to corruption, lack of resources, or plain not giving a crap†—means that it is impossible to take India’s official COVID death numbers at face value: there’s no easy way to cross-check if those numbers are ballpark correct or wildly suspect.
But okay, whatever boo, you keep playing your stupid distraction/deflection/derail games, folk are gonna conclude that the Indian govt aren’t the only scumballs with something to hide.
Oh, wait, no… Already concluded. Too late, asshole. Years too late.
—
† It simply doesn’t matter which of these factors is at work. It was West who brought up “vast conspiracy” as an Argument from Incredulity fallacy. All I did was respond to that by showing plain old everyday corruption—for which India is long [in]famous—would be an entirely credible explanation should a massive undercount be the product of malice.
However, my claim was simply that comparing official US COVID deaths to official India COVID deaths is a worthless exercise—incompetent bullshit at best, deliberately dishonest at worst—since that assumes both sets of figures are accurate (and implies both populations are comparable). I showed that there are good reasons not to take India’s numbers at face value (and that they are not alone in having poor-quality/suspect stats). And rather than saying “that’s a fair point; perhaps our comparison was a poor one and we should reconsider it” you doubled-down on your original comparison instead. Thereby proving to us you’re lying, you damn well know you’re lying, and you don’t give a flying crap that we both know you’re lying, because all you incontinent cockwombles care about is Lying For The Cause: virtue-signalling to the rest of your vomitous murder-death cult how fecking dedicated and Speciaaaaaal you are. Like fcuking dogs pissing on the lamppost, each determined to show that he’s the Top Dog now.
So fcuk you and your wall of noise about IPCC and houses and every other bullshit distraction you puke out, because all you loathesome twunts will be the death of humanity. and at this point I’m pretty much okay about that. So who knows; perhaps in another hundred million years evolved cockroaches will do a much better job of intelligent life than H. sapiens ever did. They certainly have an excellent head-start on you.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_Formars
Pretty interesting too. If you like hearing odd snippets of entomological information about the strongest ants or the strength of a bagworm moths thread.
@Sophie Amsden
You forgot to include the Illuminati as part of the climate change vast conspiracy. They will not be happy. I tend to discount the involvement of the Masons.
BTW, lovely weather in British Columbia these last few weeks.e
I don’t intend to stick around on this thread, but props to Sophie for this hard-hitting rebuttal.
#GetARoom
What paper they were speaking about ? Perhaps some of yourf riends can dig it out ? I mean, it could be a bad paper.
@Orac: “I started encountering so many doctors who denied evolution or were antivaccine.”
I doubt that. You probably encountered doctors who had the good sense to realize the evolution-by-blind-chance-and-selection theory is wrong. And who don’t absolutely love all vaccines and think the more vaccines you get the better.
Oh look, Indie fucknut is burbling again. Like a blocked reeking drain.
Listen, simpleton. We get it. Your Beliefs come First, and everything else is subservient to that. You’ve convinced us that you simply do not value honesty or integrity, or contemplating even the possibility that you could ever be wrong.
So kindly fcuk off and go conduct your holy-rolling auto-fellatio somewhere in private so we don’t have to watch your disgusting spooge show any more.
You revolt us with your incapacity to entertain any viewpoint except your own, and all you do is abuse us by trying to force it down our throats. We have now repeatedly made it clear to you that we will not swallow; so what you going to do—abuse us some more? That only speaks the truth about you all the louder. If you can’t do honesty then at least do smart, and realize you only damn yourself and your kind even further.
Hump your god elsewhere. This is a blog about science, not autofellatio.
“I doubt that. You probably encountered doctors who had the good sense to realize the evolution-by-blind-chance-and-selection theory is wrong. And who don’t absolutely love all vaccines and think the more vaccines you get the better.”
So basically, you don’t like the fact that science shows everything you think is wrong, so you’ve chosen to ignore science.
it is never clear how someone like you so completely fails both education and honesty.
It figures. Natural selection is not blind chance. It is exactly opposite, it is selection. Try to understand this,
Ah, so you’re a denier of the theory of evolution as well. Why am I not surprised?
Those of you feeling betrayed because info on Dr. Oz’s Homeopathy Starter Kit no longer appears on the Ozian website (scrubbed for his Senate run?) will be delighted to find key excerpts on the website of Quebec naturopath Lisa Samet, who appeared on the Oz show to boost this fine addition to the quack armamentarium.
https://www.lisasamet.com/lisa-samet-on-the-dr-oz-show/
I would have watched the videos myself, but ran out of 200C Nux Vomica for prophylaxis purposes.
@ Sophie Amsden
I guess you missed my earlier post:
ABSTRACT: “India lacks an authoritative estimate of the death toll from the COVID-19 pandemic. We report excess mortality estimates from three different data sources from the pandemic’s start through June 2021. First, extrapolation of state-level civil registration from seven states suggests 3.4 million excess deaths. Second, applying international estimates of age-specific infection fatality rates (IFR) to Indian seroprevalence data implies a higher toll of around 4 million. Third, our analysis of the Consumer Pyramid Household Survey, a longitudinal panel of over 800,000 individuals across all states, yields an estimate of 4.9 million excess deaths. Each of these estimates has shortcomings and they also diverge in the pattern of deaths between the two waves of the pandemic. Estimating COVID-deaths with statistical confidence may prove elusive. But all estimates suggest that the death toll from the pandemic is likely to be an order of magnitude greater than the official count of
400,000.”
Abhishek Anand, Justin Sandefur, and Arvind Subramanian (2021 Jul). Three New Estimates of India’s All-Cause Excess Mortality during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Working Paper 589. Center for Global Development. Available at: https://cgdev.org/publication/three-new-estimates-indias-all-cause-excess-mortality-during-covid-19-pandemic
And undercounting the deaths of a couple thousand people a day in an extremely poor nation with a population of 1.3 billion people, especially by what has become a right-wing authoritarian government is credible. And I have several more articles, including the one Has mentioned in the BMJ. Do you actually know anything about India, e.g., how difficult it is to even get health care to large areas of the nation, millions of tiny villages, etc.?
Of course, given you don’t believe COVID-19 is all that dangerous, of course, you will reject anything, regardless of how well-done, that conflicts with your beliefs. You do notice that the ABSTRACT above is based on surveys conducted in India? So, how come the actual surveys give a much higher number of deaths than the official government? Explain that if you can???
A bigger issue India had during the delta wave was undercounting COVID-19 infections. Large numbers of people died in rural India without ever being tested for COVID-19. Therefore, they did not become COVID-19 deaths, even though they probably died of the disease. The same is also true of the urban poor. At the height of the delta wave 25% of COVID-19 tests in India were positive.
I have to turn in very soon, but it seems that something much like the locus classicus for this rams’ ball haggis is one Martha E. Rogers, “Nursing Science and the Space Age” (1994).
OMFG, Joel is back! I am actually excited. No offense to Aarno, but this is a moment when I could actually benefit from one of Joel’s 5000 words dissertation. Joel, I don’t intend to stick around on this thread; please join me on the ‘cancer-spike’ thread and help me understand what Vanden Bossche is referring to with his ‘innate antibodies’.
#FuckOffGerg
Another “look at me! Pay attention to me! I’m lonely” post from our resident troll.
C’mon guys, you are rubbing me the wrong way. If I were lonely, I would jump right into this simmering discussion, and even if Sophie doesn’t seem to need much help handing you your asses on a platter.
Guys, Joel and I go way back. Before Aarno, he was my go-to guy on the science. Come to think of it, for a science blog, how come you guys are always so hesitant to talk science?!
Joel, I really would like to see you put all those initials behind your name that you are so obsessed with including on every one of your posts to the test. I really would like you to clarify some of Bossche’s ideas. Join me on the ‘spike -antibodies’ thread. Ignore all my haters; they don’t understand how tight you and I are.
Fack off, Gerg the Perv. You aren’t funny and you definitely aren’t clever, so that really narrows it right down. You need help, not attention. Ideally from the business end of a shotgun.
Cute rap, Has, but I think you’re misreading the situation. Has, see all those initials behind Joel’s name? Do you think he takes them lightly? No! Those are gunslinger creds to be defended at all costs.
Has, what do you think will happen when a ‘punk’ like me barge into the saloon and call Joel out? Do you think Joel will just tip his hat and continue to sip at his whiskey. No, Has, Joel has dropped his drink. In fact, all the patrons have also dropped theirs, and it’s
now stunned silence as they wait for Joel to kick through those saloon doors and head out to the square to settle things.
That’s the life of a science gunslinger, Has. Never backing down!
Unfortunately, I have insight into the origins of Therapeutic Touch, a form of energy medicine:
Dolores Krieger, who taught at NYU School of Nursing and Dora Kunz, a promoter/ past official of Theosophy, created a “therapy” based upon ancient techniques like the “laying on of hands” that, according to Krieger wasn’t religious. ( see article on TT, Wikipedia)
In the 1970s, alt med guru, Gary Null, then merely a ‘junior scientist’, before he became a “senior research fellow”, did research on anti-aging medicine and psi projects, at the Institute of Applied Biology/ Trafalgar** Hospital, homes of Emanuel Revici: he formally tested the arcane powers of Krieger and dozens of other healers ( a rabbi, a priest, a chiropractor etc) who “healed” rats with “ascites” and achieved spectacular results with 6 of the healers succeeding 6 out of 6 times. Krieger was one of the select few.
Armed with this and other ‘data’, she continued her mission teaching nurses how-to heal patients in this manner. Eventually, her method was taught in schools of nursing in the US and abroad.
Healers like the aforementioned Null, attribute their own powers to innate spirituality inherited from his mother who advised/ diagnosed a la Edgar Cayce and prayed for the sick. When confronted with an ill person, he manifests an ‘energy exchange’ in which he balances their energy with his superior vibes because diet, supplements, exercise and good thoughts can only go so far, just half of the way to a cure ( these variables’ relative contributions were ascertained through his calculations). Subjects at his retreats provide testimony of healing when he intervened.
** not that Trafalgar!
And this is a big problem why? Ancient techniques can’t possibly work? Nothing can possibly work unless you consider it “modern medicine?” Ancient people were all delusional idiots? Similar techniques were used in most ancient societies, just by chance, for no good reason.
Any modern health practitioner who uses anything resembling an ancient healing technique has to be a quack? Should be banned from practicing? Why? Because you don’t happen to think it works? Everyone who thinks it works must be delusional?
Typical athiest/materialist close-minded non-thinking.
What part of the foregoing was “ancient”?
@Indie Rebel: “straw straw straw straw… [gods you’re such a fecking bore…] straw straw straw straw…”
If it works, prove it. If it doesn’t, discard it.
This is not a hard concept. It is also what real medicine has been doing now for the last 150 years; which is one of the reasons those of us in wealthier nations now live far longer and healthier lives than the died in childbirth that our own ancestors took as granted. No, it doesn’t do a perfect job of this, but it still does an infinitely better job than homeochiroreiki quacktitioners has. Because it is willing to admit (however begrudgingly) when it is wrong and thus (slowly) change itself for the better.
By the way, all that homeochiroreiki wankfodder being flogged by Oz & co. for a whole lot of decidedly modern money proves to be less than 200 years old as well. So you can cram your “ancient peoples” drivel where the sun don’t shine, because for over 2000 years up until just recently it was Galenic medicine which ruled supreme over much of the world†, wherein every patient’s diseases were expertly diagnosed by your ancient experts as a dangerous imbalance in their four humors, and for which the ancient treatment was to bleed those poor bastards like a stuck pig until either they died or nature—despite these so-called “healers’” best efforts—nevertheless managed to heal them… or at least until their next disease came along.
So tell us truthfully, Insufferable Rube: are in fact advocating for a return to Galenic medicine? Because if it is indeed this Ancient And Wise Medicine which you are prescribing, then please, please, PLEASE: go slit your wrists now‡, and save us all from the cruel frustration and terminal brain rot that is listening to your neverending monomanic balls.
—
† Far-eastern medicine was just the west and middle-east’s Galenic medicine only with five humors instead of four. Bloody splitters.
‡ Lengthways, not crossways, obvs. Gotta get all them bad humors out!!!!1!1!!
Indie,
Based on just a general understanding of the whole of human history, consider this.
If it were possible for a human to affect the body of another human without having to be in touching distance, wouldn’t that ability have been used as a weapon several millennia ago?
And yet, humans are still stuck with all the other methods we’ve invented (as a species) for hurting each other.
Therefore, the manipulation of energy fields with just the mind to affect the body of another person at a distance, is not possible.
@has: ” those of us in wealthier nations now live far longer and healthier lives than the died in childbirth that our own ancestors took as granted.”
You are ignorant of how lifespan and health have varied in different times and places. In early industrial societies, many were poor and starving, which decreased average lifespan.
In traditional agrarian or hunting/gathering societies, people tended to be healthy, but infant mortality was still high. Nature keeps species healthy by weeding out the least fit. Of course we don’t like this, and modern medicine’s greatest achievement was disabling nature’s weeding out mechanism. Thereby greatly increasing average lifespan.
Ancient and primitive people could also die from warfare, and from accidents that caused infection, since they probably didn’t have much in the way of antibiotics or surgery.
But general health has NOT improved because of modern medicine. That is a myth.
We are, as a society, very sick, tormented by preventable chronic diseases. My friends who have heart disease and diabetes always say their bad health is genetic. That’s what their MDs told them. So of course they need the drugs and surgery to stay alive.
Just check out any graph of human population growth…you’ll see a very slow and steady increase (with dips for major wars, plagues, etc), until the advent of modern medicine.
And god forbid we don’t want millions of people dying of easily preventable diseases…and you dare call us evil?
You’re the one advocating for “nature to take its course & kill millions.”
Ancient techniques like drilling holes in the skull to reduce pressure, splinting broken limbs until the bones knit, using pharmaceuticals to reduce fever, dull pain and prevent infection?
Seems like we still use those techniques. We’re just a bit better at them now. More effective drugs, better bone repair methods, anaesthesia, better cleanliness.
What works, survives and grows. What doesn’t fades away.
There isn’t a single practical skill from the past that we cannot surpass with modern techniques, science and engineering.
Mystical energy though. It doesn’t change. Works all the time except when subjected to rigorous testing by people without a vested interest (when it doesn’t work at all). Easy for fraudsters to make a bit of dosh from since you can always blame the recipients faith/belief, or the environment, or interference waves from Andromeda if it doesn’t work. You can even direct it over the phone or the internet or by selling electronic amulets. Ain’t modern technology amazing?
For some people the 1970s are ancient history. My children frequently refer to it like that.
But then, big hair, bell-bottoms, platform shoes oh and leisure suits – perhaps the 1970s are better as ancient history.
Wrong. “Fit” is not a continuous variable. Survive, reproduce, and Bob’s your uncle.
At this juncture, I would like to suggest that you go the back to the side of the road and wait for an empty turnip truck to take you back to wherever the fuck you came from.
I beg to differ. Several studies have shown that the disability-free lifespan has increased significantly over the past 30 years, even greater than the overall increase in lifespan.
The study referenced below attributes this increase mainly due to improvements in cardiac care and treatment of visual problems, predominantly cataract surgery.
You know, modern medicine.
Here is a quote from one of the authors:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160606120039.htm
Anyway, Indie Rebel, your schtick is laughable and boring. We’ve heard it all before.
It’s no more true on the hundredth repetition than it was the first time around.
@IR: Oh fuck off for eternity, You. Egregious. Fucking. Bore,
You keep bladdering on here like you’re the smartest person in the room and everyone else is laughably ignorant. Well, guess what: you’re wrong both times, and still too fucking stupid to notice.
Or maybe it is us who are the stupid ones: for letting you play us.
Either way: if we simplify our arguments and abstract over the finer details, it is not because we are lazy or clueless but because we have infinitely more useful things to do with the rest of our lives than craft beautiful million-word treatises on The History and Science of the Universe all for some narcissistic nullo nitwit who we already know has absolutely zero interest in anything we write, simply because we’re all Far Too Atheeeeeeeeeeeeeist here to feed your ego the free fucking blowjobs it craves.
And how do we know this? Because you told us yourself!
…
So, one last time: please be certain to cut lengthways, not crossways, and enjoy your Ancient Alternative Medical Wisdom of bleeding out on the fucking bathroom floor.
Because—and I am being scrupulously honest with you here—even the thought of interacting with you just one minute more makes me want to slit my fucking wrists all the way up to the armpits. The opposite armpits.
And I’ll be fucked if I’d ever give a prating cockwomble like you the smug satisfaction of drawing my blood first, so I am out.
Therefore…Congratulations! 10/10; a Perfect Troll! Here’s your Victory By Attrition trophy. Sit it on it and spin.
What was child mortality before modern medicine ? Ancient methods obviously did not work.
@Indie Rebel General health is not improved ? What about infectious diseases that killed lots of adults.
Childrens who died when infant were not any way weaklings. Thisn one has been proved very long ago.
I’m morbidly curious how they induced ascites in rats, but I’m trying to resist.
@ Narad:
Although I’ve heard the tales many times, I’m not sure BUT it seems that the Hoary Old Fraud took rats that the orthodox scientists tested radiation and chemotherapy on ( though how ‘orthodox’ was it if it was run by Revici?) that were scheduled to be euthanised. Who had developed ascites? Which the healers cured? Through prayer and energy work?
These websites, videos, articles and radio recitatives are a treasure trove of quackery/ BS on a grand scale. -btw- the main site PRN.fm is down because they forget to pay the hosting fees so it’s strictly GaryNull.com
Now you’ve done it. Why wait when carbon tetrachloride is $263 for half a liter from Sigma? Right, Yukon Jack isn’t in the budget.
Fortunately,
<
blockquote>In Chinese medicine, external patching therapy for cirrhosis and ascites through application of a patch with drugs such as euphorbia gansui, mirabilite, and euphorbia on the body has a history extending thousands of years. This external patching therapy usually involved mixing drug powder with vinegar and pasting the mixture onto the patient’s navel.
@ Narad:
Please don’t drink anything bad.
In the meanwhile, I suggest you read about eft ** ( see Mercola eft technique)
I’m trying it out on the cat***. She exhibits no signs of anomie, angst or ennui so it must be working.
** not to be confused with etf, which are an entirely different thing
*** totally black, made her first appearance in the snow
Greg is encouraged to discuss the “science” behind Dr. Oz’s assertion that our astrological signs are determinants of our health, Oz’s “fat burner” promotions, his homeopathic starter kit or faith healing assertions.
You know, subjects that are relevant to this thread.
Trollery: ab nihilo ad nihilo.
‘has”
“Moron. It doesn’t need a “very large conspiracy”, just poor number gathering at local level and some crooked epidemiology at national government level to tie that crap data in a self-serving report.”
Then of course you went on to post irrelevant stuff about bribes in India, in a story that was written before Covid. Again who is paying these officials to lie about the Covid numbers and why?
And then you go on about
“But okay, whatever boo, you keep playing your stupid distraction/deflection/derail games, folk are gonna conclude that the Indian govt aren’t the only scumballs with something to hide.”
My post is distraction/deflection/derail but your stuff is not……. look at all your intellectual arguments and snappy replies.
“Oh look, Kay West has got herself a little pet! Hump that leg, baby!….Too late, asshole….Thereby “proving” ( I must have missed that in logic class) to us you’re lying, you damn well know you’re lying, and you don’t give a flying crap that we both know you’re lying, because all you incontinent cockwombles …..vomitous murder-death cult how fecking dedicated and Speciaaaaaal you are. Like fcuking dogs pissing on the lamppost (this must be a new feature on female dogs to be able to see how high they can urinate)…….So fcuk you and your wall of noise about IPCC and houses (I believe that was one of the points Orac was making about Dr. Oz and the number of houses in owns) and every other bullshit distraction you puke out, because all you loathesome twunts will be the death of humanity… ( I didn’t know that I had the power to end humanity, is that kind of like a reset button or like one of those extra buttons on a remote nobody knows what they do)….Hump your god elsewhere. This is a blog about science, not autofellatio.”
Well Vicki would differ with your opinion.
“Vicki
says:
June 20, 2021 at 1:19 pm
For the thousandth time, if you don’t like what Orac posts, you don’t have to read it. He isn’t running a science news site, and never claimed to be.”
And no other female, that reads these posts, complained about calling another female a ‘twunts”.
Twunt
An unpleasant, irritable and largely annoying homo sapien who is a perfect combination of a twat and a cunt.
urbandictionary.
Joel
“Each of these estimates has shortcomings and they also diverge in the pattern of deaths between the two waves of the pandemic. Estimating COVID-deaths with statistical confidence may prove elusive. But all estimates suggest that the death toll from the pandemic is likely to be an order of magnitude greater than the official count of 400,000.”
I would tend to agree with your post about there being more that 400,000 deaths in India and that any count would be “elusive”, but other countries in the world had so few deaths from covid. It would be a very interesting study as to why the western countries have such high mortality and 2nd or 3rd world countries don’t. I am not an epidemiologist and not my field.
I posted on this topic to point out to ‘has’ is claiming this to be happening in India with corrupt numbers and few well placed people that are able to steer the “facts” away from true science as was in the Covid case, is happening to the global warming/climate change dialogue, by a handful of well placed data gathers, and high placed officials, reviewers and scientist. Who actually played with the numbers, (and actually made up numbers) and had others research suppressed. This was actually proven/exposed by their emails. “has” is willing to accept without evidence that this is occurring in India but denies it when it is really happening in global warming.
And I am with Greg on this I have kinda missed reading your post, but I am retired and have time to read and research your links. For future use cut off the Http etc. to post a link, in that way you bi-pass the delay in posting, which leads to delay in responses.
Sophie, when you’ve got something resembling an English sentence to proffer, I might try parsing it.
That’s nice. It’s not much of a bandwagon, though, and I’d wager that at least one of you smells bad.
Protip: The string needs to connect the tin cans. HTH.
Lo and behold! A paradigm shift masquerading as ineptitude!!
@TBruce: “Some of it is the result of people smoking less, and better diet, but we estimate that as much as half of the improvement is because of medical care, especially statin drug treatment, which is both preventing heart attacks and improving people’s recovery.”
They ESTIMATE it’s mostly because of statin drugs. That article is just an ad for statin drugs!
A slight improvement in lifespan, which could be entirely explained by less smoking.
And this has nothing to do with what I said about average lifespan, and health, between prehistoric times and now.
I’m referring to disability-free lifespan, not overall lifespan. There are several studies demonstrating the same thing. Sorry, bud. In spite of your ranting, modern medicine is working. A few more years of disability-free living is a real gift to us geezers.
If you compare now to when half of Americans smoked cigarettes, then yes it’s a little better now. But if you compare here and now to more traditional societies — where physical activity is/was a necessary part of life, where food is natural and air and water are clean, we are not doing well at all.
Hmm, who should I trust to interpret a study? Scientists and physicians with faculty appointments and multiple peer-reviewed publications? Or an internet rando who believes in “energy” undetectable by any means, is a creationist, and claims to be an expert on experimental design but slithers out of proposing an experimental design when asked for one?
Gee,that’s a real dilemma.
“where physical activity is/was a necessary part of life, where food is natural and air and water are clean”
Ask a subsistence farmer how varied his diet is, whether his local water supply is clean and how healthy his family is.
I don’t disagree with the position that we aren’t living the the healthiest lifestyle. Or anything like a healthy lifestyle. Just your naive idea of a traditional (presumably self reliant) lifestyle.
@Indie Rebel Can you give us an example of such a natural society ? So we can check how healthy they are. Anything you said would stop an epidemic.
You haven’t said a word about “prehistoric times” until now, remember? It was ancient times. Trying to hitch your hobby horse to “prehistory” is simply insulting to anyone who is still bothering to gaze at the cuneiform of your bowels.
I wonder if IR is aware that what is deemed “prehistoric” varies widely by region, such that a specific date might be “prehistoric” in the British isles and firmly “historic” in Iran?
“Prehistoric” really just means “before written history”, and given that written language didn’t develop at the same time all over the world, “prehistory” has about a thousand year range.
I wonder if IR has ever read the death rolls for London, that go back to the 11th century? That’s a fascinating exploration of 1) what people died of and 2) what people at the time thought that other people died of. (A lot of older babies died of “teeth” – at the time people thought that the act of teething could cause death.)
But no, no, I’m sure everything was idyllic and everyone lived to 80.
That natural food and water often came with natural parasites. They naturally hung around making your existence miserable until they naturally killed you. Lots of natural bacteria running around you had no treatment against, too. Often entering your body after you got into a fight with another tribe over resources they, naturally, didn’t want to share. Those natural bugs naturally ended your existence pretty rapidly, as well. Glorious times to be sure.
Another thing I love about this kind of bs is how easy it is to spout if you’re a wealthy person who has never struggled with obesity or chronic disease. My patients who work in ag fields all day long for pocket change and still have to come home and feed their kids would love it if they didn’t need to also buy meds. They can’t afford the luxury of a fantasy world where just “Eating clean” will solve their problems. Maybe one of those energy folks can come hover over them and knock their HbA1c down from 14 before they lose more sight or get another abscess.
Theist vs atheist: Supposedly Buddhists are atheists because they don’t worship personal gods, however, they do believe in some kind of universal intelligence. I believe the universe is infinitely intelligent, as in Buddhism, however it seems obvious to me that an infinitely intelligent universe would be capable of expressing itself in “personal” ways.
Not Mahayana.
Are you proposing faster than light nerve impulses? Maybe some kind of quantum entanglement process inside neuron-equivalents to keep widely spread sections in tune? Otherwise you’ve got a very slow thought process for the universe. Probably way to slow for us to ever even realise it’s thinking. Or, more likely, it would split into multiple separate consciousness zones where dust clouds are richer. Alternatively, it could be part of the dimensional structure of space/time but I’m not sure it would even notice us though. We’re not a big enough influence to affect it in any way.
@Indie Rebel To quote Dostoyeski: You can say many things about history, to satisfy the most pervert imagination. But one thing is impossible, you cannot say that it is rational. Tongue cannot be bend to utter such a thing.
Quacks: I had direct personal experience with a holistic “quack.” I generally believe in a more holistic approach to health, so I trusted this doctor. However, as it turned out he seemed mostly interested in promising patients eternal life, as long as they paid for his expensive supplements. It took me a while to realize he was more interested in raking in money than actually curing anyone of anything.
So I have no opinion on whether or not Dr. Oz is genuine. That was not my point here. I am against the mindless rejection of any kind of spiritual beliefs that I have observed at SBM over many years.
And they are much more likely to criticize holistic doctors than to be critical of mainstream practices. Such as the over-use of certain drugs. And deceptive statistics used by drug companies to “prove” their drugs are safe and effective. Etc.
SBM is outright pro-drug and intensely anti-spirituality.
What does “spirituality” have to do with science & facts?
Why do you equate spirituality with being a sucker for “energy medicine” and other quackery?
Are you some kind of atheist?
@Indie Rebel Tell your doctor to give you dietary advice. My guess is thar he or she is more than willing to give it to you.
Spirituality won’t clear a PE clot and stop that person from suffocating to death in agony. Heparin will.
@Aarno Syvänen “What was child mortality before modern medicine ? Ancient methods obviously did not work.”
Child mortality was high before modern medicine, and since modern medicine, maybe up until the 1950s. It was high in all times and places, and in all species. Child mortality is how nature keeps a species healthy. The biggest achievement of modern medicine was, it could be argued, the elimination of child mortality.
Of course, that contributes to our species being less healthy. (NO, I am not arguing for eugenics, just stating facts).
When you compare average lifespan now vs any time before mid 20th century, we look good now. But average lifespan is NOT a measure of health! People mistakenly think that ancient, primitive, prehistoric people were getting old and dropping dead in their 30s. NO.
“Child mortality is how nature keeps a species healthy.” – Citation needed on how whooping cough or measles carrying off half the children in a village changes or in any way “improves” the genetic material of the survivors, especially if the survivors include siblings of the children who died.
“People mistakenly think that ancient, primitive, prehistoric people were getting old and dropping dead in their 30s.”
It’s actually pretty unlikely that people here believe this. We’re generally aware of this statistical issue. But, as has been said before, average life span doesn’t address healthy lifespan. That’s “disability adjusted life years”, and when you look at anthropological analysis of historic or ancient cemeteries, you will see that plenty of people did die young, and those that lived longer often lived with conditions from the unpleasant to the completely debilitating. Like osteoarthritis (very common) and tooth decay and tooth loss (which could result in people being unable to feed themselves without assistance of someone else to chew their food for them), to amputations and improperly healed broken bones.
So yes, modern bone setting and physical therapy have made people’s lives healthier. Along with antibiotics (now you’re less likely to die of pneumonia at 30), surgical techniques and insulin. (Not to mention modern food systems, so that food is free of dangerous pathogens and available outside of the growing season.)
All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the spiritual beliefs, or lack thereof, of anyone.
“and tooth decay and tooth loss (which could result in people being unable to feed themselves without assistance”
When I was very young I helped out on an archaeological dig in a medieval graveyard. One of the skulls we found had teeth so covered in plaque that you could barely see them. When the crowd of interested spectators included children, they used to show them the teeth and tell them that this is what will happen if you don’t brush.
No, they were dropping dead from disease, famine and war…a simple cut was enough to lead to sepsis and death.
But tell us again how it’s perfectly okay to let millions of folks die in the name of “bettering the species.”
And let’s not forget that dying of a simple cut isn’t something from 300 years ago: my grandmother wrote in her memoirs about when she was a child the son of the President of the US died of an infected blister, so all the kids were extra careful of their blisters (for a while). That happened in the 21st century.
Think of all the ways that a person can get a blister. Generally it’s not from “being weak”.
Coolidged.
Really, until the invention of antibiotics.
Albert Alexander is a well-known example of the effectiveness of antibiotics, and of what can happen if there isn’t sufficient supply. Albert Alexander died in 1941, of consequences of an infected cut caused by a rose thorn.
Rah rah rah rah slavery sis boom bah!
“Nature” has no goals, intentions, secret desires, pen pals, or coy smiles, dumbfυck.
It must be very important to you to believe that.
@Indie Rebel No it is very important to you believe that nature has a goals (like weaning out weaklings).
@ Indie Rebel
“People mistakenly think that ancient, primitive, prehistoric people were getting old and dropping dead in their 30s. NO.”
I agree that there are misconceptions. For instance, considering child mortality: that skews the picture. If you consider the time remaining to live for an existing individual, it is mechanically higher from the time remaining to live of a newborn. Child mortality is smoothed out with the first statistic whereas it’s not with the second number. And it does have moral implications when assessing the whole picture.
But the whole picture is not merely about personal health.
For instance, a theory explaining the chronic underdevelopment of Africa has been this one: the only way to mitigate the spread of epidemics in the african continent was to put two or three miles between villages, stay away from water (which is why you see african women carrying water on quite a distance: it’s not just for kicks, but traditional “knowledge” to avoid spreading diseases) and forbid concentration of people in big cities. Pre-colonisation era.
It’s not medicine that brings diseases. It’s civilisation and commerce. Travel routes. So medicine has to keep up with the evolution of society.
There’s no turning back on it. “Spirituality” has nothing to do with it. “Spirituality” does not forbid building up a civilisation. Quite the opposite in fact.
“Spirituality” is not spiritism. And Spirituality that rejects Science is not Spirituality. But Spirituality has a right to criticise Science. And Science has a right to criticise Spirituality. When they both play by the rules, there’s much less friction. The thing is: Organised Religion has decided not to play by the rules, and bypass criticism. Spirituality, which is not supposed to be Organised Religion per se, is free to play by the rules. Or not. And then get blamed if not.
When Power Plays masquerade as Science, they should be called out. Otherwise Science should be defended. At all costs. And a Spirituality which rejects Science rejects the only productive way to produce reliable knowledge. And therefore cannot pretend to be Spirituality. Since Spirituality also seeks knowledge.
Spirituality may criticise Science. Not reject it out of principle. Because you cannot decently reject methodology and logical thinking if you’re serious about Spirituality.
Which I am not. Not at all.
But it is Science that has liberated women. With the pill. And will keep liberating them. Not Spirituality. Organised Religion will bash women down. Whereas Spirituality still has a choice to acknowledge the role of Science in building up a civilisation. If it plays down the role of Science, it will go down the same road as Organised Religion. And end in the same bin.
Your choice.
@JustaTech “I wonder if IR is aware that what is deemed “prehistoric” varies widely by region, such that a specific date might be “prehistoric” in the British isles and firmly “historic” in Iran?
“Prehistoric” really just means “before written history”, and given that written language didn’t develop at the same time all over the world, “prehistory” has about a thousand year range.
I wonder if IR has ever read the death rolls for London, that go back to the 11th century? That’s a fascinating exploration of 1) what people died of and 2) what people at the time thought that other people died of. (A lot of older babies died of “teeth” – at the time people thought that the act of teething could cause death.)
But no, no, I’m sure everything was idyllic and everyone lived to 80.”
No. You have misunderstood. It is easy to think of times and places where poverty and disease were rampant. But there also have been times and places where population density was low and food was plentiful. More likely in hunting/gathering societies.
Agriculture started the process of messing things up — it made it possible for populations to expand, resulting in increased warfare, social inequality, poverty and disease. And living mostly on grains is not very healthy for our species.
There have been societies that were idyllic compare to ours, and there still are some, which have been studied. Of course traditional lifestyles are dying out.
Jesus, the shit just keeps climbing the banks.
If “living mostly on grains is not very healthy for our species” then I wonder why the human population didn’t explode until after the agricultural revolution, which, among other things, evens out the availability of calories throughout the year?
Yeah, if you’re a hunter/gatherer you’ve got a lot more time for lounging around compared to a farmer, but you also spend way more time living on the edge of starvation.
Yo, the past sucked! It hurt!
@ Indie Rebel
“There have been societies that were idyllic compare to ours, and there still are some, which have been studied. Of course traditional lifestyles are dying out.”
Name me one.
I’m not a big fan of the modern age, but let’s see what society, in which place and which time, you believe to be better than modern ones.
Traditional lifestyles which involve killing your daughter out of shame when she gets raped or smothering women in trash bags do not exactly happen to be my favourites. Try picking traditional lifestyles where that doesn’t or didn’t happen too often.
(Mind you: I’m the type of person that believe indigeneous cultures should be defended against cultural and religious encroachment, encroachment which may well be that of modern ideas and modern norms where their applicability is… ahum… doubtful, but which may also be encroachment of more contemporary and well established religious movements counting in the billion(s)…).
@Indie Rebel You are coming closer. Name that idyllic society.
@Lawrence “No, they were dropping dead from disease, famine and war…a simple cut was enough to lead to sepsis and death.
But tell us again how it’s perfectly okay to let millions of folks die in the name of ‘bettering the species.'”
If you’re talking to me, I never said ” it’s perfectly okay to let millions of folks die in the name of ‘bettering the species.'” Or anything like that. Nature obviously thinks it’s ok, but that is besides the point.
The point was that child mortality drastically lowers average lifespan. So when you are told that prehistoric people barely survived to age 30, that is misleading. You imagine them being sick and decrepit in their 20s, when just the opposite was probably true. If they survived childhood and warfare, and infections from injuries, they probably lived as long as we do, in a much healthier state.
European explorers and settlers in America were impressed with how healthy the natives looked. You think it was statin drugs that kept them so healthy?
“European explorers and settlers in America were impressed with how healthy the natives looked.”
OMG. Yes of course farmers who’s culture is adapted to their environment are going to “look healthy” compared to people who just spent two months at sea eating hardtack and trying to use inappropriate farming methods and therefore starve.
Also, do you know why those Europeans made those comments about the appearance of the indigenous peoples? They were sizing them up for slavery!
You really need to go down to your local library and do some reading because there are some astonishing holes in your knowledge base.
“And living mostly on grains is not very healthy for our species.”
Thank goodness they weren’t already dependent on corn. Oh, wait.
@Indie Rebel There were contagious diseases that killed adults. They definitely lowered the lifespan.
@Narad “‘Nature’ has no goals, intentions, secret desires, pen pals, or coy smiles, dumbfυck.”
And Narad knows all this because God told him.
Hmm. To “Peace Frog” or not to “Peace Frog”?
It’s not my fault that you are willing to babble on and on about things that you really haven’t the first idea about and instead compensate with evasion, anthropomorphism, childishness, occultism, cosmic minds, and all sorts of dualistic rubbish. You really should have stuck with Etsy. See if you can get a deal on 500 mics.
Have you checked in with Comet Leonard for any messages yet? Comets don’t visit for the sake of whistlin’ Dixie, after all.
@ Indie Rebel
“‘Nature’ has no goals, intentions, secret desires, pen pals, or coy smiles, dumbfυck.” — Narad
“And Narad knows all this because God told him.” — Indie Rebel
Well, on a personal note, nope, God didn’t tell me that.
I keep inviting him for dinner to have a chat over some wine and some saucisson, but, up to now, he has declined.
I’ll ask him when he decides to drop by drops by. If he has goals, intentions, secret desires, pen pals, etc…
But, there’s a guy who indeed told me that Nature has none of that. Precisely.
“That by the decrees and volitions, and consequently the providence of God, Scripture (as I will prove by Scriptural examples) means nothing but Nature’s order following necessarily from her eternal laws.” ― Baruch Spinoza
“Nature has no goals for itself. All consequences are results of human inventions.” — Baruch
“To be what we are, and to become what we are capable of becoming, is the only end in life.” — Baruch
“Further conceive, I beg, that a stone, while continuing in motion, should be capable of thinking and knowing, that it is endeavoring, as far as it can, to continue to move. Such a stone, being conscious merely of its own endeavor and not at all indifferent, would believe itself to be completely free, and would think that it continued in motion solely because of its own wish. This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined.” — Baruch
“That eternal and infinite being we call God, or Nature [Deus sive Natura], acts from the same necessity from which he exists.” — Baruch
Free Will does not exist. Nor for a stone, nor for a man, nor for Nature. Nor for God.
Baruch explained it all black on white 400 years ago. It should be common knowledge by now. Specifically for people interested in “Spirituality”.
To sum it up:
“No matter how thin you slice it, there will always be to sides.” — Baruch, again.
And to put the final nail in the coffin:
“Whatsoever is contrary to nature is contrary to reason, and whatsoever is contrary to reason is absurd.” — Baruch.
So much for this being a SBM site or even an educational site.
has
says:
December 6, 2021 at 7:55 pm
You need help, not attention. Ideally from the business end of a shotgun.
has
says:
December 6, 2021 at 8:13 am
#FuckOffGerg
has
says:
December 6, 2021 at 5:04 am
This is a blog about science, not autofellatio.
has
says:
December 6, 2021 at 4:23 am
So kindly fcuk off and go conduct your holy-rolling auto-fellatio somewhere in private so we don’t have to watch your disgusting spooge show any more.
has
says:
Oh look, Kay West has got herself a little pet! Hump that leg, baby!
Too late, asshole…..because all you incontinent cockwombles care about is Lying For The Cause: virtue-signalling to the rest of your vomitous murder-death cult how fecking dedicated and Speciaaaaaal you are. Like fcuking dogs pissing on the lamppost, each determined to show that he’s the Top Dog now.
So fcuk you and your wall of noise about IPCC and houses and every other bullshit distraction you puke out, because all you loathesome twunts will be the death of humanity. and at this point
has
says:
December 6, 2021 at 4:50 am
Oh, girls, girls, you’re both pretty!
has
says:
December 5, 2021 at 4:15 am
So eff you, Kay West. You really are dirt
has
says:
December 6, 2021 at 8:46 pm
Far Too Atheeeeeeeeeeeeeist here to feed your ego the free fucking blowjobs it craves.
And of course Denise nor Dorit objected to the term “twunts” as being sexist nor being called “girls,girls”. Is your position/ego so tenuous that you must rely on people like ‘has’ for your support?
“And no other female, that reads these posts, complained about calling other females ‘twunts”.
Twunt
An unpleasant, irritable and largely annoying homo sapien who is a perfect combination of a twat and a cunt.
urbandictionary.”
As to me being called ‘dirt’ coming from a thing like ‘has’ is a ‘good thing’
Far be it for me to puncture your rant, but it was myself and Dangerous Bacon that has referred to as “girls, girls”. Now I can’t say what gender a slice or two of bacon would identify with, but I am certain has knows my gender.
Personally, I think your focus on how bad the insults are is a distraction from the fact that you cannot argue on the evidence.
You are correct, of course. And yes, I did set out the narc bait just to test a hypothesis and have a bit of evil fun in the process. Because, unlike Kay West and her revoltingly dishonst ilk, I do not beat other people down to make myself superior, but rather drag the bad ’uns right down with me and let others form their own comparison.
Also, since Kay West rejects the moniker “twunt” (even though she’s perfectly happy to dine out on it, I’ll note), I hereby permanently revoke that identifier and furthermore I apologize immediately and unreservedly to all female genitals which—unlike Kay West—are pleasant and useful and actually deserving of their place on this Earth.
Kay West shall hereinafter be called a flying spunking jizz monkey; an exclusive title previously created just for the comparably abusive and considerably stupider Roger which the two of them will now just have to share between them, because that’s all the two of them worth. That’s you get, numnuts, for failing to appreciate how I was being Kind.
…
So, with apologies once more to our lovely host for the now-awful state of his carpets, I once again [and absolutely definitely will-stick-to-it-this-time] bid you all Adieu until next time, folks; all you Shits and Johnsons both.
—
HAS (evil sadistic basturt, 100% nob; definitely coming back in the next life as a cat)
Thank you for making it much easier to laugh out loud at those gems for a second time after a long day taking care of people that nature forgot. Maybe nature said “Screw this guy in particular” when giving a healthy, athletic, middle aged male MGUS and RA. Maybe it was the grains. Maybe it was a trickster spirit angry that we soiled the perfect, Pre-Columbian existence around these parts.
@F68.10 “Atheism is right.
Period.”
Haha. Some atheists are almost as narrow-minded as fundamentalist Christians.
@ Indie Rebel
“Haha. Some atheists are almost as narrow-minded as fundamentalist Christians.”
Absolutely not. Fundamentalist Christians claim that they have the Truth and then deny to even themselves the ability to reach the Truth because (gasp!!!) idolatry !!!
Whereas, we know God doesn’t exist. When we’re honest with ourselves for, say, ten minutes.
For very simple reasons: 1. all proofs of the existence of God are bogus. There’s none on the market of ideas left. All debunked thoroughly. Extremely thoroughly. 2. Russell’s teapot proves agnosticism not to be a tenable position.
Only tenable position is atheism. And then, methodologically speaking, you’ve got critical rationalism bumping in the scenery, stating the conjectural nature of all knowledge, which destroys any shaming obsessions about Absolute Truth christians may attempt to project.
Christians may then try to play the rational excuse for irrationality based on Sextus Empiricus’ Tu Quoque Argument. Also has been thoroughly debunked. By Bartley in the 1984 reedition of his Theology PhD.
There is nothing left standing of the theistic position, philosophically speaking. To put it bluntly, it’s in ruins. Shattered. To pieces. Like a Broken Idol. And God itself is an Idol, as Leo Ferré did put it…
The theistic position only remains vivid in popular consciousness. And plays the social pressure card to convince or coerce. But has nothing left for it, intellectually speaking.
You’ve therefore got serious work to do, if you’re serious about Knowledge and hence Spirituality… The 300 pages PhD thesis by Bartley is the nail in the coffin when you’ll be at the end of the Yellow Brick Road. Get down to work and business, Dorothy…
In the meantime, I suggest meditating on that following quote by Karl Barth, the 20th century foremost christian theologian, and foremost by far. (I suggest the Bronze Age Gāyatrī Mantra for emotional support.)
“A criticism of Reason is not in itself an analogy of the Cross of Christ. The bottomless pits of our ignorance are not in themselves the inherent depth of God. It is not because the human mind despairs that the Holy Ghost is present. […] The thesis according to which God is beyond understanding, the confession of a learned ignorance [reference to Nicolaus Cusanus’ De Docta Ignorantia, for the uninitiated…] itself lies in a very ambiguous manner between [sinful] self-depreciation of humanity and [sinful] self-exaltation of humanity, as it undoubtedbly has been the case in the 18th century (and, in both cases, this may well be completely senseless from a christian point of view (…)) Yes, God is unconceivable – God ! But it is pride and rebellion to anticipate on this unconceivability and to appropriate it.” — Karl Barth, Göttingen Dogmatics, 1924-1925.
Stay clear from shirk, buddy…
And do not try to play that little game with me. You’ll lose. Final Warning.
“all proofs of the existence of God are bogus.”
Philosophers and theologians have wasted many years of life trying to prove or disprove “gods.” It’s mostly a bunch of nonsense.
Rational arguments for spiritual levels of reality comes from many different sources, including modern physics. David Bohm’s “implicate orders” is a good one, for example.
And many, many others, including the work of rational scientists who explore the “paranormal.”
@ Indie Rebel
“Philosophers and theologians have wasted many years of life trying to prove or disprove “gods.” It’s mostly a bunch of nonsense.”
Nope. Not nonsense. History of thought. Hence history of science. Medieval scholarship has never been “nonsense”. Someone like Duns Scotus should not be laughed upon like you just did.
“Rational arguments for spiritual levels of reality comes from many different sources, including modern physics. David Bohm’s “implicate orders” is a good one, for example.”
I know De Broglie – Bohm’s pilot wave theory.
If you want to defend David Bohm’s “implicate orders”, then defend it.
But do not expect me or anyone to just bow down because you wrote “implicate orders” using quotation marks or just because you named David Bohm in a sentence.
“And many, many others, including the work of rational scientists who explore the “paranormal.””
Show me the results.
@has “What differentiates us from you is that we have come to recognize when, how, and why we are doing it; and why doing so is utterly, fundamentally incompatible with forming an honest, reliable understanding of how this universe works. So we make a conscious effort NOT to deceive ourselves, and all you do is roll in here and arrogantly piss on it.”
Haha, love it! You figured out how the universe works. It takes EFFORT to hang on to that kind of precarious understanding, does it? How arrogant of me to piss on your certainty. So sorry. Oh, that must hurt.
Coward.
@Indie Rebel You missed words “deceive yourselves”. Though actually, there is not much work needed here.
@F68.10
You “know” that “god” doesn’t exist. But I know that the universe is intelligent. So we know different things. That is how it goes, people don’t all agree. I don’t know why some of you atheists feel a need to cancel all opposing views. You have no evidence, and my evidence is not going to convince you. No need to act like rabid dogs off your meds. People having different opinions from yours is not going to harm you somehow, is it?
So, why did you ooze over here in the first place?
@ Indie Rebel
“That is how it goes, people don’t all agree.”
Nope. That’s not how it goes. Truth Matters.
“But I know that the universe is intelligent. So we know different things.”
Then prove it. Otherwise, it’s just hot air.
I read you’re buddhist oriented. And you know the Universe is Intelligent ??
Do you know that buddhists deny the existence of Atman ?
Do you know that advaitins claim Atman exist ?
Technically they are both wrong to even think they disagree.
According to their own texts, buddhists claim that Atman is “minus 0”. And advaitins claim that Atman is “plus 0”.
Spoiler: -0 = +0.
Try educating me about “Intelligent Universe”.
“I don’t know why some of you atheists feel a need to cancel all opposing views.”
I do not feel a need to cancel “opposing views”. I feel a need, a duty, even, to oppose bullshit. Because I take knowledge seriously.
I am not an atheist because I just want to piss off believers. I am an atheist because I am a rationalist.
And theists have been pushing a socially nefarious agenda for millenia which continues to this day. Which is why I oppose theism. Sternly.
I do not oppose reasoned discussion on metaphysical topics. Because that falls in the purview of Knowledge and hence Science, no matter how brittle the arguments may be. And no matter how shallow the knowledge thus attained may be.
Metaphysical discussions have laid down over the centuries the epistemological foundations from which science did emerge from the 16th century onwards. So I do not shy away from recognising the connection, and discussing it to clear misconceptions.
But in a context where religious discussions worldwide become completely senseless and irrational and devolve in beheadings and murders in certain parts of the world and 100 % irrational political behaviours in my own country with our Messiah Zemmour, yes, I think it’s time to confront irrationality wherever it rises.
Whether it rises in the religious sphere or the scientific sphere. Or the political sphere. Or anywhere, really.
“You have no evidence.”
Of course I have evidence. I laid it forth in another comment.
“…my evidence is not going to convince you.”
Depends.
“No need to act like rabid dogs off your meds.”
No need to be uncivil with a contender for the World Title of the most hated mental patient.
“People having different opinions from yours is not going to harm you somehow, is it?”
Oh, yes, it does harm people to have wrong opinions. Beliefs have Consequences. For instance, believing nonsense about medical matters may lead you to medically abuse your own offspring, torture him and perhaps kill him. Truth Does Matter. So try to compartimentalise a bit your medical beliefs from your “spiritual” ones, m’kay ?
But I won’t burn you at the stake.
If only I could clear your misconceptions about what science is and why (some / most ?) religious people gleefully pour oil on the fire in order to establish their moral and intellectual hegemony and hence bypass criticism, I’ll have done my job.
I do not oppose their right to an opinion or “belief”. Nope. I oppose their belief that they should be allowed to push their Truth unchallenged. I oppose complacency.
You are a “rationalist,” but I am rational.
Science is focused on things that can be perceived with the physical senses or with instruments. Everything that is beyond that is invisible to science.
So you really have no reason to fight like mad over spiritual beliefs. If you prefer to focus on what you can sense or measure, I don’t care. But anger and contempt towards those of us who can “see” beyond is something I don’t understand. How does my ability to connect with spiritual levels of information harm you?
@ Indie Rebel
“You are a “rationalist,” but I am rational.”
Bwahahahahah !!!
“Science is focused on things that can be perceived with the physical senses or with instruments. Everything that is beyond that is invisible to science.”
Nope. Nice Try.
Definition of science: what is not BS.
If you make a decent case of any claim beyond physical senses, it remains an argument. It still has a logical structure. That logical structure may or may not be sound. Whether it is sound or not is a scientific question.
Even if it does not pertain to physical senses or instruments.
The hard problem of consciousness is largely beyond instrumentation or physical senses. It remains a scientific question.
The questions of Leibniz’s monads pertaining to the explanation of matter was at the time beyond physical senses or instrumentation. It was metaphysical. Beyond physics.
It remains that physics has found a way to investigate the question of Leibniz’s monads. Ruđer Josip Bošković did the grunt work in the 18th century that paved the way for that. And what was metaphysics became physics. Physics is science, but metaphysics, as proven by this example, has always been part of Science.
“So you really have no reason to fight like mad over spiritual beliefs.”
Of course I do. When a religion claims that is The Solution to every problem in the world, such a massive claim replete with Hubris has real life consequences. And is therefore a legitimate target for intellectual food fight.
When psychiatry, i.e. what is said to be science, happens to be in conflict with religion or spiritual beliefs, or complacent with them, it also has real life consequences.
Spiritual beliefs are not a game. Genocides have played out in history for millenia over them. Don’t trivialise the matter.
“If you prefer to focus on what you can sense or measure, I don’t care.”
What I care about is that your spiritual claims do not disregard “measurable” evidence when they come in conflict with your “spiritual” beliefs. Happened many times over. Darwin’s theory of species is a case in point with serious repercussions.
Your spiritual beliefs do not deserve a free pass against any legit criticism. Science neither deserves a free pass from genuine criticism, and spirituality may well raise moral claims about practices claimed to be science.
All that’s legit. No free pass.
“But anger and contempt towards those of us who can “see” beyond is something I don’t understand.”
Challenging your claims is neither “anger” nor “contempt”. You’re playing a cheap victim card, here.
You make claims. I challenge them. It’s legit.
“How does my ability to connect with spiritual levels of information harm you?”
It may or it may not. If your claimed “ability” devolves into medical obligations that apply on children other than yours (or even yours, BTW) and jeopardize their health, it does matter. cf. vaccines.
This is the problem with alternative medicine. Faith healing means dead babies. And tiny cute coffins.
I have no issues with people making spiritual claims. Here’s a zoroastrian YouTube interview which I had great pleasure watching and educating myself with, for instance…
I’m just making the case, and a valid one at that, that no Spirituality can make a claim to Truth if it rejects Science out of principle. Such Spiritualities are not Spritualities. In much the same way that, no, Terrorism is indeed not a Religion. Or shouldn’t be considered as such by any sensible human being.
Uh-huh.
How do you perceive “your ability”?
The notion that you’re the rational one while prancing around sprinkling mystification hither and yon (not to mention being shot down six ways to Sunday on routine, McPozzm, statements and then ignoring the responses or changing the subject*) would need work to reach the level of low comedy.
*As for harm, aside from wasting everybody’s time in a hemorrhage of bad faith, it’s a bit more obnoxious than that.
Now, again, why did you ooze over here? To vent your spleen about SBM? This isn’t SBM, and your (entirely predictable) whining about it is apropos of exactly nothing.
I’ve been sitting here for the past hour with a handful of transistors, chips and prototype boards trying to determine the optimum packing density. I consulted the spirits and they obligingly peered over my shoulder as I experimented with various arrangements. After a while they shook their heads and told me that I was on my own. Then they vanished in a puff of unreason. Next time I’ll know better and consult the gods.
Oh, right:
What “levels”? How many buttons are on the “spiritual” elevator? How is the “spiritual information” packaged? How do you distinguish yourself from moronic creeps such as Aleister Crowley?
As I’ve already noted, right now you are indistinguishable from a Scientologist.
You ask about what harm it might cause? How about the children who have died because their parents said that the power of prayer was all that was required to heal them? Or the children abused or killed because of ‘witchcraft’ beliefs in some cultures?
“atheists feel a need to cancel all opposing views”
Well, I suppose atheists are just as sure of their position as theists. Why do theists feel a need to cancel all opposing views (missionary work/door knocking and religious pogroms)?
However, your confounding factor here is science. People with a logical/science attitude don’t want to cancel all opposing views. They want those views to be presented with evidence. Evidence determined by non-biased methods. If you could show experimental results, obtained using rigorous testing methods, indicating the ability of human beings to detect and manipulate a so far undiscovered type of energy field AND that the experiment has been replicated by various other teams, you’d be onto a winner.
You can’t trust the science done by religious people to determine the existence of god because the people carrying out the experiment are incapable of visualising there being no god. They will simply see every result through the lens of faith in the existence of god.
The same principle applies to science in general. In order to control this, trial methods have been developed to eliminate bias in results and interpretations. I won’t say that it works every time but there’s a framework there to allow every other scientist to evaluate the reliability of your results. If you can’t use that framework to produce positive results then you can’t prove your position. See also, Tooth Fairy science.
“People mistakenly think that ancient, primitive, prehistoric people were getting old and dropping dead in their 30s.”
Yes, in olden times if in infancy you survived infectious diseases, malnutrition and accidents you stood a good chance of making it to adulthood – where, if you didn’t perish from infectious diseases (anything from sepsis due to injury to being part of a pandemic), accidents (i.e. working in hazardous jobs like mining etc.), malnutrition or being sent off to war to die as cannon fodder, you could live a full four score and ten in relatively decent condition.
*Primitive peoples also didn’t have to cope with hucksters’ remedies like Dr. Oz’s Magic Elixir, good for what ails you.
Yes you can exaggerate and select examples of times and places where things were bad. Or you could be objective, and notice that there have been times and places where people were much healthier than now.
How many modern Americans are going blind and having their limbs cut off because of diabetes? How many are disabled by arthritis or dementia? These things are epidemic now. And Gorski thinks it’s anti-science to care about lifestyle and diet.
Well, you’ve already tried and failed with the Indians and Pilgrims. Maybe you should move on to a documentary.
Straw Man. Orac is calling out the propensity to view healthy living as a panacea. It’s not.
Wherever did you get that ridiculous idea? Indeed, I’ve mentioned on several occasions how, though changes in diet (a lot fewer calories and less bad stuff) and lifestyle (specifically a lot more exercise), I lost over 50 lbs in around a year and a half, and how that weight loss enabled me to stop taking one of the two blood pressure drugs that I had been taking before and lower the dose of the other one by two-thirds. Unfortunately, genetics still rules, and I’ve given up trying to get off of antihypertensives entirely, but clearly I made a huge improvement in my health through the dreaded lifestyle and diet changes. Compared to 3-4 years ago, I’m much thinner and healthier.
What I do object to are pseudoscientific and exaggerated appeals to lifestyle and diet that claim that they can do either what they can’t do or way more than they can do. Such appeals are often fused with quackery as well. “Indie Rebel” might also not be aware that lifestyle and diet changes are in evidence-based guidelines for major chronic diseases. For instance the ADA recommendations for newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes recommend dietary changes, weight loss, and exercise as first interventions before drugs. Ditto the AHA’s recommendations for newly diagnosed mild to moderate hypertension. This claim that supporters of science-based medicine “hate” lifestyle and dietary interventions and consider them pseudoscience and quackery is just plain bullshit. It’s claims that such interventions are panaceas that we detest.
Oh Indie. You really need to read some more history.
Lots of people in the past had severe arthritis. We know this because arthritis leaves marks on the bones that are still visible hundreds or even thousands of years later. This is because arthritis is often a consequence of hard, repetitive manual labor. Like farming. Or fishing.
Before the 20th century, do you know what happened to people with diabetes? Not amputations, generally, no they just died. Slowly and terribly.
Let’s look at some “then and now”:
Leprosy: Then, living death. Now, extremely treatable with a short course of medication.
Cancer: Then, death. Now, many treatments (because cancer is many diseases), some with very good overall survival. Also, two preventative vaccines.
Malaria: Then, very dangerous (and more widespread). Now, more limited range, more treatments, possibly a vaccine. Still kills far, far, far too many children.
Epilepsy: Then, uncontrollable seizures, eventually death. Now, controllable with medication and sometimes surgery (and also not being burned as a witch).
Here are some other modern things that improve people’s health:
Window screens. Yes, seriously. Before effective wire screens were invented there were just insects in your house all the time. Especially flies in your food. Flies carry disease. (Ever wonder why the Victorians had so many round cloths with beads sewn to the edges? They were for covering open bowls and pots and jugs to keep the flies out.)
Better sealed houses in general. Central heating (less indoor air pollution, better at preventing cold-induced injuries). Plumbing (for so very many reasons, but an oft-missed one was the number of people, usually women, who drowned fetching water).
Go read some interviews with historians and archeologists and experimental historians – people who test out living like humans did in the past. They’ll tell you that not everything was terrible, but none of them would just give up everything from modern life. Because it is safer and healthier.
Chris I really don’t care what sex you or bacon are or denice nor dorit, the term “twunts’ is sexist. As I pointed out. it is a derogatory term for a FEMALE combining the word “twit” with the word “c8nts”. If you stand by and allow sexist, racist, homophobic terms to be used against your opponents, then you lose standing to complain about them being used against you.
It is admirable that you would try to take an arrow for the social misprint that ‘has’ is. As to argue with ‘has’ using two year old evidence on corruption in India to support his ‘belief’ that the Indians are under counting covid deaths. My question to that is to what end would you under count covid deaths. Their is no money (UN/World Health etc.) in under counting deaths. Even the sources cited here claim a 10% under count which is still a lot lower death rate then the US.
As to ‘has’
“When you resort to name calling you have lost the argument.”
“using two year old evidence on corruption in India to support his ‘belief’ that the Indians are under counting covid deaths. My question to that is to what end would you under count covid deaths. Their is no money (UN/World Health etc.) in under counting deaths.”
I can’t be arsed to go back over the whole conversation but there doesn’t have to be any malfeasance for India to under-count covid deaths. The country is bloody massive. It has a massive population. A huge amount of it’s population is very poor and has limited access to doctors. It wasn’t that long ago they were having brawls in the streets due to a lack of oxygen for ventilators. The idea that it is even remotely possible for the Indian bureaucracy to accurately count covid deaths under those circumstances is ridiculous. Therefore the number of covid deaths is higher than officially recognised.
@ NumberWang @ Kay West
“The idea that it is even remotely possible for the Indian bureaucracy to accurately count covid deaths under those circumstances is ridiculous.”
The indian administration is a huge mess. You can live in india as an illegal alien and through many many loopholes legally acquire rights you could only have as a national. Among many crazy things. It’s not a functioning state on many levels. It does manage to get things done, but not in the sense a modern state should be getting things done.
I recently followed the Param Bir Singh scandal. The idea that the director general of the police of the economic heartland of India, Mumbai, could be on the run for almost a year in a case of extortion, and mingled in so many nonsense such as the Antilia Bomb Scare… kind of says it all. And that’s the tip of the iceberg of the Param Bir Singh scandal…
@ Joel A. Harrison
“However, as I wrote above, Modi is demolishing India’s democracy, turning it into a right-wing autocracy, etc.”
I have to respectfully disagree.
The indian left wing and indian so-called secularists are crazy. I did not know so much about that country a year or two ago, but I’m now very happy Modi is in power.
For an extremist, he’s a very lenient extremist.
And the more I hear the indian muslim minority defending themselves, the more I believe they are very far from being the poor victims they pretend to be. Seems like they still have their anti-idolatry agenda, which is simply not a legit position to have in a polytheistic country. They are still raging on and on about the Babri Masjid and the Ram temple in construction. This has become overly ridiculous.
I do not support freedom of religion when freedom of religion means the way indian muslims behave in India, spouting endless bigotry on their fellow hindus in Friday sermons. Well not all of them, as indian muslims overall made a choice not to endorse the two nations theory. But when I look at Pakistan, Kashmir and the statement of pro-muslim politicians in Uttar Pradesh such as the Samajwadi Party… nope… I cannot defend the muslim minority in that context. Just cannot. An ideological rebalancing clearly is necessary in India as Congress, secularists and marxists have done too much damage over the years. And, yes, there needs to be an hinduisation of curriculum of, say, history in schools and university. It is not possible to have textbooks in such a country where military victories of muslim invaders are lauded and where anything indigeneous is scorned at. I indeed now do believe hindu nationalists are right when they claim that they suffered a double colonisation: mughals and brits.
I know that this is considered fascistic to say this in India, but it is not possible that religion overrules the state when it comes to marital law as is currently the case. The hot topic of the Uniform Civil Code is something the BJP and hindu nationalists are 100 % right to attempt to enforce. And for a fascistic government, I do think they’re taking it at an incredibly slow speed… They are very very lenient nazis…
I just really cannot compare hindu nationalists with my own homegrown nationalists, who are way more berserk.
I dunno Kay, calling someone a “social misprint” is pretty nasty.
And many of your posts come off as obnoxious and hateful even without using explicitly derogatory terms.
A suggestion: try dealing with facts and evidence (realizing that’s a strenuous task for antivaxers) instead of pearl-clutching over tone.
Yes, we should all try to avoid using gendered slurs.
But, frankly, since Kay’s been banging on about how women should be denied bodily autonomy, it’s hard to get too worked up over has being has.
Kay, you are of course a regular blood donor, and signed up for bone marrow, kidney and partial-liver donation, right? Putting your body where your mouth is, right?
@ Kay West
You are either one of the dummest ever posting on this website or just plain dishonest. Above I posted a recent paper, based on data from three different Indian sources, not from two years ago; but from June 2021.
Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPHsays:
December 5, 2021 at 10:43 am
As for why numbers so low, various explanations; but doesn’t matter. If they are extremely low, then they are extremely low. However, as I wrote above, Modi is demolishing India’s democracy, turning it into a right-wing autocracy, etc. And I can’t find anything that says if India had posted much higher numbers they would have received more international aid, especially given the overwhelmed health care and economic systems because of COVID.
People who continuously insult reasonable, SB commenters and attempt to mislead readers about medical matters ( minimising Covid’s seriousness, maligning vaccines, public health measures, medical experts, pharmaceutical companies) shouldn’t get all hissy because someone calls them names. They aggravate and enrage SBM supporters passive aggressively and then cry, “Foul!” Some anti-vax proselytisers explicitly target young mothers to frighten them away from vaccines and then wonder why regulars get upset. Isn’t potentially encouraging illness by scaring people about vaccines or masks and other mandates rather destructive as well as impolite? They’re telling adults how to live without the benefit of consensus science and calling most experts frauds, criminals and shills without evidence. Not exactly good manners either.
@F68.10 “What I care about is that your spiritual claims do not disregard “measurable” evidence when they come in conflict with your “spiritual” beliefs. Happened many times over. Darwin’s theory of species is a case in point with serious repercussions.”
You don’t know what MY spiritual beliefs are!!!! Are you actually claiming that everyone who has any kind of spiritual beliefs all believe the same thing?? That I can’t believe species evolved because I am not an atheist/materialist??
How irrational self-proclaimed “rationalists” can be.
So are you not the person going by Indie Rebel who said, on this very page, “You probably encountered doctors who had the good sense to realize the evolution-by-blind-chance-and-selection theory is wrong.” or what?
Because people have the power to remember your words from post to post. I realize this is inconvenient to the form of argument you’re trying to engage in, but you will have to deal with it.
@ Indie Rebel
“You don’t know what MY spiritual beliefs are!!!!”
Of course I do !!!!
Your not an a-theist. You’re therefore an a-a-theist.
And I’m a logician. So I do know what a double negation is.
Moroever, you did claim to have a buddhist outlook and a “belief” in – ah… – Intelligent Universe.
And double negation is sooooooo buddhist ! Kawaii !! cf. Catuṣkoṭi.
Gotcha.
“Are you actually claiming that everyone who has any kind of spiritual beliefs all believe the same thing??”
Nope. Given that an atheist may well be “Spiritual”, there’s no reason that would be the same “spirituality” as an a-a-theist like you.
“That I can’t believe species evolved because I am not an atheist/materialist??”
Nope. Far from it.
I’m just saying that the issue of evolution by natural selection is a “measurable” or “instrumentalisable” fact Science proved, and that any decent Spiriruality must take it into account if it is serious about Knowledge and Truth.
Some Spiritualities are serious about Knowledge and Truth.
Some Spiritualities are not. And shouldn’t be granted the way overly respectful title of Spirituality.
I’m simply explaining why no decent Spirituality may divorce itself from Science. Which is the point at stake in all our discussions from the start.
“How irrational self-proclaimed “rationalists” can be.”
Try again. I am Truth Incarnate.
I was going to hold off on the tetralemma, but it had to be done at some point. I suppose there might be some fun in drafting new kong-ans, though.
“Why did Jinyoung leave B1A4?”
@ Narad
“I was going to hold off on the tetralemma, but it had to be done at some point.”
I must say I tend to get more and more annoyed at people claiming Spirituality and making no effort to engage in meaningful discussions on the precise topic they boast of. And then claim that its pro-science foes are guilty of irrational hubris. This is getting really, really, really tiresome.
Something tells me that the ol’ rope trick is not going to play in Peoria.
Then again… You ever been to Poughkeepsie?
@thsgrn “So are you not the person going by Indie Rebel who said, on this very page, “You probably encountered doctors who had the good sense to realize the evolution-by-blind-chance-and-selection theory is wrong.” or what?”
You can’t see any difference between evolution and evolution-by-blind-chance-and-selection? Really? No difference?
Is this some kind of half-assed “Intelligent Design” argument?
It is not evolution by blind chance, it is evolution by natural selection. Darwin did not write a book called origin of species by blind chance, Everybody would have laughed.
Perhaps you refer to intelligent design ? It is not evolution at all, it is theological concept.
Human design is not all intelligent. Compare blood clotting and space shuttle.
Space shuttle had five computers. First three would vote, and if they all had different result, two others would step in.
In case of blood clotting, we have a single point (actually many points) of failure. Not a way to design a critical system.
Nope, no difference. After all, selection, the key ingredient, is right there in the sneer-word version.
I mean, yes, one of them is written with sneer words, clearly a mockery, but … they’re the same thing. Evolution consists of random chance plus selection’s ratchet. All of the complications, all of the details – and, of course, there are many – are imposed atop the sheer random noise that are mutations and blind chance.
Denying that is, depending on the level at which one denies it, either pure Creationism, the ol’ “microevolution exists but macroevolution doesn’t” creationism, or the famously untestable “God exists and created everything by processes that look exactly like unthinking naturalistic ones”.
So, go ahead. If I’m missing something, feel free to actually explain in depth what I’m missing. Or just continue sneering that your made-up definitions mean things to you and not to me, that’s allowed but not so interesting.
I think there’s one missing piece: Evolution somehow has to have a construal that serves Polly’s being special. I don’t believe for a moment that the jabbering about systems and complexity theory [while leaving out (1) a definition of complexity and (2) thermodynamics] is just some sort of amuse-bouche that has escaped the kitchen, turned feral, and grown fat in the sewers.
One of the obnoxious parts is that there are much simpler, coherent ways of doing this. The idea that the perceived world is the unconscious mind, though, comes with some nagging responsibilities, as well as what I would take to be a disappointment for her–enlightenment is not a “promotion” in some cosmic hierarchy. It’s about subtraction
@ Indie Rebel
First, I agree that a healthy lifestyle is worthwhile. In the 1950s the average American consumed around 40 lbs of added sugar, nowadays, around 140 lbs. And it tracks with increases in obesity, diabetes, etc. And our government subsidizes corn, so high fructose corn syrup dirt cheap. Some fed to animals; but, for meat eaters, Omega 3s lower when fed partially corn than allowed free range, thus less healthy. If one adds sugar, salt, and removes fiber, food has a forever shelf life, tastes great and almost worthless. When I was in school back in late 1950s and especially 1960s with President Kennedy’s Physical Fitness, we had one hour of gym EVERY DAY. Included calisthenics, then some sport, then finishing off with a run. Nowadays many schools don’t have or reduced hours. Add fast foods and sitting in front of computer hours on end and . . .
However, even with best diet and exercise, no guarantee. In addition, kids that would have died years ago are now kept alive, e.g., neonatal intensive care units. And many, especially those with very low birthweight, have comorbidities; but their lives are still valuable, in themselves, and many do make valuable contributions. However, I suggest you read Samuel H. Preston and Michael R. Haines (1991). Fatal Years: Child Mortality in Late Nineteenth-Century America. Princeton University Press. Includes how many died before 5 & how many with various disabilities. Then do a search, numerous papers exist, that document slow changes. So, yep, if died before 5 and did have a disability, actual life-expectancy about same as today for the rest.
As for meditation and spirituality, can help; e.g., stress reduction which improves bodily functions.
However, medical interventions, including vaccines, responsible for percentage of improvement in life-expectancy; but, obviously, as we get older, even under the best of circumstances, health will deteriorate.
Your overemphasis on spirituality and hostility to science is absurd. If not for, for instance, smallpox vaccine, and you were infected, or polio, or e-coli 0157 H7, etc in food, then healthiest life-style and spirituality may NOT do you much good.
And by the way, I am 75, NEVER smoked, basically NEVER drank alcohol, NEVER, not even once, used any recreational drug except caffeine, started being vegetarian late teens, full-fledged by 30, then vegan (take appropriate supplements, e.g. B12, D3, and iron, because blood donor), limit sugar intake, and during my life lots of long-distance walking, almost always use stairs, jogging, biking, swimming, moderate weight-lifting, and years ago AIKIDO (poor reflexes, hand-eye coordination but was fun and great group of people). Before lockdown walked dog mile twice daily and went to YMCA where alternated between swimming 1500 yards freestyle, moderate speed good form, and moderate weight-lifting followed by half hour on stationary bike. Since lockdown purchased stationary bike, 30 minutes almost every day, level 6 out of 8, three days week lite wt lifting, and continue to walk my dog. Also was in Moderna Covid vaccine clinical trials and recently got both quadrivalent high-dose flu shot and Covid booster.
Yet, at 75, I have moderate health problems that my life-style, diet and exercise, could NOT prevent, though after 70th birthday had CT scan of coronary arteries, assumed 20% or so atherosclerosis. Zero. So, life-style and lucky genes did the trick. And my oldest, one of all-time closest childhood friends, died 63 years from when we met in elementary school. He was non-smoker, non-drinker, healthy food eater; but developed myasthenia gravis, a terrible autoimmune disease. Immunosuppressants kept him alive over three years and he had a modest life; but immunosuppressants resulted in bacterial infection of heart. I miss him almost every day. No lifestyle or spirituality would have prevented myasthenia gravis! ! !
Your comments are tiresome, given your one-sided exaggerated position.
And Orac/David Gorski is NOT against a healthy diet or exercise, just puts in perspective.
I have been following both Respectful Insolence and Science-Based Medicine for years and, yep, I trust science, not anecdotal evidence! ! !
Joel my post was not directed to your post, it was to ‘has’.
As to your use of the BMJ that journal has been talked about on this site and is now considered not very reliable.
respectfulinsolence.com/?s=bmj
To justatech
do you want to apply your “bodily autonomy” to vaccines etc. or just to abortions.
and yes I am a regular blood donor AB negative and an organ donor but I am guessing at my age …..
To the cartoon
being nasty is non sexist, non racist, non homophobic. The problem with most posters here, they only want to see or read the facts that reinforces what they already believe.
As to your point of obnoxious and hateful, someone posted a list of all the hateful, obscene and derogatory terms yet not one of the regular commentators objected to those comments, until now when you objected to mine.
numberwang
again to what end does the under counting of covid deaths benefit any 2nd or 3rd world country. There are probably over 40 of these countries which have lower death rates then most western/advanced countries, Do the numbers people in Africa or Asia or South America not know how to count deaths. A simple way to count the deaths is numbers of cell phones/pings in use, dead people don’t use cell phones and the number of ‘hits’/pings to towers has not dropped in any of those countries like it has in the western countries. Having some bureaucrat sitting at a desk making tic marks on a paper is not very modern nor scientific, but watching a for profit companies cell phone traffic is.
@ Kay West
The article I cited was NOT BMJ and someone commenting it wasn’t reliable, without any evidence of actually reading the entire article which I gave URL to, is perfect example of just how STUPID you are.
Abhishek Anand, Justin Sandefur, and Arvind Subramanian (2021 Jul). Three New Estimates of India’s All-Cause Excess Mortality during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Working Paper 589. Center for Global Development. Available at: https://cgdev.org/publication/three-new-estimates-indias-all-cause-excess-mortality-during-covid-19-pandemic
And a recent report stated that the number of COVID hospitalizations/deaths in U.S. was 3 to 6 times higher in the States with the lowest vaccine rates. I won’t bother giving the reference because you will just ignore it.
As for the number of reported deaths in other Third World nations, I won’t comment because I am too tired of your ignoring anything that disagrees with you; but I keep forgetting that you are an expert in immunology, epidemiology, history and current status of vaccine-preventable diseases, and, of course, have read far more of papers/journal articles on COVID-19 since its outbreak that the 2,000 or so I have read, that is, average 2 per day, 1/2 hr to 45 minutes time. Oops! I keep forgetting that you NEVER give your education/credentials, just so much more knowledgeable than myself and others. YIKES!
Last couple of months reading less on Covid, only an article or so per day.
Oh, I am a blood donor. In fact, scheduled for this coming Sunday. Actually was a blood donor going back starting more than 40 years ago, about 3 – 4 times per year; but since getting the COVID vaccine been donating plasma every four weeks because with Covid antibodies can be used for hospitalized COVID patients. My blood type is A+, mimics closely my overall graduate school grades.?
No, they of course go into the funeral pyre in case the dead want to call back later. Just as dumb as a stone you are.
I suppose, I must be dead then, because I don’t use a cellphone.
“again to what end does the under counting of covid deaths benefit any 2nd or 3rd world country”
Do you have reading comprehension issues? I said there didn’t need to be ANY deliberate under-counting of covid deaths for it it be inaccurate in India.
Cell-phones pings? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. You can tell that you come from a rich country. Is it possible for you to take a step back and re-read your own words? Firstly, not everyone in India owns a mobile phone. Secondly, if someone who owns a phone dies in a poorer family then the phone will be sold on, or taken up by someone else in the family. The number of phones in use only changes as phones get older and scrapped or new phones are bought by new customers. You think this is some kind of Hindu version of a Viking funeral? Mobile phone cremated along with its owner? You think every Indian baby is issued with one mobile phone when they are born and use it till they die? You think new phones aren’t being bought every day? Take that one back to the conspiracy website you took it from and get a refund.
“do you want to apply your “bodily autonomy” to vaccines etc. or just to abortions.”
Since when are abortions contagious?
Infectious diseases are infectious. When you infect someone else that’s interfering with their bodily autonomy.
If you infect a pregnant person with COVID and they miscarry, was that their choice? No. If a pregnant person chooses to end their pregnancy, does that give you COVID? No.
This isn’t hard.
@ Kay West (Note. I could care less what you think, Oops, I mean lack of thinking); but given you represent a segment of U.S. incapable of understanding science, my comments are mainly to give ammunition to open-minded people following this blog]
UNDERCOUNTED DEATHS FROM COVID IN INDIA.
[Note. the following are from Wikipedia articles; but each article includes references, several that I was able to obtain; but I don’t feel like giving references to each one as anyone can go to the Wikipedia articles and click on themselves]
“In April and May 2021, a number of India newspapers reported on the discrepancies between the number of cremations at various locations and the official counts for COVID-19 deaths at the same locations, leading to conclusions of undercounting.[21][34][35] The Telegraph accessed an order in a rota circulated in a hospital in West Bengal related to COVID-19 deaths which said “In case of Covid positive – No mention of Covid in death certificate.”[36] Such cover-ups also contribute to undercounts in the national figures.[36] Not mentioning COVID-19 as the cause of death on the death certificate has caused a number of orphans whose parents died of COVID-19 to become ineligible for orphan specific government schemes.[37]” [Note. for instance, not mentioned COVID as cause of death, government saves money]
[Wikipedia. Undercounting of Covid Deaths]
“Undercounting of total cases and death figures was reported during the first wave in 2020. The discrepancies were detected by comparing official death counts released by the governments to the number of deaths reported in obituaries, at crematoria and burial grounds, etc. Some states were reported to have not added suspected cases to the final count contrary to WHO guidelines.[434][435][436] Similar undercounting was reported during the second wave in 2021.[437] There have been large gaps noted between official death figures and the sudden increase in the number of bodies being cremated and buried. Several crematoria that had been in disuse earlier were brought back into operation to keep up with the demand.[438][439]
A series of articles in The Hindu newspaper estimated that compared to previous years, the number of additional deaths during the pandemic (known as the ‘excess mortality’) was about four times the official COVID death toll in Chennai, Kolkata and Mumbai, and could be up to ten times higher in the state of Gujarat. However, it is not clear what proportion of these are due to covid and what are due to other factors such as overcrowding of medical facilities, lock-down, etc.[440] A report by the Center for Global Development stated that the second wave of COVID-19 in India was the “worst tragedy since the partition”. The report, based on serosurveys, household data and official data, pointed towards a significant underreporting of deaths, with estimates ranging from about 1 million to 6 million deaths overall, with central estimates varying between 3.4 and 4.9 million deaths.[441][442]
On the evening of 11 April, two reporters from the Gujarati language newspaper Sandesh and a photojournalist staked out the mortuary of the 1,200-bed state-run COVID-19 hospital in Ahmedabad. Over 17 hours, they counted 69 body bags coming out of a single exit before they were loaded into waiting ambulances. Next day, Gujarat officially counted 55 deaths, including 20 from Ahmedabad. Again on the night of 16 April, these journalists visited 21 cremation grounds around Ahmedabad and counted more than 200 bodies, with photographic and video evidence. The next day Ahmedabad counted only 25 deaths. Similar disparities in numbers were seen on other days.[443][444] The Gujarat government denied the undercounting and stated that they were following federal protocols.[445]
A study conducted by the University of California, Berkeley, and units of Harvard University, estimated in August 2021 that more than 16,000 excess deaths had occurred in 54 municipalities in Gujarat between March 2020 and April 2021. The study used data from civil death registers in a subset of Gujarat’s 162 municipalities. The authors stated that the “vast majority” of these deaths could likely be attributed directly to Covid-19. The government’s estimate of the death toll from Covid-19 for the entire state was approximately 10,000 for the same period.[446][447]”
[Note. this article gives in-depth coverage of all aspect of pandemic in India, e.g., economic, etc.]
[Wikipedia. COVID-19 pandemic in India]
“Undercounting of cases and deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic in India is not unique to the country.[31][24] Journalists,[32] mathematicians,[11] epidemiologists,[33] statisticians, and scientists have attempted,[34] according to their expertise, to arrive at a truer number of the actual cases and deaths. The aim of this is to ultimately improve national and international responses to the pandemic.[35][36][37] Journalists have spent time at burial-grounds and crematoriums and counted in-person the number of burials and cremations. These manual counts have been compared to government figures and have been found significantly different.[32][1] India’s national serological surveys also point to large numbers (ratios of one is to thirty) of cases remaining undetected.[9][11] The scale of under-reporting from one place to another can be very large.[36] The undercounting may or may not be intentional. Rather
undercounting may occur due to unreported COVID-19 cases, inefficiencies in the data collection system, inability to adapt to pandemic like situation and people not reporting deaths.”
[Wikipedia. Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in India]
Together with the paper I included in my comment above, I think the above clearly indicates that the number of COVID deaths in India were greatly undercounted! ! !
Abhishek Anand, Justin Sandefur, and Arvind Subramanian (2021 Jul). Three New Estimates of India’s All-Cause Excess Mortality during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Working Paper 589. Center for Global Development.
@ Kay West
UNDER REPORTING COVID DEATHS IN AFRICA
South Africa:
“South Africa’s official Covid-19 death toll stands at more than 75,000, but the real number could be around three times higher. This is because excess deaths, defined as the difference in the total number of deaths in a crisis compared to those expected under normal conditions, exceed 220,000. This represents 374 excess deaths for every 100,000 people in South Africa.
The discrepancy in confirmed Covid-19 deaths and excess natural deaths is attributed to underreporting of the underlying cause of death, especially in cases of home-based fatalities, according to a study conducted by the SAMRC and the University of Cape Town’s (UCT) Centre for Actuarial Research.”
[Business Insider SA (2021 Aug 11). SA estimates 220,000 excess deaths during the pandemic – ranked among the world’s worst]
Africa:
“By mid-October, the real number of infections on the continent from SARSCoV-2 (the virus that causes Covid-19) was estimated to be 59-million, compared with the approximately 8.5-million cases officially reported. Officially reported statistics show that by mid-October 2021, approximately 75-million tests had been performed across Africa – roughly one for every 20 people on the continent.
Reliably reporting case numbers and resulting deaths also requires a well functioning civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS) system, with all deaths being recorded timeously. But according to the UN Statistics Division, the CRVS systems in most developing countries do not work as they should.
In continental sub-Saharan Africa, only a quarter of the countries are considered to collect data on at least half the deaths that occur in that country. In many cases the cause of death is not recorded or information may not be available in near-to-real time.
What’s more is that this number mostly comes from people who died in hospitals or clinics; people dying from Covid outside health facilities are likely missed.”
[Johnson T et al. (2021 Oct 22). ANALYSIS | The pandemic didn’t miss Africa — and the numbers back this up. http://www.news24.com
“Stéphane Helleringer, a demographer who has worked on mortality in several African countries, said that on the African continent, ‘There are very, very few countries that even attempt an estimation of mortality based on death records.’
In 2017, only 10 percent of deaths were registered in Nigeria, by far Africa’s biggest country by population — down from 13.5 percent a decade before. In other African countries, like Niger, the percentage is even lower.
Families often don’t know they are expected to report deaths, or even if they do, there is little incentive to do so. Many families bury loved ones in their yard at home, where they don’t need burial permits, let alone death certificates.”
[MacLean R (2021 Feb 26). A Continent Where the Dead Are Not Counted. The New York Times]
“In this commentary, we explore some of the factors purported to be responsible for the low COVID-19 infection and case fatality rates in Africa: low testing rate, poor documentation of cause of death, younger age population, good vitamin D status as a result of exposure to sunlight, cross-immunity from other viruses including coronaviruses, and lessons learnt from other infectious diseases such as HIV and Ebola” [Note, though deaths underreported, still may be lower in some African nations than elsewhere because of factors such as age, good vitamin D, and lessons learned]
[Okonji EF et al. (2021 Jul). Understanding varying COVID-19 mortality rates reported in Africa compared to Europe, Americas and Asia. Tropical Medicine and International Health; 26(7): 716-719.]
Note. I have about a dozen more papers; but the above should suffice.
you started off with the wrong premise.
“open-minded people following this blog”
This blog is not about science or SBM
Vicki
says:
June 20, 2021 at 1:19 pm
For the thousandth time, if you don’t like what Orac posts, you don’t have to read it. He isn’t running a science news site, and never claimed to be.
I pulled just some of the words used in your two post, lots of ‘estimates’, ‘about’,’not clear’,’could’. That is not very science like.
“was about four times
could be
However, it is not clear what proportion of these are due to covid
estimates
estimated
these deaths could likely be attributed directly to Covid-19.
inefficiencies in the data collection system, inability to adapt to pandemic like situation and people not reporting deaths.
I think
but the real number could be around three times higher”
That is a lot of speculation on under reported deaths. You gave an example of only 55 deaths recorded when 69 body bags were removed, with no comparison over time, as maybe the 14 dead/body bags did not die in time to make the last load. Ever religion has its prime burial days so an excess number on a certain day of the week has very little meaning, as an epidemiologist you should know that one trip to a hospital or crematory or grave site is meaningless, without additional data. With no additional information it is all speculation. Even the CDC is behind in deaths and deaths rates for 2-6 weeks and is still adjusting numbers from 2020 as revisions are made.
But then you blow all that speculation up with your second to last paragraph.
“In this commentary, we explore some of the factors purported to be responsible for the low COVID-19 infection and case fatality rates in “Africa: low testing rate, poor documentation of cause of death, younger age population, good vitamin D status as a result of exposure to sunlight, cross-immunity from other viruses including coronaviruses, and lessons learnt from other infectious diseases such as HIV and Ebola” [Note, though deaths under reported, still may be lower in some African nations than elsewhere because of factors such as age, good vitamin D, and lessons learned]”
The bottom line is they/you think that deaths are under reported, but if they are not, then the reason Africans/Indians have low numbers is because of other factors.
@ Kay West
As usual you overemphasize what confirms your bias. Overwhelming evidence shows under reporting of Covid deaths in Africa; however, doesn’t mean that even with this that there still are other reasons that result in lower numbers than some other nations, e.g., younger population, etc. You just jump at anything. AND the difference between you and me is that I included a paper which gives other reasons, something you would NEVER do. You ignore the explanations why under reporting in India and Africa and focus on anything else. Real life isn’t a dichotomy.
And even if one were to accept African deaths from COVID higher than reported; but lower than highest estimates, doesn’t make COVID-19 less dangerous. Africans have shorter life-expectancies and COVID-19 kills mainly; but not only, older people. Africans, because of Ebola, etc. actually some nations implemented lockdowns early on and other mitigations; but, if that reduced their deaths, goes against your belief that such mitigation strategies wrong. And Africans are exposed to far more potentially dangerous microbes than we are, so, those who survive, especially if surviving one or more coronavirus infections, would have antibodies and t-cells that could be close enough to cross-react. But I don’t think most Americans would prefer to have a shorter life-expectancy in order to escape dangers of infections at later ages. Maybe you could care less about senior citizens; but most enjoy their lives and, of course, friends, loved ones value every moment with them.
You just are one SICK person.
@ Indie Rebel
You criticize Darwin’s Theory of Evolution; but don’t explain and back up with anything other than your opinion. If you notice, most of my comments include clear explanations as well as detailed references.
You claim no one has actually researched Reiki. Wrong. In fact the U.S. Government has an Institute that funds such research, “The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Medicine” at: https://www.nccih.nih.gov
Congress established it in 1998. Total funding probably $2 billion dollars or more over the years. See Wikipedia. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health AND click on at Centers page “About NCCIH”
And click on middle left Health Topic A-Z, R, then Reiki:
“Reiki is a complementary health approach in which practitioners place their hands lightly on or just above a person, with the goal of directing energy to help facilitate the person’s own healing response. It’s based on an Eastern belief in an energy that supports the body’s innate or natural healing abilities.
Bottom Line
Reiki hasn’t been clearly shown to be effective for any health-related purpose. It has been studied for a variety of conditions, including pain, anxiety, and depression, but most of the research has not been of high quality, and the results have been inconsistent.
There’s no scientific evidence supporting the existence of the energy field thought to play a role in Reiki.
Safety
Reiki hasn’t been shown to have any harmful effects.”
And you can find ALL the papers on Reiki on PubMed, the National Academy of Medicine’s online database.
I just typed in word “Reiki” and got 3,251 results. Of course, some editorials, some reviews, some anecdotal; but some placebo-controlled studies; but none measures “existence of energy field”
You can also type: Reiki AND placebo and get 196 results.
You really should read Carl Sagan’s “The Demon Haunted World.” He starts out with an anecdote where someone contacts university that he has seen a dragon in his garage. University sends team that sets up equipment, e.g., infra-red cameras, etc. but find NO dragon. Does this prove dragon doesn’t exist? Well, maybe the person reporting it has a genetic mutation that allow him to see things not registered by equipment or human eye. Or, perhaps the dragon doesn’t want to be seen by others and simply avoids coming while university monitoring. Or . . .? However, you might wish to believe in existence of dragon; but at some point science wins out for the vast majority of open-minded, intelligent people. Science isn’t about absolute; but gives very high probabilities when based on cumulative research.
Please give a few references to your “beliefs” about Darwinian evolution. I have a dozen books and probably over 100 papers that I have read over the years and, yep, as with almost all scientific paradigms, minor deviations have been found.
One fascinating book is: David Quammen (2018). The Tangled Tree: A Radical New History of Life. William Collins Books
You don’t need to educate me, thanks. I spent decades studying atheism, evolution theory, materialist philosophy, etc,, etc. I read all the well known atheist propaganda. I read SBM since it began its mission to “educate.”
The theory of evolution came long before the currently mainstream theory. There have been various theories, and even Darwin believed in Lamarckism. Which, by the way, now has some support thanks to epigenetics.
My favorite theory of evolution comes from systems and complexity theories — this is really the observation that complex natural systems evolve in the direction of greater complexity. An observation, not an explanation of how or why.
Then there is simulation theory, which is becoming scientifically acceptable, which says the universe is “made out of” information. Not interested in quibbling about what information is exactly. Information is relationships. Information is intelligence.
By the way, before you start — modern science has never figured out what matter is made out of.
Given an intelligent universe, and given the observation that complex natural systems evolve in the direction of greater complexity — well we have no need for the current mainstream theory of evolution-by-blind-chance-and selection.
Yes natural selection does occur. How could it not? But trying to explain evolution as nothing more than chance and natural selection is about as absurd as a theory can be. But hey, it is a GOOD theory because it’s the ONLY evolution theory that supports your atheism/materialism.
And we KNOW atheism/materialism is true because … because .. well because we like it, and we know that everyone who disagrees is ignorant. Anyone who wants to feel smug and smart must believe in it.
I doubt Indie will ever admit that falling for health scams and quackery doesn’t equate to being “spiritual”, any more than he’ll acknowledge that requiring good evidence for a scientific claim doesn’t make you an atheist.
Similarly, being a science denier isn’t a sign of being a rebel or patriot, just a dumbass.
“trying to explain evolution as nothing more than chance and natural selection is about as absurd as a theory can be. But hey, it is a GOOD theory because it’s the ONLY evolution theory that supports your atheism/materialism”
“Given an intelligent universe, and given the observation that complex natural systems evolve in the direction of greater complexity — well we have no need for the current mainstream theory of evolution-by-blind-chance-and selection”
Sounds like Intelligent Design. Dressed up extra special and glomming on to science for a bit of respectability. Probably ashamed of its roots.
Do you really not see that everything you accuse the atheist/materialist demons of, is just a dark reflection of your own hard core ideologue attitude?
Or, to put it in a more understandable format for you, “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye”.
Bingo!
Given your ample demonstrations of the impossibility of this task, simply going away would be more than thanks enough. (Although I suppose your, ah, mental model of what matter is “made of” would be a riot.)
Creationist Entropy Gambit duly noted.
@ Indie Rebel
And you continue to give your opinion without any references. So we just have to believe that your opinion is correct???
And you keep claiming that evolution is based on “atheism/materialism”. I guess NOT possible that atheism grew because of evolution, not vice versa. And scientific methodology stands whether one is a devout Christian, Buddhist, or atheist. It is an objective methodology agreed upon by people from all cultures and nations.
And you completely ignore what I wrote about science, e.g., dragon in garage, etc.
You remind me of Eric Hoffer’s book “The True Believer”. Yep, you know you are right; but so does ISIS, so do fundamental Christians, so do Buddhists; yet, the only group who don’t claim absolute truth; but do base their opinions on something concrete, something objective, something that others can also see/measure, are scientists. And as I pointed out, science can NEVER make absolute statements. Maybe the dragon really did exist; but highly highly unlikely and at some point one has to make a decision.
One can’t enter a dialogue with you because your beliefs/opinions cannot be objectively verified. In other words, you shouldn’t be following this website based on Science; but attending some church or other mystical religious group. I guess your comments are your form of masturbation, not made to actually enter into a dialogue; but just to get your rocks off.
@ Indie Rebel
“You don’t need to educate me, thanks. I spent decades studying atheism, evolution theory, materialist philosophy, etc,, etc. I read all the well known atheist propaganda. I read SBM since it began its mission to “educate.””
On the contrary, I really do think you need to be educated. Anew. You got so many things wrong that I do not believe you should be morally allowed to spout all that nonsense on the topic of atheism.
There are non-materialist atheists.
There are materialist theists.
So. First, get your definitions straightened up, and only then may I consider you plea that You Don’t Need No Education.
“The theory of evolution came long before the currently mainstream theory. There have been various theories, and even Darwin believed in Lamarckism. Which, by the way, now has some support thanks to epigenetics.”
Bwahahahahahah !!
Gee… I had hoped a criticism of the pedigree of evolutionary theory would have mentionned Robert Hooke and Micrographia. But… nope…
“Then there is simulation theory, which is becoming scientifically acceptable, which says the universe is “made out of” information. Not interested in quibbling about what information is exactly. Information is relationships. Information is intelligence.”
This is way too cheap a dumbed-down version of Kashmir Shaivism to qualify as anything remotely scientific.
What is information indeed matters. Specifically if you’re serious about physics and serious about basing knowledge about evolution not on experimental data (see Robert Hooke’s Micrographia, fascinating read..) but on ontological considerations taken out of their domain of applicability and not vindicated by logic nor data but merely by wishful thinking.
Meethinks You Indeed Do Need Education.
If you’re serious about WHAT information IS, I’ve got nice readings for you… Try:
Information Geometry and Its Applications, by Shun-ichi Amari, Springer, 2016.
A new look at the statistical model identification, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19 (6): 716-723, Hirotugu Akaike.
Read that. And you’ll start grasping what information really is. And therefore what it is not.
Because Education Matters.
“By the way, before you start — modern science has never figured out what matter is made out of.”
Modern science has figured out what mass is made of. It’s confined energy. E = m.c^2. That’s quite a feat to manage to PROVE what mass is made of. Don’t belittle Science so easily… this is infantile behaviour.
“And we KNOW atheism/materialism is true because … because .. well because we like it, and we know that everyone who disagrees is ignorant.”
No. People have a right to disagree. But we have a right to point out who is ignorant and who is not. And you are ignorant. And not because you are an a-a-theist but because of that massive brain leak you seem so proud to exhibit on this blog.
“Anyone who wants to feel smug and smart must believe in it.”
Anyone who believes fairy tales like God or Gods without adequate evidence is simply foolish.
I do not feel smug and smart. Simply not foolish.
As to materialism, I’m still waiting to hear about your definition of “materialism”. Arthur Schopenhauer was definitely an atheist but clearly not a materialist. His main opus is called “The World as Will and Representation”. Key word is “Will”. Schopenhauer’s “Will” is beyond matter and beyond phenomenon. He’s hence not a materialist. Though an atheist.
An atheist need not be a “materialist”. I even dunno what is your idiosyncratic definition of “materialism”. I’m pretty sure, however, that it’s a popularly accepted strawman. But nothing relevant to intelligent discussion if you’re only 5 % serious about that concept.
Sayonara.
Darwin indeed believe in a sort of Lamarckism., As they say “Darwin’s opinion of genetics have only historical significance”, Current theory includes genetics.
Interesting thing is why you think that natural selection is not enough ? And last time.it is not blind change, it is .selection. Perhaps you do not accept this because it is against your religion ?
There is no reason to believe that complex systems will become more complex all by themselves. Actuslly opposite is true. It is called entropy.
Given your dreary repetition and close approach to Markov chain text generation, you might to take that to heart.
Joel
I made no reference to any link to any research in my post I just commented on your research or should I say speculations.
“I included a paper which gives other reasons, something you would NEVER do” and I would disagree with your statement as I have done so on several occasions, I also asked the commenters here to clarify which science we should believe, when the science is conflicting.
and of course you made the case for natural immunity.
“those who survive, especially if surviving one or more coronavirus infections, would have antibodies and t-cells that could be close enough to cross-react.”
and to talk about life expectancy is a diversion from the question of why more people are dying in Africa and India, which you unknowing answered with your three answers, herd immunity and diet/vitamin D and younger population.
And again because I disagree with your ego, I am labeled a ‘sick” person
@ Kay West
You are labelled a SICK PERSON because you ignore all the info I supplied in my comment, except one AND because you assume things are mutually exclusive. I’ll give a made-up example that you won’t understand; but reasonable people will.
Imagine a nation infected with COVID-19. Now imagine that everything is the same between them and another nation, except exposure to sun, herd immunity (only speculation that exposure to other coronaviruses contributed to immunity, but no indication how few or how many exposed or if the coronaviruses close enough to provide cross-immunity). Now the 1st nation officially registers 10,000 deaths; but solid studies put it out 20,000. Now the second nation, without the other factors, also officially registers 10,000 deaths; but solid studies puts it at 25,000 deaths. So, the other factors reduced the total number of deaths; but even the reduced number was under reported was under reported.
You focus on an article that SPECULATES because you don’t believe in vaccines and don’t believe COVID-19 all that serious. On the other hand, I intentionally included the article, partly because I knew you would ignore ALL the other data, because I just wanted you to once more display just how dishonest and stupid you are.
I could have included a couple more articles that actually explained the higher deaths rates from COViD-19 because so many in Africa infected with AIDS which weakens their immune systems, etc. However, I gave more than enough to disprove your belief, not your science. And you just keep proving how intellectually dishonest you are.
And you have mentioned numerous times my living alone with too much time on my hands as if that invalidates anything I write; but never explain how you have so much time on your hands or what you base your understanding on since obviously you don’t know the basics of immunology, microbiology, infectious diseases, and epidemiology, so you have only your biased belief system to determine what position to take and how to cherry pick things that confirm your bias.
Please respond. Dig an ever deeper hole for yourself!
Sorry if this is a non sequitur and someone has already pointed this out (computer problems). Another doc has thrown her hat into the PA race claiming to be a “real doc” who will identify Oz quackery and dishonesty. Her party affiliation isn’t yet clear, though. It could be two vipers tangling with each other for the Republican slot as America’s right-wing quack and successor to Rand Paul. I’ve had two notices today from groups fundraising against Oz. One is the Voter Protection Project. They will almost certainly use his quackery against him judging by the strong content of their last fundraising appeal.
There will be pushback, no doubt, but he is canny enough to have gotten the big money guys behind him before he launched this stupidity. Look out, America. Your national quack–another of Oprah’s horrendous creations–probably already has a whole lotta big corrupt money behind him including supplement manufacturers, woo sellers, and all the other offensive sources of total quackery to exploit his pseudo-legitimacy.
It really baffles me why this quackjob still has his faculty appointments and fancy-shmancy positions in academe. Why? Really, why?
Name? It didn’t readily turn up.
(What did turn up, though, is hilarity.)
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
“And you keep claiming that evolution is based on ‘atheism/materialism’. I guess NOT possible that atheism grew because of evolution, not vice versa.”
You never noticed that I said I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION? You never noticed that I said there are VARIOUS THEORIES OF EVOLUTION???
An evolution theory came about in the mid 20th century that was instantly adored by atheists. They said there was finally something that made atheism “respectable.” They loved it so much. The lack of evidence and logic behind that theory never bothered them.
@ Indie Rebel
“You never noticed that I said I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION?”
I did. But I do not care. I do not enforce beliefs. You have no belief to prove to me or us. We do not behead people on such grounds around here.
“You never noticed that I said there are VARIOUS THEORIES OF EVOLUTION???”
AND MAYBE THIS IS PRECISELY THE PROBLEM ???
“They said there was finally something that made atheism “respectable.””
Nope. The other way round: it made the Bible disrespectable. Atheism really never was respected in the first place and still is widely frowned upon. Death penalty in some God-fearing places is still in force, may I remind you.
But that’s what rabid pro-God people have never forgiven Darwin for: making the Bible disrespectable. A scientific version of blasphemy: claiming and proving that man was not created by God in any way. But evolved. Naturally. By natural selection.
That is major, major league blasphemy. Theists do not like the mental compartimentalising gymnastics it coerces them into. Which is why they keep writhing and squirming around the idea in the most hilarious and entertaining, though self-degrading, of ways.
“The lack of evidence and logic behind that theory never bothered them.”
The amount of evidence is overwhelming. You’re in denial. Period.
Interessting thing is that you do not say what theory of evelution you are speaking about. I do know only one, actually.
@F68.10 “An atheist need not be a ‘materialist’. I even dunno what is your idiosyncratic definition of ‘materialism’.”
I never said an atheist has to be a materialist. I was referring to atheist/materialists — people who are both atheists AND materialists. Don’t know what you get out of quibbling and picking on every little thing though.
And there is really no way to define “materialism,” now that we know that no one knows what matter is. No, you don’t know what matter is.
And yes, you obviously feel very smug and smart about being an atheist. And if your atheist religion should fail you, how would you manage to maintain the smugness?
That sort of thing happens when one tries to play Nail the Jell-O to the Board.
It’s very difficult at this point to conclude anything other that you’re just tossing together words that you generally don’t understand, particularly given that you’re quick to disappear when you can’t extract a retort from Koot Hoomi.
Toonces, barfing up a frankly meaningless statement in passing is not some sort of coup de grâce. You’re rather sophomoric for someone who claims a Ph.D. in something something.
@ Indie Rebel
“I never said an atheist has to be a materialist. I was referring to atheist/materialists — people who are both atheists AND materialists.”
What’s wrong with them ? Are they devil worshippers ?
“Don’t know what you get out of quibbling and picking on every little thing though.”
You are the one engineering the confusion to bash that same confusion you yourself engineered. And you have the nerve the give lessons on the matter ? When I see that, I indeed am rather fond of highlighting that specific kind of hypocrisy. Shamelessly. Which you call “quibbling” and “picking”. Which it is not. It is educating you about correct argumentation practices.
So here is your first lesson.
Lesson n°1: No straw man.
“And there is really no way to define “materialism,” now that we know that no one knows what matter is. No, you don’t know what matter is.”
Bullshit.
The invisible pink unicorn doesn’t exist. It’s not because it doesn’t exist that believers in the invisible pink unicorn do not exist. Unicornism does exist.
Even if matter did not exist, there would be materialists. Believers in the existence of nothing else than matter. Materialism would exist even if the material world were simply a giant illusion.
So: No! “Materialism” does means something. You have materialists in ancient greek philosophy. Or in ancient indic philosophy, such as the Carvaka school. Or in 19th century political philosophy. Or in french 18th century enlightemnent philosophy. The french Baron Paul Thiry of Holbach in the quintessential materialist.
That term does indeed very legitimately means something. Stop trivialising important aspects of political history.
“And yes, you obviously feel very smug and smart about being an atheist.”
Nope. I am smart: that’s objective. Cannot deny it even if I wished to. I even it got rubber-stamped on my psychiatric records “Overly Smart”. Black on white. So, it’s a scientific fact that I am smart. Lest psychiatry not be Science and Mommy not a Psychiatrist.
But I have no pride in that. I am nonetheless definitely angry at organised religion, islamic terrorism and spiritual frauds like you. And for very good reasons. I have no problems with people keeping their religions and spiritual beliefs to themselves, nor against genuinely peace loving spiritualities like, say, jainism. Or most paganisms. Live and let live.
(Jainism is, by the way, the quintessential spiritual atheism, and their strong doctrine of karma is precisely the way their moral atheistics metaphysics merged into their blend of so-called materialism. For the record about the historical kind of moral and civilisational issues at stake when discussing “materialism”…)
“And if your atheist religion should fail you, how would you manage to maintain the smugness?”
My atheism is not a religion. My atheism is the rejection of nonsense like the one you promote. I have no religion. I do read texts, and do have affinities with ways of thought that could be qualified as philosophical or religious. But atheism is not a religion: it’s not a dogma ; it has no clerics. It could be more organised, but it is not. Maybe something like the Giordano Bruno Stiftung will one day create something intellectually more structured than the brownian motion of worldwide atheists.
But, in all honesty, atheism has no dogma. It’s a position that I reached completely adogmatically. And as much as you wish to paint atheism a dogma akin to the Virgin Birth of Jesus, it simply is not a dogma. If you give me convincing evidence to the contrary, I do feel a moral obligation to change my view. Hence, not a dogma.
Nota bena: Social pressure is not convincing evidence. Rants on the Internet are not convincing evidence. Death threats are not convincing evidence. Just to be clear.
Computer I use to write this comment is a material object. Simple, is it not ?
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “The lack of evidence and logic behind that theory never bothered them.” Says absolutely NADA. Give the actual details. You just keep making empty claims. And I have two books written by devout Christians, academics, that support Darwinian evolution:
Darrel R. Falk (1978). Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Science. InterVarsity Press. [Note. he is tenured professor at Point Loma Nazarene University]
Kenneth R. Miller (2000). Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. [He is American cell biologist and Roman Catholic and wherein he argues that evolution does not contradict religious faith. Miller argues that evolution occurred, that Earth is not young, that science must work based on methodological naturalism, and that evolution cannot be construed as an effective argument for atheism] [Professor of Biology and Royce Family Professor for Teaching Excellence at Brown University]
And another book I doubt you have read, not by religious people: Peter Ward & Joe Kirschvink (2015). A New History of Life: The Radical New Discoveries About the Origins and Evolution of Life on Earth. Boomsbury Press.
@F68.10 “The amount of evidence is overwhelming.”
Haha, this is where atheists are always so confused. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and the evidence for natural selection is overwhelming. But there is NO evidence that chance and natural selection can explain the evolution of complex living systems.
You are obviously very emotionally invested in passionately hating anything that resembles theism. So a debate with you won’t be anything more than an insult contest. You are not going to think about anything I say.
But, even though it won’t sink in, I will say it again, because it is central to this whole argument:
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and the evidence for natural selection is overwhelming. But there is NO evidence that chance and natural selection can explain the evolution of complex living systems.
NO evidence. NONE. You will go on about moths on a sooty building, and all that nonsense. That is NOT the evolution of increasingly complex organs or organisms. Really, it is not.
The irony, it burns with a cozy light for a cold evening.
@ Indie Rebel
“Haha, this is where atheists are always so confused. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and the evidence for natural selection is overwhelming. But there is NO evidence that chance and natural selection can explain the evolution of complex living systems.”
Of course there is. This is where creationists are so confused. The overwhelming evidence proving evolution by natural selection itself proves that natural selection is enough to evolve what you call “complex living system”.
Precisely because it creates information. There is 0 mystery involved in that. That information creation and selection process may even be emulated by toys like so-called genetic algorithms.
“You are obviously very emotionally invested in passionately hating anything that resembles theism.”
Unemotionally invested, rather. Bored to death, rather. The same old nonsense since the Bronze Age… it kind of gets annoying. And boring.
I’m however intellectually invested in demonstrating how theists push their nonsense through social pressure rather than sound argumentation. Thank you for being a case in point.
“So a debate with you won’t be anything more than an insult contest.”
Nope. No insults. I’ve given arguments answering your claims over and over again. If you believe arguments are insults, I will then have to over-argument it. Which you’ll take as insults. But I do not care.
But I’m doing trade in the currency of arguments. Not insults, d–b -ss.
“You are not going to think about anything I say.”
I just did. I treated your bogus argument about what “atheists / materialists” do not understand. Your information gambit. There is no gambit.
You wrote that “there is NO evidence that chance and natural selection can explain the evolution of complex living systems.”
I’m explaining to you that this is precisely what evolution by natural selection did prove. You’re confusing the conclusion of a theory with a “missing” argument of a that theory. I’m therefore laying down your confusion black on what.
Which is precisely what is called an argument.
And not an insult, d-m w-t.
“NO evidence. NONE. You will go on about moths on a sooty building, and all that nonsense. That is NOT the evolution of increasingly complex organs or organisms. Really, it is not.”
Aside from the fact that the evidence precisely is the fact that this is the conclusion of the theory that Darwin started laying down.
So, no. You’re wrong. All the evidence is precisely there.
That’s precisely the point you are trying to escape.
Yawn.
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
WHY THE HELL are you trying to convince me that life evolved?? HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY EVOLUTION HAPPENED?? YES, EVOLUTION IS TRUE.
You claim to be so smart, but you cannot read.
What part of “You just keep making empty claims” did you not understand?
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and the evidence for natural selection is overwhelming. But there is NO evidence that chance and natural selection can explain the evolution of complex living systems.”
So, in your immense stupidity, you contradict yourself. Evidence for evolution overwhelming but not for complex living systems. Really, and you base this on what? Your innate intuitive genius? Are you related to Donald Trump?
Responding to you is a waste of time. You link evolution with atheism, etc.; but now state evidence is overwhelming, so not related to anything but science. Oops, only complex living systems???
I probably shouldn’t ask; but are you currently in a state mental institution where access to computers is part of your therapy???
You should say what your “evolution theory” is, Complex systems becoming more complex is not very good
@F68.10
“Of course there is. This is where creationists are so confused. The overwhelming evidence proving evolution by natural selection itself proves that natural selection is enough to evolve what you call “complex living system”.
So let me get this straight. You’re saying the evidence that proves evolution by natural selection proves evolution by natural selection.
Oh and yes the genetic algorithms. Beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I have asked atheists hundreds of times, over many years, to provide their evidence, and it’s always something like yours. “We know our theory is true because we know it’s true. And no one has a better idea.”
That’s embarrassing. What was the Ph.D. in? It keeps slipping my mind.
@ Indie Rebel
“So let me get this straight. You’re saying the evidence that proves evolution by natural selection proves evolution by natural selection.”
You failed. You did not set it straight. You deliberately twisted it.
There is evidence that proves evolution. This was known before Darwin. cf. Robert Hooke. Darwin made the case for evolution by natural selection. There was no speculative talk about “information” at that time. Genetics got hold of the locus of “information”. And the story goes on.
From all the evidence that has been gathered, yes, the conclusion of the theory is NOT merely that evolution proceeds by natural selection BUT ALSO that this process of natural selection has enough room and enough efficiency over time to create the “complex organisms” purely out of trial and error. All the necessary info being stored in genes.
So, yes, this is the Conclusion. The Conclusion that has been drawn out of all the evidence that has piled up.
“Oh and yes the genetic algorithms. Beyond a shadow of a doubt.”
Beyond a shadow of a doubt. It proves that the system works well enough to give approximate solutions to problems like the Traveling Salesman Problem that are better than any analytic solution man has come upon. So yes, it’s one more small item of evidence. It doesn’t prove the theory. It highlights it. Beyond a shadow of a doubt.
“I have asked atheists hundreds of times, over many years, to provide their evidence, and it’s always something like yours. “We know our theory is true because we know it’s true. And no one has a better idea.””
Bullshit.
You have never asked me for any kind of evidence on this thread.
But there is a point in the way “atheists” just get rid of you: there is no better idea.
The role of Science, and more generally any enterprise seeking out Knowledge, is to wean out the bad ideas. One by one. What remains is arguably much much much closer to the Truth than obsessed rants like yours or like that of creationnists.
This even has a name: critical preference. It’s a cornerstone of the modern understanding of Science known as critical rationalism.
“Karl Popper held that the effort of reaching a preference of one theory against others is the key to escaping the trap of the logical error of induction. This position is not a late appendage but is clearly stated for the English-speaking world in “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” (1959), the translated version of “Logik der Forschung” (1934).” — Bruce Caithness
So yeah, critical preferences is kind of what the field of Science known as Epistemology has zeroed in over the years, since Descartes published Discours de la Méthode in 1637.
@ F68.10
Thanks for reminding me of Popper’s book, which I read 50 years ago; but still own. I currently have a pile of books to read; but will probably, at least, skim it sometime in the future.
@ F86.10
When I pulled from shelf Popper’s book, next to it another good book you might know:
Hans Reichenbach (1963). The Rise of Scientific Philosophy.
@ Joel Harrison
“Thanks for reminding me of Popper’s book, which I read 50 years ago; but still own. I currently have a pile of books to read; but will probably, at least, skim it sometime in the future.”
You’re welcome.
Glad to see you bashing people around here.
(As we already discussed some time ago, Popper is not the end game. But it’s a good foundation to get ideas straight enough and get the ideas of Indie Rebel thoroughly straightened.)
Indie Rebel:
Wow! Intelligent design creationism! That’s so kewl. Too bad you missed its heyday by about 30 years.
I think that the Discovery Institute is still limping along, although it’s been pretty quiet for quite a while. You should apply for a job and put that PhD to some good use. You did finish it, didn’t you?
“We know our theory is true because we know it’s true. And no one has a better idea”
Well, the first part of that sentence is exactly the same as the response you get from religious door knockers. “How do you know God exists when you can’t see evidence? I feel his presence”. It’s also identical to your position Indie. You have no objective evidence for an intelligent universe (which is functionally identical to a god) yet you insist it’s true nevertheless. That’s the definition of faith.
The second part of that sentence denies another one of your assertions about the dogmatic nature of the evil atheists and materialists. “And no one has a better idea”. The implication is clear. Opinions will change if a better idea comes along. The quality of the idea being determined by the amount of evidence supporting it.
@ NumberWang
“You have no objective evidence for an intelligent universe (which is functionally identical to a god) yet you insist it’s true nevertheless. That’s the definition of faith.”
Yep. It could be merely speculation. That would be OK. But nope. It’s positive assertion and lack of engagement in any criticism on the matter.
His claim is functionally identical to a God, though, at least, it does not have the same legal implications as a God that orders society to be legislated by him. So I could be more lenient towards this wishy washy kind of theism (or deism, rather), but the way he pushes it is as gross as the most vile Bible-thumpers.
All the more if he uses if to deny evolution by natural selection.
Yes, do not have suggested a better idea. Perhaps you should ?
Selection would reduce entropy and thus generate information (negentropy). Because we are speaking about a living thing, the change would be passed to posterioty.
Where’s your evidence for the noumenal existence of plural minds?
This reminds me of something I once heard a snarky organic chemistry professor tell a failing student: “Just because you can’t understand something do not presume that others can’t.”
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
Ok asshole, you got yourself into a terribly confused state. Unable to process written information I guess.
I said there is evidence for EVOLUTION and there is evidence for NATURAL SELECTION. But no evidence that natural selection can explain evolution of complex organisms.
I do not equate the word “evolution” with “evolution-by-blind-chance-and-selection.”
I do not associate evolution with atheism.
If you were able to follow that — which I doubt — you should be less confused. But it’s hopeless ’cause you’re a turd brain.
@ Indie Rebel (@ Joel Harrison)
“Ok asshole”
I just love that kind of brutalist aesthetics when it comes to tone policing…
“I said there is evidence for EVOLUTION and there is evidence for NATURAL SELECTION. But no evidence that natural selection can explain evolution of complex organisms.”
And we’ve already explained, Joel and me, to you, that you’re plain wrong.
The conclusion is indeed precisely that natural selection does explain evolution of complex organisms.
This is not what “requires evidence”. It is the Conclusion of the evidence we have…
“I do not equate the word “evolution” with “evolution-by-blind-chance-and-selection.””
We kind of understood that you did deny evolution by natural selection. It’s getting clearer each time you post a comment on this thread.
“I do not associate evolution with atheism.”
Except when you do. i.e. all the time.
“If you were able to follow that — which I doubt — you should be less confused. But it’s hopeless ’cause you’re a turd brain.”
Tone policing. I just love it.
You are saying that natural selection would explain little changes but not big ones. Where is the diffrence ?
@ Everyone
Since Darwin and his theory of evolution have entered this dialogue, reminded me how if one searches web can find number of posts accusing him of atheism and/or racism. Well, a few years ago I got a book that was absolutely fascinating, one that I would highly recommend:
Adrian Desmond & James Moore (2009). Darwin’s Sacred Cause: Race, Slavery and the Quest for Human Origins.
From Amazon.com:
In this remarkable book Adrian Desmond and James Moore, world authorities on Darwin, give a completely new explanation of how Darwin came to his famous view of evolution, which traced all life to an ancient common ancestor. Darwin was committed to the abolition of slavery, in part because of his family’s deeply held beliefs. It was his ‘Sacred Cause’ and at its core lay a belief in human racial unity. Desmond and Moore show how he extended to all life the idea of human brotherhood held by those who fought to abolish slavery, so developing our modern view of evolution.
Through massive detective work among unpublished family correspondence, manuscripts and rare works, the authors back up their compelling claim. Leading apologists for slavery in Darwin’s day argued that blacks and whites had originated as separate species, with whites superior. Creationists too believed that ‘man’ was superior to other species. Darwin abhorred such ‘arrogance’; he declared it ‘more humble & … true’ to see humans ‘created from animals’. Darwin gave all the races – blacks and whites, animals and plants – a common origin and freed them from creationist shackles. Evolution meant emancipation.
Darwin’s Sacred Cause restores Darwin’s humanitarianism, tarnished by atheistic efforts to hijack his reputation and creationist attempts to smear him. Desmond and Moore argue that only by understanding Darwin’s Christian abolitionist inheritance can we shed new light on the perplexing mix of personal drive, public hesitancy and scientific radicalism that led him finally in 1871 to publish The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex . The result is an epoch-making study of this eminent Victorian.
@Aarno Syvänen “Interessting thing is that you do not say what theory of evelution you are speaking about. I do know only one, actually.”
Because only one theory of evolution is currently taught, and most people don’t bother looking more deeply into it, most don’t read the history of evolution theory.
The word “evolution” is used to mean “evolution-by-blind-chance-and-selection.” So you take evidence of evolution, in general, as evidence of the currently popular theory.
And evidence for natural selection is taken as evidence that natural selection is the sufficient cause of evolution.
Atheist/materialists claim to be great at “critical thinking,” but the logical errors at the heart of modern evolution theory are glaring and obvious.
Natural systems evolve in the direction of greater complexity — that is an observation, not an explanation. We have no explanation for evolution of the complex system of complex machinery we call “life.”
This, of course, you have previously presented ad nauseam as “complex natural systems evolve in the direction of greater complexity,” just to keep the record up to date. It’s trivially false in the context you want to shove it into, which is why snakes don’t need shoes.
“Complexity leads to more complexity,” stripped of its formalism (as it your wont) is no more profound than observing that 52 Pickup increases complexity but is by necessity reversible. You should really try to figure out what underlies “complexity,” viz., thermodynamics, rather than spitballing with conniptions as a backup.
@ Indie Rebel
“Because only one theory of evolution is currently taught”
Yes. That’s called… school ! We learn the science sanctionned by scientific consensus in school !! That’s how a decently organised society functions.
A decently organised society also has universities or places of higher learning and research to investigate all controversies.
But that’s not the purpose of schools. Schools are supposed to bring the apes we are up to speed on relevant matters. In university, things start changing as we are approaching topics that we know much less about. Which is why courses get more difficult, less black and white, and why research is undertaken.
That’s called a decently functioning society.
A society where you feed the mind of kids with rubbish at school and the mind of adults with dogma at university is precisely a society that does not function anymore.
Which is why we teach evolution by natural selection in school.
“…and most people don’t bother looking more deeply into it, most don’t read the history of evolution theory.”
Oh ! And of course, you’ve read it all ? Like Micrographia by Robert Hooke ?
“In Micrographia (1665; “Small Drawings”) he [Robert Hooke] included his studies and illustrations of the crystal structure of snowflakes, discussed the possibility of manufacturing artificial fibres by a process similar to the spinning of the silkworm, and first used the word cell to name the microscopic honeycomb cavities in cork. His studies of microscopic fossils led him to become one of the first proponents of a theory of evolution.” — Britannica.
“The word “evolution” is used to mean “evolution-by-blind-chance-and-selection.””
And rightly so.
“So you take evidence of evolution, in general, as evidence of the currently popular theory.”
Nope. You got the whole discussion wrong. Again, I mentionned Robert Hooke. We know Robert Hooke was not darwinian and that he nonetheless laid forth a theory of evolution. That was not darwinian.
So we are not confusing anything. You are the one trying to engineer confusion.
“And evidence for natural selection is taken as evidence that natural selection is the sufficient cause of evolution.”
Not quite. Its the evidence of natural selection plus some hermeneutics that disproves the need for any other explanations. It does not by itself “prove” evolution by natural selection. But it does prove all other theories to be bogus and flawed. And, by elimination, evolution by natural selection is the only contender left.
That’s the logic, buddy. It’s called “critical preference”. I believe I already explained that to you.
“Atheist/materialists claim to be great at “critical thinking,””
Nope. I know a great many atheists that are village atheists just like there are village idiots. But it is true that critical thinking does tend to lead to rejection of gods, and thus tends to lead to atheism.
Materialism is another topic. It’s more political, in the end, than genuinely philosophical or ontological.
“…but the logical errors at the heart of modern evolution theory are glaring and obvious.”
Nope.
Show the errors.
“Natural systems evolve in the direction of greater complexity — that is an observation…”
That observation is wrong. Natural systems tend to evolve in the direction of greater entropy and more information, but random information. For that information to be structured by external pressures, there needs to be a context or biotope like Earth.
There is no “greater complexity” in a neutron star than on my laptop.
My laptop is complex.
An neutron star is just massively condensed matter with no structured information within except unstructured randomness packed in the densest material known to us.
“…not an explanation. We have no explanation for evolution of the complex system of complex machinery we call “life.”
Yes. We do. It’s called “evolution by natural selection.”
Get up to speed on this new learning.
I actually know Blavatsky’s babblings, creationism and intelligent design (but they are not sceintific theories). Do you support either of them ?
Again that “blind change”. Natural selection is opposite of “blind change”, it means that living organisms more adapted to environments have better chage to survive.
Living orgamisms would not become more complex without selctive pressure. They stay same, there we actually have random combination of genes.
You may check adaption to land life,
@Aarno Syvänen “You should say what your “evolution theory” is, Complex systems becoming more complex is not very good”
Well natural selection because natural selection isn’t very good either. Science doesn’t always have complete answers for everything.
And yet “science” & the scientific method has been the one thing which has allowed us to understand more of the nature of the Universe and inventions.
Feel free to enlighten us to any instance of “religious dogma” inventing anything, like a computer, for instance.
Because “god did it,” isn’t an answer.
Except matter, which is a total mystery except, presumably, to initiates into I.R.’s mystical order, unless they’re busy walking through walls and so forth.
“walking through walls”
That’s what happens when you refuse to believe in doors and pretend that the ones you do see aren’t really there.
@ Indie Rebel
“Well natural selection because natural selection isn’t very good either. Science doesn’t always have complete answers for everything.”
Natural selection is pretty pretty pretty darn good an explanation for the data at hand…
Pretty close to the full picture. If not the full picture.
@Aarno Syvänen “You are saying that natural selection would explain little changes but not big ones. Where is the diffrence ?”
Natural selection is involved in all evolution, because natural selection has to happen. It cannot not happen. It does not follow that natural selection is a sufficient cause of all evolution. It does not follow that species cannot increase their mutation rates, or increase the rates of certain kinds of mutations. It does not follow that epigenetics is not a factor in evolution. It does not follow that the natural drive toward increasing complexity is not a factor in evolution. It does not follow that there are no other factors involved in evolution that are so far unknown.
Your problem is reductionist thinking — that there can only be one simple cause for any observed phenomenon.
Yah, I kind of saw that one coming over the horizon: Reductionist Theosophy.
@ Indie Rebel
“Natural selection is involved in all evolution, because natural selection has to happen. It cannot not happen.”
So far so good.
“It does not follow that natural selection is a sufficient cause of all evolution.”
It follows that it is indeed enough. No need to postulate any other cause to explain the data.
Ockham’s razor.
There are more arguments than merely Ockham’s razor, but, you get the gist…
“It does not follow that species cannot increase their mutation rates, or increase the rates of certain kinds of mutations.”
Meaningless blabber. It is not “species” that “increase mutations”. Mutations just happen. And other stuff too: things like virus have genetic payloads too that alter the genome.
“It does not follow that epigenetics is not a factor in evolution.”
“Epigenetics” ?? Who cares ?? The bulk of the data clearly is explainable with genetics alone. No need to drown the fish with “epi”genetics.
“It does not follow that the natural drive toward increasing complexity is not a factor in evolution.”
Meaningless blabber. Natural selection is enough to provide the informational pressure keeping genetic information organised and favorising the emergence of more robust genomes. Mutations add information. Natural selection provides the pressure that guarantee that this information is not random. Randomness of information and non-randomness of information may be formalised with notions such as Kolmogorov complexity on a theoretical (but not practical) purpose. So no, evolution by natural selection is enough. No need to posit a “natural drive” towards “complexity” whose existence you have not proven to exist and even less proven to matter in what’s at stake in that discussion.
“It does not follow that there are no other factors involved in evolution that are so far unknown.”
It follows that we do not need other factors to explain evolution than natural selection. If you claim that other factors are needed, the burden of the proof is on you. Not on the darwinians.
“Your problem is reductionist thinking — that there can only be one simple cause for any observed phenomenon.”
Nope. This is not “reductionism”.
In fact, darwinian evolutionary theory is precisely the opposite of reductionism. It proves the existence of emerging properties. Reductionism is precisely the ideological negation of emerging properties. Darwinian theory disproves reductionism.
You do not seem to have a proper hold on the various terms at hand.
“Antireductionism is the position in science and metaphysics that stands in contrast to reductionism (anti-holism) by advocating that not all properties of a system can be explained in terms of its constituent parts and their interactions. […] Karl Popper was a famous proponent of antireductionism. In his essay Of clouds and clocks, Popper classified phenomena into two types: “clock” phenomena with a mechanical basis and “cloud” phenomena which are indivisible and depend upon emergence for explanation. For example, Popper thought that a materialist explanation of consciousness is not possible.” — wiki
I am a popperian. Hence an antireductionist. And a darwinian.
0 contradiction between anti-reductionism and darwinism. Quite the opposite in fact. It proves the notion of emergent properties, and therefore is anti-reductionist.
It is easy to prove that natural selection does exist and complex physical systems become less complex (entropy) and complex living systems stay same (inheritance). There is quite a difference here.
Actually genetics is more complex than you think. In the case of blood clotting, there are many serine proteases. Duplication is probably an explanation here.
Genetic change and natural selection are separate things. Genetic change creates required material for selection.
Do you think that epigenetics means that proteins are translated to genes ? Nope.
And no,living will not become complex all by themselves. There is random combination of genes,
@Lawrence “Feel free to enlighten us to any instance of “religious dogma” inventing anything, like a computer, for instance.”
You are mistaking me for someone else. I never said science doesn’t understand anything. I said it does not understand everything. And I never ever advocated any religious dogma.
You should have stuck with the former. I take it that you’re habituated to instrumentalizing words, which, after all can’t fight back.
@ Indie Rebel
“You are mistaking me for someone else. I never said science doesn’t understand anything. I said it does not understand everything.”
Science currently does not understand everything. But it does understand evolution by natural selection.
This it does. Strongly.
As to what Science does not understand yet, I have a shitload of questions I am working on.
Would you care to help me ?
I’m trying to generalise Topos Theory since I think they got things ontologically wrong with their subobject classifier. And it gives me wet dreams. Many things are not yet thoroughly understood, buddy.
But that science may not understand “everything” is not yet proven. Not even Gödel’s incompleteness theorem states such a thing.
“And I never ever advocated any religious dogma.”
Then, maybe you should learning how to argue about things logically. That would be a bit better than merely stating that you do not advocate dogma in a context where you push unsubstantiated rubbish as unquestionable.
@Narad
“You should really try to figure out what underlies “complexity,” viz., thermodynamics”
Because you are ignorant, you don’t know that the law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. Natural systems are open.
@F68.10
You insist that natural selection is enough to explain the evolution of complex living systems because of Ockham’s razor! You think Ockham’s razor means the simplest explanation is always the best! Another example of how materialist/reductionism is cares nothing about logic.
Just for example — it is KNOWN that bacteria can increase their rate of mutations when faced with environmental challenges. That ALONE shows there is more involved in evolution than chance and selection.
You don’t care about epigenetics even though it is NOW KNOWN that some acquired traits can be inherited. That’s a big deal! But to you it means nothing, because you are happy with your simple theory, even though it’s evidence-free.
Who needs evidence, when there is a theory that doesn’t require that pesky universal intelligence that you hate so much.
I have NEVER seen an atheist/materialist come up with any actual evidence that natural selection is sufficient to explain evolution of complex living systems. Their excuse is that evolution takes too long, so it cannot be observed. Oh, perfect excuse. Observation and evidence are not possible. But the theory is true, because .. because … we KNOW it’s true. It’s a simple theory, and all simple theories are always true. Even if there is no evidence for them. Even if they don’t make sense.
Plenty of transitional fossils have been found over the years….early on, scientists at the time just thought they were all completely different species, but then as they discovered more, they were able to create timelines of species as they evolved.
Saying that “science doesn’t understand everything, so it must be God” or some such nonsense is just that, nonsense.
While we don’t know everything, we are understanding more and more every single day – it’s people like you who cling on to the old “well, if we don’t understand it, we never will” dogma.
@ Indie Rebel
“You insist that natural selection is enough to explain the evolution of complex living systems”
Yep. Why should I not ? Have you given me evidence to the contrary ? No.
“…because of Ockham’s razor!”
Ockham’s razor means that you cannot pretend your theory about “natural complexity” to offset natural selection as an explanation.
It does not prove evolution by natural selection.
It proves that your explanation is so much weaker that we do not need bother much entertaing ourselves with your lunacy.
“You think Ockham’s razor means the simplest explanation is always the best!”
Nope. It means that unnecessarily complex explanations, all the more when they posit Ghosts, Energy, Cosmos, Aliens, Natural Complexity, are much much worse.
Nothing else.
“Another example of how materialist/reductionism is cares nothing about logic.”
Wrong.
“In logic, William of Ockham wrote down in words the formulae that would later be called De Morgan’s Laws, and he pondered ternary logic, that is, a logical system with three truth values; a concept that would be taken up again in the mathematical logic of the 19th and 20th centuries. His contributions to semantics, especially to the maturing theory of supposition, are still studied by logicians. William of Ockham was probably the first logician to treat empty terms in Aristotelian syllogistic effectively; he devised an empty term semantics that exactly fit the syllogistic. Specifically, an argument is valid according to William’s semantics if and only if it is valid according to Prior Analytics.”
I’m a logician. I’m acquainted with Ockham’s work.
Disparaging a logician on logic and Ockham on logic just because “Intelligent Universe”, sorry, but ça ne casse pas trois pattes à un canard.
“Just for example — it is KNOWN that bacteria can increase their rate of mutations when faced with environmental challenges. That ALONE shows there is more involved in evolution than chance and selection.”
Nope. It does not. Give me links to the evidence you are promoting so that we discuss the matter on serious grounds. But, no, it does not disprove evolution by natural selection. At all. At least not from what you just wrote.
“You don’t care about epigenetics even though it is NOW KNOWN…”
Blablablabla… Badaboom Badaboom Badaboom… it means it does not disprove evolution by natural selection. In the same way that the FACT that the Earth does indeed well seem to be flat does not disprove its roundness.
“…that some acquired traits can be inherited. That’s a big deal!”
Nope. Show me the relevant evidence that really makes you think that way. For now, no, no big deal at all.
“But to you it means nothing, because you are happy with your simple theory, even though it’s evidence-free.”
It is not evidence free. Evidence has been piling up for centuries. Did I mention Micrographia ??
We have shitloads of evidence.
“Who needs evidence, when there is a theory that doesn’t require that pesky universal intelligence that you hate so much.”
I do need evidence. Thank you very much.
I do not “hate” that “universal intelligence”. Why would I ?? Its just a theory based on nothing more or little more than your wishful thinking.
“I have NEVER seen an atheist/materialist come up with any actual evidence that natural selection is sufficient to explain evolution of complex living systems.”
I just did.
“Their excuse is that evolution takes too long, so it cannot be observed.”
Evolution can be observed. We indeed do find fossils in various strata. We can perfectly observe the past. No issue with that.
“Oh, perfect excuse.”
Nope.
“Observation and evidence are not possible.”
We have shitload of observation and evidence. It’s not impossible. It’s done.
“But the theory is true, because .. because … we KNOW it’s true.”
Nope. Because we observed the evidence. And the critical preference we extracted from the evidence is that of… TADAAAAMMM!!! evolution by natural selection.
Simple.
“It’s a simple theory, and all simple theories are always true.”
Nope. It’s not a simple theory at all. The amount of refinement that it has brought to modern understanding of the living is staggering and, indeed, very complex.
And no, simple theories are not always true.
“Even if there is no evidence for them.”
We have the evidence.
“Even if they don’t make sense.”
It makes sense. Just as my life does make perfect sense: Lust and food and violence. Sex and money are my major kicks.
Hunny bunny, you might as well be shrieking that phototropism veils a grand metaphysical secret. It’s totally incoherent.
No evidence and making no sense? Sounds like an idea I’ve heard recently. Something to do with the universe being intelligent…..
Reading your posts always reminds be of Bob Hoskins visit to Toon Town.
This tantrum is hilarious. Explain sickle cell trait (WARNING: INVOLVES MATTER). Explain blue eyes.
While I’m at it:
You’ve got more than a bit of trouble trotting this one out, because you still need entropy for your precious, precious complexity to “kick in,” performance art notwithstanding. (And leaving aside the fact that it may as well have been copied and pasted from the Institute for Creation Research.)
Maybe your “natural system” is open, with the scale length being your skull. Nonetheless, your continued existence is pretty much dependent upon gobbling up order and excreting entropy.
^ Dammit. The link is around “blue eyes.”
I assure you that thermodynamics applies to open systems. Check Grand potential and grand canonical ensemble how to do calculations in this case. You are a real ignoramus.,
Cancer is an example of natural selection creating complexity. Solid cancers needs vasculatory system. They produce their own growth factors and evade immune system, too. Their cells must pass many checkpoints to become cancerous, This happenms quite fast, too.
You could of course cite a paper. It is possible that enviroronmental challenge in question damages itself caused the mutations. More mutations would actually be quite dangerous.
Basically all organisms have various safety mechanisms to reduce the mutation rate, because of course the vast majority of mutations are bad.
It’s true that some organisms have the ability to disable some or all of those safety mechanisms under certain kinds of stress in order to crank up the mutation rate.
Of course … all of that is encoded in the genes of these organisms, and the continued propagation of these traits is trivially explained by natural selection.
If the claim is merely “Darwin’s theory, as originally formulated by Charles Darwin is not 100% correct” … then it is a boring claim that everyone should know is obviously the case. Of course Darwin’s theory was very incomplete! He didn’t (couldn’t possibly) know about genes at all, he didn’t have the mathematical tools for proper population analysis anyway…
… but all of that is in the details. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection was 99% right when proposed, is 99.9% or more right now. Essentially all of the amazing variety of life comes from the twin pillars of random variation and non-random selection.
(And, yes, that selection is far more complicated than simply – that which breeds the most wins – but as a first order approximation, it’ll do.)
@Lawrence “Plenty of transitional fossils have been found over the years”
When this happens I am almost in shock. How can Lawrence, or anyone, think I don’t believe in evolution? How many times did I say, so far, that I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION?
But it won’t sink in. Never. Lawrence will forever think I don’t believe in evolution. No matter how many times I say that I do.
It’s weird.
Proceed with caution. Your entropy is rapidly rising.
@ Indie Rebel
“How many times did I say, so far, that I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION?”
You deny evolution by natural selection.
You’re playing the idiot.
We get it.
Transitional fossils show adaption to environment. Drop that blind change, it is becoming ridiculous.
@F68.10
I am tired of repeating this. I doubt you will get it. But just once more.
THE EVIDENCE IS FOR EVOLUTION. THE EVIDENCE IS FOR NATURAL SELECTION. There is no evidence that natural selection causes evolution.
You really can’t understand that?
Congratulations, you have finally reached “there is no evidence that natural selection causes evolution.”
@ Indie Rebel
“I am tired of repeating this.”
None of my business.
“I doubt you will get it.”
I perfectly got it. You just do not understand the answer.
“But just once more.”
Did Aristotle mention something about losing an argument when the crowd witnesses you’re in a loop ?
Yep. He did:
“First we must grasp the number of aims entertained by those who argue as competitors and rivals to the death. These are five in number, refutation, fallacy, paradox, solecism, and fifthly to reduce the opponent in the discussion to babbling-i.e. to constrain him to repeat himself a number of times […]” — Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations.
“THE EVIDENCE IS FOR EVOLUTION. THE EVIDENCE IS FOR NATURAL SELECTION.”
Nope. You got it wrong. The evidence for evolution proves natural selection and disproves all other theories. No other theories fits with the data, except theories who posit weird stuff like Intelligent Universe or Terrigen Crystals in Kree Temples. i.e. fairy tales. Violating Ockham’s razor and modern versions of it.
Game Over.
“There is no evidence that natural selection causes evolution.”
Yep there is. A shitload.
“You really can’t understand that?”
I do understand that you pretend that evidence proves evolution, proves natural selection, but not evolution by natural selection. I got it, buddy…
But you’re simply wrong on all counts.
That’s what you can’t face up to.
I understand it. I just think you’re full of shit.
There was one evolutionary theory I forget, neutral evolution. But it really posits that complexity is result of random changes.
There is Lamarck, too. This would require translation of proteins to DNA, This does not happen.
There is imperfect adaption to natural enviroment. Only genetic variation and natural selection cant explain it.
This reminds me SO much of watching a tennis match, in which only one of the two players realizes that the goal is to hit the ball back over the net AND in the opponents court. Indie Rebel, not understanding the rules, repeatedly smashes the ball into the stands and does victory dance not unlike that performed by a goalie who’s stopped an opponent’s shot in a World Cup final shootout.
.
The entertainment value is short-lived.
.
One wonders what’s next, in their bag of tricks. Will the next scenic excursion from the Confederacy of Dunces be Scientology? A Merrie Trip Thru the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Reptile shape shifters? Pedophiles in the basement of a pizza joint? So far it’s been a fun trip through fantasy-land, so there’s no telling what’s next.
.
The only certainty Is that the excursion will be filled with Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, (FUD) the primary tools of the Ignorati.
‘
To which the appropriate response is F You, Dude.
QAarno Syvänen “Living orgamisms would not become more complex without selctive pressure.”
You are reciting the materialist fairy tale. There are no logical reasons, no scientific evidence, showing that intelligence increased because of survival pressure. The least intelligence species are still doing quite well. And there are highly intelligent species, such as gorillas or dolphins, whose lifestyle doesn’t seem to call for great intelligence.
If you want to prove the fairy tale is true, you would have to provide some kind of evidence. But you never do, because you are sure the fairy tale must be correct, because … because … otherwise the universe could be intelligent, and we can’t have that.
@ Indie Rebel
“You are reciting the materialist fairy tale.”
No. He is telling you the Truth.
And this is Charity.
You should thank Aarno for his generosity.
“There are no logical reasons, no scientific evidence, showing that intelligence increased because of survival pressure.”
Of course there is. The fossil record, for one. But I think you’ll find more evidence in The Origin of Species by a dude named Charles Da… Dar… Darwin… (gee!! got it right…)
“The least intelligence species are still doing quite well. And there are highly intelligent species, such as gorillas or dolphins, whose lifestyle doesn’t seem to call for great intelligence.”
“Evolution by natural selection” is not “Genocide of the perceived low-life”. Darwinism is not Nazism…
Forget Gorillas and Dolphins and look at Octopuses. You’ll get a more decent understanding of the role of intelligence in natural selection.
“If you want to prove the fairy tale is true, you would have to provide some kind of evidence.”
We gave it.
“But you never do, because you are sure the fairy tale must be correct, because … because … otherwise the universe could be intelligent, and we can’t have that.”
Nope. You got it all the way around.
It’s because we have evidence that we know that evolution occured by natural selection and did not happen by creation. There is no need for an “intelligent universe”.
We know it refutes litteral biblical accounts.
The question of Schopenhauerian Will, Spinozist parrallelism of mind and matter, of Deleuzian plane of immanence, of Buddhist or Hindic variations on Atman, or of the Hard Problem of Consciousness is a much more open ended question that evolution by natural selection has little bearing upon.
Because these concepts are not theistic concepts from a tradition of Revelation but are monistic concepts that, though largely unproven, resist contradiction much more efficiently than the nonsense creationist spout.
And they all are very far from being incompatible with evolution by natural selection. In fact, they tend to be closer in spirit with it…
For those keeping score:
“Why are there still chimps?” ✓
Irony much? I mean, if you’re “attuned” to the “universal consciousness,” shouldn’t it be able to explain basic concepts to you? Wear a baseball cap; the little button on the top will focus your queries ZOOP! right up to the cosmic pneumatic tubes.
Because you are so interested about logics, there is a mathematical theorem:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_fundamental_theorem_of_natural_selection
Perhaps you should comment this.
Intelligence is one form of selective advantage. There are many others. This is way least intelligent species still exist.
@Aarno Syvänen “Transitional fossils show adaption to environment. Drop that blind change, it is becoming ridiculous.”
But your theory says the genetic changes are entirely random. And that information can never travel from the environment to the DNA. Which of course we now know is wrong.
@ Indie Rebel
“But your theory says the genetic changes are entirely random.”
Entirely deterministic but utterly disorganised.
“And that information can never travel from the environment to the DNA. Which of course we now know is wrong.”
Information travels back and forth. But absolutely not in the lamarckian format.
It travels back and forth by… TADAAAMMM !!… natural selection.
Natural selection is oppsite of blind change,
Information can indeed travel from enviroment to DNA, but is this inheritable ? Lamarcian theory has may proble,
But selection obviously creatos information, and this is inherited,too.
@Aarno Syvänen “There is Lamarck, too. This would require translation of proteins to DNA, This does not happen.”
Does not happen? Why, because the Central Dogma says so? We now know that Lamarckian evolution does happen, because of epigenetics. And there is nothing that says epigenetic changes can’t eventually lead to more permanent genetic changes.
There is NO EVIDENCE, NONE, showing that genetic changes must always be random. That belief is entirely ideological, completely free from evidence.
And of course it defies common sense. But I know you atheists prefer theories that defy common sense, since common sense is for the unenlightened masses.
@ Indie Rebel
“There is NO EVIDENCE, NONE, showing that genetic changes must always be random. That belief is entirely ideological, completely free from evidence.”
No. The genetic changes are completely deterministic. Determined by the Laws of Nature that have no “intelligence” nor “plan”.
Completely deterministic.
They do appear very much random.
But they are 100% deterministic.
But there is no “intelligence”. No “plan”. No “God”.
Only determinism.
That appears random.
And that makes no a priori sense. Except when faced with the result. Called an emergent property.
Just like Google did with AI.
Emergent property. From a purely deterministic process. That, from the point of view with which we observe indeed is random.
But no “intelligence”. No “plan”. No “God”. Nothing of that sort.
Evolution by natural selection disproved it.
Sorry, it’s Game Over for your belief system.
@ Indie Rebel
“Does not happen? Why, because the Central Dogma says so?”
Yep. Kind of.
Other reasons too, but never mind.
“We now know that Lamarckian evolution does happen, because of epigenetics.”
Epigenetics cannot handle the amount of change required for evolution by natural selection.
“And there is nothing that says epigenetic changes can’t eventually lead to more permanent genetic changes.”
Nothing proven either. And even then: not up to scale.
“There is NO EVIDENCE, NONE, showing that genetic changes must always be random. That belief is entirely ideological, completely free from evidence.”
Nope. What is ideological is positing you need exterior influence or a plan by whatever Divine Being (like Kree aliens) to pilot evolution.
What is ideological was the historic christian belief that God and Love is the Prime Mover of all things. And this is the ideology you are regurgitating because of ingrained cultural preconceptions you have, no matter how far away you drifted from theistic religions.
“And of course it defies common sense. But I know you atheists prefer theories that defy common sense, since common sense is for the unenlightened masses.”
Nope. I do value common sense. But when evidence refutes it, I have to change my opinion.
Which is why I do not believe the Earth is Flat. Though it is common sense.
I now know it’s Pear Shaped.
And I’m a bit saddened by it, honestly: Peeing at the Edge of the World would be so Coooooool !!! Too bad…
Can you cite an example of protein translated to DNA , or non random genetic change ?
Epigenetics means that the phenotype is not entirely determined by genome. Can you cite an example of epigenetic adaption that was inherited.
It seems to me that you yourself spread fairy taes.,
@NumberWang
If an instrument does not exist to detect something, then it can’t be detected by an instrument. That doesn’t mean it does not exist.
@ Indie Rebel
“If an instrument does not exist to detect something, then it can’t be detected by an instrument. That doesn’t mean it does not exist.”
Yep.
So ? Doesn’t prove the existence of anything beyond what you failed to observe.
There has been decent attempts for proofs of the existence of things beyond the phenomenal.
Schopenhauer did make a decent case for the Will in The World as Will and Representation.
You should take a few lessons from him as to how to make the case for metaphysical entities beyond instrumentation, which is precisely what Schopenhauer’s Will is all about… You’d be more proficient at arguing your case, and would much less waste our time if you knew how to make such arguments.
“If an instrument does not exist to detect something, then it can’t be detected by an instrument. That doesn’t mean it does not exist.”
Well duh!
It does however mean that you cannot show that the particular something exists. You cannot provide evidence that it exists. You have no logical reason to even consider that it exists.
You are, in fact, inventing something to fill a hole in your psyche because you cannot comprehend that your life has no purpose in the universe. As far as nature is concerned, there is no difference between you and a warthog.
You lost any credibility as soon as you stopped trying to finish the jig saw with science and simply smashed the pieces together and patched the gaps with faith.
What is most astonishing is that you are unable to distinguish between science and your faith.
No. This is equivalent to, “If I don’t have a shotgun, then grouse can’t be hunted with shotguns.” The lacuna is in your toolbox, given that you apparently can’t query the Cosmic Blobberlord directly.
After the U.S. botched the SSC, it took CERN’s building a ring of 27 m circumference, but Whoomp! There it Is!*, 48 years after the Higgs mechanism was laid out.
And that’s (only one of) the differences between sloppy occultism and putting on your G‑ddamned thinking cap.** If you must insist that this shimmering, undiluted, can of cream of soup is running the f*cking universe, you really ought to at least be able to make inferences about it. Did your Ph.D. in Cogsci not include any bench work? Experimental design? Anything?
You oughtn’t to be surprised when the inchoate mass that is your attempts at all forms of communication falls flat. I’ll leave you with a knee-slapper of misappropriation:
*Ironically, DC The Brain Supreme was way ahead of you.
**Remember cometology? Same damn shit with Heaven’s Gate. It’s amazing that the Healing Revival was limited to grift.
You can yourself construct a living force detecting instrument, Have you ideas how it would work ?
@F68.10
When you use the word “creationism” what exactly are you trying to imply? Are you accusing me of thinking life did not evolve?
And when you beat the drum of natural selection, notice you never give any hint of evidence for your faith. There is absolutely no scientific reason to deny that DNA can respond to needs of the organism or species. NONE. Aside from any questions about universal intelligence. Even a devout atheist should admit that the Central Dogma has no evidence, and is now proven wrong because of epigenetics.
We KNOW Lamarckian evolution can occur. That fact alone makes your faith obsolete.
And no, you have no answered any of my objections with logic or evidence. Why are gorillas so smart when their lifestyle requires less intelligence than that of a typical predator?
And many other similar questions can be asked. Intelligence obviously did not evolve because of random changes and natural selection. Yet you insist that it did, without evidence, because that is your materialist/reductionist faith.
@ Indie Rebel
“When you use the word “creationism” what exactly are you trying to imply?”
I’m implying that you’re stuck in a loop because of your cultural heritage. Very likely. And that on one hand, you have the Intelligent Universe Theory which is typically a monistic idea in mind, but you cannot let go off the idea of an intervenionist force and a plan, which is typically dualistic.
I’m implying you’re confused.
“Are you accusing me of thinking life did not evolve?”
More of being an idiot that denies evolution by natural selection.
“And when you beat the drum of natural selection, notice you never give any hint of evidence for your faith.”
Why should I ? Which point specifically would you like to discuss on the basis of evidence ? Tell me, and I’ll see what I can do for you.
“There is absolutely no scientific reason to deny that DNA can respond to needs of the organism or species. NONE.”
Yes. There is. The way DNA operates.
“Aside from any questions about universal intelligence. Even a devout atheist should admit that the Central Dogma has no evidence, and is now proven wrong because of epigenetics.”
Nope. Absolutely not.
“We KNOW Lamarckian evolution can occur. That fact alone makes your faith obsolete.”
No. Lack of evidence. And even if you had evidence, you’d need quite a lot of evidence to overturn what has been learned. Merely stating we saw X or Y evolve in a lamarckian fashion doesn’t cut ice in the face of the sheer scale of evidence we have. Two aberrational evidence is too weak. But do lay forth your evidence, so that we discuss it…
“And no, you have no answered any of my objections with logic or evidence.”
Of course I have.
“Why are gorillas so smart when their lifestyle requires less intelligence than that of a typical predator?”
Once a species has acquired traits by natural selection, they are not on the same path as other species. Dolphins acquired some level of intelligence as mammals did because of long-standing reasons making mammals overall more intelligent than, say, birds. The fact that they went back to the sea does not make them lose their traits. If it doesn’t handicap them, so be it. Natural selection is not genocidal.
Same thing for photosynthesis. Is it the most efficient process ? No. We do know it could be more efficient. Is it robust enough ? Yes. Does it need to adapt further ? Not really. So there it is: overall inefficient. But robust enough to do its job. Fit und gesund.
“And many other similar questions can be asked.”
Sure. But you’re very obviously not asking the right ones.
“Intelligence obviously did not evolve because of random changes and natural selection.”
Of course it did. And we’ll likely manage to reproduce that feat in a digital environment. And I’m not overly happy about it.
“Yet you insist that it did, without evidence, because that is your materialist/reductionist faith.”
Nope. Because we got shitload of evidence.
Atheism is a rejection of unfounded beliefs. Not a faith. No dogma. Provide decent evidence, and I have to change my mind. Not to please you. But because I have a moral duty to.
Can you tell us an example when epigenetic adaption is inherited ?
Can you tell us an example of Lamarckian evolution ?
Gorillas have a type society, it is beneficial to them to be smart,and it beneficial to them to have a society. Interesting thing is that you argue against Lamarckian evolution. If long neck is useful to giraffes, why all animals do not have a long neck (because theory posit that information is transferred to DNA,
@F68.10
“I’m implying that you’re stuck in a loop because of your cultural heritage.”
Well that is funny. I was raised by non-religious Jews, and was brainwashed into atheism during college. As a devout atheist, I wanted to understand evolution theory, and after many years of study had to give up on atheism. Because I care about logic and evidence. And I had to give up that sense of superiority atheists always have.
“an idiot that denies evolution by natural selection”
Because natural selection MUST explain evolution, because otherwise there could be universal intelligence. And we can’t have that!
“The way DNA operates”
Oh, the way DNA operates. It is completely understood, of course. There could not be any mysteries left regarding how DNA operates.
“Dolphins acquired some level of intelligence as mammals did because of long-standing reasons making mammals overall more intelligent than, say, birds.”
So dolphins are intelligent just like all mammals. Dolphins are no more intelligent than sheep.
“And we’ll likely manage to reproduce that feat [intelligence] in a digital environment.”
You will LIKELY. Likely. Hmm. And you know that how? Because it fits your unshakeable materialist faith.
@ Indie Rebel
Ranting about atheists. I gave several books written by devout Christians who believe in Darwinian evolution. In addition, what exactly do you mean by an atheist? Someone who doesn’t believe in current religions that are based on anthopomorphic projections? C’est moi. But I don’t rule out some “conscious” force behind things, just, being a mere mortal, having a limited time on this Earth, I prefer to deal with current science that allows us to improve what little time we have and understand things that us mere mortals can. And, by the way, i know a number of atheists who are open-minded, including on whether epigenetics confers permanent genome changes or not & whether Darwinian evolution can explain complex systems or to what extent. I have probably a dozen books, half and half, and probably 50 or more papers.
You claim you have a PhD. In what field? From what university? Or is it from some for-profit online college?
@ Indie Rebel
“Well that is funny. I was raised by non-religious Jews, and was brainwashed into atheism during college.”
Yep. That’s what I mean. You’re hostage to the many culture wars that have been wgaed on such matters. The way you speak of “atheism” kind of is a symptom. I honestly do not even recognise the notion of atheism in the way you speak about it. You seem to speak about atheism like my mom speaks of lefties.
“As a devout atheist, I wanted to understand evolution theory…”
I do not undersand how one can be a “devout” atheist… beats me.
“…and after many years of study had to give up on atheism.”
Gee!! Evolutionary theory has little to do with atheism !!
The only link it has with theism is to disprove the biblical account that people held dear for so many centuries !!
That’s it !! Nothing more !!
It says nothing about Universal Consciousness in any of the traditions, ancient and modern, that are compatible with hindic, vedic or buddhist notions of consciousness !!
It does not disprove consciousness.
It nonetheless states that no explanation of that kind is needed to explain the data about evolution. That it does. But to my knowledge, it does not conflict in any way with what, say, Shankaracharya taught and wrote.
“Because I care about logic and evidence.”
You seem to misunderstand completely what logic and evidence is all about.
“And I had to give up that sense of superiority atheists always have.”
What sense of superiority ?? We only KNOW that the biblical account is false. This is not superiority. It’s the christians who went bonkers and irrational. No need to feel superior about that, honestly…
“Because natural selection MUST explain evolution, because otherwise there could be universal intelligence. And we can’t have that!”
Nope. That doesn’t work that way. It’s the evidence that shows that natural selection explains evolution. Whether or not buddhist, vedic or indic notions of conciousness are relevant is an entirely different and orthogonal matter. I have yet to see where they clash with one another.
“Oh, the way DNA operates. It is completely understood, of course.”
Pretty much, yes. Completely, no. But that ribosomes do work the way they do ? Yep. It’s solid. Seems like we nowadays managed to create non-natural analog DNA systems in xenobiology. So, no, the way DNA operates is quite well known.
“There could not be any mysteries left regarding how DNA operates.
I’m pretty sure there still is. I, for one, am still waiting for computational chemistry to emulate ribosomes. I have almost zero knowledge of the domain, but I’m pretty sure it’s fascinating.
“Dolphins acquired some level of intelligence as mammals did because of long-standing reasons making mammals overall more intelligent than, say, birds.” — me
“So dolphins are intelligent just like all mammals. Dolphins are no more intelligent than sheep.” — you
Dolphins are quite smart, from what I’ve read. Yep.
“And we’ll likely manage to reproduce that feat [intelligence] in a digital environment.” — me
“You will LIKELY. Likely. Hmm.” — you
Me ? No. We ? Yes.
“And you know that how? Because it fits your unshakeable materialist faith.”
Because we’re making huge strides in autonomous problem solving with AI. And we’re starting to map out the various emerging properties that come from such frameworks.
It’s not a “materialist” faith that leads me to know that it’s very likely possible to do in the long run.
It’s the fact that’re starting to have the keys to investigate such matters. And that we’ll very likely put a lot of effort in untangling all of that.
It has nothing with “materialism”. More with human ingenuity.
I, in fact, do consider myself neither “materialist” nor “non-materialist”. These words were coined in Europe when we were in conflict with the catholic church. Philosophically, they’re unsound. But politically, where I come from, France, which has been the epicenter of the most brutal ideological conflict against the catholic church in the 1790s, which went quite bloody, yes, non-materialist means catholic, and materialist means communist. This is 100 % bollocks as a distinction.
Back in th 1600s, christian thought considered that what animates the body down to your fingertips is the Soul. Yep: Soul is in your fingertips. This has been disproved by Galvani / Volta (18th century) well before evolution by natural selection got into the game (19th century). The Church has fought back with vicious energy against that. So, yep, at the time, people were “materialists” to deny the Church moral authority. And we’re still at that game around here. But were this conflict with monotheistic faiths not a major pain in the back, “materialism” wouldn’t be such a loaded word.
As of today, I consider “materialism” to be a meaningless buzzword. Nothing more than a slur like fagget. It’s mostly a word that has no genuine substance. Except if you want to pick a fight with christians, jews, or muslims, as it diametrically opposes their dualist theistic perspective on things. Otherwise, no need to be a materialist to be an adogmatic naturalist.
Therew are unknown things, of course. This does not help you. You should cite actual evidence.
Talk about projection. You strike me as one of those contrarian types who changes beliefs like clothes when placed in a new situation just so you can get attention and feel superior.
@ Indie Rebel
Nope, no proof for Lamarck. Numerous studies show that epigenetics, e.g., methylation, can activate genes in sperm; but doesn’t change the actual DNA, so, the gene in the passed on genome is exactly the same as before epigenetics activated it. However, if by activating some particular genes gives a selective advantage to some organism, especially if that organism has other genes that may also confer a selective advantage, then even if the one gene not activated in descendants, could lead to selection; but this is no more Lamarckian than a mutation randomly happening or caused by, for instance, a toxin.
References:
Ashe A et al. (2021 Jun 7). How does epigenetics influence the course of evolution? Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences; 376(1826).
Chen Q et al. (2016 Dec). Epigenetic inheritance of acquired traits through sperm RNAs and sperm RNA modifications. Nature Review of Genetics: 17(12): 733-743.
[Note. I have quite a few more like above; however, as opposed to you, I do not rule out things that go against the stronger science, so here’s one well-written “speculative” papers that indicate epigenetic changes may cause permanent alterations to genome, and I have several more like this one:]
Wang Y et al. (2017). Lamarck rises from his grave: parental environment-induced epigenetic inheritance in model organisms and humans. Biological Reviews; 92: 2084-2111.
You’ve already shown in numerous comments your overall intellectual dishonesty. You ranted about connection between Darwinian evolution and atheists, ignoring that I found several books supporting evolution written by devout Christians. You ranted about research not being conducted on alternative meds, ignoring that I posted website to US Government department that has spent over $2 billion on such. You claimed NO research on Reiki and, again, I posted that over several hundred peer-reviewed papers, etc. And you really rant about how current scientific methods can’t rule out “energy”, undiscovered forces, etc. And I explained that science can’t totally rule out because scientific research doesn’t deal with absolutes; but I gave example of Carl Sagan’s dragon in garage.
Scientists do speculate on things like string theory (see book by Brian Green, etc); but one can look at it from following:
Newtonian physics can “explain” and predict almost all phenomenon we experience; however, Einsteinian physics gives a “deeper” explanation that also allows for dealing with some phenomenon that Newtonian physics can’t explain or is wrong about; but all the whole, we on Earth can do quite well relying on Newton and I don’t forget Quantum Mechanics.
However, believing in some type of “conscious” energy to explain everything in my view is a waste of time, a form of mental masturbation. Earthly religions are more or less anthropomorphic projections when discussing diety, though Islam and Judaism don’t allow “graven images” and St Anselm wrote that G-d is that which is greater than the mind can comprehend in any way shape or manner. Life is short enough and I prefer to anchor my thinking in modern science because it allows us to deal with things that we as mere mortals can work on, even improving our short time on Earth.
I’ll leave it to others to literally cut and paste some of what I mentioned above you wrote in various comments.
And by the way, I listed one book above by David Quammen that does discuss limits of Darwinian evolution in explaining complex aspects of life. I have more books . And I have numerous papers, well-written, that take either side. However, almost all agree that it takes Darwinian evolution to reach a point where complexity could develop. Think of a regression equation with y, the predicted variable, and one or two x’s, predictors. Adding another x may somewhat change the y; but not completely. For instance, let y = lung cancer and x = age. Result will be increased lung cancer with age. Now add smoking. Result will still show increase in age predicts; but much better prediction when add smoking. Now add another x for location, e.g. high toxins in air vs medium vs low, etc. etc. etc. So, if Darwin doesn’t explain everything, well, doesn’t bother me as nothing human mind comes up with usually gives 100% accuracy.
I still questions, given your rants, whether you are currently being treated for any mental health problems???
Only people who can get away with it these days, such as Nima Arkani-Hamed. It’s getting close to a bait-and-switch, IMHO. Try this.
@Joel: “I still questions, given your rants, whether you are currently being treated for any mental health problems???”
Please don’t do that, Joel. You are better (and you know better!) than that.
Mental illness is not Indie Rebel’s problem. If it were, I’d have called it and cut her a generous break, because depressive and delusional illnesses really do make monsters out of the person we call “self”. I live with hard incurable mental illness every day of my blasted life, and I do not not act as IR does. There is nothing in IR’s words to point to a psychosis or dementia, nor signs of external coercion. The evidence says her choices are her own.
No, IR’s language is that of the plump, preened, self-satisfied egotist who, having enjoyed a long life full of enviable opportunities and extraordinary privilege, now collapses into a quivering blancmange upon seeing her own mortality approaching hard.
• She could choose not to lie to herself. Which in turn would enable her not to lie to us.
• She could choose to make her life count for something greater than herself. To leave a slightly better world for the generation that follows ours.
• She chooses not to do these things, because she is—completely understandably—a very human coward.
She is not alone in this. There is at least a billion more like her. I understand this, since I understand myself.
What I choose not to forgive is her own personal choice to lean into it and find pleasure in doing it, especially at expense of others. I choose to fight every rotten day to make my own wrecked life achieve some good: for while I do not care for myself I do genuinely care for others. So when someone in a better place than me chooses not to, and wipes our faces in it too, my own disgust at them is fully genuine too.
My working hypothesis of mind says that narcissistic or paranoid traits and/or failure of empathy tends to track with AltMed, antivax, far left/right politics, hardline religion, and other toxic controlling evangelist personalities. Some are inherently wired that way almost from birth; some fall into it as defense mechanism or consequence of abuse. But many more willingly choose it, for no better reason than they find it convenient and consider no-one but themselves.
…
So, please: Do not deprive Indie Rebel of her own personal agency; nor offer her an easy escape. She is who and what she is because that is the person she has chosen to make of herself.
Instead, vivisect all those ugly humiliating pieces you see in her—and hold them up where she and the world cannot avoid but see them too. I doubt you’ll get thanked: that stuff is incredibly hard to let go, even assuming one wants to. (And I do not think that she does.) But it shows that Indie Rebel is Indie Rebel by choice, as is her decision to change or not change; and her choice entirely.
Make her stand by her stinking choices, not weasel around. And also, have fun!
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
“what exactly do you mean by an atheist?”
I have been talking about atheist/materialists. They deny any possibility of universal consciousness or intelligence in nature. They believe nature is dead, and gives rise to life only because of mindless chance and selection.
“I don’t rule out some ‘conscious’ force behind things”
Neither do I, that has been my whole point.
“i know a number of atheists who are open-minded, including on whether epigenetics confers permanent genome changes or not & whether Darwinian evolution can explain complex systems or to what extent.”
Well, it makes no sense to NOT be open-minded about those things. That has been my point.
“You claim you have a PhD. In what field? From what university? Or is it from some for-profit online college?”
Oh you’re funny. I studied cognitive science at a state university, in the USA. I am not interested in making all details public on this hostile website.
Unless that’s code for “psychology,” it must have been a long time ago, given your demonstrated lack of anything vaguely resembling a modern curriculum.
Apparently, the virgule is transformative.
Rule 34 Achieved! This debate is now over.
@ Indie Rebel
Hostile website??? Actually you are the one who called me names AND you are the one who failed to acknowledge numerous things I wrote. And now, finally, in your comment you admit to being possibly more open-minded; but I doubt it. Too many things you have written say the opposite. As my recent comment stated, there are, for instance, well-written documented papers that believe epigenetics contributes to “permanent” changes and evolution and others who don’t. There are those, again, well-written, well-documented, papers who believe Darwinian evolution can account for complex behaviors, others can with some modifications, and others nope. Most of your comments, without backing, just your opinions, are one-sided.
And you attacked Orac, for instance, for being against healthy diets, etc. Not even close; but, again, your extremist position. And I wrote a comment where I supported healthy diets and exercise; but also pointed out, one could still die from smallpox, etc. I would love for entire world to go vegan, of course, with minimal, not megavitamins, e.g., vitamin B-12 and, of course, no smoking. On the whole, not only healthier populations; but better ecology, e.g., plant-based proteins more easily absorbed and use far less water, land, etc. than animals, plus I hate animal cruelty. But even if entire world was vegan, entire world exercised moderately, would still need vaccines, and people would still develop cancer, etc.; but probably cancers at older ages; but still would like good treatments. My grandparents died mainly in 80s; but would have loved to have them around more years.
And again, speculating whether some “higher form” of essence plays a roll is just mental masturbation. And your criticizing science because there might be things, forces currently unknown is just wasted speculation. If you don’t like science, then stop posting on this website, find one more conducive.
By the way, I am also Jewish. And lived in Israel for six months. What does that have to do with anything?
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
“By the way, I am also Jewish. And lived in Israel for six months. What does that have to do with anything?”
I was explaining that I am not a creationist Christian, which you seemed to assume I was.
“speculating whether some ‘higher form’ of essence plays a roll is just mental masturbation”
If you don’t care about anything that might be higher, then I guess you have no interest in meditation or introspection. Like so many people, you are focused entirely on the external world of the senses. That’s ok for you, but not for me.
“If you don’t like science, then stop posting on this website”
How absurd. I criticize a particular theory, and that means I don’t like science???? If I didn’t like science I would not have studied evolution, and would have no opinions on it.
“you are the one who called me names”
That was after dozens of similar attacks on myself. Maybe you weren’t one of them, I assumed you were. I realized culture of this website is to hurl insults at anyone you disagree with. That is not usually my style.
@ Indie Rebel (@ Joel)
“I was explaining that I am not a creationist Christian, which you seemed to assume I was.”
You do not need to be a creationist christian to be influenced by your ambiant cultural ecosystem. Seems to me that you’re lost in syncretism.
“speculating whether some ‘higher form’ of essence plays a roll is just mental masturbation” — Joel
“If you don’t care about anything that might be higher, then I guess you have no interest in meditation or introspection.”
The problem is that no amount of metaphysics can refute physics. It in fact goes just the other way round: it is physics whose job it is to refute metaphysics.
Whether or not one is interested in meditation or introspection has no bearing on the matter.
Meditate. Introspect. That’s fine with me.
But do not pretend that insight you get from that or believe you get from that has any chance to overturn logic and evidence and the work of scientists over decades on the matter. That would be hubris of a kind meditation should warn you off.
“Like so many people, you are focused entirely on the external world of the senses. That’s ok for you, but not for me.”
Then please focus on what makes you feel good. But that does not have the necessary weight to offset evolution by natural selection.
“How absurd. I criticize a particular theory, and that means I don’t like science????”
At that point of the discussion, yes, it does. Or it means, at least, that you do not understand how science works. If you’re genuinely interested in science, you might enjoy The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn. And if you really care to investigated where Science departed from Religion and metaphysical considerations, I’d absolutely suggest the 16th century On Magic by Bruno. Which will give you… uh… perspective.
“If I didn’t like science I would not have studied evolution, and would have no opinions on it.
Oh no !! I study what I hate too… not only what I like.
“I realized culture of this website is to hurl insults at anyone you disagree with. That is not usually my style.”
Can be, at times. Though there usually is no need to hurl insults. And you usually get argument as a bonus. On other places on the net, you usually get disdain and not even insults. I’d settle for insults laced with arguments instead of mere disdain out of ill-concealed ideological hatred.
(And calling you an idiot when you behave like an idiot is not an insult.)
@ Indie Rebel
And you continue to ignore most of the points I made, including your ABSURD opening attacking Orac on diet, etc.
Attacking people isn’t the norm on this website; but when people like Kay West and you post comments, then ignore and/or twist how other people react, at some point people get irritated.
You write: “If you don’t care about anything that might be higher, then I guess you have no interest in meditation or introspection. Like so many people, you are focused entirely on the external world of the senses. That’s ok for you, but not for me.
“If you don’t like science, then stop posting on this website”
How absurd. I criticize a particular theory, and that means I don’t like science???? If I didn’t like science I would not have studied evolution, and would have no opinions on it.
But the external senses is what science depends on, even though can be improved with instrumentation. I have nothing against meditation, except not science. And many study evolution, not to really understand it; but to find or, at least, think they have found flaws.
However, one looks at it, you have not entered in a civil dialogue with me or others, you ignore points we make, you make outlandish attacks on atheism, etc. and again, you opened with an absurd attack on Orac and ignored what I wrote about vegetarianism and exercise, highly encouraged; but not enough to guarantee anything, except better ecology.
You may have a PhD in cognitive psychology; but doesn’t prove you capable of open-minded dialogue nor really understand the benefits and limits of scientific method. If you choose to go “beyond” this is NOT the webpage for you! ! !
@Narad
I said: “If an instrument does not exist to detect something, then it can’t be detected by an instrument.’
I meant it can’t be detected by an EXISTING instrument. Of course it might be detected by some hypothetical instrument yet to be invented. Sure do have to spell out everything little thing here.
You of course can invent all instruments you like. You can explain their modeof action withouy actually buildning one.
Speaking of detection instruments, make sure your irony meters have the highest possible level of shielding before reading the following.
You’ve been warned.
Dr. Oz is calling for Dr. Fauci to resign, saying that he’s led us astray about Covid-19.
“Dr. Anthony Fauci has lost the faith and confidence of the American people,” Oz told The Post. “It’s time for a new face talking to the American people, one that is more trusted.”
“I believe Anthony Fauci should be held accountable for misleading, whether willfully or unintentionally, the American public and the United States Congress,” Oz added.”
http://nypost.com/2021/12/11/dr-oz-says-fauci-should-be-held-accountable-for-misleading-congress/
Can a bullshit-filled pinata win the Republican nomination for Senate in Pennsylvania? Stay tuned.
BUT DB, does Dr Oz know the TRUTH! that birds aren’t real **? I’ll bet he never answers that…
whilst I’m here:
— far be it for me to define “cognitive science’ because it may involve different curricula in diverse institutions- including computer science/ language- but cognitive psychology. in general, studies processes like attention, memory, learning and thinking/ problem solving as well as how they proceed developmentally, are affected by age, genetics or illness as well as their neurophysiological basis and social, cross cultural and therapeutic applications, like CBT.
— epigenetics has a specific meaning ( see CDC what is epigenetics) concerning gene expression in response to differing conditions
HOWEVER alies have expanded that to mean practically everything: some going as far as Bruce Lipton ( the biology of belief) and New Age believers far from consensus science. Orac has described them and is quoted ( as DG) in the Wikipedia entry on epigenetics.
** they are tiny robot drones created by the Deep State to spy on people in the 1970s- they killed the real birds
they killed the real birds
If they managed that, Australia would like to invite them here to do the same on feral Indian mynas. And we don’t even want them replaced by drones.
Do they stretch to cane toad elimination?
As a kid, grocery shopping with my mom, I’d look at the headlines of magazines while waiting to check out. For example, I’d see Dr. Oz touting a miracle weight loss supplement, and silly me, I thought this physician found the cure to obesity! Breaking news! Good job, doc, the US’s reputation as an obese nation was about to be history, and you’re going to win the Nobel Prize!
Only, 2 weeks later, there was another miracle weight loss supplement, and it wasn’t the same cure as the one before. Why did we need 2 miraculous cures? And a few weeks later, yet another miracle cure, also different. What the hell happened to that first ‘game-changer??’ What number alleged game-changer was he hawking now? He was still going on about yet another new miracle a year later. I had stopped paying close attention, and openly considered him with contempt. It was a new snake oil in each edition, and it was pretty obvious that obesity was very much still a thing, and patients were still getting consults for gastric bypass surgery, and Slim Fast hadn’t gone belly-up.
By age 10 or 12, it didn’t take long, I concluded he either wasn’t even a real doctor, or he mustn’t be a very good one, as he didn’t seem to understand what words, like miracle and cure, meant, and/or he was a big ole liar-liar. My mom said, oh, he is an actual doctor, so I concluded he was a quack taking advantage of people. All that schooling and education tossed aside for glamor and fame.
Even at that young age, I had trouble understanding why people believed anything he said. Didn’t they see last week and last month’s headlines? It was clear as day. America’s doctor? Right. And now, this quack has found a potentially more lucrative market, or at least branching out a bit for more bucks, because people somehow still like and trust him. It makes me sick. I wouldn’t trust Oz to hold a door open for me.
@F68.10
“Gee!! Evolutionary theory has little to do with atheism !!
The only link it has with theism is to disprove the biblical account that people held dear for so many centuries !!
That’s it !! Nothing more !!”
What does atheism have to do with the myths of a particular ancient culture? Nothing. Atheism means disbelief in “gods.”
“It says nothing about Universal Consciousness in any of the traditions, ancient and modern, that are compatible with hindic, vedic or buddhist notions of consciousness !!”
I have already said, repeatedly, that I am talking about atheism/materialism, which states that nothing exists except what can be perceived by the senses, or measured with existing instruments.
“It’s the evidence that shows that natural selection explains evolution.”
I have said here, MANY TIMES, that the is NO EVIDENCE that natural selection explains evolution. And no one here has provided any evidence. All you say is that natural selection MUST explain evolution because it’s a simple theory, and what else can explain it? THAT is your evidence????
“the way DNA operates is quite well known.”
Except that about NINETY-EIGHT PERCENT of DNA is called JUNK because it is NOT UNDERSTOOD!! That’s a real convenient way to say you understand things — just call anything you don’t understand JUNK.
“Because we’re making huge strides in autonomous problem solving with AI.”
Yeah, very easy to say something WILL be done, in the future. Harder to actually do it. Especially since how the brain works is not understood. Neurons and synapses are understood, and there is some understanding of sensory and motor areas of the cortex. There is NO understanding of how thought and consciousness are related to the brain. According to Roger Penrose, respected physicist, consciousness is related to quantum effects within microtubules in neurons. For example.
“I consider ‘materialism’ to be a meaningless buzzword.”
I don’t know what word would make you happy. The basic division, that I see, is between people who think Mind creates Matter, and those you think Matter creates Mind.
So you are in the latter group, whatever label you want to slap onto yourself and most of the other Gorski fans.
Obviously you woululd not accept any evidence for natural selection,because it is against your religion. Your own suggestions are not very good,
Junk DNA is cqalled junk because it has low information content,
@ Indie Rebel
“What does atheism have to do with the myths of a particular ancient culture? Nothing. Atheism means disbelief in “gods.””
Evolution by natural selection has everything to do with smashing biblical accounts.
Atheism is a distraction in this discussion. Evolution by natural selection does not require atheism to be proven true. It disproves, however, any theism that posits that the biblical account is true.
“I have already said, repeatedly, that I am talking about atheism/materialism, which states that nothing exists except what can be perceived by the senses, or measured with existing instruments.”
And I repeat that evolution by natural selection is a position that is compatible with more than the atheist position. You are illegitimately conflating the tue, which is why I disprove your conflation by stating black on white that historical cultures or religion or philosophy that posit “Universal Consciousness” are perfectly fine with evolution.
“I have said here, MANY TIMES, that the is NO EVIDENCE that natural selection explains evolution.”
Which is 100 % wrong. We already explained that to you.
“And no one here has provided any evidence.”
Of course we did.
“All you say is that natural selection MUST explain evolution because it’s a simple theory, and what else can explain it?”
Nope. We gave evidence. Many times.
This evidence does not need any a-a-theistic beliefs to give it sense. Therefore, basic scientific logic, known since the middle ages at least, says that a-a-theist beliefs are superfluous and scientifically useless. Hence out of the picture.
Sorry. Game over.
“Except that about NINETY-EIGHT PERCENT of DNA is called JUNK because it is NOT UNDERSTOOD!! That’s a real convenient way to say you understand things — just call anything you don’t understand JUNK.”
Sorry. That’s not an argument.
“Yeah, very easy to say something WILL be done, in the future. Harder to actually do it.”
Yep. But we already started getting significant results. Like Google having produced algorithms that have taught themselves how to walk on their own. We have to take time to get more and more higher cognitive functions mapped out in similar fashion. Every reason to believe it’s doable.
“Especially since how the brain works is not understood.”
No need to understand every detail to in investigate intelligence or consciousness. I do not even believe with to attempt to reproduce that brain in any way. Getting cognitive function on par without reproducing brains nor knowing every detail is indeed the goal.
“There is NO understanding of how thought and consciousness are related to the brain.”
Well, kind of. And, again, there is no need to understand how consciousness works to create a conscious entity. No need to understand how thoughts work in the brain to create thinking entities.
“According to Roger Penrose, respected physicist, consciousness is related to quantum effects within microtubules in neurons.”
Well, I do not quite respect him on that. I respect it on Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverses, which I heavily rely on in my work, but the microtubule BS ? C’mon, Penrose. Would be more profitable IMO to explain how chloroform shuts down consciousness before going on a wild rant on microtubules. He overplayed his hand there.
“I don’t know what word would make you happy. The basic division, that I see, is between people who think Mind creates Matter, and those you think Matter creates Mind.”
Mind is an emerging property of Matter. Consciousness is a more complicated topic. It may well be coextensive, in some sense.
But this has absolutely nothing to do with evolution by natural selection. Because you cannot refute physics with metaphysics. You cannot refute evolution by natural selection on the grounds that you do not believe out of metaphysical principles that mind can be an emerging property of matter.
You stand more confused as to the notions you’re wielding than anything else.
“So you are in the latter group, whatever label you want to slap onto yourself and most of the other Gorski fans.”
Given that you do not differentiate between consciousness and mind, I do not think you have any intellectual authority to slap labels onto people.
But yep: I do consider Mind to be an emergent property of Matter. But this is not materialism at all. It does not posit dogmatically that “there only exists Matter”, as you did put it repetitively.
So, again, you’re a confused person.
@ Indie Rebel
“What does atheism have to do with the myths of a particular ancient culture? Nothing. Atheism means disbelief in “gods.””
Evolution by natural selection has everything to do with smashing biblical accounts.
Atheism is a distraction in this discussion. Evolution by natural selection does not require atheism to be proven true. It disproves, however, any theism that posits that the biblical account is true.
“I have already said, repeatedly, that I am talking about atheism/materialism, which states that nothing exists except what can be perceived by the senses, or measured with existing instruments.”
And I repeat that evolution by natural selection is a position that is compatible with more than the atheist position. You are illegitimately conflating the two, which is why I disprove your conflation by stating black on white that historical cultures or religions or philosophy that posit “Universal Consciousness” are perfectly fine with evolution.
“I have said here, MANY TIMES, that the is NO EVIDENCE that natural selection explains evolution.”
Which is 100 % wrong. We already explained that to you.
“And no one here has provided any evidence.”
Of course we did.
“All you say is that natural selection MUST explain evolution because it’s a simple theory, and what else can explain it?”
Nope. We gave evidence. Many times.
This evidence does not need any a-a-theistic beliefs to give it sense. Therefore, basic scientific logic, known since the middle ages at least, says that a-a-theist beliefs are superfluous and scientifically useless. Hence out of the picture.
Sorry. Game over.
“Except that about NINETY-EIGHT PERCENT of DNA is called JUNK because it is NOT UNDERSTOOD!! That’s a real convenient way to say you understand things — just call anything you don’t understand JUNK.”
Sorry. That’s not an argument.
“Yeah, very easy to say something WILL be done, in the future. Harder to actually do it.”
Yep. But we already started getting significant results. Like Google having produced algorithms that have taught themselves how to walk on their own. We have to take time to get more and more higher cognitive functions mapped out in similar fashion. Every reason to believe it’s doable.
“Especially since how the brain works is not understood.”
No need to understand every detail to in investigate intelligence or consciousness. I do not even believe with to attempt to reproduce that brain in any way. Getting cognitive function on par without reproducing brains nor knowing every detail is indeed the goal.
“There is NO understanding of how thought and consciousness are related to the brain.”
Well, kind of. And, again, there is no need to understand how consciousness works to create a conscious entity. No need to understand how thoughts work in the brain to create thinking entities.
“According to Roger Penrose, respected physicist, consciousness is related to quantum effects within microtubules in neurons.”
Well, I do not quite respect him on that. I respect him on Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverses, which I heavily rely on in my work, but the microtubule BS ? C’mon, Penrose. Would be more profitable IMO to explain how chloroform shuts down consciousness before going on a wild rant on microtubules. He overplayed his hand there.
“I don’t know what word would make you happy. The basic division, that I see, is between people who think Mind creates Matter, and those you think Matter creates Mind.”
Mind is an emerging property of Matter. Consciousness is a more complicated topic. It may well be coextensive, in some sense.
But this has absolutely nothing to do with evolution by natural selection. Because you cannot refute physics with metaphysics. You cannot refute evolution by natural selection on the grounds that you do not believe out of metaphysical principles that mind can be an emerging property of matter.
You stand more confused as to the notions you’re wielding than anything else.
“So you are in the latter group, whatever label you want to slap onto yourself and most of the other Gorski fans.”
Given that you do not differentiate between consciousness and mind, I do not think you have any intellectual authority to slap labels onto people.
But yep: I do consider Mind to be an emergent property of Matter. But this is not materialism at all. It does not posit dogmatically that “there only exists Matter”, as you did put it repetitively.
So, again, you’re a confused person.
Wait, that’s it? Syncretic idealism with you at the center of the universe?
Go on, make some matter. I’m not a monist materialist, I’ll wait. Take a picture. Or do you have to plead your case with the Swirling Cosmic Sink in order to get some Source?
You’ve already bitched and moaned to high heaven about SBM.
This is not SBM.
Why are you here?
You not only fail to understand what other people are saying to you, you don’t even seem to have anything coherent to defend.
Now, let’s have a mamesh question, yes? Why can’t you walk through walls?
Natural immunity!!! Everything old is new again.
@F68.10
“The problem is that no amount of metaphysics can refute physics.”
There is nothing in my spiritual beliefs that tries to refute physics! Going beyond the “physical” world doesn’t refute the physical world.
HOW DID YOU EVER GET THAT IDEA????
Going beyond physical world means that you are making religious statements, Finding new physics is a quite different thing,
@ Indie Rebel
“There is nothing in my spiritual beliefs that tries to refute physics!”
There indeed is something: your spiritual beliefs attempt to refute conclusions that have been drown out from empirical data.
This is analogue to trying to refute physics with metaphysics.
I’m just telling you: science goes the other way round.
“Going beyond the “physical” world doesn’t refute the physical world. HOW DID YOU EVER GET THAT IDEA????”
Positing forces outside the material world to explain that you can do without ? Yes, it is such an analogue.
And this is not materialism / reductionism. As it indeed goes among christian philosophers, they indeed say:
“It is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many.” — Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica.
Thomas Aquinas was not a “materialist”. He was not an “atheist”. Yet he wrote down the same kind of ideas that I am using to refute your claims that it is necessary to add many principles to explain evolution than few.
We do not need “Intelligent Universe” to explain evolution. Natural selection does the job very well. And it is superflous to suppose that evolution, which may be account by a few principles like natural selection, has been produced by many principles like Intelligent Universe.
Medieval christian philosophers sometimes got more than a little right. Grazie mille, Thomas Aquinas.
@thsgrn
Everyone here gives the same reason for believing natural selection explains evolution. The reason is that IT IS TRUE. But of course no evidence is needed.
The evidence is for EVOLUTION, and for NATURAL SELECTION (which goes without saying and must be true).
There is NO EVIDENCE that natural selection EXPLAINS evolution towards greater complexity. Oh, let’s not forget, someone wrote a little algorithm. Yeah that proves it.
This kind of shouting “IT IS TRUE” without any evidence reminds me of Christian bible believers. I’ve had similar conversations with them. “The bible is true because … because … the bible says it’s true.”
It is you that shout things like natural selection does not explain evolution towards greater complexity. This very strong statement and obviously wrong, You say “greater complexity”, that is more information. Selection does create information, because it is selection.
@has
“IR’s language is that of the plump, preened, self-satisfied egotist who, having enjoyed a long life full of enviable opportunities and extraordinary privilege, now collapses into a quivering blancmange upon seeing her own mortality approaching hard.”
Well thank you for describing me as privileged and having enviable opportunities! Cool! Not plump though. Maybe egotist? Well, I do know that I am smart and have read much more than what you morons have read.
True that I’m old and retired. Not true that I stopped being an atheist recently, because of being afraid of death. I stopped being an atheist, gradually, during my 30s.
@Aarno Syvänen “You can yourself construct a living force detecting instrument, Have you ideas how it would work ?”
Yeah I can of course construct it, not a problem, even though I am not an engineer. Gary Schwartz at the U. of Arizona has done lots of energy healing research. And he uses a lot of technology. Of course you will say he’s a quack because he doesn’t conform to your materialist ideology.
I say he is quack because he definitely dangers one’s health. Interesting thing is that does want to have his data checked. Quite suspicious, I would say
You can still explain principles of your lifeforce detecting equipment. No need to build it.
Amen
it’s not just energy medicine :Schwartz has been working with engineers to develop a SoulPhone which will enable people to communicate with “post material” ( i.e deceased) individuals. See Wikipedia on him/ also his SoulPhone Foundation website.He has got grants from NCCM ( if I have the letters straight- Orac writes about the complementary medicine studies funded by the US government) He also studies mediumship.
Yes. We would love to hear the specifications of this device that you can build, without engineering knowledge, that will detect an energy field that hasn’t been detected by any currently existing scientific apparatus.
Does it involve pretty coiled tracks on the pcb? Some nice coloured light emitting diodes? Or do you prefer retro needle gauges? Don’t forget the probes. Very important, although often replaced with external antenna nowadays. I hope it’s not going to be one of those new age con jobs where none of the components are actually connected to each other. Apparently they work in a way not understood by modern science. Yours for only 29.95 plus postage.
Does it go “ping”? To be a real scientific instrument, it must be a machine that goes “ping”.
Well?
@Aarno Syvänen
James Shapiro, evolution biologist, for example.
Nothing of his work is ralated to Lamarckism. For instance E coli does not produce lactose metabolizing enzymes, when lacotse is not present, or if glucose is. But this os caused by repressor genes, so this is not epigenetics,
@Aarno Syvänen
“Junk DNA is cqalled junk because it has low information content”
What BS! 98% of DNA is useless junk? Until, of course, they figure out what some of it does and then it stops being junk.
Scientists figured out protein-coding DNA, and decided that is ALL DNA is good for, the rest has no purpose. BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T UNDERSTAND ITS PURPOSE!! And they still don’t understand most of it!
“Obviously you woululd not accept any evidence for natural selection”
Dammit, I said REPEATEDLY that there is evidence for natural selection. Natural selection HAS TO HAPPEN, it is true by definition. You CANNOT understand the simplest concepts!
@ Indie Rebel
“Dammit, I said REPEATEDLY that there is evidence for natural selection. Natural selection HAS TO HAPPEN, it is true by definition. You CANNOT understand the simplest concepts!”
We do understand perfectly well the hand waving you are performing: delinking evolution and natural selection by claimg that we have evidence for evolution, for natural selection, but not for both.
Of course, you’re 100 % wrong.
We understand these “simplest” concepts very well.
You just do not understand logic and science.
The evidence is clearly enough to conclude that evolution by natural selection holds.
Face it.
OK let us say that you would not accept any evidence that natural selection actually have some effects. Is this a better formulation ?
What is problem with statement that lots of DNA is junk ? It is not intelligent design, you know. Only problem would be that replication would be too slow. But replication in eukaryotes has multiple starting, so this is not a problem (protokaryotes ar different in both counts),
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “Gee!! Evolutionary theory has little to do with atheism !!
The only link it has with theism is to disprove the biblical account that people held dear for so many centuries !!”
All or none, yep, that’s you. Disproving the “biblical account” does’t automatically mean someone doesn’t believe in some higher power. Actually it is easy to disprove the “biblical account.” Isaac Asimov’s Guide to the Bible does a great job, documenting, yep, documenting contradictions, placing events hundreds of years wrong, etc.
You write: “I have already said, repeatedly, that I am talking about atheism/materialism, which states that nothing exists except what can be perceived by the senses, or measured with existing instruments.”
And I have clearly stated that I don’t claim “nothing exists except what can be perceived by the senses, or measured with existing instruments.” What I and several friends state is that if it can’t be measured by some objective means, then devoting time to whether it exists or not is a waste of time, mental masturbation. In essence, each individual will decide based on their own “prejudices”, etc. what they believe it to be. If one chooses to believe in Reiki, fine, as long as one doesn’t hurt others; but, of course, if one delays actual medical care . . .
You write: ““the way DNA operates is quite well known.”
Except that about NINETY-EIGHT PERCENT of DNA is called JUNK because it is NOT UNDERSTOOD!! That’s a real convenient way to say you understand things — just call anything you don’t understand JUNK>
While calling it junk, it is being studied. Lots of studies to determine what it is and how it works or doesn’t. So, it falls in the realm of science! ! !
You write: “There is nothing in my spiritual beliefs that tries to refute physics! Going beyond the “physical” world doesn’t refute the physical world.”
No, it doesn’t refute physics; but why do you continue making a fool of yourself on this website. “Spiritual beliefs” are personal, can’t be proved or disproved. You just continue to ignore this.
You write: “Yeah I can of course construct it, not a problem, even though I am not an engineer. Gary Schwartz at the U. of Arizona has done lots of energy healing research. And he uses a lot of technology. Of course you will say he’s a quack because he doesn’t conform to your materialist ideology.”
And if his technology, TECHNOLOGY (something that can be repeated, objectively verified), finds something, great. I have NO problem with that.
And as usual, you began by attacking Orac, claiming he was against healthy diets, ignoring what I wrote about them. You claimed no research on Reiki and I refuted this. And you claim there is NO evidence for evolution; yet, we have fossils, we have genetics, etc. In fact, the other day I watched a PBS Nova program “Rise of the Mammals” that covered fossil findings.
I am an old man with lots of time on my hands; but I wonder why you choose, have the time, to continue with your verbal diarrhea on a webpage that clearly isn’t interested in your “spiritual beliefs” and continue to ignore much of what others write.
I just walked my dog a mile at 5 am, then ate breakfast, so will take a short nap before I drive to blood center. I am regular blood donor, though now 75. It sometimes bothers me that a recipient could be a racist, anti-semite, islamophobe, etc.; but since, on average, donation helps three people, some probably worth helping and the right thing to do. Though not a religious Jew, I like and try to live up to what Rabbi Hillel said a couple of decades before Jesus:
“If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?
And I have wasted enough time writing these comments to someone like you who just keeps pushing your rigid position, continuously IGNORING what I’ve written.
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
You write: “Gee!! Evolutionary theory has little to do with atheism !!
The only link it has with theism is to disprove the biblical account that people held dear for so many centuries !!”
I didn’t write that, I was quoting someone else here. OBVIOUSLY.
@ Indie Rebel
And you reply to one of many points I made. I wonder? Despite your claiming a PhD, do you have a limited capacity to assimilate more than one or two points???
You write: “OH WOW, UNFRIGGINBELIEVABLE. How many times did I say, here in this thread, that THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION. EVOLUTION IS TRUE.
Actually, you have written both accepting and also that may NOT explain complex behaviors, etc. So, NOPE; but just another example of your inability to really make a rational argument! ! !
And now I’m through wasting my time. Have a stack of books I want to read before I croak and time is running out.
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
“you claim there is NO evidence for evolution; yet, we have fossils, we have genetics, etc.”
OH WOW, UNFRIGGINBELIEVABLE. How many times did I say, here in this thread, that THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION. EVOLUTION IS TRUE.
How many times did I say that? This is too crazy.
Indie Rebel: “Gary Schwartz at the U. of Arizona has done lots of energy healing research. And he uses a lot of technology.”
That would be the same Gary Schwartz who thinks the dead communicate with the living through human mediums, and who claims he was stopped on the FDR Drive when a voice told him to to put on his seat belt, and was shortly thereafter rear-ended at 50 mph. I’m not sure why the voice didn’t tell him to put on his seatbelt when he was still in his driveway.
Schwartz, who runs the Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health at the U. of Arizona and conducts parapsychology experiments, apparently is not the most rigorous researcher out there.* According to psychologist Ray Hyman**, Schwartz’s failings include “inappropriate control comparisons”, “failure to use double-blind procedures”, “creating non-falsifiable outcomes by reinterpreting failures as successes” and “failure to independently check on facts the sitters endorsed as true”.
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2003/01/how-not-to-test-mediums/
*but seems to be a Spiritual person.
**as cited in Schwartz’s Wikipedia profile.
@ DB:
Why is it we usually find the same material at nearly the same time? Are we connected somehow in the aetheric realm?
At any rate, one of the alties I survey explains his successful healing career being due to energy exchanges – he adjusts his patients’ dodgy vibes with his own – like a tuning fork. Testimonials describe his “laying on of hands” during sessions as the culmination of his health retreats. He has thousands of cases healing people with cancer, CV disease, ASD, diabetes, stroke, gangrene etc. The restrictive diet/ exercise regime is just the start! It prepares them for the REAL deal!
Of course, I look on it differently:
spending a week or more listening to “lectures” about energies, healing and “wisdom” all day from a ‘celebrated healer’/ “scientist”, eating a strict diet with reduced calories/ protein and participating in activities that direct how guests spend every minute of their time
might predispose participants to go along with the suggestions following the dramatic actions of the healer. Most of this information is not written up anywhere but comes from listening to his broadcasts- which also prepare his loyal followers to anticipate cures. Results are quoted as being more than 90% usually.
Or not to stop in the middle of the highway.
Indie Rebel:
I declare you the winner of this argument because more capital letters always wins.
@F68.10
“Natural selection does the job very well.”
How do you KNOW it does the job? WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? Do we decide a theory is true just because it’s simple?
Aside from any ideas about universal intelligence, there are many reasons to deny that natural selection is the driver of evolution. Read some of James Shapiro’s ideas, for example.
@ Indie Rebel
“How do you KNOW it does the job? WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? Do we decide a theory is true just because it’s simple?”
Here is the evidence.
Now. Will you now get down to discussing the evidence ? Or not ?
And yes, Ockham’s razor is part of the argument when involving variations of design arguments such as Universal Intelligence. Deal with it.
You don’t like it ? Too bad.
“Aside from any ideas about universal intelligence, there are many reasons to deny that natural selection is the driver of evolution. Read some of James Shapiro’s ideas, for example.”
Provide a link.
I’m too busy with my own stuff to accommodate someone who doesn’t respect me enough to be bothered to provide a link.
I am not your maid. I do not clean your house. I do not do your bed. And do not follow non-existent links.
But because I’m nice, I went to wiki:
“He has proposed the term natural genetic engineering to account for how novelty is created in the course of biological evolution. It has been criticized by some.” — wiki on James A. Shapiro.
Is that what you mean ?
If so, please answer unambiguously. And please provide a link to the relevant argument I am supposed to consider.
Thank you for your cooperation.
@F68.10
“claimg that we have evidence for evolution, for natural selection, but not for both.”
NO!!!! I NEVER SAID THAT. I am becoming certain that you are CRAZY.
How could I say there is evidence for each but not for both? That is beyond stupid, verging on complete brain death.
What I said: There is NO evidence that natural selection EXPLAINS evolution.
Got it? No? Then you never will understand anything.
@ Indie Rebel
““claimg that we have evidence for evolution, for natural selection, but not for both.” — me
“NO!!!! I NEVER SAID THAT. I am becoming certain that you are CRAZY.”
C’mon…
You have said “We have evidence for evolution.”
You have said “We have evidence for natural selection.”
You have said “We have no evidence that natural selection drives evolution.”
Didn’t you ? If you said “We have evidence that natural selection drives evolution”, we are on the same page.
Otherwise, we’re not.
So stop brewing a storm in a teacup accusing other people of being crazy when you are the one denying evolution by natural selection
“How could I say there is evidence for each but not for both? That is beyond stupid, verging on complete brain death.”
OK. I somewhat got imprecise. You are claiming there is no evidence that links natural selection to evolution.
Which is of course 100 % wrong.
“What I said: There is NO evidence that natural selection EXPLAINS evolution.”
Yep. Now will you get down to business and start discussing that point seriously ?
“Got it? No? Then you never will understand anything.”
Yep. We got it. It’s a long time we understood you were denying evolution by natural selection.
We got it…
And you’re wrong.
It’s been a quite a way from here to Zardoz.
Lets us go into details. Do you accept has results. Do you accept there can be multiple instances of selection ? Do you accept that these can have a cumulative effect, if pressure reamins same. What things you think natural selection can do ?
@Dangerous Bacon
Gary Schwartz has done plenty of scientific controlled experiments. The “debunkers” will throw trash at anyone who doesn’t march in line with their materialist religion.
Actually, they would not accept bad experiments. If the effect is real, why resist strictest possible controls ?
@Denice Walter
“He also studies mediumship.”
OH HORRORS!! And we know all mediumship is fake because … because … materialism.
@ Indie Rebel
“OH HORRORS!! And we know all mediumship is fake because … because … materialism.”
Not at all. Not because of “materialism”, no matter how mentally fckp *p with you are with this overall meaningless concept.
But because of a concept known as the “demarcation problem”. And because of the solution philosophy of science gave to it.
The solution philosophy of science gave to it does not presuppose “materialism” in any way. In fact, one of the many goals of solving the “demarcation problem” was to avoid relying on such assumptions such as “materialism”.
So. Bottom line: straw man.
Science does not rely in any way on “materialism”.
You may stuck mentally in the 18th century, but I know we moved on and are now in the 21st century. We do not need to presuppose “materialism” to do science.
Where does the Spooky Cosmic Goo store all of the stiffs? It must have one hell of a filing system.
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
“Evolution” is not a synonym for the “Modern Synthesis.” The MS is ONE attempt to explain evolution.
You could check out James Shapiro, as I already suggested.
Shapiro seems to bleive horizontal DNA transfer happena very often. Even if true, natural selection is a separate thing. What results of horizontal DNA transfer are beneficial ? Not all them, we are speaking about viruses,
@F68.10
I could say that two things exist, but that one does not cause the other. It is true that the earth goes around the sun, and it is true that Venus goes around the sun. Does it follow that the earth going around the sun EXPLAINS Venus going around the sun?
And please tell me again how you know that natural selection explains evolution? Because it’s a simple explanation? Because you learned it in school?
@ Indie Rebel
“I could say that two things exist, but that one does not cause the other.”
You can say what you want. But the evidence is clear cut: natural selection drives evolution.
“It is true that the earth goes around the sun, and it is true that Venus goes around the sun. Does it follow that the earth going around the sun EXPLAINS Venus going around the sun?”
You got it the other way round: Galileo’s observation of Venus was the basis of an argument by analogy that started destroying the arguments that people were asserting to prove that the Sun was going round the Earth.
Get your scientific history straight.
Venus going around the Sun did REFUTE the arguments people held to assert that the Sun went around the Earth. And oppened up the legitimacy of the alternative hypothesis.
That’s how science works. Or did work rather. Or rather started to work and started to be formalised. This is the then cultural backdrop of works such as Discours de la Méthode by René Descartes.
That’s indeed when people started understanding that Method was important in science in order to refute bad ideas. And Method includes Ockham’s razor. Yup. You’ve got some catching up to do.
The fact that Venus went around the Sun PROVES that the ARGUMENTS used to claim the Sun went around the Earth were WRONG. It did NOT prove the Earth went around the Sun. In fact, Galileo massaged his data and was to some (mild) extent a fraud. Robert Hooke was the one to solidly disprove both geo-centrism and Tycho Brahe’s geo-helio-centric model with parallax measurements.
Stop outrageously simplifying science and science history to attempt to push your very moot points.
“And please tell me again how you know that natural selection explains evolution? Because it’s a simple explanation?”
The Origin of Species PROVED that natural selection was ENOUGH to explain evolution. Then Ockham’s razor. Ipso facto: proof. Yep. 100 %.
“Because you learned it in school?”
I honestly do not recall having ever learnt it in school. I was monomaniac on swimming and maths. So it’s very possible I didn’t pay attention anyway.
It’s indeed rather surprising I have no memory of that, when I come to think of it.
Or that you have not offered any other explanation.
@F68.10
James Shapiro writes about the amazing intelligent processes he has observe in bacteria. He says that DNA is like a read-write hard drive, a place where the cell stores information. The DNA does NOT determine what the cell does. The cell USES the DNA.
Of course, materialists still claim that all-powerful natural selection has created all the amazing things that cells do. They can use that braindead argument until hell freezes over, they never get tired of it. But it makes no sense.
Shapiro wrote a book on evolution. If you know how to use google, or how to search at Amazon, you should be able to find it.
@ Indie Rebel
“James Shapiro writes about the amazing intelligent processes he has observe in bacteria. He says that DNA is like a read-write hard drive, a place where the cell stores information. The DNA does NOT determine what the cell does. The cell USES the DNA.”
Provide link to best argument you may find.
Not interested in discussing hagiographies. Link needed.
“Of course, materialists still claim that all-powerful natural selection has created all the amazing things that cells do.”
No. They are not “materialists”. They are proponent of evolution by natural selection
And they are right.
Nothing I’ve read from Schapiro has yet convinced me that he even made a case against evolution by natural selection.
None.
“They can use that braindead argument until hell freezes over, they never get tired of it. But it makes no sense.”
Of course it makes sense. It’s backed by the evidence.
“Shapiro wrote a book on evolution. If you know how to use google, or how to search at Amazon, you should be able to find it.”
I do know how to use Google. Provide link. Or sod off.
Not interested in people not willing to oblige by minimal decency standards: providing unambiguous references.
@ Indie Rebel
You write: ““Evolution” is not a synonym for the “Modern Synthesis.” The MS is ONE attempt to explain evolution.”
First time phrase “Modern Synthesis” used in this current exchange. So . . .?
You write: “You could check out James Shapiro, as I already suggested.”
DIdn’t suggest to me; but I did check him out. Found several papers claim his book can be read as support for Creative Design. I can see why you refer to him:
“provide compelling arguments for biological fine-tuning that indicates intelligent design . . .Clearly the specter of intelligent design is haunting Shapiro as he makes his case to other scientists. But his explanation for why ID isn’t needed is to simply assert that natural genetic engineering principles would provide a “distinct evolutionary advantage.” (p. 135) Here, Shapiro ignores his own advice.”
Casey Luskin. James Shapiro’s Evolution: A View from the 21st Century Offers a Stunning Look at Biological Complexity and Non-Darwinian Evolution. Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center.
also: William A. Dembski (2018 Aor 16). Borderline Heretic: James Shapiro and His Twenty-First Century View of Evolution. Evolution News & Science Today. Christian Research Institute.
And, as usual, you ignore most of the points I’ve made. Obviously you are totally incapable of entering into a civil rational dialogue, so i will try to ignore your continued rigid repetitive comments. I just started reading a new textbook on Immunology. I know quite a bit; but like to review and keep up-to-date.
@F68.10
“Of course it makes sense. It’s backed by the evidence.”
There is evidence that natural selection causes, and can explain, evolution? What is it? How many times have I asked, so far? No one here has evidence, all you can say is “It’s true, it must be true, because … because smart scientists said so, and I learned it in school. And we can’t even think about intelligence in nature. That is not what they told us, and we must not ever ever question Them.”
@ Indie Rebel
“There is evidence that natural selection causes, and can explain, evolution? What is it? How many times have I asked, so far?”
You’ve been mostly rude, and were not honestly inquiring. So I did not bother much. But, yes, I gave it to you.
“No one here has evidence, all you can say is “It’s true, it must be true, because … because smart scientists said so.”
No. Because we have the evidence.
“…and I learned it in school.”
Sorry, I do not recall having learnt it in school.
In fact, I likely got it there.
“And we can’t even think about intelligence in nature.”
Wrong. There is a shitload of scientific work on information and intelligence in animals. A shitload of philosophical works on metaphysics and ontology. A shitload of spirituo-philosophical works on consciousness.
I’ve got no big issue with that.
The Church had a big big big problem with any discussion about consciousness. Which is why it still is taboo, deeply ingrained within western culture. Atheists and “materialists” are not responsible for this state of affairs: the Church is. You’re picking a fight with the wrong people.
“That is not what they told us, and we must not ever ever question Them.””
Hmmmh… no. I’m usually quite the contrarian type of person. But I do not swallow bullshit. Sorry.
Which part of evolution cannot be explained by natural selection? I don’t think you’ve detailed anything yet.
I remember a conversation with a guy who said that the Earth couldn’t be proved to be over four billion years old. I asked him why he was denying the science behind radioisotope dating. His reply was that he wasn’t. He didn’t have a problem with the science. His complaint was that we couldn’t prove the age of the Earth because there was no one around at the time to observe it.
Deja vu.
@ NumberWang (@ Indie Rebel)
“Which part of evolution cannot be explained by natural selection? I don’t think you’ve detailed anything yet.”
I think he’s claiming natural selection that doesn’t explain orthogenesis.
He wants proof that natural selection always acts 100 % in the sense of what he calls “increased complexity”. The fact that natural selection considers mono-cellular organisms as fit enough is proof for him that natural selection doesn’t create “increased complexity” as it doesn’t genocide mono-cellular organisms.
He’s got the link between natural selection and complexity of organisms completely twisted. And therefore rejects natural selection as incompatible with “increased complexity”. And therefore opts for lamarckism. And therefore looks into Modern Synthesis for anything that may offset natural selection as a cause for “increased complexity”, and therefore jumps on any theory that claims lamarckism.
He’s having scientific methodology completely the other way round. Because he misconstrued the link between natural selection and orthogenesis, and is therefore twisting the notion of methodology to accommodate his misconception.
And he’s mightily unclear about his real positions. We have to do all the guesswork and hone our telepathic skills to get a conversation rolling with him, among all his claims of persecution by Evil Atheists.
So, what things do you think natural selection can cause ?
@F68.10
“the evidence is clear cut: natural selection drives evolution.”
And what is the evidence? You keep saying there is evidence, but you never way what it is. What is it? If you weren’t BSing, you have would have said what the evidence is by now. And no, I will not accept evidence for evolution and evidence for natural selection. You said “natural selection drives evolution.” And you said “the evidence for that is clear.” What is the evidence?
And maybe you need a different example about two things being true, but not causally related. It is true that mice have tails, It is true that bears have claws. Does the fact that mice have tails explain the fact that bears have claws?
And you not say what things you think natural selection actually does cause
@ Indie Rebel
“And what is the evidence?”
Sigh…
Here.
“And no, I will not accept evidence for evolution and evidence for natural selection.”
That evidence proves evolution by natural selection.
You’re in denial.
“And maybe you need a different example about two things being true, but not causally related. It is true that mice have tails, It is true that bears have claws. Does the fact that mice have tails explain the fact that bears have claws?”
And the fact that the sun has risen every known day known to man is not proof that it will rise tomorrow. Bring back the Aztec sacrifices !!
Your rant is not an argument. The evidence does not boil down to two lone examples and an analogy. There’s too much evidence to deny evolution by natural selection.
Start with the link I gave, m’kay ?
@NumberWang
“Which part of evolution cannot be explained by natural selection?
Natural selection weeds out organisms that are less fit for the environment. It cannot not happen, so there is really no information content in the statement that natural selection weeds out the less fit.
That is ALL we know about natural selection.
But the Modern Synthesis says the evolution of increasing complexity, of multicellular from one-celled organisms, of more intelligent animals from less intelligent animals — that is all generated by natural selection acting on random DNA errors.
There has never been any evidence for the MS. The thought has been “Well, it seems like it could work, so it does work.”
No one has observed random DNA errors that could account for the complex machinery of life assembling itself. No observations, no evidence. Just, well, it seems right, yeah it is right, yeah we got it! A dead and mindless nature can generate increasingly complex living systems. How do we know? Well this was decided after the discovery of DNA, and we have no reason to question it. It makes everything nice and simple, and we like our myths to be simple.
So your answer is “God did it.”
Got it.
@ Indie Rebel
“And what is the evidence? You keep saying there is evidence, but you never way what it is.”
I gave it to you. More than once.
“What is it?”
Click on the links…
“If you weren’t BSing, you have would have said what the evidence is by now.”
Click on the links…
“And no, I will not accept evidence for evolution and evidence for natural selection.”
You have to discuss it. Sorry pal. That’s called “I do not want to look at the evidence.” Like when Galileo was showing the moons of Jupiter through his telescope and people refused to have a look. Old story. Still running wild in 21st century, it seems.
“You said “natural selection drives evolution.” And you said “the evidence for that is clear.” What is the evidence?”
Click on the links…
“And maybe you need a different example about two things being true, but not causally related.”
Click on the links, and we’ll start talking “causation”.
“It is true that mice have tails, It is true that bears have claws. Does the fact that mice have tails explain the fact that bears have claws?”
Pointless analogy.
@ Indie Rock
“Natural selection weeds out organisms that are less fit for the environment. It cannot not happen, so there is really no information content in the statement that natural selection weeds out the less fit.”
The fact that it “cannot not” happen does not happen to disprove that it does not cause species to evolve. Far from it.
“That is ALL we know about natural selection.”
Nope. We do know natural selection also works as a mechanism to create adaptation. We’ve got evidence. Shitloads.
“But the Modern Synthesis says the evolution of increasing complexity, of multicellular from one-celled organisms, of more intelligent animals from less intelligent animals — that is all generated by natural selection acting on random DNA errors.”
We do not need “Modern Synthesis” to prove evolution by natural selection.
“There has never been any evidence for the MS.”
Of course there has been evidence. Shitloads.
“The thought has been “Well, it seems like it could work, so it does work.””
Not quite. It’s more like TINA.
You’ve got some catching up to do as to how science works. Seriously.
“No one has observed random DNA errors that could account for the complex machinery of life assembling itself. No observations, no evidence.”
Of course. We have observed and measured shitloads of gene mutations and what they are responsible for.
“Just, well, it seems right, yeah it is right, yeah we got it!”
More like: we haven’t been able to disprove it !! Gee !! That theory is robust and doesn’t have any serious contenders !!
“A dead and mindless nature can generate increasingly complex living systems.”
The postulate that Nature is dead and mindless is not part of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Sorry: straw man.
“How do we know? Well this was decided after the discovery of DNA.”
Nope. Evolution by natural selection was proven before the discovery of DNA. No need of DNA theory to prove evolution by natural selection.
“…and we have no reason to question it.”
People have questioned it. A lot. It turns out objections did not hold water.
“It makes everything nice and simple, and we like our myths to be simple.”
It is absolutely not “nice and simple”. It’s overly complex. But it’s more self-contained than positing God, Intelligent Universe or Aliens.
In the words of Thomas Aquinas: “It is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many.”
So there you go. Your objections have been disproved. You should go to bed, now…
“A dead and mindless nature can generate increasingly complex living systems”
Stop thinking of nature as an entity. Sometimes it is a convenient reference but nature isn’t a god or a separate being. Nature is a term to describe everything that goes on in the natural world. Is the natural world dead? Nature isn’t one complete ‘thing’. It’s a term for the multitude of processes that are churning away constantly, often completely unrelated to each other.
You’ve mentioned a moth species adapting to sooty buildings as ‘perhaps’ evidence of natural selection.
So natural selection would have the lighter coloured moths eaten by predators in preference to the darker coloured moths. This is logical reasoning. Do the moths have predators? Do the predators hunt by sight? Natural selection will definitely favour the moths that blend in with the background. Soot coloured moths pass on their genes more often than others. More moths become soot coloured.
You seem grudging about this though. Your preferred hypothesis is that the moths DNA recognises that soot colouring is a survival trait and mutates or selects for colour preferentially. Or that the moths are intelligent enough to realise that their camouflage is not efficient and instruct their DNA to change to suit. Or that an outside force tells their DNA to mutate.
Your preference is far more complicated.
@ NumberWang (@ Indie Rebel)
“You seem grudging about this though. Your preferred hypothesis is that the moths DNA recognises that soot colouring is a survival trait and mutates or selects for colour preferentially. Or that the moths are intelligent enough to realise that their camouflage is not efficient and instruct their DNA to change to suit. Or that an outside force tells their DNA to mutate.”
It’s not even clear what his preferred hypothesis is…
“Her,” just by the by. Although the namelink has been cleared out, it was ‘pollychase920‘.
@ Narad
“Her,” just by the by. Although the namelink has been cleared out, it was ‘pollychase920‘.
“pollychase920” seems to have the same obsessions about atheists and materialists as Indie Rebel, but as long as he/she doesn’t make a statement in one sense or another, I’ll suspend judgement.
Natural weeds out less fit. Why do you think a more complex organism is not more fit ?
When Democrats in Pennsylvania get around to skewering Dr. Oz over his past antics, they’ll have plenty of material just based on Oz’s legal troubles.
There’s the “heated rice footsie” case, involving an elderly man who sued Oz after the good doctor promoted an insomnia remedy on his show, which involved putting uncooked rice in one’s socks, heating them in the microwave and then wearing them to bed. The man alleged that he tried the remedy only to be disabled by third-degree burns on his feet. However a judge threw out the lawsuit because a TV personality doesn’t have a “duty of care” toward a viewer/patient.
Oz and his media company along with other defendants settled a class action lawsuit for $5.25 million over unproven weight-loss products that Oz touted.
ttps://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=699ce0d5-0508-450a-b620-968f4e238bc2
Then there was the seamy episode in which Oz announced that 80% of virgin olive oil imported into the U.S. “isn’t the real deal” and “may be fake”. An olive oil trade group sued him, noting that the “certified oleologist” he interviewed was an undisclosed employee of a California olive oil firm that competes directly with foreign olive oil companies. That suit got tossed out but the blowback could be greasy.
And as noted earlier, Oz has been waging a court battle with his sister over their father’s inheritance; she alleged that he was withholding $15,000/month that she was supposed to be getting from the rental of Dad’s pricey Upper East Side NYC condos that their father owned.
Even as Oz, um, evolves into a politician, there’s plenty of embarrassing fodder in his legal escapades for opponents to select.
@F68.10
A moth species evolved to become darker when living on soot darkened buildings. That’s about the best evidence for natural selection driving evolution. In a case like that, where complexity does not increase, natural selection might be enough to explain it. But it’s also possible that color-change mutations are something the moth species’ DNA already knew how to do. We don’t know.
Aside from extremely simple adaptation examples like that one, I have seen nothing logical or scientific to support your simple evolution myth.
The many objections along the years have been brushed off as creationism, and cannot even be mentioned in school. Even if they say nothing whatsoever about religion.
James Shapiro has never endorsed any kind of religious theory, but he is accused of it anyway, just because he criticized the Modern Synthesis. He is an expert on bacteria and he has good reasons to think DNA is a read-write storage device. And he has good reasons to think cells are NOT governed by their DNA, but that cells USE their DNA. That should throw the Central Dogma right into the trash bin, but you cling to it anyway.
Well? I’m impressed that you’ve managed a declarative sentence in which the payload of every form of to be is crazily wrong.
P.S. Now that you’re letting your freak flag fly, di get back to that “matter” catastrophe.
@ Indie Rebel
“A moth species evolved to become darker when living on soot darkened buildings. That’s about the best evidence for natural selection driving evolution. In a case like that, where complexity does not increase…”
Complexity does increase over time with natural selection.
“But it’s also possible that color-change mutations are something the moth species’ DNA already knew how to do. We don’t know.”
Yes. We can know. Without DNA. We can witness that changes become permanent. Using, for instance, fossile records.
This is starting to become severely ridiculous to claim that such changes are something “a species always knew how to do.”
We know for a fact that species have evolved. Whether by natural selection or not. This is called speciation.
And we have observed that traits that have been selected are preserved within a speciated species. Of course, these dinosaur chickens need their teeth to break out of their egg, so some traits may resurface, but I do not see how you can put the link between speciation and natural selection in doubt.
“Aside from extremely simple adaptation examples like that one, I have seen nothing logical or scientific to support your simple evolution myth.”
This is starting to be ridiculous. I’m finally starting to see your problem. It’s with speciation, isn’t it ?
“The many objections along the years have been brushed off as creationism, and cannot even be mentioned in school. Even if they say nothing whatsoever about religion.”
Well state one clearly ! Give a link ! And we’ll discuss it. Gee !! How dense you are… You’re the one jerk bringing religion, atheism and materialism in the topic all the bloody time !!! Projection much ? Not afraid of practicing what you preach ?? Bloody hell… what sheer amount of bloody bigotry.
This kind of bigotry is really starting to annoy me.
“James Shapiro has never endorsed any kind of religious theory, but he is accused of it anyway, just because he criticized the Modern Synthesis.”
Yeah. Well I do not care about the dude. And have never criticised him. But he did rebuke all the anti-evolution folks that tried to appropriate his thesis.
“He is an expert on bacteria and he has good reasons to think DNA is a read-write storage device.”
Likely not on the scale you pretend it is to offset the claim that speciation is tied to natural selection. I’m pretty sure the guy you take as a reference would dispute the claims you make out of theory.
“And he has good reasons to think cells are NOT governed by their DNA, but that cells USE their DNA.”
I do not believe the dude would endorse such statements from you.
“That should throw the Central Dogma right into the trash bin, but you cling to it anyway.”
I have no problem with the Central Dogma being not 100 % right. Corrections to it are bound to happen at some point of time. But it’s likely that the co-called Dogma will remain very essentially true even if his theory holds water. The claims you draw out his position are completely outlandish. And I’m pretty sure he would not subscribe to them.
^ It would also be nice if you would stipulate up front that you wouldn’t know a data structure if you saw one in a cafeteria.
You of course could cite some Shapiro’s actual paper. Read write storage device is not very specific.
DNA does not know things, it is not intelligent.
Speaking about complexity, cancers are result of natural selection
@ Indie Rebel
EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION
Note. the following gives numerous examples found that supports.
From Wikipedia. Evidence of Common Descent [Note, each item gives multiple examples and a huge reference list]
Evidence from animal coloration was gathered by some of Darwin’s contemporaries; camouflage, mimicry, and warning coloration are all readily explained by natural selection.
The development and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria provides evidence that evolution due to natural selection is an ongoing process in the natural world. Natural selection is ubiquitous in all research pertaining to evolution, taking note of the fact that all of the following examples in each section of the article document the process.
Evidence from comparative anatomy
Evidence from paleontology
Evidence from biogreography
Evidence from selection
Evidence from speciation
Evidence from behavior
Evidence from mathematical modeling and simulation
AND THE FOLLOWING [note. just type in search box AND I found MORE papers]
Biological Principles. Evolution by Natural Selection
Milot E et al. (2011). Evidence for evolution in response to natural selection in a contemporary human population. PNAS; 108(41): 17040-17045.
National Academy of Sciences (1999). Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition
AND ONCE AGAIN, YOU FAIL TO ADDRESS MANY OTHER POINTS I MADE. NOT A DISPLAY OF INTELLECTUAL HONESTY
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
Yes, as I said, all the examples are of changes that do not require any increase in complexity. And the changes are probably inherent in the species’ repertoire.
I am VERY familiar with the Modern Synthesis arguments, none of it is new to me.
@ Indie Rebel
Check out Wikipedia. Modern synthesis (20th century).
Discusses natural selection & evidence, etc.
Also Wikipedia. Objections to Evolution.
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
I SAID I already KNOW all the arguments for Modern Synthesis. I SAID they have NO evidence. Natural selection of simple changes is not evidence for evolving complexity. And even those simple changes could be already inherent in the species’ DNA. Bacteria also are capable of generating certain types of mutations — there is randomness involved, because the bacteria can’t know in advance exactly which mutations will be successful. All this is completely overlooked by the Modern Synthesis dogmatists.
I don’t need to read wikipedia, after reading the same arguments for years and years and years. They are the same, they never change. They never address any of the objections from scientists like James Shapiro. Critics are silenced by the accusation of creationism.
@ Indie Rebel
“I SAID I already KNOW all the arguments for Modern Synthesis. I SAID they have NO evidence.”
If you know all the arguments, then you very obviously do not know how to weigh them and assess evidence.
Joel is right. He gave you evidence he claims that that does witness “increase in complexity”. You have just brushed the evidence aside.
“Critics are silenced by the accusation of creationism.”
Oh, just f-ck me sideways.
You’ve been the one ranting about “atheism” and “materialism” from the start, you’ve not been silenced once, we have taken the pain to reply to your meaningless blabber, and you’re playing the victim with the “Mommy !! They called me a creationnist !!” card ??
Gimme a break.
Grow up.
You really are full of sh-t.
If we are believe to your words, Shapiro sprouts nonsense statements. You could of course save his reputation.
Do you think antibiotic resistant bacterias are more complex ?
@ Indie Rebel
Bull Shit. I gave a number of papers, some included complex behaviors, even one just about modern man. Yep, you are such an expert you need not even check out what others give reference to. Totally impossible that, in your “immense” knowledge and understanding, that you could have missed something???
As for Shapiro, no, he didn’t directly make claim his writings supported Creation Science; but they did include parts that Creation Science could jump on, just as you jump on anything that fits your belief in your level of knowledge.
AND I REPEAT, YOU FAILED TO ADDRESS NUMEROUS OTHER POINTS I MADE, PROOF YOU CAN’T PARTICIPATE IN A CIVIL DIALOGUE.
@Narad
James Shapiro, an expert on evolution science and bacteria, is crazily wrong? Are you sure?
@ Indie Rebel
“James Shapiro, an expert on evolution science and bacteria, is crazily wrong? Are you sure?”
I do not care whether he’s an expert. Or not.
I care about scientific consensus.
And when it departs from scientific consensus, I investigate the evidence.
But appeal to authority ? Nah. I do not take it.
Arguments from authority ? Yes, I take them to some extent.
But not appeals to authority.
And there is a difference between the two.
Sorry.
You might want to recalibrate your reading-comprehension algorithm from the Cosmic Blobulord.
No, you. Try to read more closely.
You made him look crazy. Now save his reputation cite some papers, Science journalism is just science journalism.
@ Aarno Syvänen
“You made him look crazy.”
Yeah. I heavily dislike when nutcases try to make people who are doing genuine work sound crazy.
Can’t know for now if Shapiro is a crank. But I’m pretty darn sure Indie Rebel is.
“Now save his reputation cite some papers, Science journalism is just science journalism.”
@ Indie Rebel
Yes. Please. Do not bring down people with you just because you are drinking the cool aid.
Please provide links representing his views accurately.
@F68.10
“We know for a fact that species have evolved. Whether by natural selection or not. This is called speciation.”
Are you really trying to convince me that species evolved? Really? After all the times I said, over and over and over, that I believe in evolution. You’re trying to convince me.
You are so very confused.
@F68.10
And by the way, it is KNOWN that some color adaptations are already inherent in the species’ DNA. But that is besides the point. Either way, color adaptations do not involve any increase in complexity. Not if we use any kind of sensible definition of complexity.
@ Indie Rebel
“And by the way, it is KNOWN that some color adaptations are already inherent in the species’ DNA.”
Primo: I do not recall having talked about colour adaptation.
Secundo: Colour adaptation may very well witness evolution by natural selection.
Tertio: You’re drowning the fish.
“But that is besides the point. Either way, color adaptations do not involve any increase in complexity. Not if we use any kind of sensible definition of complexity.”
We’ve got plenty of evidence of evolution by natural selection of increasingly complex organisms.
Sorry to disappoint you.
“We know for a fact that species have evolved. Whether by natural selection or not. This is called speciation.” — me
“Are you really trying to convince me that species evolved?”
Look, Big Boy. When you state an argument, you recapitulate what is known. When you judge a criminal, you recapitulate the facts.
Do you disagree with facts ? Do you disagree with evolution ? No ? You don’t ? Good. Then move on.
And stop playing the fool.
“Really? After all the times I said, over and over and over, that I believe in evolution. You’re trying to convince me.”
Playing the victim card again ? “Mooooooommmmmy!!!!! The Big Bad Wolf said I’m a creationiiiiiiiiiiist !!”
“You are so very confused.”
And you need a hug. So much persecution… so much persecution.
Now stop being a jerk. Start behaving politely. And stop pretending you’re harassed.
@NumberWang
I SAID that the moth species’ changing color is always given as proof that natural selection explains evolution. But even if the DNA changes were entirely random, the color change does not involve increasing complexity. AND we don’t even know if the DNA changes were entirely random.
So the moth example is meaningless.
@ Indie Rebel
“So the moth example is meaningless.”
Nope. It shows natural selection at work. And explain changes.
So…..do you have a problem with leaf mimicry then? Is that a step too far in your natural selection can’t produce complexity hypothesis?
You should really stop using words that you can’t define — in this case, rigorously.
Then,give an example of increasing of complexity.
I haven’t been following evolution controversies, so the name James Shapiro was unfamiliar. Seeing that he’s embraced the role of “dancing in the DMZ” between creationism and mainstream evolutionary thought (as was charged by a prominent creationist), there’s reason to be wary. People who position themselves as reasonable middle-of-the-roaders between utter cranks and evidence-based scientists are cranks themselves, just less extreme ones.
At any rate, I suspect Shapiro would blanch at the implication that he’d be a defender of “energy medicine”, or the “spirituality” that Dr. Oz dishes out.
@NumberWang
There is nothing flaky about James Shapiro. You seem to think everyone must either on one extreme side or the other. No need for logic or careful thought, just align yourself with an extremist tribe.
Shapiro has observed that DNA is writeable by cells, and he has observed intelligent processes in cells. The Central Dogma is wrong, according to his observations.
Cells seem to know what they are doing, and they control their own DNA, and use it as a storage device. If you read what he has written, you would see that he has plenty of evidence. Evidence — something you dogmatic extremists do not care about.
If Shapiro is right, then information CAN go from the cell to the DNA. The DNA CAN be influenced by what’s going on in the environment, by the cell’s needs.
The Central Dogma is wrong. What does that tell you about the Modern Synthesis? Maybe if its Central Dogma is wrong, it’s wrong about other things also. Considering it has no evidence.
Extremist tribalism is ALWAYS irrational, to some degree. Careful logical thinking (as I have done) will always lead us away from ideological dogmatism and extremism.
@ Indie Rebel
“There is nothing flaky about James Shapiro.”
That, I do not know and do not care. But there definitely is something off with you.
“Shapiro has observed that DNA is writeable by cells, and he has observed intelligent processes in cells. The Central Dogma is wrong, according to his observations.”
Some weird biological phenomenon, assuming Shapiro is right, are not enough to offset a whole biological mechanism like what you call the Central Dogma.
If you find one Jew in Afghanistan, that doesn’t mean the Taliban do not exist.
So, no, it does put the Central Dogma in jeopardy, as far as I see or care.
“Cells seem to know what they are doing, and they control their own DNA.”
Very precise link needed. Otherwise: pure BS laced with hubris.
“If you read what he has written.”
Link, please.
“…you would see that he has plenty of evidence.”
Link, please.
“Evidence — something you dogmatic extremists do not care about.”
Something we do care about.
Link please.
But we do not seek evidence for the pleasure of twisting what the evidence means.
“If Shapiro is right, then information CAN go from the cell to the DNA. The DNA CAN be influenced by what’s going on in the environment, by the cell’s needs.”
Sorry, that’s a stretch to vindicate Lamarck based some data that you overblow completely.
“The Central Dogma is wrong. What does that tell you about the Modern Synthesis? Maybe if its Central Dogma is wrong, it’s wrong about other things also. Considering it has no evidence.”
No. That doesn’t put the Central Dogma in Jeopardy. And, no, you do not even “Modern Synthesis” to refute Lamarck.
“Extremist tribalism is ALWAYS irrational, to some degree. Careful logical thinking (as I have done) will always lead us away from ideological dogmatism and extremism.”
This is not careful logical thinking.
This is being overly hypercritical and twisting the meaning of the evidence. You are assessing the meaning of the evidence in the wrong manner. You have no clue about method.
When you’ll be able to convince me that you understanding scientific methodology, then I’ll start pondering whether your thinking is logical or careful. For now, it’s ignorant of basic epistemology.
Same for your gambit about “complexity” and “natural selection”.
We know that evolution occurs by natural selection. And that this process creates complex organisms as a by-product. But asking for natural selection itself, as you do, to create complexity is… reductionism (in the exact epistemological sense). Natural selection does not in itself select complexity. Natural selection weans out organisms that are unfit, hence preserving and promoting complexity that arose through, say, mutations and anarchic development, when their niche fits them. Natural selection preserves complexity. Which is why complexity is an emerging property of natural selection. Not a mechanic effect of natural selection.
The same way that Mind is an Emerging Property of Matter. And not a product of the thinking abilities of electrons, quarks, photons and the Higgs boson.
(Took me time to understand what your gambit was all about. You really were unclear. Learn to express your ideas clearly and distinctly.)
Perhaps a review of Shapiro’s 2011 book by Dembski would be more convenient for a comparison (PDF) with the person who is no doubt busy building the Cosmic Energy Detect-O-Matic.
@ Narad
“Perhaps a review of Shapiro’s 2011 book by Dembski would be more convenient for a comparison (PDF) with the person who is no doubt busy building the Cosmic Energy Detect-O-Matic.”
Thank you for the link our wanker in chief did not care to provide, too busy was he claiming he was persecuted by atheists…
I perfectly see that Intelligent Design nutcases would piggy back on the work of Shapiro.
I do not trust the account of Shapiro’s work by such nutcases.
Now. If our wanker in chief may be willing to guide us through the evidence of Shapiro’s thesis, we may then have a clearer view of whether Shapiro is a crank or not.
For now, I have no reason to believe he’s a crank. That he’s playing with fire, yes. But what he writes does not brush my feathers that much.
@ Indie Rebel
So what’s all the fuss you’re making about ?
Care to provide links to unbiased accounts of Shapiro’s work ?
No ?
“The DNA CAN be influenced by what’s going on in the environment, by the cell’s needs”
Input creates output. Exactly what input to the cell creates changes in a complete organism. Not the cell. The organism. What inputs could the cell get that specify a DNA change focussed on camouflage for the entire organism.
For those with a bit of immunology knowledge. Would changes in DNA within an organism provoke an immune response?
Or are these alterations only supposed to happen in the next generation? In which case the specific cells rewriting DNA would have to be really specific cells.
“Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth, and proliferation. They possess corresponding sensory, communication, information-processing, and decision-making capabilities. Cells are built to evolve; they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics rapidly through well-described natural genetic engineering and epigenetic processes as well as cell mergers.”
Bad McPozzm is a genuine rarity.
Such as corresponding with a cosmic energy blob and the dead?
You of course do not cite a paper how DNA is writable by cells, you suppose that your say-so is end of it.
@F68.10
“Natural selection does not in itself select complexity. Natural selection weans out organisms that are unfit”
Well yeah, isn’t that what I have been saying? SO, WHAT CREATES COMPLEXITY? The Central Dogma says all DNA changes are random errors. Shapiro has found that DNA is writeable by the cell. That means changes in DNA are NOT ALL RANDOM ERRORS.
I don’t expect you to follow this logic, but here it is anyway.
@ Indie Rebel
“Natural selection does not in itself select complexity. Natural selection weans out organisms that are unfit” — me
“Well yeah, isn’t that what I have been saying?”
No. You’ve explicitly denied natural selection as the core mechanism that drives evolution. This is a much more brutal claim that is completely bonkers.
“SO, WHAT CREATES COMPLEXITY?”
Mutations. Preserved by natural selection when fit.
Mutations do not always to complexity. But when they do, and when the result fits, natural selection preserves it.
There’s 0 mystery to all that. None.
“The Central Dogma says all DNA changes are random errors.”
Even if the Central Dogma were wrong, that would not disprove evolution by natural selection. Sorry. The core argument for evolution by natural selection does NOT depend on the Central Dogma. That’s basic logic.
“Shapiro has found that DNA is writeable by the cell. That means changes in DNA are NOT ALL RANDOM ERRORS.”
No. You’re intermingling a non sequitur with a misrepresentation of findings and hermeneutic confusion of the interplay of the so-called Central Dogma and evolution by natural selection. In a nutshell: you’ve got it all wrong.
Please provide reference of Shapiro’s work so that we do not misrepresent him further. Thank you for your cooperation.
“I don’t expect you to follow this logic, but here it is anyway.”
Of course. Because it’s not logic. It’s wishful thinking on your part.
Random noise + selection is sufficient to produce complexity for just about any sort of rigorous definition of terms.
(In actual practice you need the right level of noise and the right level of selection, and the right kind of conditions to allow complexity to be selected for, of course, but …)
Actually. natural selection can select complexity, more complex organism could be more fit. Nice example is nylon eating bacteria,which certainly appeared after invention of nylon:
You could give an example of non-ramdom mutation, too.
@F68.10
Man, you are confused! Nothing in your comment has any relation to anything I said.
@ Indie Rebel
“Man, you are confused! Nothing in your comment has any relation to anything I said.”
Your very own confusion has been laid bare just here.
And there’s so many comments on this thread that I cannot know to which comment you are refering to. Please clarify. To avoid the confusion you seem to deplore… (even though you’re engineering it.)
“So the moth example is meaningless.” — you
“Nope. It shows natural selection at work.” — me
“I have to admit, this is almost amusing.” — you
It’s indeed very amusing to see you accepting evolution, accepting natural selection, and denying evolution by natural selection because accounts of orthogenesis or analogs by mainstream evolutionary theory do not fit your preconceived ideas about the notion of causality when it comes to the link between natural selection and orthogenesis.
Very amusing indeed. Of the rather grotesque kind, may I add.
“How many times did I say that natural selection is real, it happens, it can’t not happen? Maybe twenty times, or so, or more?”
Because you haven’t learned in school how to express yourself correctly. I have to take the trouble of reading your mind and laying down your position more explicitly than you yourself do. It’s done in the above paragraph.
I should apply to a faculty position where Telepathy is being taught, when I come to think of it.
“And yet, here you are trying to convince me that YES, natural selection does happen!”
No. I am cutting through your bullshit and isolating your fallacious gambit: your misconception of the link between orthogenesis and natural selection in contemporary evolutionary theory. I am flatly accusing of engaging in a massive straw man. And you’ve been at it for quite some time on this thread…
“The Modern Synthesis has NO EVIDENCE to support it.”
Of course it does. You just cannot accept the account it gives of orthogenesis which does not match your preconceived ideas of what “evolution by natural selection means”… Which is why you claim “Modern Synthesis” has no evidence, while it has shitloads of evidence, but not for what YOU AND YOU ALONE believe “Modern Synthesis” means.
In essence, you’re performing a straw man argument. The only question left in the analysis of your position is whether or not you are conscious that you are engaging in a straw man. For the moment, you seem to be unaware that you are engaging in such a straw man.
“There have been many critics of the Modern Synthesis, and Shapiro is one of them.”
I do not see how he’s one. To me: straw man again. (BTW: being a critic is a good thing. Being a denialist is NOT a good thing. Two different notions…)
Provide link so as to not defame Shapiro.
“Yes, natural selection is a separate thing. It happens AFTER DNA has been modified.”
And that’s where you dive in Universal Intelligence, Woo and Terrigenesis Crystals in Kree Temples. You’re misrepresenting Shapiro’s position as far as I can see.
“Natural selection does NOT cause the genetic changes that it will select from. Obviously.”
Obviously. That’s mutations. Obviously. This is precisely the theory of evolution by natural selection in its modern version. Glad you finally saw the light. Or did you ??
“But natural selection has nothing to do with what caused an organism to be more complex, or in some way more fit.”
Gee ! You saw the light !!
Natural selection is what UPHOLDS these changes, allows them to thrive, organises the selective pressure, and leads to speciation and then orthogenesis when complexity is selected. Sometimes simplicity is selected. Sometimes complexity is selected. The simple fact is that selecting complexity sometimes (and not all the time) leads to the overall aggregate complexity that we do now observe. Which is what the theory of evolution by natural selection is all about…
You’re massively confused about what “causality” means.
“I ignore Dembski, since he is a dogmatic ideologue, on the other side.”
Good for you. Now provide link to Shapiro’s work from a more unbiased source. Thank you for your cooperation.
@F68.10
“So the moth example is meaningless.”
“Nope. It shows natural selection at work.”
I have to admit, this is almost amusing. How many times did I say that natural selection is real, it happens, it can’t not happen? Maybe twenty times, or so, or more? And yet, here you are trying to convince me that YES, natural selection does happen!
@Aarno Syvänen
Natural selection weeds out organisms that are less fit for the environment, after the genetic changes have occurred. Natural selection can be immediate — as when a defective organism dies soon after birth, or before birth. Or natural selection can be gradual, as when some organisms just reproduce more than others.
Natural selection acts AFTER the genetic changes have occurred. How or why the genetic changes occur is not known, and there can be many reasons for it. I have mentioned James Shapiro, because he has observed that cells can change their DNA. That would refute the Central Dogma of the Modern Synthesis. That would open up many possible reasons for changes in DNA, that can lead to evolution.
The Modern Synthesis has NO EVIDENCE to support it. It says that ALL the DNA changes that lead to evolution are random errors. There have been many critics of the Modern Synthesis, and Shapiro is one of them. It is worth reading and trying to understand what he has observed.
Why genetic changes occurred ? Damage to DNA,retroviral infection, activation of transposons, error in cell divisions. These ae well known causes of DNA change. Your “non-random” changes remain elusive.
I repeat, never in my wildest, antivaxx dreams did I expect you guys to screw the pooch so badly. With this pandemic, the stage was set so brilliantly for you guys to rock; but, how quickly the show has turned into a farce, and, we have the annoyed audience gearing up to pelt you with eggs and rotten vegetables and as you beg for more time.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fauci-covid-more-booster-shots-americans
Faux news? Really? I’m South African, and even I know how Faux News is viewed.
Let us wait until somebody else than Fox News like ACIP announces the booster shozts
@Aarno Syvänen
“Shapiro seems to bleive horizontal DNA transfer happena very often. Even if true, natural selection is a separate thing. What results of horizontal DNA transfer are beneficial ? Not all them, we are speaking about viruses,”
Yes, natural selection is a separate thing. It happens AFTER DNA has been modified.
Some DNA changes are beneficial, others are not. That is obvious.
And what separates beneficial changes ? Beneficial means change that helps survival changes.
@Aarno Syvänen
“So, what things do you think natural selection can cause ?”
Natural selection weeds out DNA changes that cause some organisms to reproduce less than other organisms, within a species. It cannot be otherwise.
Natural selection does NOT cause the genetic changes that it will select from. Obviously.
@Aarno Syvänen
“Natural weeds out less fit. Why do you think a more complex organism is not more fit ?”
A more complex organism might or might not be more fit. But natural selection has nothing to do with what caused an organism to be more complex, or in some way more fit.
Yep genetic change obviously created the more complex organism. There are many forms of genetic change, actually horizontal gene transfer is one of them. Gene duplication seems to more common, though
@Narad
I ignore Dembski, since he is a dogmatic ideologue, on the other side.
In other words, you’re too lazy to cope with so much as a book review. The lot of them are just down the street from here; you should come by. But anyway, mirrors, Bitsy, mirrors — you’ve spent around 200 comments making a general ass of yourself.
That’s good enough for a festschrift, right?
@F68.10
I know all about Darwin’s theory. He collected evidence for evolution, and for natural selection. He did NOT have any evidence that natural selection explains the evolution of complex living systems.
You should be aware that current theory is called synthetic evolution theory. Speaking about Darwin shows depth of your ignorance
Oh my goodness, y’all, thank you for the time warp back to the old, old ScienceBlogs circa 2008. This has been some classic evolution vs creationism smackdown.
@F68.10
“Natural selection is what UPHOLDS these changes, allows them to thrive, organises the selective pressure, and leads to speciation and then orthogenesis when complexity is selected. Sometimes simplicity is selected. Sometimes complexity is selected. The simple fact is that selecting complexity sometimes (and not all the time) leads to the overall aggregate complexity that we do now observe. Which is what the theory of evolution by natural selection is all about…”
Natural selection weeds out the less fit. It does NOT drive evolution towards greater complexity. What drives evolution is whatever causes the genetic changes that natural selection acts on.
The Modern Synthesis says those changes are entirely random errors. The Central Dogma says that cells cannot change their DNA, and therefore ALL genetic changes are random errors.
James Shapiro says the Central Dogma is WRONG, and that cells CAN modify their DNA. And he says the Modern Synthesis is wrong.
Shapiro NEVER says natural selection doesn’t happen. Of course it happens — how could it not? That is saying nothing. But he is saying that natural selection is NOT the driver of evolution towards increasing complexity.
You could read his book https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-View-21st-Century-paperback/dp/0133435539, or at least reviews and summaries of it.
Shapiro doesn’t assume any supernatural causes of evolution, and he does not speculate on things that are not yet understood by science. His careful observations show that the Modern Synthesis is much too simple, and that it is seriously wrong in claiming all genetic variations are random errors.
@ Indie Rebel
And yet another professor emeritus from same university as Shapiro says he is wrong:
Jerry Coyne (2012 Dec 2). James Shapiro gets evolution wrong again – Why Evolution Is True.
BOOK: Jerry Coyne (2009). Why Evolution Is True.
AND I REPEAT, YOU DISPLAY YOUR RIGID ONE-SIDED BIAS WHEN YOU REPLY TO ONE POINT THAT I MADE, DESPITE MANY OTHER POINTS. AND THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE I REFERRED TO WITH THE NUMEROUS NATURAL SELECTION AND EVOLUTION, THOUGH THE ARTICLE CONTAINS NUMEROUS REFERENCES, EACH SECTION LINKS TO MORE DETAILED WIKIPEDIA ARTICLEs ON EACH TOPIC WITH MORE REFERENCES; BUT, OF COURSE, YOU ARE ONE OF THE FOREMOST EXPERTS ON EVOLUTION IN THE WORLD, SO, YOU NEED NOT CHECK OUT ANYTHING AS YOU KNOW EVERYTHING.
WELL, I HAVE BEEN STUDYING VACCINES FOR 40 YEARS AND STILL ARE OPEN TO KNEW DEVELOPMENTS, TRY TO KEEP UP WITH LATEST RESEARCH AND EVEN SOMETIMES FIND OLDER PAPERS THAT I MISSED; BUT, THEN AGAIN, I AM A MERE MORTAL, NOT NEAR AS BRILLIANT AS YOU. ?
AND you comment on your “beliefs”, etc, while this blog focuses on science and scientific methods, not belief systems that are subjective, etc. Do you even understand this???
“James Shapiro says the Central Dogma is WRONG, and that cells CAN modify their DNA.”
OK. Let’s test this. Why don’t you tell your cells to start making GFP. (Green fluorescent protein). For the sake of ease, let’s limit it to your skin cells. Then we can wait a week or two and you should fluoresce.
And then you can tell your cells to knock that gene back out.
Expensive book.
So I read a few of his articles and a couple of Wikipedia entries related to him.
He specifically does not agree that his theories show any indication of or needing of a directing intelligence.
Everything he talked about seemed to be at the level of bacteria. Or individual cells. Does the book expand his ideas to apply to entire complex organisms? Because there’s a huge difference between individual cells and altering the complete DNA of an organism like a moth enough to be inheritable.
Whether his theory has merit of not. It is clear that you are misappropriating it.
@ Indie Rebel
“He [Shapiro] specifically does not agree that his theories show any indication of or needing of a directing intelligence.” — NumberWang
Bingo !! The FACT that Indie Rebel wants to shrug under the carpet.
“Because there’s a huge difference between individual cells and altering the complete DNA of an organism like a moth enough to be inheritable.”
Precisely…
““Whether his theory has merit of not. It is clear that you are misappropriating it.”” — NumberWang
“It is clear that you didn’t understand it, and/or didn’t read enough.” — Indie Rebel
Up to now, I indeed side with NumberWang on this assessment. But, indeed, I have not dived into it. You are welcome to give links and verifiable quotes from Shapiro to “enlighten” us.
“Jerry Coyne is one of the fanatical militant New Atheists. Of course he says Shapiro is wrong.”
I am also one of these rabid anti-theists. And, for now, I have little to no opinion on Shapiro. But I find nothing damning on Jerry Coyne’s wikipedia page. (I may diverge with him on social issues related to so-called “neurodiversity”, but I’m not yet sure I do.)
“And yet another professor emeritus from same university as Shapiro says he is wrong: Jerry Coyne (2012 Dec 2). James Shapiro gets evolution wrong again – Why Evolution Is True.” — Joel @ Indie Rebel
Just went to this article. I fully agree with the following statement by Coyne:
“In fact, there’s little doubt (except in the mind of contrarians like Shapiro) that the mechanisms of gene regulation themselves evolved by natural selection.” — Jerry Coyne
It’s up to Indie Rebel to explain why he/she thinks gene regulation did not evolve by natural selection. And then come up with a falsifiable alternative hypothesis. If he/she manages to do that, I’ll have to take that theory a tad more seriously. Otherwise… no falsifiability ? No currency in the domain of science. At best in the domain of speculation, if and only if I’m feeling generous.
“You can read that whole website and find differing opinions and confusion. What do you expect? Is science that foreign to you?” — Indie Rebel @ Joel
You should tone down a bit when spouting sh-t like that… And no: “arguments” are not “opinions” or “confusions”. Sick of that cheap relativism. Grow up, Indie Rebel.
“Natural selection weeds out the less fit.”
Not quite. Again: darwinism is not nazism. Natural selection acts on many levels, and not only an individual one.
“It does NOT drive evolution towards greater complexity.”
It sustains complexity and constitutes the environment that allows complexity to be put in contact with reality. No natural selection ? Then yes, there would likely be complexity. But a meaningless one. A complexity that doesn’t achieve anything.
White noise is complex information. But meaningless. Both complex and meaningless.
The decimals of pi are complex information. But highly meaningful. Both complex and meaningful.
Mathematically, such a distinction may be captured by the notion of Kolmogorov complexity. Natural selection allows complexity to be meaningful. Adapted. Not complexity for its own sake: narcissistically unstructured white noise. Natural selection is what allows complexity to not be complexity for its own sake but complexity adapted to the real world and real environment. It’s what shapes complexity.
“What drives evolution is whatever causes the genetic changes that natural selection acts on.”
No. What “drives” the planets is not whatever causes the planets to move. It is the physical constraints in which planets move: a potential of gravitational energy. Same for evolution: what “drives” evolution is natural selection. In the same way that what drives the motion of planets is the structure of the potential of gravitational energy: yields a differential equation. You do not have meaningful motion of planets without that differential equation. You do not have meaningful evolution without natural selection. Period.
“The Modern Synthesis says those changes are entirely random errors. The Central Dogma says that cells cannot change their DNA, and therefore ALL genetic changes are random errors.”
Nope. Jerry Coyne explicitly talks about gene regulation and all these other niceties. Your arch-ennemy does not even subscribe to the view you claim he holds too. That’s therefore called a straw man on your part. One more…
“James Shapiro says the Central Dogma is WRONG”
PRECISE QUOTE NEEDED.
“Shapiro NEVER says natural selection doesn’t happen. Of course it happens — how could it not? That is saying nothing. But he is saying that natural selection is NOT the driver of evolution towards increasing complexity.”
PRECISE QUOTE NEEDED.
“You could read his book, or at least reviews and summaries of it.”
These are not “precise quotes”. I am not buying an 82$ book just to have a conversion with a denialist. Sorry. Give me links. Or precise references, with quotes. Otherwise not interested. GET DOWN TO BUSINESS: give a PRECISE link and/or publicly available references.
Because, for now, I’m busy dissecting the axiomatic content of De Docta Ignorantia, and have no time to waste with uncooperative people like you, who are always postponing the required work for correctly arguing their case.
“Shapiro doesn’t assume any supernatural causes of evolution, and he does not speculate on things that are not yet understood by science.”
That, alone, is no proof that it is not pseudo-science.
“His careful observations show that the Modern Synthesis is much too simple, and that it is seriously wrong in claiming all genetic variations are random errors.”
That’s hagiography. Not argumentation. Hence: Discarded.
“I know all about Darwin’s theory. He collected evidence for evolution, and for natural selection. He did NOT have any evidence that natural selection explains the evolution of complex living systems.”
No. He proved evolution by natural selection. And his theory has not been refuted since.
He did wonder how it applied to speciation and orthogenesis, though. In chapter 6 of On The Origin of Species.
But he did prove evolution by natural selection. And there was no mendelian inheritance, much less DNA, and no “Modern Synthesis”. That doesn’t change the fact that he did prove evolution by natural selection. And that the evidence you claim to be able to reject by denying evolution by natural selection is in The Origin of Species.
@ JustaTech
“Oh my goodness, y’all, thank you for the time warp back to the old, old ScienceBlogs circa 2008. This has been some classic evolution vs creationism smackdown.”
It’s my first semi-para-crypto-creationnist. New to the game. I feel like a virgin.
Actually natural selection selects organisms better fit to current environment,
You can cite an experiment showing that protein is tranlated to DNA. Why anybody should take Shapiro’s word ?
Rebel, rebel
You must confess
Rebel, rebel
Your brain is a mess
Doo doo doo-doo doo doo doo doo
(with apologies to David Bowie)
@Narad
Never miss a chance to be a stupidly insulting asshole Narad. I used to read Dembski’s website, years ago. I got tired of the dogmatism.
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
Jerry Coyne is one of the fanatical militant New Atheists. Of course he says Shapiro is wrong.
You can read that whole website and find differing opinions and confusion. What do you expect? Is science that foreign to you?
@ Indie Rebel
And you continue to focus on one point. Proof of your intellectual dishonesty. And labeling someone, doesn’t change if they make valid points. Have you read any of his papers or books? If so, please point to flaws; but back up with solid references. And even if Jerry Coyne is a “New Atheist” doesn’t mean any points he makes are invalid. I guess if he were a devout . . . then you would give him some credit??? In economics I’ve read from Karl Marx to Adam Smith to F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman. I found valid points in each of their works; but overall, some a lot more valid points than others. And as I wrote far above in comments, I don’t take any strong position of whether Darwinian evolution covers all aspects, etc. However, I did cite a paper that claims it covers modern humans.
So, you called me an asshole and now Narad. Have you ever heard of the psychological defense mechanism of projection, simply, denying what one is and seeing it in others. Fits you perfectly.
@NumberWang
“Whether his theory has merit of not. It is clear that you are misappropriating it.”
It is clear that you didn’t understand it, and/or didn’t read enough.
On I’m sure that I don’t understand it in depth. Why would I need to in order to say what you’ve just quoted? Shapiro has expressly repudiated any link between his work and Intelligent Design or Creationism. Is that open for interpretation? The bloke who understands the theory better than anyone in the world says that it does not support intelligent design. Do you claim to know his own theory better that he does?
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
I know all about what Jerry Coyne thinks, have spent plenty of time reading his website.
And yes, occasionally I return the derisive contemptuous insults I get here. It seems to be the only way you guys you know how to debate. But I already knew that from trying to reason with devout atheists elsewhere.
Why do I bother? I think it improves my own reasoning. I learn more from debating people I disagree with than from spending time in bubbles. But I have never seen atheists welcome anyone with differing opinions. Not once. You passionately hate to have your certainty challenged.
@ Indie Rebel
And you continue to miss the obvious point I made referring to several books supporting Darwinian evolution written by CHRISTIANS, NOT ATHEISTS. And you continue to make absolutely clear that your position is based on your beliefs. And no one called you an “asshole” or anything close. How can you develop a position based on your beliefs when everyone else is focusing on what is known based on science and scientific methodology? You claim you have a PhD; but if you used your approach in any grad courses I have attended or even taught you would have FLUNKED! ! ! And since I attended grad schools in U.S., Canada, and Sweden, I’ve had quite a bit of experience.
And I repeat for the umpteenth time, you have ignore the vast majority of points I’ve made, just proof of your intellectual dishonesty.
There is a website that I’m sure you would find useful, “The World Flat Earth Society”?
@ Indie Rebel
“And yes, occasionally I return the derisive contemptuous insults I get here.”
You haven’t been “insulted”, snow flake. You’ve been intellectually opposed. Show some spine, for Hell’s Sake.
“It seems to be the only way you guys you know how to debate.”
Hmmmh. No. As a matter of fact, we have given you quite a lot of arguments, evidence, criticism on epistemological levels. No. We have argued pretty decently, I must say.
Quite proud of me, in fact.
“But I already knew that from trying to reason with devout atheists elsewhere.”
It’s not an atheism issue. The issue is that you do not understand how arguments and debate work. So you get easily dominated. Without having any need to resort to insults.
“Why do I bother? I think it improves my own reasoning.”
No. You’re completely off-track. You are not “reasoning”. At all.
“I learn more from debating people I disagree with than from spending time in bubbles.”
Yep. Keep that up.
“But I have never seen atheists welcome anyone with differing opinions.”
Sigh. It’s not “not welcoming”. It’s having genuine disagreements. Let’s face it: I do not agree with you. I have no reason to agree with you. I have every reason to disagree with you. I have every reason to murder your ideas.
But, otherwise, you’re perfectly safe with us. And I do welcome you.
But I do not welcome your ideas.
“Not once. You passionately hate to have your certainty challenged.”
I passionately love to have my positions challenged. I do that all the time. I just do not give a free pass to people like you on that matter. And never will.
We passionate want you give some actual evidence. Give an example of random mutation you speak about,
@F68.10
“In fact, there’s little doubt (except in the mind of contrarians like Shapiro) that the mechanisms of gene regulation themselves evolved by natural selection.” — Jerry Coyne
Well yeah, of course he has little doubt. That’s the point of being a dogmatic fanatic — not having any doubts.
Darwin “proved evolution by natural selection. And his theory has not been refuted since.”
Oh really? He did? He proved that genetic changes are always random errors? He proved that Shapiro’s ideas are all wrong? Really? How come Shapiro (and everyone else who criticizes Darwinism) never heard about Darwin’s proof? Because it never happened! Never ever. Darwin convinced the world that evolution happens, and Darwin observed natural selection. He NEVER proved that natural selection explains evolution. He NEVER proved that variations are always random errors.
I don’t know how you can steadfastly believe all that, with no evidence whatsoever. Well I do know, it’s the power of indoctrination. Most people just want to follow experts and repeat their ideas like robots. People who actually love to think are rare, and you despise them, because you don’t want your certainty undermined.
@ Indie Rebel
You claim there is NO evidence; but I referred to several Wikipedia articles that had extensive reference list and did give evidence, etc. Oh, I forgot, you don’t need to check them out or respond to specific points, you can just claim you know it all. Doesn’t work that way! !
@ Indie Rebel
“Well yeah, of course he [Jerry Coyne] has little doubt. That’s the point of being a dogmatic fanatic — not having any doubts.”
Tsss… tsss… tsss… how childish of you…
I’m proud to be a fundamentalist of anti-dogmatism and of anti-foundationalism. But that, in itself, is not dogmatism. Just the opposite. In fact, I always leave the door open for contradiction. You’re the one shutting it down. So, let me restate my offer one more time, as any anti-dogmatist should do when faced with a stubborn irrationalist:
“It’s up to Indie Rebel to explain why he/she thinks gene regulation did not evolve by natural selection. And then come up with a falsifiable alternative hypothesis. If he/she manages to do that, I’ll have to take that theory a tad more seriously. Otherwise… no falsifiability ? No currency in the domain of science. At best in the domain of speculation, if and only if I’m feeling generous.” — me
See ? The door’s open. No need to put your foot in to force it to open up. Now, it’s up to you to decide whether or not you make a step and pass the doorstep. Or do not.
“Darwin “proved evolution by natural selection. And his theory has not been refuted since.”” — me
“Oh really? He did?”
Yep. He did.
“He proved that genetic changes are always random errors?”
No. Because the notions of genes did not exist. You do not need genes for “natural selection” and “evolution” and hence for “evolution by natural selection”. That’s why your objection is irrelevant. Basic logic.
“He proved that Shapiro’s ideas are all wrong? Really?”
No. Shapiro wasn’t born. And the ideas of Shapiro could not be understandable at the time. So: no. That doesn’t change the fact that he proved “evolution by natural selection”. Same objection to your objection as above. Basic logic.
“How come Shapiro (and everyone else who criticizes Darwinism) never heard about Darwin’s proof?”
I’m pretty sure he did hear about it. It’s 150 years old. And the idea of “natural selection” dates back to Aristotle… so… nothing really new, y’a know…
“Because it never happened! Never ever. Darwin convinced the world that evolution happens, and Darwin observed natural selection.”
And he proved that evolution was driven by natural selection. We’ll have a discussion of this question of “what is a proof ?” later on, I’m sure. When we’ll have cut through the bullshit with renewed vigour.
“He NEVER proved that natural selection explains evolution.”
Yep. He did.
“He NEVER proved that variations are always random errors.”
No, he could not: genes did not exist.
Doesn’t change the fact that he proved “evolution by natural selection.”
“I don’t know how you can steadfastly believe all that, with no evidence whatsoever. Well I do know, it’s the power of indoctrination.”
Or the power of evidence. That’s another possibility.
“Most people just want to follow experts and repeat their ideas like robots.”
Not quite. I do not reject experts when I do not have a better idea. That’s all. And I do not swallow these ideas whole: I always leave the door open to contradiction. You could have chosen to play the game and prove to me or attempt to prove to me that I’m wrong. But you did not.
You’re more comfortable with the victim card, believing there is this conspiracy of atheists, materialists, experts, and of overall lack of spine. That victim card is so comforting. It allows you to bypass the effort of coming up with sound arguments backed by evidence, doesn’t it ? Provided you understand what “arguments” and “evidence” genuinely are. And I’m positive you’re mistaken on that count, after haven taken the time to analyse your endless drivel.
“People who actually love to think are rare, and you despise them, because you don’t want your certainty undermined.”
Oh! I do love to think. I’ve indeed got this classification of involutive contravariant endofunctors of some cute category of mine all dissected and solved. And I’m quite proud of it. It was far from trivial, and I’m pretty sure it’s New Knowledge.
But thank you very much for your patience and assistance in mapping out the entanglement of your ideas and the confused nature of your mind. Much appreciated.
I did not know what evolution denialism did really look like up to now. Now I know. I’m therefore wiser. Thank you. From the depth of my heart.
@thsgrn
“Random noise + selection is sufficient to produce complexity for just about any sort of rigorous definition of terms”
It’s very easy to state, over and over, that natural selection explains evolution. That statement has been made repeatedly, for decades. But with no evidence. The reasoning is — It has to be natural selection, because what else could it be?
@ Indie Rebel
“It’s very easy to state, over and over, that natural selection explains evolution.”
It’s also proven. By evidence and logic. We gave you links towards the evidence. You haven’t obliged and have refused to discuss the evidence.
Ipso facto: you loose.
“That statement has been made repeatedly, for decades.”
Since the late 19th century, in fact. And I’m pretty sure this steady trend will continue for a few centuries if not a millenia.
“But with no evidence.”
We gave it to you.
“The reasoning is — It has to be natural selection, because what else could it be?”
That, at least, DOES HAPPEN TO BE AN ARGUMENT. Unlike your drivel.
“It’s very easy to state, over and over, that natural selection explains evolution. That statement has been made repeatedly, for decades. But with no evidence”
Actually, this is just evidence of your dogmatic insistence on intelligent design. You’ve already admitted that natural selection is inevitable. It’s been explained that natural selection doesn’t create mutations, it fixes the successful ones. Therefore, no matter how the mutations occur, natural selection will judge their success. Even if a universal intelligence was directing every mutation for survival, natural selection would test that mutation and accept or reject it.
I have repeated endlessly: Give an example of non random mutation. Why you cannot answer to a simple question ?
“It’s very easy to state, over and over, that natural selection explains evolution. That statement has been made repeatedly, for decades. But with no evidence.”
Antibiotic resistance.
Anti-malarial drug resistance.
Herbicide resistance.
Real-time evolution by natural selection.
That’s not what I said. I said that random noise plus selection is sufficient to produce complexity.
Because it is.
You can build toy models and show it.
That’s where the genetic algorithms and the like come in.
If you want to claim it’s not sufficient… you need to either define some terms and explain why genetic algorithms and the like aren’t proof of an increase in complexity with only noise and selection – and to do so in a way that doesn’t make it so that you haven’t defined eg humans and the biosphere as a whole as being no more complex than the primordial soup – or… well… there’s really not an alternative here that I can come up with, but maybe someone could come up with one somehow?
But the point is: Yes, it is sufficient. Chaos + filtration = complexity.
@ thsgrn
“That’s not what I said. I said that random noise plus selection is sufficient to produce complexity. Because it is. You can build toy models and show it. That’s where the genetic algorithms and the like come in.”
Precisely. But Indie Rebel doesn’t like computers and algorithms. He/She likely believes the analogy is too weak. But does not care to argue why it’s too weak an analogy to lend credence (not proof) to evolution by natural selection.
“If you want to claim it’s not sufficient… you need to either define some terms and explain why genetic algorithms and the like aren’t proof of an increase in complexity with only noise and selection.”
He / She won’t. He / She’ll argue that you need evidence from the real world of real world “proof”.
He / She’s epistemologically confused.
“But the point is: Yes, it is sufficient. Chaos + filtration = complexity.”
But changes in the filtration may lead to a decrease of complexity if simplicity is fit enough. The filtration impacts the level of complexity required for fitness. That’s what he / she refuses to acknowledge.
@F68.10
If Darwin proved that natural selection drives evolution, why does Shapiro say that it does NOT? Shapiro would have to be an idiot to deny something that had been proven beyond doubt.
Shapiro gives many detailed reasons for his opinion that natural selection does not drive evolution. Are you saying all his detailed reasons are wrong?
@ Indie Rebel
“If Darwin proved that natural selection drives evolution, why does Shapiro say that it does NOT?”
Why don’t you ask Shapiro instead of me if he has an answer ?
Ask him. He indeed should know his own opinion better than I do.
And then come back and explain to us what he told you.
Or, alternatively, POST A BLOODY LINK.
“Shapiro would have to be an idiot to deny something that had been proven beyond doubt.”
He may be an idiot. Dunno. Never met him. Not judging people hastily, y’a know.
For now, I have no clue whether he’s an idiot or the Messiah.
But if you want to convince me that he’s not an idiot, POST A BLOODY LINK.
“Shapiro gives many detailed reasons for his opinion that natural selection does not drive evolution. Are you saying all his detailed reasons are wrong?”
For me to know what his reasons really are (and what his position really is, untainted by your propaganda) it would be nice that you POST A BLOODY LINK.
So that everyone may see what his best arguments really are.
What are his best arguments ? For now, you haven’t given us any of his arguments.
You’re just repeating Shapiro… Shapiro… Shapiro…
But you’re not discussing his arguments.
You also have the arguments given by Jerry Coyne opposing Shapiro. You do not like them ? What’s the issue ? Is it because he’s an atheist ? Do you judge arguments made by people by looking at the religious affiliation of people instead of judging the arguments themselves ?
Did you tell us you come from a jewish background ?
Should I judge you assuming you’re a jew ?
Do you have a right to be bigotted and not me ?
So please: get down to the bloody argument. Find the best link detailing Shapiro’s position you can. Post it.
And we’ll discuss it.
@F68.10
“The reasoning is — It has to be natural selection, because what else could it be?”
“That, at least, DOES HAPPEN TO BE AN ARGUMENT.”
Ok, well, the nail’s head has been hit. At least we all understand each other now. The “proof” that natural selection drives evolution is — “What else could it be?”
This is getting to be amusing.
Genetic changes must be entirely random, because … because … what else could they be? Well, Shapiro has some fascinating things to say about that, which I guess you ignored, since you don’t want your little boat rocked.
Perhaps you give us an evidence genetic changes are not random ? Is it just a belief ?
Perhaps what,in your ophion drives the evelution ?
It is just asking for evidence
@ Indie Rebel
“Ok, well, the nail’s head has been hit. At least we all understand each other now. The “proof” that natural selection drives evolution is — “What else could it be?” This is getting to be amusing.”
Nope. You do not get it. This is an argument. It may be a valid or invalid one. And it may or may not be enough to constitute a proof. That has still to be sorted out.
But let me educate you.
Here is an argument:
Premisse 1: 80 % of politicians are male
Premisse 2: Hilary Clinton is a politician
Conclusion: It is probable that Hilary Clinton is a mal.
That just happens to be an argument.
Is it a valid argument ?
Yes.
What I am therefore claiming is that when X offers an explanation and no one else is able to provide another decent explanation, then this explanation is the only game in town.
It is then the preferred explanation.
For a very simple reason: there is no other explanation on the table.
Now… There is a simple way to invalidate this argument: you can alway provide another explanation.
If you do this, we have a moral obligation to weigh one against another. And critically determine which one of the two explanations is to be preferred.
But for that, there needs to be at least two distinct possible explanations.
If there is only one explanation, the argument then becomes valid.
This is basic basic basic logic.
Your turn. Because arguing is like chess. We make moves in turn to attempt to invalidate arguments. Do not disappoint me: please do attempt to invalidate the argument we’re dealing with…
“Genetic changes must be entirely random, because … because … what else could they be?”
Nope. You do not get it. Let me rephrase it better for you:
If the only possible explanation for genetic changes is randomness, then… logically… it is the only possible explanation.
You’re free to come up with another explanation. And to avoid losing everyone’s time, do provide a link that sums up that argument. With references, etc… so that we can start discussing it. Thank you for your cooperation.
“Well, Shapiro has some fascinating things to say about that, which I guess you ignored, since you don’t want your little boat rocked.”
I’M WAITING FOR A LINK THAT SUMS UP HIS POSITION AND HIS EVIDENCE.
It’s not my responsibility to do your part of the job. I’m busy diving into 13th century works on llullism at the moment… because of its peculiar place in the history of philosophy and logic… If you want me to be kind enough to devote some mental space to your nonsense, start behaving courteously and provide links. I indeed won’t scour the net for documents that you’ll endlessly be able to discard because they do not please you just because you get a kick out of making people run in circles. I’m indeed no hamster in a wheel. Provide a document that satisfies you when it comes to representing your opinion. So that you stop wasting our time. Thank you for your cooperation.
@NumberWang
“It’s been explained that natural selection doesn’t create mutations, it fixes the successful ones. Therefore, no matter how the mutations occur, natural selection will judge their success. Even if a universal intelligence was directing every mutation for survival, natural selection would test that mutation and accept or reject it.”
Yes of course! Natural selection MUST happen! And it must happen AFTER the genetic changes! And natural selection has NOTHING to do with the genetic changes! And natural selection DOES NOT explain the genetic changes! And natural selection DOES NOT explain evolution!
Natural selection weeds out the unhelpful or harmful genetic changes. Yes, there are DNA errors, and yes there are random DNA changes. All that says nothing about how and why the helpful DNA changes happen.
If nature has some kind of intelligence, and if life naturally evolves towards greater complexity, NATURAL SELECTION WOULD STILL HAPPEN! It has to happen!
Trying to explain evolution as being the result of natural selection is just not logical.
Not a perfect analogy, but for example: Do flowers grow because rain falls? Well, flowers need rain to grow. But does rain actually EXPLAIN how and why flowers grow?
Many other analogies could be found, some probably better than that one. I just am at a loss as to how this simple concept could ever be explained to you.
Oh great, Abrasive Joni Mitchell has teleported in.
Well, you’ve just repeated back to me a lot of what I’ve just said so I don’t see why you’re having a hard time understanding it. No one says that natural selection causes mutations. Your argument isn’t with natural selection it’s with the idea that all mutations are random.
If you think it isn’t logical then you don’t understand logic, or chance, or time. Given enough time, any mutation is possible. It doesn’t have to big leaps like one shot from light to dark or stumpy legs to long. If a fraction of a change is enough to confer a survival benefit then it will come to dominate.
YOU prove that random mutations over an extended timescale isn’t sufficient. Prove it. Don’t just say that it’s illogical because you or the rest of the supreme being club can’t hack the idea that your life isn’t important.
Natural selection selects ones that are best fit to the environment. More complex often are. We musr take account interspecies competition. If all niches of one cellular organisms are taken,multicellularity offers a real benefit.
Repeating something endlessly does not make it truth.
@Aarno Syvänen
“You should be aware that current theory is called synthetic evolution theory. Speaking about Darwin shows depth of your ignorance”
The DEPTH OF MY IGNORANCE? I was replying to someone who said I should read about Darwin’s theory.
You have noticed his error, if you are so knowledgeable,
@NumberWang
“Shapiro has expressly repudiated any link between his work and Intelligent Design or Creationism.”
He does not want to be associated with Christian Creationism. He is a scientist just reporting what he finds. The label “Intelligent Design” is used in various political ways, and of course he doesn’t want it applied to him.
But Intelligent Design researchers really only had one point to make — that the genetic changes leading to evolution of increased complexity cannot be entirely random. That is all their math intended to show.
Their research was grabbed by Christian Creationists as supporting the Christian creation myth. And of course it does not.
And according to you, has no evidence for his claims, or does not know difference between somatic cells and germ cells (mutations in somatic cells are not inheritable).
From the Hilariously Butt-Hurt Chronicles: the Oz-meister is upset with the Philadelphia Inquirer for attempting to “silence” him by referring to him as Mehmet Oz and not Dr. Oz.
“The Inquirer hates, hates, that I’m empowering you, hates that I’m taking on some of the established folks, hates that the entrepreneurial solutions that I’m offering might make sense,” Oz (said, raising) concerns that the newspaper is “trying to cancel” him.”
Unfortunately for this conspiracy theory, the Inquirer also is using the names of two other physician candidates for the Senate seat without the title of “Dr.”.
http://businessinsider.com/dr-mehmet-oz-philadelphia-inquirer-real-name-physician-policy-2021-12
Poor, poor Mehmet Oz!
And I’m the one who cops shit for arguing that Wakefraud has forfeited the title. If only Maine hadn’t capitulated.
@F68.10
“POST A BLOODY LINK.”
Here is a simple non-technical explanation at Shapiro’s Huffington Post blog https://www.huffpost.com/entry/does-natural-selection-evolution_b_1769524
He explains that biology has advanced since Darwin formulated the theory that natural selection drives evolution. He lists various ways that cells can modify their DNA, in response to environmental stress. He believes that the changes leading to evolution are NOT entirely random errors.
Shapiro cites a paper from 1984 that is so old that not even an abstract is available in support of his position that cells can change their genome under stress. The paper he cites on hybridization is from 1951! And it’s about plants! Yo, plants are in a different kingdom!
What he does not cite anywhere in that article is an explanation of how these changes due to environment impact the gametes. And since all the eggs are done dividing before the organism is born the time period for environmental impacts is incredibly small.
So, no actual mechanism presented, and perishingly little evidence.
@ Indie Rebel
“POST A BLOODY LINK.”
“Here is a simple non-technical explanation at Shapiro’s Huffington Post blog.”
Thank you for the link.
First misrepresentation:
“How has evolution successfully produced the diversity of organisms occupying virtually every ecological niche on the planet? This has been the central question in scientific evolution since thinkers in the late 18th century (including Erasmus Darwin, Charles’ grandfather) introduced the idea that living organisms change over time. The big unknowns were how heredity worked, how change occurred, and how hereditary variation (called “descent with modification”) transformed itself into useful biological diversity.”
These are the scientific questions.
The one he’s shrugging under the carpet is the religious one. Because the stakes of this… ahem… “controversy” are the refutation of the belief in providence. Nothing else. In the end, most of the rest of the discussion is anecdotal from a societal point of view, and should otherwise be the concern of mainly scientists. Not of lay people. Except genuinely curious ones and not ideologues.
“The Wallace-Darwin theory of “survival of the fittest” published in 1858 was the first plausible scheme for converting variation into adaptive differences.”
Good ! James Shapiro acknowledges the legitimacy of Darwin as plausible in the context he sprung out from. What you, Indie Rebel, still haven’t, on the other hand…
“Darwin’s 1859 Origin of Species had tremendous impact for two reasons. First, it made plausible the notion of change through differential reproduction available to the general reader.”
The idea already was in the mind of contemporaries, though. But yes.
“Finally, the public saw there was a scientific alternative to supernatural creation.”
Good ! He (almosts…) mentionned supernatural creation as being refuted by Darwin. Good… He just fell short of mentionning it refuted providence even more than supernatural creation, which itself could still not entirely unlegitimately find refuge in the God of the Gaps.
“To most people, and especially to the evolutionist profession, the answer is so obviously “Yes” that even to pose the question subjects the person asking to abuse. My readers can see that from some of the comments on this blog.”
Sorry, James… Criticism is not abuse. If you’ve been beaten up, or unfairly withdrawn job opportunites (and I stress “unfairly”) I’m willing to consider the notion of “abuse”. But not because of a comment section… No way. No no no no no way…
“Either evolution is an exciting subject able to incorporate diverse approaches, or it is a closed subject basically solved 150 years ago, when we knew virtually nothing about heredity or hereditary variation.”
All subjects are always open. Juts not open just anyhow…
I just absolutely do not find evolution an “exciting” subject, but that’s personal. More of an extremely boring one…
“Because of the public conflict between religious fundamentalism and scientific positivism (the notion that science has all the answers)…”
I’m scientifically on neither sides. I’m a pancritical rationalist. Hence neither a religious fudamentalist nor a scientific positivist.
Societally, I’m 100 % opposed to religion’s social pressure agenda. And have no reason to change on that one.
“…public policy in science education has become linked to my question.”
Nope. That’s not the reason. The reason is that, in school, we teach scientific consensus to have a society that is in order. Disputes are the domain of what is called university and institutions of higher learning. Schools are essentially designed to teach the existing state of knowledge. And scientific consensus is not a notion that is a by-product of “scientific positivism”. Very very very far from it. It’s a sound rejection of relativism on which anyone in instutions of higher learning should agree, whether they be religious or atheistic or scientistic.
“If evolutionists are right that all basic questions have been resolved.”
Yep. They are right. They have been solved. Which does not mean that the position is not open to criticism. Any position is open to criticism, even scientific consensus. Criticism is a different concept than denialism.
“However, if the answer to my question is “No,” then perhaps we can find a way out of this destructive dialogue of the deaf.”
Nope. That’s an illusion. There is no way out of this “destructive dialogue” because religious fundies are not playing the game of rationality. So no. No way out. At least not the one Shapiro is seemingly advocating.
“He ignored the inconvenient fact that human selection for altered traits has never generated a truly new organismal feature (e.g., a limb or an organ) or formed a new species.”
Ohhh !!! Here it is where that bullshit is coming from !!!
No. That’s misrepresenting the core argument of evolution by natural selection. Not acceptable.
I read the rest of the argument. My conclusion is clear: James Shapiro is playing the fool. He is taking arguments that do not refute evolution by natural selection and trying to fit them in chapter 6 of On The Origin of Species out of context.
Darwin made a statement under which his conclusions would break down in chapter 6. Kudos to him for being so scientifically minded in doing so !! The context of that discussion in chapter 6 is about refuting the main theory of fixed species. What Shapiro is doing is taking the argument out of context and trying to throw whatever he can at it. None of this has any chance to cut any ice as Shapiro is not advocating intelligent design in any way. Or is he ? Is he not playing the fool ? He indeed is playing the fool.
Coyne’s condemnation of Shapiro is therefore warranted. Shapiro is making HUUUUUGE slight tiny weeny errors of logic in his argumentation. And he cannot not know it. It’s deliberate. There’s no excuse for that kind of behaviour.
He should be called out for that.
“He explains that biology has advanced since Darwin formulated the theory that natural selection drives evolution.”
No. He says something much more vicious than that. You should re-read his text with my lenses to realise the viciousness and willful lack of rationality in that kind of position.
“He lists various ways that cells can modify their DNA, in response to environmental stress. He believes that the changes leading to evolution are NOT entirely random errors.”
That’s not what he does. He’s deliberately misrepresenting the meaning of chapter 6 of On The Origin of Species.
As far as I can see it.
@NumberWang
“YOU prove that random mutations over an extended timescale isn’t sufficient.”
We have no reasons to think it is. And now we know that cells can modify their DNA. So we know that mutations can have a purpose, and therefore are not necessarily random.
In the 1950s they assumed that all genetic mutations were random errors. We cannot assume that now.
@ Indie Rebel
““YOU prove that random mutations over an extended timescale isn’t sufficient.”” — Number Wang
“We have no reasons to think it is.”
Of course we have reasons to. It’s called critical preference. I believe I already explained the concept to you.
“And now we know that cells can modify their DNA.”
You’re twisting the case: gene regulation is no proof that it is not a product of natural selection. It does not refute anything. Jerry Coyne explained that to you.
“So we know that mutations can have a purpose”
Nope. Non sequitur. Big big big big non sequitur.
“…and therefore are not necessarily random.”
No. It hasn’t refuted the claim that gene regulation is a by product of natural selection.
You’re very massively overstretching your case. Piling up fallacies over fallacies.
“In the 1950s they assumed that all genetic mutations were random errors. We cannot assume that now.”
They had a working model. That model has been perfected. It has not been refuted.
Einstein perfected Newton. It did so by refuting certain misconceptions, but in no way did it refute Newton’s laws.
And I think I’m being way overly generous by drawing this analogy.
Another thing is that there are germ cells and somatic cells. Mutation in somatic cell is not inheritable.
Of course all mutations are not random errors. But for you,non-random has very specific meaning. They are not random way you think they are.
@JustaTech
“Real-time evolution by natural selection.”
Those examples are adaptation, for one thing, and are not examples of evolution of increasing complexity.
But we also have no idea if the mutations leading to those adaptations were entirely random. That is just a matter of reductionist faith.
@ Indie Rebel
“Those examples are adaptation, for one thing, and are not examples of evolution of increasing complexity.”
Same thing, pal. Proving adaptation is enough to make the case for orthogenesis. No further evidence is needed. Whether or not further evidence exists or not is another matter.
Game over for your… ahem… theory.
“But we also have no idea if the mutations leading to those adaptations were entirely random.”
You have no other valid explanation on the table.
“That is just a matter of reductionist faith.”
Nope. There is no other explanation.
This is not reductionism. Evolution precisely is a refutation of reductionism because it proves the existence of emerging property.
Educate yourself.
“Those examples are adaptation” – how is that not evolution, when an organism adapts to changes in the environment in ways that are passed down to its offspring?
“are not examples of evolution of increasing complexity” – That’s a big citation needed. There are many mechanisms of antibiotic resistance (to choose a single example). Some of those mechanisms, such as the building of new trans-membrane pumps, sure look like increased complexity to me.
If the mutations aren’t random, how did you tell the bacteria to make them? And why the hell would you do something like that, it’s dangerous!
Also, how’s that GFP production coming along? Since you can tell your cells to make changes to their genome, telling them to make a simple protein was a breeze, right?
@ JustaTech
“Some of those mechanisms, such as the building of new trans-membrane pumps, sure look like increased complexity to me.”
Indie Rebel want scientific experiments in labs to get bacteria to grow limbs.
In 24 hours.
Call Jack Bauer.
Now !!!
“That is just a matter of reductionist faith.”
How is that any different from your own motivated reasoning?
@ NumberWang
“How is that any different from your own motivated reasoning?”
Indie Rebel doesn’t care whether or not she engages in motivated reasoning.
He / She cares about claiming scientists have a FAITH.
It’s the millenia-long gambit of religious people trying to secure themselves a rational excuse for irrationality. An excuse that has been proven by Bartley not to be valid.
When that “argument” of scientistic FAITH comes up, evolutionary theory ends up being nothing more than a distraction. A pretext. A cover. And a cover-up.
Indie Rebel doesn’t care about evolutionary theory. He / She only cares about claiming Science = Faith.
Replying on the topic of evolution, or making symmetric accusations of FAITH is all what he / she wants, in the end… He / She bogs down the debate ? He / She manages to get away and he / she wears off the enemy by guerrilla tactics. Other methods are therefore required.
The situation is in the end the same as in the 13th century:
“The Nature of [Ramon Llull’s] Art: We have seen that it was conceived as a missionary tool. In fact, in 1263, very likely the same year as his conversion, there took place in Barcelona a celebrated disputation in the presence of the king, between the leading rabbi of the Jewish community, Moses ben Nahman, or Nahmanides as he is usually known, and a Jewish convert, the Dominican, Pau Cristià. The innovation in this disputation was the use of post-biblical sources in addition to the common ground of the Old Testament, but, as Harvey Hames has said, “The mendicants… rarely, if at all, took into account the practices and beliefs of their Jewish contemporaries. In a way, they were still arguing with books, rather than with real and living people… Because the [Barcelona] disputation was based on the authority of the sources, each side could retreat into its own hermeneutics and interpretation of the sources without really having to confront head-on the actual issue being discussed. Friar Paul and Nahmanides did not argue about whether the Messiah had already come, they argued —- academically as far as Nahmanides was concerned -— about how to interpret key passages in the Jewish sources. Paul did not attempt to undermine or understand Nahmanides’ personal beliefs and opinions, and hence, Nahmanides was never really in any danger. If really pushed, his last resort could have been to remark that Christian and Jew differ on the interpretation of the passage in question and that, therefore, nothing had been proven either way.” [In the Book of the Gentile and the Three Wise Men, Llull presents the problem clearly. The Jew, after explaining how, in spite of a common origin in the Mosaic Law, the three religions have different beliefs, says: “Moreover, we and the Christians agree on the text of the Law, but we disagree in interpretation and commentaries, where we reach contrary conclusions. Therefore, we cannot reach agreement based on authorities and must seek necessary arguments by which we can agree.”]” — Anthony Bonner
Nothing has changed. Yet.
Though Llull did then go on a rampage…
“[This] had several direct effects on his Art. For one thing, it led him to develop an abstract system without exterior references, and hence put him into the extraordinary situation of a Christian polemicist and missionary who, except for three or four stock phrases he repeats frequently, and except for some themata of sermons employed in a most unusual way, almost never mentions the Bible, the Church Fathers or contemporary theologians. Secondly, it led him to base his system on fundamental notions acceptable to all three faiths. All could agree, for instance, on the existence of one God, and on his having a series of attributes, such as goodness, greatness, eternity, etc. They could broadly agree on the ethical values embodied in a series of virtues and vices. In addition they shared a common inheritance of Greek science, logic, and philosophy, on which Llull would draw for his cosmology and much of his conceptual framework and vocabulary. These fundamental notions without exterior references or appeal to authorities would form the basis for a self-sufficient system, one which was almost totally inward-looking for its justification, one which could be called endo-referential. Finally, if such a closed system was to investigate and demonstrate things outside its own restricted domain, it would have to be generative.
As for proving the Articles of Faith, and especially those of the Trinity and Incarnation, most central to Christianity and most controversial for Muslims and Jews, Llull knew that he would have to find some non-standard (that is, non-Aristotelian) method of proof, if the attempt was not to be condemned by the Church. After all, Ramon Martí’s position was the correct one: how can you prove something that is a matter of faith ? For this Llull developed the Art, based first on comparisons within a closed set of terms, and later on what one might call dynamic definitions of an even smaller set of (general) terms, which could offer non-causal, non-Aristotelian proofs.”
Indie Rebel practices a retreat onto ontological commitments. Just like these people in that 13th century. The only question worth asking is “how do we break it?”
Llull tried something in the 13th century. Epic fail. Perhaps Bartley’s approach could end up being a tad more successful…
You have nat given an example of “non-random” mutations.
Speaking aboiut materialistic atheistic beliefs. Trofim Lysenko did it all before you.
@F68.10
Shapiro doesn’t get into whether or not he thinks nature is intelligent. His purpose in this article is to explain the limitations of the idea that natural selection drives evolution.
It is true that human selection of traits (breeding) never created a new species or a new organ. That is because natural selection DOES NOT CREATE. Its function is to limit and restrict.
I don’t know what outraged you about that article, since you didn’t explain. I think you just wanted to hate it.
Shapiro is an evolutionary biologist and, obviously, he believes in evolution. He just does not think that natural selection is the driving force.
A possible analogy would be a human inventor or artist. He gets ideas, and tries them out. Not all are successful, and many are thrown away. That is the creative process, which involves the generation of ideas, and the selection process that occurs afterwards.
Similarly, we could say that species try out different ideas, many are discarded, and the best ideas survive.
I am not implying anything about gods or supernatural forces. Just observing how the natural world appears to operate.
Dogmatic Christians seized on the idea that more than natural selection is involved in evolution. Somehow they saw that as proof of their creation myth, which of course is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with ancient myths.
An intelligent, conscious, universe is an idea that is now seriously considered by some mainstream philosophers and scientists. There is nothing vicious or wacky or sinister about the idea. It does not mean your children will be forced to pray in school (horrors!)
It’s a sensible idea that almost everyone probably believes, if they ever think about it, aside from you devout atheist/materialists.
@ Indie Rebel
“Shapiro doesn’t get into whether or not he thinks nature is intelligent.”
Yep. He does, in fact.
“However, unfortunately, Shapiro tends to grossly oversell his case, which I find irritating. Calling evolution (and cells) ‘cognitive’, ‘sentient’ and ‘thoughtful’, is in my opinion not very illuminating, nor does it set a clear research agenda.” — Paulien Hogeweg, Evolutionary Intelligence, 2012; 5(3): 207-209
“His purpose in this article is to explain the limitations of the idea that natural selection drives evolution.”
He hasn’t. He failed.
“It is true that human selection of traits (breeding) never created a new species or a new organ. That is because natural selection DOES NOT CREATE.”
Nope. You got it wrong. That’s not the reason.
“Its function is to limit and restrict.”
And gravity’s purpose is to restrict the motion of the Earth around the Sun. Ipso facto, gravity doesn’t make the Earth turn around the Sun. A Prime Mover is needed.
Cut the crap, will y’a ?
“I don’t know what outraged you about that article, since you didn’t explain. I think you just wanted to hate it.”
I explained: Shapiro twists chapter 6 of the Origin of Species to fit his agenda. He’s not behaving properly on an epistemological level by doing so. And should be called out for that.
Now: I haven’t called out Shapiro anytime out of any prejudice before. I did it when I got hold of his position. And I must say: Coyne is right. That behaviour is not correct.
“Shapiro is an evolutionary biologist and, obviously, he believes in evolution. He just does not think that natural selection is the driving force.”
Does he believe gravity is not the “driving force” of the Earth orbiting the Sun ? C’mon…
“A possible analogy would be a human inventor or artist. He gets ideas, and tries them out. Not all are successful, and many are thrown away. That is the creative process, which involves the generation of ideas, and the selection process that occurs afterwards.”
And that’s called evolution by natural selection. Except that there is NO NEED for an “inventor” pulling the strings behind the curtains. You are trying to open up intellectual space for that opinion to be considered respectable. Shapiro too. Sorry: it’s not.
“Similarly, we could say that species try out different ideas, many are discarded, and the best ideas survive.”
It is not “species” who try out different ideas. “Species” are not in control of their evolution. Stop trying to masquerade your thesis under language tricks and artifices. It’s dishonnest.
“I am not implying anything about gods or supernatural forces. Just observing how the natural world appears to operate.”
You are implying the existence of some supernatural entity. Some kind of “species consciousness”. Nope. Sorry.
“Dogmatic Christians seized on the idea that more than natural selection is involved in evolution. Somehow they saw that as proof of their creation myth, which of course is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with ancient myths.”
You’re wrong. It has all to do with the belief of Providence. Their creation myths are, again, just for the show. The core ideological belief that is threatened is not even the creation myths. It’s Providence itself. It’s been intellectually discarded in philosophy starting in the 17th century, and they keep waging their Jihad wherever Providence is threatened. Hence Jihad against evolution by natural selection. So, yes, they’re a fantastically twisted lot, expecting society to bend to their will, fantasies and social pressure.
“An intelligent, conscious, universe is an idea that is now seriously considered by some mainstream philosophers and scientists.”
F-ck me sideways !! It’s been considered in the Upanishads since the 6th century BC… there is nothing “new” in that idea. The only thing is that it seems new because monotheistic stranglehold and stronghold in western societies has been crumbling decisively the last century and somewhat the century before. So western society is still overcoming the philosophical and intellectual trauma the Church imposed through terrorism for centuries. “Intelligent Universe” was kind of what greek paganism was all about. Was kind of what the Renaissance Hermetic tradition was all about. Was kind of what the Church precisely wanted to crush for millenia because Idolatry is a Sin. And “Intelligent Universe” is Idolatry.
But there is absolutely nothing new in the idea. I really do not know where you got this idea that “Intelligent Universe” was new in any way. What is new is that the Church cannot anymore burn people at the stake who held these kind of pantheist or monist beliefs anymore… THAT’s what new. Not “Intelligent Universe”…
“There is nothing vicious or wacky or sinister about the idea. It does not mean your children will be forced to pray in school (horrors!)”
You got it all wrong. The ones who want you to force to pray at school are the ones willing to burn you at the stake for these beliefs. Read some history… seriously… you got it all the other way round…
“It’s a sensible idea that almost everyone probably believes, if they ever think about it, aside from you devout atheist/materialists.”
Atheists / materialists were the one reviving these ideas of pantheism and intelligent universe from the Renaissance onwards. It just happened that atheism / materialism was easier to defend against the church than pantheism. Pantheism got you burnt at the stake. Deism, a more polite version of political atheism or political materialism allowed you more or less to evade persecution or to play hide and seek with the Church, all the more if you could leverage your money to wage your personal vendetas. Which is why Voltaire in France was a Deist and not a Theist. Because France was then a Theocracy like Iran nowadays. And “Intelligent Universe” is not allowed in Iran… these people are NOT your friends if you believe in “Intelligent Universe”.
You’re completely and utterly confused about all that history. Bible Thumpers are not your friends. They’re the ones who want to burn you. Isn’t that obvious ? Don’t you see how “Intelligent Universe” flies in the face of biblical commandments, not only those of Moses but also of Noah ? Don’t you see that atheism is about protecting you freedom to believe in “Intelligent Universe” against “them” ? Do you have any friggin’ clue about the history of freedom of thought ? The same freedom that allows you to castigate the intellectual tradition that gave them to you while siding with the tradition that wants you burnt alive ? Are you a MORON to THAT extent ???
Do we always have to discuss biblical politics to explain to you that history shows that free thought on such matters has been limited and that people up to nowadays like to keep such matters of belief private and personal because of wankers like you who try to wage their petty philosophical wars against atheists, jews, christians, muslims, buddhists, hindus, pick your favorite…
Bottom line: you’ll likely never have a clue of what my “beliefs” really are, and I feel under no obligation to disclose them to a wanker like you who is not able to understand basic wordings and basic ideas, and therefore much less able to deal with rational discussions on metaphysical and ontological matters.
Yes, I am an atheist. And, NO, you do not understand what that means. You’re dumb.
Interesting thing is that you say there is a purpose for natural selection. But it does not “remove weaklings”
Artificial selection has created very different types of dogs. You would not believe that they belong to same species. It have created new wheat species, but dogs are much different.
Speaking about organs, during development humans has three different kidneys. Seems quite random to me.
@F68.10
“Indie Rebel want scientific experiments in labs to get bacteria to grow limbs.”
Would be cool.
@ Indie Rebel
“Would be cool.”
You perfectly know that you are requiring us to build faster than light spaceships.
Now, go play with your Legos.
@F68.10
I NEVER said science is faith! Never! I was/am a scientist!
I said atheistic materialism is a faith.
@ Indie Rebel
“I said atheistic materialism is a faith.”
Sorry. Atheism is not a faith. And materialism exists only among crazy marxists.
Atheism means not believing in God, materialism is a philosophical opinion.
Am I the only one here who remembers Doctress Neutopia?
[…] Anthony Fauci—”doctor to doctor,” yet!—into a central theme of his carpetbagging Senate campaign in […]
[…] to “debate” Anthony Fauci—”doctor to doctor,” yet!—into a central theme of his carpetbagging Senate campaign in […]
[…] to have encountered him before, given his fame and now his full embrace of President Trump for his campaign to become the Republican nominee for the Senate from Pennsylvania. As you might recall, Dr. Oz was a young rising star in academic […]
[…] to have encountered him before, given his fame and now his full embrace of President Trump for his campaign to become the Republican nominee for the Senate from Pennsylvania. As you might recall, Dr. Oz was a young rising star in academic […]
[…] to have encountered him before, given his fame and now his full embrace of President Trump for his campaign to become the Republican nominee for the Senate from Pennsylvania. As you might recall, Dr. Oz was a young rising star in academic […]