Shambling Shaman
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
I may have lost/missed your take on this, Are saying that a Military Medal is worth less than a canonization or a Nobel prize?
Conspiracy Theories
- Thread starter Bushcraftsman
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
I may have lost/missed your take on this, Are saying that a Military Medal is worth less than a canonization or a Nobel prize?
Shambling Shaman
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
It's all part of a conspiracy, get folk hooked on it then reduce supplies to force the price up. You have been warned.
Red that's nonsense. Scientific journals do not offer facts for consumption, they offer a hypothesis, which is tested methodically and then the results discussed. The reader is left to evaluate the quality of the method and therefore the validity of the discussion. The process is called peer review and the process, the method must be transparent so that it can be repeated and tested by others. Nothing is ever offered, or taken on face value. The theory of evolution, is just that, a theory. If anyone accepts it as fact, it certainly isn't the scientific world. Similarly, climate change is offered as a theory, the only people who offer the theories as a fact are those with a political agenda, certainly not the scientists that postulate the theory. Even the speed of light, is a theoretical constant. Religion, by contrast ...as in the body that governs the church ...create and give you rules to follow. There may be discussion of which rules you get fed, but they are all based on someones subjective opinion of morality and you are expected to have faith ...by definition, to believe without evidence. Science never asks you to have faith. It never asks you to believe something without eveidence, in fact, it demands that you dont.
Last edited:
Martyn,
have you ever looked into the massive cholesterol-lie?
it is commonly accepted as a fact that cholesterol is bad for you, but there is absolutely no proof or even sound scientific research to back up any of the claimed dangers. NONE!
Yet it is claimed as a scientific fact, based on an assumption made in the late '50's.
All those so-called scientists, claiming it is bad for you are on the payroll of either major foodindustries or farmaceutical industries.
It is proven, however, that companies like Pfizer for instance or Unilever have financed "research" to come up with the figures they need to back up their salesstories. On the other hand, their are studies that show that the medication to lower your cholesterol is in fact harmfull to people, but no-one hears about that.
Why?? The foodindustries and farmaceutical companies hate to see their 9-digit profitfigures drop!
have you ever looked into the massive cholesterol-lie?
it is commonly accepted as a fact that cholesterol is bad for you, but there is absolutely no proof or even sound scientific research to back up any of the claimed dangers. NONE!
Yet it is claimed as a scientific fact, based on an assumption made in the late '50's.
All those so-called scientists, claiming it is bad for you are on the payroll of either major foodindustries or farmaceutical industries.
It is proven, however, that companies like Pfizer for instance or Unilever have financed "research" to come up with the figures they need to back up their salesstories. On the other hand, their are studies that show that the medication to lower your cholesterol is in fact harmfull to people, but no-one hears about that.
Why?? The foodindustries and farmaceutical companies hate to see their 9-digit profitfigures drop!
No Martyn, it isn't nonsense. Might I suggest you read it a little more carefully? If you prefer to prevaricate and substitute the word "hypothesis" for fact, lets do that. I would disabuse you though of the notion that scientific journals do not contain purported facts. They do - often in the form of measurements, readings etc. Hypotheses may then be developed from the facts, but this does not mean that no facts are present.
My point is that many people who bleat on about climate change (as a working example) have never, ever, validated a single fact about it by personal observation. Because the hypothesis has been proposed, they accept both the hypothesis and the underlying data (fact) as written and as "unquestionable". They invent derogatory terms like "denier" for those who dispute the hypothesis in the same way that religions use the word "heretic".
The vast majority, indeed overwhelming majority of those who trust science have never peer reviewed a thing. They merely accept that because "science says its so" that it must be so. This is unquestionably an act of faith and is the nub of my point that science "the new religion". The "man in the street" is not encouraged to understand, question and dispute, he is expected to accept "scientific consensus" or face terms such as "denier" and hostility.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not anti science, my doctorate holding, research conducting father lectured in science for his entire working life and I was raised in a family where scientific discussion and debate was encouraged. It was he who encouraged me not to accept any one or any approach as holding a monopoly on truth. Science has its great men, its liars, its fakers and its charlatans - the same as religion or the arts.
Red
My point is that many people who bleat on about climate change (as a working example) have never, ever, validated a single fact about it by personal observation. Because the hypothesis has been proposed, they accept both the hypothesis and the underlying data (fact) as written and as "unquestionable". They invent derogatory terms like "denier" for those who dispute the hypothesis in the same way that religions use the word "heretic".
The vast majority, indeed overwhelming majority of those who trust science have never peer reviewed a thing. They merely accept that because "science says its so" that it must be so. This is unquestionably an act of faith and is the nub of my point that science "the new religion". The "man in the street" is not encouraged to understand, question and dispute, he is expected to accept "scientific consensus" or face terms such as "denier" and hostility.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not anti science, my doctorate holding, research conducting father lectured in science for his entire working life and I was raised in a family where scientific discussion and debate was encouraged. It was he who encouraged me not to accept any one or any approach as holding a monopoly on truth. Science has its great men, its liars, its fakers and its charlatans - the same as religion or the arts.
Red
Is Science the new religion?
Silly frocks:
Come on BR, you can do better than that; any graduate can wear a silly frock, not just the science graduate.
How do you explain the mass rejection of the immunisation of children against preventable disease?
The science is clear and unambiguous. Yet one grasping liar was able to put thousands of children at risk by slating MMR.
Not much mass faith in the religion of science exhibited there.
At what point did I say it was a universal religion BR?
I think your description of
Now risk management is something I am qualified to discuss - literally and fuguratively. I can say, within an accurate use of the terminology, that every time a medical practitioner immunises a child with the combined MMR vaccine, they put a child at risk. So, whilst the person you describe as a "grasping liar" may have put "thousands of children at risk", giving the MMR vaccine has put millions of children at risk. That BR is a scientific fact.
Red
I think your description of
really illustrates the response of one person who chose not to "toe the accepted scientific line". Not much sign there of people encouraging debate and dissension in that characterisation is there?
Now risk management is something I am qualified to discuss - literally and fuguratively. I can say, within an accurate use of the terminology, that every time a medical practitioner immunises a child with the combined MMR vaccine, they put a child at risk. So, whilst the person you describe as a "grasping liar" may have put "thousands of children at risk", giving the MMR vaccine has put millions of children at risk. That BR is a scientific fact.
Red
Nope, there is a quantifiable risk in almost any activity - or lack of activity. The risk of not doing something may, statistically, be higher than the risk of doing it. That however is on a statistical basis. On an individual basis, the impact of the issue occasioned by the risk materialising may be far higher than the impact of inaction.
Or, paraphrased, the individual good may be different than the greater good.
Or, paraphrased, the individual good may be different than the greater good.
Incidentally, Andrew Wakefield was a charlatan. His work was discredited by peer review, and he was subsequently struck off by the GMC.
Good grief
*
*
*
*
*
*
How can anyone not like Marmite ? :eek :dunno
I tried some Marmite, it is pants straight. It tasted like a ground up bullion cube with a little cooking oil added to make a paste.
Maybe I could use it like bullion and make a hot drink. I was told that Marmite possibly had tick prevention properties, though.
Gordy
Nothing personal forestwalker, however, I will point out the awarding of the Nobel Prize to my President, Barack Obama, was just that. A political move to canonize him to the world. Bought and paid for!
Gordy
Similar threads
