Argumentum ad populum

[Subduction Zone]

...And I consider myself a metaphysician!!

In other words you have no clue when it comes to the science. Thanks for the info.

Name one.

It can be observed in quite a few microfossils as one goes up in a deposit.

How do you model the effects on the tides caused by a butterfly in a distant galaxy or the one that flaps its wings in China?

How do you model chaos?

Can you be serious? If you ask silly questions you only demonstrate your ignorance.

Excellent question. It is caused by the fact that very few people and very few climatologists understand metaphysics or the meaning of what they know.

Wrong, not even a nice try.

I am aware of no facts that must be interpreted to mean that species change gradually. Or at the least that it is the accumulation of such minor changes that account for much of the observed change in species.

Well thank you for owning up to your own ignorance.

How can we deny something that isn't understood? Until there is understanding of gravity there is NOTHING to deny.

You mean how can you deny something that you do not understand? You are doing a fine job of it right here.

 

[cladking]

It can be observed in quite a few microfossils as one goes up in a deposit.

In other words Look and See Science is sufficient for extrapolation and interpolation. Who needs no stinkin' experiment?

So long as the Peers agree nothing else matters. Reality used to be determined by well crafted experiment but now it is put to the vote of those who know everything.

 

[cladking]

Can you be serious? If you ask silly questions you only demonstrate your ignorance.

You really can't understand this?!

A butterfly in China causes a hurricane in seven days then how long will it take for a butterfly on a distant galaxy to cause a hurricane through tidal effects or some other unknown process?

Everything in reality is a part of all of reality and influences all of reality. The fact you don't understand the nature of randomness and this interconnectedness doesn't change the fact that reality is interrelated, connected, and unknown. It doesn't change the fact you can't define the the mechanism of gravity or any of the other forces that apply to any butterfly anywhere.

Without metaphysics equations are nearly meaningless. Even with a good understanding of metaphysics and epistemology equations often don't apply. In the real world we never know all of the variables or quantities anyway.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In other words Look and See Science is sufficient for extrapolation and interpolation. Who needs no stinkin' experiment?

So long as the Peers agree nothing else matters. Reality used to be determined by well crafted experiment but now it is put to the vote of those who know everything.

That is an experiment. I can see that you have an incorrectly limited understanding of the concept. Experiments are not just the cookbook chemistry that you did in high school. Real experiments often take place in the field.

Odds are that you have an incorrect concept of the scientific method. Would you like to go over that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You really can't understand this?!

A butterfly in China causes a hurricane in seven days then how long will it take for a butterfly on a distant galaxy to cause a hurricane through tidal effects or some other unknown process?

Everything in reality is a part of all of reality and influences all of reality. The fact you don't understand the nature of randomness and this interconnectedness doesn't change the fact that reality is interrelated, connected, and unknown. It doesn't change the fact you can't define the the mechanism of gravity or any of the other forces that apply to any butterfly anywhere.

Without metaphysics equations are nearly meaningless. Even with a good understanding of metaphysics and epistemology equations often don't apply. In the real world we never know all of the variables or quantities anyway.

I understand that you were trying to distract from the discussion.

I need to remind you that you cannot refute that which you do not understand. Let's try to avoid posting nonsense. You should know better than this.

 

[tas8831]

don't let me keep you from standing on your pedestal

by all means …….go for it

TRANSLATION:

'Ooops - I've been caught again... what shall I do??? I cannot admit that I am just repeating some stuff I read on an alt-health propaganda site... golly! I know - I'll just pretend that I am above it all!'



So, you DON'T even know what "vitamin B17" is...

Alright, well since you accept that I belong on a pedestal compared to you:

Amygdalin: Safe for Cancer Treatment?

"How It Works
The way your intestines break it down makes cyanide, which supposedly kills harmful cancer cells.

Some people have also suggested that it teams up with enzymes in cancercells to destroy them.

Others say the cancer was caused because you didn't have enough "vitamin B17." But there's no proof that amygdalin acts like a vitamin in your body or that you even need it. Calling it a vitamin is a way to get around regulations for drugs."​

Ok, so since WebMD gets a bad rap sometimes, how about this:


https://www.cancernetwork.com/integrative-oncology/amygdalin-vitamin-b17

"A substantial number of cancer patients turn to unconventional agents used as anticancer therapies. However, “alternative cures” are unproved and may be harmful. They are not supported by clinical research and they can jeopardize patients’ lives, especially when patients delay needed care. Amygdalin, promoted as a popular alternative cancer cure for over 40 years, is used by many cancer patients. No solid data supports its effectiveness. In addition, cyanide toxicity and contaminated products have been reported.

Despite these concerns, many websites promote amygdalin as a viable cancer treatment. "​

Still not enough? How about this popular 'health guru':

Do You Need Vitamin B17? | Supplements | Andrew Weil, M.D.

"There is no vitamin B17. The term is inaccurately applied to laetrile, a discredited cancer drug, and amygdalin, the natural substance from which laetrile is made. Because the FDA has not approved laetrile for any use in the U.S., its makers decided to call it vitamin B17. It has none of the characteristics of the 13 vitamins our bodies need for normal growth and development.

Amygdalin occurs in the seeds of apricots, peaches, and almonds. It can release cyanide when eaten, making it potentially toxic. Because of the lack of evidence for laetrile’s effectiveness plus the risk of serious side effects from cyanide poisoning caused by taking it orally, the FDA and the European Commission have banned its use. Although you can buy laetrile online, you should be aware that products may come from questionable sources and could be contaminated."​

 

[tas8831]

The irony here is that all systems are chaotic but our perspective is too narrow to see even this.

Cool - so now you are pretending to be a Climatologist, too.

 

[cladking]

Cool - so now you are pretending to be a Climatologist, too.

Only climatologists get to vote on "global warming". No matter how bad Their physics, math, perspective, or interpretations are only Peers ever get a vote. It doesn't matter if a Peer missed that day in school when they talked about computer modelling or the effects are far flung butterflies They still vote and everyone has to abide by Their reality. It doesn't matter if there is no funding and no lunches for Peers Who disagree because, obviously, Anyone who disagrees is wrong anyway.

There is no equation that can predict anything so complex as climate. If we are going to be so stupid as to give a few people license to waste resources to exacerbate the introduction of ever more CO2 into the atmosphere we'll simply have to wait to see whether it kills us all, only poor people, or makes things better.

 

[siti]

Let's try to avoid posting nonsense.

Good idea - but it'll never catch on.

 

[cladking]

I understand that you were trying to distract from the discussion.

Oh, I'm sorry!!! I thought we were talking about how "science" can't be wrong even when they don't have expereimental results;

How oft do people hear a response like...
There is a scientific consensus on the theory of evolution.

There is a scientific consensus...
There is a scientific consensus...
There is a scientific consensus...

I thought the subject was Reality according to Peers.

 

[cladking]

That is an experiment. I can see that you have an incorrectly limited understanding of the concept. Experiments are not just the cookbook chemistry that you did in high school. Real experiments often take place in the field.

Odds are that you have an incorrect concept of the scientific method. Would you like to go over that?

Maybe you don't realize that not even all Peers agree with the interpretation of "ring species". Maybe you are missing the fact that without experimental backing every single Peer can be entirely mistaken.

It isn't Peers that makes science work. It isn't intelligence that makes science work. It is EXPERIMENT that makes science work. Look and See Science is not science at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, I'm sorry!!! I thought we were talking about how "science" can't be wrong even when they don't have expereimental results;



I thought the subject was Reality according to Peers.

Just because you can't understand it does not mean that there are no experimental results. And reality seems to be your foe.

 

[siti]

It is EXPERIMENT that makes science work.

No - it is observation and interpretation that makes science work - experiment is part of the process, but not tremendously useful by itself - and - you need also to take into consideration that making observations in new ways and in the light of emerging information is another way of doing experimentation - e.g. the Hubble telescope provided a new means of observing distant galaxies - nobody has done an experiment to create a galaxy - but do you doubt that we have a better idea about how the process works from Hubble-based experiments?

And that's true in regard to what the OP was really waxing uninformed about - of course nobody has done an experiment to create life or cause one species to turn into another - but there are literally millions of observations across a range of scientific disciplines that are far better explained by biological evolution than any other explanatory idea. It is not a matter of consensus, it is a matter of the best explanation we have - by a very, very large margin compared to the notion that God sat down in his garage one day (literally one day mind you) and created each species one by one with leftover bits and bobs he had originally intended for installation in entirely different creatures - like putting hip bones in a whale for example.

 

[cladking]

No - it is observation and interpretation that makes science work - experiment is part of the process, but not tremendously useful by itself - and - you need also to take into consideration that making observations in new ways and in the light of emerging information is another way of doing experimentation - e.g. the Hubble telescope provided a new means of observing distant galaxies - nobody has done an experiment to create a galaxy - but do you doubt that we have a better idea about how the process works from Hubble-based experiments?

And that's true in regard to what the OP was really waxing uninformed about - of course nobody has done an experiment to create life or cause one species to turn into another - but there are literally millions of observations across a range of scientific disciplines that are far better explained by biological evolution than any other explanatory idea. It is not a matter of consensus, it is a matter of the best explanation we have - by a very, very large margin compared to the notion that God sat down in his garage one day (literally one day mind you) and created each species one by one with leftover bits and bobs he had originally intended for installation in entirely different creatures - like putting hip bones in a whale for example.

Wow!!!

So a Peer's interpretation is necessarily right but a superstitious bumpkin's interpretation is necessarily wrong!!!

When surgeons thought washing their hands was a waste of precious time things mustta been different.

 

[siti]

Wow!!!

So a Peer's interpretation is necessarily right but a superstitious bumpkin's interpretation is necessarily wrong!!!

How on earth did you get that from what I wrote? Are you being deliberately obtuse - or does it come naturally?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The irony here is that all systems are chaotic but our perspective is too narrow to see even this.

Are you sure? Chaos theory has made some pretty astounding demonstrations of how chaos can lead to surprising -- but unpredictable -- order.

Still, to your first point, that "all systems are chaotic," that is not entirely true. Systems that are sensitively dependent on initial conditions are certainly chaotic, but as an antique IT guy, I've written systems that aren't chaotic at all. They are as predictable -- and as dull as -- taxes.

 

[Thief]

TRANSLATION:

'Ooops - I've been caught again... what shall I do??? I cannot admit that I am just repeating some stuff I read on an alt-health propaganda site... golly! I know - I'll just pretend that I am above it all!'



So, you DON'T even know what "vitamin B17" is...

Alright, well since you accept that I belong on a pedestal compared to you:

Amygdalin: Safe for Cancer Treatment?

"How It Works
The way your intestines break it down makes cyanide, which supposedly kills harmful cancer cells.

Some people have also suggested that it teams up with enzymes in cancercells to destroy them.

Others say the cancer was caused because you didn't have enough "vitamin B17." But there's no proof that amygdalin acts like a vitamin in your body or that you even need it. Calling it a vitamin is a way to get around regulations for drugs."​

Ok, so since WebMD gets a bad rap sometimes, how about this:


https://www.cancernetwork.com/integrative-oncology/amygdalin-vitamin-b17

"A substantial number of cancer patients turn to unconventional agents used as anticancer therapies. However, “alternative cures” are unproved and may be harmful. They are not supported by clinical research and they can jeopardize patients’ lives, especially when patients delay needed care. Amygdalin, promoted as a popular alternative cancer cure for over 40 years, is used by many cancer patients. No solid data supports its effectiveness. In addition, cyanide toxicity and contaminated products have been reported.

Despite these concerns, many websites promote amygdalin as a viable cancer treatment. "​

Still not enough? How about this popular 'health guru':

Do You Need Vitamin B17? | Supplements | Andrew Weil, M.D.

"There is no vitamin B17. The term is inaccurately applied to laetrile, a discredited cancer drug, and amygdalin, the natural substance from which laetrile is made. Because the FDA has not approved laetrile for any use in the U.S., its makers decided to call it vitamin B17. It has none of the characteristics of the 13 vitamins our bodies need for normal growth and development.

Amygdalin occurs in the seeds of apricots, peaches, and almonds. It can release cyanide when eaten, making it potentially toxic. Because of the lack of evidence for laetrile’s effectiveness plus the risk of serious side effects from cyanide poisoning caused by taking it orally, the FDA and the European Commission have banned its use. Although you can buy laetrile online, you should be aware that products may come from questionable sources and could be contaminated."​

and millet bread.....what about that?

 

[tas8831]

and millet bread.....what about that?

TRANSLATION:

'Wow, I really got spanked here... I know! I will just totally ignore it all, and bring up something irrelevant'

What about it?

It is claimed to have B17, but as I just demonstrated, that is bogus nonsense.

Why would you - a science award winner as a young teen - think that even though B17 is bogus that because millet bread has it, it somehow works?

Amazing...

 

[tas8831]

Only climatologists get to vote on "global warming".

No, 'only climatologists seem to understand how to understand climate-related data.'

No matter how bad Their physics, math, perspective, or interpretations are only Peers ever get a vote.

So not a climatologist, but now an expert on physics, math, and somehow perspective of climatologists.

It is amazing how much fake expertise anti-science zealots possess in their own minds.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Obviously, you do not understand what IQ stands for nor how it is determined.

I read a website that told me what different IQs are capable of. 160 was enough to dispute known facts. I'm barely smart enough to read scientific papers.