Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Oops you didn't address the point and changed the subject.So, you are going to probably get covid regardless. Again the vaccine doesn't stop that from happening. As far as I can see it doesn't change anything except for added risks.
No, it isn't. This is something that people who don't understand peer review (or the scientific method in general) like to say to make themselves feel better.No the peer review is just another way of saying only the in crowd gets to define truth.
Scientists who are not in that crowd but find the truth don't have an agenda to keep them quiet.
What you're saying is you rely on anecdotes over controlled data. That you are more knowledgeable than the world's experts on these matters - you, with zero experience in science. Which of course, is folly and symptomatic of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.I go by what I observe. Not by what the talking heads concoct from data they can twist anyway they like.
My brother the diabetic who smokes sailed through covid unvaccinated, while my daughter double jabbed, had a terrible time and had it twice and still has issues from it.
Controlled is exactly right. When you control the data you can make it say anything you want.What you're saying is you rely on anecdotes over controlled data. That you are more knowledgeable than the world's experts on these matters - you, with zero experience in science. Which of course, is folly and symptomatic of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
No, that's what happens when you rely on anecdotes and unverified reports.Controlled is exactly right. When you control the data you can make it say anything you want.
How would you know? When it comes to the sciences you are frightened to death. You still believe the fairy tales of Genesis the last that I checked. To believe those one has to be either scientifically illiterate or extremely dishonest. I do not think that you are extremely dishonest which only leaves scientifically illiterate. Religious beliefs do not make a person stupid, but when it comes to topics affected by those beliefs it will definitely make them look that way.Your eyes are still closed.
Can you say " naive.?A controlled study/experiment is one that is carried out under controlled conditions. An experiment that is controlled is an experiment with built-in checks and balances to weed out human biases and common errors; to control precisely for extraneous and independent variables and to ensure the observed results aren't just random events. In other words, it's the exact opposite of what you're doing. It's the method we've used to discover everything we currently know about how the world around us works.
You are not skeptical. To be a skeptic one must follow the evidence. You do not do that. When it comes to the sciences you don't even understand the concept.There's a difference between skeptical and fearful.
And science by definition is usually wrong many times before it gets it right.
I can say educated and knowledgeable about the subject matter. Can you?Can you say " naive.?
I think it's very hard for them to admit they were wrong in light of the New evidence. Besides the scientists are not the ones running the show, and making the rules.Dude, you are drawing broad conclusions about scientific matters based on your personal anecdotal experiences, and you're trying to call me naïve? You claim that scientists who devote their lives to educating themselves and studying this stuff are just naive?
There has been no evidence that supports your views. "New" or otherwise. You refuse to even learn what evidence is. An observation that you do not understand, but everyone else does, is not evidence for your beliefs.I think it's very hard for them to admit they were wrong in light of the New evidence. Besides the scientists are not the ones running the show, and making the rules.