'Myth' vs 'Science' (Part Deux)

Hey all!

We were discussing the relative merits of a book by two scientists that supposedly exposed the REAL 'science' behind something like 60 popular 'myths' in the Breaking Alternative News forum at www.abovetopsecret.com... and the discussion took a veer not appreciated by the OP...

So we are spilling over to here to resume the animated discussion...



(Moderators... If this ain't the right place... Your help WILL be appreciated. Thanks! )

reply to post by golemina


YOU veered, not the thread.

Enjoy yourself.

jw

So what is it that we are discussing exactly. I am confused. Not that it would be unusual for me to be confused.

reply to post by scraze

Originally posted by golemina
reply to post by soficrow


Did you read (or understand ) ANYTHING that was said? My box of crayons is around here somewhere... I would be MORE than glad to explain the hard parts to you.

Yep - you were going on and on about 'true' scientists and Absurdists (although the way you use the word seems to have little to do with actual Absurdism), and your opinion on the theory evolution - all with a lot of caps - and all of which [bold]isn't related to the OP. All this effort put in unrelated posts is what is considered to be to the hypothesis that whenever people are opposed, they tend to put their foot down. And you sure do. Here's your very first reaction:

Originally posted by golemina


It has MANY signs of a disinformation campaign.

BTW, the THEORY of Evolution is just so much wishful thinking. NOT supported by the facts. Velikovsky shot Darwin's theories down wholesale more than 50 years ago.

Notice you're using a lot of caps, and you're loudly speaking against the original post: you slander it with having signs of a disinformation campaign. Secondly you talk about the theory of evolution - where the hell did you get this from? The post is not about the theory evolution! It isn't! It is about the way humans spread knowledge and hold on to it. Here's another one of your posts:

Originally posted by golemina


It's ALWAYS good to hear from a Darwinian Absurdist!

Well, since you seem to be picking up the gauntlet...

Why don't you enlighten us to which NEW species of fauna evolved from a parent species...

Sure, it's never too early to start using terms you think are cleverly insulting. To me it's just abuse of terms to show how much you disagree. Then you return to the theory of evolution - and again, this is off-topic. We're not talking about any specific theory, at least, soficrow wasn't. You are.

Next post!

Originally posted by golemina
Yes! A brilliant display of Absurdism at it's very best.

Just to show I'm paying attention: this is the third time you've expressed your discontempt for the OP. The rest of that post doesn't really make sense to me - something about HIV.. Still not about the subject at hand.

All of your other posts are either about what true "Scientists" and "Absurdists" are supposed to be or about the theory of evolution. A few people even get on your subject, and post their opinions about scientists. Again I wonder whether they understand the subject of the OP.

So far, you have spent 11 posts to insult people who disagree, to display your sense of victory, and to display your opinions. In no post do you discuss the way you think information can be retained while there might be proof to the contrary. Instead, you have made it painfully clear to everyone who you think is completely unworthy to listen to (Absurdist) and what you think is the truth. This is exactly what soficrow meant with digging heels in the ground.

By the way, there are enough threads about the theory of evolution on ATS, you might want to redirect your posts there. The way you conduct conversation here is counter-productive - I get that you want to have a heated conversation, but you have effectively derailed a thread. Once again, this thread is not about what scientists are or about the theory of evolution - it's about how people hold on to information they think is true and soficrow's hypothesis that people when facing contradictory information will protect their version of the truth somehow. (Did I get that right, soficrow?)

[edit on 31-5-2009 by scraze]

Geez Scraze... It's TOO bad you simply DIDN'T get what I was talking about...

So let me rephrase.

The book in question is about two John Stossel types setting the record straight... Cuz they ARE scientists! (and apparently we, the public, are just stupid).

My efforts were directed at questioning their qualifications SIMPLY because they are 'Scientists'.

All of the 'insults' (intentional/or otherwise ) are entirely in YOUR imagination.

The rest is mostly just a revolt by the populace...

I lead/joined the lynch mob against Absurdists (the practice of which I documented in GREAT detail).

The discussion spilled over into many of the Absurdist parrotings... Evolution, cancer cures, etc.

And since apparently (based on your 'answers') the fact that the crux of the discussion is against BAD SCIENTIFIC METHOD... parroted as Absurdism... (Which is now MY term brother! I claim this term in the name of Science!!! )...

Seems to have gotten by you.

You MIGHT want to take another bite at the apple big guy?

[edit on 31-5-2009 by golemina]

reply to post by jdub297

YOU veered, not the thread.

Enjoy yourself.

What an interesting post... There YOU are veering WITH me!



Imagine my surprise to see your above comment.

Meanwhile, back to the good stuff...

It's all around you, if you look.

Start with triticale. There are dozens of 'transitional' speci-types that reflect the adoption of a new trait or the dormancy of an obsolete one.

Sometimes, obsolescene becomes extinction.

Now, since natural selection (not evolution) takes places over generations, you may not notice the change until many generations have passed.

Pick a "baseline" set of genes. Look again after 5 0r 50,000 years. There WILL be change. Ask again in 50,000 years and I'll give you some comparisons with present-day species.

Given that we can only "observe" with the senses we currently enjoy, and are limited in our observation periods to our lifespans, or those of a few generations, almost all of science is THEORY.

Some theories are sound conclusions; others are revised, replaced or abandoned. "THEORY" is not a pejorative, it is a description.

Science is FAITH in sound theories.

Any problem with faith?

Deny Ignorance!

Sorry big guy...

Science is NOT about FAITH.

It's about the FACTS.

Soon as you veer away from that, you are no longer engaging in Science, but in 'Science'.

And when you go EVEN farther down Wrong St., and start expounding your 'theories' as LAWS, you arrive at Absurdism (my term ).

A notable example of this type of 'rationale', which closely resembles your viewpoint is that of Henry H. Bauer in his infamous attempt to debunk Velikovsky titled Beyond Velikovsky... (and wound up... hic! Just embarassing himself, getting lost in a 'discussion' about 'concordant' facts!)

In which he ALSO claimed that Science was NOT about the facts!

(Say Henry... Isn't it JUST awful when those Velikovsky 'lost' facts KEEP coming back and bitting you on the hind quarters?)

(I SLAY myself... Not to mention have a good time. )

Deny Ignorance!

What a good idea!

Bottom line big guy... when your Science starts relying on FAITH, you've just started practicing your/a religion.



[edit on 1-6-2009 by golemina]

reply to post by justsomeboreddude


Confused?

Me too! Come on in... the water is just FINE! (Link to the original thread in the first post )

Originally posted by golemina
reply to post by scraze

 

The book in question is about two John Stossel types setting the record straight... Cuz they ARE scientists! (and apparently we, the public, are just stupid).

No. The book is about the phenomenon that people hold on to outdated medical knowledge. They are not setting things straight or disproving current theories: they are describing a social process.


My efforts were directed at questioning their qualifications SIMPLY because they are 'Scientists'.


And thereby you skip the actual subject of the thread: how people retain knowledge. Whether those gentlemen are qualified or not was not of soficrow's interest - the subject of their study is what the thread was about. I understand you want to make clear that their whole theory might be bogus (although I can show you plenty of cases in which knowledge is outdated but still around) - but I don't see why you need 11 posts to do so.

All of the 'insults' (intentional/or otherwise

) are entirely in YOUR imagination.

You called a lot of people "Absurdists" in their faces. As you have "explained" how "Absurdists" are the people that can't think like "Scientists" do, you accuse them of being close-minded - which on this forum, I'd say, is an insult.

The rest is mostly just a revolt by the populace...

I lead/joined the lynch mob against Absurdists (the practice of which I documented in GREAT detail).

Yes, you did not only lead it, you even started it. You're probably still talking about the authors of the report? Tell me again why this was such an important part of the conversation.

The discussion spilled over into many of the Absurdist parrotings... Evolution, cancer cures, etc.

.. It did not spill over. You directed it towards those subjects. Noone mentioned "Absurdists" or Evolution, but you. People did pick up on it, but you are the one that sustained it. By now, you might say the subject of the thread is Absurdists and the theory of evolution. But don't you think soficrow would've named it so if that is what he meant? Don't you think his initial post would describe those subjects?

And since apparently (based on your 'answers') the fact that the crux of the discussion is against BAD SCIENTIFIC METHOD... parroted as Absurdism... (Which is now MY term brother! I claim this term in the name of Science!!!

)...

Woah.. The crux of the discussion is against BAD SCIENTIFIC METHOD? A crux is between things, not one side - and it isn't about bad scientific method. Where did you get that idea? Show me the part in soficrow's post where it states that the book or thread or whatever is about bad scientific method. Maybe I missed something.. Show me.

Seems to have gotten by you.

You MIGHT want to take another bite at the apple big guy?

[edit on 31-5-2009 by golemina]

Well, maybe I have completely missed something. But be so kind as to point out why you felt it was necessary to discuss the nature of Science or Scientists or the theory of evolution. Point out to me what the relevance of those issues is to the subject of soficrow's thread. Tell me what you think the subject of soficrow's thread is, again.

Here's a quote from the article in soficrow's original post:

Whether it's thinking that vitamin C can cure a cold, or that you must drink eight glasses of water a day, people cling to outdated medical lore long after it's been shown to be wrong. Here's why.

reply to post by scraze


Hey Scraze!

No. The book is about the phenomenon that people hold on to outdated medical knowledge. They are not setting things straight or disproving current theories: they are describing a social process.

We are in TOTAL agreement about the way it's served up.

(Yes, I know you're shocked ).

To even BEGIN to understand what I'm babbling about requires you to step outside of the framework of what is served up and begin to look at the entire situation as a TRULY outside honest observer.

I lay out LOTS of problems...

- That this two authors are even practicing Science.
- The fact that the 'viewpoints'/'beliefs' they are supposedly correcting are in fact 'wordsmithed' to the point to be laughable.

So even if you buy into the merits of these two John Stossel types (I stand by that ), that they are examining a 'social process'...

The fact that they are purposely trivializing the 'beliefs' invalidates the entire premise...

And it becomes JUST ANOTHER DISINFORMATION campaign.

I've seen LOTS of these efforts... woven into the tapestry of a book (like this example), serial TV show or commercial.

If we were to examine the other 58 'myths'... I would easily make my
case.

There are tons of nuances which seem to be escaping you... And this isn't a classroom and your aren't my student.

So, I'll just touch on a couple of them.

There were references to Science, 'Science' and Absurdism. (If you pick thru the posts, you should pick up on the trail...)

The crux (yes, once again ) of it comes down to these two guys pretty much have NO clue what they are talking about...

And they are just selling disinformation.

And THAT is why we talked about 'the nature of Science or Scientists or the theory of evolution'...

As a sidenote be aware that MDs (except for ER med guys ) are ABSOLUTELY the worst Absurdists.

reply to post by golemina


So your answer to why you spent 11 posts on the thread discussing the validity of the book itself is because you think the entire premise is laughable?

You think it's laughable that we decided somewhere around the 18th century that it was actually quite ok to lay down flat on our back while sleeping - you're convinced there really is a demon that jumps on your chest?

Or that leeches are the best cure for.. well.. any disease, actually?

Or maybe lobotomy will help you with your headaches.

If you have HIV, you might try raping a virgin.

I think the premise is rather grave. Those are just examples out the top of my head, but I can assure you - there are medical myths. If you don't agree, I'll go on the quest for some other sappy examples - if you do, then it must be because of those 66 myths specifically. Which one? The one about the 8 glasses of water? Or the vitamin C that will cure a cold? Or that a high level of sunscreen will block all sunburn? In any case, I think you focused way too much on the messenger and pretty much ignored the message.

reply to post by scraze

So your answer to why you spent 11 posts on the thread discussing the validity of the book itself is because you think the entire premise is laughable?

11 posts? Maybe some of us are a little slow...

You think it's laughable that we decided somewhere around the 18th century that it was actually quite ok to lay down flat on our back while sleeping - you're convinced there really is a demon that jumps on your chest?

Or that leeches are the best cure for.. well.. any disease, actually?

Or maybe lobotomy will help you with your headaches.

If you have HIV, you might try raping a virgin.

I think the premise is rather grave. Those are just examples out the top of my head, but I can assure you - there are medical myths. If you don't agree, I'll go on the quest for some other sappy examples - if you do, then it must be because of those 66 myths specifically. Which one? The one about the 8 glasses of water? Or the vitamin C that will cure a cold? Or that a high level of sunscreen will block all sunburn? In any case, I think you focused way too much on the messenger and pretty much ignored the message.

You've fallen into the very worst subjective trap...

Dude, nothing personal, but you THINK you're informed, you THINK you understand the 'medical' issues that you are mocking and you THINK you (either on your own merits/or based on these two stalwart authors ) that you have ANY idea what you are talking about...

But you've been sold a bill of goods by Absurdists.

It's all smoke and mirrors brother!



I'd be more than happy to go thru (the 'list') and tell you were you've been steered away from the truth...

Trust me, you won't like it.

For starters, allopathic medicine is a total crock.



They can NOT EVEN cure heartburn!

But I can... using nothing more than 2 sticks of celery a day...

Tada!



[edit on 1-6-2009 by golemina]

reply to post by golemina



Golemina,

I established in my opening comments that I:

a. Considered the authors' analysis flawed, and questioned their premises and assumptions,

Where I think the study and article fall short is that neither considers the fact that data is manipulated, and people know it.

hence;

b. Questioned the validity of the studies' "findings";

The study and article talk about how 'new scientific information' makes past ideas obsolete... (but) ...sometimes, agenda masquerades as science to try and trump a previous agenda.

and

c. Wanted to focus on a critique of the authors' premises and assumptions.

It's not always about myths trumping science. All too often, it's about people knowing their strings are being pulled, and digging their heels in.

So in my opinion, which I believe I made clear, "science" routinely is manipulated to serve political/economic agendas - people know it, and don't buy into it any more. In this light, I considered it a given that the so-called "findings" were invalid, therefor unimportant to the discussion (which was intended to focus on the premises and assumptions).

However, IF I had wanted to focus on the findings, I would have exposed the underbelly of a few "medical myths" to rip apart the authors' conclusions. I would have debunked the "debunkers." And I would have done it properly. For example:

1. "...Vreeman and Carroll debunked (the myth) that sugar causes hyperactivity in children (it doesn't). There's a slew of double-blinded, randomized trials that have shown no connection between sugar consumption and a child's increase in energy."

First, I would have found references showing that sugar is a highly processed and contaminated chemical compound without nutritional value, and linked the chemicals and contaminants to disease. I also would have shown that the processing causes glycosaccharides to misfold, and then linked such misfolded glycans to disease.

Second, I would have done the research needed to prove that 2 or 3 "double-blinded, randomized trials" were financed by the sugar industry and/or processed food conglomerates - and thus brought the entire body of their referenced research into question.

Finally, I would have concluded that industry manipulated science to create a "science myth" designed to protect profits and put profits before people.

But I didn't - because that was not the focus of my interest here, and because I've done it all too many times before.

2. "...the supposed link between vaccines and autism ...has not been validated by the research."

First, I would have pulled my file of transcripts from the FDA's prion meetings with their vaccine committee about Mad Cow prion contamination of vaccine stocks.

Second, I would have quoted the committee's conclusion, (paraphrased): vaccines are so contaminated with prions, and new strains appear all the time, so there is no point focusing on the Mad Cow prion; overall, it's too expensive to filter prions out of vaccines, and it is not cost-efficient.

Third, I would have documented the financial relationships between the FDA, the cattle industry and Big Pharma.

Then, I would have clarified the situation: vaccines are horribly contaminated with prions and misfolded proteins; the specific health effects of each different strain is unknown, but there is no doubt these agents are capable of causing disease. However, government has no alternative available to replace vaccines, and needs industry to invest heavily in vaccine production - so they're willing to sacrifice people's long term health to prevent short term panic.

Finally, I would have concluded that industry and government manipulated science to create a "science myth" designed to protect profits and put profits before people.

But I didn't - because that was not the focus of my interest here, and because I've done it all too many times before.


..If you had chosen to pursue your own agenda here in a responsible thoughtful manner, that would have been okay. But you attempted to goad me and force me into discussion on your terms, which frankly remain unclear. So again - your interests here are not mine. I clarified my focus from the get-go. Feel free to take whatever direction you want, but leave me out of it.

Respectfully,
sofi

Originally posted by golemina
reply to post by scraze

 

If you have HIV, you might try raping a virgin.
[..]

But you've been sold a bill of goods by Absurdists.

It's all smoke and mirrors brother!

I'd be more than happy to go thru (the 'list') and tell you were you've been steered away from the truth...

Trust me, you won't like it.

Ok, golemina - last time I'll try to make sense from what you are saying. TAKE NOTE: You are not discussing anything at all - you are just blabbering on about what you think is the truth. Which is fine, we all do - but most of us try to be a normal person and talk with others - not to talk with ourselves.

You say you are more than happy to go thru the 'list'. You have mentioned this a few times yet you haven't even attempted it .. so here is one thing I'd like to know from you. One simple question. One. Not more. I don't expect you to answer this question because so far you have been avoiding specific points, like the fact that you've spent 11 posts in a 3-page thread just to display your opinion - and you call me 'slow'. No, I call you a spammer. 11 posts can file a page, so you've effectively written 1/3rd OF THE WHOLE THREAD.

Now I don't know what to do anymore. I try to be a reasonable person. I try to listen to people and find their version of the truth. I like to explore.

But you don't want to explore with others: you "explain with GREAT DETAIL" what you think Absurdists are - who the hell was asking for your vision of what good scientist is except you yourself? Instead, what I would like to know at this moment, is not what you think of medical doctors or ER chaps. This time, I have one question for you and I would like you to answer the question, for one time. Don't ignore it like you have ignored the others.

Tell me whether you can cure HIV by raping a virgin.

Tell me one of two things: YES, I believe raping a virgin cures HIV.. or NO, I do not believe raping a virgin cures HIV.

Tell me whether you fit in with this article.

Do you believe raping a virgin would cure you from HIV?

[edit on 1-6-2009 by scraze]

reply to post by soficrow


Sofi! What ARE you doing in this thread?



What happened?

Suddenly, you want to talk to the 'thread hijacker', the 'troll', the T&C violator (and whatever else you tossed in?)?

Did I miss a step?

reply to post by scraze




No seriously!

This thing with HIV and virgins...

I'm pretty sure THAT wasn't in the book review.

(Psst! Go back and actually read the thread)

Ok, golemina - last time I'll try to make sense from what you are saying. TAKE NOTE: You are not discussing anything at all - you are just blabbering on about what you think is the truth. Which is fine, we all do - but most of us try to be a normal person and talk with others - not to talk with ourselves.

You have seriously GOT to be pulling my leg.

golem... 'Normal'?



>'you are just blabbering on about what you think is the truth.'

Are you SURE you would know the truth if you heard it?

In the words of the very impressive Charles Tart... Most of the Western world is living in a reality which is actually ENTIRELY only in their heads...

So think about this...

(Never mind. (Just had a Chuck Lorre moment. )

hiya golemina,

Originally posted by golemina
reply to post by scraze

 

[..]

This thing with HIV and virgins...

I'm pretty sure THAT wasn't in the book review.

(Psst! Go back and actually read the thread)

Well, I'm pretty sure I was clear about my point.. My point was that you did not focus on the subject of the thread. So to tell me to read it again (which I have, btw) is a little strange to me. The HIV and virgins myth was not in the book, but your point is the credibility of their report, right? Well, that point would only make sense if you could 'debunk' the whole theory of medical myths - because soficrow wanted to talk about it in general, not specific. You have made your point that science can create its own myths through bad conduct of scientific methodology - and on that I agree with you (although labeling people is never a good idea, even if its a fun word like Absurdists).

But whether those two scientists are of the bad kind or not, the thread itself was about medical myths themselves, and the reaction of people who think their strings are being pulled by scientific reports that are written by political agenda instead of progression of science. That social-dynamic process has virtually nothing to do with the two authors of the book - for all I care, those two authors don't even have to exist - I can still talk about that social-dynamic process of science, politics and conspiracy theories.
The only reason I brought up the HIV and virgin myth is because you have been such an antagonist on soficrow's thread - I've said it earlier, the way you described Absurdists and subsequently implicated three ATS members were one, is a path of adversity. I'm sure you have some good points to make, but because you formulate your opinions as strongly as possible, people will react just the same. You know - for every action, there is a reaction.
So when you said:

It's just the Absurdists are too busy doing social things like peer review, treating cancer with chemotherapy, standing on their soapboxes making ALL kinds of declarations (like what is supposedly portrayed in this book ) to let a little thing like the FACTS get in the way of their religious dogma.

.. a lot of people just recognised your utter lack of respect for scientists and your prejudices about them, instead of the point you're trying to make - that science itself is kind of a closed circle, and might reiterate itself - becoming dogmatic in a fashion. You see, the way you put things makes all the difference. By the way, for people who don't use the term Absurdists like you do, this is also the line in which you describe what you think of Absurdists (and it isn't too bright).

It's ALWAYS good to hear from a Darwinian Absurdist!
Yes! A brilliant display of Absurdism at it's very best.
You might consider getting off of your Absurdist soapbox and actually go out into the world.

.. well, no need to reiterate all the times you've been fitting someone's image in your idea of Absurdists. It's just obvious that you're making sides in the thread - some people belong in the group called Absurdists, according to you. It couldn't be more clear to us that to you, this is the "wrong" side.

If you're so eager to create a heated discussion - ridiculing people with full lines of smileys (maybe you don't mean it that way, but we sure interpret it as a display of an air of superiority) - bringing in the flaws in the way people think about the theory of evolution - taking 11 posts - you must have a great point to make in relation to medical myths.

..right? Because if you don't have a point to make in relation to medical myths, then you'd be on the wrong thread, I guess. I know that may sound harsh, I'm not saying you can't even slide a bit off-topic .. but the thread was about medical myths.

I know you're probably convinced that you were talking about medical myths - at least about myths within medicine. You know, how scientists may create their own myths. I've come to understand that now, although initially I completely missed the link you made between your posts and the subject of the thread.

But the thing is - that's a different kind of medical myth. That's a myth within science - soficrow was talking about a myth within society. Like the medical myth that you can cure your HIV-infection by raping a baby - that is a medical myth like soficrow was talking about. Whether the medical myths were indeed false or not, was not a part of the thread - at least, it didn't need to be. Why not, you ask?
Because those medical myths were trivial. You've mentioned how you could easily go through all 66 myths and 'debunk' them. But why would you do that? Even if you perfectly debunked all 66 myths - there would still be medical myths that really are false. Since soficrow wanted to talk about those medical myths in a more general sense, it wasn't necessary to talk about the 66 specifics (although I'd be interested in how vitamin C supposedly cures a cold, etc. ;]). Only IF medical myths didn't exist, like curing HIV by raping virgins, THEN it would be interesting to talk about the reliability of the book itself.

So, that's why I brought in the HIV.

I hope you haven't taken this the wrong way - I think this is as clear as I can be.
Maybe I've reacted too strong to you - I think people should have contacted you earlier, that you were taking a very strong off-topic direction.

You have seriously GOT to be pulling my leg.

golem... 'Normal'?

Haha.. good to know ;]

>'you are just blabbering on about what you think is the truth.'

Are you SURE you would know the truth if you heard it?

In the words of the very impressive Charles Tart... Most of the Western world is living in a reality which is actually ENTIRELY only in their heads...

So think about this...

(Never mind. (Just had a Chuck Lorre moment.

)

No, I'm not sure what the truth is when I hear it. But that's the point - you say you know an Absurdist when you see one. How can that be? You can only know whether it's an Absurdist FOR SURE when you're an Absurdist yourself. (Right ;]?)

So until I gain instantaneous omniscience, I won't be labeling people (I could be wrong)!

[edit on 3-6-2009 by scraze]

reply to post by scraze


Hey!

Well, I'm pretty sure I was clear about my point.. My point was that you did not focus on the subject of the thread. So to tell me to read it again (which I have, btw) is a little strange to me. The HIV and virgins myth was not in the book, but your point is the credibility of their report, right? Well, that point would only make sense if you could 'debunk' the whole theory of medical myths - because soficrow wanted to talk about it in general, not specific. You have made your point that science can create its own myths through bad conduct of scientific methodology - and on that I agree with you (although labeling people is never a good idea, even if its a fun word like Absurdists).

As a side note, it's interesting to see how your 'writing style' reflects the jumble that is your presentation of the content of your paragraphs.

Not that it means anything... It's apparent that it's used as a license to make these sweeping generalizations that have NADA to do with ANY point in this conversation.

If you were to study the two examples that were already served up, you would come to the conclusion that it represents a certain type of 'myth' and that it has NOTHING to do with your persistent (irrelevant ) example.

Once again, if someone was to retrieve the other 58 examples... we could seriously chat.

Hey! I understand that it comes off as pendantic... when I repeatedly tell you that you've missed the point (no matter how many times it's repeated ), as well as asking you to re-read the thread...

But here is the deal... It's NOT about the credibility of the report... But their 'credibility' as Scientists.

Since they are Absurdists, any reference to credibility... is in FACT an oxymoron.

The differentiation between Scientists, 'Scientists' and Absurdists has been made ad naseum...

One other tiny detail...

>'the whole theory of medical myths'

I'm discussing the ACTUAL FACTUAL CONTENT... which would be the two examples that are served up...

Last thing, what you and Sofi are talking about, the level at which you choose to talk about it, etc. etc...

Just makes you two guys attempts to try to impose what is an allowable range of discussion/thought come off as the Keystone Cops of the Thought Police.

Not to mention... come off quite amusing in your rigidity.

.. a lot of people just recognised your utter lack of respect for scientists and your prejudices about them, instead of the point you're trying to make - that science itself is kind of a closed circle, and might reiterate itself - becoming dogmatic in a fashion. You see, the way you put things makes all the difference. By the way, for people who don't use the term Absurdists like you do, this is also the line in which you describe what you think of Absurdists (and it isn't too bright).

Geez Scraze... You would think that a guy that is SO committed to the pursuit of the 'truth' would MAYBE ask some more questions.



I've been thru the wars... And trust me when I tell you when I demonstrate an 'utter lack of respect for scientists' (Absurdists ), it is WELL deserved.

Further, I always keep it friendly... 100% due to the fact that you are an ATS member (Put her there big guy ), not because of a SINGLE point yet to be made and certainly NOT because you've appointed yourself Chief Apologist for the Absurdist camp.

I am curious about this demonstrated belief of yours that you are somehow able to keep lecturing me...



I'm surprised you're still in this thread... Based on your responses, you don't appear to be tall enough to go on this ride.

I'm offering (again ) to help you understand the parts that are (repeatedly ) blowing by you like a Nolan Ryan fastball...

But you WILL need to get off of your soapbox about the sanctity of those pot-smoking chimps that I refer to as Absurdists.

Because quite frankly brother, I've only BEGUN to talk about the Emperors nakedness...



[edit on 3-6-2009 by golemina]

reply to post by golemina


At this point, we're both telling each other that he's missing the point and should reread the thread. Obviously, we're not talking with each other yet.

The reason I'm still in this thread is because I'm not going to dismiss this whole ordeal as some might do - I don't believe in closing my eyes. Even though I'm having little success, I still want to know what makes you think your point was relevant. As it seems you don't believe I'm honestly asking a question, here it is once more, no pun intended: what makes you think it is important to discuss the credibility of the scientists if it is not to debunk the existence of medical myths? Or is it to debunk the existence of medical myths?

[ edit: removed quote & comment about scientists', was about 'scientists', not scientists :]

I've found that I've spent too much time on this subject, as in - we've been pointing the fingers at the other, and really haven't made any progress. I will still be replying, but I'll keep it short.

I'm offering (again ) to help you understand the parts that are (repeatedly ) blowing by you like a Nolan Ryan fastball...

It's not that anything is blowing by me - the most parts I do not agree with but simply do not reply to, as it is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. The only thing I'm trying to get at is what you think the thread is about - I've certainly told you what I thought the thread was about, right?

[edit on 3-6-2009 by scraze]

reply to post by scraze

At this point, we're both telling each other that he's missing the point and should reread the thread. Obviously, we're not talking with each other yet.

Not even close.

What you seem to be engaged in at 'this point' is a tactic often used by 'debunkers', Absurdist apologists/parrots, etc. that could be characterized as an obfuscation attack.

It consists of pretty much repeating the same thing over and over, not really saying anything, not really responding to anything, not really...

It's purpose is to frustrate or possibly even raise the ire of a possible slow respondent that might actually confuse such an exchange for a real conversation...

My only response is...

I have INFINITE patience.

The reason I'm still in this thread is because I'm not going to dismiss this whole ordeal as some might do - I don't believe in closing my eyes. Even though I'm having little success, I still want to know what makes you think your point was relevant. As it seems you don't believe I'm honestly asking a question, here it is once more, no pun intended: what makes you think it is important to discuss the credibility of the scientists if it is not to debunk the existence of medical myths? Or is it to debunk the existence of medical myths?

All three questions in this paragraph... Asked and answered.

It's not that anything is blowing by me - the most parts I do not agree with but simply do not reply to, as it is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. The only thing I'm trying to get at is what you think the thread is about - I've certainly told you what I thought the thread was about, right?

Boring me to death?



NOT working.

>'simply do not reply'

That you just admitted to playing games, not really engaging in conversation, refuse to even CONSIDER ANYTHING that is said...



I'm pretty sure that has been outlined as one of the major characteristics of being an Absurdist...

Not even looking at discordant information because it violates a LAW of 'Science' (or in this case, you FEEL it's only my opinion). Or my personal favorite, it's only anecdotal evidence!

Did I miss anything?



[edit on 3-6-2009 by golemina]

reply to post by golemina


About the subject of the thread: you're right, you've answered what you thought the thread was about. Tell me if I missed anything:

We were discussing the relative merits of a book by two scientists that supposedly exposed the REAL 'science' behind something like 60 popular 'myths' in the Breaking Alternative News forum at www.abovetopsecret.com...

Geez Scraze... It's TOO bad you simply DIDN'T get what I was talking about...

So let me rephrase.

The book in question is about two John Stossel types setting the record straight... Cuz they ARE scientists! (and apparently we, the public, are just stupid).

My efforts were directed at questioning their qualifications SIMPLY because they are 'Scientists'.

I lead/joined the lynch mob against Absurdists (the practice of which I documented in GREAT detail).

The discussion spilled over into many of the Absurdist parrotings... Evolution, cancer cures, etc.

To even BEGIN to understand what I'm babbling about requires you to step outside of the framework of what is served up and begin to look at the entire situation as a TRULY outside honest observer.

I lay out LOTS of problems...

- That this two authors are even practicing Science.
- The fact that the 'viewpoints'/'beliefs' they are supposedly correcting are in fact 'wordsmithed' to the point to be laughable.

So even if you buy into the merits of these two John Stossel types (I stand by that ), that they are examining a 'social process'...

The fact that they are purposely trivializing the 'beliefs' invalidates the entire premise...

And it becomes JUST ANOTHER DISINFORMATION campaign.

I've seen LOTS of these efforts... woven into the tapestry of a book (like this example), serial TV show or commercial.

If we were to examine the other 58 'myths'... I would easily make my
case.

There are tons of nuances which seem to be escaping you... And this isn't a classroom and your aren't my student.

So, I'll just touch on a couple of them.

There were references to Science, 'Science' and Absurdism. (If you pick thru the posts, you should pick up on the trail...)

The crux (yes, once again ) of it comes down to these two guys pretty much have NO clue what they are talking about...

And they are just selling disinformation.

And THAT is why we talked about 'the nature of Science or Scientists or the theory of evolution'...

As a sidenote be aware that MDs (except for ER med guys ) are ABSOLUTELY the worst Absurdists.

But here is the deal... It's NOT about the credibility of the report... But their 'credibility' as Scientists.

Since they are Absurdists, any reference to credibility... is in FACT an oxymoron.

The differentiation between Scientists, 'Scientists' and Absurdists has been made ad naseum...

One other tiny detail...

>'the whole theory of medical myths'

I'm discussing the ACTUAL FACTUAL CONTENT... which would be the two examples that are served up...

Last thing, what you and Sofi are talking about, the level at which you choose to talk about it, etc. etc...

Just makes you two guys attempts to try to impose what is an allowable range of discussion/thought come off as the Keystone Cops of the Thought Police.

Not to mention... come off quite amusing in your rigidity.

To summarize:
You think the thread is about:

[..] discussing the relative merits of a book by two scientists that supposedly exposed the REAL 'science' behind something like 60 popular 'myths' in the Breaking Alternative News forum at www.abovetopsecret.com...

and your motivation for posting:

But here is the deal... It's NOT about the credibility of the report... But their 'credibility' as Scientists.

Since they are Absurdists, any reference to credibility... is in FACT an oxymoron.

My efforts were directed at questioning their qualifications SIMPLY because they are 'Scientists'.

Is that right?

Btw, all the while I'm just trying to talk about your behaviour, not about what you're saying - although I have said some things about your statements, and I shouldn't have. I said I disagreed with most things but didn't reply - but I'm referring to the way you have been making most of your points. I strongly disagree with the way in which you choose to make your points. Although I may have insulted you with words as 'blabbering', I do not mean that you're speaking false truths - I mean blabbering as in ranting, going on and on. Again, it is about the behaviour, not about the content.

I'm willing to speak about the content - I'm willing to hear what you have to say about 'science' and Absurdists. But first I need to know why you chose to go the way you went, e.g. what you think the thread was about and what you think your posts added to the conservation - what I've got so far is that you thought the thread was about the book itself, and simply stated some things about the content. As you see, I haven't got a clear idea.
So please help me out by clearly answering this question. Of course you can say you have done it already, but I'd like to get some confirmation and just a clear view of your intentions.