lying scientist

[woodsmoke]

I could spit nails!

I do not know the name of the woman, but she was "debating" with another scientist; and I caught the part of the debate that was after her name was shown.

She said.....this... a "liberal advocacy thing"...about something....

The opposing person said.... "what do you think of these apples...., please let me remind you that when "[/i]this[/i]" happens, it happens in opposition to "that", and that the things actually "cycle" and so you are really saying one thing but not saying what you know to be true about the other thing. This is well established data that has been published for many years. What about that?"

The woman did not answer the question but instead just "blathered" about nothing in particular.

EVERY knowledgeable scientist that is involved even remotely with the topic under discussion knows what the woman was NOT saying ...

and therefore lying by omission of known data.

This is not "model" stuff it is plain, hard, data.

And NO....it was not "global warming" ....

So....we now have "real" scientists getting on television and lying by omission so as to advocate something that will bring in government money for them.

This is wrong in so many ways....

But.....AT LEAST....... the "moderator" allowed the two people to say ONE thing and the viewer could tell who was lying if they had not drunk too much of the Kool-Aid.

woodsmoke

[pauly]

I could spit nails!

I do not know the name of the woman, but she was "debating" with another scientist; and I caught the part of the debate that was after her name was shown.

She said.....this... a "liberal advocacy thing"...about something....

The opposing person said.... "what do you think of these apples...., please let me remind you that when "[/i]this[/i]" happens, it happens in opposition to "that", and that the things actually "cycle" and so you are really saying one thing but not saying what you know to be true about the other thing. This is well established data that has been published for many years. What about that?"

The woman did not answer the question but instead just "blathered" about nothing in particular.

EVERY knowledgeable scientist that is involved even remotely with the topic under discussion knows what the woman was NOT saying ...

and therefore lying by omission of known data.

This is not "model" stuff it is plain, hard, data.

And NO....it was not "global warming" ....

So....we now have "real" scientists getting on television and lying by omission so as to advocate something that will bring in government money for them.

This is wrong in so many ways....

But.....AT LEAST....... the "moderator" allowed the two people to say ONE thing and the viewer could tell who was lying if they had not drunk too much of the Kool-Aid.

woodsmoke

While I agree to a degree. I don't wish to elaborate.

[woodsmoke]

I completely understand.

if one goes much further beyond one will raise the ire of one side or the other!

The big idea is that when anyone says anything that is directly, or indirectly, related to ANY kind of agenda, if the listener does not KNOW that it is verifiably correct, ...

that the listener should check the statement in some way that is verifiable.

In most cases the easiest way is that they should go to Wikipedia and read what is there and THEN:

a) go to the history and discussion pages to see if there were dissenting opinions/facts and how many times and for how long the discussion was made.
b) follow the links that are associated with a particular statement to verify that:

the statement is based on a real, verifieable, peer reviewed, article/book/whatever and not based on a blog or an "opinion" piece, etc.

And then one has to hold one's nose and jump, unfortunately.

Thanks again for the comment pauly.

woodsmoke



woodsmoke

[pauly]

Yes a large percentage of people in society make their decisions of information they receive based on bias. Lots of people do not research for opposing view points. Even people who claim to be open minded. There is a lot of junk science that is taught as fact in this day and age, but far from settled science. Settled science is something 100% of scientists agree upon. Even to the degree that scientist backed by media and govt. discredit opposing viewpoints and ridicule and de legitimize good scientist simply because of opposing viewpoints. Some science has begun almost as a new faith not backed up by evidence and is taught as a sort of propaganda in order to achieve an alternative goal. Mostly socialism.

[SteveRiley]

Settled science is something 100% of scientists agree upon.

A "doctor of homeopathy" would intesely claim that he/she is a devotee of science. But, in fact, homeopathy is completely bogus. So to think that something is true because 100% of scientists agree, or to think that something isn't true because < 100% of scientists agree, is probably not defensible.

[HalationEffect]

I occasionally like to poke fun at people who believe in homeopathy... I point out that at some point or another, somebody somewhere has flushed away medicine for any condition you can care to name, and because water treatment plants don't remove 100% of contaminants, all of those medicines are now (in extremely dilute form) present in tap water... so according to the homeopathic belief that "the more dilute a substance is, the greater its efficacy", then tap water must be the most powerful medicine in existence!

And I go on to point out that it's a good thing that tap water is such a powerful medicine, because people also flush away poisonous and bio-hazardous substances... in their super-diluted (and therefore super-strong, according to homeopathy) form, surely they would cause mass fatalities if they weren't offset by the amazingly powerful medicinal properties of tap water, as already pointed out.

[woodsmoke]

One of the original homeopathy treatments:

Liverwort....lay it on your tummy and it will heal the liver.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marchan...mic_importance

When students ask about "homeopathy" I indicate the Liverwort and how the original homeopaths used it and then mention two things;

a) If it actually worked for "most" people then the big evil pharma companies would be all over it because it would be a lot cheaper to sell it than to make the present meds.
b) HOWEVER.... apparently it does work for "some" people.

Soooooo if one is "en extremis" and the normal pharmas have not worked then go for it because it can't hurt at that stage.

c) If one is NOT " en extremis" then think about a simple thing... does it seem to make a difference such that one does not have to go back to get more.

d) One can then consider the situation in terms of does one want to purchase something that seems to only be a "pallative" from big pharma or from a homeopath.

That then, is a matter of personal preference.

But.... since big pharma does seem to work for "most" people then one should ALSO have "other tests" made to determine if there is a "hidden" condition which is ongoing to the detriment of health.

And again, if there is no hidden condition, then again, it is a matter of choice.

Same for "mid - wives".

Midwifery has been around for thousands of years, so it seems to have worked in thousands of years of "en extremis", in other words when there were no doctors or hospitals.

So... today...

What if the baby is going to be a breach?
What if the baby has a birth defect such as a hole in the heart?
What if the baby has the umbilicle cord wrapped around it's neck?

So.....again...... raising a kid is going to be expensive no matter how it is born....so...

a) do pre-natal testing both imaging and chemical
b) if there are no obvious problems then go for it with midwifery but....

As with Reagan......trust but verify....

Arrange with some kind of emergency service to be available if the umbilicle cord is wrapped around the baby's neck, of there is a breach birth.

BUT TO ME.....the bigger picture is that of:

a) I have not OFFENDED their beliefs....one can take a horse to water but one cannot necessarily make it drink.
b) My discussion has at least MAYBE ....got them to think in some small....RATIONAL ...way about the situation, no matter what they decde.

just what I do, and not necessarily what others should do.

woodsmoke