ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Coronavirus

Reply
Old 11th May 2020, 11:34 PM   #401
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 7,778
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Of course I reject them. They do not fit.

Science thinks it has answers. First it presumes the non-existence of the supernatural and then says that even though the events cannot be explained, there HAS to be a "natural" answer. The square peg is hammered into the round hole.
The "natural" answer is, in fact, science.

Natural Science, defined as,
"Natural science is a branch of science concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena, based on empirical evidence from observation and experimentation. Mechanisms such as peer review and repeatability of findings are used to try to ensure the validity of scientific advances."
I'm not really sure you completely comprehend what science actually is. . .
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald

Last edited by EHocking; 11th May 2020 at 11:36 PM.
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2020, 11:48 PM   #402
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,544
Last night I did some research and reading somewhat randomly. I started off on quantum physics and ended on the immune system. What struck me was the very delicate (yet quite robust in terms of self-correction) balance of cellular signalling. Very small differences in voltages that cause changes. How an organism grows and how the cells communicate with each other so that they differentiate.

I had just seen this article which shows what can happen is something goes wrong.
https://www.foxnews.com/health/ct-sc...ys-case-report

And yet the Telco industry people say that the only effect is heating. Well, even heating on a microscale could cause problems. But it is the ion channels (particularly the calcium channel) that can cause excessive reactive oxygen species that upset things.

And yet not one person here will concede, even with all the studies showing harm, that electrosmog may be CONTRIBUTING to the Covid-19 pandemic through a weakening or an interference of our immune system.

I was reading how tuberculosis hijacks the macrophage cell and instead of being killed by the cell it lives inside and reproduces. And I see that 25% of the global population are infected with a non-active TB. As I read this out to my wife she reads me the Facebook page she has just opened of a Canadian friend who beat one disease only to be diagnosed with TB. Coincidence strikes once more.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory
The time lapse between trigger hair stimulations suggests that the plant can remember an initial stimulus long enough for a second stimulus to initiate trap closure. This memory isn't encoded in a brain, as plants lack this specialized organ. Rather, information is stored in the form of cytoplasmic calcium levels. The first trigger causes a subthreshold cytoplasmic calcium influx. This initial trigger isn't enough to activate trap closure, and so a subsequent stimulus allows for a secondary influx of calcium. The latter calcium rise superimposes on the initial one, creating an action potential that passes threshold, resulting in trap closure. Researchers, to prove that an electrical threshold must be met to stimulate trap closure, excited a single trigger hair with a constant mechanical stimulus using Ag/AgCl electrodes. The trap closed after only a few seconds. This experiment gave evidence to demonstrate that the electrical threshold, not necessarily the number of trigger hair stimulations, was the contributing factor in Venus Fly Trap memory. It has been shown that trap closure can be blocked using uncouplers and inhibitors of voltage-gated channels. After trap closure, these electrical signals stimulate glandular production of jasmonic acid and hydrolases, allowing for digestion of the prey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody
Antibody and antigen interact by spatial complementarity (lock and key). The molecular forces involved in the Fab-epitope interaction are weak and non-specific – for example electrostatic forces, hydrogen bonds, hydrophobic interactions, and van der Waals forces. This means binding between antibody and antigen is reversible, and the antibody's affinity towards an antigen is relative rather than absolute. Relatively weak binding also means it is possible for an antibody to cross-react with different antigens of different relative affinities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoreception
These organs detect very small fluctuations in the potential difference between the pore and the base of the electroreceptor sack. An increase in potential results in a decrease in the rate of nerve activity, and a decrease in potential results in an increase in the rate of nerve activity. This is analogous to the behavior of a current carrying conductor; with a fixed channel resistance, an increase in potential would decrease the amount of current detected, and vice versa. These receptors are located along the mouth and nose of sharks and stingrays.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine
Several inflammatory cytokines are induced by oxidative stress. The fact that cytokines themselves trigger the release of other cytokines and also lead to increased oxidative stress makes them important in chronic inflammation, as well as other immunoresponses, such as fever and acute phase proteins of the liver (IL-1,6,12, IFN-a). Cytokines also play a role in anti-inflammatory pathways and are a possible therapeutic treatment for pathological pain from inflammation or peripheral nerve injury. There are both pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines that regulate this pathway.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**

Last edited by PartSkeptic; 11th May 2020 at 11:51 PM.
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2020, 11:52 PM   #403
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 7,778
Fox News, Facebook and Wiki do not equate to scientific research.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2020, 12:04 AM   #404
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 12,270
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Of course I reject them. They do not fit.
They do fit, but accepting that requires accepting that your memory and your instinctive assessment of the probability that coincidences will occur are as prone to error as everybody else's.

You reject the scientific explanations for your experiences for the same reason believers in astrology, homeopathy and dowsing reject the scientific explanations for theirs. You believe that your subjective perceptions are the most reliable source of information there is, despite all the evidence to the contrary. It's sheer arrogance.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2020, 12:30 AM   #405
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 32,625
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Last night I did some research and reading somewhat randomly. I started off on quantum physics and ended on the immune system. What struck me was the very delicate (yet quite robust in terms of self-correction) balance of cellular signalling. Very small differences in voltages that cause changes. How an organism grows and how the cells communicate with each other so that they differentiate.

I had just seen this article which shows what can happen is something goes wrong.
https://www.foxnews.com/health/ct-sc...ys-case-report

And yet the Telco industry people say that the only effect is heating.

Can you explain why you think that report has anything to do with “the Telco industry”?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2020, 01:53 PM   #406
LongFuzzy
Critical Thinker
 
LongFuzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 260
P.S., it's interesting how you cite 'scientific' studies when you think they support your view, but then criticize science when studies refute your views.


BTW, how's your own research going?
LongFuzzy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2020, 11:04 PM   #407
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,544
Originally Posted by LongFuzzy View Post
P.S., it's interesting how you cite 'scientific' studies when you think they support your view, but then criticize science when studies refute your views.


BTW, how's your own research going?

Going backward through the posts. Research put on hold. My wife's factory has a guillotine (4mm stainless steel sheet 2 m wide) that needs to get product out. It is a heavy old Russian machine but a big old solenoid valve has failed. The experts have tried and failed to repair it. I have to give it a try. They are not competent. Most the competent people have fled SA. I have bought alternatives to try but they may be undersized. There are some solutions to that. Using two or three in parallel, or using a large valve as a blow-off.


Also her computer is locking up. I have done a back-up and have it limping although I should do a complete reinstall.

Yesterday I had a decent day, except I carried some heavy stuff. My back and new knee joint were complaining at the end of the day. But later today might be a good time to start.


As for "studies". Let me see. This is typical of some reviews. A review is done of about 200 studies. About half show harm and about half show no harm. When the studies are grouped by funding source, industry funded studies comprise 85% of the ones showing no harm, and independent university studies comprise 85 % of the ones showing harm.

What conclusion would you come to about whether harm is caused?

And how many (reliable, repeatable, peer reviewed) studies does one need to prove harm?

And I would ask you whether being a "scientist" makes a person completely honest and cannot be "bought" by a large grant with strings attached?

There are two studies I would ask if you would accept. One is that nicotine does not cause addiction. The other is that sugar does not cause tooth decay. They are both correct in their conclusion. But why would you not use them to support the tobacco and sugar industry?

Because:
While nicotine alone does not cause addiction, it does when combined with the other products from cigarettes. And sugar alone does not cause tooth decay, it does when it promotes the bacteria that cause tooth decay.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2020, 11:20 PM   #408
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,544
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
They do fit, but accepting that requires accepting that your memory and your instinctive assessment of the probability that coincidences will occur are as prone to error as everybody else's.

You reject the scientific explanations for your experiences for the same reason believers in astrology, homeopathy and dowsing reject the scientific explanations for theirs. You believe that your subjective perceptions are the most reliable source of information there is, despite all the evidence to the contrary. It's sheer arrogance.
One a clear day, I realize with a shock that the last of three bikers passing me at reasonable speed on an open freeway with light traffic will die just ahead. I slow down so I do not ride over him.

A few kilometers ahead, he is lying dead in the middle of the road. Probably a heart attack since he was not involved in an accident.

How does science explain that? It was not an hallucination. It was not an idle thought about a dangerous biker and then coincidence happened.

This event came at a time I was questioning things and not sure what to believe.

You need a big hammer for this big square peg and the tiny hole it must fit.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2020, 11:23 PM   #409
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,544
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
Fox News, Facebook and Wiki do not equate to scientific research.

Do you think that the facts cited are wrong? If so which part? Please cite a study that undermines the current biochemistry taught.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2020, 11:31 PM   #410
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 12,270
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
As for "studies". Let me see. This is typical of some reviews. A review is done of about 200 studies. About half show harm and about half show no harm. When the studies are grouped by funding source, industry funded studies comprise 85% of the ones showing no harm, and independent university studies comprise 85 % of the ones showing harm.
Link to any such metastudy, please, and the analysis that shows they are divided as you say.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2020, 11:36 PM   #411
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 12,270
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
One a clear day, I realize with a shock that the last of three bikers passing me at reasonable speed on an open freeway with light traffic will die just ahead. I slow down so I do not ride over him.

A few kilometers ahead, he is lying dead in the middle of the road. Probably a heart attack since he was not involved in an accident.

How does science explain that? It was not an hallucination. It was not an idle thought about a dangerous biker and then coincidence happened.

This event came at a time I was questioning things and not sure what to believe.

You need a big hammer for this big square peg and the tiny hole it must fit.
You've been given several plausible explanations the previous times you told this story. There is no hammer required for any of them, except possibly the hammer necessary to get it into your head that neither your memory nor your instinctive feeling for the likelihood of coincidences are infallible.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2020, 11:39 PM   #412
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,544
Let us suppose that there are two theories about the Prime Cause.

1) One is mine. That the only entity that truly exists is an Infinite Intelligence who is "dreaming" there is a Universe. That illusionary Universe follows the Laws of Physics. There is an illusionary God that is in another "dimension". He is not detectable using the Laws of Physics.

2) The other is that the Universe is its own Prime Cause and that it always existed, even before the Big Bang but maybe in some other form. It also follows the same Laws of Physics. There is no God or supernatural dimension.

If in theory 1), God does not intervene, what is the difference? Why is theory 1) false?

How are you going to persuade me that my choice, namely that theory 1) is more probable, is false?
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2020, 11:47 PM   #413
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,544
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Link to any such metastudy, please, and the analysis that shows they are divided as you say.

I thought I would get this challenge. It is a distraction from my point.

In the mean time, it was meant to show the poster that this sort of situation does happen - climate change is a recent area of study where one can find similar disparities in the "science".

Sigh. I will find it and post the link.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2020, 11:47 PM   #414
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 12,270
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Let us suppose that there are two theories about the Prime Cause.

1) One is mine. That the only entity that truly exists is an Infinite Intelligence who is "dreaming" there is a Universe. That illusionary Universe follows the Laws of Physics. There is an illusionary God that is in another "dimension". He is not detectable using the Laws of Physics.

2) The other is that the Universe is its own Prime Cause and that it always existed, even before the Big Bang but maybe in some other form. It also follows the same Laws of Physics. There is no God or supernatural dimension.

If in theory 1), God does not intervene, what is the difference? Why is theory 1) false?

How are you going to persuade me that my choice, namely that theory 1) is more probable, is false?
Nobody is ever going to persuade someone who really wants to believe (1), as you say it's unfalsifiable. Because you've deliberately made it unfalsifiable.

The argument against (1) is simply that the addition of this Infinite Intelligence is arbitrary and unnecessary. There's no argument that could be made for it being more probable than (2). The only reason to believe it rather than (2) is emotional need.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2020, 11:53 PM   #415
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,544
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
You've been given several plausible explanations the previous times you told this story. There is no hammer required for any of them, except possibly the hammer necessary to get it into your head that neither your memory nor your instinctive feeling for the likelihood of coincidences are infallible.

So it was a waking hallucination? And no-one can trust anything they think have happened to them unless they had video evidence?

There is a difference between a fleeting brief moment and a series of events lasting about 5 minutes. Infallible memory or not - it happened. And there comes a point where the odds of coincidence cannot be applied in good faith.

Once more I say - atheists first assume no God or supernatural and then assume that anything can happen as long as the Laws of Physics apply.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2020, 12:00 AM   #416
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 12,270
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
I thought I would get this challenge. It is a distraction from my point.

In the mean time, it was meant to show the poster that this sort of situation does happen - climate change is a recent area of study where one can find similar disparities in the "science".

Sigh. I will find it and post the link.
I don't doubt that there have been industry funded studies (smoking is the example that sprang to my mind) which were deliberately designed to throw doubt on what the real science was saying. I do doubt that, even in that case, there was ever the kind of clear cut disparity you are describing. As with climate change, the bulk of the studies done by responsible scientists are properly conducted whoever funded them.

Climate change actually gives a good example of this - have you ever heard of the Berkeley Earth study? A scientist who had expressed scepticism about the analysis of the instrumental temperature record performed by climatologists was hired by deniers to do his own analysis. He did so, and got exactly the same result.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2020, 12:04 AM   #417
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,544
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Nobody is ever going to persuade someone who really wants to believe (1), as you say it's unfalsifiable. Because you've deliberately made it unfalsifiable.

The argument against (1) is simply that the addition of this Infinite Intelligence is arbitrary and unnecessary. There's no argument that could be made for it being more probable than (2). The only reason to believe it rather than (2) is emotional need.

Are you or we in an virtual reality, or not?

Why is a virtual reality a complication rather than a simplification?

How do you explain the emergence of intelligence with theory 2)?

How does dumb matter possess the properties to drive evolution of the galaxies and of life towards the emergence of intelligence?

One could argue that multiverses are an added unnecessary complication, and yet they are taken seriously.

BTW. I have no emotional need. That is an another assumption made by atheists to support their belief that they are right.

BTW2. I would argue that atheists are God fearing. They cannot accept the existence of a God under any scenario because that might also mean the possibility of judgement.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2020, 12:09 AM   #418
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,544
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
I don't doubt that there have been industry funded studies (smoking is the example that sprang to my mind) which were deliberately designed to throw doubt on what the real science was saying. I do doubt that, even in that case, there was ever the kind of clear cut disparity you are describing. As with climate change, the bulk of the studies done by responsible scientists are properly conducted whoever funded them.

Climate change actually gives a good example of this - have you ever heard of the Berkeley Earth study? A scientist who had expressed scepticism about the analysis of the instrumental temperature record performed by climatologists was hired by deniers to do his own analysis. He did so, and got exactly the same result.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

You have accepted my point.

I am reminded of the story of Churchill propositioning a woman sitting next to him. She rejects his attentions but when he asks if she would consider sleeping with him for a million pounds she says she would. He then offers a hundred pounds and she asks what he think she is. He replies that they have already established that and are just haggling about the price.

Must go to work on the machine. Chat later.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2020, 12:11 AM   #419
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 12,270
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
So it was a waking hallucination?
No, that is not the likeliest explanation. The likeliest explanation is that you had a premonition and later saw something that appeared to be a fulfilment of it, and in subsequent rememberings have inadvertently embroidered the event out of all proportion to its actual significance. Your memory of the strength of the premonition has probably been exaggerated, for example, as has your certainty that it was the motorcyclist you had the premonition about who you later saw on the road.

Quote:
And no-one can trust anything they think have happened to them unless they had video evidence?
No one can trust that their perceptions or their memory are entirely accurate, no. Most of the time they're accurate enough to place reasonable weight on them, but to place huge life changing beliefs and actions on such a flimsy foundation is foolish in the extreme.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2020, 12:12 AM   #420
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,544
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Nobody is ever going to persuade someone who really wants to believe (1), as you say it's unfalsifiable. Because you've deliberately made it unfalsifiable.

The argument against (1) is simply that the addition of this Infinite Intelligence is arbitrary and unnecessary. There's no argument that could be made for it being more probable than (2). The only reason to believe it rather than (2) is emotional need.


Parting shot for now. The Infinite Intelligence made it unfalsifiable - for the time being. If it is true, it has nothing to do with me.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2020, 12:19 AM   #421
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 12,270
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
You have accepted my point.
I have never disputed that vested interests have made, and still do make, attempts to pervert science. I do not accept that this fact can be used to dismiss any study, no matter how well conducted, that disagrees with what you have decided to believe, or to accept any study, no matter how questionable, that gives the "right" answer.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2020, 03:26 AM   #422
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,576
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Parting shot for now. The Infinite Intelligence made it unfalsifiable - for the time being. If it is true, it has nothing to do with me.
I see you have abandoned the whole emergence discussion. Not a surprised, by now, you must realize you are flat out wrong. Again.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2020, 04:18 AM   #423
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,441
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
You have accepted my point.

I am reminded of the story of Churchill propositioning a woman sitting next to him. She rejects his attentions but when he asks if she would consider sleeping with him for a million pounds she says she would. He then offers a hundred pounds and she asks what he think she is. He replies that they have already established that and are just haggling about the price.

Must go to work on the machine. Chat later.
That was actually George Bernard Shaw.
Now, going back to the point about how memory is fallible.....
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2020, 04:33 AM   #424
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,441
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Let us suppose that there are two theories about the Prime Cause.

1) One is mine. That the only entity that truly exists is an Infinite Intelligence who is "dreaming" there is a Universe. That illusionary Universe follows the Laws of Physics. There is an illusionary God that is in another "dimension". He is not detectable using the Laws of Physics.

2) The other is that the Universe is its own Prime Cause and that it always existed, even before the Big Bang but maybe in some other form. It also follows the same Laws of Physics. There is no God or supernatural dimension.

If in theory 1), God does not intervene, what is the difference? Why is theory 1) false?

How are you going to persuade me that my choice, namely that theory 1) is more probable, is false?
Let me start with the definition of 'theory', in a scientific sense:
Quote:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
Your first "theory" is not a theory at all, because it is not based on a body of facts confirmed by observation and experiment. As it stands, it is simply something you made up out of thin air.
You appear also not to understand the concept of burden of proof. Theory 1 is your claim, so it is up to you to provide evidence (observation and experiment) to support that theory.
You claim that your various anecdotes are evidence of the supernatural (or whatever you want to call it), but that will only take you that far. What you are missing is the part in between anecdote and theory. For your "theory" to be accepted, you would need to show the chain of logic, observation and experiment that leads from your stories to your explanation of how the whole of reality is as you describe it- an illusory universe dreamed by an "Infinite Intelligence", with a spare god in another dimension as back-up.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2020, 06:21 AM   #425
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 32,625
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Let us suppose that there are two theories about the Prime Cause.

1) One is mine. That the only entity that truly exists is an Infinite Intelligence who is "dreaming" there is a Universe. That illusionary Universe follows the Laws of Physics. There is an illusionary God that is in another "dimension". He is not detectable using the Laws of Physics.

2) The other is that the Universe is its own Prime Cause and that it always existed, even before the Big Bang but maybe in some other form. It also follows the same Laws of Physics. There is no God or supernatural dimension.

If in theory 1), God does not intervene, what is the difference? Why is theory 1) false?

How are you going to persuade me that my choice, namely that theory 1) is more probable, is false?

How do you tell whether something exists but is undetectable or just doesn’t exist?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2020, 10:44 PM   #426
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,544
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
That was actually George Bernard Shaw.
Now, going back to the point about how memory is fallible.....

It may have been Shaw but the version I heard/read used Churchill. Just shows how good MY memory is.

Do some homework on memory;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory

By contrast, long-term memory can store much larger quantities of information for potentially unlimited duration (sometimes a whole life span). Its capacity is immeasurable.



One thing you also need to acknowledge is that memory on detail can vary but the overall thrust can be retained. For example, I do not remember the numbers offered, and the woman is forgettable, but you recognized the incident right away. And the thrust.

Thanks for proving my point about memory.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2020, 11:07 PM   #427
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,544
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
How do you tell whether something exists but is undetectable or just doesn’t exist?

I first wanted to establish that both theories (as posited) are equally unprovable and equally unfalsifiable.

Having done that, I now want to add that it has been theorized by scientists that one might be able to tell if one lives in a virtual reality. The test is glitches in reality.

Some people may see or sense a glitch and they immediately tell themselves that it could not have happened. Other dismiss them as strange and unexplainable. A few, like me, see them so strongly that they cannot be dismissed.

Mental telepathy is one phenomenon that is explained by theory 1). If two people are in the Mind of an Infinite Intelligence, they might be able to share some information by permission of the Mind. Seeing the future even for a short time is easy if the Mind allows it because the Mind has planned certain things.

People may inherently sense they are in a virtual reality and they there is an intelligence greater than they are. This explains the inherent bias of people towards the supernatural.

All these things are not explainable by theory 2).

Remember how Einsteins theory of quantum physics was first rejected. It was both weird and overly complex. But how else could some phenomena be explained. So the test to compare the two theories is explainability of observed phenomena.

If you limit yourself to excluding observations of consciousness then you limit yourself to classical physics.

The Mind has set the game up according to the Laws of Physics and only needs to intervene subtly. The game is enhanced because people do not know for certain.

The Mind let me see the Truth, but did not let me video it.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2020, 11:08 PM   #428
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 12,270
It's not the capacity of memory that's being questioned, it's the reliability.

It's not like a filing system, where the file stays the same no matter how many times you retrieve it. Every time you retrieve a memory it's a modified version you put back.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2020, 11:09 PM   #429
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,544
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Let me start with the definition of 'theory', in a scientific sense:


Your first "theory" is not a theory at all, because it is not based on a body of facts confirmed by observation and experiment. As it stands, it is simply something you made up out of thin air.
You appear also not to understand the concept of burden of proof. Theory 1 is your claim, so it is up to you to provide evidence (observation and experiment) to support that theory.
You claim that your various anecdotes are evidence of the supernatural (or whatever you want to call it), but that will only take you that far. What you are missing is the part in between anecdote and theory. For your "theory" to be accepted, you would need to show the chain of logic, observation and experiment that leads from your stories to your explanation of how the whole of reality is as you describe it- an illusory universe dreamed by an "Infinite Intelligence", with a spare god in another dimension as back-up.

Burden of proof. Okay - prove theory 2) is the only possible truth.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2020, 11:26 PM   #430
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 12,270
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
All these things are not explainable by theory 2).
They would only need to be explainable if they actually happened. So there's currently no problem for theory (2).

Quote:
Remember how Einsteins theory of quantum physics was first rejected. It was both weird and overly complex. But how else could some phenomena be explained.
This is nonsense. Einstein never had a theory of quantum physics (though one of his 1905 papers helped lay the foundations for it). His theories of relativity, which had nothing to do with quantum physics, were elegant and beautiful, and were not rejected.

Quote:
So the test to compare the two theories is explainability of observed phenomena
This, however, is correct. And there are currently no observed phenomena which require the additional entity postulated in theory (1).

Quote:
If you limit yourself to excluding observations of consciousness then you limit yourself to classical physics.
More nonsense. There is plenty of work going on.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2020, 11:29 PM   #431
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 12,270
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Burden of proof. Okay - prove theory 2) is the only possible truth.
You are the one claiming that an entity is needed in addition to that required for theory (2), so the burden of proof to provide evidence for that claim is on you.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2020, 02:32 AM   #432
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 12,270
Italian doctors find link between Covid-19 and inflammatory disorder

Quote:
The latest evidence comes from doctors in Bergamo, the city with the highest rate of coronavirus infections and deaths in Italy. Medical records at the Papa Giovanni XXIII hospital showed that since the outbreak reached Bergamo, cases of Kawasaki-like disease rose to about 10 per month compared with one every three months in the previous five years.
Of 10 children treated for the disorder between mid-February and mid-April, eight tested positive for antibodies to the virus. The two negative cases may be explained by faulty test results, the doctors believe.

“Our study provides the first clear evidence of a link between Sars-CoV-2 infection and this inflammatory condition, and we hope it will help doctors around the world as we try to get to grips with this unknown virus,” said Dr Lorenzo D’Antiga, director of child health at the hospital. “I have no doubt that Kawasaki disease in these patients is caused by Sars-CoV-2.”
So probably not cell towers then.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2020, 03:22 AM   #433
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,576
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Burden of proof. Okay - prove theory 2) is the only possible truth.
That is not how science works. All science is provisional on the evidence. Thus "theory 2" satisfies all the available evidence and is accepted. If new evidence comes to light then the theory will change to accommodate that new evidence.

Your pet "theory 1" has no evidence at all, yet somehow you consider it better. On top of that, there is no evidence which would cause you to alter or amend "theory 1". None at all. Thus your pet theory is not scientific.

Would you leap off a cliff because so called "gravity" is "just a theory"? How about the germ "theory" of disease? Would you ignore that because it is "just a theory"?



So. Any response on the matter of emergence yet? Or shall you continue to run away from the concept? What pattern will the ant create?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2020, 03:47 AM   #434
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,441
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
It may have been Shaw but the version I heard/read used Churchill. Just shows how good MY memory is.
No, it just shows the ridiculous lengths you will go to, just to avoid having to admit you were wrong.
You are effectively saying "OK, maybe I was wrong, but I was right because my unsupported anecdote shifts the blame onto someone else".

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post

Do some homework on memory;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory

By contrast, long-term memory can store much larger quantities of information for potentially unlimited duration (sometimes a whole life span). Its capacity is immeasurable.
OK. Here's my homework, from the same article:
Quote:
Memory is not a perfect processor, and is affected by many factors. The ways by which information is encoded, stored, and retrieved can all be corrupted. The amount of attention given new stimuli can diminish the amount of information that becomes encoded for storage.[2] Also, the storage process can become corrupted by physical damage to areas of the brain that are associated with memory storage, such as the hippocampus.[16][17] Finally, the retrieval of information from long-term memory can be disrupted because of decay within long-term memory.[2] Normal functioning, decay over time, and brain damage all affect the accuracy and capacity of the memory.
[M]emories degrade with the passing of time. This occurs in the storage stage of memory, after the information has been stored and before it is retrieved. This can happen in sensory, short-term, and long-term storage.

Research has revealed that individuals' performance on memory tasks that rely on frontal regions declines with age. Older adults tend to exhibit deficits on tasks that involve knowing the temporal order in which they learned information;[78] source memory tasks that require them to remember the specific circumstances or context in which they learned information;[79] and prospective memory tasks that involve remembering to perform an act at a future time.
It's funny, because this is exactly what everyone here has been telling you for the longest time, and which you flat out refuse to accept.

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
One thing you also need to acknowledge is that memory on detail can vary but the overall thrust can be retained. For example, I do not remember the numbers offered, and the woman is forgettable, but you recognized the incident right away. And the thrust.
I do acknowledge that. You, on the other hand, do not. Every single one of your spooky anecdotes relies entirely on those details- what you saw, what you thought, the time sequence etc. You have resolutely refused to accept that your memory of any part of these stories is flawed, even when inconsistencies have been pointed out to you.
You can rest assured that I will remind you of your statement here, the next time you rehash another of your yarns.

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post

Thanks for proving my point about memory.
Slightly premature on the victory dance there, old bean.
Try reading the articles you link to next time: might save the embarrassing pitfalls you have encountered here.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2020, 03:51 AM   #435
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,441
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Let me start with the definition of 'theory', in a scientific sense:


Your first "theory" is not a theory at all, because it is not based on a body of facts confirmed by observation and experiment. As it stands, it is simply something you made up out of thin air.
You appear also not to understand the concept of burden of proof. Theory 1 is your claim, so it is up to you to provide evidence (observation and experiment) to support that theory.
You claim that your various anecdotes are evidence of the supernatural (or whatever you want to call it), but that will only take you that far. What you are missing is the part in between anecdote and theory. For your "theory" to be accepted, you would need to show the chain of logic, observation and experiment that leads from your stories to your explanation of how the whole of reality is as you describe it- an illusory universe dreamed by an "Infinite Intelligence", with a spare god in another dimension as back-up.
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Burden of proof. Okay - prove theory 2) is the only possible truth.
Theory 2 is not my claim, so there is no reason at all why I should have to prove it.
Theory 1 is your claim, so the burden of proof rests with you.
In your own time, PS. I'm not going anywhere soon.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2020, 11:22 AM   #436
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 32,625
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Going backward through the posts.

You missed one:

Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Last night I did some research and reading somewhat randomly. I started off on quantum physics and ended on the immune system. What struck me was the very delicate (yet quite robust in terms of self-correction) balance of cellular signalling. Very small differences in voltages that cause changes. How an organism grows and how the cells communicate with each other so that they differentiate.

I had just seen this article which shows what can happen is something goes wrong.
https://www.foxnews.com/health/ct-sc...ys-case-report

And yet the Telco industry people say that the only effect is heating.

Can you explain why you think that report has anything to do with “the Telco industry”?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2020, 10:29 PM   #437
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,544
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post

Covid plus cell towers? Why not, since electrosmog can cause breakdown in the blood-brain barrier?

There are often two to more co-factors in disease. Often one co-factor is genetic.

You seem to take an all-or-nothing approach. Life does not work that neatly. Life is not a science lab.

You set me up as saying that electrosmog causes Covid when what I am actually saying is that electrosmog is possibly (and likely) a catalyst that speeds up both the original mutation, and also may facilitate the spread and the severity.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2020, 10:35 PM   #438
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,544
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
You missed one:

Oh, okay. I will reward your persistence.

There is ample reason to believe electrosmog interferes with cellular signalling because it is so sensitive. I call that common sense. An example of cellular signalling going wrong even slightly is the link I gave.

Yet the Telcos tell you it cannot happen because there is no heating. The public feels safe and warm and fuzzy because they believe the Telcos are the experts who would not lie for profit - would they?
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2020, 10:43 PM   #439
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,544
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Theory 2 is not my claim, so there is no reason at all why I should have to prove it.
Theory 1 is your claim, so the burden of proof rests with you.
In your own time, PS. I'm not going anywhere soon.

Okay then. Give me theory 3) (or hypothesis if you prefer). Your preferred choice of the Prime Cause.

If your theory 3) is provable then my theory is debunked. If your theory is not provable then explain why it is a better fit than either 1) or 2) to events in the Universe.

BTW. I gave theory 2) as what I take as the standard atheists choice in a form that allows for comparison.

If you have no theory, then why are you even in this debate? Of course, I do not believe that anyone can claim not to have a preferred theory (hypothesis).
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2020, 10:50 PM   #440
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 32,625
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Oh, okay. I will reward your persistence.

There is ample reason to believe electrosmog interferes with cellular signalling because it is so sensitive. I call that common sense. An example of cellular signalling going wrong even slightly is the link I gave.

Yet the Telcos tell you it cannot happen because there is no heating. The public feels safe and warm and fuzzy because they believe the Telcos are the experts who would not lie for profit - would they?

OK, here’s your link again: https://www.foxnews.com/health/ct-sc...ys-case-report

Nothing there about “electrosmog”. Your argument seems to be, “something bad happened, therefore it was caused by electrosmog”.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:14 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.