If we assume that a scientist is one who practices science, we can conclude that any scientist is a representative of science. Meaning that he/she functions as an agent translating the details of science into perception by other people. Some of these people come from the same field, so they may be happy with peer-reviewed articles and may not need to examine in detail all statements made by the scientist.
When this scientific knowledge spills over into the general public, these explanations are necessary. One, they will help the scientist to convey his/her message and/or persuade the public to do/believe/understand/finance/support, etc. Two, when the public understands the context, they are (probably) more likely to follow the scientist’s advice or recommended precautions.
It’s not our fault that practically every noun, verb and adjective needs to be translated from scientilese into English. The scientists at some point decided to play with meanings where it is not really needed. Like with “isolation”. We, non-scientists, do not take for granted what their predecessors said. We are trying to understand what is being told/written.
It turns out that scientists already have their holy guidebooks with precise definitions. They just don’t bother to refer to them. Reading that stuff could make their life more difficult. Why isolate something (especially when it is invisible) when you can simply press the “ON” button on the miniature table centrifuge? You only need to merge words to arrive at isolation by centrifugation, and you are good to reap your benefits. Right now - not after 15 years of failed experiments on how to isolate a 100 nm theoretical organism which is nowhere to found… as proven by hundreds officially confirmed statements from the institutions which are “the authorities” to these scientists…
The scientists act in good faith. They try to protect their ground. They know that they can not let go of their twisted language. If it happens, their whole structure will crumble down. They would need to return their titles, awards, prizes, grants, publications, patents, alliances, the past, the present and the future. No way.
For this reason, there will be no real, honest and respectable debate ever.
I love, above all, two things about this. One, where you say, "...he doubled down on his appeal to himself," after he had used the logical fallacy of appeal to authority--his own. A bit arrogant! He makes a logical fallacy of himself!
And, along the same lines, what really shines through is that this professor with a PhD tries to heap scorn on the idea of a mere personal trainer knowing anything about the scientific method, as if that disqualifies you, when the PhD clearly not only doesn't know it himself, but also he clearly doesn't really know how to think. And he's a college professor, appealing to his own authority instead of demonstrating that he actually knows what he's talking about! Rather ironic. It is very entertaining to read this exchange and see him embarrassing himself over and over, with evidently no awareness of his own stupidity, or no capacity to even hear what you are saying. Either way, he's a sad example of an academic, though, I'm afraid, probably not a unique one.
Mike, I noticed a very familiar stench from this guy. His denial of all facts is so reminiscent of the way COVID shots were pushed, coerced, and mandated long after they were proven not to work. It made absolutely no sense to put people out of work for exercising a personal choice that was proven to have absolutely no effect on anyone else. Yet, they did it anyway. They refused to listen or care that the facts did not support their tyrannical measure and in the process many people were severely harmed, put out of work, or even killed by the shots they reluctantly took to save their jobs. This just illustrates how dangerous this kind of thinking is. Pseudo-Science is a religious cult all of its own and you can't reason anyone out of it. If it wasn't real science that got them into this kind of darkness, we can't expect to use science to pull them out of it. It will require a spiritual awakening and a great dose of humility. Without that, real science doesn't stand a chance.
But, all of your arguments truly do serve a worthy cause even if it is impossible to get the blind to see. It serves as great education and practice for the rest of us. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. Thanks so much for your good work!
This is what I call above and beyond the call of duty. You demonstrated perseverance and patience. I was reminded of a story about the avian flu this past week and a scientist saying he had been studying H5N1 for more than 20 years. How do you study something that doesn’t exist?
I'm still undecided whether I should be happy that this guy is only up to mischief in a lab instead of a politician's chair. So it could be worse. I'm a hopeless optimist.
I wonder how these people exclude the possibility that they are leading themselves up the garden path with their methods, but apparently they have lost all shame as soon as they call up their bank balance. Good heavens, someone is paying money for this nonsense. The guy should be ashamed of himself.
Thanks Mike for this. I will use this to inform a bloke who believes in viruses. A clever bloke too. Lots and lots of credentials.
His latest claim to me are.
"As I already explained, viruses and even living CoV-2 have been observed in multiple states of their life by electron microscopes and confocal fluorescent microscopes. You can read about the latter case here, which includes 3D fluorescence images of SARS-CoV-2-infected ferret nasal turbinates, published already in 2021": he then cites https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8234815/
What a great elucidation of the illogicality evinced by people to support an unsustainable argument. You have the patience of a saint, Mike.
I find I have similar if shorter types of engagement with people.
I've never heard of elephant hurling before but I've seen evidence of it and it's a great fallacy to have identified.
I think people's argument tends to lack logical fallacy not because they understand logic particularly well but because they're not invested in a particular belief they wish to fight for. What I believe makes people argue illogically is not a lack of understanding of logic - they can have written books on the subject but still resort to illogical argument - but investment in a particular belief. As social psychologist, Carole Wade, says:
“People can be extremely intelligent, have taken a critical thinking course, and know logic inside and out. Yet they may just become clever debaters, not critical thinkers, because they are unwilling to look at their own biases.”
Bo Bennett, who has a PhD in social psychology and who describes himself as a critical thinker has written a reference of logical fallacies and a reference of cognitive biases. And yet he engaged in Argument from Incredulity and the No Discussion fallacy with me in response to my evidence-backed argument for there being no pandemic.
No Discussion (also No Negotiation; the Control Voice; Peace through Strength; a Muscular Foreign Policy; Fascism): A pure Argumentum ad Baculum that rejects reasoned dialogue, offering either instant, unconditional compliance/surrender or defeat/death as the only two options for settling even minor differences, e.g., screaming "Get down on the ground, now!" or declaring "We don't talk to terrorists." This deadly fallacy falsely paints real or potential "hostiles" as monsters devoid of all reason, and far too often contains a very strong element of "machismo" as well. I.e. "A real, muscular leader never resorts to pantywaist pleading, apologies, excuses, fancy talk or argument. That's for lawyers, liars and pansies and is nothing but a delaying tactic. A real man stands tall, says what he thinks, draws fast and shoots to kill." The late actor John Wayne frequently portrayed this fallacy in his movie roles. See also, The Pout.
I'd love to see what happened if you went on his website, Mike. Anyone can register and post a question about what they believe is a logical fallacy or ask if people think that a claim constitutes a logical fallacy. www.logicallyfallacious.com
You post a link to the logical fallacy of Burden of Proof on the site Your Logical Fallacy is managed by Jesse Richardson who is really just like Bo Bennett, a slave to mainstream thinking.
I'll tell you, if these ghouls are the best science has to offer, we are in bad shape as a society...it makes the virology deception that much worse....imbeciles like these are their best and brightest....
Without question, you're able to articulate very well with an amount of attention that many of us are tired of spending time discussing. You deserve a lot of credit for devoting incredible patience engaging "scientists" who try their hardest to claim those of us questioning "the science" are not knowledgeable enough to have such a conversation.
Once again you deserve a medal for your patience, Mike!!
Baldwin is not a scientist, but a technologist passing for a scientist, a distinction noted by David Rasnick in “The Viral Delusion.”
If we assume that a scientist is one who practices science, we can conclude that any scientist is a representative of science. Meaning that he/she functions as an agent translating the details of science into perception by other people. Some of these people come from the same field, so they may be happy with peer-reviewed articles and may not need to examine in detail all statements made by the scientist.
When this scientific knowledge spills over into the general public, these explanations are necessary. One, they will help the scientist to convey his/her message and/or persuade the public to do/believe/understand/finance/support, etc. Two, when the public understands the context, they are (probably) more likely to follow the scientist’s advice or recommended precautions.
It’s not our fault that practically every noun, verb and adjective needs to be translated from scientilese into English. The scientists at some point decided to play with meanings where it is not really needed. Like with “isolation”. We, non-scientists, do not take for granted what their predecessors said. We are trying to understand what is being told/written.
It turns out that scientists already have their holy guidebooks with precise definitions. They just don’t bother to refer to them. Reading that stuff could make their life more difficult. Why isolate something (especially when it is invisible) when you can simply press the “ON” button on the miniature table centrifuge? You only need to merge words to arrive at isolation by centrifugation, and you are good to reap your benefits. Right now - not after 15 years of failed experiments on how to isolate a 100 nm theoretical organism which is nowhere to found… as proven by hundreds officially confirmed statements from the institutions which are “the authorities” to these scientists…
The scientists act in good faith. They try to protect their ground. They know that they can not let go of their twisted language. If it happens, their whole structure will crumble down. They would need to return their titles, awards, prizes, grants, publications, patents, alliances, the past, the present and the future. No way.
For this reason, there will be no real, honest and respectable debate ever.
I love, above all, two things about this. One, where you say, "...he doubled down on his appeal to himself," after he had used the logical fallacy of appeal to authority--his own. A bit arrogant! He makes a logical fallacy of himself!
And, along the same lines, what really shines through is that this professor with a PhD tries to heap scorn on the idea of a mere personal trainer knowing anything about the scientific method, as if that disqualifies you, when the PhD clearly not only doesn't know it himself, but also he clearly doesn't really know how to think. And he's a college professor, appealing to his own authority instead of demonstrating that he actually knows what he's talking about! Rather ironic. It is very entertaining to read this exchange and see him embarrassing himself over and over, with evidently no awareness of his own stupidity, or no capacity to even hear what you are saying. Either way, he's a sad example of an academic, though, I'm afraid, probably not a unique one.
Hard to read that without wanting to say aloud, "What a retard."
Burki was another ghoul I absolutely eviscerated on TW prior to my suspension....easy to defeat them now, they really have no argument.....
Frankie Five Angels
Mike, I noticed a very familiar stench from this guy. His denial of all facts is so reminiscent of the way COVID shots were pushed, coerced, and mandated long after they were proven not to work. It made absolutely no sense to put people out of work for exercising a personal choice that was proven to have absolutely no effect on anyone else. Yet, they did it anyway. They refused to listen or care that the facts did not support their tyrannical measure and in the process many people were severely harmed, put out of work, or even killed by the shots they reluctantly took to save their jobs. This just illustrates how dangerous this kind of thinking is. Pseudo-Science is a religious cult all of its own and you can't reason anyone out of it. If it wasn't real science that got them into this kind of darkness, we can't expect to use science to pull them out of it. It will require a spiritual awakening and a great dose of humility. Without that, real science doesn't stand a chance.
But, all of your arguments truly do serve a worthy cause even if it is impossible to get the blind to see. It serves as great education and practice for the rest of us. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. Thanks so much for your good work!
This is what I call above and beyond the call of duty. You demonstrated perseverance and patience. I was reminded of a story about the avian flu this past week and a scientist saying he had been studying H5N1 for more than 20 years. How do you study something that doesn’t exist?
When They're paid to not see, They will not see... Kudos to You!!!
I'm still undecided whether I should be happy that this guy is only up to mischief in a lab instead of a politician's chair. So it could be worse. I'm a hopeless optimist.
I wonder how these people exclude the possibility that they are leading themselves up the garden path with their methods, but apparently they have lost all shame as soon as they call up their bank balance. Good heavens, someone is paying money for this nonsense. The guy should be ashamed of himself.
Thanks Mike for this. I will use this to inform a bloke who believes in viruses. A clever bloke too. Lots and lots of credentials.
His latest claim to me are.
"As I already explained, viruses and even living CoV-2 have been observed in multiple states of their life by electron microscopes and confocal fluorescent microscopes. You can read about the latter case here, which includes 3D fluorescence images of SARS-CoV-2-infected ferret nasal turbinates, published already in 2021": he then cites https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8234815/
What a great elucidation of the illogicality evinced by people to support an unsustainable argument. You have the patience of a saint, Mike.
I find I have similar if shorter types of engagement with people.
I've never heard of elephant hurling before but I've seen evidence of it and it's a great fallacy to have identified.
I think people's argument tends to lack logical fallacy not because they understand logic particularly well but because they're not invested in a particular belief they wish to fight for. What I believe makes people argue illogically is not a lack of understanding of logic - they can have written books on the subject but still resort to illogical argument - but investment in a particular belief. As social psychologist, Carole Wade, says:
“People can be extremely intelligent, have taken a critical thinking course, and know logic inside and out. Yet they may just become clever debaters, not critical thinkers, because they are unwilling to look at their own biases.”
Bo Bennett, who has a PhD in social psychology and who describes himself as a critical thinker has written a reference of logical fallacies and a reference of cognitive biases. And yet he engaged in Argument from Incredulity and the No Discussion fallacy with me in response to my evidence-backed argument for there being no pandemic.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/master-list-of-logical-fallacies
No Discussion (also No Negotiation; the Control Voice; Peace through Strength; a Muscular Foreign Policy; Fascism): A pure Argumentum ad Baculum that rejects reasoned dialogue, offering either instant, unconditional compliance/surrender or defeat/death as the only two options for settling even minor differences, e.g., screaming "Get down on the ground, now!" or declaring "We don't talk to terrorists." This deadly fallacy falsely paints real or potential "hostiles" as monsters devoid of all reason, and far too often contains a very strong element of "machismo" as well. I.e. "A real, muscular leader never resorts to pantywaist pleading, apologies, excuses, fancy talk or argument. That's for lawyers, liars and pansies and is nothing but a delaying tactic. A real man stands tall, says what he thinks, draws fast and shoots to kill." The late actor John Wayne frequently portrayed this fallacy in his movie roles. See also, The Pout.
I'd love to see what happened if you went on his website, Mike. Anyone can register and post a question about what they believe is a logical fallacy or ask if people think that a claim constitutes a logical fallacy. www.logicallyfallacious.com
You post a link to the logical fallacy of Burden of Proof on the site Your Logical Fallacy is managed by Jesse Richardson who is really just like Bo Bennett, a slave to mainstream thinking.
It's just incredible!
I'll tell you, if these ghouls are the best science has to offer, we are in bad shape as a society...it makes the virology deception that much worse....imbeciles like these are their best and brightest....
Without question, you're able to articulate very well with an amount of attention that many of us are tired of spending time discussing. You deserve a lot of credit for devoting incredible patience engaging "scientists" who try their hardest to claim those of us questioning "the science" are not knowledgeable enough to have such a conversation.
Did he take the shots?
The higher brain goes first.