To Robby Pants (late responce)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-07-2015, 05:43 PM
RE: To Robby Pants (late responce)
(31-07-2015 05:40 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(31-07-2015 05:33 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  GWG already linked three examples.

But for my example, I submit the work of one Andrew Wakefield, who released a fraudulent research paper claiming to have found a causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
His 'work' has been thoroughly demonstrated to be inaccurate by every scientist who examined it; it has not a single iota of truth within, and yet people still cite him on a daily basis when arguing against vaccination.

You don't need truth, just sufficiently credulous people.

Without reading this research I know that there is at least one drop of the truth. Otherwise Andrew Wakefield would not believe it himself.

I suppose you had not considered the possibility of him not believing it? You are aware of the concept of lying, are you not?
A lie from a noted fraudster is not uncommon.

Furthermore; his paper has been refuted time and again by everybody (of scientific training) who has examined it. It contains nothing remotely related to truth.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2015, 05:43 PM
RE: To Robby Pants (late responce)
(31-07-2015 05:40 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(31-07-2015 05:33 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  GWG already linked three examples.

But for my example, I submit the work of one Andrew Wakefield, who released a fraudulent research paper claiming to have found a causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
His 'work' has been thoroughly demonstrated to be inaccurate by every scientist who examined it; it has not a single iota of truth within, and yet people still cite him on a daily basis when arguing against vaccination.

You don't need truth, just sufficiently credulous people.
Without reading this research I know that there is at least one drop of the truth. Otherwise Andrew Wakefield would not believe it himself.

Belief is not an indication of a grain of truth. Millions of people believe in bigfoot, and there is not one iota of real evidence for bigfoot. Scientologists believe that we are all contaminated with alien souls called thetans....not one iota of truth to this either. What delusional people purport to believe is true is not the litmus test for actual truth...not even a little bit.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
31-07-2015, 05:52 PM
RE: To Robby Pants (late responce)
(31-07-2015 05:43 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(31-07-2015 05:40 PM)Alla Wrote:  Without reading this research I know that there is at least one drop of the truth. Otherwise Andrew Wakefield would not believe it himself.

Belief is not an indication of a grain of truth. Millions of people believe in bigfoot, and there is not one iota of real evidence for bigfoot. Scientologists believe that we are all contaminated with alien souls called thetans....not one iota of truth to this either. What delusional people purport to believe is true is not the litmus test for actual truth...not even a little bit.

You are wrong. Bigfoot exists! I haz teh proofs.

[Image: sasquatch.jpg]

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2015, 05:57 PM
RE: To Robby Pants (late responce)
(31-07-2015 05:52 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(31-07-2015 05:43 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Belief is not an indication of a grain of truth. Millions of people believe in bigfoot, and there is not one iota of real evidence for bigfoot. Scientologists believe that we are all contaminated with alien souls called thetans....not one iota of truth to this either. What delusional people purport to believe is true is not the litmus test for actual truth...not even a little bit.

You are wrong. Bigfoot exists! I haz teh proofs.

[Image: sasquatch.jpg]

[Image: 2cmq1rt.jpg]


I do see the resemblance....

[Image: 2rf9dl2.png]

Consider

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
31-07-2015, 05:58 PM
RE: To Robby Pants (late responce)
(31-07-2015 05:43 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(31-07-2015 05:40 PM)Alla Wrote:  Without reading this research I know that there is at least one drop of the truth. Otherwise Andrew Wakefield would not believe it himself.
I suppose you had not considered the possibility of him not believing it?
Yes, I can consider this possibility if he wants to deceive someone. If he doesn't have this intention he has to believe it. He bases his research on some truth.
(31-07-2015 05:43 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  You are aware of the concept of lying, are you not?
A lie from a noted fraudster is not uncommon.
In this case he has to make someone to believe it. He has to insert some drops of the truth. So it would make some sense for ignorant people.
(31-07-2015 05:43 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Furthermore; his paper has been refuted time and again by everybody (of scientific training) who has examined it. It contains nothing remotely related to truth.
Can you prove it to me? No, you can't.
In order for you to prove this to me, I have to read the research and I have to understand it. Until then I stand by my conviction.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2015, 06:05 PM
RE: To Robby Pants (late responce)
(31-07-2015 05:42 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(31-07-2015 05:30 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I think what she's trying to say is -
Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble. - Joseph Campbell

But I could be wrong.
There is some truth(one drop) in your statement, my dear GirlyManSmile
"Every religion is true one way or another."

Why do you dismiss the rest of Joseph Campbell's statement? You have already suggested more than once that the Bible needs to be read metaphorically.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2015, 06:10 PM
RE: To Robby Pants (late responce)
(31-07-2015 05:58 PM)Alla Wrote:  Can you prove it to me? No, you can't.
In order for you to prove this to me, I have to read the research and I have to understand it. Until then I stand by my conviction.

At least you're an honest theist unlike QContinuum and other theists here.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2015, 06:43 PM
RE: To Robby Pants (late responce)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2015, 06:47 PM
RE: To Robby Pants (late responce)
For some reason when I quote I am having problems actually with the text being displayed or with deleting the post. So… here goes, post #2, sorry if it's displaying in full and I'm posting twice.

I suppose you had not considered the possibility of him not believing it? [/quote]
Yes, I can consider this possibility if he wants to deceive someone. If he doesn't have this intention he has to believe it. He bases his research on some truth.

No No No Fucking no. Wanting something to be true, and devising a study to prove it so, then falsifying the results of the study, is IN NO MEANS "basing research on some truth." I can understand, though, from your thought processes as demonstrated here--which are shoddy--why you think sincerity followed by fraud is the same as real science. But you're wrong.

Your characterization is stupid and venal. Not as stupid and venal as Wakefield, who knew he was on to a profitable thing and made literally millions, personally, from parents looking for something to blame for their children's condition. Poor parents, so unhappy and spending money and effort on this jackass, and the completely useless treatments he sold them. None of the treatments benefited a single kid, and all took money and time from therapies which would have helped at a crucial development stage.

As a parent of an autistic child, and as someone probably on the spectrum, I am sorry for all of the needless resources that were spent disputing this charlatan's woo. Those resources that could have been spent on evidence-baed research. Millions and millions of dollars, wasted.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like julep's post
31-07-2015, 07:02 PM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2015 07:05 PM by Free Thought.)
RE: To Robby Pants (late responce)
(31-07-2015 05:58 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(31-07-2015 05:43 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  I suppose you had not considered the possibility of him not believing it?

Yes, I can consider this possibility if he wants to deceive someone. If he doesn't have this intention he has to believe it. He bases his research on some truth.

So your argument is 'it can't all be a lie because he wants people to believe it, that's why he researched'? As opposed to 'his findings are known to be fraudulent and misleading, so he probably lied about them'?

(31-07-2015 05:58 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(31-07-2015 05:43 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  You are aware of the concept of lying, are you not?
A lie from a noted fraudster is not uncommon.

In this case he has to make someone to believe it. He has to insert some drops of the truth. So it would make some sense for ignorant people.

But you have not stated why it needs some sort of truth; if he were to convince the ignorant, why would he need to lace his deception with truths about a field his 'targets' are ignorant about?

This raises another question: If you did need to have some truth to sell a lie, how would people know what is the true part, and furthermore, why would they be unable to see the falsehood if they were able to identify the truth?
If they have the capacity to verify one part, they can do so for the rest as well.

(31-07-2015 05:58 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(31-07-2015 05:43 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Furthermore; his paper has been refuted time and again by everybody (of scientific training) who has examined it. It contains nothing remotely related to truth.

Can you prove it to me? No, you can't.
In order for you to prove this to me, I have to read the research and I have to understand it. Until then I stand by my conviction.

I refer you to the words of Justice Mitting, a Justice of the Administrative Division of the High Court of England and Wales, who in 2012 oversaw a review of the 2010 trail of the General Medical Council VS Dr. Wakefield, and his cohorts Professors' Walker-Smith and Murch on the GWC's charges of 'serious professional misconduct' (reviewing Walker-Smith's guilt or innocence relating to the allegations, Wakefield was not involved and Murch was found innocent in the initial trial, for background information):
"There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports his (Wakefield's) hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked." (see: section 7)

On a more scientific side, the following is a link to a recent research paper (published 2008) which, yet again, found no link between MRR, autism or GI disturbances, the keys to Wakefield's 'work'.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article...ne.0003140

For prudence sake, here is a link to the original paper published in the Lancet, now having been redacted.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet...0/abstract

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: