faetal on 28/6/2020 at 20:15
Quote Posted by nbohr1more
I never claimed that I was 100 percent certain about the fact that the virus was engineered. I have only stated that I am fairly confident. So this attempt to recast the discourse
is pretty disingenuous.
Even being pretty confident on something this complex is leagues beyond where you should be. You seemed certain, due to your absolute refutation of anything which wasn't "yes, I agree".
Quote:
This reminds me a little of a famous youtube personality "Destiny" who "wins debates" by receiving his debate replies from "think tanks" and "knowledge specialists" who can easily trounce lay persons trying to engage with him
It almost makes me think:
"I agree with the scientist in the Forbes article. So what? Now you have to have 50 paid consultants help you script a scientifically plausible anti-narrative?"
Not sure what you are getting at there - sounds like a mangled version of "it's not fair that people who know more than me know more than me".
Quote:
Do you believe that the US bioweapon teams are "incapable" of creating Covid-19?
Anything is possible, but based on the total lack of vector backbone or selection cassette RNA in the virus sequence, plus the fact that coronaviruses do this and the mechanism of evolution of this one in particular has already been characterised, I'd say the simplest solution is that this a coronavirus, which transmitted from bats to pangolins, then to humans, where it mutated to gain its ability to transfer between humans. Might sound wild to a lay person, but to anyone who understands viruses, it just sounds like bad luck.
Quote:
Likewise, are China "incapable" of this feat?
Same answer. There are 2 possibilities here - the likely one, which requires the fewest leaps of logic, or the highly unlikely one, which requires a huge global conspiracy and for there to be entire disciplines of scientific thought whcih have somehow been kept hidden, by which mechanism, I can't even begin to understand.
Quote:
But I probably wont because it seems I am defeated.
Only a fool thinks of the words win / lose when it comes to discussions. You either gained something from talking to me, or you didn't. My aim was that you did, despite my tone tending to betray my frustration.
I don't award myself points for saying what I believe to be true. My aim is to reduce the information entropy between us, simply because we can't both be right.
Quote:
The leak with the most relevant data cannot be found through hours of internet searching so I am guessing that Google and others have expunged it in their greater
quest to censor the internet.
Try using Tor or at least duckduckgo. Google isn't your only option. Also, why are you going for the most exotic answer - AGAIN? If you are in the US and you hear hoofbeats, do you think horse or zebra? If you can't find it, why do you go for the conspiracy angle instead of courting the possibility it isn't there? Read back the part I posted above about cognitive dissonance, and then read your response back and tell me that there isn't some resemblance.
Quote:
So go and celebrate:
No - nothing has changed, you will go on believing everything just as you did - I have in fact failed.
Quote:
2) The continued Covid Deaths that will end Trump's reign
Who the fuck gives a fuck about fucking Trump? He's the US president, not king of the goddamned world. I don't even understand how Trump is president given the things he has said / done. Do you really think his brain dead supporters are going to let a virus change their vote? Also, why would I celebrate deaths? How does that link to anything I Have said?
Quote:
3) The deaths of conservative Bible Thumpers who are being pied-piper-ed into thinking that "Covid isn't real"
Again, why would I celebrate anyone dying?
Quote:
4) Your "minty fresh" "controversy free" interwebs with no uncomfortable truths floating around in it
Just because I don't believe your particular brand of delusion, that doesn't mean I'm an arun sweater wearing consumer of everything pumped out by the media. I've been an activist my whole life and I am highly distrustful of authority. I just have better filters than you do for absolute bullshit. But if your little valedictory flourish makes you feel warm inside, by all means, go on and indulge yourself.
lowenz on 28/6/2020 at 20:17
Quote Posted by Tocky
It pisses me off royal when people don't have truth as the ultimate goal.
Oh, the OCD :D
faetal on 28/6/2020 at 20:23
Quote Posted by lowenz
It's not how human mind works, that's how human mind can try to
educate itself to work. But it's a screen that sometimes gets wrecked 'cause it's a rational(ist) pose.
And so you obtain "old scientists gone mad conspiracy theorists".
See Montagnier and other Nobel Prizes gone mad.
Yes, nobody's perfect. Scientific training is almost entirely framed around trying to subvert this.
Saying "see one bad scientist" is not equivalent to science being bad.
What matters is the rate at which it is bad, and the magnitude of the badness. Science still comes out as the best method of interpreting the natural universe that we have, unless you'd like to propose a contender.
lowenz on 28/6/2020 at 20:34
Quote Posted by faetal
Yes, nobody's perfect. Scientific training is almost entirely framed around trying to
subvert this.
It's why a good bunch of people reject science and the "old scientists gone mad" become their revered references.
Sometimes scientists can't see this simple
social truth, that some people reject scientific rationality 'cause they feel this subversion as detrimental to theyself waaaaaaaay before science being "best method of interpreting the natural universe". It's a peculiar psychological aspect of the "science oriented society" we have today.
Just explaining why today a debunking "in good faith" can create MORE raging antirationalists and why they keep returning ever and ever and ever (it's not simple stupidity / plain moronity :p)
Judith on 28/6/2020 at 21:02
Quote:
What I'm trying to say is that it's not how the mind naturally works, the one of the scientists too.
I'm not talking about scientific truth paradigms, I'm talking about the "inner" working of the psyche behind the scientific profession and its gnoseologic deontology.
My post was more directed at Tocky's, not you.
Also, you're mixing some specific stuff up here a bit: deontology is fairly specific area of ethics, while epistemology (more common term) is a separate branch that analyses how cognition relates to reality (truth theory is one of its subbranches). The rest on the other hand is broad strokes: what constitutes "natural" in relation to mind was a subject of philosophical research basically since Locke, and there's no easy answer to this, given what philosophy, psychology, sociology and medicine came up with in the meantime. "Inner workings of the psyche" is early (naive) psychology lingo or poetry, etc., etc.
lowenz on 28/6/2020 at 21:55
Read "the personal attunement to scientific method, why this attunement appears in young students and how it evolves in old researchers" (cause it can totally disappear in some scientists still referred as "scientists" ).
This in relation to the "research activity", so I came up with "gnoseologic deontology" as the "professional but nonetheless personal attitude towards the scientific truths generation&management in the scientific community, in other words the knowability behind the generated knowledge".
It's not strictly related to the cognitive domain: it's not "what" we (our brain) can know (that's the epistemology domain), it's "how" we can create knowledge as human activity (totally aseptic research vs paranoid bias confirmation-oriented research, etc. etc. etc. there's no "one and only" approach related to a research goal and it's where you can see differences among the researchers/experts )
Judith on 28/6/2020 at 22:19
Oh my god.
faetal on 28/6/2020 at 22:31
Quote Posted by lowenz
"the personal attunement to scientific method, why this attunement appears in young students and how it evolves in old researchers" (cause it can totally disappear in some scientists still referred as "scientists" ).
Again with the widely understood knowledge being dressed up as some kind of gotcha. Humans being humans, does not mean that the scientific method is not useful.
The strength of science is in peer review and the number of people working the same material, not from The Scientists being some kind of ubermenschen.
Tocky on 29/6/2020 at 01:11
Quote Posted by Judith
The search for some kind of universal truth is more like a romantic idea we develop as humans, as we grow up.
I would say it's more a romantic idea we abandon once we have grown up. I wasn't talking about some over arching connect everything truth. I meant the incontrovertible ones of everyday life. It's hard enough to get at those with so many wanting to "win" an argument rather than just find out the most likely truth. And if that is OCD then count me in. I wish everyone were that sort of OCD. What is left but self delusion if that isn't what one is after? Just look at nbohr1more. He doesn't want truth. He as much as admits it in his diatribe. What he wants is to win. It does not matter to him that the truth is sacrificed in the effort. For so many conservatives that is their goal. Do you recall the definition of fanatic? To redouble ones efforts once ones goal has been forgotten. It's a mental affliction rather than honest discourse.
And LOL at lowenz. I can only deduce he wants to besmirch scientific endeavor while ignoring it's aims which are indeed admirable. It's not like we don't all know we are human and don't have to keep each other in line. That's why repeatability of results is important. Honestly though, I have no idea what he is shooting for. The whole conversation has veered into twilight zone or at least skating the edge of it. Wanting truth boiled out of all the language seems a reasonable enough yearning. The alternative is bullshit. I admire the hell out of faetal for wading through all the tiresome personality disorder to speak it. I'm sure you do as well Judith.
Judith on 29/6/2020 at 05:48
Agreed, or at least we have to abandon it, if we want to keep growing up.
I also agree that what we see above is a conversation going nowhere. You have two obsessive / compulsive minds here, both addicted to processing tons of data and spewing out their own chaotic noise as a result - they just have different goals. Nothing beats experience and structure coming from years of studying a subject, so people like faetal can come and correct the course a bit, infusing some meaning into the conversation. But since this is more data, it will get processed again, and you'll get even more Internet Ad Hoc School of Everything content.
