Free speech.

[Katman]

The threads playing out as all the threads you are involved with do.

Exactly.

My fan club is trying to get the thread moved to PD.

Which is pretty much what the thread is about.

[husaberg]

Exactly.

ME Me Me Me Me Me

Which is pretty much what the thread is about.

I think you may have overlooked the validity of the not so subtle dig at the lack of credibility of your arguments.

[Drew]

Exactly.

My fan club is trying to get the thread moved to PD.

Which is pretty much what the thread is about.

I'm not kidding man, you sound paranoid at a level that suggests you seek medical advice. There is possibly some chemical imbalance there.

[Katman]

And the really interesting thing is, if I were to turn around and tell anyone to go fuck themselves the thread would be gone quick smart.

[yokel]

You really haven't got a fucking clue have you. British troops liberated concentration camps too. Depending on the geographic location I guess.



Yeah, I'd say that if I was a German then too. Never mind the train loads of people just vanishing into a camp that never started to overflow, and ignoring the strange smells.

Freedom of speech is a fine idea, but you are an example of the down side.

Yes, there was some 20,000 camps so the Brits would have liberated some i guess.

But the soviets liberated Auschwitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp

And seen as the holocaust is an evolving story there's some interesting excerpts in that wikipedia link.


approximately 1 in 6 Jews killed in the Holocaust died at the camp

hang about I thought the majority of the holocausting happened at Auschwitz?

but I guess when the death toll at Auschwitz dropped by 3 million, using holocaust logic that 3 million must have died elsewhere some way some how??


Many of those not killed in the gas chambers died of starvation, forced labor, infectious diseases, individual executions, and medical experiments.

Some numbers would be nice.


The Allied Powers refused to believe early reports of the atrocities at the camp, and their failure to bomb the camp or its railways remains controversial.

controversial? you don't say......


There are no down sides to free speech, unless you have a fragile snowflake type mind.

[pritch]

This could get 'interesting' soon because about now the recreational chemicals will be kicking in. :sherlock:

[bogan]

And the really interesting thing is, if I were to turn around and tell anyone to go fuck themselves the thread would be gone quick smart.

Some of us find robust discourse far more interesting than telling someone to go fuck themselves :whistle:


Dude seriously, choose life.

Dude seriously, choose self censorship far, far more often.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm not kidding man, you sound paranoid at a level that suggests you seek medical advice. There is possibly some chemical imbalance there.

Husabergs been saying that for years.

Soon Katman will be telling you to Suck his Cock, calling you Shitforbrains, going on Red Rep sprees etc. etc.




And Katman - I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that your Freedom of Speech is being stifled.

[Drew]

I don't mind the red rep.

Hey Katman. You're on record as distrustful of doctors and pharmaceutical companies. If for some reason one diagnosed you with something and you actually took the offered medication and it changed you to think a bit more normally, what would you do?

[TheDemonLord]

I don't mind the red rep.

Hey Katman. You're on record as distrustful of doctors and pharmaceutical companies. If for some reason one diagnosed you with something and you actually took the offered medication and it changed you to think a bit more normally, what would you do?

KB would implode....

[Katman]

If for some reason one diagnosed you with something and you actually took the offered medication and it changed you to think a bit more normally, what would you do?

Probably recommend it to you.

[Drew]

Probably recommend it to you.

I'm medicated already. My problems are different though. Depression and anxiety are a little easier to deal with, and I'm one of the vast minority where dosage and medication are good straight off the bat.

Whatever is going on with you I expect would take serious trial and error to balance.

[Katman]

....and I'm one of the vast minority....

Make up your mind. :wacko:

[bogan]

I'm medicated already. My problems are different though. Depression and anxiety are a little easier to deal with, and I'm one of the vast minority where dosage and medication are good straight off the bat.

Same here (predominantly anxiety), having that baseline of experienced normalcy to compare to makes it much easier to identify the need for help.

[Katman]

<img src="http://greengroundswell.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Box-of-Paper-Facial-Tissues-with-Pile-of-Used-Tissues-190.jpg"/>

[trufflebutter]

https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/43250-Depression

Anyone??? :corn:

[bogan]

<img src="http://greengroundswell.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Box-of-Paper-Facial-Tissues-with-Pile-of-Used-Tissues-190.jpg"/>

Where are the dolphin pics to go with?

[Virago]

And it goes beyond that too.

When people's contributions to an argument are validly rebutted they will often give up on the argument and simply fall back on the option of trying to besmirch their opponent's name in order to silence them...


Exactly.

My fan club is trying to get the thread moved to PD...

Is that you Ed?

[Virago]

You can't be a "denire" of something that never happened...

You come up with some bizarre logic.

If I were to post that I'd gone to your house and punched you on the nose, you couldn't deny it, because it didn't happen.

Sorry about that, I hope the nose-bleed has stopped.

[Drew]

<img src="http://greengroundswell.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Box-of-Paper-Facial-Tissues-with-Pile-of-Used-Tissues-190.jpg"/>
Alright then. I won't try and suggest you might have a peoblem. The alternative is that you are a fucking moron. Someone so fucking dumb that you live in an imagined state all the time. A person who lacks the common sense to know real from fiction, because he believes the one in a million chance that something might have been covered up is worth thinking everything is false.

That doesn't sound like an illness at all...does it?

[yokel]

You come up with some bizarre logic.

If I were to post that I'd gone to your house and punched you on the nose, you couldn't deny it, because it didn't happen.

Sorry about that, I hope the nose-bleed has stopped.


It's not logic, it's language.
Calling someone a "denier" is the language of a bigot or religious zealot.
Someone that calls somebody else a "denier" makes any kinda debate or reasoning impossible.

I could "deny" you entry into my house so you would not be able to punch me in the nose.

[Katman]

That doesn't sound like an illness at all...does it?

Not like yours at least.

[Drew]

Not like yours at least.

Clearly not.

[Katman]

Clearly not.

I hate to break it to you Drew but I have never been diagnosed, in my entire life, as having anything that resembles a mental illness.

I imagine you, bogan and TDL will spend many happy hours together though.

There's probably comfort in numbers.

[bogan]

I hate to break it to you Drew but I have never been diagnosed, in my entire life, as having anything that resembles a mental illness.

I imagine you, bogan and TDL will spend many happy hours together.

I self diagnosed then had it confirmed by a doc to get help, which has made me happier. And I've never met Drew or TDL.

The first step is recognising one has an issue, the second, asking for help. The societal stigma that one should be ashamed of either of those things appears to be in decline, and rightly so.

[Katman]

I self diagnosed then had it confirmed by a doc to get help, which has made me happier. And I've never met Drew or TDL.

The first step is recognising one has an issue, the second, asking for help. The societal stigma that one should be ashamed of either of those things appears to be in decline, and rightly so.

That's lovely dear.

[bogan]

That's lovely dear.

You feel like self censoring that unconstructive drivelous reply to a topic you brought up? or should I get the mods to do it?

[Katman]

Please don't go getting anxious.

[bogan]

Please don't go getting anxious.

And that, right there, is why your threads end up in PD. Learn to eschew these pointless banal insults, and instead embrace constructive discourse, and your prized free speech may not find itself binned so others can more easily avoid the unpleasantness of reading it.

[nzspokes]

I hate to break it to you Drew but I have never been diagnosed, in my entire life, as having anything that resembles a mental illness.



Not being diagnosed does not mean a thing. First step is to admit you have a problem.

[Swoop]

I'm off to see the Dixie Chicks tomorrow.
THEY could tell you something about 'free speech'
With all of their fun and games with Dubya, they are well placed to comment.
Enjoy the gig.



Hey Katman. ... If for some reason one diagnosed you with something and you actually took the offered medication and it changed you to think a bit more normally, what would you do?
Steve requires psychotheraputic counselling for multiple conditions that a psychiatrist can easily identify.

[TheDemonLord]

I imagine you, bogan and TDL will spend many happy hours together though.

I'd have a Beer with them.

Hell, I'd probably even have a beer with you.

[Katman]

Hell, I'd probably even have a beer with you.

Start without me.

[husaberg]

I hate to break it to you Drew but I have never been diagnosed, in my entire life, as having anything that resembles a mental illness.

I imagine you, bogan and TDL will spend many happy hours together though.

There's probably comfort in numbers.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QS0q3mGPGg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pipTwjwrQYQ
Of course he still was successful though.

[trufflebutter]

Hell, I'd probably even have a beer with you.

His prior request would be for you to prepare yourself to gargle his DNA.

[Woodman]

Start without me.

Really? You would let some banter on kb stop you socialising with someone?

[TheDemonLord]

Really? You would let some banter on kb stop you socialising with someone?

Does it surprise you?

[Woodman]

Does it surprise you?

To be honest, yeah it does.

[husaberg]

To be honest, yeah it does.

Is that just because you are not taking into account of what is occuring in Mogadishu though

[Kickaha]

lawyers hate everybody. Its the rule

Don't worry the feeling is reciprocated, especially after my last invoice from one



Hey Katman. You're on record as distrustful of doctors and pharmaceutical companies. If for some reason one diagnosed you with something and you actually took the offered medication and it changed you to think a bit more normally, what would you do?

Define normal

[TheDemonLord]

To be honest, yeah it does.

I'm curious now - care to elaborate?

[trufflebutter]

Really? You would let some banter on kb stop you socialising with someone?
As of anyone in the world that is not of a virtual one, a lot will appear vastly different, they find life much easier to communicate (at a stretch) via a keyboard.

[Woodman]

Is that just because you are not taking into account of what is occuring in Mogadishu though

I have no idea what is happening in Mogadishu.


I'm curious now - care to elaborate?

Um, its just banter, you know a bit of a laff, not to be taken seriously.

[husaberg]

I have no idea what is happening in Mogadishu.
.

Well that could be one reason why you should be ashamed of yourself.
Consider the plight of the Armenian dolphins while you are at it.
Or the blue whales plankton being destroyed by chemtrails created by shapeshifting lizards.

[Drew]

I agree. Katman should not be taken seriously.

[husaberg]

I agree. Katman should not be taken seriously.

Should he be treated just as he is Brian Tamaki or other dubious religious zelots?

[Katman]

I have no idea what is happening in Mogadishu.

Nzspokes will not be happy.

[Banditbandit]

Smallpox is estimated to have caused 300 to 500 million deaths in the 20th century alone, before being eradicated in the 1970s by those dreadful vaccines. Perhaps it should have been left in the safe hands of natural immunity, rather than taint immune systems?


let's let the anti-vaxxrs have their own way - natural selection will take care of it ..


You're academic? Well that explains it.
Sometimes things are self evident.

Clearly the kinds people that go for the social sciences have a different mind set than those that go for real science.


Of course - what you call science is mechanical and repetitive - other sciences call for more thinking processes ..

[bogan]

let's let the anti-vaxxrs have their own way - natural selection will take care of it ..




Of course - what you call science is mechanical and repetitive - other sciences call for more thinking processes ..

or seek to educate them... https://go.thetruthaboutvaccines.com/sneak-peek/

To be fair, real science is mechanical and repetitive, the consistency of results and robustness of conclusions thus derived is what makes it science.

[Katman]

or seek to educate them... https://go.thetruthaboutvaccines.com/sneak-peek/

Wow, it almost looks like you've finally come to your senses.

Many of the people featured in that series have been in many of the countless youtube videos you've refused to view in the past.

[Ulsterkiwi]

What is this "real" science you all speak of? Bogan your definition is not one that scientists would use. By scientists I mean of course people who actually "do" science and not those who write websites or blogs with no editorial or peer review oversight.
An approach which is mechanical never learns. Experimental repetition is merely one way to address the fact that it is not always feasible to control all variables especially in complex systems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bogan]

Wow, it almost looks like you've finally come to your senses.

Many of the people featured in that series have been in the countless youtube videos you've refused to view in the past.

And I fully expect that series to see through and expose the bullshit such muppets (on either side) put forth; if not, I'll be unsubscribing from a certain naturopathy mailing list.


What is this "real" science you all speak of? Bogan your definition is not one that scientists would use. By scientists I mean of course people who actually "do" science and not those who write websites or blogs with no editorial or peer review oversight.
An approach which is mechanical never learns. Experimental repetition is merely one way to address the fact that it is not always feasible to control all variables especially in complex systems.

Experimental repetition is the confirmation of science, you can't do science without it. While my definition may have missed the creative step of coming up with the theory, there is only one way to prove it...

[Katman]

And I fully expect that series to see through and expose the bullshit such muppets (on either side) put forth; if not, I'll be unsubscribing from a certain naturopathy mailing list.

I sincerely hope you learn a lot from them.

I suspect they won't be what you were expecting though.

[bogan]

I sincerely hope you learn a lot from them.

I suspect they won't be what you were expecting though.

It will be what it will be, I'll be learning from it either way, will you?

[Katman]

It will be what it will be, I'll be learning from it either way, will you?

Absolutely.

I'll look forward to a rational discussion on what they present.

[husaberg]

Absolutely.

I'll look forward to a rational discussion on what they present.

Now thats funny.:laugh:

[Ulsterkiwi]

Experimental repetition is the confirmation of science, you can't do science without it. While my definition may have missed the creative step of coming up with the theory, there is only one way to prove it...

Uhm, not true I am afraid. One pretty good example to show why: there is a huge proportion of evidence driving medical practice which was not produced using experimental repetition. Unless of course you want to describe medicine as unscientific?
Some disciplines avail of experimental repetition, for others it is neither practical nor appropriate. That is not what makes the discipline valid or otherwise.
I would suggest that you need to be careful of making such broad assertions about something you are not expert in. I understand why you might make the statement you did but the statement is coming from a limited understanding of what the scientific method is about.

[Katman]

Now thats funny.:laugh:

How about you - are you going to watch them?

Or will you instead continue to argue from a position of ignorance?

[Ocean1]

Uhm, not true I am afraid. One pretty good example to show why: there is a huge proportion of evidence driving medical practice which was not produced using experimental repetition. Unless of course you want to describe medicine as unscientific?
Some disciplines avail of experimental repetition, for others it is neither practical nor appropriate. That is not what makes the discipline valid or otherwise.
I would suggest that you need to be careful of making such broad assertions about something you are not expert in. I understand why you might make the statement you did but the statement is coming from a limited understanding of what the scientific method is about.

He's perfectly correct, perhaps your understanding of scientific methods could use a scrub up. Observation and theory aren't unique to the field of science.

The bulk of scientific advances are based on proving those concepts, the product of many, many iterations of experimental work.

[husaberg]

How about you - are you going to watch them?

Or will you instead continue to argue from a position of ignorance?

I don't intend to log in as you. Incase it escaped your notice you are the one always arguing with the rumours and non-facts and unsubstantiated allegations.
But that said, gee you are on form tonight with the OTT narcissism. Kudos to you.

[bogan]

Uhm, not true I am afraid. One pretty good example to show why: there is a huge proportion of evidence driving medical practice which was not produced using experimental repetition. Unless of course you want to describe medicine as unscientific?
Some disciplines avail of experimental repetition, for others it is neither practical nor appropriate. That is not what makes the discipline valid or otherwise.
I would suggest that you need to be careful of making such broad assertions about something you are not expert in. I understand why you might make the statement you did but the statement is coming from a limited understanding of what the scientific method is about.

Perhaps you should provide the example then, because medical practice is based on experimental repetition. Weren't terms like like "double blind studies" created due to their medical application?

[Ulsterkiwi]

He's perfectly correct, perhaps your understanding of scientific methods could use a scrub up. Observation and theory aren't unique to the field of science.

The bulk of scientific advances are based on proving those concepts, the product of many, many iterations of experimental work.

I see, so when did you last conduct original research?
Science is not a "field". Science is a way of learning how and why things are the way they are. A myriad of disciplines are scientific. Science calls for a methodical, structured and transparent approach, identifying the particular question you wish to attempt to answer and developing an appropriate method to collect data which will hopefully provide an answer. The results need to be made sense of, essentially interpreted, and set in the context of current understanding and knowledge. The results and the explanation for them which is offered are then subject to critique from ones peers. That in itself does not mean the ideas coming from those results will stand the test of time, regardless of how many iterations were run.
It may surprise you to know that not all science is conducted on the basis of hypothesising and experimental repetition. It may further surprise you that for those disciplines which do, the hypothesis is more often than not shown to be incorrect and the results provide more questions than answers. More iterations of the experiments do not make the issue any less clouded. Hence my statement that mechanical thinking or process is not conducive to learning.
It's interesting that you say the bulk of advancements happen due to many iterations of experiments. Again calling on the discipline of medicine as an example, one simply cannot say that. To do so ignores the vast array of evidence produced by clinical audit, systematic review, case studies, case series, retrospective analysis, single cohort studies, meta analyses and epidemiological studies to name a few. Even the gold standard, randomised clinical trials, are not actually experimental repetition certainly not if we look at stage 1 and 2 trials and it's a stretch for stage 3 and 4 trials.

Absolutely, experimental repetition is important and an appropriate approach for many disciplines. It is not however the sole measure of the validity of a discipline or its scientific merit.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ulsterkiwi]

Perhaps you should provide the example then, because medical practice is based on experimental repetition. Weren't terms like like "double blind studies" created due to their medical application?

Hopefully the answer I gave Ocean will help.

Double blinded studies are a particular form of randomised clinical trial. It's where say a drug is tested for superiority against another. The double blinding means that neither the patient nor the person collecting the data on the patients response to the drug know which drug the patient has been given.
Now, as it is not appropriate to repeat the process over and over again in the same patient then lots of different but related experiments are conducted. That is where the patient cohort comes in. It is possible that a drug works better in one person rather than another anyway, that could be for all sorts of reasons. Alternatively one drug appearing better than another might be purely down to chance. So to obtain more insight the testing is done across a number of people. That number will be determined by a number of things, mostly what scale of difference you want to try and establish, this is called powering a study. Simply put, if you think a drug is 40% "better" then you will need x number of patients enrolled in the study to test that. If you think it's 50% better then you will need a different number of people.
Then you will need to see if any difference is significant, that is what amount of the difference you see is down to chance?
Bear in mind what you end up with is a statistical analysis telling you that on the balance of probabilities you can make a prediction about how a patient fitting the profile of those on the trial will respond a particular way to the drug.
And it's just that, a prediction. There are no certainties and no scientist will ever claim any.

Of course an RCT is one of a number of scientific approaches to gather evidence leading to an "advance" as Ocean (accurately) described it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bogan]

Hopefully the answer I gave Ocean will help.

Double blinded studies are a particular form of randomised clinical trial. It's where say a drug is tested for superiority against another. The double blinding means that neither the patient nor the person collecting the data on the patients response to the drug know which drug the patient has been given.
Now, as it is not appropriate to repeat the process over and over again in the same patient then lots of different but related experiments are conducted. That is where the patient cohort comes in. It is possible that a drug works better in one person rather than another anyway, that could be for all sorts of reasons. Alternatively one drug appearing better than another might be purely down to chance. So to obtain more insight the testing is done across a number of people. That number will be determined by a number of things, mostly what scale of difference you want to try and establish, this is called powering a study. Simply put, if you think a drug is 40% "better" then you will need x number of patients enrolled in the study to test that. If you think it's 50% better then you will need a different number of people.
Then you will need to see if any difference is significant, that is what amount of the difference you see is down to chance?
Bear in mind what you end up with is a statistical analysis telling you that on the balance of probabilities you can make a prediction about how a patient fitting the profile of those on the trial will respond a particular way to the drug.
And it's just that, a prediction. There are no certainties and no scientist will ever claim any.

Of course an RCT is one of a number of scientific approaches to gather evidence leading to an "advance" as Ocean (accurately) described it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, just what in that doesn't sound like repeated experimentation to you?

[swbarnett]

He's perfectly correct, perhaps your understanding of scientific methods could use a scrub up. Observation and theory aren't unique to the field of science.
The "Scientific Method" is not the be-all and end-all of science. A fair bit of cosmology can't be tested for example.


The bulk of scientific advances are based on proving those concepts, the product of many, many iterations of experimental work.
While sometimes true this applies more to technological advances than scientific ones.

[Ulsterkiwi]

So, just what in that doesn't sound like repeated experimentation to you?

I didn't say it wasn't, if you check back you will see that I said "Now, as it is not appropriate to repeat the process over and over again in the same patient then lots of different but related experiments are conducted."

The kind of repetition being alluded to by your and Ocean's posts is the idea of the exact same experiment being repeated over and over again to ensure the veracity of results. That is of course the cornerstone underpinning evidence provided by many disciplines. Let me be clear I have no argument with that.
In the specific case of a double blinded stage 3 RCT (a particular form of RCT) there are multiple iterations of the experiment but in different people, so there is no way they can be considered exact repetitions as the conditions change with every patient. A physicist may run an experiment 3 times because they can control things to the extent its the same experiment on each of those 3 occasions. That will give them enough to publish. Medical science cannot do that, hence needing dozens, hundreds and sometimes thousands of different but related experiments to add sufficient weight to any evidence. It is still just that, evidence for consideration, not absolute proof.
You asked specifically about double blinding, I was attempting to answer that question. So, we could get into an argument about semantics, not helpful.

Hence, my general point is there are many valid scientific methods of producing evidence which do not involve experimental repetition. Please step back a little bit and consider that.
With the list I gave in my reply to Ocean I have provided a range of examples of methodological approaches which is by no means exhaustive but all have a place in establishing the evidence which drives medical practice.

A stand out example was the case of Fenoterol, a drug used to treat asthma. A group of scientific researchers suspected that the drug was actually responsible for a number of asthma related deaths. They went to the library and archives, not the laboratory or the wards. Their publication in the Lancet at the end of their study was explosive and if the story had happened in the US and not NZ it would have been made into a movie by now. The drug was removed from use and yet not a single experiment was conducted to reach their scientific conclusion.

Lets take another example. I think we can all agree that Stephen Hawking is a scientist yes? He has written about the concept of models to explain various phenomena. At times those models work well and withstand repetitive experimentation. He also explains however that sometimes a model just cannot adequately explain what is going on. No amount of experimental iterations will change that. The only response is to come up with a new model.
The test therefore for knowledge to stand is not necessarily repeated experiments, rather we need to ask "does this explain what we need explained?"

[TheDemonLord]

The test therefore for knowledge to stand is not necessarily repeated experiments, rather we need to ask "does this explain what we need explained?"

To play the Devil's advocate for the moment:

How does your knowledge hold up when the explanation is "God did/does it"

[swbarnett]

To play the Devil's advocate for the moment:

How does your knowledge hold up when the explanation is "God did/does it"
I strongly suggest you read "The God Delusion" with a truly open mind.

[Ulsterkiwi]

To play the Devil's advocate for the moment:

How does your knowledge hold up when the explanation is "God did/does it"

That is probably playing the devils advocate in a more literal sense of the phrase. ;)
I thought we were talking about scientific methodologies?
You have moved the conversation into philosophy, specifically epistemology. That of course leads to one's ontological framework or assumptions.
The argument is that experimentation cannot prove God did it. Neither can experimentation prove God did not. Experimentation cannot solve the philosophical question does God exist so one's ontology may include the assumption that he does (or that he does not).
Dawkins is keen to argue he does not. I take the view that there are things that we do not understand and scientific study has yet to provide an explanation. It's not "my" knowledge per se but there are models which use the "God did it" premise. They do not tend to be complete, falling over at some point or at the very least leaving unsatisfactory gaps. That is usually when we hear the phrase "mysterious ways". At that point we have moved into faith and that's completely off topic.

To return to the point I was trying to make. One can try to answer a question in a scientific manner that does not necessarily include experimental repetition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Berries]

I can hear Ed turning in his grave.

[Katman]

I don't intend to log in as you. Incase it escaped your notice you are the one always arguing with the rumours and non-facts and unsubstantiated allegations.
But that said, gee you are on form tonight with the OTT narcissism. Kudos to you.

Yeah, I never really imagined you'd be interested in opening your mind.

I trust that now bogan has publicly stated his intention to watch the series with an open mind, that he'll follow through with it.

I suspect I might be disappointed though.

[Ocean1]

I see, so when did you last conduct original research?
Science is not a "field". Science is a way of learning how and why things are the way they are. A myriad of disciplines are scientific. Science calls for a methodical, structured and transparent approach, identifying the particular question you wish to attempt to answer and developing an appropriate method to collect data which will hopefully provide an answer. The results need to be made sense of, essentially interpreted, and set in the context of current understanding and knowledge. The results and the explanation for them which is offered are then subject to critique from ones peers. That in itself does not mean the ideas coming from those results will stand the test of time, regardless of how many iterations were run.
It may surprise you to know that not all science is conducted on the basis of hypothesising and experimental repetition. It may further surprise you that for those disciplines which do, the hypothesis is more often than not shown to be incorrect and the results provide more questions than answers. More iterations of the experiments do not make the issue any less clouded. Hence my statement that mechanical thinking or process is not conducive to learning.
It's interesting that you say the bulk of advancements happen due to many iterations of experiments. Again calling on the discipline of medicine as an example, one simply cannot say that. To do so ignores the vast array of evidence produced by clinical audit, systematic review, case studies, case series, retrospective analysis, single cohort studies, meta analyses and epidemiological studies to name a few. Even the gold standard, randomised clinical trials, are not actually experimental repetition certainly not if we look at stage 1 and 2 trials and it's a stretch for stage 3 and 4 trials.

Absolutely, experimental repetition is important and an appropriate approach for many disciplines. It is not however the sole measure of the validity of a discipline or its scientific merit.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Original? Can't be sure. Research? Most days.

Science is most certainly a "field" insomuch as there are professionals that earn their crust doing "pure" science of one sort or another. Perhaps you're confusing that with "scientific method", which describes behaviors somewhat beyond the science found in classrooms.

And I still insist that it's a fucking rare scientific proof that doesn't involve more than one experiment.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Original? Can't be sure. Research? Most days.

Science is most certainly a "field" insomuch as there are professionals that earn their crust doing "pure" science of one sort or another. Perhaps you're confusing that with "scientific method", which describes behaviors somewhat beyond the science found in classrooms.

And I still insist that it's a fucking rare scientific proof that doesn't involve more than one experiment.

I suppose we may have to agree to disagree.

By original research I mean are you producing research or consuming it? Original research involves the identification of a question, the design of a study to address the question, collecting and analysing data to produce results, reporting those results to make a cogent argument which expands or adds to the knowledge base. Consuming research is using what others have done to inform what you are doing or help you solve a problem. It does not entail adding to the knowledge base.

Your definition of "pure" may be a factor as well. The likelihood is we end up in a circular argument as to whether or not you are talking about physics, chemistry and biology which is the school definition of science.

I am not confused, science is the structured or systematic endeavour to understand the world around us. What you describe as "the classroom" is simply a term applied to a place to learn which can be physical or abstract, we could equally well use the term "laboratory" to convey the idea. To that end, don't be too dismissive of "the classroom".

Again your choice of term with respect to "proof" is interesting. Scientists present evidence gathered in the manner described above. It is common to use absolute terms like "proof" when no absolute was intended or inferred.
Again, I have given examples where scientific evidence guides what we do but no experiments were conducted. SWBarnett also made some suggestions for consideration. So again what I am saying is experimental repetition is not the be-all and end-all of assessing the value of scientific evidence. That does not derail or otherwise threaten the high value we can place on evidence supported by experimental repetition.
Tomorrow we may learn something which forces us to revise what we have accepted as being the case today so science does not always deal in absolutes and some seem to have issue with that.

[Voltaire]

I strongly suggest you read "The God Delusion" with a truly open mind.

Also available on U Tube


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ7GvwUsJ7w

[TheDemonLord]

I strongly suggest you read "The God Delusion" with a truly open mind.

I think we may be talking cross purposes (although I must confess, I've yet to read that book in full, am quite familiar and quite a fan of Dawkins) - See below which hopefully clarifies what I meant


That is probably playing the devils advocate in a more literal sense of the phrase. ;)
I thought we were talking about scientific methodologies?

We are, however my point was to highlight that just because a model explains something does not grant it any form of accuracy or validity.


You have moved the conversation into philosophy, specifically epistemology. That of course leads to one's ontological framework or assumptions.
The argument is that experimentation cannot prove God did it. Neither can experimentation prove God did not. Experimentation cannot solve the philosophical question does God exist so one's ontology may include the assumption that he does (or that he does not).

Not really - as above, a model that explains something is not the be-all and end-all, It's an important part, don't get me wrong, but it's missing a key step - being that each aspect that the model is built on needs to be isolated and tested to confirm it is as close to an accurate representation of reality as we are currently able to predict (until such time as a better, more accurate model comes along)



Dawkins is keen to argue he does not. I take the view that there are things that we do not understand and scientific study has yet to provide an explanation. It's not "my" knowledge per se but there are models which use the "God did it" premise. They do not tend to be complete, falling over at some point or at the very least leaving unsatisfactory gaps. That is usually when we hear the phrase "mysterious ways".

Which is essentially my critique, I could fill in any infinite number of gaps with an infinite number of God(s) who do or did things - but that does not make an accurate model (as above).



At that point we have moved into faith and that's completely off topic.

not reaaaaaally - the Faith part was used to highlight the shortcomming of your test for knowledge.


To return to the point I was trying to make. One can try to answer a question in a scientific manner that does not necessarily include experimental repetition.

Whilst that is indeed true, ultimately the authority as to whether or not the answer is valid comes from testing the answer. Sometimes that test could be in the form of a thought experiment (such as Galileo and his cannonballs off the side of the Leaning Tower of Pizza) though

[Ulsterkiwi]

We are, however my point was to highlight that just because a model explains something does not grant it any form of accuracy or validity.



Not really - as above, a model that explains something is not the be-all and end-all, It's an important part, don't get me wrong, but it's missing a key step - being that each aspect that the model is built on needs to be isolated and tested to confirm it is as close to an accurate representation of reality as we are currently able to predict (until such time as a better, more accurate model comes along)




Which is essentially my critique, I could fill in any infinite number of gaps with an infinite number of God(s) who do or did things - but that does not make an accurate model (as above).




not reaaaaaally - the Faith part was used to highlight the shortcomming of your test for knowledge.



Whilst that is indeed true, ultimately the authority as to whether or not the answer is valid comes from testing the answer. Sometimes that test could be in the form of a thought experiment (such as Galileo and his cannonballs off the side of the Leaning Tower of Pizza) though

He wasn't the only one talking at cross purposes.

Again people speak of something without really knowing what they speak of. A model is developed through a combination of some or all of observation, description, narrative and experimentation; not the other way around. The testing happens on the way, not at the end. Using the model which results is fine until you try to use it to explain something else, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, time for a new model in that case.
Its not my test for knowledge, its what science uses, and the test stands. The proposed model which includes the assumption God (in whatever form you wish him or her to take) exists will not explain satisfactorily without calling on faith, which is belief without evidence. (That is Dawkin's definition by the way) That is what I was saying and it means the attempt to build the model falls over. So how exactly does that show a shortcoming of "my" test for knowledge. You are creating an argument that does not exist, at least not from my perspective.

And no single component, test or form of evidence is the be-all or end-all is kind of the entire point I was making. To say experimental repetition is the only way to produce evidence is short sighted and unnecessarily restricting. Some evidence tells us more or convinces us more than other others but we seem to be accepting of that when it suits our purposes. The legal system is a case in point.

Another example, which is a bit silly but shows the inherent silliness in dismissing evidence because you do not understand it. Separate someone's head from their body and they die, right? That is patently obvious. Do we really need to repeat that as a controlled experiment multiple times to evidence it? How many times can you kill someone anyway? Do we even need a single iteration of the experiment? Not really because all the observational, descriptive and narrational evidence tells us death will be the result. Feel free to separate your head from your body to test this experimentally! ;)

[Banditbandit]

or seek to educate them... https://go.thetruthaboutvaccines.com/sneak-peek/

To be fair, real science is mechanical and repetitive, the consistency of results and robustness of conclusions thus derived is what makes it science.


Maybe ... read Feyerabend's Against Method .. what makes it science is that people agree it is science ....





Experimental repetition is the confirmation of science, you can't do science without it. While my definition may have missed the creative step of coming up with the theory, there is only one way to prove it...


No - trhe proof lies in the discourse that surrounds the actions - even Kuhn recognised that ..



I see, so when did you last conduct original research?
Science is not a "field". Science is a way of learning how and why things are the way they are. A myriad of disciplines are scientific. Science calls for a methodical, structured and transparent approach, identifying the particular question you wish to attempt to answer and developing an appropriate method to collect data which will hopefully provide an answer. The results need to be made sense of, essentially interpreted, and set in the context of current understanding and knowledge. The results and the explanation for them which is offered are then subject to critique from ones peers. That in itself does not mean the ideas coming from those results will stand the test of time, regardless of how many iterations were run.
It may surprise you to know that not all science is conducted on the basis of hypothesising and experimental repetition. It may further surprise you that for those disciplines which do, the hypothesis is more often than not shown to be incorrect and the results provide more questions than answers. More iterations of the experiments do not make the issue any less clouded. Hence my statement that mechanical thinking or process is not conducive to learning.
It's interesting that you say the bulk of advancements happen due to many iterations of experiments. Again calling on the discipline of medicine as an example, one simply cannot say that. To do so ignores the vast array of evidence produced by clinical audit, systematic review, case studies, case series, retrospective analysis, single cohort studies, meta analyses and epidemiological studies to name a few. Even the gold standard, randomised clinical trials, are not actually experimental repetition certainly not if we look at stage 1 and 2 trials and it's a stretch for stage 3 and 4 trials.

Absolutely, experimental repetition is important and an appropriate approach for many disciplines. It is not however the sole measure of the validity of a discipline or its scientific merit.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

See .. they all think that piling up a minutiae of facts will lead somewhere ... but they are wrong - stuck in the Popperian world ..

[swbarnett]

A model is developed through a combination of some or all of observation, description, narrative and experimentation;
You missed one - inspiration; those leaps of the lateral thinker that are obvious when worked backwards but others are left wondering how the hell they came up with it.

[Ulsterkiwi]

You missed one - inspiration; those leaps of the lateral thinker that are obvious when worked backwards but others are left wondering how the hell they came up with it.

lol you are quite right! That and a little serendipity! There is a story that Alexander Fleming was a bit sloppy in his technique. The mould appeared because he didn't clean up properly. Its probably just that, a story but sometimes the pieces just slot together.

[bogan]

I didn't say it wasn't, if you check back you will see that I said "Now, as it is not appropriate to repeat the process over and over again in the same patient then lots of different but related experiments are conducted."

The kind of repetition being alluded to by your and Ocean's posts is the idea of the exact same experiment being repeated over and over again to ensure the veracity of results. That is of course the cornerstone underpinning evidence provided by many disciplines. Let me be clear I have no argument with that.
In the specific case of a double blinded stage 3 RCT (a particular form of RCT) there are multiple iterations of the experiment but in different people, so there is no way they can be considered exact repetitions as the conditions change with every patient. A physicist may run an experiment 3 times because they can control things to the extent its the same experiment on each of those 3 occasions. That will give them enough to publish. Medical science cannot do that, hence needing dozens, hundreds and sometimes thousands of different but related experiments to add sufficient weight to any evidence. It is still just that, evidence for consideration, not absolute proof.
You asked specifically about double blinding, I was attempting to answer that question. So, we could get into an argument about semantics, not helpful.

Hence, my general point is there are many valid scientific methods of producing evidence which do not involve experimental repetition. Please step back a little bit and consider that.
With the list I gave in my reply to Ocean I have provided a range of examples of methodological approaches which is by no means exhaustive but all have a place in establishing the evidence which drives medical practice.

A stand out example was the case of Fenoterol, a drug used to treat asthma. A group of scientific researchers suspected that the drug was actually responsible for a number of asthma related deaths. They went to the library and archives, not the laboratory or the wards. Their publication in the Lancet at the end of their study was explosive and if the story had happened in the US and not NZ it would have been made into a movie by now. The drug was removed from use and yet not a single experiment was conducted to reach their scientific conclusion.

Lets take another example. I think we can all agree that Stephen Hawking is a scientist yes? He has written about the concept of models to explain various phenomena. At times those models work well and withstand repetitive experimentation. He also explains however that sometimes a model just cannot adequately explain what is going on. No amount of experimental iterations will change that. The only response is to come up with a new model.
The test therefore for knowledge to stand is not necessarily repeated experiments, rather we need to ask "does this explain what we need explained?"

So, your example was one of experimental repetition, but your point was that experimental repetition isn't required/possible/integral to science? help a guy out here will you, just what are you on about? :scratch:


Maybe ... read Feyerabend's Against Method .. what makes it science is that people agree it is science ....





No - trhe proof lies in the discourse that surrounds the actions - even Kuhn recognised that ..




See .. they all think that piling up a minutiae of facts will lead somewhere ... but they are wrong - stuck in the Popperian world ..

Nah, that sounds like head shrinking bullshit. What makes it science is the robustness of the method.

Splitting hairs.

Those furry little yappy cunts can fuck right off, not even real dogs.

[bogan]

I can hear Ed turning in his grave.

Nah, it's a bit cold out, won't turn over in those conditions; he'd have to leave the headlights on for 20mins first...


Yeah, I never really imagined you'd be interested in opening your mind.

I trust that now bogan has publicly stated his intention to watch the series with an open mind, that he'll follow through with it.

I suspect I might be disappointed though.

*start the series

[pritch]

What makes it science is the robustness of the method.


Science says that ghosts have neither mass nor energy, therefore they can exist only in the minds of men.
Science though has neither mass nor energy, therefore it too can exist only in the minds of men.

[mashman]

Science says that ghosts have neither mass nor energy, therefore they can exist only in the minds of men.
Science though has neither mass nor energy, therefore it too can exist only in the minds of men.

Human beings are 99% nothing.

[FJRider]

Science says that ghosts have neither mass nor energy, therefore they can exist only in the minds of men.
Science though has neither mass nor energy, therefore it too can exist only in the minds of men.

If Light can be seen ...it must exist. It too has no mass or energy.

[swbarnett]

If Light can be seen ...it must exist. It too has no mass or energy.
Yes, a photon is massless but it has energy.

Besides, we don't see light. Light is detected by our eyes, what we see is the brain's interpretation of the nerve impulses that light gets translated into.

[FJRider]

Yes, a photon is massless but it has energy.

Besides, we don't see light. Light is detected by our eyes, what we see is the brain's interpretation of the nerve impulses that light gets translated into.

So ... for things to be seen ... it must have (measureable ??) energy ... ???

[husaberg]

If Light can be seen ...it must exist. It too has no mass or energy.

errr light is clearly made of particles, so it has mass, it is also a form of electromagnetic energy.

[FJRider]

errr light is clearly made of particles, so it has mass, it is also a form of electromagnetic energy.

If a ghost can be seen ... it must clearly be seen (excuse the pun) to have particles ... thus mass.

Measuring the particle content of a ghost might be easier said than done.

Just because it has NOT been done .... ;)

[husaberg]

If a ghost can be seen ... it must clearly be seen (excuse the pun) to have particles ... thus mass.

Measuring the particle content of a ghost might be easier said than done.

Just because it has NOT been done .... ;)

Show me a ghost and we will continue..........
Otherwise its just Katmaning up the thread.:laugh:

[Zedder]

Human beings are 99% nothing.


Human beings are 60% water.

[Ulsterkiwi]

So, your example was one of experimental repetition, but your point was that experimental repetition isn't required/possible/integral to science? help a guy out here will you, just what are you on about? :scratch:

You probably need to read the post again. The first part answered your question, it was not my example. You are also using words I did not use nor even inferred. I did not say it was not possible to use experimental repetition nor did I say it was not an integral part of science, in fact I said the opposite. I said it was not the only way to produce scientific evidence.

The example I gave relating to Fenoterol was very clear. Overwhelming evidence was produced to show the drug was suspect and was in fact linked to a number of deaths. There were NO experiments involved in producing this evidence.

[swbarnett]

So ... for things to be seen ... it must have (measureable ??) energy ... ???
In essence, yes. If a photon didn't have energy it wouldn't react with the rods and cones in our eyes to produce nerve impulses. Also, solar panels wouldn't work and neither would photo-synthesis.


errr light is clearly made of particles, so it has mass, it is also a form of electromagnetic energy.
Actually, photons (light) are massless. According to relativity, if a photon had mass it could not travel at the speed of light.

Then there's the wave/particle duality of photons. They exhibit the properties of both in different circumstances. For example, put one photon through a narrow slit and you will produce a diffraction pattern. This shows a wave nature. Conversely, the photo-electric effect (the principle behind solar panels) relies on a photon acting like a particle.

[swbarnett]

Human beings are 60% water.
Actually the proportion of empty space in all matter is much higher than 99%. That 60% water is also mostly empty space. Compared to the size of sub-atomic particles the space between them is ginormous.

[husaberg]

In essence, yes. If a photon didn't have energy it wouldn't react with the rods and cones in our eyes to produce nerve impulses. Also, solar panels wouldn't work and neither would photo-synthesis.


Actually, photons (light) are massless. According to relativity, if a photon had mass it could not travel at the speed of light.

Then there's the wave/particle duality of photons. They exhibit the properties of both in different circumstances. For example, put one photon through a narrow slit and you will produce a diffraction pattern. This shows a wave nature. Conversely, the photo-electric effect (the principle behind solar panels) relies on a photon acting like a particle.

Thanks but I am well aware of Einstein's work as well as recent work by Rowan University.
The duality, meh.....mass is essentially energy. vica versa.

[Bass]

Actually the proportion of empty space in all matter is much higher than 99%. That 60% water is also mostly empty space. Compared to the size of sub-atomic particles the space between them is ginormous.

The analogy I was given at school regarding the size of a hydrogen nucleus (single proton) vs the size of the whole atom was a basketball in the middle of the USA

[Zedder]

Actually the proportion of empty space in all matter is much higher than 99%. That 60% water is also mostly empty space. Compared to the size of sub-atomic particles the space between them is ginormous.


Only if you take a schematic diagram of the Bohr model as the full answer.

[swbarnett]

Only if you take a schematic diagram of the Bohr model as the full answer.
I'll admit that we really don't know for sure exactly what's going on at that level.

[scumdog]

Exactly.

My fan club is trying to get the thread moved to PD.

Which is pretty much what the thread is about.


Maybe you could cut out the middle man by starting all your threads on PD?

[Zedder]

I'll admit that we really don't know for sure exactly what's going on at that level.


Heh, is that "we" as in you're a physicist?

[swbarnett]

Heh, is that "we" as in you're a physicist?

No, I just mean "humankind" (my wife has a masters in particle physics and keeps her finger casually on the pulse of things)

[bogan]

You probably need to read the post again. The first part answered your question, it was not my example. You are also using words I did not use nor even inferred. I did not say it was not possible to use experimental repetition nor did I say it was not an integral part of science, in fact I said the opposite. I said it was not the only way to produce scientific evidence.

The example I gave relating to Fenoterol was very clear. Overwhelming evidence was produced to show the drug was suspect and was in fact linked to a number of deaths. There were NO experiments involved in producing this evidence.

That'd be a great answer if I asked what you weren't on about. What you are on about, must have something to do with it being wrong to assert that the consistency of results and robustness of conclusions derived from repetitive experimentation is what makes science, science. But I'm failing to see how your examples showing consistent results derived from repeated experiments show otherwise?

In the Fenoterol example, the experiments were the uses of it (some of which resulted in death apparently), just because they did not follow a rigid scientific method, does not mean they cannot be learned from.

[Ulsterkiwi]

That'd be a great answer if I asked what you weren't on about. What you are on about, must have something to do with it being wrong to assert that the consistency of results and robustness of conclusions derived from repetitive experimentation is what makes science, science. But I'm failing to see how your examples showing consistent results derived from repeated experiments show otherwise?

In the Fenoterol example, the experiments were the uses of it (some of which resulted in death apparently), just because they did not follow a rigid scientific method, does not mean they cannot be learned from.

Ok, let me try again.

You said at some point millions of posts ago that the only experimental repetition was scientific. I said, repeatedly, that while experimental repetition is of course scientific, it is not the only way to produce evidence which has scientific merit. What makes science, science, as you put it, is the structure and the transparency of what is done and how it is reported. That way the investigation, be that observational, descriptive, narrative or experimental can be repeated and the new results compared to the original investigation or study. That is what makes science, science. Again, science is not a field but a way of thinking, a way to approach the problem of understanding the world around us.

In the Fenoterol example, which you clearly are not familiar with so its unfair of me to expect you to comment on with anything like an informed position, a drug which had been widely available and funded in the public system was established as being causally linked to a series of deaths. That link was NOT established with experiments but rather a case control series. A case control series is a well established scientific research methodology, widely used for studies published in scientific publications which drive medical practice. Case control series do not include the use of experimentation, repetitive or not.
I used this example as its a NZ one.

By looking further afield it is a relatively simple thing to see there are a plethora of scientific journals publishing scientific articles on a daily basis which report on findings influencing our lives whether we realise it (or even accept it) or not. For every article using experimental repetition there are just as many which do not.

You seem to have difficulty accepting that your understanding of what science is to be a bit limited. That's ok, you are perfectly entitled to persist with your view, not needing my or anyone else's permission to do so. All I have tried to do is point you in the direction of actual evidence that your definition while well intentioned and not wrong per se, is however incomplete.
Please note I did not direct you to a website or youtube video to try and convince you. I do however encourage you to seek out for yourself actual scientific journals which publish scientific articles and you will find that what I am saying is the case. Google Scholar is a decent albeit limited start.

[bogan]

Ok, let me try again.

You said at some point millions of posts ago that the only experimental repetition was scientific. I said, repeatedly, that while experimental repetition is of course scientific, it is not the only way to produce evidence which has scientific merit. What makes science, science, as you put it, is the structure and the transparency of what is done and how it is reported. That way the investigation, be that observational, descriptive, narrative or experimental can be repeated and the new results compared to the original investigation or study. That is what makes science, science. Again, science is not a field but a way of thinking, a way to approach the problem of understanding the world around us.

In the Fenoterol example, which you clearly are not familiar with so its unfair of me to expect you to comment on with anything like an informed position, a drug which had been widely available and funded in the public system was established as being causally linked to a series of deaths. That link was NOT established with experiments but rather a case control series. A case control series is a well established scientific research methodology, widely used for studies published in scientific publications which drive medical practice. Case control series do not include the use of experimentation, repetitive or not.
I used this example as its a NZ one.

By looking further afield it is a relatively simple thing to see there are a plethora of scientific journals publishing scientific articles on a daily basis which report on findings influencing our lives whether we realise it (or even accept it) or not. For every article using experimental repetition there are just as many which do not.

You seem to have difficulty accepting that your understanding of what science is to be a bit limited. That's ok, you are perfectly entitled to persist with your view, not needing my or anyone else's permission to do so. All I have tried to do is point you in the direction of actual evidence that your definition while well intentioned and not wrong per se, is however incomplete.
Please note I did not direct you to a website or youtube video to try and convince you. I do however encourage you to seek out for yourself actual scientific journals which publish scientific articles and you will find that what I am saying is the case. Google Scholar is a decent albeit limited start.

And you don't think giving people drugs, and recording if they died is experimental repetition? Science doesn't take place only in the labs mate, broaden your horizons, experiments are going on (and being repeated) every day, all around us, you just need to know where to look. The scientific method is useful in understanding these, but is not required to set them out and plan them, that is why despite the specifics of each patient not being tightly controlled and monitored, the Fenoterol example is still one based in science.

[Ulsterkiwi]

And you don't think giving people drugs, and recording if they died is experimental repetition? Science doesn't take place only in the labs mate, broaden your horizons, experiments are going on (and being repeated) every day, all around us, you just need to know where to look. The scientific method is useful in understanding these, but is not required to set them out and plan them, that is why despite the specifics of each patient not being tightly controlled and monitored, the Fenoterol example is still one based in science.

With respect I don't think I am the one resisting a broadening of horizons.

I am afraid you demonstrate a limited and simplistic understanding of the thing you are arguing for by insisting that the records of individuals prescribed Fenoteral constitute a scientific experiment. Scientific experimentation like any scientific methodology requires a consistent, structured approach to how data is collected with a view to addressing a specific question. When anyone was prescribed Fenoteral there wasn't a box to tick saying "did they die because we gave them this?" These were not experiments. I am not sure how much clearer I can say that.

A specific question was asked, that being is there a causal link between that drug and patient death? Data was collected in a structured, consistent manner which did not require experimental repetition. In fact the outcome was a scientifically valid one because the specifics of each patient were collated in a structured consistent manner, quite contrary to what you are saying. I know the outcome was based in science, that is what I have been explaining to you.

If you check back in my posts you will see I have stated previously that the laboratory is not the place for all scientific investigation. At no point have I said that it was.

Once again, experimental repetition is a huge part of science but it is just that, a part of it, not the whole.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bogan]

With respect I don't think I am the one resisting a broadening of horizons.

I am afraid you demonstrate a limited and simplistic understanding of the thing you are arguing for by insisting that the records of individuals prescribed Fenoteral constitute a scientific experiment. Scientific experimentation like any scientific methodology requires a consistent, structured approach to how data is collected with a view to addressing a specific question. When anyone was prescribed Fenoteral there wasn't a box to tick saying "did they die because we gave them this?" These were not experiments. I am not sure how much clearer I can say that.

A specific question was asked, that being is there a causal link between that drug and patient death? Data was collected in a structured, consistent manner which did not require experimental repetition. In fact the outcome was a scientifically valid one because the specifics of each patient were collated in a structured consistent manner, quite contrary to what you are saying. I know the outcome was based in science, that is what I have been explaining to you.

If you check back in my posts you will see I have stated previously that the laboratory is not the place for all scientific investigation. At no point have I said that it was.

Once again, experimental repetition is a huge part of science but it is just that, a part of it, not the whole.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it constitutes experimental repetition, you're the one attaching the word 'scientific' to that; in fact the original term was mechanical and repetitive (with that data collection certainly was). You think the scope of an experiment only extends to something that is designed that way, fine, I can understand that, but that is where we differ. Isolating that point of disagreement is consistent with the scientific method, while blowing it out of proportion to say one of us demonstrates a limited and simplistic understanding is certainly not a conclusion backed by robust evidence. For shame, Ulsterkiwi.

[Ulsterkiwi]

I think it constitutes experimental repetition, you're the one attaching the word 'scientific' to that; in fact the original term was mechanical and repetitive (with that data collection certainly was). You think the scope of an experiment only extends to something that is designed that way, fine, I can understand that, but that is where we differ. Isolating that point of disagreement is consistent with the scientific method, while blowing it out of proportion to say one of us demonstrates a limited and simplistic understanding is certainly not a conclusion backed by robust evidence. For shame, Ulsterkiwi.

Well apart from the fact the context was a demonstrated limited and simplistic understanding of a particular thing and not a wholesale limited and limited understanding as a person that is a "shame" I can live with.
I am sorry you considered my remarks out of proportion, hopefully you won't ever have to engage in debate or rebuttal as part of a scientific meeting or peer review process, that will make me seem quite gentle by comparison.

Why would you have a problem with attaching the word scientific? Surely we have been debating what constitutes scientific investigation?

All I know is I operate in the scientific community and the definitions and ideas I have been using are the ones they have taught me. Perhaps they are all wrong?

In any event, at least we can exercise our right to freedom of speech on this forum eh?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bogan]

Well apart from the fact the context was a demonstrated limited and simplistic understanding of a particular thing and not a wholesale limited and limited understanding as a person that is a "shame" I can live with.
I am sorry you considered my remarks out of proportion, hopefully you won't ever have to engage in debate or rebuttal as part of a scientific meeting or peer review process, that will make me seem quite gentle by comparison.

Why would you have a problem with attaching the word scientific? Surely we have been debating what constitutes scientific investigation?

All I know is I operate in the scientific community and the definitions and ideas I have been using are the ones they have taught me. Perhaps they are all wrong?

In any event, at least we can exercise our right to freedom of speech on this forum eh?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Isn't part of the scientific method to address the content, not the author? Again, for shame, Ulsterkiwi.

I had thought we were debating if repetition of result was an integral part of science, as a whole; that is what my first post on the subject (which you disagreed with) was about; perhaps go back and do a lit review...

[Ulsterkiwi]

Isn't part of the scientific method to address the content, not the author? Again, for shame, Ulsterkiwi.

I had thought we were debating if repetition of result was an integral part of science, as a whole; that is what my first post on the subject (which you disagreed with) was about; perhaps go back and do a lit review...

I didn't address the author, I addressed the idea held by the author. I made no comment on you as person.

Repetition of experiment and the need for experiment to produce evidence was what you seemed to be taking about most. I have been saying observation, narrative and description also provide scientific evidence


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bogan]

I didn't address the author, I addressed the idea held by the author. I made no comment on you as person.

Repetition of experiment and the need for experiment to produce evidence was what you seemed to be taking about most. I have been saying observation, narrative and description also provide scientific evidence


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There were claims I demonstrate a simplistic and limited understanding, surely that is addressing the author, not the content. Then the obfuscation instead of drilling down to the core disagreement, about what constitutes an experiment; this too, seems unscientific.

The repetition of experiment and result is indeed what I consider to be a core part of science, but I also consider everyday events to simply be unplanned experiments which is what you consider to be observation, so given that, what do we actually disagree on?

[Katman]

There were claims I demonstrate a simplistic and limited understanding, surely that is addressing the author, not the content.

It could have been worse.

I'd have called you shitforbrains by now.

[Ulsterkiwi]

There were claims I demonstrate a simplistic and limited understanding, surely that is addressing the author, not the content. The obfuscation instead of drilling down to the core disagreement, about what constitutes and experiment.

The repetition of experiment and result is indeed what I consider to be a core part of science, but I also consider everyday events to simply be unplanned experiments which is what you consider to be observation, so given that, what do we actually disagree on?

Of a particular thing. That's not a personal attack. I am quite happy to admit I have a limited and simplistic understanding of many things, that doesn't demean me as a person.

Funnily enough I have asked that myself and did ask if there was a disagreement being created rather than existing in a previous post on this thread.

Would it help if I called you shitforbrains and then you tell me to fuck off cunt and we end this like a proper kiwibiker thread?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bogan]

Of a particular thing. That's not a personal attack. I am quite happy to admit I have a limited and simplistic understanding of many things, that doesn't demean me as a person.

Funnily enough I have asked that myself and did ask if there was a disagreement being created rather than existing in a previous post on this thread.

Would it help if I called you shitforbrains and then you tell me to fuck off cunt and we end this like a proper kiwibiker thread?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd prefer we end this scientifically, with a consensus. It's seems clear to me, that we agree experimentation/observation is at the core of science, and the apparent disagreement was simply one of semantics, not concept. Wouldn't you agree?

[Ulsterkiwi]

I'd prefer we end this scientifically, with a consensus. It's seems clear to me, that we agree experimentation/observation is at the core of science, and the apparent disagreement was simply one of semantics, not concept. Wouldn't you agree?

That isn't nearly as entertaining for the masses.

I have no issue agreeing with you that experimentation/observation is at the core of science because as you point out I have not disagreed with that. If by semantics you mean I was trying to assert the position that what constitutes valid scientific evidence (and therefore has a place in science) goes beyond repetition of controlled experiments, then absolutely I agree.

[mashman]

Human beings are 60% water.

Unless ya'll have been on piss. Most likely 60% proof then. Masaru Emoto could well allude to what that 99% space is. Interesting water experiments.

[Zedder]

Unless ya'll have been on piss. Most likely 60% proof then. Masaru Emoto could well allude to what that 99% space is. Interesting water experiments.


He was certainly alternative, but things didn't stack up scientifically. However, maybe swbarnett's wife knows something we don't...

[Voltaire]

Katmans post hanging in there at the #1 spot for over 350 posts.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Katmans post hanging in there at the #1 spot for over 350 posts.

I think he gave up on it a while ago [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mashman]

He was certainly alternative, but things didn't stack up scientifically. However, maybe swbarnett's wife knows something we don't...

How do you know that the intention of the scientists conducting the experiment was delivered correctly? Did they measure the brain and heart output to ensure that intent was conveyed? Actually, they're not real questions, but they are parameters for confirming that real intention was delivered. Wonder if swbarnett's wife has that smouldering over the top of the glasses look too.

[Zedder]

How do you know that the intention of the scientists conducting the experiment was delivered correctly? Did they measure the brain and heart output to ensure that intent was conveyed? Actually, they're not real questions, but they are parameters for confirming that real intention was delivered. Wonder if swbarnett's wife has that smouldering over the top of the glasses look too.


The real question mashman is, are you asking if swbarnett's wife wears glasses?

[MarkH]

You can't mention the words Geo-Engineering without being told you're a fucking moron who doesn't know what a contrail is.

If you post something that is fucking moronic and someone feels free to call you on it then that is a pretty reasonable example of free speech.

What is it you think SHOULD happen? You want to post nonsense and no one can criticise you for doing so? You'd like free speech for yourself but curtail it for others?
What you seem to want is to be able to post how you think the moon landings were faked and the Earth is flat without anyone suggesting you might be a right nutter.
Maybe you shouldn't post those thoughts in your head on a public forum if you don't want anyone else to give their opinions on it.

You don't understand what a contrail is and you don't understand free speech either!


My 94 for U.E. maths must have been a fluke then.

That just goes to show that you don't need to be unintelligent to be a gullible fool believing in nonsense.
There are plenty of conspiracy theorists that are well educated and still believe ridiculous nonsense anyway.
Look at the nutters that are scientologists or anti-vaxxers or anti-GMO or whatever.
Look at Dr Oz - he was a well respected surgeon before he started getting a Reiki master into the operating theatre, that was when his colleagues realised that he was a fucking idiot.
Look at Ben Carson - both a qualified neurosurgeon and a whack-job science denier.

[Katman]

You want to post nonsense and no one can criticise you for doing so?

You don't understand what a contrail is and you don't understand free speech either!

What would possibly make you think I don't know what a contrail is?

Is Geo-Engineering 'nonsense'?

[MarkH]

What would possibly make you think I don't know what a contrail is?

Is Geo-Engineering 'nonsense'?

It looks like you're pretty much answering your own question there!

First question: It is the stupid nonsense you posted in the Geo-Engineering thread that makes me think that you just don't have a clue about condensation trails from aircraft.

Second question: The pseudo-scientific BS you posted in the thread about Geo-Engineering was certainly nonsense.

The stuff you have posted in similar conspiracy theory/pseudo-science threads (e.g. glyphosphate thread) makes me think that you are a gullible fool and because of that I am unable to take you seriously on any topic. I do like that I can post freely my opinions about you and other things, I have never had a problem with my free speech being curtailed. Of course, if this site tells me certain topics are not allowed then that is fine, free speech is not about making private sites allow anything and everything.

[mashman]

The real question mashman is, are you asking if swbarnett's wife wears glasses?

Are I indeed...........

[oldrider]

Goodbye to Britain and the British?? :confused:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/virfIlwxmuw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Woodman]

Goodbye to Britain and the British?? :confused:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/virfIlwxmuw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


So Britain spends centuries trying to colonise the world and now they moan about the world colonising britain.:nya::nya::nya::nya::nya:

[oldrider]

So Britain spends centuries trying to colonise the world and now they moan about the world colonising britain.:nya::nya::nya::nya::nya:

Fair point actually - but the connotations may go a little deeper than that (according to them) - who knows? :rolleyes:

[Ocean1]

Fair point actually - but the connotations may go a little deeper than that (according to them) - who knows? :rolleyes:

Can't come soon enough. Maybe they'll be forced to learn how to cook.

And play Rugby.

[PrincessBandit]

Never mid the Yids, it's those Japs, Chinks, Spiks, Niggas, & Pakis that get on my nerves. And don't get me started on those white cunts, they're the worst - lol


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ882QYzr-M

Someone probably already posted that but I didn't make it past page 2