Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
A survey of an era overrun by cranks, charlatans, and legions of
wilfully gullible fools. A bit off topic, but significant SF figures
appear in the text.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
A survey of an era overrun by cranks, charlatans, and legions of
wilfully gullible fools. A bit off topic, but significant SF figures
appear in the text.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
A survey of an era overrun by cranks, charlatans, and legions of
wilfully gullible fools. A bit off topic, but significant SF figures
appear in the text.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen
On 28 Apr 2024 13:06:32 -0000, jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll)
wrote:
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
A survey of an era overrun by cranks, charlatans, and legions of
wilfully gullible fools. A bit off topic, but significant SF figures
appear in the text.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen
In addition to the obvious L. Ron Hubbard, there is A. E. van Vogt
(General Semantics) and John W. Campbell (the Hieronymus Machine).
One of my favorite books.
John Savard
Is GS a fallacy? Certainly it seems to have been a fad, but also to still
be around in a less high-profile manner and accepted as providing some
useful insights.
In article <v0lhko$sat$1@panix2.panix.com>,
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
A survey of an era overrun by cranks, charlatans, and legions of
wilfully gullible fools. A bit off topic, but significant SF figures
appear in the text.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen
I read many of the same books you did (at least the right wing books)
and I am neither an anti-vaxxer nor do I scream vile epithets at
anybody. I don't believe I have read this book, though I read reviews of
it in several SF magazines.
On 28 Apr 2024 17:29:06 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:
Is GS a fallacy? Certainly it seems to have been a fad, but also to still >>be around in a less high-profile manner and accepted as providing some >>useful insights.
Among the fallacies examined in Gardner's book is _chiropractic_. As
he notes, though, lots of chiropractors do useful things that help
patients, but when that discipline originated, it included notions
like curing, say, tuberculosis by addressing subluxations of the
vertebrae.
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 10:10:29 -0700, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
In article <v0lhko$sat$1@panix2.panix.com>,
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
A survey of an era overrun by cranks, charlatans, and legions of
wilfully gullible fools. A bit off topic, but significant SF figures
appear in the text.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen
I read many of the same books you did (at least the right wing books)
and I am neither an anti-vaxxer nor do I scream vile epithets at
anybody. I don't believe I have read this book, though I read reviews of >>it in several SF magazines.
Ditto - and having read Martin Gardner's work in Scientific American
over multiple decades you could convince me to read most anything with
his name on it.
Not quite sainthood but close...
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 13:06:32 +0000, James Nicoll wrote:
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
A survey of an era overrun by cranks, charlatans, and legions of
wilfully gullible fools. A bit off topic, but significant SF figures
appear in the text.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen
Was there no chapter on astrology?
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:10:39 -0600, John Savard <quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:
On 28 Apr 2024 17:29:06 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:
Is GS a fallacy? Certainly it seems to have been a fad, but also
to still be around in a less high-profile manner and accepted as
providing some useful insights.
Among the fallacies examined in Gardner's book is _chiropractic_. As
he notes, though, lots of chiropractors do useful things that help
patients, but when that discipline originated, it included notions
like curing, say, tuberculosis by addressing subluxations of the
vertebrae.
Sounds like an illustration of the statement "if all you have is a
hammer, everything looks like a nail".
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:10:39 -0600, John Savard
<quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:
On 28 Apr 2024 17:29:06 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:
Is GS a fallacy? Certainly it seems to have been a fad, but also
to still be around in a less high-profile manner and accepted as
providing some useful insights.
In my advanced years, I think I see that there's a recurring pattern.
A very bright person makes some accurate observations, draws some
inferences from them. The inferences tend to be of mixed quality,
some good, some off the wall, the latter possibly derived from
beliefs that the bright person may unconsciously regard as axiomatic
-- inferences nevertheless deserving of scrutiny.
Then numerous people, perhaps including the original bright person,
exfoliate an extensive, sometimes putatively universal, often complex
system of further inferences, hypotheses and, eventually dogmata which
become a whole school of increasingly questionable beliefs and
doctrine.
The original bright person and h{is,er} original observations are
tarred with the contradictions of the questionable beliefs and
doctrine and are relegated to the scrapheap of respectable thinking.
Lesson: Don't allow your credible insights to exfoliate into anything
that purports to be a universal theory of everything -- neither
metaphysics, physics, cognition, society nor language. And don't get
on board the train and bask in the adulation when/if others to do
that.
Among the fallacies examined in Gardner's book is _chiropractic_. As
he notes, though, lots of chiropractors do useful things that help
patients, but when that discipline originated, it included notions
like curing, say, tuberculosis by addressing subluxations of the
vertebrae.
I've recently been shocked to discover how many educated, apparently >adequately intelligent people subscribe to homeopathy and use its
"remedies".
On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 07:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 13:06:32 +0000, James Nicoll wrote:
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin GardnerWas there no chapter on astrology?
Apparently, it was about /modern/ weirdness, not about traditional
weirdness.
Even Aquinas, who expressed doubts about astrology in general, was
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 07:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 13:06:32 +0000, James Nicoll wrote:
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin GardnerWas there no chapter on astrology?
Apparently, it was about /modern/ weirdness, not about traditional
weirdness.
Even Aquinas, who expressed doubts about astrology in general, was
Augustine says that everyone knows of twins, who despite having the same birth chart,
have quite different life courses. I did once read an MS on personality of twins
whose birthdays were before and after midnight of the cusp...
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen
I recently became aware of the apparent existence of an Expanding
Earth hypothesis, pushed by a loon over on some German newsgroups,
and which I mistook as a new invention, but Wikipedia informs me
that in some form or other it's been around since the 19th century.
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 13:06:32 +0000, James Nicoll wrote:
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
A survey of an era overrun by cranks, charlatans, and legions of
wilfully gullible fools. A bit off topic, but significant SF figures
appear in the text.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen
Was there no chapter on astrology?
I recently became aware of the apparent existence of an Expanding
Earth hypothesis, pushed by a loon over on some German newsgroups,
and which I mistook as a new invention, but Wikipedia informs me
that in some form or other it's been around since the 19th century.
Ditto - and having read Martin Gardner's work in Scientific American
over multiple decades you could convince me to read most anything with
his name on it.
On 2024-04-28, James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen
| To quote its subtitle, Martin Gardner’s 1957 Fads and Fallacies in the
| Name of Science studies “the curious theories of modern
| pseudoscientists and the strange, amusing, and alarming cults that
| surround them.”
1957? No ancient astronauts then. My own interest in this took a
hard hit with von Däniken's fourth book, about spectral apparitions
(ghosts), which was not something I was willing to give any credence
to, no matter how many anecdotes he cited, and which put into
question his other writing.
| focusing mostly but not entirely on American theories.
No "earth rays" either then. That one was so specifically limited
to German-speaking countries that there isn't even an established
English term for "Erdstrahlen". There was some overlap with dowsing,
though. For a time in the 1970/80s, my parents were members of a
book club that had a quarterly mininum purchase requirement. At
some point my dad fulfilled this by buying a book on "Erdstrahlen",
but couldn't be bothered to read it himself and tasked me with it.
I skimmed through it. Intensely exasperating. I was hoping for
some physical characterization of those mysterious "rays"--particle? >electro-magnetic? ionizing? non-ionizing?--but it all remained
perfectly vague, with references to devices that supposedly could
detect those rays, but again devoid of any description of physical >principles. One or two hundred pages of nothing.
| “Judging by the number of Campbell’s readers who are impressed
| by this nonsense, the average fan may very well be a chap in his
| teens, with a smattering of scientific knowledge culled mostly
| from science fiction, enormously gullible, with a strong bent
| toward occultism, no understanding of scientific method, and a
| basic insecurity for which he compensates by fantasies of scientific
| power.”
Yes, ageism aside, that mirrors my own view.
| [list of contents]--
I'm happy to say that there are quite a number I don't know at all.
I suppose many have fallen out of fashion since the book was
published.
I recently became aware of the apparent existence of an Expanding
Earth hypothesis, pushed by a loon over on some German newsgroups,
and which I mistook as a new invention, but Wikipedia informs me
that in some form or other it's been around since the 19th century.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:09:49 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
On 2024-04-28, James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen
| To quote its subtitle, Martin Gardner’s 1957 Fads and Fallacies in the
| Name of Science studies “the curious theories of modern
| pseudoscientists and the strange, amusing, and alarming cults that
| surround them.”
The strongest actual argument against "parapsychology" (telepathy, telekinesis, etc) was that, since none of the Four Fundamental Forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong, and weak) can explain them,
those who promote their reality must first come up with a Fifth
Fundamental Force. Which they have yet to even attempt, preferring
instead to wave their arms about and yell a lot.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:09:49 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber ><naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
On 2024-04-28, James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen
| To quote its subtitle, Martin Gardner’s 1957 Fads and Fallacies in the
| Name of Science studies “the curious theories of modern
| pseudoscientists and the strange, amusing, and alarming cults that
| surround them.”
1957? No ancient astronauts then. My own interest in this took a
hard hit with von Däniken's fourth book, about spectral apparitions >>(ghosts), which was not something I was willing to give any credence
to, no matter how many anecdotes he cited, and which put into
question his other writing.
| focusing mostly but not entirely on American theories.
No "earth rays" either then. That one was so specifically limited
to German-speaking countries that there isn't even an established
English term for "Erdstrahlen". There was some overlap with dowsing, >>though. For a time in the 1970/80s, my parents were members of a
book club that had a quarterly mininum purchase requirement. At
some point my dad fulfilled this by buying a book on "Erdstrahlen",
but couldn't be bothered to read it himself and tasked me with it.
I skimmed through it. Intensely exasperating. I was hoping for
some physical characterization of those mysterious "rays"--particle? >>electro-magnetic? ionizing? non-ionizing?--but it all remained
perfectly vague, with references to devices that supposedly could
detect those rays, but again devoid of any description of physical >>principles. One or two hundred pages of nothing.
The strongest actual argument against "parapsychology" (telepathy, >telekinesis, etc) was that, since none of the Four Fundamental Forces >(gravitational, electromagnetic, strong, and weak) can explain them,
those who promote their reality must first come up with a Fifth
Fundamental Force. Which they have yet to even attempt, preferring
instead to wave their arms about and yell a lot.
In article <slrnv32r1d.28ca.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>,
Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
I recently became aware of the apparent existence of an Expanding
Earth hypothesis, pushed by a loon over on some German newsgroups,
and which I mistook as a new invention, but Wikipedia informs me
that in some form or other it's been around since the 19th century.
Famed comic book artist Neal Adams was an expanding earth true believer.
begin fnord
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
In article <slrnv32r1d.28ca.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>,
Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
I recently became aware of the apparent existence of an Expanding
Earth hypothesis, pushed by a loon over on some German newsgroups,
and which I mistook as a new invention, but Wikipedia informs me
that in some form or other it's been around since the 19th century.
Famed comic book artist Neal Adams was an expanding earth true believer.
s/Neal/Scott/
begin fnord
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
In article <slrnv32r1d.28ca.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>,
Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
I recently became aware of the apparent existence of an Expanding
Earth hypothesis, pushed by a loon over on some German newsgroups,
and which I mistook as a new invention, but Wikipedia informs me
that in some form or other it's been around since the 19th century.
Famed comic book artist Neal Adams was an expanding earth true believer.
s/Neal/Scott/
On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 07:57:40 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 13:06:32 +0000, James Nicoll wrote:
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
A survey of an era overrun by cranks, charlatans, and legions of
wilfully gullible fools. A bit off topic, but significant SF figures
appear in the text.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen
Was there no chapter on astrology?
No, there wasn't, because this was about foolishness that masqueraded as science.
begin fnord
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
In article <m2a5l9p7k7.fsf@kelutral.omcl.org>,
Steve Coltrin <spcoltri@omcl.org> wrote:
begin fnordNeal. Enjoy!
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
In article <slrnv32r1d.28ca.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>,s/Neal/Scott/
Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
I recently became aware of the apparent existence of an Expanding >>>>>Earth hypothesis, pushed by a loon over on some German newsgroups, >>>>>and which I mistook as a new invention, but Wikipedia informs me
that in some form or other it's been around since the 19th century.
Famed comic book artist Neal Adams was an expanding earth true believer. >>>
http://nealadams.com/science-videos/
You mean _two_ comic artists named Adams plugged that nonsense?
In article <m2a5l9p7k7.fsf@kelutral.omcl.org>,
Steve Coltrin <spcoltri@omcl.org> wrote:
begin fnordNeal. Enjoy!
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
In article <slrnv32r1d.28ca.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>,
Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
I recently became aware of the apparent existence of an Expanding
Earth hypothesis, pushed by a loon over on some German newsgroups,
and which I mistook as a new invention, but Wikipedia informs me
that in some form or other it's been around since the 19th century.
Famed comic book artist Neal Adams was an expanding earth true believer.
s/Neal/Scott/
http://nealadams.com/science-videos/
Don wrote:
<snip>
Will faith based Baconian Scientism soon suffer a schism?
No, it will not.
Take this nonsense to talk.origins, where it is on topic and people are >actually interested in it.
Don wrote:
<snip>
Will faith based Baconian Scientism soon suffer a schism?
No, it will not.
Take this nonsense to talk.origins, where it is on topic and people are actually interested in it.
Don wrote:
<snip>
Will faith based Baconian Scientism soon suffer a schism?
No, it will not.
Take this nonsense to talk.origins, where it is on topic and people are actually interested in it.
John Savard wrote:
Charles Packer wrote:
James Nicoll wrote:
Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
A survey of an era overrun by cranks, charlatans, and legions of
wilfully gullible fools. A bit off topic, but significant SF figures
appear in the text.
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/all-the-madmen
Was there no chapter on astrology?
No, there wasn't, because this was about foolishness that masqueraded as
science.
I guess you haven't browsed newspaper archives of the early
20th-century and come across full-page articles with "science
of astrology" in the headlines. The astrology I had in mind
is very much a product of 20th-century journalism.
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Don wrote:
<snip>
Will faith based Baconian Scientism soon suffer a schism?
No, it will not.
Take this nonsense to talk.origins, where it is on topic and people are
actually interested in it.
Bacon never wrote anything. Almost everything that is attributed to
him was actually written by Oliver Goldsmith a century later.
--scott
On 5/2/2024 11:54 PM, Don wrote:
Typo corrected within.
William Hyde wrote:
Don wrote:
<snip>
Will faith based Baconian Scientism soon suffer a schism?
No, it will not.
I may have to explore Thunderbird's killfile capability, which
until now, I haven't needed.
I don't want to waste my time on this nonsense.
pt
On 5/3/2024 3:08 PM, Jay E. Morris wrote:
On 5/3/2024 8:11 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 5/2/2024 11:54 PM, Don wrote:
Typo corrected within.
William Hyde wrote:
Don wrote:
<snip>
Will faith based Baconian Scientism soon suffer a schism?
No, it will not.
I may have to explore Thunderbird's killfile capability, which
until now, I haven't needed.
I don't want to waste my time on this nonsense.
pt
Just kill (k) the thread.
Nah, I just want some peoples posts marked read, so I skip over them.
pt
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Don wrote:
<snip>
Will faith based Baconian Scientism soon suffer a schism?
No, it will not.
Take this nonsense to talk.origins, where it is on topic and people are
actually interested in it.
Bacon never wrote anything. Almost everything that is attributed to
him was actually written by Oliver Goldsmith a century later.
Goldsmith never wrote anything. Almost everything that is attributed to
him was actually written by Wilde a century later.
Wilde never wrote anything. Almost everything that is attributed to
him was actually written by Vonnegut a century later.
Oddly, however, vaccines operate by a method not too far off part of >homeopathic doctrine. Not the dilution part, but the part which says
to give the patient a little of what causes their symptoms.
In article <v0r6cl$2ibk7$2@dont-email.me>,
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
Oddly, however, vaccines operate by a method not too far off part of >>homeopathic doctrine. Not the dilution part, but the part which says
to give the patient a little of what causes their symptoms.
Where homeopathy, of course, defines "a little" as "only one chance
in a gadzillion of the nostrum containing even a single molecule of
the stuff that causes their symptoms."
In article <m234r0nq12.fsf@kelutral.omcl.org>,
Steve Coltrin <spcoltri@omcl.org> wrote:
begin fnordMy impression is Scott Adams presented it as a thought experiment,
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
In article <m2a5l9p7k7.fsf@kelutral.omcl.org>,
Steve Coltrin <spcoltri@omcl.org> wrote:
begin fnordNeal. Enjoy!
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
In article <slrnv32r1d.28ca.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>,s/Neal/Scott/
Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
I recently became aware of the apparent existence of an Expanding >>>>>>Earth hypothesis, pushed by a loon over on some German newsgroups, >>>>>>and which I mistook as a new invention, but Wikipedia informs me >>>>>>that in some form or other it's been around since the 19th century.
Famed comic book artist Neal Adams was an expanding earth true believer. >>>>
http://nealadams.com/science-videos/
You mean _two_ comic artists named Adams plugged that nonsense?
thus giving himself plausible deniability, whereas Neal Adams was a
True Believer.
I wonder what a vaccine against sugar would do
to public health?
I wonder what a vaccine against sugar would do
to public health?
On 2024-05-17, Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder what a vaccine against sugar would do
to public health?
I'll go out on a limb and say that you can't train the immune system
against the common, simple, nutritionally relevant sugars.
On 29/04/2024 16:23, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:10:39 -0600, John Savard
<quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:
On 28 Apr 2024 17:29:06 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:
Is GS a fallacy? Certainly it seems to have been a fad, but also to still >>>> be around in a less high-profile manner and accepted as providing some >>>> useful insights.
Among the fallacies examined in Gardner's book is _chiropractic_. As
he notes, though, lots of chiropractors do useful things that help
patients, but when that discipline originated, it included notions
like curing, say, tuberculosis by addressing subluxations of the
vertebrae.
Sounds like an illustration of the statement "if all you have is a
hammer, everything looks like a nail".
I don't particularly hesitate to interpret
a proposition that "All diseases are
fundamentally caused by ____" as bunk,
without scrutiny. And likewise
"effectively treated by". Say, stem cells.
Diseases are diverse.
I am getting anxious about the wide
application of vaccines to diseases which
don't look like a thing to get vaccinated
against. However, the theory seems to be
to persuade the patient's immune system to
pick a fight against something that it
usually ignores which is a disease component.
I wonder what a vaccine against sugar would do--
to public health?
On Thu, 2 May 2024 17:06:44 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:
In article <m234r0nq12.fsf@kelutral.omcl.org>,
Steve Coltrin <spcoltri@omcl.org> wrote:
begin fnordMy impression is Scott Adams presented it as a thought experiment,
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
In article <m2a5l9p7k7.fsf@kelutral.omcl.org>,
Steve Coltrin <spcoltri@omcl.org> wrote:
begin fnordNeal. Enjoy!
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
In article <slrnv32r1d.28ca.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>,
Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
Famed comic book artist Neal Adams was an expanding earth true believer.
I recently became aware of the apparent existence of an Expanding >>>>>>>Earth hypothesis, pushed by a loon over on some German newsgroups, >>>>>>>and which I mistook as a new invention, but Wikipedia informs me >>>>>>>that in some form or other it's been around since the 19th century. >>>>>>
s/Neal/Scott/
http://nealadams.com/science-videos/
You mean _two_ comic artists named Adams plugged that nonsense?
thus giving himself plausible deniability, whereas Neal Adams was a
True Believer.
Whew! It's a good thing we don't quite have two of them!
This reminds me of something I came across...
While at one point, the Bible does speak of God hanging the Earth
"upon nothing", in many places it makes statements that can only be >understood on the basis of the notion of a flat Earth, surmounted by a
solid dome on which we see lights both stationary (except for sidereal >rotation) and moving.
At one point, it's even noted that God, instead of creating it in its >hemispherical shape, apparently created a flat sheet of material which
He then beat into shape as a human would beat brass.
Since it can be proven that the Earth is not flat, Answers in Genesis
is at pains to deny Biblical scholarship and claim that no, the Bible
says no such thing.
On 11/05/2024 04:28, John Savard wrote:
This reminds me of something I came across...
While at one point, the Bible does speak of God hanging the Earth
"upon nothing", in many places it makes statements that can only be
understood on the basis of the notion of a flat Earth, surmounted by a
solid dome on which we see lights both stationary (except for sidereal
rotation) and moving.
At one point, it's even noted that God, instead of creating it in its
hemispherical shape, apparently created a flat sheet of material which
He then beat into shape as a human would beat brass.
Since it can be proven that the Earth is not flat, Answers in Genesis
is at pains to deny Biblical scholarship and claim that no, the Bible
says no such thing.
John Savard
God may know how the universe works,
but a lot of people who wrote in the
bible clearly don't.
I'm not sure if the pieces would fit
together, and it's not a project that
I'm eager to do, and on the other hand
it may be already done; anyway, I have
an idea that Noah's flood story plus
some other bible statements about
God curating the world could be brought
together in a just-so story that the
sea goes out and in from the shore
because it is trying to flood the land
again and God holds it back.
Except that tsunamis happen. Publicly,
catastrophically, and in recent times.
So God is not in fact preventing that.
But I can't point right now to bible verses
which say unambiguously that he has promised
to do so.
I can point to God not creating plants that
live in water, presumably because the author
of that part of Genesis didn't know or think
about that.
The diseases will adapt (Natural Selection) and the Medical Industry
will make money, not just with the current vaccine, but with the next
and the next and the next ...
On 5/17/2024 7:25 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
On 2024-05-17, Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:Ya, you _really_ don't want a glucose vaccine....
I wonder what a vaccine against sugar would do
to public health?
I'll go out on a limb and say that you can't train the immune system
against the common, simple, nutritionally relevant sugars.
In article <oqse4jds7ibad4prv0kbcv6bbt7hpqo0lg@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
The diseases will adapt (Natural Selection) and the Medical Industry
will make money, not just with the current vaccine, but with the next
and the next and the next ...
It is possible to wipe out specific diseases. It appears the C19 counter- measures may have inadvertently eliminated two previously common flu
strains. As well, humans have eliminated smallpox in the wild.
We had considerable success with measles until a terrible outbreak of
stupid people brought it back.
I don't particularly hesitate to interpret
a proposition that "All diseases are
fundamentally caused by ____" as bunk,
without scrutiny. And likewise
"effectively treated by". Say, stem cells.
Diseases are diverse.
On 5/17/24 07:41, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 5/17/2024 7:25 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:No, you don't. This could be called diabetes, where you literally can't
On 2024-05-17, Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:Ya, you _really_ don't want a glucose vaccine....
I wonder what a vaccine against sugar would do
to public health?
I'll go out on a limb and say that you can't train the immune system
against the common, simple, nutritionally relevant sugars.
use the glucose in your food.
In article <oqse4jds7ibad4prv0kbcv6bbt7hpqo0lg@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
The diseases will adapt (Natural Selection) and the Medical Industry
will make money, not just with the current vaccine, but with the next
and the next and the next ...
It is possible to wipe out specific diseases. It appears the C19 counter- >measures may have inadvertently eliminated two previously common flu >strains. As well, humans have eliminated smallpox in the wild.
We had considerable success with measles until a terrible outbreak of
stupid people brought it back.
On 5/17/2024 11:11 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2024 11:17:25 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
On 29/04/2024 16:23, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:10:39 -0600, John Savard
<quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:
On 28 Apr 2024 17:29:06 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:
Is GS a fallacy? Certainly it seems to have been a fad, but also to still
be around in a less high-profile manner and accepted as providing some >>>>>> useful insights.
Among the fallacies examined in Gardner's book is _chiropractic_. As >>>>> he notes, though, lots of chiropractors do useful things that help
patients, but when that discipline originated, it included notions
like curing, say, tuberculosis by addressing subluxations of the
vertebrae.
Sounds like an illustration of the statement "if all you have is a
hammer, everything looks like a nail".
I don't particularly hesitate to interpret
a proposition that "All diseases are
fundamentally caused by ____" as bunk,
without scrutiny. And likewise
"effectively treated by". Say, stem cells.
Diseases are diverse.
I am getting anxious about the wide
application of vaccines to diseases which
don't look like a thing to get vaccinated
against. However, the theory seems to be
to persuade the patient's immune system to
pick a fight against something that it
usually ignores which is a disease component.
The diseases will adapt (Natural Selection) and the Medical Industry
will make money, not just with the current vaccine, but with the next
and the next and the next ...
Note the low sales of smallpox vaccine.
We'd have got rid of mumps and measles too, if people weren't idiots.
On 5/17/2024 12:07 PM, BCFD 36 wrote:
On 5/17/24 07:41, Dimensional Traveler wrote:A diabetic still processes glucose, just not as well. A COMPLETE
On 5/17/2024 7:25 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:No, you don't. This could be called diabetes, where you literally
On 2024-05-17, Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:Ya, you _really_ don't want a glucose vaccine....
I wonder what a vaccine against sugar would do
to public health?
I'll go out on a limb and say that you can't train the immune system
against the common, simple, nutritionally relevant sugars.
can't use the glucose in your food.
inability to process glucose would cause death by starvation and there wouldn't be any way to stop it.
On 17/05/2024 15:41, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 5/17/2024 7:25 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
On 2024-05-17, Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:Ya, you _really_ don't want a glucose vaccine....
I wonder what a vaccine against sugar would do
to public health?
I'll go out on a limb and say that you can't train the immune system
against the common, simple, nutritionally relevant sugars.
Well, how about sucrose...
Say, instead of you gaining weight,
your immune system digests it before
you can...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 12:25:30 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,875 |
| Posted today: | 1 |