A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Says the ignorant hag who doesn't know anything about standard science no matter how many times we have educated you; who still doesn't understand the difference between libertarian and compatibilist free will, no matter how many times we have educated you; and who thinks that NASA is poisoning the minds of children by posting a page explaining time dilation to them (which topic you still don't grasp, either, no matter how many times we have educated you.)

How many followers have you won over during your 15 years on the Internet, hmm?

I know the difference between libertarian and compatibilist free will, and they're both wrong. Having choices without a gun to our head does not make those choices free. Time dilation is a misnomer because time does not exist on a coordinate system. I have not had anyone, in all of these years, who actually took the time to study this work the way it needs to be studied. These type forums support each other and don't allow different points of view to be heard in a respectful way. The satirical posts and the heckling that goes on does not allow for fair and honest communication. I posted this in my other thread but it is pertinent to this thread as well. This guy knows what he's talking about. I wonder if he's been put on the loon list.

On the suppression of vaccination dissent

Published in Science & Engineering Ethics, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2015, pp. 143-157; doi 10.1007/s11948-014-9530-3

Brian Martin



Abstract

Dissenters from the dominant views about vaccination sometimes are subject to adverse actions, including abusive comment, threats, formal complaints, censorship, and deregistration, a phenomenon that can be called suppression of dissent. Three types of cases are examined: scientists and physicians; a high-profile researcher; and a citizen campaigner. Comparing the methods used in these different types of cases provides a preliminary framework for understanding the dynamics of suppression in terms of vulnerabilities.

Keywords: vaccination; dissent; reputation; free speech; controversy

Introduction

Vaccination has long been a contentious topic (Colgrove, 2006; Johnston, 2004). The orthodox position, adopted by most physicians and government health departments, is that vaccination is vital in reducing illness and death from infectious disease (Andre et al., 2008; Offit and Bell, 2003). Health authorities specify a recommended schedule of vaccinations for babies and children. As new vaccines are developed and tested, they are added to the schedule to reduce morbidity and death from additional diseases. The orthodox position is that adverse reactions to vaccines are rare, and insignificant compared to the benefits.

In the face of this dominant position, a number of physicians, scientists, and citizens argue that vaccination has significant shortcomings. They question the scale of the benefits, noting how death rates from infectious diseases declined dramatically before the introduction of mass vaccination. They maintain that the adverse effects of vaccination have been underestimated (Habakus and Holland, 2011; Halvorsen, 2007).

The vaccination debate is not just a disagreement about evidence concerning benefits and risks: values are involved too. For infectious disease to spread, there need to be susceptible individuals. Mass vaccination, according to proponents, reduces the likelihood of spread, because most people are immune. The result is what is called "herd immunity," causing an additional decline in disease even beyond vaccine-induced individual immunity. Because of this collective benefit, including the protection of those unable to be immunized, proponents see widespread vaccination as a moral imperative.

Critics, on the other hand, support parental choice in vaccination decisions. They oppose penalties for not vaccinating, such as requirements that children be fully vaccinated in order to attend school.

The vaccination debate can be incredibly emotional on both sides. Partly this seems to be because children's health is involved: parents react to their children becoming ill from infectious disease or suffering reactions to vaccines. The clash between collective benefits (herd immunity) and freedom of choice adds to the mix. Because vaccination is a signifier for the benefits of modern medicine, some proponents see any questioning of vaccination as a rejection of enlightened thinking.

When physicians and health authorities support vaccination based on careful assessments of benefits and risks, they may dismiss citizen critics as ill-informed. Because nearly all experts endorse vaccination, there may seem to be no rational basis for opposition. In this context, any physician or scientist who questions vaccination is a potential threat to the public perception that credentialed experts unanimously endorse vaccination. This sets the stage for suppression of dissent.

Suppression of dissent is action taken against dissenting individuals, or the research supporting their positions, that goes beyond fair debate. Methods of suppressing individuals include spreading of rumors, vilification, harassment, reprimands, demotions, deregistration, and dismissal (Martin, 1999a). Methods of suppressing research data include censorship, denial of funding, and denial of access to research materials (Martin, 1999b). There is an overlap between these modes of suppression. For example, a scientist's grant applications might be rejected, thereby denying opportunities for research.

Debate is a normal and desirable feature of the scientific enterprise. Suppression is different from debate in that individuals, and their capacity to do research and engage in debate, are targeted. Suppression is important because it skews research agendas and public discussions.

The focus here is on suppression of vaccination critics. In principle, it is possible for vaccination supporters to be suppressed, though in practice this is unlikely because critics do not have any significant capacity to impose sanctions.

It is worth mentioning that the existence of suppression of dissent does not necessarily mean dissenters are correct, nor that researchers deserve funding merely for dissenting. However, even if dissenters are completely wrong, suppressing them can be damaging in several ways (Sunstein, 2003). It sets up a pattern of unfair behavior that can hinder open discussion of issues even within the dominant viewpoint. It discourages supporters from thinking for themselves about the evidence and arguments, because they encounter contrary views less frequently. Critics can keep advocates honest and alert, with their arguments well formulated. Finally, suppression can aid the cause of critics by making them feel unfairly treated: some observers may wonder why proponents cannot rely on the arguments. When the struggle is open and honest, the outcome will seem more legitimate.

My own involvement in the vaccination debate is primarily as a defender of fair and open debate on contentious issues, given my long-term interest in dissent (Martin, 1981; Martin et al., 1986). Personally, I do not hold strong views about vaccination.

The next section provides additional background about suppression of dissent, including triggers, methods, patterns, and tests. The following sections outline several cases, falling into three main types: scientists and physicians; a high-profile researcher; and a citizen campaigner. Following this is a comparison of the suppression methods used in the three types of cases. The conclusion spells out the implications of suppression for the vaccination issue.

Suppression of dissent

On the suppression of vaccination dissent

[Spacemonkey]

Um, Peacegirl...

You still haven't answered my FIVE questions.

So you will still be lying if you later claim to have answered them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You still haven't answered the questions I asked. Crucially, you appear to have completely skipped the second question. You need to put a Yes or a No after each question, and answer specifically about the photons I am asking about. I will number the questions so you can number your responses to make it clear which answers go with which questions.

No, I can't do that because you are making these photons independent of the object, as if they bounce off with bits of information that travel in sequential order through long distances, which Lessans is disputing. According to you, if the object was red and then turned blue, we would not see the blue object first, we would see the red in delayed time. That's your theory and that's why answering these questions will make it look like your theory is conclusive and Lessans' claim is impossible. Actually, your questions just serve to prove your logic is valid. But it does not mean it's sound.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You still haven't answered the questions I asked. Crucially, you appear to have completely skipped the second question. You need to put a Yes or a No after each question, and answer specifically about the photons I am asking about. I will number the questions so you can number your responses to make it clear which answers go with which questions.

You need photons at the camera film or retina when the Sun is first ignited.
1. Are they traveling photons?
2. Did they come from the Sun?
3. Did they get to the film/retina by traveling?
4. Did they travel at the speed of light?
5. Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't answer about different photons, and don't answer about photons in general. Answer (at least) Yes or No to the (five!) questions actually asked!

Bump.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered these already. I will answer one more time and that's it. Your logic will always tell you it's impossible to see in real time based on your questions. But your questions are problematic.

Yes, the light is traveling.

Light is at the film but not due to travel time. You know this already.

Light travels at the speed of light. That was never disputed.

Light cannot leave the Sun before it is ignited.

Ok, so then relativity is wrong.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I can't do that because you are making these photons independent of the object, as if they bounce off with bits of information that travel in sequential order through long distances, which Lessans is disputing. According to you, if the object was red and then turned blue, we would not see the blue object first, we would see the red in delayed time. That's your theory and that's why answering these questions will make it look like your theory is conclusive and Lessans' claim is impossible. Actually, your questions just serve to prove your logic is valid. But it does not mean it's sound.

So again we see you weaseling and making shit up. I am not saying anything about red and blue objects or bouncing off with bits of information. The questions don't even mention information! I am just asking for five straight Yes/No answers to five simple questions which you have repeatedly LIED about having already answered. You just said you were going to answer them, but only gave 4 confused responses to a set of 5 questions. You refuse to number-match those answers to the questions, answer the skipped question, or even answer what was actually asked. What the fuck is wrong with you? Can't you even count to five?

You need photons at the camera film or retina when the Sun is first ignited.
1. Are they traveling photons?
2. Did they come from the Sun?
3. Did they get to the film/retina by traveling?
4. Did they travel at the speed of light?
5. Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't answer about different photons, and don't answer about photons in general. Answer (at least) Yes or No to the (five!) questions actually asked!

[But]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Hmmm - we could work out an earth-centric universe where light curves, and the curvature gets more pronounced the further away from earth things are.

That way, you look at a star that is far away, and the light coming in from that star has actually traveled a curved path.

But I am thinking those lines might get pretty squiggly if you remember that the earth both moves and spins.

Yes, that's right, the argument assumes a particular coordinate system. We could choose one that's stationary with respect to an observer on the Earth's surface, but then we would have to work out the motion of the Sun which is going to get pretty crazy and light wouldn't move in straight lines anymore.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So again we see you weaseling and making shit up. I am not saying anything about red and blue objects or bouncing off with bits of information. The questions don't even mention information! I am just asking for five straight Yes/No answers to five simple questions which you have repeatedly LIED about having already answered. You just said you were going to answer them, but only gave 4 confused responses to a set of 5 questions. You refuse to number-match those answers to the questions, answer the skipped question, or even answer what was actually asked. What the fuck is wrong with you? Can't you even count to five?

You need photons at the camera film or retina when the Sun is first ignited.
1. Are they traveling photons?
2. Did they come from the Sun?
3. Did they get to the film/retina by traveling?
4. Did they travel at the speed of light?
5. Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't answer about different photons, and don't answer about photons in general. Answer (at least) Yes or No to the (five!) questions actually asked!

I'm not making shit up Spacemonkey. And you're not going to railroad me, like some kind of prosecutor, into answering yes or no when that gives a false picture. Forget it!!!!!!!!!!!! I already agreed that light travels; that light comes from the Sun; that light cannot be at the Sun and at the eye instantaneously as if by magic; that light travels at a finite speed; and that light cannot leave the Sun before it is ignited. But you are failing to understand that the information from the object is not being reflected in the light. We are seeing the real object due to light's presence because we're already within the optical range of the object. The light is just a mirror image (for lack of a better analogy) that is showing up on the retina. Travel time has no bearing on this account.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by But

Yes, that's right, the argument assumes a particular coordinate system. We could choose one that's stationary with respect to an observer on the Earth's surface, but then we would have to work out the motion of the Sun which is going to get pretty crazy and light wouldn't move in straight lines anymore.

Then there is the problem of light speed. We worked it out assuming it travels in straight lines, but it does not. It seems to me light travels faster if it comes from further away if we assume sight is instant.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not making shit up Spacemonkey. And you're not going to railroad me, like some kind of prosecutor, into answering yes or no when that gives a false picture. Forget it!!!!!!!!!!!! I already agreed that light travels; that light comes from the Sun; that light cannot be at the Sun and at the eye instantaneously as if by magic; that light travels at a finite speed; and that light cannot leave the Sun before it is ignited. But you are failing to understand that the information from the object is not being reflected in the light. We are seeing the real object due to light's presence because we're already within the optical range of the object. The light is just a mirror image (for lack of a better analogy) that is showing up on the retina. Travel time has no bearing on this account.

You can't explain how the light on the retina got there. This isn't about information being reflected, mirror images or whatever. You have to explain where the light on the retina came from.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are looking for something to criticize, which is your goal (and people will listen to an authority figure due to their position in academia) that has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with the essence of this revolutionary discovery. You're doing this in an effort to discredit my father with the stupidest of reasons. Admit it TLR, because that is exactly what you're doing. If you can't bring him down directly, you will pick on his writing style to try to get people to discount any value in his content. The unsuspecting individual will take what you say at face value and give up on this knowledge. How sad!

Stop pointing out that my Daddy didn't know what he was talking about!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not making shit up Spacemonkey.

Of course you are. I never said anything about red and blue objects or information. You just made that shit up.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And you're not going to railroad me, like some kind of prosecutor, into answering yes or no when that gives a false picture.

Why would your own answers give a false picture? The only assumption involved in my questions is one you have agreed with—that you need light at the film/retina when the Sun is first ignited.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already agreed that light travels; that light comes from the Sun; that light cannot be at the Sun and at the eye instantaneously as if by magic; that light travels at a finite speed; and that light cannot leave the Sun before it is ignited.

Let's see how these perform as answers to my questions...

You need photons at the camera film or retina when the Sun is first ignited.
1. Are they traveling photons?
PG: I already agreed that light travels [Yes?]
2. Did they come from the Sun?
PG: Light comes from the Sun [Yes?]
3. Did they get to the film/retina by traveling?
PG: Light is at the film but not due to travel time [No?]
PG: Light cannot be at the Sun and at the eye instantaneously as if by magic [Huh?]
4. Did they travel at the speed of light?
PG: Light travels at a finite speed [Yes?]
5. Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?
PG: Light cannot leave the Sun before it is ignited [No?]

None of these responses actually answer what was asked. In your previous set you skipped Q2. In this one you failed to answer Q3. In almost every case you have answered about light generically rather than about the specific photons I asked about. All I can do is try to interpret your responses as best as I can, as I have done above.

So you now have light at the retina at 12:00 which came from the Sun, which is traveling light yet somehow didn't get from the Sun to the film/retina by traveling, and which never left the Sun until at or after 12:00. So...

6. If these photons which are now at the film/retina (i.e. at 12:00) came from the Sun, and could not have left the Sun before 12:00, when were they last at the Sun? Hell, when could they ever have been at the Sun? (Name a time when these photons were at the Sun)

7. What traveling did this traveling light do, if it didn't travel to where it now is from where it once was? How can they be traveling photons if they haven't traveled from their source to their present location? (Name a time when these photons were traveling or specify a distance they have traveled)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you are failing to understand that the information from the object is not being reflected in the light. We are seeing the real object due to light's presence because we're already within the optical range of the object. The light is just a mirror image (for lack of a better analogy) that is showing up on the retina. Travel time has no bearing on this account.

None of this is even remotely relevant to what I am asking you about, which concerns ONLY the location and behaviour of photons at different times in your account. I am not interested in information, optical range, or mirror images. I just want you to explain how these photons from the Sun ended up at the retina without traveling the distance at light speed and getting there 8min after leaving the Sun, as your answers still have them relocating by 90 million miles in zero time without traveling, despite being traveling photons.

[Spacemonkey]

Are these your answers (in bold), Peacegirl? If not, let me know which ones to change. If so, please answer the clarifying follow-up questions (1b-5b) below...

You need photons at the camera film or retina when the Sun is first ignited.
1. Are they traveling photons? Yes
2. Did they come from the Sun? Yes
3. Did they get to the film/retina by traveling? No
4. Did they travel at the speed of light? Yes
5. Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited? No

1b. What traveling have they done?
2b. When were they last (or ever) at the Sun?
3b. How did they get from the Sun to the film/retina?
4b. What distance have they traveled at light speed, and how long did it take?
5b. When did they leave the Sun?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to you, if the object was red and then turned blue, we would not see the blue object first, we would see the red in delayed time. That's your theory and that's why answering these questions will make it look like your theory is conclusive and Lessans' claim is impossible. Actually, your questions just serve to prove your logic is valid. But it does not mean it's sound.

So you're saying if we turn the object blue, then open the camera shutter after that, the camera would never record a red object?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

So you're saying if we turn the object blue, then open the camera shutter after that, the camera would never record a red object?

Right. There is a difference between light and matter. Light will show red before blue if red is first in line when traveling toward a target, but red will not show before blue if we're looking at matter because the information is not being transmitted in the light. So if we open the camera shutter, we will see whatever color the object is NOW, which is blue.

Is light matter?

Ibrahim El-Osery PhD, M.Sc and B.Sc Engineering Holder of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2005, sharing it as safeguards with the staff of the International Atomic Energy Agency

Answer 1
No it isn't; not in the usual sense, anyway. Light has some characteristics of waves and of particles. The particles, photons, have zero mass.
light is matter and light does have mass and does exert an infinitesimal amount of force on yhe object it come into contact

Answer 2No, light is not an example of matter. It is an example of electromagnetic waves. However, it is considered that light is composed of photons (massless particles) and it is applied to it some theories of matter.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are these your answers (in bold), Peacegirl? If not, let me know which ones to change. If so, please answer the clarifying follow-up questions (1b-5b) below...

You need photons at the camera film or retina when the Sun is first ignited.
1. Are they traveling photons? Yes
2. Did they come from the Sun? Yes
3. Did they get to the film/retina by traveling? No
4. Did they travel at the speed of light? Yes
5. Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited? No

1b. What traveling have they done?
2b. When were they last (or ever) at the Sun?
3b. How did they get from the Sun to the film/retina?
4b. What distance have they traveled at light speed, and how long did it take?
5b. When did they leave the Sun?

Bump.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right. There is a difference between light and matter. Light will show red before blue if red is first in line when traveling toward a target, but red will not show before blue if we're looking at matter because the information is not being transmitted in the light. So if we open the camera shutter, we will see whatever color the object is NOW, which is blue.

Another one for the peacegirl quote archive.

The light will show red before blue but the information is not transmitted in the light!

And let me guess, if we happen to see red, that must be from the red light that was still on its way, because we see objects and we see light, but if we see objects, the information is not in the light. Right?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Another one for the peacegirl quote archive.

The light will show red before blue but the information is not transmitted in the light!

And let me guess, if we happen to see red, that must be from the red light that was still on its way, because we see objects and we see light, but if we see objects, the information is not in the light. Right?

Light has many different hues. This information is in the light, but to say that light bounces of objects and takes that information through space/time is erroneous, if Lessans is right. You can argue that his claim is wrong. At least you aren't shutting him out. Until we know the truth, every sincere claim should be on the table.

[peacegirl]

What a wonderful world.

https://www.facebook.com/buffalomonk...4897032302339/

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light has many different hues. This information is in the light, but to say that light bounces of objects and takes that information through space/time is erroneous, if Lessans is right.

That is a big, big, very big if.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can argue that his claim is wrong. At least you aren't shutting him out. Until we know the truth, every sincere claim should be on the table.

Science knows the truth already, for ages and ages. Never met somebody as close minded as you are.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light has many different hues. This information is in the light, but to say that light bounces of objects and takes that information through space/time is erroneous, if Lessans is right. You can argue that his claim is wrong.

Yes. He's wrong. Completely wrong.

[Vivisectus]

How does a camera record a blue object when all it is receiving is red light? A camera just records light.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Light has many different hues. This information is in the light, but to say that light bounces of objects and takes that information through space/time is erroneous, if Lessans is right. You can argue that his claim is wrong. At least you aren't shutting him out. Until we know the truth, every sincere claim should be on the table.

But we just did that: light from visible stars comes in at the same angle as the visible stars. So now we know the truth: sight is not instant. If it wasn't, then light would have to curve towards every observer... everywhere in the universe, simultaneously, to create the illusion that it is not. That is not just extremely unlikely, it is completely impossible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

That is a big, big, very big if.

Science knows the truth already, for ages and ages. Never met somebody as close minded as you are.

I've never met anyone as stubborn as you are.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But we just did that: light from visible stars comes in at the same angle as the visible stars. So now we know the truth: sight is not instant. If it wasn't, then light would have to curve towards every observer... everywhere in the universe, simultaneously, to create the illusion that it is not. That is not just extremely unlikely, it is completely impossible.

Light coming from a star is delayed, just like light coming from the Sun would be delayed by 8 1/2 minutes if it was just turned on. No one is disputing this.