A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

Just like you ignore the fact that the book forgets to support its most important point, by the way. Isn't this fun? You spend so much time whinging about bias, and here you are, totally closing off your mind to a very real possibility.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I notice that you are still avoiding the fact that you don't know what the discovery is or you would have answered me by now. My father did not ignore anything. He made an astute observation and he described in detail what he observed. Conscience works in a very specific way and it cannot function at full capacity in a free will environment of blame and punishment.

Did so ages ago actually. One is that will is not free, yet we choose what we choose because it is our preference, and we are still responsible. Two is that blame is what allows people to justify bad deeds that are not retaliations.

He described his opinion, sure. But he did not give us any reason to believe it is correct. You know that this is what my point is. You even agree that there is nothing else but his opinion. You just want to elevate his opinion to an absolute truth, because that is the only way you can hang on to your ideas. That is very dishonest.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Let me put it this way: the guy who runs a pro-gun website ring, dispensing articles that tell you how owning guns is great and how gun restrictions are bad for freedom, the american way and apple-pie, who sells his own guns on his sites and makes a further killing selling advertising for gun-acessory salesmen is probably not the place to go for fair, unbiased news about the effects a new gun-law is going to have.

He probably really believes guns are great. But he is also likely to either spin stories to make guns look good, not to publish articles that present the anti-gun side of the story, and may indeed completely ignore evidence that says guns are bad. The mountain of evidence debunking the autism link to vaccines is an excellent example of this. This guy ignores it.

You're absolutely right. I don't think we can get away from bias completely. Scientists who try to be unbiased probably have some bias too. They can easily spin the results of an empirical study to support their premises, and they might not even realize they're doing it. I'm not saying this to bad mouth scientists, so please don't go there. As far as the autism and vaccine debate, I hope, for the sake of our children, that there is no link, but I don't know if it has been entirely debunked. I don't think he's ignoring it, I just don't think he believes it's been debunked, and he wants to warn his readers. He has every right to do that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Did so ages ago actually. One is that will is not free, yet we choose what we choose because it is our preference, and we are still responsible.

That is not a good summary Vivisecus and if you believe it is, it's no wonder that you think this discovery is false.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Two is that blame is what allows people to justify bad deeds that are not retaliations.

That's part of it, but it's not all of it. There are other legitimate justifications that people use to hurt others, often in retaliation for something done to them. Threats of punishment give people the ADVANCE justification to do what they want to do (even if what they do risks people's lives), because that's what allows them to rationalize their behavior, and it's this rationalization that eases their conscience. If there is no way to justify an action, conscience will not allow a person to perform these behaviors. That's the job of conscience. That's why we were given one.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

He described his opinion, sure. But he did not give us any reason to believe it is correct.

These observations are not his opinion. This has nothing to do with his opinion.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You know that this is what my point is. You even agree that there is nothing else but his opinion. You just want to elevate his opinion to an absolute truth, because that is the only way you can hang on to your ideas. That is very dishonest.

I never agreed that there is nothing else but his opinion. Are you kidding me? Show me where I ever said this was his opinion, and I'll eat my words.

[The Lone Ranger]

The whole "MMR vaccine causes autism" thing was a result of the "work" of ONE "researcher," Andrew Wakefield. It was later shown that he didn't just misinterpret information, he actually committed academic fraud. And, as it turned out, he had a financial interest in "finding" that there was a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

It's not just that lots of studies have shown that the vaccine/autism connection is nonexistent, it's that the entire notion is based on demonstrably fraudulent claims.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe for a second that Mike Adams is doing all this just for his own sake. No way. I have read enough of his articles to know he is a sincere guy; maybe he's not right all of the time but he is doing these websites out of a sincere desire to help.

I'm sure Mike Adams could be entirely sincere. That doesn't make him any less of a monster. He's a danger to people who listen to him.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The whole "MMR vaccine causes autism" thing was a result of the "work" of ONE "researcher," Andrew Wakefield. It was later shown that he didn't just misinterpret information, he actually committed academic fraud. And, as it turned out, he had a financial interest in "finding" that there was a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

It's not just that lots of studies have shown that the vaccine/autism connection is nonexistent, it's that the entire notion is based on demonstrably fraudulent claims.

If that's the case then parents should feel good about giving their infants vaccines. The vaccine schedule has changed from days past, and it's much more aggressive, plus there are combination risks that they don't know enough about. As a parent, I would be leery of shooting into my child's bloodstream all of these vaccines. The additives that go into them may be problematic, even if there isn't a direct link. Regardless, a decision to give vaccines should be up to the parent, not government.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/sch...chedule-pr.pdf

Experts Debate Use of Vaccine Booster - NYTimes.com

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...uary-2010.aspx

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I'm sure Mike Adams could be entirely sincere. That doesn't make him any less of a monster. He's a danger to people who listen to him.

I think you're wrong here. You don't think there's a danger when you walk into a hospital for treatment? More people die in hospitals from iatrogenic errors than you can even imagine. And you don't think Mr. Adams has a right to talk about these serious problems that get hushed hushed? I think you have your head in the sand.

i·at·ro·gen·ic/īˌatrəˈjenik/

Adjective

Of or relating to illness caused by medical examination or treatment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is the discovery Vivisectus?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Which one? That man’s will is not free and yet responsible, or that blame is what enables people to justify doing bad deeds that are not a retaliation? And what does this have to do with the complete lack of any reason to believe the book is correct about the latter?
You seem be back into guru-wannabe mode.

That is the farthest thing from my mind.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I would suggest making sure that what you are trying to teach is correct before demanding that people recite the rote learning. And as we have seen, so far there is some work to be done… unless you can answer the objection that you should know by heart by now.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Does it? Where? I keep asking you to point it out, but you never do. And please note that I am not even asking for evidence per se: just some reason, any reason at all, to believe that it is correct. Considering that the book claims that it is *undeniable* that conscience works that way, I do not think it is a lot to ask.

Go to Chapter Two and read it. Then get back to me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He has to state the principles before we can test it; but you're not even giving him a chance.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Sure.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And then you need to show why it is likely that the principle is true, or at least make some sort of case in its favour. The book itself goes a lot further than that: it claims that the proposed principle is *undeniably* true, which implies that the evidence is so overwhelming that it cannot be reasonably denied. However, the book contains none. Neither does it contain any other reason to believe it is correct. And you are dishonestly trying to ignore that… again.

You don't know what you're talking about Vivisectus. It is so clearly explained I don't know why you don't see his reasoning. It's right there.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If the book would clearly state “IF conscience works this way, THEN the rest would follow” I would have no problem with this part whatsoever. But it doesn’t. It flat-out states that it does, and that this cannot be denied.
And let us not forget what a key passage this is. If conscience does not work as the book says it does, then the whole rest of the book lacks all foundation. Everything else, except maybe efferent sight and the bits that were not in my version, are based on it.

That's true, but the foundation is solid. I am positive that he is right about conscience. I am so positive I would chop off my hand to prove it, would you?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What is your own explanation for its absence?

It's not absent.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're jumping to the conclusion that his observations can't be true, which is not something any serious investigator would do.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am doing no such thing. What I am pointing out is that the writer expects people to accept his ideas as “undeniable” when he has not even taken the very first step towards making a case for it.

He has Vivisectus. You really need to study Chapter Two again. If you really want to know whether this is a genuine discovery, that's the least you could do. That's what he urged people to do, read the book at least twice in the right sequence. You may have skimmed this chapter once, but that's not enough.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Your appeal to authority is neither here nor there. I am not making any comment on the possibility of it being true: as you said yourself, that remains untested.

I wasn't appealing to authority. I was just mentioning that Harris made observations that may also not lend themselves to the kind of proof that everyone demands; nevertheless, his observations about moral objectivity when it comes to the well-being of different cultures is spot on.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am just saying that there is absolutely no reason to believe it is true, while the book claims it undeniably proves that it is. In fact, the writer seems to have forgotten to include even an attempt to make a case for it.

Wrong.

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. You've rushed to judgment and you're going to regret it one day. This time could have been spent reading the book and asking relevant questions and you would have gotten so much more out of it. But you have no questions; just criticism for knowledge you have no grasp of.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In this case, we have all the proof we need: the book. In it, there is no case in favour of believing that conscience works this way.

It works exactly this way. You can see it whenever someone does something considered wrong by others that he is then blamed for. What does he do? Most the time he doesn't admit wrongdoing if the punishment is severe. He will try to shift what is his responsibility, but when a more serious crime occurs, it's not that easy. He has to have alibi's and other concrete evidence to prove that he was not responsible. Even if he did do the crime, knowing that he would be questioned, if caught, is what his conscience needs for him to go ahead with the crime.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The issue is not if it is possible that things work as you say. The issue is that there is no reason to assume it is so. And certainly it has not been “undeniably” shown to be true, as the book claims.

You keep saying that, but you're incorrect. There is a strong reason to believe that conscience works this way because it makes absolute sense based on what he observed, so instead of taking all this time on posts that are unproductive, take the time to read the chapter and then report back. Have questions ready instead of telling me there's no meat in this chapter.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That would be a little embarrassing if it was just a minor point, but since the entire rest of the book hinges on it is a huge blunder.

There is no blunder to speak of. His observations were absolutely 100% spot on.

[thedoc]

Has anyone noticed that Peacegirl vacilates between saying that the proof is absolutely in the book, and that scientists, philosophers and other experts will someday verify the claims in the book?

[LadyShea]

Jolie had a much higher risk of developing breast cancer than the average smoker has of developing lung cancer. She has 6 kids she doesn't want to leave, especially after she watched her mom die at age 56 of ovarian cancer after having had breast cancer as well.

There is no reason at all to think she was misled about the risks, she had all of the highest risk factors.

[thedoc]

There used to be a TV sit-com called 'Spin City' which was a play on the political practice of taking some event or statement and reintrepreting it, or 'spinning' it for the benefit of some political figure. The real question now is who is going to benifit from this particular intrepretation of Jolie's action?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said you did. I am saying that, due to your extreme skepticism, you have thrown out this treasure of knowledge prematurely.

No, what you said was "you won't get off your high horse until someone of great stature endorses it. " You seemed to think I give a shit about stature and will change my tune if someone important endorses the book

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course not. That's not what I'm even implying.

Oh? Then what did you mean when you said "you won't get off your high horse until someone of great stature endorses it. " and followed it up with that stuff about it going viral maybe?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Jolie had a much higher risk of developing breast cancer than the average smoker has of developing lung cancer. She has 6 kids she doesn't want to leave, especially after she watched her mom die at age 56 of ovarian cancer after having had breast cancer as well.

There is no reason at all to think she was misled about the risks, she had all of the highest risk factors.

Of course she doesn't want to leave her kids. If these are the actual risk factors then I'm sure she made the right decision for her life. I am not sure why it was made public though. It could lead to a trend where women decide too quickly to get unnecessary double mastectomies. I'm sure there will be a lot of discussion surrounding this issue as time goes on.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, what you said was "you won't get off your high horse until someone of great stature endorses it. " You seemed to think I give a shit about stature and will change my tune if someone important endorses the book

I still do even though you will deny it. I guarantee that if Einstein was sitting at your dinner table, and he said that there is something to this discovery, you would be star struck and would not question his endorsement for fear of looking foolish next to such an intellectual giant. I can just see you telling him that his reasoning is fallacious because Lessans' discovery is a modal fallacy. Wouldn't happen.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course not. That's not what I'm even implying.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh? Then what did you mean when you said "you won't get off your high horse until someone of great stature endorses it. " and followed it up with that stuff about it going viral maybe?

I was specifically talking about you, not the crackpot ideas that celebrities often endorse. I know you are trying to be objective, but I don't believe you would question a person you admired highly if they endorsed this book. You would have a different attitude altogether toward Lessans even before you knew their reasons behind their endorsement.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I still do even though you will deny it.

I know you think that. I asked you what led you to that belief, and who you think I will respond to. Then you went off about maybe it going viral and ignored my questions. So, I'll ask again. What makes you think I give a shit about stature, and who do you think I am in enough awe of (that is alive) that could sway me with merely his or her endorsement?

I was specifically talking about you, not the crackpot ideas that celebrities often endorse. I know you are trying to be objective, but I don't believe you would question a person you admired highly if they endorsed this book.

What have I said that indicates to you I wouldn't question someone or require them to make a sound argument?

You would have a different attitude altogether toward Lessans even before you knew their reasons behind their endorsement.

Nope, that's not me at all. Everyone has to make their case to me.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course she doesn't want to leave her kids. If these are the actual risk factors then I'm sure she made the right decision for her life. I am not sure why it was made public though. It could lead to a trend where women decide too quickly to get unnecessary double mastectomies. I'm sure there will be a lot of discussion surrounding this issue as time goes on.

She went public so people would know her reasons rather than speculate about them, and to give others the courage to inform themselves and maybe get tested and be proactive. She never said anyone should make the same choice she did, only that having information ahead of time offers more choices than not having the information.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I still do even though you will deny it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I know you think that. I asked you what led you to that belief, and who you think I will respond to. Then you went off about maybe it going viral and ignored my questions. So, I'll ask again. What makes you think I give a shit about stature, and who do you think I am in enough awe of (that is alive) that could sway me with merely his or her endorsement?

I don't know who would sway you with his or her endorsement because I don't know who you admire in the science field. I am sure that if someone did endorse the book, you would take a second look with a different attitude.

I was specifically talking about you, not the crackpot ideas that celebrities often endorse. I know you are trying to be objective, but I don't believe you would question a person you admired highly if they endorsed this book.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What have I said that indicates to you I wouldn't question someone or require them to make a sound argument?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you would not come off so bold with your righteous indignation that you are right in your analysis and that these principles are fallacious. You would question your own conclusions, which you have not done. You are too trusting of your own capabilities in determining whether he has something of value or not, and this is going to hurt you because you will have overlooked an important discovery.

You would have a different attitude altogether toward Lessans even before you knew their reasons behind their endorsement.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, that's not me at all. Everyone has to make their case to me.

Well that's fine and dandy that everyone has to make a case for you. But who are you in that you are the last word? How can you trust yourself when you may not be capable of understanding what is being explained. Are you capable of determining whether Einstein was correct? Could you peer review his work? Would you be confident enough to know positively that your acceptance or rejection of his knowledge held any weight?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She went public so people would know her reasons rather than speculate about them, and to give others the courage to inform themselves and maybe get tested and be proactive. She never said anyone should make the same choice she did, only that having information ahead of time offers more choices than not having the information.

If she didn't make it public who would be speculating? Giving people courage to do what? This was a very rare case (at least that's what I read), therefore it doesn't apply to most breast cancer cases. I am not even questioning her genuine motives to help people, but I do question the medical industry's motives because I don't believe it was pure. There is always this element of using a celebrity to make money. Maybe I'm jaded but that's how I feel, and just like you I stay on guard until proven otherwise.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know who would sway you with his or her endorsement because I don't know who you admire in the science field. I am sure that if someone did endorse the book, you would take a second look with a different attitude.

If the endorsement was based on evidence and a real scientist presented that evidence, I would take a look at the evidence. I have always said I would examine whatever came up. I have also stated I would analyze any new arguments presented.

I am an equal opportunity skeptic, nobody gets a free pass.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you would not come off so bold with your righteous indignation that you are right in your analysis and that these principles are fallacious. You would question your own conclusions, which you have not done. You are too trusting of your own capabilities in determining whether he has something of value or not, and this is going to hurt you because you will have overlooked an important discovery.

I would revisit my opinion if new evidence or sound reasoning warranted a re-examination.

Well that's fine and dandy that everyone has to make a case for you. But who are you in that you are the last word? How can you trust yourself when you may not be capable of understanding what is being explained. Are you capable of determining whether Einstein was correct? Could you peer review his work? Would you be confident enough to know positively that your acceptance or rejection of his knowledge held any weight?

I am the last word for myself. I am perfectly capable of examining evidence and arguments...I do it all the time. If it is beyond my abilities I seek others' explanations and supportive arguments to see if any of them help me understand.

Of course I can't peer review Einstein's work, I am neither a scientist nor a mathematician, therefore not a peer at all. And because I am neither, many things in those fields are beyond my personal comprehension and abilities, which is why I prefer evidential support to mere claims. Fortunately, real scientists usually have evidence before they make positive claims.

Anyway, that's all irrelevant to my point. You said "even before you knew their reasons behind their endorsement" and that is not the case.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If she didn't make it public who would be speculating? Giving people courage to do what?

She's a major celebrity! They have a very hard time keeping things secret. Photographers follow her around, and people saw her at the clinic and such. Something would have gotten out.

And giving people the courage to get tested if they have reason to believe they are high risk, so they can address it or try to mitigate the risk before they have cancer. They may choose to address it with diet and exercise or other natural means just as easily, right? If you had an 87% chance of getting cancer, do you think knowing this would help you make decisions?

This was a very rare case (at least that's what I read), therefore it doesn't apply to most breast cancer cases.

So? It applied to her case. It may apply to a poster here at whose mother died at only 36. She has reason to believe she is high risk and may get tested sooner now.

I am not even questioning her genuine motives to help people, but I do question the medical industry's motives because I don't believe it was pure. There is always this element of using a celebrity to make money. Maybe I'm jaded but that's how I feel, and just like you I stay on guard until proven otherwise.

As for making money, your woo gurus have plenty of cancer clinics and supplement lines and various treatments, and make most of their money off distrust and fear of the medical establishment. They used her celebrity for their own ends too. Follow the money goes both ways.

[LadyShea]

Why was this made public!? People shouldn't tell their stories in the media! It might make people decide too quickly to say no to conventional treatment!

Dr. Nalini Chilkov: One Woman's Story: Saying No to Conventional Cancer Treatment

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She's a major celebrity! They have a very hard time keeping things secret. Photographers follow her around, and people saw her at the clinic and such. Something would have gotten out.

That is total bullshit LadyShea. Let it go.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And giving people the courage to get tested if they have reason to believe they are high risk, so they can address it or try to mitigate the risk before they have cancer. They may choose to address it with diet and exercise or other natural means just as easily, right? If you had an 87% chance of getting cancer, do you think knowing this would help you make decisions?

Yes, I agreed with you. Do you not listen?

This was a very rare case (at least that's what I read), therefore it doesn't apply to most breast cancer cases.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So? It applied to her case. It may apply to a poster here at whose mother died at only 36. She has reason to believe she is high risk and may get tested sooner now.

That is true but I don't believe the motives of the medical profession was purely out to help the 1% who have this problem. They are out to make money; a profit. They are truly not to blame, but call it what it is, okay"?

I am not even questioning her genuine motives to help people, but I do question the medical industry's motives because I don't believe it was pure. There is always this element of using a celebrity to make money. Maybe I'm jaded but that's how I feel, and just like you I stay on guard until proven otherwise.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As for making money, your woo gurus have plenty of cancer clinics and supplement lines and various treatments, and make most of their money off distrust and fear of the medical establishment. They used her celebrity for their own ends too. Follow the money goes both ways.

There is good reason to fear the medical establishment. Do you not get this? Her celebrity is feeding into a conglomerate that is in the guise of being a caring profession. These people have total control over what you think about in regard to your health. Even the major channels on televsion are feeding into this because they get paid for advertising this stuff. These are all lies. Once again, I am not saying that within the profession there are not caring doctors, but there is this element which is extremely dangerous, and it cannot be hidden behind closed doors anymore.

[LadyShea]

Yes, and all of the alternative practitioners are saints who donate all their money to charity, right? Those cancer clinics are free, right?

Skepticism should be equally applied. I do not believe everything that comes out of doctors mouths, but I think evidence based medicine is preferable to faith healing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There will be people who will read this book with enthusiasm and love it, I have no doubt. It might be someone of great stature, of great celebrity, or it may go viral as people begin to spread the word of this discovery.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe it will, but what makes you think I care about that?

I told you why. Are you asleep?

I never said you did. I am saying that, due to your extreme skepticism, you have thrown out this treasure of knowledge prematurely.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, what you said was "you won't get off your high horse until someone of great stature endorses it. " You seemed to think I give a shit about stature and will change my tune if someone important endorses the book

I still do even though you will deny it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I know you think that. I asked you what led you to that belief, and who you think I will respond to. Then you went off about maybe it going viral and ignored my questions. So, I'll ask again. What makes you think I give a shit about stature, and who do you think I am in enough awe of (that is alive) that could sway me with merely his or her endorsement?

I don't know who would sway you with his or her endorsement because I don't know who you admire in the science field. I am sure that if someone did endorse the book, you would take a second look with a different attitude.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If the endorsement was based on evidence and a real scientist presented that evidence, I would take a look at the evidence. I have always said I would examine whatever came up. I have also stated I would analyze any new arguments presented.

I am an equal opportunity skeptic, nobody gets a free pass.

You are a skeptic but you are not a scientist. You are using your skepticism as if it brings you greater honor. It does not LadyShea. Actually, it is turning you into a snob. You know nothing, absolutely nothing when it comes to whether this knowledge is accurate or not.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you would not come off so bold with your "expertise" by saying that these principles are fallacious. You would question your own conclusions, which you have not done. You are too trusting of your own capabilities in determining whether he has something of value or not, and this is going to hurt you because you will have overlooked an important discovery.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I would revisit my opinion if new evidence or sound reasoning warranted a re-examination.

Who cares what you would revisit. Why do you consider yourself that important in determining a scientific truth? You're out in left field all because of the high esteem you place on your opinions, and that's all they are.

You would have a different attitude altogether toward Lessans even before you knew their reasons behind their endorsement.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, that's not me at all. Everyone has to make their case to me.

Well that's fine and dandy that everyone has to make a case for you. But who are you in that you are the last word? How can you trust yourself when you may not be capable of understanding what is being explained. Are you capable of determining whether Einstein was correct? Could you peer review his work? Would you be confident enough to know positively that your acceptance or rejection of his knowledge held any weight?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am the last word for myself. I am perfectly capable of examining evidence and arguments...I do it all the time. If it is beyond my abilities I seek others' explanations and supportive arguments to see if any of them help me understand.

Don't you see how wrong your conclusions COULD be based on your limited understanding, or may I say your incapability of understanding? I am incapable of understanding Stephen Hawking and I would never assert that his reasoning is wrong? Please try to be humble, or I can't talk to you at all LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course I can't peer review Einstein's work, I am neither a scientist nor a mathematician, therefore not a peer at all. And because I am neither, many things in those fields are beyond my personal comprehension and abilities, which is why I prefer evidential support to mere claims. Fortunately, real scientists usually have evidence before they make positive claims.

That's just the point; you believe you are capable of understanding what determines a scientific proof, and you're using your self-appointed position at FF as spokesperson to sway people to your side. You believe you are capable of making these determinations and you are speaking for everyone in here. Can you admit that you may be wrong, or are you so caught up in your own self-importance that you are blind?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Anyway, that's all irrelevant to my point. You said "even before you knew their reasons behind their endorsement" and that is not the case.

Maybe not in this case but certainly in the case of someone you respected highly.