Democracy, checks and balances vs $$$cientific peer review process

[Kaon]

People insisting on their "God-given knowledge" usually deny the "God-given knowlegde" of other people. Almost as if God gives different "knowledge" - or "truth" - to different people. Or almost as if he doesn't do it at all.

Be honest; how many times have I actually done that? I represent only myself, and while you may have a point, you should know that I am the first one to say and mean that "everyone is a genius, and that we are taught to be stupid, or dependent on systems." I have said this several times on these forums because I mean it; that is part of my entire position on everything from field theory to geopolitical analysis on these forums.

There are plenty more people like me who actually want others to come out of these systems so that their full potential can be seen, and reached - precisely because we can see that the Most High God has given us a wealth of talents. We rarely see what we are capable of; we are told often what we cant do, what we are unqualified for and what we shouldn't do. If we ever want to get out of our crude approach to this abundance called life, we would be pressed to do this with each other all of the time - reinforce and vindicate each other in a substantive way.

Knowledge is gained. Not given.

If knowledge isn't inspired at least tangent of you, then you are being deceived; you just have ego. Every single piece of energy in this plane of existence offers its own set of knowledge to us - we choose to believe we get it on our own life odyssey because it makes us feel in control of our own destiny. But, how many people can teach themselves criminal law in 10 years? How many people can teach themselves about magnetohydrodynamics in 10 years? There are only a few real autodidacts in the world, and those autodidacts still need to be given a structure for their self-learning.

Babies are not born stupid; they know how to angle the forces of their leg to press against the floor and exert a force on it - so that the floor exerts a force on its leg in the opposite direction. This is first-year physics given to the basic model of the "baby" - the baby did not gain the knowledge of Newtonian mechanics on its own. Babies can also understand who to trust, and how to manipulate other adults to get what they want and need - this is first year psychology given to the basic model of the "baby". We teach babies how to think, and ultimately retard their God-given potential to be geniuses based on the elements given to them.


Even though we may vehemently disagree, I am not ignoring or dismissing what you have to say despite the apparent context.

 

[Kaon]

Academia doesn’t set itself up as “truth” Sometimes they have opinions that make good popular books written for laymen. The evidence might or might not agree with them . Over time these opinion books get pushed to the side . I’ve got this very old bestseller called Vitamin C and You. The some of the opinions in that book are based on pseudoscience . No one pays any attention to that book and the only reason I hadn’t discarded it was because I was just too used to seeing it on the shelf .
Sometimes these opinions bleed over into legitimate research. If they turn out to be incorrect then they eventually get discovered and corrected (or mostly ignored) as better data comes in .

I am not talking about what humans call "pseudoscience" or woo, I am talking about peer-reviewed science - it exerts itself as a large measure of "truth". The conditions added to it are what make it conditional truth - subject to change. But, let's not forget academia is the same system, albeit tamed, that killed, imprisoned and humiliated people that disagreed with the established status quo. You can convince yourself that academia doesn't what has been "confirmed as fact" as truth conditionally, but it is definitely the case. Otherwise, why would we have a psychology of deriding people who disagree with the established paradigm?

If academia isn't set up as truth, why should anyone follow the school of thought? For the most part, people are looking for the truth; few people want to be strung along for a generation only to be told they have to think a different way by an established authority other than their God-given mind. There is nothing wrong with sharing ideas and technology; that is basic philosophy and "philadelphia". What is misleading and misinforming is when an idea is treated in a higher degree than another - especially since no human is better than the other.

There are also confirmed established facts that some members of the public just refuse to accept . The ridiculous furor over Evolution is a good example of that .

And by the way Kaon sound is not electromagnetic radiation because sound is a pressure wave . What you hear is the air molecules pushing against your eardrums after being pushed by the tree falling . No medium to propagate through, no sound and the sound of the tree falling will eventually get overwhelmed by other sounds as the wave extends out . So not forever either.
If you want forever ( at least until the photons hit something) shine a flashlight into the sky

A tree still emits electromagnetic radiation in the form of radio waves when it agitates the ground, breaks the bonds of its chemical composition to snap, and the branches of its body interact with the air currents and each other. And, that is just we notice when a tree falls in our presence - extrapolated to the event in abstentia.
​

The emphasis was an implication of a medium - the actual medium (bonds) before it reaches the "air", and certainly before it reaches your ear drums. This is another fundamental reason why no observer is needed for something to make a sound - independent of the medium. Even in a vacuum, that EM radiation can be captured and transformed into sound mechanically even down to its temporal and spacial origin. I did not specify that this process immediately transforms EM radiation into sound because the person I was speaking to (I assume) understood the context was the identity and longevity of something unobserved. Sound is not only physical, it is psychological and spiritual. If we really want to be pedantic, sound (and any observation) is "frozen-in" by the observer itself - manifesting into pure existence and therefore founded.

However, what you said is good clarification for a lurker who may have been confused.

 

[Kaon]

Why the scare quotes? are you saying this hypothetical way won't really be more learned?

If you're saying that society will revert to a prescientific way of thinking & working, that seems possible, if unlikely; but science will still remain the best means we have of gaining reliable knowledge about the world, whether we use it or not.

Ok.

 

[Erik Nelson]

I think that one possible reason why the foundations of physics aren't really changing a lot is that maybe we got it right this time. Or at least as right as we can with our current level of technology.

Professor Hassenfelder is the "subject matter expert" on this matter?

Be like Greta and defer to the scientists?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Aryuveda medicine works a lot better than Western medicine for a lot of people in the West;

Not really.

At best, for a small set of conditions, low quality studies show it is as good as other 'natural' supplements or conventional treatment.

Is Ayurvedic Medicine Safe?
Some Ayurvedic preparations may contain lead, mercury, or arsenic in amounts that can be toxic.

Is Ayurvedic Medicine Effective?
A few studies suggest that Ayurvedic preparations may reduce pain and increase function in people with osteoarthritis and help manage symptoms in people with type 2 diabetes, but most of these trials are small or not well-designed. There is little scientific evidence on Ayurveda’s value for other health issues.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not really.

At best, for a small set of conditions, low quality studies show it is as good as other 'natural' supplements or conventional treatment.

Is Ayurvedic Medicine Safe?
Some Ayurvedic preparations may contain lead, mercury, or arsenic in amounts that can be toxic.

Is Ayurvedic Medicine Effective?
A few studies suggest that Ayurvedic preparations may reduce pain and increase function in people with osteoarthritis and help manage symptoms in people with type 2 diabetes, but most of these trials are small or not well-designed. There is little scientific evidence on Ayurveda’s value for other health issues.

Yes; one might expect an ancient treatment system to get some things right by trial and error, but the placebo effect is good at masking such results, and without placebo-controlled trials, it's hard to tell the difference.

 

[Kaon]

Not really.

At best, for a small set of conditions, low quality studies show it is as good as other 'natural' supplements or conventional treatment.

Is Ayurvedic Medicine Safe?
Some Ayurvedic preparations may contain lead, mercury, or arsenic in amounts that can be toxic.

Is Ayurvedic Medicine Effective?
A few studies suggest that Ayurvedic preparations may reduce pain and increase function in people with osteoarthritis and help manage symptoms in people with type 2 diabetes, but most of these trials are small or not well-designed. There is little scientific evidence on Ayurveda’s value for other health issues.

This heavily depends on the genetics of the person - which is why I said it works for a lot of people - the literal word for "lot".

And, what you have brought is your standard for truth and logical discernment. You may depend or trust academic studies to vindicate information and circumstances for you - which is perfectly fine (I am not critiquing this). However, you must understand that Ayurveda medicine has been around for thousands of years - and does work for people independent of how much academia can find that satisfies the standards.

But, in the end, Ayurveda is one school of though for medicine. Schools of thought are fleeting at best, which is why you have to choose your system and have the confidence to adhere to it - even, and especially because of the consequences. But, it is just a system/school of thought; the "quality" of its function is subjectivity at its base. You cannot know you are under a spell if you don't believe in magic; you have to entertain the idea that the school of thought for which you subscribe is completely crude - as seriously as you believe your system to work. If not, you will either waste time focusing on a dead end realized much later than necessary, or you will be surprised when your system fails.

 

[essentialsaltes]

This heavily depends on the genetics of the person - which is why I said it works for a lot of people - the literal word for "lot".

How do you know this?

 

[Kaon]

How do you know this?

Because of historical documentation and research, and my own research. I am not a medical doctor, but my field allows me to interpret medical data as well (at least from a raw scientific perspective; I cannot interpolate the medical implications except to comment on results). So, something that "works" implies a result that can be interpreted as significantly effective - I use cinnamon to aid my diabetes, and my blood sugar levels decrease by 1/4.

But, this depends on one's genetics, which is why it works for specific people - not everyone. Western medicine works for specific people as well, but it isn't the medical answer.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...So, something that "works" implies a result that can be interpreted as significantly effective - I use cinnamon to aid my diabetes, and my blood sugar levels decrease by 1/4.

But, this depends on one's genetics, which is why it works for specific people - not everyone. Western medicine works for specific people as well, but it isn't the medical answer.

What are your criteria for 'significant' efficacy, and what evidence do you have that it depends on specific genetics?

Frankly, it sounds like a combination of regression to the mean, confirmation bias, and post-hoc justification. I can explain what I mean by that if you wish.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Because of historical documentation and research, and my own research. I am not a medical doctor, but my field allows me to interpret medical data as well (at least from a raw scientific perspective; I cannot interpolate the medical implications except to comment on results). So, something that "works" implies a result that can be interpreted as significantly effective - I use cinnamon to aid my diabetes, and my blood sugar levels decrease by 1/4.

But, this depends on one's genetics, which is why it works for specific people - not everyone. Western medicine works for specific people as well, but it isn't the medical answer.

 

[Kaon]

This is why I would never post evidence for an argument on these forums besides what I say (i.e. no actual certificates, scholarly articles or references) - it doesn't matter. And, I am not having one of the passive-aggressive lot do anything to affect my career or livelihood. You can disagree with me forever, but there is no reason to use sophomoric subtlety of insult to dismiss or disqualify an argument - especially when you behave as if you want to be taken seriously. If this was your tap-out point, you could have saved me the time and resisted the urge to feign interest by raising a question.

Your meme doesn't bother me; what bothers me is I actually took you serious enough to consider you would at least entertain things beyond what you believe to be status quo - I have seen your posts on other things on these forums. But, at least you put in the effort to apply a meme. I hope you find what you are looking for - if you are looking for something at all.

 

[Kaon]

Frankly, it sounds like a combination of regression to the mean, confirmation bias, and post-hoc justification.

O.K.

 

[Nithavela]

Professor Hassenfelder is the "subject matter expert" on this matter?

Be like Greta and defer to the scientists?

I dont know what you are trying to say.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

O.K.

Do I take it you're unwilling or unable to describe your criteria for 'significant' efficacy, or evidence that it depends on specific genetics?

 

[Kaon]

Do I take it you're unwilling or unable to describe your criteria for 'significant' efficacy, or evidence that it depends on specific genetics?

You really don't get why I am just saying, "OK" to you?

Why do you think people I disagree with can get an essay response, but you get nothing? You are not thinking about it correctly, and it is painfully clear why - so I will help you to understand.

You are an example of what I describe in Post 32. It is very easy to discern your direction and position since your attempts at subtlety actually work to expose you. For that reason, I won't ever seriously discuss anything with you; I have given you responses so as to not be rude (yet, you would try to eviscerate me if you saw an intellectual opening.) I'm not on these forums playing with bovine excrement, so you lot can play games by debating things for the fun of it, or testing the strength of your own ego.

If you don't want to come off like this, you could try not being yourself, or start being yourself.

 

[Ophiolite]

You really don't get why I am just saying, "OK" to you?

Why do you think people I disagree with can get an essay response, but you get nothing? You are not thinking about it correctly, and it is painfully clear why - so I will help you to understand.

You are an example of what I describe in Post 32. It is very easy to discern your direction and position since your attempts at subtlety actually work to expose you. For that reason, I won't ever seriously discuss anything with you; I have given you responses so as to not be rude (yet, you would try to eviscerate me if you saw an intellectual opening.) I'm not on these forums playing with bovine excrement, so you lot can play games by debating things for the fun of it, or testing the strength of your own ego.

If you don't want to come off like this, you could try not being yourself, or start being yourself.

Just as data point for you, I also failed to discern what your "OK" meant. Most of the options I considered were unflattering to yourself. That was not likely to be your intention, but it was the effect.

It probably won't be especially helpful, but all I can suggest is some advice I saw very recently.

"If you don't want to come off like this, you could try not being yourself, or start being yourself."

 

[Strathos]

You ever going to answer my question about Antarctica, OP?

 

[Kaon]

Just as data point for you, I also failed to discern what your "OK" meant. Most of the options I considered were unflattering to yourself. That was not likely to be your intention, but it was the effect.

It was the effect on you; you are one human - even if you were 1,000,000,000,000 I would still stand by everything I say. I also understand you likely do not understand this philosophy, and you cannot contain your urges to comment on what you believe is nonsense - even though you don't know everything to know what is nonsense.

It probably won't be especially helpful, but all I can suggest is some advice I saw very recently.

"If you don't want to come off like this, you could try not being yourself, or start being yourself."

You are another example of Post 32: using not-so-subtle sophomoric quips in an attempt to disqualify and dismiss a point or argument - this time, you were unoriginal. I see you do it, though, plenty on these forums. I don't ever have reason to respond to your posts, because I know the trajectory of them, and I don't like to seriously converse with people who cant entertain things beyond their own training or schooling. It also isn't my cup of tea to debate for the sake of an endocrine rush. You should understand why in the past I have only given you an "OK", or I say nothing at all to you as well. I am responding now for the same reason outlined in Post 36: to help you understand.

 

[Brightmoon]

How do you know this?

. That is accurate. the biochemistry of men and women is a little different and your personal biochemistry also changes as you age from an infant to an elder. That’s one of the reasons you can’t give children under 12 certain medications.

Kaon , sound waves don’t generate electromagnetic waves . The ENERGY of the wave striking something that could generate EM does happen. And I’m going to ask my friend to try that cinnamon treatment . ( of course i m sure that you can see your blood sugar go down.)Im gonna let her ask her doctor if she can do it . Folk medicine does work sometimes