Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts

[WuWei]

@tnt

@WuWei

Who decides?

Mostly the peer review process. But also common sense.

Who is the peer of a dumb ass?

“Common sense”? Are you kidding?

[Guvnah]

@tnt

Well, I understand what you are saying, but …

No “but” necessary.

I am saying what I am saying. If you understand it, we’re done. If you don’t understand why we’re done, re-read my response to snnyluv in #163. Especially the last part.

[Guvnah]

@tnt

But it is fair to call bogus studies bogus, right?

Are you suggesting that all studies on “the other side” are bogus? If you are, then your previous reply to me that you understand my point is profoundly untrue.

[tnt]

@Guvnah

No “but” necessary.

I am saying what I am saying. If you understand it, we’re done. If you don’t understand why we’re done, re-read my response to snnyluv in #163. Especially the last part.

What do you do if the is no validity to the opposition’s argument and supporting evidence?

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@WuWei

@Supreme_War_Pig

@WuWei

Define “several” and “large”.

Um…3 or more, 100,000 or more. I am not married to those numbers, I just throw them out to continue the conversation.

Thank you.

So…do you agree with the definition?

And therefore, ‘pandemic’ is actually a meaningful term?

[Guvnah]

@tnt

What do you do if the is no validity to the opposition’s argument and supporting evidence?

Keep digging your hole.

[EternalVigilance]

@Guvnah

And there are documented examples of people dying from it, which may not be significant to you, but it seems kind of significant to me.

What volumes per million? That’s the figure that matters.

[WuWei]

@Supreme_War_Pig

@WuWei

@Supreme_War_Pig

@WuWei

Define “several” and “large”.

Um…3 or more, 100,000 or more. I am not married to those numbers, I just throw them out to continue the conversation.

Thank you.

So…do you agree with the definition?

And therefore, ‘pandemic’ is actually a meaningful term?

Thank you for proving my point.

[tnt]

@Guvnah

Are you suggesting that all studies on “the other side” are bogus? If you are, then your previous reply to me that you understand my point is profoundly untrue.

Of course not!

I think you are missing my point - I probably rambled on to long. Let me simplify.

I agree with your stance here - it doesn’t do anyone any good to just oppose and belittle and push. It widens the gaps.

However, some things are objectively true, and objectively false.

It is not fair to expect people to provide the respect and even handed deference to those who’s arguments and positions are based on objectively false information.

In short, yes, we need to respect other positions. 100%. But what, in your opinion, is an appropriate response to a position demanding respect that is based on objectively false information?

[Guvnah]

@EternalVigilance

What volumes per million? That’s the figure that matters.

I’ll repeat: Nobody but libs changed the statement to include prevalence. You’ll need to take it up with your fellow libs if you want someone to discuss that with.

Hope that helps!

[tnt]

@Guvnah

Keep digging your hole.

You have a very reasonable position here, but I’m curious how it reacts to objectively false information.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@WuWei

@Supreme_War_Pig

@WuWei

@Supreme_War_Pig

@WuWei

Define “several” and “large”.

Um…3 or more, 100,000 or more. I am not married to those numbers, I just throw them out to continue the conversation.

Thank you.

So…do you agree with the definition?

And therefore, ‘pandemic’ is actually a meaningful term?

Thank you for proving my point.

The point of yours that I was addressing was that “pandemic is a meaningless term”

The exchange above seems to indicate that it does have meaning.

What point of yours have I proven, and how do you think I proved it?

[EternalVigilance]

@Guvnah

I’ll repeat: Nobody but libs changed the statement to include prevalence. You’ll need to take it up with your fellow libs if you want someone to discuss that with.

Hope that helps!

Good lord, man. Nobody on this board is going to accuse me of being a “lib” - not all issues have to be partisan.

[WuWei]

@Supreme_War_Pig

What point of yours have I proven, and how do you think I proved it?

That it is meaningless. By making up numbers.

[Guvnah]

@tnt

I agree with your stance here - it doesn’t do anyone any good to just oppose and belittle and push. It widens the gaps.

However, some things are objectively true, and objectively false.

It is not fair to expect people to provide the respect and even handed deference to those who’s arguments and positions are based on objectively false information.

If you agreed with my stance here, you would understand that the other side is saying “objectively false” to your arguments.

Insisting that your side is the objective truth crushes any hope of meaningful discussion. Stick with that if you must, but don’t expect to be seen as credible.

So far, your attempts to say that you see my point just look like patronizing because of the “but” text you fall back on.

[Guvnah]

@tnt

You have a very reasonable position here, but I’m curious how it reacts to objectively false information.

More patronizing. Which makes your assertion of objective falsehood worthless.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@WuWei

@Supreme_War_Pig

What point of yours have I proven, and how do you think I proved it?

That it is meaningless. By making up numbers.

Ah, I see.

So how should we describe a “disease that affects several countries and a large number of people”?

Just like that? A full sentence?

Why use 1 word when 11 will do?

[WuWei]

@Supreme_War_Pig

Why use 1 word when 11 will do?

Emotion.

[tnt]

@Guvnah

More patronizing. Which makes your assertion of objective falsehood worthless.

I’m trying to have a good faith discussion. Sorry if my word choices sound patronizing. That is not my intent.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@WuWei

@Supreme_War_Pig

Why use 1 word when 11 will do?

Emotion.

Okay, well you do you I guess.