| 5G Fake News 10:09 - May 20 with 4015 views | StokieBlue |
So a couple of weeks ago there was some talk about the alleged adverse health effects of 5G despite the evidence to the contrary.
This is a rather good article from the NYT highlighting how media such as RT manipulate language and sources to sow the seed of doubt about these things (5G specifically in the article).
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety-health-russia.html
It’s interesting that some people are willing to believe anything that’s from an alternative source to the government or scientific norms without actually considering the source or motivations. The internet and forums such as ours are a sea of false equivalencies nowadays.
Sure, it's NYT article so they are likely to point to RT as one of the offenders but they also link to the science behind the myths. Unfortunately often that is just dismissed by those who want to take the contrary view and are distrusting of anything said by officials and point to historical events as evidence for contemporary misdemeanors.
It’s a worrying trend.
SB
|  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |  |
| 5G Fake News on 13:07 - May 20 with 1544 views | StokieBlue |
| 5G Fake News on 13:01 - May 20 by crunchie1978 |
An extremely popular search engine would u believe.
A prime example of misleading. |
What's incorrect about it?
It's the observable date that homo sapiens as a distinct species enters the fossil record.
In this case, unless you have evidence you are proving all the points I've raised in this thread.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| 5G Fake News on 13:09 - May 20 with 1542 views | StokieBlue |
| 5G Fake News on 12:27 - May 20 by CoachRob |
Anything that adds matter to our current system (civilisation) leads to greater energy use and therefore as a result of increasing Co2 concentration (415ppm at the moment), the risk of collapse of our system increases. That's the broad point.
Are you trying to link unsubstantiated claims about the effects of 5G made by RT and there being no "cost" to having a 5G network? Or just making a broader point about how people have become entrenched in disbelieving science? |
That’s a pretty abstract point and one that I don’t think anyone has raised or questioned. Your post by definition contributes to the same effect.
“Are you trying to link unsubstantiated claims about the effects of 5G made by RT and there being no "cost" to having a 5G network?”
This doesn’t really make sense. The article is clear that it’s about fake news regards to health benefits and then onto the wider problem of fake news. Why are you bringing an abstract concept of “cost” into it? It’s not of any relevance and hasn’t been argued against.
“Or just making a broader point about how people have become entrenched in disbelieving science?”
Yes.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| 5G Fake News on 14:04 - May 20 with 1513 views | Bluesquid |
| 5G Fake News on 11:49 - May 20 by StokieBlue |
Got any examples of this deliberate misleading of the public, specifically with regards to science which was what this thread was about?
SB |
"The Ministry of Defence turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public.
"A government report just released provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain's biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979."
"The report reveals that military personnel were briefed to tell any 'inquisitive inquirer' the trials were part of research projects into weather and air pollution. "
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience [Post edited 20 May 2019 14:05]
|  | | |
| 5G Fake News on 14:18 - May 20 with 1501 views | StokieBlue |
| 5G Fake News on 14:04 - May 20 by Bluesquid |
"The Ministry of Defence turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public.
"A government report just released provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain's biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979."
"The report reveals that military personnel were briefed to tell any 'inquisitive inquirer' the trials were part of research projects into weather and air pollution. "
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience [Post edited 20 May 2019 14:05]
|
Is there any reason why you always post the same incident?
It falls within the historical point I was making earlier. It's also a geopolitical example and not a scientific example which was what I asked for.
The fact that you've posted it again when it has no relevance to the question kind of makes my point.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| 5G Fake News on 14:31 - May 20 with 1491 views | Bluesquid |
| 5G Fake News on 14:18 - May 20 by StokieBlue |
Is there any reason why you always post the same incident?
It falls within the historical point I was making earlier. It's also a geopolitical example and not a scientific example which was what I asked for.
The fact that you've posted it again when it has no relevance to the question kind of makes my point.
SB |
Weather and air pollution research projects, that's science isn't it? | | | |
| 5G Fake News on 14:45 - May 20 with 1487 views | StokieBlue |
| 5G Fake News on 14:31 - May 20 by Bluesquid |
Weather and air pollution research projects, that's science isn't it? |
No, not in the context you've posted it.
It's research funded by the military, that's not peer reviewed and published science - it's totally different and totally controlled by other factors like geopolitics.
Out of interest why do you only ever use a case which is 40-70 years old?
SB [Post edited 20 May 2019 14:47]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| 5G Fake News on 15:27 - May 20 with 1468 views | Bluesquid |
| 5G Fake News on 14:45 - May 20 by StokieBlue |
No, not in the context you've posted it.
It's research funded by the military, that's not peer reviewed and published science - it's totally different and totally controlled by other factors like geopolitics.
Out of interest why do you only ever use a case which is 40-70 years old?
SB [Post edited 20 May 2019 14:47]
|
You asked for an example didn't you?
Government scientists, read the article.
"During the Cold War, the British Government used the general public as unwitting biological and chemical warfare guinea pigs on a much greater scale than previously thought, according to new historical research."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/how-the-british-government-subjec | | | |
| 5G Fake News on 15:30 - May 20 with 1464 views | StokieBlue |
I've read the article, many times as you always post it.
Did you even read my reply? I covered your retort already. It's getting rather frustrating, you hadn't read the thread and now you've not read the reply.
"During the Cold War, the British Government" - if that's not a geopolitical reference rather than a scientific one I don't know what is.
SB [Post edited 20 May 2019 15:33]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| 5G Fake News on 17:14 - May 20 with 1442 views | caught-in-limbo |
| 5G Fake News on 11:48 - May 20 by StokieBlue |
Who said anyone should do that?
You are trying to obfuscate the point. Despite you disliking the process the scientific process including peer review is pretty robust.
In fact, the people who believe what comes out of a single scientists mouth tend to be the ones looking for a scientist to reference in order to support their alternative view. It happens all the time.
SB |
I'm not trying to obfuscate anything.
What's scientific about consensus? |  |
| |
| 5G Fake News on 17:23 - May 20 with 1439 views | StokieBlue |
| 5G Fake News on 17:14 - May 20 by caught-in-limbo |
I'm not trying to obfuscate anything.
What's scientific about consensus? |
Disagree.
Everything. The point of science is that it's repeatable and falsifiable. For something to be agreed as repeatable requires consensus. It's the basis of the method.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| 5G Fake News on 18:00 - May 20 with 1432 views | caught-in-limbo |
| 5G Fake News on 17:23 - May 20 by StokieBlue |
Disagree.
Everything. The point of science is that it's repeatable and falsifiable. For something to be agreed as repeatable requires consensus. It's the basis of the method.
SB |
Yes, replicability is the basis of the scientific method, but NOT consensus. They are not the same.
History is replete with examples of great scientists breaking with consensus.
If science is based on consensus, then it's little better than High Priest enforced faith. | |
| |
| 5G Fake News on 21:59 - May 20 with 1392 views | StokieBlue |
| 5G Fake News on 18:00 - May 20 by caught-in-limbo |
Yes, replicability is the basis of the scientific method, but NOT consensus. They are not the same.
History is replete with examples of great scientists breaking with consensus.
If science is based on consensus, then it's little better than High Priest enforced faith. |
It's nothing like faith from upon high.
There needs to be a consensus the experiment is replicated, one person doing it over and over isn't applicable so your example doesn't hold.
Scientists break with consensus and then if they are right and replicated the consensus moves - that is science.
Breaking from consensus to be then proven wrong but continuing to insist you are right is nonsense. Unfortunately those scientists are often cited on here with some form of equality.
It's annoying and wrong yet it passes as a sophisticated argument along with a bit of shouting.
SB [Post edited 20 May 2019 22:00]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| 5G Fake News on 22:07 - May 20 with 1385 views | caught-in-limbo |
| 5G Fake News on 21:59 - May 20 by StokieBlue |
It's nothing like faith from upon high.
There needs to be a consensus the experiment is replicated, one person doing it over and over isn't applicable so your example doesn't hold.
Scientists break with consensus and then if they are right and replicated the consensus moves - that is science.
Breaking from consensus to be then proven wrong but continuing to insist you are right is nonsense. Unfortunately those scientists are often cited on here with some form of equality.
It's annoying and wrong yet it passes as a sophisticated argument along with a bit of shouting.
SB [Post edited 20 May 2019 22:00]
|
"Scientists break with consensus and then if they are right and replicated the consensus moves - that is science."
So there we have it. It's the replicability that is scientific, not consensus. | |
| |
| 5G Fake News on 22:18 - May 20 with 1377 views | StokieBlue |
| 5G Fake News on 22:07 - May 20 by caught-in-limbo |
"Scientists break with consensus and then if they are right and replicated the consensus moves - that is science."
So there we have it. It's the replicability that is scientific, not consensus. |
You always play the wordsmith when you've sent your argument down a blind alley.
Replicability is only applicable across multiple scientific teams, if only one person does something, no matter how many times, then it's not replicable and thus consensus is important.
Take cold fusion as an example.
SB [Post edited 20 May 2019 22:22]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| 5G Fake News on 22:46 - May 20 with 1350 views | caught-in-limbo |
| 5G Fake News on 22:18 - May 20 by StokieBlue |
You always play the wordsmith when you've sent your argument down a blind alley.
Replicability is only applicable across multiple scientific teams, if only one person does something, no matter how many times, then it's not replicable and thus consensus is important.
Take cold fusion as an example.
SB [Post edited 20 May 2019 22:22]
|
I've dug this out for you. It's written by a research scientist of 30 years.
Of course you won't agree with it, because your arguments are rooted in consensus, not science.
Try and pick his argument apart logically rather than dismissing it on the grounds that some of his scientific views break with the "settled science" of consensus.
https://www.randombio.com/consensus.html | |
| |
| 5G Fake News on 23:01 - May 20 with 1340 views | StokieBlue |
| 5G Fake News on 22:46 - May 20 by caught-in-limbo |
I've dug this out for you. It's written by a research scientist of 30 years.
Of course you won't agree with it, because your arguments are rooted in consensus, not science.
Try and pick his argument apart logically rather than dismissing it on the grounds that some of his scientific views break with the "settled science" of consensus.
https://www.randombio.com/consensus.html |
Well the title is wrong so it's not a good start.
"Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based on unsound logic. When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject."
That's not anything to do with consensus. Consensus in this context is applying the method and coming to the same result and agreeing it's correct. An appeal to authority is just saying someone knows about this so it must be true. Even if you disagree with the word the concept is clear.
He doesn't even get the logical fallacy right in the first line of the article.
He then goes on to state his scepticism of AGW global warming and repeatedly uses it as an example.
You are also splitting hairs, you know what my point is but as always have to be pedantic (you are just disagreeing with the word rather than tackling the subject). In this case you've chosen a shocker of an article to make your point. There is even an article stating the climate is in a cooling phase linked on that page.
You are doing exactly what I said was the issue a page ago. Assigning equal value to someone without any real agreement from their peers and then shouting to get heard.
I'm sorry to say you are are part of the problem, not the solution you think you are.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| 5G Fake News on 23:26 - May 20 with 1332 views | caught-in-limbo |
| 5G Fake News on 23:01 - May 20 by StokieBlue |
Well the title is wrong so it's not a good start.
"Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based on unsound logic. When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject."
That's not anything to do with consensus. Consensus in this context is applying the method and coming to the same result and agreeing it's correct. An appeal to authority is just saying someone knows about this so it must be true. Even if you disagree with the word the concept is clear.
He doesn't even get the logical fallacy right in the first line of the article.
He then goes on to state his scepticism of AGW global warming and repeatedly uses it as an example.
You are also splitting hairs, you know what my point is but as always have to be pedantic (you are just disagreeing with the word rather than tackling the subject). In this case you've chosen a shocker of an article to make your point. There is even an article stating the climate is in a cooling phase linked on that page.
You are doing exactly what I said was the issue a page ago. Assigning equal value to someone without any real agreement from their peers and then shouting to get heard.
I'm sorry to say you are are part of the problem, not the solution you think you are.
SB |
You start badly with this quote from www.softschools.com:
""Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based on unsound logic. When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject." "
But you neglected to give the source. I wonder why.
Here's how soft schools.com introduce themselves:
"SoftSchools.com provides free math worksheets, free math games, grammar quizzes, free phonics worksheets, and games. Worksheets and games are organized by grades and topics. These printable math and phonics worksheets are auto generated."
Now, we know why you didn't quote your source.
You say that the title is "wrong", and that "appeal to authority" has nothing to do with "consensus". You're wrong. There is no reason why the authority in question cannot be the consensus. For example:
"An example of the use of the appeal to authority in science can be seen in 1923,[20] when leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made,[21][22] that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s until 1956,[23] this continued to be held based on Painter's authority,[24][25][22] despite subsequent counts totaling the correct number of 23.[21][26] Even textbooks[21] with photos showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24[26] based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.[27]"
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
So your main argument for disagreeing with the research scientist of 30 years is your incorrect assertion that an appeal to authority has nothing to do with consensus, and you've used a quote from PlaySchool to prove your point.
I'm sorry, but it's quite a messy car crash of an argument you've presented.
Yet again, your problem comes down to a weak understanding of the terms you are using. In this case "consensus" which you appear to be mixing up with something much tighter, perhaps even "duplication". Clearly, they are not the same. You might accuse me of splitting hairs again, but it's impossible to have a scientific discussion with someone who uses the required terminology wrongly.
This is not the first time you have shown to be lacking in this area.
The following sentence from the article I linked you to demonstrates how you are an example of the sort of activist who seeks to change public opinion by manufacturing a consensus that suits your political goals. It simply isn't scientific.
"The concept of consensus does not come from scientists, but from news reporters and others who are searching for a shared viewpoint so they can write a story and appear credible. They want to make a generalization, so they say that a ‘consensus’ exists. This might sound like a reasonable thing for a non-scientist to do. But the activists are trying to change public opinion by manufacturing a consensus that suits their political goals." [Post edited 21 May 2019 0:16]
| |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 23:48 - May 20 with 1322 views | caught-in-limbo |
| 5G Fake News on 23:01 - May 20 by StokieBlue |
Well the title is wrong so it's not a good start.
"Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based on unsound logic. When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject."
That's not anything to do with consensus. Consensus in this context is applying the method and coming to the same result and agreeing it's correct. An appeal to authority is just saying someone knows about this so it must be true. Even if you disagree with the word the concept is clear.
He doesn't even get the logical fallacy right in the first line of the article.
He then goes on to state his scepticism of AGW global warming and repeatedly uses it as an example.
You are also splitting hairs, you know what my point is but as always have to be pedantic (you are just disagreeing with the word rather than tackling the subject). In this case you've chosen a shocker of an article to make your point. There is even an article stating the climate is in a cooling phase linked on that page.
You are doing exactly what I said was the issue a page ago. Assigning equal value to someone without any real agreement from their peers and then shouting to get heard.
I'm sorry to say you are are part of the problem, not the solution you think you are.
SB |
| |
| |
| 5G Fake News on 00:03 - May 21 with 1319 views | Swansea_Blue |
| 5G Fake News on 11:45 - May 20 by CoachRob |
Absolutely but it is becoming an increasing part of the tool box of "experts" to misdirect the public. I wonder whether the crisis in a "soft" science like economics, which has this philosophy at its core, has led to a general distrust of experts. |
I’d say people who should know better telling a gullable public they should be fed up of experts, leads to a general distrust of experts. |  |
| |
| 5G Fake News on 06:35 - May 21 with 1283 views | StokieBlue |
| 5G Fake News on 23:26 - May 20 by caught-in-limbo |
You start badly with this quote from www.softschools.com:
""Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based on unsound logic. When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject." "
But you neglected to give the source. I wonder why.
Here's how soft schools.com introduce themselves:
"SoftSchools.com provides free math worksheets, free math games, grammar quizzes, free phonics worksheets, and games. Worksheets and games are organized by grades and topics. These printable math and phonics worksheets are auto generated."
Now, we know why you didn't quote your source.
You say that the title is "wrong", and that "appeal to authority" has nothing to do with "consensus". You're wrong. There is no reason why the authority in question cannot be the consensus. For example:
"An example of the use of the appeal to authority in science can be seen in 1923,[20] when leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made,[21][22] that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s until 1956,[23] this continued to be held based on Painter's authority,[24][25][22] despite subsequent counts totaling the correct number of 23.[21][26] Even textbooks[21] with photos showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24[26] based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.[27]"
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
So your main argument for disagreeing with the research scientist of 30 years is your incorrect assertion that an appeal to authority has nothing to do with consensus, and you've used a quote from PlaySchool to prove your point.
I'm sorry, but it's quite a messy car crash of an argument you've presented.
Yet again, your problem comes down to a weak understanding of the terms you are using. In this case "consensus" which you appear to be mixing up with something much tighter, perhaps even "duplication". Clearly, they are not the same. You might accuse me of splitting hairs again, but it's impossible to have a scientific discussion with someone who uses the required terminology wrongly.
This is not the first time you have shown to be lacking in this area.
The following sentence from the article I linked you to demonstrates how you are an example of the sort of activist who seeks to change public opinion by manufacturing a consensus that suits your political goals. It simply isn't scientific.
"The concept of consensus does not come from scientists, but from news reporters and others who are searching for a shared viewpoint so they can write a story and appear credible. They want to make a generalization, so they say that a ‘consensus’ exists. This might sound like a reasonable thing for a non-scientist to do. But the activists are trying to change public opinion by manufacturing a consensus that suits their political goals." [Post edited 21 May 2019 0:16]
|
A frankly pathetic post delivered in your trademark superior manner. The assertion that our resident language teacher is in any way scientific is a nice one. Your posts speak for themselves.
The source is irrelevant, the definition of that fallacy is well known and you should address that. You always just attack for the sake of it because you've messed up. Why do you think nobody interacts with you on here anymore?
I love how wiki is now an acceptable source given you went to great lengths to show it wasn't two weeks ago. Nice recent example you've chosen as well.
Let's take your previous post.
You are basing your argument on the opinion of a single research scientist. You highlight he has 30 years experience and thus is an authority on the matter.
Its a clear appeal to authority fallacy yet you've attempted to twist it into the exact opposite.
I stand by my assertion that you are the problem, not everyone else which is what you seem to think.
Actually I'll go further than that. I'm not sure how you look in the mirror in the morning given the rubbish you post could affect some persons life if they take it seriously. It was a bit funny when it was the old more harmless stuff but you post some total nonsense on many subjects nowadays. Let's hope nobody takes you seriously.
I'll not be interacting anymore, the less responses you have to air your views the better. I only replied preclviously as I find your willingness to propagate damaging false information distasteful and shameful.
SB [Post edited 21 May 2019 7:21]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| 5G Fake News on 07:19 - May 21 with 1265 views | AYACCA |
Read the news and you're misinformed, don't, then you're uninformed |  | | |
| 5G Fake News on 08:59 - May 21 with 1234 views | caught-in-limbo |
| 5G Fake News on 06:35 - May 21 by StokieBlue |
A frankly pathetic post delivered in your trademark superior manner. The assertion that our resident language teacher is in any way scientific is a nice one. Your posts speak for themselves.
The source is irrelevant, the definition of that fallacy is well known and you should address that. You always just attack for the sake of it because you've messed up. Why do you think nobody interacts with you on here anymore?
I love how wiki is now an acceptable source given you went to great lengths to show it wasn't two weeks ago. Nice recent example you've chosen as well.
Let's take your previous post.
You are basing your argument on the opinion of a single research scientist. You highlight he has 30 years experience and thus is an authority on the matter.
Its a clear appeal to authority fallacy yet you've attempted to twist it into the exact opposite.
I stand by my assertion that you are the problem, not everyone else which is what you seem to think.
Actually I'll go further than that. I'm not sure how you look in the mirror in the morning given the rubbish you post could affect some persons life if they take it seriously. It was a bit funny when it was the old more harmless stuff but you post some total nonsense on many subjects nowadays. Let's hope nobody takes you seriously.
I'll not be interacting anymore, the less responses you have to air your views the better. I only replied preclviously as I find your willingness to propagate damaging false information distasteful and shameful.
SB [Post edited 21 May 2019 7:21]
|
When I exchange views with you, I generally adopt your superior manner. I thought I did it especially well in that last post. Having registered it as sickeningly self-important, perhaps it'll help your self-awareness a tad.
"I'll not be interacting anymore"
Well, let's hope it's 12th time lucky for me. It's all a bit attention-seeking this "I'm not going to be interacting with you anymore" threat/promise. You don't usually even manage to carry it through to the next day.
Anyway, good luck with not interacting with me in the future. I'm not sure how those poor trusting people who take me seriously will survive without you protecting me from them, but hey, you can't nanny them 24/7/365.
Needless to say, I'll continue to challenge the regurgitated Doublegoodspeak you splatter this forum with on a daily basis.
All the best. [Post edited 21 May 2019 9:20]
| |
| |
| 5G Fake News on 14:41 - May 21 with 1196 views | chicoazul |
Are you aware that there are people in this world that have a severe medical condition which causes them to be that way? My mother for instance is one of those people. She is a truck driver that has bad knees and a bad back from driving the truck but you probably do not care about that case either. Oh well I am not one of those people I am 6'4" 245lbs and I exercise every day. I would love to see you say something like to my mother in front of me. Probably never happen though you are probably just an internet tough guy. I doubt very seriously you would say that to someones face. Just my thought.What do you think. Oh I am sorry you probably do not have a brain. I on the other hand will be happy to buy you a plane ticket to come here and see if you have the nerve to say that to someone I know. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
