A Theory Conforms to the Evidence

[John Edward Mercier]

EKG is heart... EEG is brain.
ESP has never been proven... but subliminal processing has.

[dalebert]

EKG is heart... EEG is brain.

Oopsie. 

[J’raxis 270145]

Now as far as my beliefs of a God or a Creator goes, no I can't provide "scientific evidence" that he exists. ...

I don't remember ever questioning your belief in God, only your faulty use of logic and sometimes pseudoscience. I don't see any point in arguing with people over their religious beliefs, because I know I'm not going to get anywhere. Most people seem to define their gods in a way that (in my opinion, intentionally, but whatever) pushes them outside the realm of logic and reason, so there's no point in debating it using logic and reason.

[kola]

do you still believe science is different than logic, reasoning and coming to conclusions?

I am a bit baffled by that comment of yours.

Kola

[kola]

...only your faulty use of logic and sometimes pseudoscience

I (almost always) use what you appear to embrace, SCIENCE.. which is logic and reasoning and conclusional.

wheres the beef, jraxi?

Kola

[ReverendRyan]

I (almost always) use what you appear to embrace, SCIENCE.. which is logic and reasoning and conclusional.

....except when it tells you things you do not like.

[kola]

Jraxi,
Anyone can accept or reject scientific studies/research and appropriately state their specfic reasons why. This is acceptable practice in your wonderful world of science, just in case you didn't know.

The AMA, CDC and many other "big-guns" do this on a regular basis, do they not?

Not accepting a peer review study or finding fault with a study is considered to many in the "medical arena" as "good science". It often raises the bar in hopes that the studies stand up on their own merit.

Now wheres the beef, Jraxi?

Kola   

[J’raxis 270145]

do you still believe science is different than logic, reasoning and coming to conclusions?

Did I say somewhere that they're the same?

Logic "investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and through the study of arguments in natural language. The field of logic ranges from core topics such as the study of validity, fallacies and paradoxes, to specialized analysis of reasoning using probability and to arguments involving causality."

Science is a "a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research."

[Source: Wikipedia.]

Logic is used in science in order to come to conclusions (among other things, such as evidence and observation), but they're not one and the same.

I am a bit baffled by that comment of yours.

Which comment?

[J’raxis 270145]

...only your faulty use of logic and sometimes pseudoscience

I (almost always) use what you appear to embrace, SCIENCE.. which is logic and reasoning and conclusional.

wheres the beef, jraxi?

I explained this before: Your conclusion that the entirety of vaccination is untrustworthy, or that all genetically modified organisms are unsafe, based on specific anecdotes thereof (mercury-containing vaccines, &c.; the Roundup-ready GM products, &c.) is faulty logic. It's an improper use of induction.

The swan analogy I used earlier is just a classic analogy used when explaining induction. Let's try another: You know that it's incorrect to classify an entire group of people (e.g., a race or religion), based upon the bad behavior of a few members, correct? (For example: A woman is mugged by a black man, so she concludes that all black men are criminals. A group of Muslims blew up the World Trade Center, so a person concludes all Muslims are terrorists.) You engage in the same fallacy when you conclude that certain technologies are inherently bad based on a few specific examples that are bad.

[J’raxis 270145]

Anyone can accept or reject scientific studies/research and appropriately state their specfic reasons why. This is acceptable practice in your wonderful world of science, just in case you didn't know.

The AMA, CDC and many other "big-guns" do this on a regular basis, do they not?

Not accepting a peer review study or finding fault with a study is considered to many in the "medical arena" as "good science". It often raises the bar in hopes that the studies stand up on their own merit.

Now wheres the beef, Jraxi?

I don't remember every criticizing you on these grounds. In fact, I've agreed with you on occasion about specific examples of bad science, dangerous products, &c..

Where are you getting all this? Are you confusing me with some of the other people who always argue with you?

[kola]

You engage in the same fallacy when you conclude that certain technologies are inherently bad based on a few specific examples that are bad.

a few?

you are joking right?

how many (few) examples do you need presented to you to show that the "vaccines have saved the world"  mantra is one of the biggest hoaxes in history?

Kola

[J’raxis 270145]

You engage in the same fallacy when you conclude that certain technologies are inherently bad based on a few specific examples that are bad.

a few?

you are joking right?

how many (few) examples do you need presented to you to show that the "vaccines have saved the world"  mantra is one of the biggest hoaxes in history?

Well, now you're talking about something different.

I'm not making the statement that "vaccines have saved the world," I'm saying that some are beneficial, and the concept (feed the immune system a weakened or dead virus so it can develop antibodies before it's exposed to a virulent virus) is sound. Much of the evidence of bad vaccines you've collect is evidence that the medical industry is corrupt, not evidence against vaccines per se. It shows that government regulation is useless and perhaps even promotes corruption. It shows that a profit-based medical industry might not be the optimum system—or perhaps that more competition is needed to expose and weed out the companies who are peddling unsafe products. But it doesn't show that vaccination is inherently unsafe.

The exact same logic above can be applied to your criticisms of GM foods.

[kola]

Much of the evidence of bad vaccines you've collect is evidence that the medical industry is corrupt, not evidence against vaccines per se.

this is what bothers me.

"much of the evidence" huh?

how much jraxi?

when I talk about corruption in the vax industry i provide evidence and good sound evidence.

when i speak of autism or ingredients or anything else I present the medical peered journals.

sorry to bust your balloons, but corruption is a part of the pie, jraxi. It can't be ignored but i highly question your statement that ""much of my evidence" collected is about corruption and not about "vaccines per se". The large majority of my information is based on "vaccines per se" and often times I do not even present the corrupt info because it turns people away. Often I just stick to the so called "hard science" and walk lightly when presenting my info to an interested person, In here, as I am often being challenged by the "experts" I present the "corruption" aspect to further escalate the discussion onto another dimension. You should better in regards to dealing with government and freedom issues. Its no different.

You are very mistaken by saying much of what i present and collect is based soley on aspects of corruption. I have hundreds of books and papers on vaccines and most of them have nothing at all to do with the corrupt/conspiracy side of things.

I must admit you are doing a terrific job of searching for and even inventing flaws about myself. I commend you on that account. Exaggerations always tilt the scales when there is little else to find that is solid and sound.   

Kola 

[J’raxis 270145]

Much of the evidence of bad vaccines you've collect is evidence that the medical industry is corrupt, not evidence against vaccines per se.

Let me rephrase this to make it more clear what I meant:—

All of the evidence that I have seen you post is, in actuality, although you may not interpret all of it as such, evidence of various forms of corruption in the medical industry—not evidence that the theory and concept of vaccination, per se, is flawed.

[I said "much of the evidence" and not "all of the evidence" because I cannot guarantee that I've seen every single article you've posted, and making sweeping generalizations is almost always a bad idea.]

Everything I've seen you post is, again, specific examples of calling into question the utility of specific vaccines, and it almost always revolves around bad scientific, medical, or safety practices—better explained by the fact that the industry is corrupt, and not that vaccination is inherently flawed or unsafe or somesuch.


Can you actually demonstrate that vaccination itself is inherently flawed or unsafe or somesuch?

And again, the same question for GMO. Can you actually demonstrate that the technology itself is inherently flawed or unsafe or somesuch?

[kola]

~yawn~

cmon jraxi can you read?

What would please you? Do you want a listing of peer review medical studies that are stone cold based on science and void of any mention of conflicts of interest or corruption? Would that make you happy?

You say "MUCH" of what I post is about corruption? Do you want ME to go back and count them out? I take it that your "MUCH" statement means more than what? 50% 70% 90". or are you just guessing jraxi?

How much is your "MUCH"?

Since I have posted on various topics regarding vaccines there is a large amount of info that does not contain corruption. Why don't YOU go back and look? or do you want ME to jump through your hoop?..when if fact I already presented plenty of information (which is not about corruption)

Jraxi, I like your posts and a lot of what you say but these are the kinds of games I don't play. Go look for yourself and count them up and give me a percentage. Lets see if you are correct in assummng that "MUCH of what I say is about corruption". If I am wrong I will eat crow. Fair enough? (maybe get Ryan to help you, as he always seems to have a hard-on for me) ick.

Kola