|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 33 minutes, 36 seconds
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: Byrain]
#27481828 - 09/25/21 01:25 PM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
So what?
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,837
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: koods] 1
#27481834 - 09/25/21 01:32 PM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Hes a higher dimensional being. He doesn't experience linear time like us, so for him, events that happen in "the future" have an effect on the truth value of words used to described the present.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 10 minutes
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: ballsalsa]
#27482054 - 09/25/21 05:51 PM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Not non-linear enough!
The forest was chopped down to make agricultural land, now there is no forest.
Humans go extinct; agricultural land goes fallow and eventually returns to forest; birds return.
Boom!
After the forest survey a pair of owls flew in, there are now birds in the forest.
5 billion years go by; the sun turns into a red giant and engulfs the earth; all species on the planet go extinct.
Boom!
--------------------
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,263
Last seen: 1 hour, 20 minutes
|
|
The point of reference is too fixed. Earth rotates about the sun, the sun moves...somewhere. Where there was once a forest, there is now a satellite. Or a different planet. Or a star!
|
Byrain

Registered: 01/07/10
Posts: 9,664
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Not non-linear enough!
The forest was chopped down to make agricultural land, now there is no forest.
Humans go extinct; agricultural land goes fallow and eventually returns to forest; birds return.
Boom!
After the expansive deforestation the area experiences desertification and never recovers.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: After the forest survey a pair of owls flew in, there are now birds in the forest.
5 billion years go by; the sun turns into a red giant and engulfs the earth; all species on the planet go extinct.
Boom!
If the sun engulfs the earth there will be no forest or birds. Of course there probably won't be anyone around to observe this either...
The point is that biologists do not prove the forest does or does not have birds, but they observe or do not observe birds in the forest which supports or does not support the explanation that the forest contains birds. In the future a different biologist may come and find birds or may not find birds, this doesn't necessarily mean the first biologist was wrong when the second biologist make a contrary finding.
Proof is something that works in absolutes and scientific hypotheses or theories are not proofs in the sense that math deals with proofs.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 10 minutes
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: Byrain]
#27482131 - 09/25/21 07:14 PM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
But we aren't talking about establishing mathematical proofs, we are talking about proving a negative assertion.
Sure, we can go all Socratic and say 'The only thing I know is that I know nothing', or Humean and say 'That the sun will not rise tomorrow is no less intelligible a proposition than that it will rise.' These are technically true, but in all practicality we can successfully use inductive reasoning to prove an assertion is probable, and treat that conclusion as true until new evidence suggests otherwise.
For example, biologists are able to assert a species is extinct, and they must prove this assertion before it will be accepted by the scientific community. ‘There is no reasonable doubt that the last individual has died' is the standard suggested by the IUCN red list. That sometimes a species thought extinct will be rediscovered doesn't mean biologists aren't having to prove their initial assertion.
In a similar way, classical mechanics are technically insufficient, but at the human-scale they provide excellent approximations that we can use to great success. Buildings aren't collapsing and planes aren't dropping out of the sky because of quantum uncertainty.
--------------------
|
Byrain

Registered: 01/07/10
Posts: 9,664
|
|
At this point we are arguing semantics, I suspect what you are calling "proof" is commonly called "corroborated" in scientific circles. The difference is subtle, but I feel its important. Asserting that science offers proof implies absolutes and faith which all too quickly leads to zealotry. While the scientific process is all about asking questions, forming hypothesis, testing them and eventually forming theories based upon the information gained. This is a messy and inexact process unlike mathematical proofs. Even on shroomery you can present an alternative hypotheses or question an politically hyped one and be dismissed as an anti-science trumpist regardless if that has any basis in reality...
I can't see any way this turns out well for scientists, either they are socially or politically stigmatized for not blindly accepting a specific narrative and I bet if that narrative ever falls apart they will be persecuted as a scapegoat...
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 10 minutes
|
|
To avoid the semantic debate I see brewing over if we mean by proof/prove an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory,
Deductive reasoning: by applying general rules, a conclusion is reached that is necessarily true. A deductive argument is valid when, assuming the argument's premises are true, the conclusion must be true. If the argument is valid and the premises are true, then the argument is sound.
Inductive reasoning: by extrapolating from specific cases to general rules, a conclusion is reached that has epistemic uncertainty. An inductive argument's premises can never guarantee that the conclusion must be true; therefore, inductive arguments can never be valid or sound. Instead, an argument is strong when, assuming the argument's premises are true, the conclusion is probably true. If the argument is strong and the premises are true, then the argument is cogent.
Mathematical proofs use deductive reasoning. The scientific method uses inductive reasoning.
This we agree on. Now let's add the context:
Quote:
The most inane thing is that there is so much hesitation towards doing the research neccesary to settle this, there are two possibilities.
A) It does not work, you can reduce a lot of vaccine hesitancy.
B) It does work, you can save even more lives.
And then people responded to explain that option A is not a practical option, because of the nature of inductive reasoning and the ethics of medical research.
--------------------
|
Brian Jones
Club 27



Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,340
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 6 hours, 2 minutes
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Brian Jones said:
Quote:
Kryptos said: If it is entirely within the realm of mathematics, it can be definitively proven.
Science is not math. Things can be proven in math and logic. Science studies the natural world and nothing can ever be proven (no matter how pretty damn sure they are).
You can prove a negative claim if it is specific enough.
A positive claim takes only a single example to prove the assertion; for example 'there are birds in this forest' is proven by identifying a single bird.
A negative claim typically is harder to prove, but a sufficiently specific claim can still be proven. 'There are no birds in this forest' would require a thorough search of the forest; 'there are no birds in this cage' would require a much simpler search of the cage.
The idea you can't prove a negative mostly arises from the question of a metaphysical deity. For similar reasons, we couldn't prove that birds don't exist.
Even though those examples are concerning the natural world, they're not science; they're logic. There are no examples of things that scientists study that can be proven. That's just part of the definition of what science is. Philosophy is an underpinning of science, but philosophy is not about systematic observation. Whether or not there are any birds in that cage could change tomorrow, or it could change when the environment changes. Philosophy and science are not concerned with the same things.
-------------------- "The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
Brian Jones
Club 27



Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,340
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 6 hours, 2 minutes
|
|
-------------------- "The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,263
Last seen: 1 hour, 20 minutes
|
|
Way I see it, excluding logic from science is a very limited definition of science. Same with logic-based ...sciences... like math.
If you wish to absolutely limit yourself to observational science, I'd argue that neither biology nor chemistry meet the definition of science, because in most cases, neither can be observed directly. Same with physics. As well as most social sciences.
Essentially, under that definition, anything that requires equipment fancier than the Mark 1 Eyeball is no longer science.
|
TigerCub
Stranger
Registered: 09/16/21
Posts: 3
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: Kryptos]
#27485253 - 09/28/21 02:50 PM (2 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Mathematics allow for us to have correlation to observable events. Without math we wouldn't have a reference point. Numbers keep the trajectory straight. Data moves very quickly. I believe at one point in time prior to the invention of the internet this was almost an exact science.
The faster the information flows the faster the shit warps
Introduce the fast pace data collection of the internet and we are sure to see bias and skewed results in favor of the maker/keeper.
politics have a lot to do with covid treatment. If one recommends one treatment he is immediately belittled by another trying to push a different treatment. Big wig will get some misrepresented data be unsure of what it really means in scientific terms and say ridiculous shit.
The craziest one I heard was you are racist if you think covid19 has higher mortality based on ethnicity. That's not racist that's scientific observation and well documented. People are genetically different. We don't need one treatment, one kind of vaccine, one size fits all. I think when people finally start to realize we are all in this together they will begin to open up their minds and toss out the bullshit propaganda they have been fed by mainstream media.
This isn't about color, country, or sex. This is literally about being freely able to collaborate internationally without the scientific blockades that they did with covid19. The jedi mind tricks were hard at work and I don't think most people even do it intentionally.
If anything this has taught me we are all in this together and hopefully we can get to mars and/or some kind of extra planetary civilization. Earth has life and is beautiful I'm not saying go to other systems for greed, it would be nice to be able to have a space mining operation that didn't kill life like it does down here.
|
Psilynut2
Stranger

Registered: 04/28/17
Posts: 5,120
Last seen: 11 hours, 45 minutes
|
|
I really want to make fun of people who are dying from taking apple flavored paste from a box with a picture of horse on it that they got from a store that doesn't sell anything for humans . I can't though , I would probably take horse viagra if someone gave me some . I took datura once cause some dude who wrote a dumb book said an Indian told him it's cool . It's isn't cool at all .
|
Byrain

Registered: 01/07/10
Posts: 9,664
|
|
Quote:
Brian Jones said: On a lighter note, people are starting to die off from the Dean Wormer drug. https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/2-new-mexicans-have-died-of-ivermectin-toxicity-state-health-officials-say/6246168/
I already pointed this out in another thread, but these people almost certainly died of C19, not ivermectin. Its well documented that C19 can cause organ failures, it is not for ivermectin.
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-kidney-damage-caused-by-covid19 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32793615/
Can anyone find a single source saying that people suffered kidney (Or any organ) failure from ivermectin without C19 playing any possible role? It has been widely used on humans for decades so I think this should be documented if it exists. I could not find such, but there is a lot of noise in the search results which could of made it hard to find.
Here are some sources that list nothing like that.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/ivermectin-oral-route/side-effects/drg-20064397 https://www.drugs.com/sfx/ivermectin-side-effects.html https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-1122/ivermectin-oral/details/list-sideeffects
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
The most inane thing is that there is so much hesitation towards doing the research neccesary to settle this, there are two possibilities.
A) It does not work, you can reduce a lot of vaccine hesitancy.
B) It does work, you can save even more lives.
And then people responded to explain that option A is not a practical option, because of the nature of inductive reasoning and the ethics of medical research.
I don't follow why its not practical. Transparency is the best option, this has been well documented by Johnson & Johnson in the past when they have cyanide laced tylenol.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/tylenol-murders-1982
And if you look at their history following that you can find how the new lack of transparency only hurt them.
https://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/11921.pdf
|
OutsideOfMyMind
LSD Self Administrative Director



Registered: 10/05/20
Posts: 5,383
Last seen: 2 hours, 55 minutes
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: Byrain]
#27485424 - 09/28/21 04:43 PM (2 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
PREP, the relatively new prophylactic, DOES cause kidney damage, and it hasn't even been out at least 10 years. Ivermectin, on the other hand...........well........
|
psi
TOAST N' JAM


Registered: 09/05/99
Posts: 31,456
Loc: 613
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: Psilynut2]
#27485433 - 09/28/21 04:57 PM (2 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Apparently political cartoonist Ben Garrison currently has Covid and is treating it at home with ivermectin, beet juice and supplements. He also says he has lost 15 lbs.
|
Byrain

Registered: 01/07/10
Posts: 9,664
|
|
As a side note here is an study from 2012 arguing ivermectin use being an effective inhibitor of flavivirus replication .
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22535622/
And a paper from 2015 showing its effective against west nile virus in chickens.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2307502315000715
And chikungunya...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26752081/
Of course the only accepted use is "Horse paste"... 
Quote:
OutsideOfMyMind said: PREP, the relatively new prophylactic, DOES cause kidney damage, and it hasn't even been out at least 10 years. Ivermectin, on the other hand...........well........
Interesting, I haven't heard that before, but could easily find supporting sources.
https://hivprep.org/prep-hiv-side-effects/
Quote:
kidney problems: In some cases, prophylaxis meds could cause an impact on the functions of the kidney. Hence, doctors and health care providers usually examine the state of one’s kidney before prescribing PrEP medicines. If you have an existing kidney problem, it is advisable to consult your healthcare provider before starting PrEP treatment;
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 33 minutes, 36 seconds
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: Byrain]
#27485478 - 09/28/21 05:25 PM (2 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Byrain said:
Quote:
Brian Jones said: On a lighter note, people are starting to die off from the Dean Wormer drug. https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/2-new-mexicans-have-died-of-ivermectin-toxicity-state-health-officials-say/6246168/
I already pointed this out in another thread, but these people almost certainly died of C19, not ivermectin. Its well documented that C19 can cause organ failures, it is not for ivermectin.
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-kidney-damage-caused-by-covid19 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32793615/
Can anyone find a single source saying that people suffered kidney (Or any organ) failure from ivermectin without C19 playing any possible role? It has been widely used on humans for decades so I think this should be documented if it exists. I could not find such, but there is a lot of noise in the search results which could of made it hard to find.
Here are some sources that list nothing like that.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/ivermectin-oral-route/side-effects/drg-20064397 https://www.drugs.com/sfx/ivermectin-side-effects.html https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-1122/ivermectin-oral/details/list-sideeffects
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
The most inane thing is that there is so much hesitation towards doing the research neccesary to settle this, there are two possibilities.
A) It does not work, you can reduce a lot of vaccine hesitancy.
B) It does work, you can save even more lives.
And then people responded to explain that option A is not a practical option, because of the nature of inductive reasoning and the ethics of medical research.
I don't follow why its not practical. Transparency is the best option, this has been well documented by Johnson & Johnson in the past when they have cyanide laced tylenol.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/tylenol-murders-1982
And if you look at their history following that you can find how the new lack of transparency only hurt them.
https://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/11921.pdf
Ivermectin is pretty safe when you aren’t overdosing on horse paste
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 33 minutes, 36 seconds
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: koods]
#27485487 - 09/28/21 05:31 PM (2 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I really hope some of these people pushing ivermectin go to prison. What they are doing is evil. Someone on Twitter posted screen caps of the discussions on a ivermectin forum, and it’s really sad. These people have desperately ill family members and they’re begging for help.
While it is legal to prescribe ivermectin to treat any disease it is not legal to promote any drug as a treatment for a disease that it hasn’t been approved to treat.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Byrain

Registered: 01/07/10
Posts: 9,664
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: koods]
#27485548 - 09/28/21 06:19 PM (2 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said: I really hope some of these people pushing ivermectin go to prison. What they are doing is evil.
So you wish suffering and imprisonment on people for talking about scientific studies? That is an extreme new low even for you.
https://ivmmeta.com/
|
|