For those not familiar with my past forays into the subject of viruses and would like to know where I stand on them and why, I recommend taking a look at the following thread I made a while back:
Settling the Biological Virus Debate | justplainpolitics.com
With that out of the way, I'll now quote the introduction and conclusion of the article for which this thread is named after:
**
Do virologists have a valid independent variable? Are proper controls ever performed? Is the cell culture even a scientific experiment?
Mike Stone
NOV 10, 2023
Since taking an open stance on the lack of scientific evidence supporting the existence of pathogenic “viruses” a few years ago, I have often found myself in various debates with people on different aspects related to the topic. While I desire a respectful discourse when engaging with those who view things differently than myself, these conversations rarely, if ever, turn out that way. I have detailed a few of these conversations in the past, whether it was discussing the importance of purification with Jeremy Hammond, or seeking actual scientific evidence supporting virology from Thomas Baldwin and Dan Wilson. More often than not, these discussions either become a tiresome circular and logically fallacious nightmare (Hammond) or they devolve into an all out ad hominem and insult throwing contest (Baldwin & Wilson). While I try my best to remain patient in these instances, once either of the two scenarios pop up in the course of the conversation, it signals to me that there is no point in continuing to engage. There is no chance at having an intellectually honest dialogue with people who resort to such tactics.
Recently, my wife has become increasingly concerned as she felt that I was putting too much time and effort into these pointless social media battles that were, more often than not, a complete waste of my time. She was concerned that they were adding unneeded stress into my life, and that these “debates” had become more of a distraction than anything else, especially after I joined Twitter in December of 2022. Due to the energy draining nature of the exchanges that ultimately led to no lasting resolutions, I found myself agreeing with my wife and beginning to actively avoid any such engagements. I wanted to distance myself and take a much-needed break from the circular insanity that often ensues. Thus, when my wife mentioned a few days ago that she had signed me up with ChatBot GPT 3 so that I could have some fun distracting myself by talking with AI (artificial intelligence) instead of the usual suspects on Twitter, I was a little taken aback. I was trying to avoid pointless discussions that wasted my time, leaving me feeling mentally exhausted from engaging with (what I assume to be) real people. Why would I want to do the same thing by engaging in another round of circular debates with a computer instead?
For those who are unfamiliar with ChatBot GPT, it is an AI program launched in November of 2022 that uses natural language processing to create humanlike conversational dialogue. It is said to be trained with reinforcement learning through human feedback and reward models that rank the best responses derived from data that was inputted from the web. This, in turn, augments ChatGPT with machine learning in order to improve future responses. An October 2023 study found that chatbot generated “predominantly accurate information” in response to “diverse medical queries” as judged by a panel of academic physician specialists. Thus, the information provided by the AI is considered to be accurate. The ChatBot program was created by a company called OpenAI which was founded by a group of entrepreneurs that included Elon Musk and Sam Altman in 2015. It was financially backed by investors such as Microsoft, and it utilizes technology that was created by Google. In other words, it has ties to all of the usual suspicious players:
[snip]
As noted by ChatBot, the experimental set-up that we agreed upon allows researchers to accurately manipulate the IV, control the experiment, and provide a clear and defined starting point. It is the ideal experimental set-up as it minimizes confounding factors and ensures that any observed effects are attributable only to the assumed “virus.” If a cell culture experiment does not begin with a properly identified independent variable, it is missing an essential component before conducting the experiment. Having a properly identified independent variable is a fundamental aspect of the scientific method. While ChatBot might not put it in this way, I think it is safe to say that we can agree that, until virologists conduct their experiments in a scientific manner, they are engaging in pseudoscientific experiments that are plagued by uncertainty and challenges to the experimental design. Until they identify the proper IV prior to the experiment and conduct proper controls, the cell culture experiment will continue to possess a lack of rigor and specificity needed to draw meaningful and definitive conclusions. In other words, the results will remain pseudoscientific and utterly meaningless.
As this conversation with ChatBot did not devolve into a flurry of logical fallacies and insults, I am happy to continue engaging with the AI going forward. I have already received some very interesting answers in regard to purification and isolation, as well as admittance to issues with “viral” genomes. If you would like to see further discussions between myself and ChatBot, let me know in the comments below. I much prefer these interactions over those that can be found on Twitter. ��
**
Full article:
A Friendly Chat About Cell Culture | ViroLIEgy Newsletter
Settling the Biological Virus Debate | justplainpolitics.com
With that out of the way, I'll now quote the introduction and conclusion of the article for which this thread is named after:
**
Do virologists have a valid independent variable? Are proper controls ever performed? Is the cell culture even a scientific experiment?
Mike Stone
NOV 10, 2023
Since taking an open stance on the lack of scientific evidence supporting the existence of pathogenic “viruses” a few years ago, I have often found myself in various debates with people on different aspects related to the topic. While I desire a respectful discourse when engaging with those who view things differently than myself, these conversations rarely, if ever, turn out that way. I have detailed a few of these conversations in the past, whether it was discussing the importance of purification with Jeremy Hammond, or seeking actual scientific evidence supporting virology from Thomas Baldwin and Dan Wilson. More often than not, these discussions either become a tiresome circular and logically fallacious nightmare (Hammond) or they devolve into an all out ad hominem and insult throwing contest (Baldwin & Wilson). While I try my best to remain patient in these instances, once either of the two scenarios pop up in the course of the conversation, it signals to me that there is no point in continuing to engage. There is no chance at having an intellectually honest dialogue with people who resort to such tactics.
Recently, my wife has become increasingly concerned as she felt that I was putting too much time and effort into these pointless social media battles that were, more often than not, a complete waste of my time. She was concerned that they were adding unneeded stress into my life, and that these “debates” had become more of a distraction than anything else, especially after I joined Twitter in December of 2022. Due to the energy draining nature of the exchanges that ultimately led to no lasting resolutions, I found myself agreeing with my wife and beginning to actively avoid any such engagements. I wanted to distance myself and take a much-needed break from the circular insanity that often ensues. Thus, when my wife mentioned a few days ago that she had signed me up with ChatBot GPT 3 so that I could have some fun distracting myself by talking with AI (artificial intelligence) instead of the usual suspects on Twitter, I was a little taken aback. I was trying to avoid pointless discussions that wasted my time, leaving me feeling mentally exhausted from engaging with (what I assume to be) real people. Why would I want to do the same thing by engaging in another round of circular debates with a computer instead?
For those who are unfamiliar with ChatBot GPT, it is an AI program launched in November of 2022 that uses natural language processing to create humanlike conversational dialogue. It is said to be trained with reinforcement learning through human feedback and reward models that rank the best responses derived from data that was inputted from the web. This, in turn, augments ChatGPT with machine learning in order to improve future responses. An October 2023 study found that chatbot generated “predominantly accurate information” in response to “diverse medical queries” as judged by a panel of academic physician specialists. Thus, the information provided by the AI is considered to be accurate. The ChatBot program was created by a company called OpenAI which was founded by a group of entrepreneurs that included Elon Musk and Sam Altman in 2015. It was financially backed by investors such as Microsoft, and it utilizes technology that was created by Google. In other words, it has ties to all of the usual suspicious players:
[snip]
As noted by ChatBot, the experimental set-up that we agreed upon allows researchers to accurately manipulate the IV, control the experiment, and provide a clear and defined starting point. It is the ideal experimental set-up as it minimizes confounding factors and ensures that any observed effects are attributable only to the assumed “virus.” If a cell culture experiment does not begin with a properly identified independent variable, it is missing an essential component before conducting the experiment. Having a properly identified independent variable is a fundamental aspect of the scientific method. While ChatBot might not put it in this way, I think it is safe to say that we can agree that, until virologists conduct their experiments in a scientific manner, they are engaging in pseudoscientific experiments that are plagued by uncertainty and challenges to the experimental design. Until they identify the proper IV prior to the experiment and conduct proper controls, the cell culture experiment will continue to possess a lack of rigor and specificity needed to draw meaningful and definitive conclusions. In other words, the results will remain pseudoscientific and utterly meaningless.
As this conversation with ChatBot did not devolve into a flurry of logical fallacies and insults, I am happy to continue engaging with the AI going forward. I have already received some very interesting answers in regard to purification and isolation, as well as admittance to issues with “viral” genomes. If you would like to see further discussions between myself and ChatBot, let me know in the comments below. I much prefer these interactions over those that can be found on Twitter. ��
**
Full article:
A Friendly Chat About Cell Culture | ViroLIEgy Newsletter