Florida plans to become first state to eliminate all childhood vaccine mandates

[Into the Night]

I've already said that I disagree with your logic here.

Then you deny logic.

 

[Into the Night]

I'd say that what you're doing right now is the diversion. For the audience, here is my full statement, not the 7 word clip that IBDaMann quoted:
**
I watched how our conversation evolved above, from my starting it off by saying "I think I've made some progress with my efforts to avoid insulting posters and their beliefs" to the conversation now being about making honest points. I'm all for making honest points. I just believe we should try hard to avoid insulting posters and their beliefs with crass insults. We've gone over this terrain before- you say that you don't insult people until they insult you and then you return fire and I say that even when insulted, I refrain from returning fire (because it's insults, not actual bullets) and instead focus on how the insults are damaging any chances of productive discussion.
**

Diversion won't work. That's a pivot fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

duckduckgo's search assist seems authoritative enough to me.

False authority fallacy. duckduckgo is not science. Science is not a search engine. It does not define any word (except 'duckduckgo')

If you don't like the definition it comes up with, by all means, feel free to cite a source you feel is authoritative and I can weigh in as you weighed in just now.

Science is define by philosophy. See the philosophies of Karl Popper and later philosophies simplifying this line of thought.

Religion is also defined by philosophy. So is the word 'real' and 'reality'.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't see Lefty the same way you do. In this case, I fully agree with him.

You agree with someone that rolls the dice to determine his next post??

 

[Into the Night]

I'm beginning to see a real problem here. You seem to think that you are the go to for authoritative sources. But I never agreed that this was the case.

Denying logic won't help you. Logic is a closed functional system, like mathematics. It's like denying mathematics.

 

[Into the Night]

No, I'm telling you that I strongly doubt your assertion. I don't say that it's "convenient" that you believe that "abortion is a proper subset of contract killings". I acknowledge that it's your belief and leave it at that.

Not a belief. Logic. Denying logic won't help you.

With that said, let's now deal with my complete sentence that you snipped above, as well as the second part of your response...

No, only I can change my mind. You have the capability to try to persuade me with reasoned arguments, but apparently not the desire. That's fine.

Argument of the Stone fallacy. You are simply discarding that which you are now requesting.

 

[Into the Night]

No, I don't.

Do you approve of abortion for convenience?

 

[Into the Night]

I'm not interested in the work of Big Pharma shills like the American Academy of Pediatrics:

American Academy of Pediatrics Shills for Big Pharma, Pushes COVID Vaccines for Kids

The American Academy of Pediatrics has a history of supporting the position of Big Pharma, denying the dangers of mercury and thimerosal in vaccines, endorsing routine HPV vaccines and recommending Ritalin, a psychiatric drug, for 4-year-olds.

childrenshealthdefense.org

Go learn what 'shill' means. It is not part of pharmaceuticals. A shill works in a casino. It's a legitimate job serving a legitimate purpose.

I see that their latest project is to try to shut down religious exemptions for taking vaccines:

American Academy of Pediatrics Wants to Shut Down Religious Vaccine Exemptions

The American Academy of Pediatrics today said religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions are “problematic” and should be prohibited for children attending daycare and school in the U.S. Critics said maintaining exemptions is essential in preserving parental choice, medical ethics and...

childrenshealthdefense.org

They have no say.

There is plenty of evidence that vaccines -do- cause autism. I personally suspect the site with the most papers providing such evidence is here:

How Do Vaccines Cause Autism?

The Body of Research Supporting Vaccine Autism Causation

howdovaccinescauseautism.org

Random papers. Non-sequitur fallacy.
Compositional error fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Can you provide evidence for your assertion?

Your own posts.

 

[Into the Night]

Every fucking one I’ve looked into are misinformation, pseudoscience conspiracy sites, people who have been kicked out of their professions or otherwise recognized as quacks.

But, you are wrong. The best way to stop intelligent discussion is to continue to post quackery bullshit like you do. Stop cluttering my screen with that garbage or you’ll soon become invisible.

Buzzword fallacies. No argument presented.

 

[Into the Night]

I didn't say they did. I said they offer word definitions.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

 

[Into the Night]

Why don't you tell me what you think the ramifications of my simple statement are?

So...you don't.

Science is a set... (That means a collection of elements. Each element is a theory.)
of falsifiable theories. (that means each theory MUST have at least one attempt at the null hypothesis, in other words, a way to test if the theory is false. That test must be definable, available, specific, and produce a specific result. That generally means a mathematical or logical result. In other words, that result must come from a closed functional system.

As long as a theory can withstand such tests, it is automatically a theory of science. It will remain so until it is falsified.

It is not possible to prove any theory True. It IS possible to prove a theory of science False.

If a theory of science is falsified, it is utterly destroyed. It is no longer a theory or even an argument.

 

[Into the Night]

What do you think it is explaining?

A natural phenomenon.

Hint: it is modeling an unambiguous CAUSE -> EFFECT in nature. Do you know what the word for that is?

A model is not a theory, though theories do use models.

It is nothing more than a prediction in nature.

No. It is an explanation of a phenomenon of nature. It MUST be transcribed into a closed functional system such as mathematics to gain the power of prediction.

The prediction is the explanation.

A prediction is not an explanation.

The scientific method tests the prediction.

Science is not a method.

The scientific method doesn't test any explanations that aren't predictions.

Science is not a method.

Nope. Science always remains an open functional system.

This part is correct. As such, it is incapable of prediction. Prediction can ONLY occur in a closed functional system, such as mathematics.

The math is the unambiguous language that makes it falsifiable.

This part is partially correct. ANY closed functional system can define a valid null hypothesis.

In chemistry, chemistry notation is used instead of math.

So?

... because they must be falsifiable.

This part is correct.

You won't find Christianity expressed in math.

Oddly enough, you DO. The Holy Triniity, the single purpose, the two genders, the many peoples of Earth, etc. These are numbers, and therefore part of mathematics.

Nope. Science is not falsifiable until it is expressed unambiguously, hence the math, or the chemistry notation, etc.

Chemistry notation is not a test. It simply a notation.

The model is the prediction.

A model is not a prediction. It is simply a model.

The prediction is what is being modeled.

A model is not a prediction.

The math is the formal language that makes it unambiguous.

Mathematics is more than just notation. Notation is not a test.

Thank you. The equation is the model,

The equation is not the model.

which is the prediction.

The equation is the predictive path...yes.

The math only makes it unfalsifiable.

ANY closed functional system makes it falsifiable. Mathematics does not cause a theory to be unfalsifiable. It is not possible to prove any theory True.

If I tell you that the Raiders are going to beat the Chargers, the English language isn't the assertion, it is merely the vehicle, proque puedo usar otro idioma para decir que los Raiders desbarratarán a los Chargers y la aseveración no cambiará.

Random phrase ignored.

Do you know what falsifiability is, and how mathematics provides it?

Yes. However, mathematics is not the only closed functional system that can provide it.

Incorrect. Kurt Gödel proved that all closed functional systems are incomplete.

They don't need to be complete. They DO need to be closed.

Anyway, it's totally irrelevant. The scientific method is procedural and is not a closed functional system.

Science is not a method or procedure.

Mathematics is not peanut butter.

Never said it was. However, making peanut butter does use mathematics.

Focus on the falsifiability that math provides and you'll be on the right track.

This part is partially correct. Mathematics is not the only closed functional system.

 

[Diesel]

Every fucking one I’ve looked into are misinformation, pseudoscience conspiracy sites, people who have been kicked out of their professions or otherwise recognized as quacks.

But, you are wrong. The best way to stop intelligent discussion is to continue to post quackery bullshit like you do. Stop cluttering my screen with that garbage or you’ll soon become invisible.

I put Scott on Ignore. The second half of this thread is now invisible. Just goes to show that he clogs up the internet with bullshit.

 

[Scott]

I would classify a study as scientific study if it follows the scientific method. I certainly believe that a lot of studies, particularly in the field of virology, are not scientific, regardless of whether or not they claim to be.

What are your credentials to evaluate that?

You don't need credentials to think. I still think that one of Jimmy Dore's skit regarding the whole Covid narrative, particularly Covid vaccines, was particularly good in uncovering the anti-think for yourself stance that people have adopted when it comes to things related to our health in these Covid times:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PM67hjv4iM&ab_channel=TheJimmyDoreShow

 

[Scott]

From duckduckgo search assist:
**
A study is considered scientific if it systematically collects and evaluates data using the scientific method, which includes formulating a testable hypothesis, conducting experiments, and analyzing results to draw conclusions. It must also be based on empirical evidence and be capable of being replicated by others.
**

Sources:

Scientific study - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What Is The Scientific Method and How Does It Work? | Definition from TechTarget

Learn about the scientific method, the process of objectively establishing facts through testing and experimentation. Explore its steps and applications.

www.techtarget.com

There are some problems with this.

1. The scientific method is not a method for data collection. Data collection, in each case, is governed by its data collection plan which, in turn, is (or should be) governed by the application of statistical math to the original requirements for data. Sadly, data collection is often a euphemism for "pure data fabrication."

2. A study is not a science experiment. No hypothesis can somehow be derived from a lack of an existing falsifiable model. A study simply conducts research, presumably per a plan, and draws conclusions from that research, which are often predetermined by the party purchasing the study.

3. Science experiments need to be repeatable, but not studies. A researcher might take advantage of using special equipment to study a freak "beyond EF5" tornado that can't even be classified. The study can certainly be done despite its non-repeatability.

The bottom line is that a study is not science and it should never be considered as such. There are no more scientific studies than there are scientific baseballs.

Responding to your 3 points:
1- I think that data collection can be -part- of the scientific method. There's a diagram I just found on the scientific method that I found here think would be better to explain things:





I think that studies would fall into the "do background research" part. I certainly agree that data should be collected properly.

2- I certainly agree that a study is not a science experiment.

3- I agree that studies don't need to be repeatable.

In conclusion, a study by itself isn't enough for a complete scientific experiment, but I think it can form part of one. I would certainly agree that if a study was non repeatable, the experiment itself wouldn't be able to have that part of it repeated by someone else, but I think following the scientific method in every other way should count for something.

 

[domer76]

I put Scott on Ignore. The second half of this thread is now invisible. Just goes to show that he clogs up the internet with bullshit.

Yep. He’s right on the edge. I have one reply of his to look at. It may well be the one that makes him invisible.

 

[IBDaMann]

There's a diagram I just found on the scientific method that I found here think would be better to explain things:

The diagram you showed does not depict the scientific method. It shows the "science creation process" in a quaint, elementary school manner. See below.

Responding to your 3 points:
1- I think that data collection can be -part- of the scientific method.

You are conflating the scientific method with the general science creation process.

The creation of science involves someone having an epiphany that realizes some CAUSE->EFFECT in how nature works. There are no rules for how one is allowed to have such an epiphany, but when teaching children, we tend to dumb it down into easily understandable chunks, like ...

1. Start with making your observations
2. Take measurements and gather your data
3. Analyze your data
4. Ask a question, or two
5. Assess your personal carbon footprint and ask whether this endeavor is worth destroying the global climate
6. Develop an hypothesis
7. Develop a test for that hypothesis
8. Analyze your results
9. Adjust your hypothesis as needed -> return to step 7 if needed
10. Demand that conservatives be imprisoned for the climate variability impact their Trump-driven capitalistic human activity is doing to the Dominican coral reefs
11. Share a fruit cup with a socially-distanced friend.

The bottom line is that whenever you are discussing the above, you are trying to explain to children what many scientists often do, but none of the above is prescriptive. All that matters is that the resulting model be falsifiable and predict nature.


ENTER THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

Now, here is the key disctinction. Once a science model has been developed (i.e. a falsifiable model that predicts nature) and not a moment before, the scientific method is applied. The scientific method does not create science, it tries to falsify it, i.e. show that it is false. In other words, the scientific method takes a falsifiable model and tries to show it to be false. This is why you cannot apply the scientific method to, say Christianity, for example. Christianity is a religion and is therefore not falsifiable. The scientific method cannot do anything to show it to be false.

More formally, the scientific method is a systematic battery of tests that tries break a model. As I alluded to above, the scientific method requires a falsfiable model as input which is first reviewed for internal consistency of logic (e.g. your argument that you do not support contract killings would fail the internal consistency check) and if a model fails that test, it is already false and it cannot proceed; the model must be corrected or discarded.

Assuming a model passes the internal consistency check of the scientific method, the model's external consistency check is performed, i.e. the model is checked against the rest of science to see if there are any contradictions. If there are then something has to be fixed, but not necessarily the model being examined at the moment.

Then the big moment arrives in which the model itself is tested for its veracity. The model will be expressed unambiguously in some formal notation. The model itself, expressed unambiguously, becomes its own hypothesis to be tested, and that hypothesis has a name, i.e. "the null hypothesis", called that because it is not derived from any other hypothesis. An experiment is devised to test the null hypothesis and the results are published. If the scientific method doesn't show the null hypothesis to be false, then the model gets to remain as science for the time being.

So, in review, the "science creation process" doesn't really exist because there aren't any rules dictating how science is allowed to come into the world; we simply teach children a story to prepare them to some extent. The scientific method, however, is applied after a science model is created, systematically attempting to break that model.

In conclusion, a study by itself isn't enough for a complete scientific experiment, but I think it can form part of one.

If you are saying that a study can inform an application of the scientific method, then yes it can. Then again, everything written on JPP could potentially inform an application of the scientific method ... but ThatOwlCoward's posts ... not so much.

I would certainly agree that if a study was non repeatable, the experiment itself wouldn't be able to have that part of it repeated by someone else, but I think following the scientific method in every other way should count for something.

Nope. Either you have science or you don't. There is no category for "counts for something".