agendas in science

http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/mytotjo/19431-ghost-dog/photos/photo?albumid=485&photoid=2848

Gisteron wrote: Or I could go my own route and kindly ask you for a reference to a scientific study you surely conducted at some point during the past decade. I don't even care that you try to make it look like you had no idea what science is although you still seem to hold yourself an authority on big conspiracies covering it up for centuries, or that you seem to hold yourself an authority on what true Christianity was and how it suffered the same treatment.

To Gisteron,
Don't bother, this is why I thanked him when he said people at universities are children. This guy is clearly not a scientist and has no scientific background and training. With that knowledge he can simply be dismissed. Any attempt to further argue with him or criticize him will only result in him going further down the rabbit hole in believing he is secretly the smartest person in the world and no one will ever understand this because they aren't smart enough. This phenomenon is called Dunning–Kruger effect , it's fascinating you should read about it.

I will address the OP.

I was told here in a thread that was titled "Not all Truth is True" is that there is a difference between truth and facts, though in the argument it was deemed the facts were indeed true.

However I was told that truth is subjective, little more than a preferred opinion. Facts are objective, and true for more than just the individual.

I couldnt agree more, and that was exactly my point.

An agenda, of which I am quite sure your posting this here is just that, an agenda, is ones opinion, and yes, groups and individuals have funded scientists to prove there "agendas".

However, scientists, as I said most people should, by and large stick to the facts, which is objective an evidence based as Gisteron has explained.

To which, scientists report the facts back, and not what the preferred outcome is, because they cant.

The facts are what they are.

Clair Patterson and his discoveries into lead poisoning are a good example of this. Especially when encountering strong "agenda" based opposition from someone like Robert Kehoe.

Kehoe was the medical spokesperson for Ethyl Corporation and other industries who profited from the production of leaded gasoline. When early on Alice Hamilton, Yandell Henderson[12] and other scientists raised doubts about its safety and workers at TEL plants fell ill, the Surgeon General Hugh Smith Cumming called for a conference in 1925. TEL production was voluntarily suspended. But the use of leaded gasoline raised public health issues that were novel.[13] At the conference Kehoe challenged his opponents asking for proof that use of TEL was unsafe. His Show me the data paradigm shifted the burden of proof to the doubters.[3] The alternative approach - called the Precautionary Principle[14] – would have required proof that was TEL safe before it could be used. While the Kehoe Paradigm[3][15] (also called Kehoe Rule)[4][16] assumes that in the absence of clear evidence of risk there is no risk of significance, the Precautionary Principle assumes that there is a possible risk until proven otherwise. Nriagu indicated that with the large investments by industry, the social and economic climate of the time, and the belief in progress, the outcome of the 1925 conference was preordained.[3] TEL production resumed and soon leaded gasoline was commonly used. That there were alternatives to the use of TEL had been falsely denied by the industry.[15]

The Show me the data approach made it critical for the industry to fund and control the research in lead toxicity. This was done through the Kettering Laboratory under Kehoe’s direction. The Kehoe Paradigm worked for the lead industry as all that was necessary now was to characterize any criticism as fraught with uncertainty. In the case of lead toxicity, Kehoe's laboratory dominated the scene for decades attesting to the safety of leaded gasoline and deconstructing any criticism.

Using Kehoe's paradigm, Ethyl Corporation was a winner in either situation: if its product would prove to be safe, it would be seen as a responsible party. If, however, its product was unsafe it would take decades to prove this with certainty in a process that could be prolonged by challenging the methods and results and calling for more data. Meanwhile production was profitable and ultimately the owners would be insulated from responsibility.[4] Kitman indicates that the strategy taken by the lead industry, namely the use of Kehoe's Paradigm, "provided a model for the asbestos, tobacco, pesticide and nuclear power industries, and other(s) ... for evading clear evidence that their products are harmful by hiding behind the mantle of scientific uncertainty".[4]

Of which "Show me the data" the facts, as it were, became paramount and did ultimately change things. As it showed even the unpopular opinion, if it is indeed backed up by facts, and evidence, in essence good science, will change things and cannot truly be ignored regardless of agenda, though it can be dragged out.

Agendas can indeed muddy the waters of science, as you have attempted to do here, but only for so long.

At this point, it is clear that when called out to back up your findings (show me the data) you have crumbled, showing again that agendas and "Truth" pales in comparison to the facts.

Vesha wrote: This phenomenon is called Dunning–Kruger effect , it's fascinating you should read about it.

ghost dog wrote: he is not debating anything. he is a broken record.

Neither are you. You are just insulting people as both of us predicted you would. The one think I did ask you to respond to you ignored calling me a moron, or to be more 'psychologically correct' imbecile, instead. Need I even come back here to do anything when you are in the middle of nailing your very own coffin?



I hereby invite you to compose an informal apology to the TOTJO community for the insulting and condescending treatment you so gracefully provided us all with. If you do, I will personally vouch before Councilors of my choosing in your favour over the question of letting you remain. While the rules are the rules and I am in no place to judge you on them, I hereby invite all of my fellow Jedi to join me in looking beyond your misconduct and to move on once you do submit that apology, should you so decide.

Truth is absolute. A fact is a fact. If a vegan eats raw organic calf liver for breakfast, sirloin wrapped in bacon for lunch with a side of mountain oysters, and pea snips and kail for dinner. he is not a vegan, no matter how deluded he is into believing that everyone's truth is their own. meat eating vegans that profess themselves to vegans are not honest with themselves.

the reason so many of of the people on this forum are so butthurt is because i spoke my truth. and why would a herd of jedi get upset, when they seem to mostly profess that everyone is allowed their own truth? this is the real question worth digging into.


why are so many people here so offended at someone that they take such pleasure in personally insulting and attempting to belittle? what is your agenda?



the erosion of all truth until the whole world can watch vegans at animal flesh buffets, smile and say, truth is subjective, yesterday the grass grew in a field, today it is muscle tissue being dined upon, tomorrow it will fertilize the grass again, or.......


the funny part is how butt hurt so many of you are over an article written by an "Indian" and a video of a museum curator discussing ooparts, and if not that, what has driven the chip in your shoulders all the way down to your inflamed anus?


the answer is simple. Truth.

Gisteron wrote:

ghost dog wrote: he is not debating anything. he is a broken record.

Neither are you. You are just insulting people as both of us predicted you would. The one think I did ask you to respond to you ignored calling me a moron, or to be more 'psychologically correct' imbecile, instead. Need I even come back here to do anything when you are in the middle of nailing your very own coffin?

I hereby invite you to compose an informal apology to the TOTJO community for the insulting and condescending treatment you so gracefully provided us all with. If you do, I will personally vouch before Councilors of my choosing in your favour over the question of letting you remain. While the rules are the rules and I am in no place to judge you on them, I hereby invite all of my fellow Jedi to join me in looking beyond your misconduct and to move on once you do submit that apology, should you so decide.

chronology of this thread.

i posted an article and some videos i found really interesting. gisteron and steamboat submit post with personal attacks and nonsensical BS proudly displaying their fertile simian rear ends, and then claim i attacked and insulted them. this is hilarious.

thus the "children in uni" not everyone studying like at a university is a child, but if one defines themselves by their asinine, hypocritical behavior, call the aroma the way it smells.

the reason so many of of the people on this forum are so butthurt is because i spoke my truth. and why would a herd of jedi get upset, when they seem to mostly profess that everyone is allowed their own truth? this is the real question worth digging into.

Well, at least you have offered something off value in illustrating this problem.

As all opinions are not equal, or valid, as you have clearly demonstrated.

Though people do have an inflated sense of entitlement as far as they are concerned.

Which offers at least an interesting discussion worthwhile in an area nowhere near the point, if any, you were trying to make.

Still, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

more people have told me this than not.

Gisteron, ghost dog, steamboat, and anyone else who has jumped into the dispute happening here - Whether or not any of you are more correct or informed on the subject matter of the OP, unfortunately, has played a much smaller role here than the choice of attitude and social taste displayed between you.

If you jump into a thread to debate and you honestly don't wish to be attacked (and attacked back), read your own words carefully and consider how others will take it and where it might lead.

The next thing might be to consider your own ego - how much you choose to let yourself be so pulled by the others' response regardless of if you think they are right or not. As you can see, it is not serving anybody as far as convincing the other party of anything being said by yourself.

In short - if you want to be treated with respect and your views properly considered, it is not about what you know, or what you say, as much as how you say it, and how you take it. How seriously you choose to take each other and yourselves is something that has played a big role here - and if you say you "can't take them seriously" after reading this, then you're misunderstanding my meaning. The attitudes strewn about with attacks shows that both parties are choosing to take each other more seriously than what will serve anyone's aim here, otherwise, there would not be such an urge to defend and counter-attack. Do think about this.

Just a suggestion.

Please refrain from anymore personal insults or further action will be taken which may include closing this thread and taking further action toward parties partaking in the personal attacks.

Thank you.