What is?

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Nothing sarcastic about that. Nor humorous. Nor metaphorical.
But before you tapdance long enough to again change the discussion without answering:

The article was shared in order to support the anti-vax narrative, but the article has not been verified as accurate. I showed this fact by quoting FROM THE ARTICLE.

What exactly was your reason for saying not everything has to be peer-reviewed? Do you know of things in science that someone just puts forth and it is accepted as true?

These are not rhetorical.

Of course not... I am not a democrat, far left leaning or a liberal. I am not allowed to be any of those things, right?

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

What exactly was your reason for saying not everything has to be peer-reviewed? Do you know of things in science that someone just puts forth and it is accepted as true?

You tell me. Do you think everything has to be peer-reviewed?

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

You tell me. Do you think everything has to be peer-reviewed?

If it comes to science and medical science that can affect the lives and safety of people? I EXPECT it.

Do you think it's a good idea to just allow someone to make a claim and act on that claim in medicine without it being verified? For example, Dr Stan decides it is good practice to leave a small piece of lodestone in every patient he does an appendectomy on, because it will give them better cell reception.

Go for it?

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

If it comes to science and medical science that can affect the lives and safety of people? I EXPECT it.

Do you think it's a good idea to just allow someone to make a claim and act on that claim in medicine without it being verified? For example, Dr Stan decides it is good practice to leave a small piece of lodestone in every patient he does an appendectomy on, because it will give them better cell reception.

Go for it?

Apples and Oranges buddy. I proved you don't have to peer-review every theory for it to be valid or true. Now use your common sense, if you have any. Degree in Biology. Do you really think that because I was literal and factual when I proved my point that I don't think it is prudent to peer-review things that can affect people? Step outside of that way of thinking that you must argue and prove people wrong about everything. It's making you extremely narrow minded. Peer-reviews are necessary and needed but aren't always necessary or needed for everything.

 

[El Wapo]

This explains the left and the sheeple

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Apples and Oranges buddy. I proved you don't have to peer-review every theory for it to be valid or true. Now use your common sense, if you have any. Degree in Biology. Do you really think that because I was literal and factual when I proved my point that I don't think it is prudent to peer-review things that can affect people? Step outside of that way of thinking that you must argue and prove people wrong about everything. It's making you extremely narrow minded. Peer-reviews are necessary and needed but aren't always necessary or needed for everything.

You used your “degree in biology “ to support your claim that bones don’t have nerves in them.
Might not want to lean on THAT crutch again.

We weren’t talking peer review for EVERYTHING, we were talking about it for a document being used to support an anti-vax narrative.
I’ll find a paper that says it is good for you to take 8 grams of Advil a day, written by an Advil salesman. Gonna do it, or wait for a study to verify?

Moral of the story: Accepting something as proof simply because it supports your narrative is fvcking stupid.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

This explains the left and the sheepleView attachment 44046

Is that like the opinion that Biden broke the law by utilizing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?
Or more like the opinion that the Democrats released COVID to allow mail-in voter fraud to effect the election of Biden?
Or like the opinion that the vax is 98% deadly and has had no effect on COVID contraction and the severity of cases for those infected?
Maybe the opinion that Biden raised gas prices and is ruining the country by doing it, but there is no energy emergency?

Tip of the iceberg.

Like Thxone, you post shit that crushes your own arguments.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

You used your “degree in biology “ to support your claim that bones don’t have nerves in them.
Might not want to lean on THAT crutch again.

We weren’t talking peer review for EVERYTHING, we were talking about it for a document being used to support an anti-vax narrative.
I’ll find a paper that says it is good for you to take 8 grams of Advil a day, written by an Advil salesman. Gonna do it, or wait for a study to verify?

Moral of the story: Accepting something as proof simply because it supports your narrative is fvcking stupid.

I agree with your moral line.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

What is it you do... I see you play both sides. What's that about?

I'm politically unaffiliated. I'm not "playing both sides." I believe in truth, facts, data, stats, etc. How many times does the GOP need to paint you into a corner with false narratives like "Biden is jacking up gas prices" before you learn they lie as much if not more than the DNC. That Kudlow video you posted is an excellent example. Kudlow is a good economist, but his video contained almost no economic data on why gas prices w

View attachment 44044

Fuck a duck, I'm screwed.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

You tell me. Do you think everything has to be peer-reviewed?

To be considered scientific, to be used a medical treatment, etc - yes.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

I'm politically unaffiliated. I'm not "playing both sides." I believe in truth, facts, data, stats, etc. How many times does the GOP need to paint you into a corner with false narratives like "Biden is jacking up gas prices" before you learn they lie as much if not more than the DNC. That Kudlow video you posted is an excellent example. Kudlow is a good economist, but his video contained almost no economic data on why gas prices w


Fuck a duck, I'm screwed.

Are you drinking?

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

To be considered scientific, to be used a medical treatment, etc - yes.

I agree with you. However, it doesn't make the original theory untrue.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

I agree with you. However, it doesn't make the original theory untrue.

It makes it unproved. You don’t use an unproved theory to prove an unproved theory.
THAT is a circular argument.

As in: “according to my watch, my watch is accurate”.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

It makes it unproved. You don’t use an unproved theory to prove an unproved theory.
THAT is a circular argument.

As in: “according to my watch, my watch is accurate”.

That wasn't the argument.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

I agree with you. However, it doesn't make the original theory untrue.

No but from a scientific standpoint it isn't a theory. It's hypothesis.