View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

The Rise and Fall of a Scientific Genius

Discuss General Topics.

Re: The Rise and Fall of a Scientific Genius

Postby Nostradamus » 20 Nov 2009, 23:27

What I see as a problem is that the world is full of the unexplained and interesting phenomena. This is not oneof them. Scientists would be out of a job if there wasn't something interesting to determine.

The fact that devices like this did not work is the reason that more research has been done in other areas. Notice that the work was tried again. People are often unaware that science is a slow and ponderous process of trying and trying. Facts are simply what we believe to be true.

AIS did you know that 3 times work that has received the Nobel prize in a science field has been shown to be wrong? It simply shows that the questions being asked are hard. The questions have to be asked repeatedly and new information may show that established ideas, i.e. facts, may not be true after all.

A cancer cure in vogue years ago was laetrile. I remember Bullitt, aka Steve McQueen, heading to a clinic in Mexico for laetrile treatments. A small pharmaceutical geared up to make laetrile. Then the stunning claims fell apart and laetrile was not used because it didn't work. It's too bad. It would be a better world if cancer did not kill as many people as it does, but for now there is no simple panacea for the scourge of cancer.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08






Re: The Rise and Fall of a Scientific Genius

Postby Eteponge » 21 Nov 2009, 00:13

This may eventually lead to a real cure for cancer ...

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 102609.php
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: The Rise and Fall of a Scientific Genius

Postby accidentsinspace » 21 Nov 2009, 00:49

Eteponge wrote:
accidentsinspace wrote:And what were your sources? This is a blank bullshit shill JREF sister site. Dirty scum.

Sorry, but rather than gullibly and idiotically blindly accepting everything I see on YouTube without question (the doe-eyed true believer syndrome where everything that sounds good is automatically true), I try to logically research and investigate all sides of the argument, going back and forth, back and forth, checking the arguments and counter-arguments of both sides, actually trying to check and verify stuff rather than just seeing a video on YouTube and going, "Oh my god, oh my god, it said it on YouTube, therefore it's automatically true, and you're dirty JREF scum if you have a brain and don't accept it at face value!"

With the true woos, if you don't gullibly lap up everything without thinking, you are "JREF Dirty Scum" apparently, that is, you possess an IQ above the single digits.

The JREF Debunkers I generally find to be the opposite yet equal brother in stupidity of this, what Stanton Friedman calls "Rather than investigating the unexplained, they attempt to explain the uninvestigated". Where they will only read and trust and consider skeptic articles and skeptic sources (just like the true believers do with their materials), already believe it's all BS from the get go (just like how the true believer already believes it's true from the get go), so any convincing sounding skeptical article is auto-accepted without comparing it's claims with the actual data and opposing sources (just like true believers do with their sources). Automatically dismissing everything classified as paranormal or anomalous without seriously researching it (the "greater skeptics than I have looked at it and said it's hogwash, therefore it is, therefore there is no need for me to press further" argument), and using clever doubt throwing / conspiracy weaving tactics to dumb down anything veridical that might be there worth considering.

I'm part of the excluded middle ground, I'm not a woo, and I'm not a debunker. I examine data, and if it's convincing, I go, "I feel this is worth further investigation" or "this highly suggests this may be a real phenomenon and begs further research", rather than, "good gosh golly guys, a youtube video says this guy cured cancer! Let's blindly accept it because it feels good too, so it must be true! Dirty JREF scum bags are those who disagree with my hasty conclusions!"

If you have any evidence this guy's research was replicated by others, and his claims were verified, and evidence he was "silenced", and counter-arguments to the skeptics' arguments concerning him, let's hear them. Name calling just shows you've got nothing of substance.



Rough translation: 'I did not bother to watch the documentary. This is why I raise no questions pertaining to the documentary itself. I just went to on to one of my favourite sites that make me feel all is well with the world. I am a fake. I parrot the Government line EVERYTIME.


YOU MADE NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER TO THE DOCUMENTARY AND THE POINTS IT MADE.. I DON'T WANT TO HEAR YOUR LIFE STORY.
User avatar
accidentsinspace
 
Posts: 162
Joined: 17 Oct 2009, 01:31

Re: The Rise and Fall of a Scientific Genius

Postby Eteponge » 21 Nov 2009, 02:24

accidentsinspace wrote:Rough translation: 'I did not bother to watch the documentary. This is why I raise no questions pertaining to the documentary itself. I just went to on to one of my favourite sites that make me feel all is well with the world. I am a fake. I parrot the Government line EVERYTIME.

Nope. I watched it, and then I actually did the smart thing, unlike your dumb ass, I Googled his name, read the wikipedia article on him, checked out all sources linked from the wikipedia page, checked several pages worth of links on him from the Google search on him, quickly realized he is full of shit, his research has NEVER been replicated, there are no reliable documented cases of his method working (actually curing patients of cancers or aids), the devices sold as "Rife Devices" today are not even his original design, many cancer patients have died using these devices rather than seeking real medical treatment, and a number of his claims (such as the claim that all cancers are caused by viruses therefore his machine will cure them) have been disproven (only 15% of cancers are caused by viruses). I looked for counter-arguments to these accusations, and FOUND NONE.

None of them deal with the replicability issue, the cancer patients who die using it, and there being no *reliable* documented cases of it actually curing cancer or aids. These are absent. You will find many videos and pro-websites online that praise and praise the man but present NO EVIDENCE and NO COUNTER-ARGUMENTS to the most damning accusations.

The rough translation I have of you is <drooling excessively with your eyes rolling wildy about in your head from suffering from an IQ of 0> "Good gosh golly guys, I saw a youtube video that says this guy cured cancer, therefore it's true! Let's blindly accept it because it feels good to believe it, and because if it's on YouTube, and sounds convincing if you haven't bothered to read up on the guy, it must be true! Let's not check out his claims from independent sources, and think critically, it must be true because it sounds good, and what sounds good must be true! Dirty JREF scum bags are those who disagree with my hasty brain dead conclusions of not fact checking! Meanies!"

Image

accidentsinspace wrote:YOU MADE NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER TO THE DOCUMENTARY AND THE POINTS IT MADE.. I DON'T WANT TO HEAR YOUR LIFE STORY.

And I don't want to hear your insult-laden mindless gullible rantings. You provided absolutely no valid rebuttal to the counter-arguments posed by critical sources concerning this individual and his claims. You provided no countering-evidence to support your claims, besides a biased YouTube Video.

To quote the great David Biedny, "I'm sending you to the cornfield, where you can no longer grace us with your stupidity."

Image

Call me harsh, but I asked this guy to back up his claims rather than hurling insults, and he doesn't listen, and again hurls insults and doesn't back up his claims.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: The Rise and Fall of a Scientific Genius

Postby ProfWag » 21 Nov 2009, 03:14

I don't know how to do all that fancy stuff in these posts, so just picture me standing at my computer and applauding Eteponge's comments.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The Rise and Fall of a Scientific Genius

Postby NinjaPuppy » 21 Nov 2009, 05:31

I'm standing right behind ProfWag, clapping wildly!
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: The Rise and Fall of a Scientific Genius

Postby brett » 21 Nov 2009, 13:54

yep got to agree with you guys - and once the insults start getting thrown around - the argument is lost - and THAT applies to skeptic and believers alike ;)

i lost my lovely wife to cancer - so it is a subject close to my heart ( literally ) - so BS claims and claimants of having "cures" for it - should be taken out and hung up by their testicles from piano wire in my opinion ( sorry but that's how strongly i feel about it ) - simple FACT as yet there IS no "cure " for many ( any ?? ) cancers - preventative and palliative treatments yes - but CURES no !! - and any one who comes up with a REAL cure - will deserve the praise and respect of the whole planet !!

please support cancer research - and may be one day we WILL beat this scourge of humanity
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

Re: The Rise and Fall of a Scientific Genius

Postby Hellboy » 21 Nov 2009, 18:06

Brett wrote
and once the insults start getting thrown around - the argument is lost - and THAT applies to skeptic and believers alike


I agree and wih applause. :)

i lost my lovely wife to cancer - so it is a subject close to my heart ( literally ) - so BS claims and claimants of having "cures" for it - should be taken out and hung up by their testicles from piano wire in my opinion ( sorry but that's how strongly i feel about it )


Yep I lost my uncle last week, to the most agressive form of cancer known. He did not stand a chance! :(
The only positives to come out of it was that he died peacefully and with dignity. The care he recieved from Mcmillan pallative care was second to none! I agree these snakeoil salesmen need stringing up, there may be some who actually believe what they are is doing is right. However, this does not detract away from the pain and misery they are causing. :x
Hellboy
 
Posts: 40
Joined: 09 Aug 2009, 05:37

Re: The Rise and Fall of a Scientific Genius

Postby Eteponge » 22 Nov 2009, 00:35

I lost both grandmothers to cancer. I was very close to both of them. I find it an absolute insult to make false claims about cancer cures.

You can spot what I call True Woos (as opposed to the Debunkers definition, where they simply call anyone who has any interest whatsoever in Paranormal / Anomalous Phenomenon, anyone who is reasonably convinced by any of the research and data [and has researched and considered all sides] in suggesting that there is something there worth further serious study, etc, to be blindly labeled as "Woos", lumping us all in with the gullible crazies in one blanket definition) by their reaction to simple critical questions.

If you ask someone making claims to back up their statements with actual evidence or request further evidence for their claims, and they instead fly off the handle and start hurling insults and show themselves to be unstable, that's a True Woo.

If you calmly present basic very reasonable skeptical arguments and inquiries, and ask them to respond to them and deal with them, and they instead fly off the handle and start hurling insults and show themselves to be unstable, that's a True Woo.

Now, on the otherhand, if you were to ask someone like me for evidence of whatever I claim to be convinced of, I'll gladly provide it, as much as possible, and even give an indepth response as to exactly why I feel the data is significant. And if you respond with indepth skeptical questions, I will respond to each and every point indepth, and give counter-data if applicable, and if I don't have an answer to something, or don't have sufficient evidence for something, I'll admit it and state that I need to research the matter further.

That type of response versus a True Woo's response is how you can tell a serious researcher of these topics from a fluff bunny.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Previous

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests