Reality Check Penultimate Amazing

Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 27,338

markie is really referring to his fantasies about human nature etc. markie Originally Posted by I'm really referring to human nature within the intellectual institutions where findings such as Mills' discoveries can be reasonably expected to be properly accessed..... markie is really referring to his fantasies about human nature and intellectual institutions.



markie derails into irrelevant "CDC whistleblowers" conspiracy theory, a "near zero autism rates among children of paediatric doctors who don't vaccinate in the conventional way" delusion, vaccine/autism stupidity and ignorance of basic medical practice (the known concerns with vaccines are explained by doctors ).



There is no known link between vaccinations or their schedule and autism. The only correlation is that the age at which autism can usually be diagnosed happens to be around the period of childhood vaccinations. There is the well known







ETA: Make this almost irrelevant!

What this post indicates is that is not science or evidence that convinces markie that a theory is correct. It is rhetoric in podcasts or bells and whistles and pretty lights in videos .



In the real world of the scientific community, scientists are trained to expect scientific theories to be supported by scientific evidence. Higher levels of evidence are needed for theories making bigger claims. That is basis of the aphorism "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" popularized by Carl Sagan (

The key is that someone with a new scientific theory has to be able to convince other people that the theory is correct. Thus the signature of a valid, new scientific theory is that it gains support from the scientific community ("intellectual institutions").



Someone claims the Earth is flat? Then they need an enormous amount of evidence that not only explains all of the evidence that is a globe but also gives falsifiable, testable predictions that only a flat Earth can match.



Someone claims that QM is wrong and they have a better theory? Then they need an enormous amount of evidence that not only explains all of the evidence supporting QM but also gives falsifiable, testable predictions that only their theory can match. is really referring to hisabout human nature and intellectual institutions.derails into irrelevant "CDC whistleblowers" conspiracy theory, a "near zero autism rates among children of paediatric doctors who don't vaccinate in the conventional way" delusion, vaccine/autism stupidity and ignorance of basic medical practice (the known concerns with vaccines are explained by doctors).There is no known link between vaccinations or their schedule and autism. The only correlation is that the age at which autism can usually be diagnosed happens to be around the period of childhood vaccinations. There is the well known MMR vaccine and autism debacle. Any one can search PubMed to find studies on the alleged vaccine and autism link. Dr. Paul Thomas is a an anti-vaccine activist as is obvious just from the title of the podcast "How to End the Autism Epidemic". This is autism . We do not know what causes autism . We do know that autism has a strong genetic component and is not caused by vaccines ("numerous epidemiological studies have shown no scientific evidence supporting any link between vaccinations and autism").ETA: Make this almost irrelevant!What this post indicates is that is not science or evidence that convincesthat a theory is correct. It is rhetoric in podcasts or bells and whistles and pretty lights in videosIn the real world of the scientific community, scientists are trained to expect scientific theories to be supported by scientific evidence. Higher levels of evidence are needed for theories making bigger claims. That is basis of the aphorism "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" popularized by Carl Sagan ( Sagan standard ).The key is that someone with a new scientific theory has to be able to convince other people that the theory is correct. Thus the signature of a, new scientific theory is that it gains support from the scientific community ("intellectual institutions").Someone claims the Earth is flat? Then they need an enormous amount of evidence that not only explains all of the evidence that is a globe but also gives falsifiable, testable predictions that only a flat Earth can match.Someone claims that QM is wrong and they have a better theory? Then they need an enormous amount of evidence that not only explains all of the evidence supporting QM but also gives falsifiable, testable predictions that only their theory can match.