Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Vaccinations; recent developments  (Read 485832 times)

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #465 on: January 05, 2015, 09:01:21 PM »
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
Not exactly the way you seem to be using it.  Authorities, that is people are acceptable sources of information about a subject in an argument.  What is usually meant by "appeal to authority" is when a person cited is not an expert, misinterpreted or is asserting a non-consensus view (which is the case here but it seems more clear to simply say "they are not an expert and they are asserting a non-consensus view")

Quote
is not determined by his expertise but by the actual data
An expert saying something to you IS actual data.  It's just data where it's hard to quantify the error.  Didn't you say something roughly like: People absolutely MUST pay attention to people who meet your particular criteria for scientists (careful, diligent) even if they claim something utterly implausible?  I thought, to you ignoring those people would be hubris of the highest order. :)

Yet here you are saying that it's only their data that matters in terms of judging their rightness or wrongness. :)

But you seem to be able to judge the rightness or wrongess of making a useful error on the basis of their expertise. :)

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #466 on: January 05, 2015, 10:47:21 PM »
In this case the MIT  "data" is a collation Of 167 Peer reviewed papers specific to the study of  individuals that have been forever "modified"  by some  environmental  "effect"  which has apparently altered their DNA or changed them in other ways not easily understood at this point.


To suggest that these investigations are irrelevant or with out merit or substance is almost beyond belief.


Looney toons to say the least...


I will only post additional Research Data here ,there is no point in your silly "points" its just to argue .
This topic and this Research are not about arguing ,nor are either of you qualified to post an "original" sentence worthy of contribution to this research.


unless you Are secretly involved in your own ongoing research if so Please  contribute..
otherwise you contributions have no Merit beyond "gossip"


thx


Chet
 

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #467 on: January 05, 2015, 10:48:27 PM »
Not exactly the way you seem to be using it.  Authorities, that is people are acceptable sources of information about a subject in an argument.  What is usually meant by "appeal to authority" is when a person cited is not an expert, misinterpreted or is asserting a non-consensus view (which is the case here but it seems more clear to simply say "they are not an expert and they are asserting a non-consensus view")
An expert saying something to you IS actual data.  It's just data where it's hard to quantify the error.  Didn't you say something roughly like: People absolutely MUST pay attention to people who meet your particular criteria for scientists (careful, diligent) even if they claim something utterly implausible?  I thought, to you ignoring those people would be hubris of the highest order. :)

Yet here you are saying that it's only their data that matters in terms of judging their rightness or wrongness. :)

But you seem to be able to judge the rightness or wrongess of making a useful error on the basis of their expertise. :)
There are also a number of references to an appeal or argument from authority where recognition in one area is illegitimately used to imply a reliable opinion where the speaker is not a SME.  However, I have good references, like this one that go further and state that argument from authority includes accepting a conclusion merely because it is the view of an SME:

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Appeal_to_authority.html 

Lots of SMEs make mistakes sooner or later.  When that has happened in civil engineering the consequences have sometimes been disastrous.


sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #468 on: January 06, 2015, 12:14:11 AM »
However, I have good references
Is that an intentional joke? Because accepting a definition of "argument from authority" from a "good reference" is effectively an argument from authority in the particular sense of accepting a conclusion ("an argument from authority is...") from someone simply because they are a SME ("a good reference"). :)
Quote
like this one that go further and state that argument from authority includes accepting a conclusion merely because it is the view of an SME:
It seems to say to accept an authority as infallible is fallacious.  Which is fine but I doubt a) that's really what you were talking about when you were contrasting the authority with data and b) it's probably not what the arguer - sorry I really can't remember the particular nutbars name in this case - had in mind.   In a everyday argument people do not have to assert that they consider some person, source or *gasp* even the sacred DATUM are fallible because we know they all are.  An informal argument isn't to produce a NECESSARY conclusion (necessarily :) ) but a reasonable one.

It would be different someone claimed or was in some kind of context where they were making a FORMAL logical argument.  In which case that sense of "argument from authority" would be a useful criticism.   However even data in that context would fall under the same criticism.   Which puts some pretty heavy limits on what can be discussed in that context.  Which is IMHO kind of the limitation which Wittgenstein was on about.  That said formal reasoning isn't without merit because it's good to show where the gaps are.  Where we have to rely on some person, reference, data...which is sort of where I was going when I was pushing profits for a formal argument back when I was hijacking the quenco thread.

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #469 on: January 06, 2015, 12:23:53 AM »
collation Of 167 Peer reviewed papers specific to the study of  individuals that have been forever "modified"  by some  environmental  "effect"  which has apparently altered their DNA or changed them in other ways not easily understood at this point.
Well, as we all know you haven't read any of them.  So actually all you have is someone's claim that 167 papers exist.  I'd point out that what we are discussing are vaccines and unless you've described the character poorly.  None of them have to be about vaccines or any ingredient in them. 
Quote
To suggest that these investigations are irrelevant or with out merit or substance is almost beyond belief.

Looney toons to say the least...
So you assert that ANY collection of papers totally 167 in number MUST BE ABSOLUTELY TRUE and RELEVANT TO ANYTHING?  Seems like the answer there would be "no" in both cases.  So you're still kind of stuck having to make a case between these alleged 167 papers and something even remotely like what we are discussing. :)

As I said why not pick out one paper which presents the STRONGEST EVIDENCE AGAINST VACCINES and we can destro....discuss it. :)

Quote
I will only post additional Research Data here ,there is no point in your silly "points" its just to argue .
"Additional" implies that you have already provided research data.  I'll I've seen is a claim by you.

Quote
nor are either of you qualified to post an "original" sentence worthy of contribution to this research.
Wrong.  I am qualified to review papers that use statistical methods.  So go ahead and post some of this research, actual papers and we will see what we will see....idiot.

allcanadian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #470 on: January 06, 2015, 12:48:26 AM »
@Sark
Quote
No. Computer science, as a discipline generally sits between one of two polls.  Implementation - e.g. knowing how to write code and Algorithms - e.g. knowing how a particular approach scales in memory and time with input size.  This has absolutely nothing to do with "gathering meaningful data" you utterly. ignorant. moron.


Oh my name calling already?,  I have been programming and interfacing,building control systems for computers since the first personal computers were invented. Now let's ask an intelligent question, how do you think they get all the data and filter out data not relevant. Well... they use what's called data mining algorithms to sift through millions of files on the databases for relevant data. As such it seems obvious a computer scientist would know how to find the most relevant meaningful data in the most efficient way versus let's say a biologist who knows very little about computers or data mining.


Uhm which part of this do you not understand because it seems pretty straightforward?.


Quote
Wrong.  I am qualified to review papers that use statistical methods.  So go ahead and post some of this research, actual papers and we will see what we will see....idiot.


You may be but unfortunately we cannot believe a word you say until we see your credentials, lol. As you have implied, until we have proof we will have to assume your just another crack-pot just like the people you have criticized.
Your funny :) .

AC





MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #471 on: January 06, 2015, 12:58:48 AM »
@Sark

Oh my,  I have been programming and interfacing,building control systems for computers since the first personal computers were invented. Now let's ask an intelligent question, how do you think they get all the data and filter out data not relevant. Well... they use what's called data mining algorithms to sift through millions of files on the databases for relevant data. As such it seems obvious a computer scientist would know how to find the most relevant meaningful data in the most efficient way versus let's say a biologist who knows very little about computers or data mining.


Uhm which part of this do you not understand because it seems pretty straightforward?.



You may be but unfortunately we cannot believe a word you say until we see your credentials, lol.

AC
Computer programs are available that assist in myriad of fields and tasks.  That fact says nothing about the skills of anyone involved in the science or engineering of computer.  The specific mathematic skills that would be relevant to evaluating study reports are skills in probability and statistics. 

Cap-Z-ro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3545
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #472 on: January 06, 2015, 01:02:38 AM »
Or maybe just a crack head on pot ?

Gotta love those straight lines.

Regards...


allcanadian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #473 on: January 06, 2015, 01:07:43 AM »
@Mark E

Quote
Computer programs are available that assist in myriad of fields and tasks.  That fact says nothing about the skills of anyone involved in the science or engineering of computer.  The specific mathematic skills that would be relevant to evaluating study reports are skills in probability and statistics.


Now who do you suppose wrote those programs?, Do you guys even know how computers actually work?. Unfortunately it's not like going down to the store to buy a loaf of bread and the software always needs refinement to perform specific tasks in the most efficient manner, now who do you suppose would do this... a biologist?. I'm thinking no.


AC








MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #474 on: January 06, 2015, 01:30:32 AM »
@Mark E


Now who do you suppose wrote those programs?, Do you guys even know how computers actually work?. Unfortunately it's not like going down to the store to buy a loaf of bread and the software always needs refinement to perform specific tasks in the most efficient manner, now who do you suppose would do this... a biologist?. I'm thinking no.


AC
I know very well that expertise in computer scinece does not equate to expertise in design or use of software for any specific application.  I know full well that many programmers work on software where they have little or no understanding of the theory that underlays the end application.  Even if someone were smart enough to understand all of Knuth's books backwards and forwards, that would not give them any particular expertise in any computer application.  It would equip them to define efficient computer based algorithms to approach a defined task. 


sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #475 on: January 06, 2015, 02:48:04 AM »
Oh my name calling already?
No, that's my measured opinion of your intellectual abilities.
Quote
I have been programming and interfacing,building control systems for computers since the first personal computers were invented
Then you can thank David Dunning and Justin Kruger for your marvelous insight into other fields. :)
Quote
Now let's ask an intelligent question
I'm pretty sure it's not nearly as intelligent as you think it is.
Quote
how do you think they get all the data and filter out data not relevant.
All the data for what exactly? in what situation?  Most of the time an application filters data based on simple criteria provided by the designer. The number of times someone writes an algorithm to do something like trending is actually, by comparison pretty small.
Quote
they use what's called data mining algorithms to sift through millions of files on the databases for relevant data.
"relevant" is the wrong word.  It's data that matches a pattern or heuristic.  This pattern has been coded or otherwise described to the machine.  For example "Folding@home" looks for molecules which match certain characteristics to label them as drug candidates for specific diseases.
Quote
As such it seems obvious a computer scientist would know how to find the most relevant meaningful data in the most efficient way
The CS person (or more frequently a grad student) codes a program to match a set of criteria.  However the set of criteria is provided by someone who actually knows the subject matter.
Quote
Uhm which part of this do you not understand because it seems pretty straightforward?
That's Dunning and Kruger talking. :)
Quote
You may be but unfortunately we cannot believe a word you say until we see your credentials, lol. As you have implied, until we have proof we will have to assume your just another crack-pot just like the people you have criticized.
There's some irony that you are so bad at this that you didn't realize that I actually took the persons credential at face value.  What I didn't accept is the doofus's (sorry I don't remember the posters name I only recall his stupidity) assertion that someone who has an irrelevant degree, almost no current published work in the field of medicine and zero published work on vaccine harm.  Would have anything useful to say about vaccine harm.

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #476 on: January 06, 2015, 02:55:44 AM »
Now who do you suppose wrote those programs?,
Often it's a collaborative effort between SME's and some code monkey.  However it's irrelevant to performing data analysis.  For example, many researchers and people like myself use R.  You could hire the greatest CS person in the universe and it would be trivial to give them R and a question about determining if correlation exists between a very complex set of inputs.  That they would be utterly and completely lost at.   Believe it or not, the volumes and volumes of books on statistical analysis are not entirely contained in the mind of most CS grads.  In fact statistics is such a devilish discipline that an awful lot of statisticians aren't that good.
Quote
Do you guys even know how computers actually work?
Only all too well.

allcanadian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #477 on: January 06, 2015, 02:58:40 AM »
@Sark
Quote
There's some irony that you are so bad at this


There lies the truth I believe as "this" has little to do with facts in my opinion but is a form of psychotic narcissistic behavior where people feel empowered by degrading and belittling others...not unlike racism. So I will leave you to "this" as I simply do not feel compelled to play your silly games. It is quite childish and pointless so I will leave you to it.


AC

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #478 on: January 06, 2015, 03:07:00 AM »
There lies the truth I believe as "this" has little to do with facts
You're right, in the sense that you have been asked many, many, many times to provide something resembling facts and all you have come up with is "it's my opinion". :)
Quote
a form of psychotic narcissistic behavior where people feel empowered by degrading and belittling others...not unlike racism.
You mean like thinking that because someone is a CS major they are the best at data analysis? :)

Dude, if I have offended you I sincerely apologize however your inability to disclose and clarify your opinion but constantly consider it superior to every contrary one (many times implying that you have better information) is the tone of someone pretty arrogant.  If you want to have a discussion come off your high horse and support your point or simply say that there's really no reason for what you believe.  That's cool too.

Cap-Z-ro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3545
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #479 on: January 06, 2015, 04:19:16 AM »
Good trolling...except for one or 2 minor details.

All this was done without ever having to disclose his study's, his peer reviewals and other "unvested" droolings, and trying to pass it off of evedence that injecting a witch's brew of chemicals were good for you.

Remember the names they had for native americans while they were about gifting them with blankets contaminated with small pox ?

The victims change, and the game remains the same.

Regards...