Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
oly

What's Bill Gates up to?

397 posts in this topic

I believe what Little Fish is asking (in his own ham-handed way), is for an explanation of how the data that created the graph came about.

that's not what I was asking.
We he certainly has a right to ask, as long as he gives a token of good intent by promising to listen to the explanation.
eh? I have no right to ask unless I promise something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little Fish, if the others go into detail, are you willing to listen to them?

go on then, knock my socks off.

we have had over 100 posts over several pages on this simple question, and still no explanation of bill gates extraordinary snake oil pseudoscience claim that vaccinations reduce population growth. do you really think those 'others' have any details that would enlighten anyone to bill gates position at this stage? those 'others' are stuck. which is why they ask distracting counter questions, and use other rhetorical avoidance and sophistry techniques. its a simple question.

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's not what I was asking.

eh? I have no right to ask unless I promise something?

There's little point asking questions if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

If you "know" you are right about everything to do with this and that everyone else here is wrong then there's little point continuing this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's little point asking questions if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

If you "know" you are right about everything to do with this and that everyone else here is wrong then there's little point continuing this discussion.

something is not true just because someone says it's true, and when a poster says that I will not listen to answers, that is an unfair, unfounded and unjustified criticism.

I am prepared to listen to answers, and prepared to discuss those answers, so far there has been no sensible answers. I've read a fair bit about demographics including books on the subject. I understand the causal factors of population growth, the wiki article with the graph even explains those causal factors. I have even stated them in this thread, but maybe that was lost in the noise which confuses those that just jump in and out from time to time. There is nothing i have come across that mentions lower infant mortality causing lower population growth, so if someone knows anything more then I'd like to hear it. it's clear they don't know as they would have said by now. merely pointing to my rejecting an invalid statistical technique is not evidence of me not listening.

so why do people believe it to be true? because bill gates who is in the business of selling vaccines says it's true? and the reasoning gates gives is clear pseudoscience, no statistician or even anyone with common sense would accept gate's reasoning and for someone like gates who is top of his game in a field based on logic, this is quite remarkable. indeed when I used the same reasoning and the same wording as gates, it was correctly pointed out the reasoning was flawed, so people are prepared to attack the reasoning when I say it, but defend the reasoning when Gates says it. I could fairly guess why they do that, but I don't think that would be helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when a poster says that I will not listen to answers, that is an unfair, unfounded and unjustified criticism.

Not from the perspective of anyone else reading this thread.

I am prepared to listen to answers, and prepared to discuss those answers, so far there has been no sensible answers.

People have been providing you with sensible answers, it has been your choice to ignore or dismiss them.

It is a bit of a contradiction to state that it is unjustified criticism to point out that you won't listen to what people are saying while at the same time declaring those answers unworthy of a response because you don't personally consider them to be 'sensible'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not from the perspective of anyone else reading this thread.
perspectives aren't always the truth.
People have been providing you with sensible answers, it has been your choice to ignore or dismiss them.
eh? where have I ignored answers?
It is a bit of a contradiction to state that it is unjustified criticism to point out that you won't listen to what people are saying while at the same time declaring those answers unworthy of a response because you don't personally consider them to be 'sensible'.

if someone can point out where I have declared an answer unworthy of a response, I'd appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re-read the last few comments, you know what i'm talking about.

You have this thread going in circles:

  • Demand explanation for A
  • Others provide explanation for A
  • Disagree with explanation for A
  • Insist that nobody has provided an explanation for A
  • Demand explanation for A

You've stonewalled the discussion in to a position whereby only an explanation you agree with will allow it to continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re-read the last few comments, you know what i'm talking about.

You have this thread going in circles:

  • Demand explanation for A
  • Others provide explanation for A
  • Disagree with explanation for A
  • Insist that nobody has provided an explanation for A
  • Demand explanation for A

its not a question of disagreeing, the explanation given (an inference from the chart) is an invalid statistical method. the accompanying wikipedia article that the graph came from does not support the explanation given, so its just a chart, the same as bill gates gave, I asked abou the chart bill gates gave, and I get given the chart again - circular reasoning - A is true because of A.

ref, posts 312 and 346

"Correlation does not equal causation is a quip that expresses the logical fallacy that events or statistics that happen to coincide with each other are causally related. The reality is that cause and effect can be indirect, or due to confounding variables, and so the assumption of causation is false when the only evidence available is simple correlation. The form of fallacy that it addresses is known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc or "affirming the consequent"."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_equal_causation

You've stonewalled the discussion in to a position whereby only an explanation you agree with will allow it to continue.
I'm asking for an explanation that makes sense, not one that amounts to a logical fallacy. I am asking about bill gates bogus inference from his chart (his evidence), I am being given the chart again. if it's going in circles it's because of circular reasoning within the "explanation".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

go on then, knock my socks off.

we have had over 100 posts over several pages on this simple question, and still no explanation of bill gates extraordinary snake oil pseudoscience claim that vaccinations reduce population growth. do you really think those 'others' have any details that would enlighten anyone to bill gates position at this stage? those 'others' are stuck. which is why they ask distracting counter questions, and use other rhetorical avoidance and sophistry techniques. its a simple question.

bill gates extraordinary snake oil :D :D

That was for some reason very funny.

My opinion, is that Little Fish has been the patient one here, actually. Despite the divine intervention of forum mods.

He is asking such a simple question. Why can't it be answered?

Why is it so difficult?

This is not forth grade, I personally don't see the need to break down the question with graphs and theories.

I mean c'mon, Nuclear fission is a tough thing to understand when you break it down in physics.

But if you simply answer the question of why and how Nuclear fission works, it's quite simple.

1. Trigger gets signal to shoot: Subcritical mass.

2. Trigger strikes the supercritical mass.

3. Core expands, exerting pressure on the Tamper.

4. The tamper expands.

5. Expansion dies down and pressure exerts on the core.

6. Fission takes place.(splitting of heavy nucleus)

7. The bomb explodes.

Easy and understandable.

Now, I too have wondered what Gates means with his claim.

How can vaccinations reduce population growth?

I will try to answer it myself.

1. Think up a good idea on how to sneak in some funky snake oil to reduce population. (Fertility?)

2. Stab a few hundred million people with it.

3. Wait for results.

The question is then, can there be any scientific(excepted) theory on how vaccinations can decrease population?

Nope.

Why?

Because it's incredible. And such research/evidence will NEVER get into the mainstream media(Here in Norway btw, there's a huge thing about the swineflu vaccine causing many cases of narcolepsy, also in Finland I've read).

And what does not get mainstreamed, does not get accepted by those who may or may not like to research on their own.

I'm not a scientist on biology, chemistry or an expert on how to decrease population.

But I do understand how vaccinations work, I do understand the benefits and I also understand the cons.

I am a self proclaimed expert on those in power who are against humanity, philosophically and in cause and effect.

And there are many. Gates is one.

Naturally, these are merely my opinions for others with their computers, looking at this forum to read.

If one or many of you think I'm wrong. That's fine. I'm ok with that.

Obviously, my explanation on how vaccinations decrease world population are sarcastic and I'm not claiming them as true, nor do I have evidence to back it up.

But at least I answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you actually didn't. You just did the same thing Little Fish is doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you are willing to address questions, then the question is how do you think lower infant death rates lower population growth. that graph does not show it. you are assuming that one is causal to the other which it isn't. as explained previously, you could plot the uptake of fridges and it would correlate with lower infant death rates, but one does not cause the other.

Actually, it does indeed. It is a very well known model showing the correlation between decreasing infant mortality rates and the subsequent lower birth rates. Now if you, as suggested, had actually opened that Wiki link and read it instead of continuously sprouting nonsense, you would have know that by know. Instead, you merely managed to blatantly put on display the behavior that aquatus1 and Sary very well described. It is toe cringing to watch.

But to remedy your intellectual laziness and what I can on read as your inability to comprehend even simple data correlations, here is an excerpt from Nature, 2009 (which you would have found had you had the intellectual integrity to actually read what was linked to):

During the twentieth century, the global population has gone through unprecedented increases in economic and social development that coincided with substantial declines in human fertility and population growth rates

1, 2

. The negative association of fertility with economic and social development has therefore become one of the most solidly established and generally accepted empirical regularities in the social sciences

1, 2, 3

. As a result of this close connection between development and fertility decline, more than half of the global population now lives in regions with below-replacement fertility (less than 2.1 children per woman)

4

.

Now, that spells it out pretty solidly. Is there anything in the above that you do not understand?! I have for your convenience highlighted the pertinent parts.

no that's not correct. lower birth rates and lower infant mortality rates are both a consequence of a country moving from pre-industrial to a modern industrialized economic system, as is an increase in fridges and many other things. you cannot pull out two lines on a graph that happen to be going in the same direction and say one is a consequence of the other. "all things being equal" is your operative assumption, which they are most definitely not. if you vaccinate the third world, it's still the third world, and vaccinating a third world economic system does not change it into a first world economic system.

Yes, they are all mixed, as also explained earlier, hence the requirement to look at birth and infant mortality rates before linking them to vaccines, fridges and what have you. But it is a well established fact that lower infant mortality rates lead to lower birth rates, no matter the reasons for the lower infant mortality rates.

Do you or do you not acknowledge that correlation now? If not, please explain why in detail. If you do, however, we can start looking at the causes.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited by badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it does indeed. It is a very well known model showing the correlation between decreasing infant mortality rates and the subsequent lower birth rates. Now if you, as suggested, had actually opened that Wiki link and read it instead of continuously sprouting nonsense, you would have know that by know. Instead, you merely managed to blatantly put on display the behavior that aquatus1 and Sary very well described. It is toe cringing to watch.

But to remedy your intellectual laziness and what I can on read as your inability to comprehend even simple data correlations, here is an excerpt from Nature, 2009 (which you would have found had you had the intellectual integrity to actually read what was linked to):

Now, that spells it out pretty solidly. Is there anything in the above that you do not understand?! I have for your convenience highlighted the pertinent parts.

Yes, they are all mixed, as also explained earlier, hence the requirement to look at birth and infant mortality rates before linking them to vaccines, fridges and what have you. But it is a well established fact that lower infant mortality rates lead to lower birth rates, no matter the reasons for the lower infant mortality rates.

Do you or do you not acknowledge that correlation now? If not, please explain why in detail. If you do, however, we can start looking at the causes.

Cheers,

Badeskov

It is not difficult to acknowledge the correlation. I have enjoyed this thread personally. (I have not read everything though, I have not had time. Sorry! but I would like to join in and please forgive the repeats if any on my part)

I appreciate the sources, links and opinion you have provided.

You wish to go through the detailed and break things down. I'll join you on that, if we can eventually hit the main question.

Now, to not mix things up any more than they need to be. I presume we can agree on what a correlation is.

"In statistics, dependence refers to any statistical relationship between two random variables or two sets of data. Correlation refers to any of a broad class of statistical relationships involving dependence." Wiki.

Having cleared that up. I can agree to move things along there is a correlation with statistical data showing a relationship with lower infant mortality rates and lower birth rates. But I would not agree that you can state that one leads to the other as a well established fact. There you are assuming one leads to the other, as a fact.

This is what little fish was trying to explain. You can not state that lower infant mortality rates leads to lower birth rates as a well established fact. You have not presented anything that prove that statement. And you will not find anything that can prove that statement. There is a close connection, a correlation between the two, statistically.

A predictive relationship.

I assume we've moved forward, so I will continue the debate. If we have not moved forward, please save this section of my reply for further use.

For example. There is a also a correlation, predictive relationship, (and actually, well established fact) that lower sperm count leads to lower birth rate.

Right?

http://www.ispub.com/journal/the-internet-journal-of-urology/volume-2-number-1/the-sperm-count-has-been-decreasing-steadily-for-many-years-in-western-industrialised-countries-is-there-an-endocrine-basis-for-this-decrease.html

Now, male sperm count decrease can predict birth rate decrease. Without having anything to do with infant mortality rates.

Do you agree?

Thanks for your upcoming reply and attention.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please continue to save this reply for further use if we have not gone forward in the debate from infant mortality rates.

Now, you can correlate decreasing sperm count in men with the environment, diet and life style.

For example, the largest correlation with decreasing sperm count in men is fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides and other various toxins.

I'll stop here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In correlation relationships, often it is reasonable and responsible to look at the hypothesis upside down, or backwards.

Lower birth rates can lead to lower IMR and IMR can lead to lower birth rates.

The correlation is valid in both aspects of the hypothesis.

No well established facts here though, not a scientific fact at least. And this is science?

thanks

lite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it does indeed. It is a very well known model showing the correlation between decreasing infant mortality rates and the subsequent lower birth rates. Now if you, as suggested, had actually opened that Wiki link and read it instead of continuously sprouting nonsense, you would have know that by know. Instead, you merely managed to blatantly put on display the behavior that aquatus1 and Sary very well described. It is toe cringing to watch.

But to remedy your intellectual laziness and what I can on read as your inability to comprehend even simple data correlations, here is an excerpt from Nature, 2009 (which you would have found had you had the intellectual integrity to actually read what was linked to):

Now, that spells it out pretty solidly. Is there anything in the above that you do not understand?! I have for your convenience highlighted the pertinent parts.

Yes, they are all mixed, as also explained earlier, hence the requirement to look at birth and infant mortality rates before linking them to vaccines, fridges and what have you. But it is a well established fact that lower infant mortality rates lead to lower birth rates, no matter the reasons for the lower infant mortality rates.

Do you or do you not acknowledge that correlation now? If not, please explain why in detail. If you do, however, we can start looking at the causes.

Cheers,

Badeskov

True and ecologists and wildlife specialist use a similar statistic to predict population growth or decline in wildlife. They look at the amount of young vs old in a species. If the population is mostly young there will be population growth, if it is mostly old there will population decline. If a population is mostly young then there has recently been high mortality. If a population has more older members then the mortality has recently been low and so will the population growth be. And what do you know, wildlife have no refrigerators. I just wanted to edit to add that in the case of most wildlife this changes this changes more often than in human populations. Sometimes it changes yearly.

Edited by FurthurBB
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I would not agree that you can state that one leads to the other as a well established fact. There you are assuming one leads to the other, as a fact.
You can not state that lower infant mortality rates leads to lower birth rates as a well established fact.
No well established facts here though, not a scientific fact at least. And this is science?

Liteness, three times in a row you have claimed that people are talking about facts.

The negative association of fertility with economic and social development has therefore become one of the most solidly established and generally accepted empirical regularities in the social sciences
(along with the associated links to further information)

Do you understand the difference between a "fact" and a correlation so strong it is accepted as an empirical regularity?

It's the difference between claiming that falling out of a flying plane means you're dead and claiming that falling out of a plane pretty much means your dead. If people claim it as a fact, very few people are going to agree, since it is ridiculously easy to think of ways in which it isn't true. However, people don't generally claim it as a fact; they simply accept it as an empirical regularity.

"Dude! This guy fell out of a plane at 8000 feet!"

"Bummer. Closed casket, I guess..."

"Naw, man, he survived! Landed in snow! It was awesome!"

No one is going to blame the 2nd guy for assuming that death occurred. No one is surprised the first guy is excited (then again, he does seem the excitable type...) Why? Simply because it is accepted as an empirical regularity that there is a direct correlation between falling out of a flying plane and dying shortly thereafter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you are willing to address questions, then the question is how do you think lower infant death rates lower population growth. that graph does not show it. you are assuming that one is causal to the other which it isn't. as explained previously, you could plot the uptake of fridges and it would correlate with lower infant death rates, but one does not cause the other.
Actually, it does indeed. It is a very well known model showing the correlation between decreasing infant mortality rates and the subsequent lower birth rates.
correlation does not mean causation, this has been explained to you in post 383 - "the assumption of causation is false when the only evidence available is simple correlation" this means that you need to provide more than just correlated lines on a graph.
Now if you, as suggested, had actually opened that Wiki link and read it instead of continuously sprouting nonsense, you would have know that by know. Instead, you merely managed to blatantly put on display the behavior that aquatus1 and Sary very well described. It is toe cringing to watch.

But to remedy your intellectual laziness and what I can on read as your inability to comprehend even simple data correlations, here is an excerpt from Nature, 2009 (which you would have found had you had the intellectual integrity to actually read what was linked to):

I don't see how any of this hate is relevant outside of a torture institution. this isn't a torture institution is it? <looks at mods>
Now, that spells it out pretty solidly. Is there anything in the above that you do not understand?! I have for your convenience highlighted the pertinent parts.
it sure looks solid in exactly the same way as hot air and blowing smoke doesn't. let's go through it shall we.
"During the twentieth century, the global population has gone through unprecedented increases in economic and social development that coincided with substantial declines in human fertility and population growth rates"

1, 2

The negative association of fertility with economic and social development has therefore become one of the most solidly established and generally accepted empirical regularities in the social sciences

1, 2, 3"

As a result of this close connection between development and fertility decline, more than half of the global population now lives in regions with below-replacement fertility (less than 2.1 children per woman)

4

so it's saying that economic and social development leads to decline in birth rates, which is exactly as I have already stated, so how does any of that support your position that decline in IMR causes decline in BR?

Yes, they are all mixed, as also explained earlier, hence the requirement to look at birth and infant mortality rates before linking them to vaccines, fridges and what have you. But it is a well established fact that lower infant mortality rates lead to lower birth rates

just stating your assertion over and over does not prove your assertion. if it so well established why can you find nothing to support it? not even a logical argument. furthermore, if it is so "well established", why does bill gates call it "surprising"?, are you saying bill gates is ignorant on what is "well established" in demographics?

so where is your evidence? your nature article above does NOT say that lower IMR causes lower BR.

Do you or do you not acknowledge that correlation now? If not, please explain why in detail. If you do, however, we can start looking at the causes.

"the assumption of causation is false when the only evidence available is simple correlation"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it is a well established fact that lower infant mortality rates lead to lower birth rates

Liteness, three times in a row you have claimed that people are talking about facts.

well that is exactly what badeskov is claiming, a "well established" fact, no less. so Liteness is not misrepresenting what badeskov is saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liteness, three times in a row you have claimed that people are talking about facts.

(along with the associated links to further information)

Do you understand the difference between a "fact" and a correlation so strong it is accepted as an empirical regularity?

It's the difference between claiming that falling out of a flying plane means you're dead and claiming that falling out of a plane pretty much means your dead. If people claim it as a fact, very few people are going to agree, since it is ridiculously easy to think of ways in which it isn't true. However, people don't generally claim it as a fact; they simply accept it as an empirical regularity.

"Dude! This guy fell out of a plane at 8000 feet!"

"Bummer. Closed casket, I guess..."

"Naw, man, he survived! Landed in snow! It was awesome!"

No one is going to blame the 2nd guy for assuming that death occurred. No one is surprised the first guy is excited (then again, he does seem the excitable type...) Why? Simply because it is accepted as an empirical regularity that there is a direct correlation between falling out of a flying plane and dying shortly thereafter.

I have not claimed people are stating facts.

I have replied the quotation of one person stating correlations as facts.

Did you really have to write that much?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Now who's stopping the debate?

It's my right, and every other persons right to not agree with scientific theory. That's the whole point, you understand that? What is this scientific communism?

I agreed on the correlations. And stated I see no reason to state the correlations as a well established fact that lower IMR leads to lower birth rates. I have a right to think that, I have a right to say that. This is why science is better than religion. In science you can debate on everything even Einstein's theories. C'mon...

To state something fact is to state scientific reasoning as well.

I don't agree with the scientific reasoning, and have not been provided anything of scientific reasoning suggesting scientific fact.

Don't try and reason scientific terminology like this, you are only presenting a corner that you wish to place my reasoning to. So you understand my point perfectly, in science, dialectic debate is crucial to the survival of science.

I can say there are no facts presented, because I don't agree with the scientific reasoning of badeskov, nor his sources.

You, and no other person alive on this planet has the right to deny my consciously driven mind to it's own conclusions and scientific reasoning.

I'm not pleased enough with the sources nor the research to begin to agree there is a well established fact, as quoted about causes of lower birth rates from IMR. Period. And I can state that 100,000,000 times in this thread until it's understood.

"you must first agree with scientific reasoning before we can go forward."

No I don't.

You ever read ancient philosophy? When someone did not agree with a statement, they did not say the statement over and over again. And it was accepted to disagree.

The terms of disagreement are valid as well. If you wish to disagree with the terms of my disagreement that is fine.

Be my guest and do so.

thanks.

lite.

Man I wish Einstein was still alive. The man with no ego. When he was around, for your information, people weren't throwing around the word "fact" unless they had a vary vary strong theory. And even when someone had a strong theory, they wouldn't be caught saying "fact" because it would be embarrassing to think someone would prove it wrong.

Albert Einstein Quotes. No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong

Edit.

Forgot to say that in virtually all social experiments a perfect correlation would be highly unlikely. At best you have a co-efficient of +0.9. at BEST!

To state silly things like empirical regularity(co efficient +1.0) is reaching beyond what science can give us.

Argue with me on that, and you are arguing with every single Ph.D teaching the scientific method. Or are you and badstov suggesting IMR and lower birth rates are the exception? Or do you not agree that the correlations are social science? Or what are you trying to say really?

Over and out.

Edited by liteness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well that is exactly what badeskov is claiming, a "well established" fact, no less. so Liteness is not misrepresenting what badeskov is saying.

True, he did say that. He said it in a post that was specifically referring to correlations, which included links to the actual reports with the actual data that showed the validity of the correlation. His very next sentence even states "Do you or do you not acknowledge that correlation now? If not, please explain why yadda, yadda"

Indeed, we can even legitimately refer to it as a well-established fact, because it is such a regularly occurring empirical regularity that we can use this correlation to accurately predict future populations, as was shown in the data. Similarly, the sun rising in the East and setting in the West can be referred to as a well-established fact, despite itself also being really nothing more than an incredibly well-established empirical regularity.

That is, of course, if we are referring to the casual use of the word "fact", which, based on your own quote:

if you look up the numbers you'll see male sperm counts have been dropping since 1940.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....2?dopt=Abstract

if you compare this increasing male sterility to the increasing quantity of vaccines since 1940, you'll learn the surprising fact that increasing the number of vaccines actually reduces sperm counts, so there is a strong connection between the number of vaccines you take and your sperm count.

--is exactly what you are doing as well. Unless, of course, you intended to claim that a correlation is the same a scientific fact. Well, to be fair, you did acknowledge that the data wasn't even strong enough for a correlation, just a connection, so, credit where it is due.

correlation does not mean causation, this has been explained to you in post 383 - "the assumption of causation is false when the only evidence available is simple correlation" this means that you need to provide more than just correlated lines on a graph.

The data was provided in the previous links. When you demanded more, the specific links were copied and posted. The specific reports published in the actual scientific journal were referred to. If you have a subscription to Nature, you can get the data on-lie; otherwise, libraries charge about a quarter per page for print-outs. I sincerely doubt it would do you any good, as you have not shown any sign that you have the actual academic background to understand the data at the professional level, and perhaps even the layman level. Either way, the specific data was provided. You can contest the data, or yield the point, but like it or not, the data is right there. The preponderance of evidence is clear, specific examples (single ones out of many, many others) are provided, the correlation is far from simple and endlessly repeatably to the point that it is considered an empirical regularity, in the same vein as the previous example of falling out of a plane.

In other words, for you specifically, "The assumption that the only evidence is simple correlation is false when specific examples of causation are given."

It's my right, and every other persons right to not agree with scientific theory. That's the whole point, you understand that? What is this scientific communism?

No, communism would be me telling you to agree, not asking you if you understood the difference between a "fact" and a correlation so strong it is accepted as an empirical regularity.

I can say there are no facts presented, because I don't agree with the scientific reasoning of badeskov, nor his sources.

If the sources are acknowledge as credible scientific sources, then you certainly can disagree with the reasoning of the sources, but you cannot claim no facts are presented. Of course, it would be even better if you could point out why the facts are not accurate, or that the reasoning was faulty; otherwise it becomes your word against the word of Badeskov and, more importantly, Nature journal (no offense, Bad), and honestly, you don't have the scientific cred to pull that off.

You, and no other person alive on this planet has the right to deny my consciously driven mind to it's own conclusions and scientific reasoning.

Sure we do. All we have to do is point out the flaws in the logic and science.

I'm not pleased enough with the sources nor the research to begin to agree there is a well established fact, as quoted about causes of lower birth rates from IMR. Period. And I can state that 100,000,000 times in this thread until it's understood.

No...no you can't. See, I have spent about five pages or so here trying to determine if Little Fish, and now you, are honestly trying to discuss the topic, or just arguing for the sheer joy of arguing. So...no, that will not be happening.

"you must first agree with scientific reasoning before we can go forward."

No I don't.

Correct. You do, however, have to show why you are not agreeing.

At least, if you want your opinion to be considered credible.

You ever read ancient philosophy? When someone did not agree with a statement, they did not say the statement over and over again. And it was accepted to disagree.

Yep. Still happens today.

The terms of disagreement are valid as well. If you wish to disagree with the terms of my disagreement that is fine.

Be my guest and do so.

Being that your "terms of disagreement" consist of "I'm not pleased enough with the sources nor the research to begin to agree..." and your supporting argument is "And I can state that 100,000,000 times in this thread until it's understood.", I not only can disagree, I can even point out that considering your personal attraction to the sources as a credible argument regarding their authority is faulty logic on a couple of different levels.

Man I wish Einstein was still alive. The man with no ego. When he was around, for your information, people weren't throwing around the word "fact" unless they had a vary vary strong theory. And even when someone had a strong theory, they wouldn't be caught saying "fact" because it would be embarrassing to think someone would prove it wrong.

**shrugs**

If you say so. In my personal opinion (much the same way the above is just your personal opinion), I tend to think that people back then acted pretty much the same way they do now.

Albert Einstein Quotes. No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong

I agree entirely. All of science does. In fact, it was one of Einstein's confederates who successfully added this as one of the tenets of Scientific Methodology.

Forgot to say that in virtually all social experiments a perfect correlation would be highly unlikely. At best you have a co-efficient of +0.9. at BEST!

To state silly things like empirical regularity(co efficient +1.0) is reaching beyond what science can give us.

Argue with me on that, and you are arguing with every single Ph.D teaching the scientific method. Or are you and badstov suggesting IMR and lower birth rates are the exception? Or do you not agree that the correlations are social science? Or what are you trying to say really?

Well, being that you neither sourced your data, gave links to your data, gave references to the journals it was published in, gave the names of the studies you are talking about, gave the name of any of the doctorates you are referring to, heck, gave us anything that we could use to figure out what you are talking about...really not a whole lot to go on, there. For all we know, you could just be making that up.

Now who's stopping the debate?

Well, it is not a debate, and it is not even a discussion, but I am indeed putting a stop to this nonsense.

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.