Machines Evolved Into Microbes, Then ...

Sneer / Smear vs Peer Review

Those who are devoid of the ability to entertain new ideas rationally (e.g. rejection of germ theory by establishment scientists and putting those who advanced any hypothesis to the contrary into insane asylums), or to specifically point out flaws in a hypothesis (besides I don't like it, he duznt spel rite, she doesn't use proper fonts, she doesn't write like my mama, he is jewish) so that the hypothesis can be updated or cast aside, resort to sneer and smear. Which is pseudoscience.

Like priests of old they put on holier than thou robes, climb up on a ladder, declaring their ideas to be the only true science, and that all others to the contrary come from the dark syde of the farce.

Hypothetical example: "Everyone knows that the yet undiscovered dark microbes are made of dark matter, so it is not possible yet to measure your dark microbe hypothesis, seeing as how no dark matter has every been captured in a laboratory, then measured, photographed, indexed, and cataloged. Your hypothesis about yet undiscovered microbes not being composed of dark matter is therefore invalid because it does not explain how they are not formed by the components of dark matter. We only accept 100% siunce heyah" :bawl:

The roving science gangs with their gang signs, tats up the yen yang, and slobbering rhetoric are a disgrace.

Glad there is not of that here on this blog. :worship:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A typical crank position. "If it's new and rejected by the mainstream, it must be right".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: AlexG:
A typical crank position. "If it's new and rejected by the mainstream, it must be right".

Re: wlminex:
A typical AlexG position. "If it's new and rejected by the mainstream, it must be wrong".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And a typical crank response.

 

Was your post number 41 intended, in any way, to be an answer to the points I raised in post 40? If so, what was the frigging connection. If not, then please respond to my post 40.

 

Pinker v Gray

The discoveries concerning microbe / human symbiosis and the resultant microbial impacts on brain activity may be at issue in this article:

"Science and humanism are at odds more often than they are at one. For a devoted Darwinist like Pinker to maintain that the world is being pacified by the spread of a particular world view is deeply ironic. There is nothing in Darwinism to suggest that ideas and beliefs can transform human life. To be sure, there have been attempts to formulate an idea of progress in terms of competing memes—vaguely defined concepts or units of meaning that are held to be in some ways akin to genes—although nothing like a scientific theory has been developed. Even if there were such things as memes and they did somehow compete with one another, there is nothing to say that benign memes would be the winners. Quite to the contrary, if history is any guide. Racist ideas are extremely resilient and highly contagious, as is shown by the re-emergence of xenophobic ethnic nationalism and antisemitism in post-communist Europe. So are utopian ideas, which have resurfaced in neoconservative thinking about regime change. The recurrent appearance of these memes suggests that outside of some fairly narrowly defined areas of scientific investigation, progress is at best fitful and elusive. Science may be the cumulative elimination of error, but the human fondness for toxic ideas is remarkably constant."​

(Delusions of Peace). :shrug:

 

Ok guy, no one here wants to read your blog. If you actually want us to have an actual discussion about this with you THEN LINK US THE ACTUAL RESEARCH. The stuff on your blog and links you have provided are wishful musings with nothing to back them up. Just because its something that someone prominent hopes or expects does not mean that it is.

 

Dredd,
Was your post number 41 intended, in any way, to be an answer to the points I raised in post 40? If so, what was the frigging connection. If not, then please respond to my post 40.

 

The Germ Theory - of Government

I notice that microbiology professors will call microbes "germs", "bacteria", and the like, and vice versa.

That resonates with The Germ Theory of Government it would seem.

I mean, "tro da bums out" as the fundamental concept of governance could be improved upon in a sophisticated, modern, scientific society it would seem. :shrug:

 

Reported for hawking your blog.

 

After Evolving From Molecular Machines ....

Is it possible or probable that rogue government is a disease caused by malfunctioning microbes:

"Microbes may indeed be subtly changing our brain early on — and for what purposes we cannot yet say" ... "Our results suggest that during evolution, the colonization of gut microbiota has become integrated into the programming of brain development, affecting motor control and anxiety-like behavior"​

(The Germ Theory of Government). If so, time to work on a vaccine. :shrug:

 

Dredd,
Was your post number 41 intended, in any way, to be an answer to the points I raised in post 40? If so, what was the frigging connection. If not, then please respond to my post 40.

 

The police and free press showed up ...

The police and free press showed up in the wounded city to commence the germ wars y'all.

 

Who Dat?

I could not understand you post # 40.

Microbes evolved from machines according to world renowned scientists (see upthread), and now world renowned microbiologists declare that microbes take part in the construction of human brains as symbiont dwellers within the human species (see upthread). :shrug:

 

@Dredd
Let us go back in time. I made the following critique of your contributions:

Question set 1: do you understand my criticism? Yes, or no?

You responded to that crtique with this passage:

(This was a link to one of your blogs.)

Question set 2: In what way was your response a meaningful reply to my critique? Do you understand that question? Will you answer it directly?


I pointed out that your response was not a meaningful reply to my critique with these words:

Your response to that was equally irrelevant:

A pattern is emerging. You appear to be incapable of reading and understanding anything I post, but you choose to respond with more apparent drivel.

I tried to get you to be specific and relevant in my next post. I referred you to your comments about 'sneer review' and 'Black Knight'. Those comments did not seem to have any relevance to what I had asked. So I asked you again "

Now you tell me you did not understand that!:shrug: I am at a loss. My point seems perfectly simple: none of your replies have addressed the points I have raised or the questions I have asked. I am asking you - indeed pleading with you - to give some relevant and direct responses. Is that too much to ask?

 

No Advertisements

I am like SciForums . com .... zero advertisements ever on the blogs I quote from.

Which angers "some people". That, (no advertisements), of course will not be clear to "some people". Way cool. Instant comma's gonna get "you".

"Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing." - Oscar Wilde

Avoidance is a popular form of science around here sometimes.

I think that "convincing" occurs even without advertisements. :bugeye:

 

You mean like the way you have completely avoided addressing a single point I raised in my last thread. You are either exceptionally rude or mentally retarded. Which is it?

 

Simple, it's because he's not actually here to discuss anything. He is here to collect $0.05 every time someone clicks on the links to his blog.

 

Aha. Sometimes I am so gullible even I can believe it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!