deleted in protest to really poor moderation
Last edited:
Where is YOUR EVIDENCE ?
- Thread starter Theoryofrelativity
- Start date
Chicken Soup
Known for centuries for it's medicinal properties, but in absence of 'evidence' what was KNOWN by those who used it thus were relegated to 'wives tale' fiction, superstition.
BUT LO, science proved it to be correct, eventually. Eventually being the operative word.
Can you scientists not at least keep an open mind when your methods can neither prove or disprove a thing?
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/diet.fitness/10/17/chicken.soup.reut/
"Chicken soup is medicine, U.S. scientists confirm
October 17, 2000
Web posted at: 4:24 PM EDT (2024 GMT)
WASHINGTON -- Scientists say they have confirmed what grandmothers have known for centuries -- that chicken soup is good for colds.
Chicken soup -- as made by grandma -- contains several ingredients that affect the body's immune system, a team at the University of Nebraska Medical Center found.
Specifically, it has anti-inflammatory properties that could explain why it soothes sore throats and eases the misery of colds and flu, Dr. Stephen Rennard and colleagues said Monday. "
Known for centuries for it's medicinal properties, but in absence of 'evidence' what was KNOWN by those who used it thus were relegated to 'wives tale' fiction, superstition.
BUT LO, science proved it to be correct, eventually. Eventually being the operative word.
Can you scientists not at least keep an open mind when your methods can neither prove or disprove a thing?
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/diet.fitness/10/17/chicken.soup.reut/
"Chicken soup is medicine, U.S. scientists confirm
October 17, 2000
Web posted at: 4:24 PM EDT (2024 GMT)
WASHINGTON -- Scientists say they have confirmed what grandmothers have known for centuries -- that chicken soup is good for colds.
Chicken soup -- as made by grandma -- contains several ingredients that affect the body's immune system, a team at the University of Nebraska Medical Center found.
Specifically, it has anti-inflammatory properties that could explain why it soothes sore throats and eases the misery of colds and flu, Dr. Stephen Rennard and colleagues said Monday. "
samcdkey said:
exactly
The thing is I think you are talking bollock, sorry but bollocks is what you are talking. 
Lets take the old pink elephants shall we?
Just because someone picks a belief like pink elephants out of the air and we have yet to find any evidence for them in our 150,000 year history, pink elephants are a valid thing to assume as real?
Lets take the old pink elephants shall we?
Just because someone picks a belief like pink elephants out of the air and we have yet to find any evidence for them in our 150,000 year history, pink elephants are a valid thing to assume as real?
They are significant to alcoholics.
samcdkey said:Do you think about them on a regular basis?
lol
imaplanck. said:The thing is I think you are talking bollock, sorry but bollocks is what you are talking.
Lets take the old pink elephants shall we?
Just because someone picks a belief like pink elephants out of the air and we have yet to find any evidence for them in our 150,000 year history, pink elephants are a valid thing to assume as real?
NO BODY believes they are real though, no body believes as a result of their own experience and observation they exist. NO ONE
science however ignores what is experienced and observed by many frequently until they 'prove it' ,then they look 'proud' despite their previous ignorance and denial. Science does this ALL the time.
Nah I've never actually seen pink elephants myself but I have seen women turn from fat dog alikes into sweet princess through this medium. lol
Edit: whats the plural of princess?
Last edited:
Again, alcoholics may just believe this.Theoryofrelativity said:
Extremely rarely, if not never. Do you have an example to support this laymans cliche?Theoryofrelativity said:
Im sorry Tor I didn't think I had such an airtight case . So I went a bit overboard on the base words as usual. Damn tourettes.
. So I went a bit overboard on the base words as usual. Damn tourettes.Theoryofrelativity said:
My first reaction would be to this: Are you 12 or younger?
Thousands of people believe Elvis is still alive. He is as dead as can be. Millions of people believed in Ra. Nobody, i repeat, NO BODY believes in RA right now. Well, maybe a few nutters.
What does this all mean? Nothing, nada, zip.
You can people believe anything you want.
-------
Theoryofrelativity said:
No, it doesn't. We are aware that you seem to be living in a fantasy world, but scientists do not ignore what is experienced and observed by the many. In fact they actually try to find the causes behind what is experienced and observed by many. There is no such thing of proving anything in science. You would think you would have picked up by now by hanging out on a science forum that there are rules to science. You have no fucking clue what science is. All you do is tell us is how arrogant scientists are and at the same time you put forward your delusional ideas as the Truth and nothing but the Truth. And please do not criticise anything ToR says because then she gets defensive like a 12 year old and shuts the world out. Big bad world. Big bad mean world.
Science can be defined in many different ways. The essence of science is that the truth is under constant scrutiny, unlike your fantasy world. Observations of many are scrutinized with scientific criteria. Most of which you do not seem to understand. It's a process which you don't seem to understand. And there isn't anything 'proud' to it.
It is you who constantly is lecturing, untill someone raises some criticism and then crawl back into your tent in your fantasy backgarden.
Stop being a fucking dick.
Wow, scientist really messed up there! Just think the catastrophe that scientists didn't recognize chicken soups medicinal propeties 500 years or more soonerTheoryofrelativity said:
Come on Tor you can do better than that.
As do I - and it is a common logical fallacy.Theoryofrelativity said:
Not true.ToR said:
Evidence is evidence - only the interpretation varies with time, as more evidence is found.
Rubbish.ToR said:
True - evidence does not bring a thing into existence.
But the absence of evidence does NOT mean a thing exists until proven otherwise, and CAN NOT.
All you can say about something for which there is no evidence is "There is no evidence for or against".
But don't expect someone to believe that the thing does exist, with religious surety, when there is no evidence one way or the other. That is irrational.
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. What kind of scientist writes a book? Especially since writing a book isn't really part of regular science practice anymore.
(Unless you include the moneymakers for publishers where they ask scientists to write chapters of a book on a certain topic for free and then charge 200$ for a copy. Even to the authors.)
(Unless you include the moneymakers for publishers where they ask scientists to write chapters of a book on a certain topic for free and then charge 200$ for a copy. Even to the authors.)
Good point, very good point. I would say less than 1% of books allegedly written by scientists were motivated by keeping to scientific knowledge as opposed to truth economics post print.spuriousmonkey said:
Fact doesn't sell well, atleast out of the text book market.
Last edited:
imaplanck. said:
have you ever read paradigms lost or paradigms regained?