• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

PartSkeptic’s Thread for Predictions and Other Matters of Interest

Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course I reject them. They do not fit.

Science thinks it has answers. First it presumes the non-existence of the supernatural and then says that even though the events cannot be explained, there HAS to be a "natural" answer. The square peg is hammered into the round hole.
The "natural" answer is, in fact, science.

Natural Science, defined as,
"Natural science is a branch of science concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena, based on empirical evidence from observation and experimentation. Mechanisms such as peer review and repeatability of findings are used to try to ensure the validity of scientific advances."​

I'm not really sure you completely comprehend what science actually is. . .
 
Last edited:
Last night I did some research and reading somewhat randomly. I started off on quantum physics and ended on the immune system. What struck me was the very delicate (yet quite robust in terms of self-correction) balance of cellular signalling. Very small differences in voltages that cause changes. How an organism grows and how the cells communicate with each other so that they differentiate.

I had just seen this article which shows what can happen is something goes wrong.
https://www.foxnews.com/health/ct-scan-man-back-pain-3-kidneys-case-report

And yet the Telco industry people say that the only effect is heating. Well, even heating on a microscale could cause problems. But it is the ion channels (particularly the calcium channel) that can cause excessive reactive oxygen species that upset things.

And yet not one person here will concede, even with all the studies showing harm, that electrosmog may be CONTRIBUTING to the Covid-19 pandemic through a weakening or an interference of our immune system.

I was reading how tuberculosis hijacks the macrophage cell and instead of being killed by the cell it lives inside and reproduces. And I see that 25% of the global population are infected with a non-active TB. As I read this out to my wife she reads me the Facebook page she has just opened of a Canadian friend who beat one disease only to be diagnosed with TB. Coincidence strikes once more.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory
The time lapse between trigger hair stimulations suggests that the plant can remember an initial stimulus long enough for a second stimulus to initiate trap closure. This memory isn't encoded in a brain, as plants lack this specialized organ. Rather, information is stored in the form of cytoplasmic calcium levels. The first trigger causes a subthreshold cytoplasmic calcium influx. This initial trigger isn't enough to activate trap closure, and so a subsequent stimulus allows for a secondary influx of calcium. The latter calcium rise superimposes on the initial one, creating an action potential that passes threshold, resulting in trap closure. Researchers, to prove that an electrical threshold must be met to stimulate trap closure, excited a single trigger hair with a constant mechanical stimulus using Ag/AgCl electrodes. The trap closed after only a few seconds. This experiment gave evidence to demonstrate that the electrical threshold, not necessarily the number of trigger hair stimulations, was the contributing factor in Venus Fly Trap memory. It has been shown that trap closure can be blocked using uncouplers and inhibitors of voltage-gated channels. After trap closure, these electrical signals stimulate glandular production of jasmonic acid and hydrolases, allowing for digestion of the prey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody
Antibody and antigen interact by spatial complementarity (lock and key). The molecular forces involved in the Fab-epitope interaction are weak and non-specific – for example electrostatic forces, hydrogen bonds, hydrophobic interactions, and van der Waals forces. This means binding between antibody and antigen is reversible, and the antibody's affinity towards an antigen is relative rather than absolute. Relatively weak binding also means it is possible for an antibody to cross-react with different antigens of different relative affinities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoreception
These organs detect very small fluctuations in the potential difference between the pore and the base of the electroreceptor sack. An increase in potential results in a decrease in the rate of nerve activity, and a decrease in potential results in an increase in the rate of nerve activity. This is analogous to the behavior of a current carrying conductor; with a fixed channel resistance, an increase in potential would decrease the amount of current detected, and vice versa. These receptors are located along the mouth and nose of sharks and stingrays.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine
Several inflammatory cytokines are induced by oxidative stress. The fact that cytokines themselves trigger the release of other cytokines and also lead to increased oxidative stress makes them important in chronic inflammation, as well as other immunoresponses, such as fever and acute phase proteins of the liver (IL-1,6,12, IFN-a). Cytokines also play a role in anti-inflammatory pathways and are a possible therapeutic treatment for pathological pain from inflammation or peripheral nerve injury. There are both pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines that regulate this pathway.
 
Last edited:
Of course I reject them. They do not fit.

They do fit, but accepting that requires accepting that your memory and your instinctive assessment of the probability that coincidences will occur are as prone to error as everybody else's.

You reject the scientific explanations for your experiences for the same reason believers in astrology, homeopathy and dowsing reject the scientific explanations for theirs. You believe that your subjective perceptions are the most reliable source of information there is, despite all the evidence to the contrary. It's sheer arrogance.
 
Last night I did some research and reading somewhat randomly. I started off on quantum physics and ended on the immune system. What struck me was the very delicate (yet quite robust in terms of self-correction) balance of cellular signalling. Very small differences in voltages that cause changes. How an organism grows and how the cells communicate with each other so that they differentiate.

I had just seen this article which shows what can happen is something goes wrong.
https://www.foxnews.com/health/ct-scan-man-back-pain-3-kidneys-case-report

And yet the Telco industry people say that the only effect is heating.


Can you explain why you think that report has anything to do with “the Telco industry”?
 
P.S., it's interesting how you cite 'scientific' studies when you think they support your view, but then criticize science when studies refute your views.


BTW, how's your own research going?
 
P.S., it's interesting how you cite 'scientific' studies when you think they support your view, but then criticize science when studies refute your views.


BTW, how's your own research going?


Going backward through the posts. Research put on hold. My wife's factory has a guillotine (4mm stainless steel sheet 2 m wide) that needs to get product out. It is a heavy old Russian machine but a big old solenoid valve has failed. The experts have tried and failed to repair it. I have to give it a try. They are not competent. Most the competent people have fled SA. I have bought alternatives to try but they may be undersized. There are some solutions to that. Using two or three in parallel, or using a large valve as a blow-off.


Also her computer is locking up. I have done a back-up and have it limping although I should do a complete reinstall.

Yesterday I had a decent day, except I carried some heavy stuff. My back and new knee joint were complaining at the end of the day. But later today might be a good time to start.


As for "studies". Let me see. This is typical of some reviews. A review is done of about 200 studies. About half show harm and about half show no harm. When the studies are grouped by funding source, industry funded studies comprise 85% of the ones showing no harm, and independent university studies comprise 85 % of the ones showing harm.

What conclusion would you come to about whether harm is caused?

And how many (reliable, repeatable, peer reviewed) studies does one need to prove harm?

And I would ask you whether being a "scientist" makes a person completely honest and cannot be "bought" by a large grant with strings attached?

There are two studies I would ask if you would accept. One is that nicotine does not cause addiction. The other is that sugar does not cause tooth decay. They are both correct in their conclusion. But why would you not use them to support the tobacco and sugar industry?

Because:
While nicotine alone does not cause addiction, it does when combined with the other products from cigarettes. And sugar alone does not cause tooth decay, it does when it promotes the bacteria that cause tooth decay.
 
They do fit, but accepting that requires accepting that your memory and your instinctive assessment of the probability that coincidences will occur are as prone to error as everybody else's.

You reject the scientific explanations for your experiences for the same reason believers in astrology, homeopathy and dowsing reject the scientific explanations for theirs. You believe that your subjective perceptions are the most reliable source of information there is, despite all the evidence to the contrary. It's sheer arrogance.

One a clear day, I realize with a shock that the last of three bikers passing me at reasonable speed on an open freeway with light traffic will die just ahead. I slow down so I do not ride over him.

A few kilometers ahead, he is lying dead in the middle of the road. Probably a heart attack since he was not involved in an accident.

How does science explain that? It was not an hallucination. It was not an idle thought about a dangerous biker and then coincidence happened.

This event came at a time I was questioning things and not sure what to believe.

You need a big hammer for this big square peg and the tiny hole it must fit.
 
As for "studies". Let me see. This is typical of some reviews. A review is done of about 200 studies. About half show harm and about half show no harm. When the studies are grouped by funding source, industry funded studies comprise 85% of the ones showing no harm, and independent university studies comprise 85 % of the ones showing harm.
Link to any such metastudy, please, and the analysis that shows they are divided as you say.
 
One a clear day, I realize with a shock that the last of three bikers passing me at reasonable speed on an open freeway with light traffic will die just ahead. I slow down so I do not ride over him.

A few kilometers ahead, he is lying dead in the middle of the road. Probably a heart attack since he was not involved in an accident.

How does science explain that? It was not an hallucination. It was not an idle thought about a dangerous biker and then coincidence happened.

This event came at a time I was questioning things and not sure what to believe.

You need a big hammer for this big square peg and the tiny hole it must fit.
You've been given several plausible explanations the previous times you told this story. There is no hammer required for any of them, except possibly the hammer necessary to get it into your head that neither your memory nor your instinctive feeling for the likelihood of coincidences are infallible.
 
Let us suppose that there are two theories about the Prime Cause.

1) One is mine. That the only entity that truly exists is an Infinite Intelligence who is "dreaming" there is a Universe. That illusionary Universe follows the Laws of Physics. There is an illusionary God that is in another "dimension". He is not detectable using the Laws of Physics.

2) The other is that the Universe is its own Prime Cause and that it always existed, even before the Big Bang but maybe in some other form. It also follows the same Laws of Physics. There is no God or supernatural dimension.

If in theory 1), God does not intervene, what is the difference? Why is theory 1) false?

How are you going to persuade me that my choice, namely that theory 1) is more probable, is false?
 
Link to any such metastudy, please, and the analysis that shows they are divided as you say.


I thought I would get this challenge. It is a distraction from my point.

In the mean time, it was meant to show the poster that this sort of situation does happen - climate change is a recent area of study where one can find similar disparities in the "science".

Sigh. I will find it and post the link.
 
Let us suppose that there are two theories about the Prime Cause.

1) One is mine. That the only entity that truly exists is an Infinite Intelligence who is "dreaming" there is a Universe. That illusionary Universe follows the Laws of Physics. There is an illusionary God that is in another "dimension". He is not detectable using the Laws of Physics.

2) The other is that the Universe is its own Prime Cause and that it always existed, even before the Big Bang but maybe in some other form. It also follows the same Laws of Physics. There is no God or supernatural dimension.

If in theory 1), God does not intervene, what is the difference? Why is theory 1) false?

How are you going to persuade me that my choice, namely that theory 1) is more probable, is false?
Nobody is ever going to persuade someone who really wants to believe (1), as you say it's unfalsifiable. Because you've deliberately made it unfalsifiable.

The argument against (1) is simply that the addition of this Infinite Intelligence is arbitrary and unnecessary. There's no argument that could be made for it being more probable than (2). The only reason to believe it rather than (2) is emotional need.
 
You've been given several plausible explanations the previous times you told this story. There is no hammer required for any of them, except possibly the hammer necessary to get it into your head that neither your memory nor your instinctive feeling for the likelihood of coincidences are infallible.


So it was a waking hallucination? And no-one can trust anything they think have happened to them unless they had video evidence?

There is a difference between a fleeting brief moment and a series of events lasting about 5 minutes. Infallible memory or not - it happened. And there comes a point where the odds of coincidence cannot be applied in good faith.

Once more I say - atheists first assume no God or supernatural and then assume that anything can happen as long as the Laws of Physics apply.
 
I thought I would get this challenge. It is a distraction from my point.

In the mean time, it was meant to show the poster that this sort of situation does happen - climate change is a recent area of study where one can find similar disparities in the "science".

Sigh. I will find it and post the link.
I don't doubt that there have been industry funded studies (smoking is the example that sprang to my mind) which were deliberately designed to throw doubt on what the real science was saying. I do doubt that, even in that case, there was ever the kind of clear cut disparity you are describing. As with climate change, the bulk of the studies done by responsible scientists are properly conducted whoever funded them.

Climate change actually gives a good example of this - have you ever heard of the Berkeley Earth study? A scientist who had expressed scepticism about the analysis of the instrumental temperature record performed by climatologists was hired by deniers to do his own analysis. He did so, and got exactly the same result.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth
 
Nobody is ever going to persuade someone who really wants to believe (1), as you say it's unfalsifiable. Because you've deliberately made it unfalsifiable.

The argument against (1) is simply that the addition of this Infinite Intelligence is arbitrary and unnecessary. There's no argument that could be made for it being more probable than (2). The only reason to believe it rather than (2) is emotional need.


Are you or we in an virtual reality, or not?

Why is a virtual reality a complication rather than a simplification?

How do you explain the emergence of intelligence with theory 2)?

How does dumb matter possess the properties to drive evolution of the galaxies and of life towards the emergence of intelligence?

One could argue that multiverses are an added unnecessary complication, and yet they are taken seriously.

BTW. I have no emotional need. That is an another assumption made by atheists to support their belief that they are right.

BTW2. I would argue that atheists are God fearing. They cannot accept the existence of a God under any scenario because that might also mean the possibility of judgement. :D
 
I don't doubt that there have been industry funded studies (smoking is the example that sprang to my mind) which were deliberately designed to throw doubt on what the real science was saying. I do doubt that, even in that case, there was ever the kind of clear cut disparity you are describing. As with climate change, the bulk of the studies done by responsible scientists are properly conducted whoever funded them.

Climate change actually gives a good example of this - have you ever heard of the Berkeley Earth study? A scientist who had expressed scepticism about the analysis of the instrumental temperature record performed by climatologists was hired by deniers to do his own analysis. He did so, and got exactly the same result.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth


You have accepted my point.

I am reminded of the story of Churchill propositioning a woman sitting next to him. She rejects his attentions but when he asks if she would consider sleeping with him for a million pounds she says she would. He then offers a hundred pounds and she asks what he think she is. He replies that they have already established that and are just haggling about the price.

Must go to work on the machine. Chat later.
 
So it was a waking hallucination?
No, that is not the likeliest explanation. The likeliest explanation is that you had a premonition and later saw something that appeared to be a fulfilment of it, and in subsequent rememberings have inadvertently embroidered the event out of all proportion to its actual significance. Your memory of the strength of the premonition has probably been exaggerated, for example, as has your certainty that it was the motorcyclist you had the premonition about who you later saw on the road.

And no-one can trust anything they think have happened to them unless they had video evidence?
No one can trust that their perceptions or their memory are entirely accurate, no. Most of the time they're accurate enough to place reasonable weight on them, but to place huge life changing beliefs and actions on such a flimsy foundation is foolish in the extreme.
 
Nobody is ever going to persuade someone who really wants to believe (1), as you say it's unfalsifiable. Because you've deliberately made it unfalsifiable.

The argument against (1) is simply that the addition of this Infinite Intelligence is arbitrary and unnecessary. There's no argument that could be made for it being more probable than (2). The only reason to believe it rather than (2) is emotional need.



Parting shot for now. The Infinite Intelligence made it unfalsifiable - for the time being. If it is true, it has nothing to do with me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom