PartSkeptic’s Thread for Predictions and Other Matters of Interest

[PartSkeptic]

You are the one claiming that an entity is needed in addition to that required for theory (2), so the burden of proof to provide evidence for that claim is on you.

You need to separate a physics classroom lesson from such debates. This burden of proof challenge is on a higher level.

Not so much burden of proof as reason for why the theory is better. I have done that. And no-one has challenged me.

We are talking about scientific philosophy. A powerful tool for insight into truth. Used by the Greeks with great success. Used by great scientists in various fields with great success also.

And scientists can subscribe to a hypothesis for Prime Cause as long as it is not self-contradictory and does not contradict scientific facts.

 

[Mojo]

Oh, okay. I will reward your persistence.

Thanks, now how about that NZLR citation?

 

[Pixel42]

You set me up as saying that electrosmog causes Covid

WTF? When did I do that?

Your hypothesis, as I understood it, was that a rise in cases of Kawasaki disease was linked to the proliferation of cell towers, but you offered no scientific evidence to support that hypothesis. Note that such evidence would consist of a proven correlation between the proliferation of cell towers and cases of Kawasaki disease. Such a correlation, if your hypothesis is correct, should go back several years.

The latest evidence is that the rise is linked to the much more recent emergence of Covid19. So probably not cell towers.

 

[Pixel42]

Not so much burden of proof as reason for why the theory is better. I have done that.

You did? When? I appear to have missed it.

All I recall is an assertion that it would be better if certain unevidenced superstitious beliefs were correct.

And scientists can subscribe to a hypothesis for Prime Cause as long as it is not self-contradictory and does not contradict scientific facts.

Indeed, a scientist can choose to believe things for which there is no evidence either way, and some (albeit a fairly small percentage) do. But they do not pretend that it is a rational, let alone a scientifically justifiable, choice.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Okay then. Give me theory 3) (or hypothesis if you prefer). Your preferred choice of the Prime Cause.

No.
You set out your "theory": it is up to you to prove it. You seem quite resistant to this idea.
This might lead some to conclude that you actually don't have a body of facts to draw on, and that you know full well that your anecdotes will not fill that gap.
You can easily refute such churlish speculation, of course, by revealing the chain of logic, observations and experiments that led you from those anecdotes to your Grand Idea. Stop wriggling and get on with it.

If your theory 3) is provable then my theory is debunked. If your theory is not provable then explain why it is a better fit than either 1) or 2) to events in the Universe.

Only if my new theory directly rules out yours. There are, of course, an almost infinite number of theories (in the wider sense) of how the universe came into existence. Some of these will flatly contradict your idea of a god-in-a-closet-in-a-dream-of-another-intelligence. Others might, if you work hard enough, fit. This would be an utterly tedious and pointless process.
The easy way to do this would be for you to lay out the supporting facts for your idea. If they are valid, we are done. and I'm sure your imaginary god will give you an imaginary pat on your imaginary back.
If not, we can move on.

If you have no theory, then why are you even in this debate? Of course, I do not believe that anyone can claim not to have a preferred theory (hypothesis).

God told me to be here. He wants to check that he's getting good value out of the computer he bought you.

 

[Pixel42]

God told me to be here. He wants to check that he's getting good value out of the computer he bought you.

I think you might be getting your crackpots esteemed fellow posters mixed up. It's Scorpion who believes God bought him his computer.

Though you have put your finger on a major drawback of the "God told me [X]" approach, which is that everybody and his uncle can counter it with a simple "Well God told me [not X]" and be on equally solid ground.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I think you might be getting your crackpots esteemed fellow posters mixed up. It's Scorpion who believes God bought him his computer.

Oops! You're right.
Sorry PartSkeptic! My bad.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Thanks, now how about that NZLR citation?

Do you keep a scoreboard?

 

[PartSkeptic]

WTF? When did I do that?

Your hypothesis, as I understood it, was that a rise in cases of Kawasaki disease was linked to the proliferation of cell towers, but you offered no scientific evidence to support that hypothesis. Note that such evidence would consist of a proven correlation between the proliferation of cell towers and cases of Kawasaki disease. Such a correlation, if your hypothesis is correct, should go back several years.

The latest evidence is that the rise is linked to the much more recent emergence of Covid19. So probably not cell towers.

Now, now. No need to swear.

But you even misread my latest post where I state that Covid is made worse by electrosmog. By worse, I mean that it spreads faster and easier, is more deadly and causes more complications. One of those Covid complications is likely to be Kawasaki disease.

I do feel that if a proper study of Kawasaki (with and without Covid) there might be a correlation to cell towers - or high electrosmog from all sources including WiFi. Such as study will not happen. The industry will make sure is does not.

A serious problem with such a study is that electrosmog is now almost everywhere. One has to infer it from studies showing damage to the tissues of blood vessels by emfs. Which is what I have done.

But, WTH (What The Heck), people prefer the bliss of being ignorant rather than give up the convenience and addiction of their favorite toy.

 

[PartSkeptic]

I think you might be getting your crackpots esteemed fellow posters mixed up. It's Scorpion who believes God bought him his computer.

Though you have put your finger on a major drawback of the "God told me [X]" approach, which is that everybody and his uncle can counter it with a simple "Well God told me [not X]" and be on equally solid ground.

People can claim guidance from God on small things. Why not? If God intervenes in subtle and personal ways then it is possible. They have to sort out the real messages from the "noise".

And some do not understand or appreciate the difference between getting a message from God and getting a message from Satan. There is also the possibility (which I readily accept) that the message comes from their own subconscious.

The other possibility is that the message comes in telepathic form from another person.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Only if my new theory directly rules out yours. There are, of course, an almost infinite number of theories (in the wider sense) of how the universe came into existence. Some of these will flatly contradict your idea of a god-in-a-closet-in-a-dream-of-another-intelligence. Others might, if you work hard enough, fit. This would be an utterly tedious and pointless process.
The easy way to do this would be for you to lay out the supporting facts for your idea. If they are valid, we are done. and I'm sure your imaginary god will give you an imaginary pat on your imaginary back.
If not, we can move on.

You are the one doing the wriggling. You are on the hook.

Give me your best choice of a hypothesis. You do not want me to compare with theory 2) so give me one I can do a comparison with, and I will do it.

 

[PartSkeptic]

God helps my wife and gives her clues.

We went to her factory where I have found the problem with the Russian valve and have made a temporary fix.

"Put up a For Sale/Rent sign outside she said. I am sure there are buyers/renters out there." I put up the sign at 12 noon and at 3 pm we had someone very interested. He will be coming to the factory to check it out today.

And in this economic downturn? I am very surprised. And the house sale is still going through even though property values have seriously dropped.

My wife also changed some investments. She asked me about RSA bonds which just come on. 5 years at 11.5%. I said do it quick because if they get a lot of takers they will drop the rate. She got in and two days later they dropped to 10%.

She never does backups (home of business) and has never lost data. It is almost unbelievable. I do try to do some for her now and then.

 

[Pixel42]

I state that Covid is made worse by electrosmog.

A statement without a single shred of objective evidence to support it.

I do feel that if a proper study of Kawasaki (with and without Covid) there might be a correlation to cell towers - or high electrosmog from all sources including WiFi. Such as study will not happen. The industry will make sure is does not.

There is nothing stopping anyone who "feels" this from doing, or funding, such a study themselves. "The industry" would be powerless to prevent them. So get on with it. In the meantime, you might perhaps consider whether you are entitled to slander large numbers of people on the basis of your "feelings", especially when the consequences of spreading this particular CT include the deliberate destruction of essential infrastructure by gullible morons.

A serious problem with such a study is that electrosmog is now almost everywhere. One has to infer it from studies showing damage to the tissues of blood vessels by emfs. Which is what I have done.

A totally unwarranted inference even if all such studies unambiguously showed such damage. Which they don't.

But, WTH (What The Heck), people prefer the bliss of being ignorant rather than give up the convenience and addiction of their favorite toy.

There is plenty of research going on, what little ignorance remains about the effects of emf on living things is being reduced all the time.

But it is certainly true that most people are prepared to put up with a few downsides if the upsides are greater. Pretty much every technological advance has had downsides for health, from gas leaks to car crashes. Society as a whole does seem willing to accept some risk in return for bigger rewards. If it wasn't then gas, electricity and cars would all have been banned by now, along with every medical treatment that has any side effects whatsoever (which is pretty much all of them).

So even if it does turn out that a small number of exceptionally sensitive people suffer ill effects from the low levels of emf put out by cell towers or wifi (something that is still a long way from being demonstrated) then yes, society may well decide it's a price worth paying.

 

[Pixel42]

People can claim guidance from God on small things. Why not? If God intervenes in subtle and personal ways then it is possible. They have to sort out the real messages from the "noise".

And some do not understand or appreciate the difference between getting a message from God and getting a message from Satan.

So go on then, enlighten us. How do you tell the difference?

There is also the possibility (which I readily accept) that the message comes from their own subconscious.

Like heck you accept it.

The other possibility is that the message comes in telepathic form from another person.

A possibility that can be ruled out thanks to decades of careful scientific investigation. That's always the problem for woo slingers who make testable claims. That's why so many end up tying themselves in knots to make sure their claims aren't testable, which has the unfortunate consequence of also making them utterly worthless. Like your messages from God (or is it Satan), for example.

 

[Mojo]

Do you keep a scoreboard?

No, I’m just curious (and more than somewhat* skeptical) given that a law report will give at the very least a summary of the facts and the court’s reasons for the decision and, in the case of a full report such as those that appear in the series you claimed to have read the report in, a complete transcript of the court’s judgment setting out those reasons in detail. The whole purpose of law reports is to provide precedent for future cases, so the reasons are the important bit. A report that just gave the result without the reasoning would be entirely useless as a precedent, so wouldn’t be worth the paper it wouldn’t be printed on.



*From which you should be able to identify the author I’ve just been reading.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

You are the one doing the wriggling. You are on the hook.

Not remotely, and this puerile debating strategy is as feeble as it is transparent.

Give me your best choice of a hypothesis. You do not want me to compare with theory 2) so give me one I can do a comparison with, and I will do it.

We're not debating what I believe: we're debating what you believe. Have a look at the thread title if you are still confused about this.
Your "theory" does not need a comparison with another. It should be able to stand on its own feet. "Your theory is wrong, therefore mine must be right" is not a valid argument.
The problem with your "theory" is that it has not advanced beyond the stage of unevidenced assertion, and still does not fit the definition of a scientific theory.
I note that you have now started calling your idea a hypothesis, rather than a theory. Unfortunately for you, this still does not let you off the hook. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon, which is testable.
You have yet to state what phenomenon leads you to posit the explanation of a dreaming super-thingummy, and I believe you have explicitly rules out the possibility of being able to test whether this being exists, and is doing what you claim it is doing. Oh, and the existence of the imaginary god in another universe.
What body of facts do you have to support your theory?
What phenomenon does your hypothesis explain?
What tests do you propose to validate your ideas?
Again, stop wriggling and get on with it.

 

[PartSkeptic]

No, I’m just curious (and more than somewhat* skeptical) given that a law report will give at the very least a summary of the facts and the court’s reasons for the decision and, in the case of a full report such as those that appear in the series you claimed to have read the report in, a complete transcript of the court’s judgment setting out those reasons in detail. The whole purpose of law reports is to provide precedent for future cases, so the reasons are the important bit. A report that just gave the result without the reasoning would be entirely useless as a precedent, so wouldn’t be worth the paper it wouldn’t be printed on.



*From which you should be able to identify the author I’ve just been reading.

You are quite right in everything you say - in theory.

In practice it is quite different.

You must realize that a court is not compelled to give reasons. In this case they simple gave an order to reverse the costs order. If we appealed the lack of costs for the reversal to the highest court in the land the Appeal Court would have to have given reasons. But even then, it can be brief.

When I read the "report" I was stunned. I realized that law reports are quite selective in how and what they report. They often distort facts so as to be consistent in what they "want" the law to represent. A case that could be used by lay litigants to illustrate how bad some judgements could be puts the law in a bad light.

There was another case that was extensively quoted in cases involving disputes about Wills. I tried to get the actual case file from the court a number of times. Each time I was given a folder with miscellaneous papers in it that told me nothing. But on my fourth try (months apart) I got the actual file used in the hearing. The law report and the facts did not agree. The law report was distorted by selecting facts and misrepresenting what the case was about.

This is one reason I say that the world is corrupt. And that lawyers and the legal system need reform.

So I guess I will have to get you both case numbers and the parties involved. I was a Mackenzie friend who could advise and be in court so my name is not used. You can go to the Auckland High Court and for a fee of $25 (it may be more now) you can ask for the case file from the archives. And be sure you ask for the hearing file and not the one they use for people who are not experienced enough.

I appealed a recent order/judgement to the Constitutional Court here in SA. The judgement consisted of a long and cherry picked version of the facts. The reason for the judgment was given as "I deemed it appropriate". The ConCourt rejected my leave to appeal with one sentence "There is no chance of success". They have their ways to block embarrassing litigation.

Which author?

 

[PartSkeptic]

Not remotely, and this puerile debating strategy is as feeble as it is transparent.




We're not debating what I believe: we're debating what you believe. Have a look at the thread title if you are still confused about this.
Your "theory" does not need a comparison with another. It should be able to stand on its own feet. "Your theory is wrong, therefore mine must be right" is not a valid argument.
The problem with your "theory" is that it has not advanced beyond the stage of unevidenced assertion, and still does not fit the definition of a scientific theory.
I note that you have now started calling your idea a hypothesis, rather than a theory. Unfortunately for you, this still does not let you off the hook. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon, which is testable.
You have yet to state what phenomenon leads you to posit the explanation of a dreaming super-thingummy, and I believe you have explicitly rules out the possibility of being able to test whether this being exists, and is doing what you claim it is doing. Oh, and the existence of the imaginary god in another universe.
What body of facts do you have to support your theory?
What phenomenon does your hypothesis explain?
What tests do you propose to validate your ideas?
Again, stop wriggling and get on with it.

You are stubbornly taking a position to avoid losing the argument.

Which logically means you have lost the argument - by default.

Judgment to the Plaintiff (me).

 

[PartSkeptic]

So go on then, enlighten us. How do you tell the difference?


Like heck you accept it.


A possibility that can be ruled out thanks to decades of careful scientific investigation. That's always the problem for woo slingers who make testable claims. That's why so many end up tying themselves in knots to make sure their claims aren't testable, which has the unfortunate consequence of also making them utterly worthless. Like your messages from God (or is it Satan), for example.

If the messages work out, then it does not matter where it came from. If the message works out AND was both unusual and unlikely the person would have thought of it, it is likely to be "inspired" by God.

Good people are unlikely to get messages from Satan that they will act on. They recognize them as wrong. I have had a small number of direct and clear "commands" from Satan that I rejected. I was shocked that such things could happen. It does explain how some people can act "impulsively" to do some evil things or harm themselves. Up until a decade ago I would have said this does not happen. Now I take them as a learning experience on the path to enlightenment. Not all of us learn by personal example, and skeptics reject such "teachings" from others, no matter how credible the person.

Important messages (such as the ONE I got) will have confirmations that they were not idle thoughts.



Telepathy takes place under conditions where both minds are not trying to send each other thoughts, or received them. The subconscious is clearly involved. The ego must be suppressed so the mind can interact with the spirit world. The Infinite Intelligence will not allow proof of any phenomenon that uses the supernatural. For all these reasons, mental telepathy is typically unexpected and random - and testing does not work.

Just because you reject the Laws of the Supernatural as unscientific and unfair does not mean they do not exist. As for the phenomenon being useless and non-existent, that statement is meaningless when instances of mental telepathy happen to people. It only has meaning to atheists who are not affected.

 

[PartSkeptic]

A statement without a single shred of objective evidence to support it.


There is nothing stopping anyone who "feels" this from doing, or funding, such a study themselves. "The industry" would be powerless to prevent them. So get on with it. In the meantime, you might perhaps consider whether you are entitled to slander large numbers of people on the basis of your "feelings", especially when the consequences of spreading this particular CT include the deliberate destruction of essential infrastructure by gullible morons.


A totally unwarranted inference even if all such studies unambiguously showed such damage. Which they don't.


There is plenty of research going on, what little ignorance remains about the effects of emf on living things is being reduced all the time.

But it is certainly true that most people are prepared to put up with a few downsides if the upsides are greater. Pretty much every technological advance has had downsides for health, from gas leaks to car crashes. Society as a whole does seem willing to accept some risk in return for bigger rewards. If it wasn't then gas, electricity and cars would all have been banned by now, along with every medical treatment that has any side effects whatsoever (which is pretty much all of them).

So even if it does turn out that a small number of exceptionally sensitive people suffer ill effects from the low levels of emf put out by cell towers or wifi (something that is still a long way from being demonstrated) then yes, society may well decide it's a price worth paying.

You reject the studies showing harm because you have taken a firm position that there is no harm.

Industry is powerful. They can wreck careers. Not many, if any, are prepared to chance such an onslaught. Only when things get really bad and all other causes have been dismissed will some cautiously start some investigation. Which is why I have said this pandemic will do its work before humankind wakes up.

Your argument about some collateral damage being acceptable has been used by various industries to explain away "exceptions". We accept medical Xrays as necessary and having side effects. We no longer Xray pregnant woman. I am not against limited use of radio waves for communication. I accept it as a necessary evil and accept that my sensitivity is a liability to me but most people do not have it.

But I know from experience that the increased radiation does do harm, and does affect even the average person. And I am also aware that the harm done is not only direct harm but indirect where the radiation harmfully affects healing and other diseases.

One is entitled to hypothesize from both the science and observations that there is a probability that Covid is made worse and that long-term harm will be extensive and severe, given the current trajectory.

The irony is that with Covid, electrosmog is now doubly accelerated and hence the destruction of population is even more effective. Incredibly clever. But that is one attribute of a God. Too smart for ordinary humans.

By chance I met a prospective buyer for my wife's factory. Turns out he was one of the first to get Covid-19 in SA. He got it on a trip to Dubai. It hit him hard and he got tested and was confirmed. The fever, chest pains and difficulty breathing were bad. But what was interesting is that he says he has not properly recovered and has bouts of difficulty breathing and other health issues.

There are five US sailors who have apparently gotten Covid-19 a second time.

You guys say this pandemic is not a population reducer. I say just wait.