That's disappointing. I had hoped you would learn something about your critics that would convince you they are not the cretins you keep calling them. A lot of people have expended a lot of effort trying to address your nominal complaints. Your grateful attention would have been appreciated. Nobody is really interested in your running diary of symptoms or anecdotes from your childhood. That's not what this forum is for. But more importantly, I rather think you should have spent the time it took to post all this irrelevant garbage to read what others have said to you.
You started out okay then descended into ad hominems.
Yes, and the hope that once the root cause is identified, a remedy can be found. I do hard science to keep me out of courtrooms. Other people do good science because they love the natural world, or they feel the need to help people in general. There are as many reasons as there are scientists. Good science in this case would be to your direct, personal benefit. It's not just academic "confirmation." What you think or believe, that would be academically confirmed by an experiment, doesn't matter to anyone else.
Implying I do not know what I am talking about. Note: I won. The judge agreed. The next judge dismissed on a technicality and ignored perjury.
That's exactly what science isn't. And it's patently not what your critics have done.
This strikes me as projection. As I pointed out yesterday, you've gone out of your way to make this a debate about whether you're smarter than the skeptics. You've peppered every day's posts with fairly naked claims to that effect. Your entire tenure at this forum is a saga of claiming to be better than others by some measure: you're better educated, you were better at your job, God talks to you, you can do signs and wonders. It's quite a list.
I respond to challenges. My credential are on records. You talk a fancy game but not much support.
All the while your critics have been patiently open to the notion that all of these things could be true, and that you are the better man along whatever dimension you claim. Some of them have been extraordinary claims, to be sure. But at every step all your critics have asked for is evidence that would tend to support your claims. You've stubbornly refused to provide it. In contrast, when your critics demonstrate the fruits of their knowledge and experience, you ignore it and berate them. And worse.
You call my personal evidence anecdotes. You dismiss my supporting links to science. You change the subject when asked for a direct response.
I've said you seem to be drawing your science not from scientists but from politically-minded activists who have created the narrative of trying to hold powerful interests accountable. Very well, that's how that debate typically goes. But you seem oblivious to the possibility they they too might have an agenda that biases their presentation of the facts. Naturally from them you're going to get only one side of the scientific question, interpreted through the lens of politics. It's not "muddying" the waters to wipe off that lens and widen the view of what the science really looks like.
They are scientists who post reviews in peer reviewed journals. But you not only miss that point but focus on the last one I posted.
When you claim that certain dissimilar forms of radiation should be considered equivalent, a thorough discussion of the difference is not muddying the waters. A similarly thorough discussion of genetic mutation is not mud. Not to be too "meta," but what really might be seen as obfuscation is writing off as such posts that are clearly filled with information that should be considered in depth and responded to in a conscientious debate. When your propositions are demonstrably simplistic and based on obviously cherry-picked support, filling in the gaps is the right answer.
I told you it was an analogy to say that they both cause harm. You turn my argument into an equivalency and then attack your own straw-man.
What might be further considered clouding the issue is to weigh down a proposed protocol with a bunch of buzzwords and vague handwaving so as to suggest the experiment could never be performed in a dispositive way. The goal of the experiment was modest, as were its expectations. But in any case, your last-ditch effort to make the experiment seem objectively disrecommendable did more than simply repeat the ploy of trying to techno-bluster your way into the illusion of erudition. It ignored a very fundamental way in which science -- as practiced -- has learned about how to deal with the messiness of the real world. You're simply not a scientist, and the only harm that shortcoming has caused you is self-inflicted. You try to play one, but you are clearly in over your head. Stop playing one, and your problems with others evaporate.
False babble. I responded to claims am a layman. What rubbish. Do I need to be with a University as a professor who write articles? I use my understanding of science and do research and then make things happen. I have a long list of accomplishments which you turn your nose up at.
This is why you infuriate people. You calmly announce that you haven't read their statements. And then in the middle of a wall of rambling anecdotes and pontification, you shove arguments into their mouths that they never made. Ignoring what people say is disappointing. After that, pretending they said what you want them to have said is insulting.
In this area I bow to the Master. If other poster buy into your unsupported claims and statements because they want to, then thay are poorer for it.
Irrelevant. This is an experiment tailored to you and your specific claims. You are the only suitable subject, and the only measurement being taken is whether the correlation exists that you've claimed only in your specific case. No other hypothesis is being tested, such that other subjects would be appropriate.
This forum dismisses EHS outright. And dismisses the possibility of harm done by EMF. All it takes is one piece of evidence to prove the falsity of that stance. Like proving God. Just one piece of unassailable evidence is needed.
Handwaving.
Again the Master speaks.
It is in your case, which is all we're concerned with. If we were trying to prove that electromagnetic field effects consistently or generally cause harm, it would be insufficient evidence. But that's not the purpose of the test. At this point we only want to show correlation in your isolated case. The hypothesis is, "PartSkeptic can tell by somewhat extrasensory means whether the wifi is operating." There is no claim being made that the results in your case would generalize any wider. The test does not fail merely because a broader scope exists.
Oh, now you limit the experiment and propose some unknown variable in case I succeed. Clever (no - the proper word is "cunning").
If there is no correlation, then we don't need to delve into the details of causation, because there is no causation. If there is measurable correlation, then we can go on to investigate causation -- including potential confounds -- with a more rigorous protocol. Professional scientists do this all the time. Pilot studies are sometimes reported, but only if there is general interest.
You now pronounce that any result only shows correlation. Once again. Cunning. And again with the "non-professional you do not have the credentials or standing".
You obviously aren't going to do the test, as most of your critics predicted. Try as you might to say it's for reasons of scientific invalidity, you simply cannot walk that walk. Your critics here are obviously far more experienced than you in what constitutes acceptable scientific practice. Repeatedly ignoring them doesn't make that go away. Repeatedly calling them ignorant doesn't make that go away. Repeatedly pretending they must cling to the arguments you hand them to say, doesn't make that go away.
Rubbish. No support for your claim.
Having dismissed your flimsy pretext, I will once again invoke the only relevant anecdote from a previous thread: you had a relative who claimed to be a dowser and refused for a long time to be tested. When finally tested, he failed. What makes you any different? As someone else so cleverly put it, you're claiming to be able to dowse electromagnetic energy. Your critics credibly conclude that you refuse to be tested so that you can keep on believing you're special in that way. You refuse the test not because it's scientifically invalid, but because one can't fail a test one never takes.
Another cunning twist to discredit me. Now you claim my experiment is not science but "Woo" - supernatural (a trick of some sort to skeptics.)
It's not about your critics rejecting something because of what they want to believe about the world in general. It's about you rejecting something because of what you want to believe about yourself. What you want to believe about yourself is no one else's concern. So if I were you, I would go live out the rest of my life in whatever comfort can obtained. I would avoid continuing to make the mistake that what you believe about yourself is something others should believe about you on no more authority than your say-so. It's a mistake you don't need to make, and which is apparently not working out for you.
I have a fantastic life and a great outlook. Your advice is a transparent attempt at appearing both intellectually and morally superior by condescending to a poor deluded soul. Methinks there is a lot of insecurity behind the image you work so hard to project to others.
As well you should. You're not using this forum in the way it was intended, nor in a way that profits you. If you like writing things and posting them on the Internet just for people to see and appreciate, rather than challenge, then I daresay that's not hard to accomplish in a place where challenging extraordinary claims is not the expected norm.
I have made a number of claims intended to the good of humanity. Individuals could benefit. I have had to respond to scoffing and disbelief by improving my knowledge and how I try to get others to see the truth. Once more you make a patently false statement.
Walked out frustrated after a year. In that time I became an expert in SQL queries, so it wasn't a total loss.
