Carl Sagan's advise on Critical Thinking
-
I'm curious why you, a liberal with extreme TDS, are posting this.
As for the points, we need to treat them like marxism. Marxism is the utopian fantasy world, but communism is the reality
Climate-gate is an example of how science is abused for personal gain.
-
@bi4smooth Arguments from authority carry little weight... hmm. Yet you spew "authority" lines all day long. Fauci is your GOD. He IS Science to you. You need to read what you posted again.
-
@manhandler said in Carl Sagan's advise on Critical Thinking:
@bi4smooth Arguments from authority carry little weight... hmm. Yet you spew "authority" lines all day long. Fauci is your GOD. He IS Science to you. You need to read what you posted again.
Not at all... Fauci (to use your example) is no authority! He is an EXPERT!
To repeat what I posted to your absurdity on another thread:
Funny about the difference between you and actual scientists:
- Actual scientists go out of their way to prove they are wrong - about everything! It's the scientific method!
- You go out of your way to prove you're right - about every insignificant detail - even when you've clearly made a mistake, you insist you are right - mostly in a childlike manner: repeating yourself, saying it louder or multiple times, and lastly calling the other person names...
That is germane to the topic because you like to point out Fauci's having been wrong in the past as evidence of his incompetence. I point to Fauci's having been wrong in the past as evidence that he's working with DATA and not POLITICS!
- Data changes as more and more is gathered. More data means better conclusions.
- Politics nearly never changes... Just look at you and Trump!
-
As an "expert", how many people did Fauci kill in the AZT scandal?
Fauci wasn't "wrong" about GOF research, in the Rand paul exchange. Fauci was/is a liar.
Rand Paul quoted from the official NIH website what GOF research is, he then compared it to what Fauci funded Bill Gate's Eco-Health to do in Wuhan. Only a blatant liar or a crackhead liberal would claim they aren't the same. Fauci said they weren't the same.
For the love of Poseidon, please stop sucking Fauci's ass.
-
@raphjd said in Carl Sagan's advise on Critical Thinking:
As an "expert", how many people did Fauci kill in the AZT scandal?
Fauci wasn't "wrong" about GOF research, in the Rand paul exchange. Fauci was/is a liar.
Rand Paul quoted from the official NIH website what GOF research is, he then compared it to what Fauci funded Bill Gate's Eco-Health to do in Wuhan. Only a blatant liar or a crackhead liberal would claim they aren't the same. Fauci said they weren't the same.
For the love of Poseidon, please stop sucking Fauci's ass.
See a match, shout FIRE!
I've never supported Fauci unconditionally.
- I know little about Fauci and AZT in the 1990's - I do know that I had friends literally dying to get added to virtually any cockamamie study they could (replacing your entire blood supply? Using Leukemia treatments? Freezing your body to the point of actual, if short-term death? Yeah - people tried all of these things)... AZT was certainly known not to be a cure, and it had a long list of known side-effects - but it was forced into approval by the newly-minted gay-political-machine - even though CDC and FDA said there wasn't enough known about it's long-term effects.... like the early COVID-19 response, we didn't know SHIT yet.
- I do know you have a habit of holding people you dislike to modern-day standards, even to their decades-old behaviors and decisions. So, I take your point-of-view with a grain of salt - you can only blame yourself for that...
- Forget Fauci or Paul - look at what the other scientists have said about the purported GOF research Paul was accusing them of... it didn't match the criteria.
Considering Fauci's word to "be enough" is to make him "an authority" - which I don't believe he is (nor, does he claim to be)... likewise, to assume that an Ophthalmologist (Rand Paul) knows more about genetic research than a department head at the NIH (or, ALL of the department heads at the NIH) is just plain absurd.
There is a reason why Scientific Research is "peer reviewed" prior to being generally accepted, and why some kinds of research get the "peer review" treatment even before the experiments start!
Peer review said that the NIH research in Wuhan was NOT Gain Of Function... that you think Rand Paul (and yourself) have more in-depth knowledge of the subject than the general scientific community (in and outside the NIH) speaks more to your own hubris and self-aggrandizement...
I'm sorry, especially given the scientific community's response to the Paul/Fauci argument about GOF, I think Rand Paul should be embarrassed! (Maybe he is!... privately)
-
Fauci was a POS then and is still a POS, but you worship him.
Your liberal, Pelosi panty sniffing idiocy is showing.
Rand Paul, read directly from the NIH website, the definition of GOF research. He then read the section of the work to be funded by the NIH for Bill Gate's Eco-Health. Even you can do that.
-
@raphjd said in Carl Sagan's advise on Critical Thinking:
Fauci was a POS then and is still a POS, but you worship him.
Your liberal, Pelosi panty sniffing idiocy is showing.
Rand Paul, read directly from the NIH website, the definition of GOF research. He then read the section of the work to be funded by the NIH for Bill Gate's Eco-Health. Even you can do that.
Unlike you, I don't pretend to know more (or better) than the experts in the field who "peer reviewed" the reports and the claims made by Sen. Paul...
If you know more than them, please present your CV here to backup your claims...
-
Clearly, you are a Fauni worshipper.
Take 2 documents and compare them and if they match, they are talking about the same thing. That is what Rand Paul did.
The official NIH definition of GOFR and what Fauci paid Bill Gate's Eco-Health to do in Wuhan matched.
You don't need to be an expert to know that the 2 things matched.
Seriously dude, pull your head out of Fauci's ass.
-
@raphjd said in Carl Sagan's advise on Critical Thinking:
Clearly, you are a Fauni worshipper.
Take 2 documents and compare them and if they match, they are talking about the same thing. That is what Rand Paul did.
The official NIH definition of GOFR and what Fauci paid Bill Gate's Eco-Health to do in Wuhan matched.
You don't need to be an expert to know that the 2 things matched.
Seriously dude, pull your head out of Fauci's ass.
Seriously, dude - pull your EGO out of your own ass...
You still seem to think that your "I Got a C+ in High School Science Class (even though I blew the teacher to get the +)" is more enlightened and informed about genetic research than.... oh, the PhDs who make it their life's work?
We're not talking about 2-paragraph documents (where some Technical Writer has tried to summarize 3,000 pages of research into 2 paragraphs or 100 words, whichever is shorter)... we're talking about knowing and understanding the WORDS in the paragraphs...
I'm still waiting to see your CV - Masters in Biology even? (That'd be more germane to the topic than Paul's Ophthalmology!)
When we want a proofer to validate that manual duplication of 2-paragraph documents are unchanged, we'll certainly call you first! That's your special purpose! (apparently)
-
You still have your head up Fauci's ass making excuses for him, that is dedication.
How does Fauci's shit taste?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better đź’—
Register Login