Vaccines—Who Needs 'Em? [Archive]

Lemur

08-16-2012, 19:25

HoreTore

08-16-2012, 19:39

Paranoia.

Calmy and gently ask him to seek professional help.

rvg

08-16-2012, 19:49

You lost me at
...our local chiropractor...

Quack-quack. Quackity-quack.

drone

08-16-2012, 20:01

Sir Moody

08-16-2012, 20:05

What you need to do is the exact same thing he is - put the information out there

when he posts the "anti-vac" garbage, you post the truth and back it up with evidence - lets see him bring out his...

try this for starters - http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html

Visor

08-16-2012, 20:07

It's odd that I see this thread at the same time as I find this thread on the straight dope on vaccines. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=15388358#post15388358

Not really relevant, but who knows. You might learn something.

Sir Moody

08-16-2012, 20:08

Flu vaccinations, I'll buy that as a corporate conspiracy and unnecessary. Polio and the like, just get the jab.

It's bad enough we have misused antibiotics and have kids bathing in triclosan. Opting out of the basic vaccinations is just going to add more threats to the already weakened immune systems of our youth today.

Flu is a killer virus for people at risk - why would it be unnecessary to vaccinate those who could potentially die for it? now vaccinating everyone is silly - the Flu vaccines at best will only reduce symptoms and most people will be fine

drone

08-16-2012, 20:43

Flu is a killer virus for people at risk - why would it be unnecessary to vaccinate those who could potentially die for it? now vaccinating everyone is silly - the Flu vaccines at best will only reduce symptoms and most people will be fine
And "The Flu" is a family of fairly mutable virii. The non-pandemic influenza vaccine is just a guess by makers as to what will be the most likely of the 3 strains to pop up in a given year. It's a crapshoot, but every year they try to push it on everyone, not just the old folks. Then I have to put up with the wife feeling like hell for 2 days because she was stupid enough to get one, even though the same thing happened to her the year before that, and the year before that, and so on.

Greyblades

08-16-2012, 20:54

Forward them the first part of this (http://www.cracked.com/article_18954_the-6-most-disastrous-attempts-at-internet-damage-control.html).

gaelic cowboy

08-16-2012, 21:14

Hmm Chiropractor nuff said really

a completely inoffensive name

08-16-2012, 21:57

As far as I am concerned, anti-vaccine advocates are terrorists. They use terror to endanger people.

Vuk

08-16-2012, 23:29

You are off your flying rocker Lemur. You should seek professional help.
FYI, I've never gotten a shot in my life. Do you think I am endagering your kids?

Montmorency

08-16-2012, 23:39

:laugh4:

Vuk endangers everyone.

Kralizec

08-16-2012, 23:41

I always thought that immunity meant...well, that you're immune. The only way unvaccinated kids would be a threat if it were a virus that mutates quickly enough to make the vaccination obsolete.

That said, parents who don't vaccinate* their kids are A) free riders B) idiots, whose behaviour borders on child abuse

(*for the essentials like polio and whatnot)

Lemur

08-16-2012, 23:46

FYI, I've never gotten a shot in my life. Do you think I am endagering your kids?
Yes, you are a threat to my children. No vaccine is 100% effective, but if enough of the population gets vaccinated, the virus/bacteria can't get a proper burn going in the populace. So if an individual comes down with the disease, it fails to spread.

Even though the vaccines do not give 100% immunity, in aggregate they act as if they do if enough of the herd gets vaccinated. See herd immunity (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/herd-immunity/) for further reading. Sample:

"Vaccines are never 100% effective. Some people are genetically unable to respond to the vaccine, some have immunodeficiencies that preclude receiving vaccines or developing a response to the vaccine, some haven’t gotten around to vaccination or are too young to receive a vaccine. If you vaccinate a large number of people, besides preventing disease in an individual, it helps protect the vulnerable in a population. Vaccines prevent disease propagation."

I always thought that immunity meant...well, that you're immune. The only way unvaccinated kids would be a threat if it were a virus that mutates quickly enough to make the vaccination obsolete.
See answer above. The whooping cough vaccine, for example, is believed to have a 64% effectiveness rate. If enough kids get the vaccine, however, the virus is effectively stopped dead. But only if enough of the population gets vaccinated.

So Vuk, the local chiropractor, and the lady in that YouTube video are all endangering my children through a willful act of premeditated stupidity.

Xiahou

08-16-2012, 23:58

So our local chiropractor has posted this thing about how nobody needs to have their children vaccinated. Which, as a parent, fills me with rage. I don't mind people doing their raw-food vegan sweat-lodge accupressure thing ... until it endangers me and mine. See herd immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity) for reference; even though my children all have their shots, if enough of my neighbors buy into this insanity, they'll be putting my kids at risk.

How much fun will it be if every summer I wait to see if my children get paralyzed (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/polioandpostpoliosyndrome.html)? Right?

Two questions:

Do any Orgahs believe that immunizations are a guvmint conspiracy? What led you to believe this? How do you weigh the conspiracy theory against the real and well-documented evils of, say, meningitis?
What should I do to the chiropractor? I'm already blasting him on his FB page. Should I also resort to tarring and feathering? Public shaming? A good, old-fashioned beatdown?

An example of the kind of person I would like to punch in the face, repeatedly:

The person in your video is what I classify as "dangerously stupid". I stopped watching when she said there was no reason for her child to get sick in the winter because they always make sure she's covered up. :dizzy:

No.
Are there any chiropractors who aren't loons? I mean, I believe that some of the physical therapy stuff they do can be beneficial but all of them seem to subscribe to nutty unsubstantiated BS now...

As for what to do... Does your local school district and/or department of health require vaccinations before children can attend school? If not, why not? If so, the idiots can't do much damage.

Major Robert Dump

08-17-2012, 00:02

Vuk you live in the boondocks and do not coohort with proper society, you do not count

An annual flu shot has never prevented me from getting the flu in some shape or fashion. But I also have a higher tolerance for pain and suffering than most people, so when I do get the flu I can still function and work, even without medicine, although on several occasions in my life I havebeen forced to go home by my boss.

As for the really bad stuff, I don't see the big deal. Although I never cared for Gov Perry, I thought he got a raw deal with that HPV shot thing, which shows just how ignorant Americans are about the STDs we all carry and our women dying of preventable cancer

I do think there is a certain level of conspiring going on in the pharma market, but more from the FDA approval and commercial end. I don't really see a conspiracy in the push for people to get vaccinated from deadly childhood diseases.

Lemur

08-17-2012, 00:06

Does your local school district and/or department of health require vaccinations before children can attend school?
Unfortunately, all a parent has to do is say it's against their religion, and they can send their little disease vectors to sit next to my kids. It's maddening.

If not, why not?
Religious freedom. Which is fine, but their religious freedom should also exclude them from the public schools, IMHO.

I'm very pleased with the trend of doctors firing patients who won't vaccinate (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203315804577209230884246636.html).

Papewaio

08-17-2012, 00:09

Yes there is a consipracy a foot here.

It's the chiropractors. They have fought vaccines for generations. They didn't want Polio vaccines as polio victims need physiotherapy for life which is a nice money earner for chiropractors.

Greyblades

08-17-2012, 00:31

FYI, I've never gotten a shot in my life. Do you think I am endagering your kids?

Just our sanity vuk.

Hax

08-17-2012, 00:36

I stopped watching when she said there was no reason for her child to get sick in the winter because they always make sure she's covered up.

My mother took me out ice skating when I was one and I got meningitis. Nearly killed me, too.

Major Robert Dump

08-17-2012, 00:42

My mother took me out ice skating when I was one and I got meningitis. Nearly killed me, too.

Well you obviously weren't covered up.

Greyblades

08-17-2012, 00:59

Odd, I seem to have transported into an alternate dimension where "covered up" really means "plastic bubble", is Wayne Brady black in this universe too?

Vuk

08-17-2012, 02:34

Unfortunately, all a parent has to do is say it's against their religion, and they can send their little disease vectors to sit next to my kids. It's maddening.

Religious freedom. Which is fine, but their religious freedom should also exclude them from the public schools, IMHO.

I'm very pleased with the trend of doctors firing patients who won't vaccinate (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203315804577209230884246636.html).

After all, we all want to live in the USSR.
So you are against people who do behaviors that are likely to get them contagious diseases? How about having sex with multiple partners? That turns people into 'little disease vectors' just as much or more than not vaccinating kids. Any other draconian ideas you wanna throw out? I'm sure we could apply you nutty principle to lots of things!

Vuk you live in the boondocks and do not coohort with proper society, you do not count

An annual flu shot has never prevented me from getting the flu in some shape or fashion. But I also have a higher tolerance for pain and suffering than most people, so when I do get the flu I can still function and work, even without medicine, although on several occasions in my life I havebeen forced to go home by my boss.

As for the really bad stuff, I don't see the big deal. Although I never cared for Gov Perry, I thought he got a raw deal with that HPV shot thing, which shows just how ignorant Americans are about the STDs we all carry and our women dying of preventable cancer

I do think there is a certain level of conspiring going on in the pharma market, but more from the FDA approval and commercial end. I don't really see a conspiracy in the push for people to get vaccinated from deadly childhood diseases.

Right, I only attended a Uni for years and interacted with, or passed by thousands of people, and have spent some time living in a city of 300k. So I guess I just don't interact with people at all.
The only vaccines I would consider getting at all would be tetanus and rabies. (just in case you bite me or I cut myself on Lemurs outdated, draconian thinking)

Yes, you are a threat to my children. No vaccine is 100% effective, but if enough of the population gets vaccinated, the virus/bacteria can't get a proper burn going in the populace. So if an individual comes down with the disease, it fails to spread.

Even though the vaccines do not give 100% immunity, in aggregate they act as if they do if enough of the herd gets vaccinated. See herd immunity (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/herd-immunity/) for further reading. Sample:

"Vaccines are never 100% effective. Some people are genetically unable to respond to the vaccine, some have immunodeficiencies that preclude receiving vaccines or developing a response to the vaccine, some haven’t gotten around to vaccination or are too young to receive a vaccine. If you vaccinate a large number of people, besides preventing disease in an individual, it helps protect the vulnerable in a population. Vaccines prevent disease propagation."

See answer above. The whooping cough vaccine, for example, is believed to have a 64% effectiveness rate. If enough kids get the vaccine, however, the virus is effectively stopped dead. But only if enough of the population gets vaccinated.

So Vuk, the local chiropractor, and the lady in that YouTube video are all endangering my children through a willful act of premeditated stupidity.

Translation: "Vuk is a danger to children! We need to force him and others like him to not leave their houses and never go near children or healthy normal people!"
You crack me up Lemur. Are you really this crazy, or are you just trolling for responses?
My sister got a flu vaccine because she was required to by her employer. It literally almost killed her. She was out for over a month. She has had the flu a few times, and it never hit her as hard as whatever was in her fecking flu vaccine. Sorry Lemur, but I would rather take my chances. The only time anyone in my family has ever been hit that bad by a sickness is when my bro and I got swine flu, and we were no worse off than she.

Sorry mate, but you can keep your shots (and you know where to put em). You go around accusing people of being dangerous to children pretty freely, jackass.

EDIT: Just sigged you Lemmy, to enshrine your lunacy forever!

Lemur

08-17-2012, 03:03

After all, we all want to live in the USSR.
It's like a Stalin Godwin.

So you are against people who do behaviors that are likely to get them contagious diseases?
Nope, not even vaguely what I wrote. I'm pro-vaccination, especially for children. Read some history, amigo, and check out how much fun summers were when children would randomly become paralyzed by the summer illness (https://www.google.com/search?q=polio+children&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=AKctULCsJcWWywHN_IH4Aw&ved=0CHIQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=955). Really, if there's one thing medical science can point to as an unqualified success, it's childhood vaccination. The fact that some wingnut loonies and vegan yoga nuts have decided to opt out of the system? (Or more importantly, opted their children out of the system.) Not cool. And your willful ignorance about history and epidemiology really makes me wonder if you were home-schooled. Badly.

Any other draconian ideas you wanna throw out? I'm sure we could apply you nutty principle to lots of things!
Yes, vaccination against preventable disease like polio and meningitis is nutty. Next I'll be claiming the Earth is round and the Sun isn't the center of the universe.

Translation: "Vuk is a danger to children! We need to force him and others like him to not leave their houses and never go near children or healthy normal people!"
You are, by your own admission, completely unimmunized. So yeah, you can please stay the hell away from my kids. All kids, if you're going to be considerate.

You go around accusing people of being dangerous to children pretty freely, jackass.
And I've never met someone so actively hostile to simple things that make life better for everyone. Read some history, learn some basic facts about epidemiology. Or at least make a coherent argument against immunizations, something better than your sister having a bad reaction to a flu shot.

Tellos Athenaios

08-17-2012, 03:03

Ehrm no. You see one of the very nice properties of nearly all STDs is that, well, they are S-TD as opposed to Cough-TD etc. That makes STDs "mostly harmless" by comparison, doubly so since most of them are, again, not lethal whereas a typical property of child's diseases is that yes, in fact, they can be severe enough to kill (particularly babies and todlers). Furthermore apparently unlike wherever you live, the typical environment in which a child contracts a disease would be that small room which it spends a lot of time in together with many other kids in the same "class"; plus again, children at risk of childs disease (age 5-6, age 9, age 12 are specific "milestones" for vaccines) are not generally sexually active enough to get an STD....

This means that you, Vuk, might not be such a big risk factor for the Lemurlings but the good quacks kids are.

Major Robert Dump

08-17-2012, 03:24

Vuk I was being sarcastic about you being a hillbilly. I know you graduated from Hope University

Making people (kids) get common vaccines is no more or less of an infringement on our "civil liberties" than making people have a drivers license and carry car insurance. It is basically a law put in place to keep one guy from screwing over the many. It's the same reason they pull a kid with lice out of class and put him in with the special ed kids, because no one cares if the retarded kids have lice, in fact, it is to be expected. Okay I made that last part up.

You may not get vaccineated but you may live a more healthy lifestyle than many. People who do not vaccinate due to alternative methods of health is only so acceptable, because next you will have people who do not vaccinate their kids because of the cost, or the headache, or the time it takes to drive downtown. Not the kids fault, not your fault, but fault is inconsequential when it comes to a contagious illness and my kid gets sick because Jimmy's mom could not be bothered to take him to the health department. Look around, we are hamstrung and punished in all sorts of manner for the health and safety of other. Only gonna get worse, amigo.

My mother and her 4 siblings were struck with polio when they were kids, and they were all crippled for years after eradication. My much older sister also had it, one of only 100 cases that year, she was on her little gimp crutches the first 4 years of her life. I kinda take the issue seriously.

naut

08-17-2012, 05:03

No they aren't a conspiracy. People who believe they are are either looking stylish in a tinfoil hat or are misinformed. That said, it's a good idea to research what each vaccine contains and be aware of known side-affects. You can be cautious, without being foolish.

You should undermine that crazy chiropractor, bring forth the evidence for a factual smack-down.

Hax

08-17-2012, 08:49

Well you obviously weren't covered up.

Yeah, it's all her fault. >:|

rory_20_uk

08-17-2012, 09:33

My mother took me out ice skating when I was one and I got meningitis. Nearly killed me, too.

Correlation, not causation.

Flu not dangerous? The Flu Pandemic of 1918 killed more than WW1. An unusual strain, for sure. Do we know if one will return? No.

I can't find the words to properly relay my contempt/disgust/anger at such idiots. That they bred in the first place is polluting the gene pool.

~:smoking:

Hax

08-17-2012, 10:38

Correlation, not causation.

Perhaps. Still, it developed from an infection of the ears. Funny thing is, when we went to our doctor he basically said there was nothing wrong. Then we went to my godfather, who happens to be a child doctor and he advised us to go to hospital anyway. There they diagnosed I had meningitis.

...go on.

Furunculus

08-17-2012, 11:28

rory_20_uk

08-17-2012, 11:36

Perhaps. Still, it developed from an infection of the ears. Funny thing is, when we went to our doctor he basically said there was nothing wrong. Then we went to my godfather, who happens to be a child doctor and he advised us to go to hospital anyway. There they diagnosed I had meningitis.

...go on.

It happens. Generally otitis to mastoiditis first then onto meningitis. Sod all to do with the cold. And given the history it'd be bacterial when it is viruses which do better at lower temperatures.

~:smoking:

aimlesswanderer

08-17-2012, 12:33

A little girl who was to young to be vaccinated died in NSW of whooping cough (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/whooping-cough-kills-baby/story-e6frg8y6-1111119093659) in an area of the state with a very low vaccination rate. The most vocal of the Australian organisations denying that vaccines are useful then allegedly claimed that the girl "supposedly died from whooping cough?". See transcript of interview (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2951651.htm).

Sir Moody

08-17-2012, 12:33

we had the controversy over the triple-vaccine in the UK about ten years ago, with lots of concerned parents refusing to see their kids get it because of a heightened risk of autism.

that is their right, but it is deeply irresponsible and i would happily shun any parent stupid enough to do that for exactly the herd-immunity reason you mention.

short answer - don't conflate legal-compulsion with being socially ostracised.

to make things worse it was a manufactured controversy as well (read the link I provided earlier) - there was never any evidence linking the Jab to Autism and the guy who "manufactured" the link was A) being paid to do so by a Medical malpractice lawyer (over £400k by the end) and B) had just patented his own vaccine which was not as cost effective and thus was worthless if the triple jab continued

Furunculus

08-17-2012, 12:36

indeed so.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-17-2012, 13:16

Hmm Chiropractor nuff said really

Um, no. Chiropractors are not, generally, like that. Mine isn't - in fact neither of my two chiropractors are like that.

I always thought that immunity meant...well, that you're immune. The only way unvaccinated kids would be a threat if it were a virus that mutates quickly enough to make the vaccination obsolete.

That said, parents who don't vaccinate* their kids are A) free riders B) idiots, whose behaviour borders on child abuse

(*for the essentials like polio and whatnot)

Bingo - viruses that spread are viruses that mutate.

gaelic cowboy

08-17-2012, 14:03

Um, no. Chiropractors are not, generally, like that. Mine isn't - in fact neither of my two chiropractors are like that.

Yes they are and a huge majority of the medical and scientific community agrees with me.

And even if it was real which it's not what the hell would a back pain guy know about vaccination.

Lemur

08-17-2012, 14:24

what the hell would a back pain guy know about vaccination.
That's the real issue. I'm not interested in whether chiropractors know about joints, or whether massage therapists know about muscle tissue. But for someone in a non-related field to make pronouncements about vaccination and epidemiology is fifty shades of no way.

drone

08-17-2012, 15:08

Flu not dangerous? The Flu Pandemic of 1918 killed more than WW1. An unusual strain, for sure. Do we know if one will return? No.
To clarify, I never said that the flu was not dangerous. I just said that the non-pandemic influenza vaccine is not worth it. Too many mutations in the strains, and when a true killer like the Spanish flu comes around, odds are the vaccine will not stop it. We are about 2 months away from the next flu scare, with news orgs breathlessly going on about the unstoppable avian-feline H7N2 strain destined to kill 20% of the population. ~:rolleyes:

With diseases like polio and pertussis, by all means get immunized. And if a potent flu strain hits, get the strain specific jab. But until they come up with a better influenza vaccine that targets whole strains based on the fundamentals, it's just whack-a-mole.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-17-2012, 15:12

Yes they are and a huge majority of the medical and scientific community agrees with me.

And even if it was real which it's not what the hell would a back pain guy know about vaccination.

See - this is reverse ignorance at work.

A Chiropractor manipulates your skeletal muscles, that's a real thing - I know because one worked on my left shoulder for three months and brought it back to functionality from basically useless, the whole arm that is, when the doctor just said "rest it", which I had been doing for months.

We're talking about a marked visual difference in posture here, not just an absense of pain.

What the NHS says: http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1098.aspx?CategoryID=68&SubCategoryID=154

Muscle pain and spasms can cause or exagerate all manner of problems, either directly or because they encourage bad posture.

They have nothing to do with vaccinations or infectious diseases, beyond the obvious point that anything that puts you out of sorts will hamper your immune system.

Now, as I said, I know two chiropractors personally - who have children - and neither would suggest you not see a doctor if you felt ill. what they would both say is that GP's don't no as much about muscles and joints as they do - which is manifestly true when you consider that if you tell your GP you have clicking joints they will shrug and say there's nothing to be done.

Talk to a specialist doctor or a chiropractor and they will tell you differently - and then fix it.

Lemur

08-17-2012, 15:34

Fun fact heard on the radio today: Wisconsin had 3,000 cases of whooping cough this year (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hRzXvIF2ZNE_u23GTYybU6DN538A?docId=ae1ad7cd922e440eb33dc460e3abe635). Best thing about whooping cough is that the normal vaccination schedule doesn't fully work on babies until they're six months old. Oh, and it can kill.

So that's half a year you get to wonder if unimmunized hippies and/or rednecks will inadvertently kill your child. Wheeeeeee!

They can take our lives, but they can never take ... our freeeedom ... to be complete morons! [/Braveheart]

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-17-2012, 15:47

Major Robert Dump

08-17-2012, 15:58

Major Robert Dump

08-17-2012, 16:05

Lemur

I am trolling u on FB

Lemur

08-17-2012, 18:58

So the idiot child-endangering chiropractic quack has posted two sources to support his argument that we should all die of preventable diseases. One is a self-published memoir (http://dptshots.com/aboutauthor.html), the other is a vaguely official-looking PDF (http://www.thinktwice.com/Polio.pdf) from a vaccine denialist website (http://www.thinktwice.com/).

So much concentrated stupid.

Xiahou

08-17-2012, 19:17

To clarify, I never said that the flu was not dangerous. I just said that the non-pandemic influenza vaccine is not worth it. Too many mutations in the strains, and when a true killer like the Spanish flu comes around, odds are the vaccine will not stop it. Studies suggest that flu vaccines are still effective even when there's a mismatch in the viruses vaccinated vs what spreads...

What if there is a mismatch between circulating viruses and the vaccine viruses?

A “mismatch” is said to occur when the viruses in the vaccine are significantly different from those circulating in the community. In years when the vaccine strains are not well matched to circulating strains, vaccine effectiveness can be reduced. However, even when the viruses in the vaccine and circulating viruses are not well matched, a vaccine may still offer some protection against circulating viruses.

For example, in a study among persons 50-64 years of age during the 2003-04 influenza season, when the vaccine strains were not optimally matched, inactivated influenza vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed influenza was 60% among persons without high-risk conditions, and 48% among those with high risk conditions. However, vaccine effectiveness was 90% against laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalization (Herrera, et al Vaccine 2006). A study in children during the same year found vaccine effectiveness of about 50% against medically diagnosed influenza and pneumonia without laboratory confirmation (Ritzwoller, Pediatrics 2005). Still, in some years when vaccine and circulating strains were not well-matched, no vaccine effectiveness may be able to be demonstrated (Bridges, JAMA 2000). It is not possible in advance of the influenza season to predict how well the vaccine and circulating strains will be matched, and how that may affect vaccine effectiveness. For more information, see Vaccine Effectiveness - How Well Does the Flu Vaccine Work?
link (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/virusqa.htm#mismatch)

Obviously, the closer the match, the more effective the vaccine- but don't make the mistake of thinking that means the flu vaccine is completely useless.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-17-2012, 19:26

We have to pay for some of them, for the wierd stuff. BUT your typical county health department will give them out either for free or at a greatly reduced rate.In fact, my county has a drive-thru vaccination clinic, all of it 100% free for kids or seniorsAh, well part of the problem you have then is probably the American aversion to healthcare - that'll get you coming and going. cost averse won't want to pay, and if you roll out a Federal program of free vaccinations (this is ultimately a US-wide issue) people will cry "conspiracy" or "nanny state".Almost makes you wish there was a nanny state conspiracy, doesn't it?

drone

08-17-2012, 20:04

Studies suggest that flu vaccines are still effective even when there's a mismatch in the viruses vaccinated vs what spreads...

Obviously, the closer the match, the more effective the vaccine- but don't make the mistake of thinking that means the flu vaccine is completely useless.
Not disputing that either. But pushing the non-pandemic vaccine on the general populace (not just those most vulnerable or in health services) every year for a disease that usually results in just a few days of downtime, doesn't always work, and has a fairly high rate of immediate side effects, seems unwise in the long run. Perception matters, which is kinda the point of this whole thread.

Sir Moody

08-17-2012, 20:57

We don't do that here in ole Blighty - here only the at Risk groups get free flu jabs and anyone else has to "request" them and pay a fee - you are generally not encouraged to get a flu jab unless you really need one

rvg

08-17-2012, 21:03

From personal experience I have to say that flu vaccines are great. Since I started getting flu shots, I no longer fear the flu season.

Strike For The South

08-17-2012, 21:15

I don't get sick because I am a grown man

Also, someone needs to post the billy Madison clip where they call Vuk an idiot

Lemur

08-17-2012, 22:01

Okay, based on my experience with this loony vaccine denier, and our recent experience with a Holocaust denier, I have a broader question;

For most of us, more information is good. A variety of views and data help us arrive at a position that is supportable, or at least logical.

Why does this fall apart with conspiracy nuts? Why are they able to ignore all standard models of knowledge, and just thump along with confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias)? For most of us, if we're presented with ten scientific peer-reviewed papers that say gravity is real, and one loonbat website that says gravity is a Jewish hoax, we reach the conclusion that gravity is probably real.

But a conspiracy nut disregards the consensus, points to the fringe website or loony scholar or self-published Gravity Is A Lie book, and they believe they've revealed some secret truth.

What is this psychology? What fuels it? What sustains it? Why are conspiracy nuts so impervious to reality-based consensus? It seems almost like a mental disorder.

drone

08-17-2012, 22:08

From personal experience I have to say that flu vaccines are great. Since I started getting flu shots, I no longer fear the flu season.
And I haven't gotten the flu since I bought this rock! ~D

I don't fear the flu because I played in dirt as a child, and am still exposed to germs of all kinds on a regular basis instead of trying to live in triclosan-drenched bubble. I follow George Carlin's reasoning on the immune system - Practice, practice, practice. Needless to say, many swear words. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X29lF43mUlo)

CBR

08-18-2012, 02:13

What is this psychology? What fuels it? What sustains it? Why are conspiracy nuts so impervious to reality-based consensus? It seems almost like a mental disorder.
As Stephen Colbert said: Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

A long but interesting article by Chris Mooney The science of why we don't believe science (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney) might be what you are looking for.

After watching the YouTube video you linked to ( 6 minutes of stupid I will never get back) I had to watch Health, vaccinations and junk science (http://youtu.be/P0ZZTjChW4o) again, just to regain some of my sanity.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-18-2012, 02:33

Major Robert Dump

08-18-2012, 03:23

I keep my immune system in top working order by sharing intimate moments with street walkers.

a completely inoffensive name

08-18-2012, 03:28

The sad part is while we mock the morons, children still die from diseases once thought to be cliches of the 1800s.

Papewaio

08-18-2012, 05:53

Not taking a complete course of antibiotics gives an opportunity to create mutant strains.

Not completely immunizing a population gives an opportunity to create mutant strains.

In essence the selfish who don't get immunized are a Darwin award for the entire community. They are a very real case of endangering everyone due to gross negligence.

Vuk

08-18-2012, 17:20

Vuk

08-18-2012, 17:33

So that's half a year you get to wonder if unimmunized hippies and/or rednecks will inadvertently kill your child. Wheeeeeee!

lmao! Lemur, you are a class A nutjob. No offense, but you really are. I wish you could get a little 'unwrapped' from you crazy beliefs so you could step back and see just how crazy you sound.

Ehrm no. You see one of the very nice properties of nearly all STDs is that, well, they are S-TD as opposed to Cough-TD etc. That makes STDs "mostly harmless" by comparison, doubly so since most of them are, again, not lethal whereas a typical property of child's diseases is that yes, in fact, they can be severe enough to kill (particularly babies and todlers). Furthermore apparently unlike wherever you live, the typical environment in which a child contracts a disease would be that small room which it spends a lot of time in together with many other kids in the same "class"; plus again, children at risk of childs disease (age 5-6, age 9, age 12 are specific "milestones" for vaccines) are not generally sexually active enough to get an STD....

This means that you, Vuk, might not be such a big risk factor for the Lemurlings but the good quacks kids are.

Oh, really? And your kids are not gonna kiss anyone at school? Do you know how many STDs (HIV for instance) are transmitted largely by NON-sexual contact? All it takes is a kiss, someone who rubbed their eye to touch a doorhandle, and then for you to rub your eye after touching that doorhandle, someone sneezing and some of the mist touching the rim of the cup you are drinking out of, etc, etc. STDs don't put kids at risk? Tell that to Africa.
Sorry TA, but I would be much more worried about whores (no, I don't mean that in a gender specific way) than I would people who don't get vaccines.

Tellos Athenaios

08-18-2012, 18:03

Oh, really? And your kids are not gonna kiss anyone at school? Do you know how many STDs (HIV for instance) are transmitted largely by NON-sexual contact? All it takes is a kiss, someone who rubbed their eye to touch a doorhandle, and then for you to rub your eye after touching that doorhandle, someone sneezing and some of the mist touching the rim of the cup you are drinking out of, etc, etc. STDs don't put kids at risk? Tell that to Africa.
Sorry TA, but I would be much more worried about whores (no, I don't mean that in a gender specific way) than I would people who don't get vaccines.

First of all HIV, in particular, is not transmitted via kissing handshaking, coughing, sneezing or eye rubbing. With the exception of handshaking, those are all typical vectors for transmission of those child's diseases that make them so contagious and precisely why vaccination is of paramount importance to combat them.

Secondly, the easiest way for STDs the spread is through blood contact. In case of HIV, breastfeeding is another vector.

Sir Moody

08-18-2012, 18:04

Vuk have you bothered to read any of the links provided?

People who don't vaccinate their kids ARE risking the lives of other kids

No vaccine is 100% proof and we rely on Herd immunity to weed these diseases fully out

Yes STD's are generally harder to spread - the diseases we vaccinate against are generally spread via airborne particles

you cannot get Aids from kissing (see http://www.avert.org/can-you-get-hiv-aids.htm)

frankly YOU are sounding the crazy one and while Lemur sounds "enthused" he is perfectly rational in his beliefs

Major Robert Dump

08-18-2012, 18:08

Vuk just defeated his own argument with his own argument. Classic.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-18-2012, 18:13

Oh really? Because I remember reading that bacteria responds to anti-biotics and mutates to more dangerous forms as a result.

That's if you don't take the whole course some of the bacteria then survives and develops an immunity.

Think of it like this - you have a cave full of terrorists, you could just throw in one white phosphorus grenade and hope it burns them all, or you could throw in three. If you only throw in one you run the risk of one of the terrorists surviving and learning about Willie Peter.

See?

Vuk

08-18-2012, 18:16

frankly YOU are sounding the crazy one and while Lemur sounds "enthused" he is perfectly rational in his beliefs

Yes, accusing people who choose not to stick needles all througout themselves of being child-murderers is a perfectly rational thing.

Do you know how many parents don't force their kids to wash their hands before they eat, or cover their mouth when they sneeze, etc, etc? I would be a lot more worried about that than someone who doesn't want their kids to recieve federally-mandated accupuncture treatment.

Vuk

08-18-2012, 18:24

That's if you don't take the whole course some of the bacteria then survives and develops an immunity.

Think of it like this - you have a cave full of terrorists, you could just throw in one white phosphorus grenade and hope it burns them all, or you could throw in three. If you only throw in one you run the risk of one of the terrorists surviving and learning about Willie Peter.

See?

I'll put it this way PVC, I know tons of people who get all their shots who get a lot sicker, a lot more often than members of my family who have not. I also know some un-immunized people who get sick a lot, and some immunized people who never get sick. The deciding factor does not seem to be whether or not they get immunized. People who never (or hardly ever) get sick in my experience, whether immunized or not are almost always the people who eat healthily, are active, and get lots of sleep.
I really have not seen any significant difference between the immunized and the unimmunized.

I'll live a relatively healthy lifestyle and be clean, and I will probably end up being much less of a threat to anyone's children than a huge amount of those who are immunized who eat shit food, who aren't clean, etc, etc.

The science is not settled on vaccines, and while some vaccines seem completely harmless to take, others are not. One type is completely different than another. I will put nothing in my body until there are enough years of proven results, without large cases of bad side-effects, and there is a scientific consensus on the issue. That is not yet the case with many vaccines.

Sir Moody

08-18-2012, 18:57

The science is not settled on vaccines, and while some vaccines seem completely harmless to take, others are not. One type is completely different than another. I will put nothing in my body until there are enough years of proven results, without large cases of bad side-effects, and there is a scientific consensus on the issue. That is not yet the case with many vaccines.

see no that isn't the case at all - there IS a scientific consensus on Vaccination - there has been one for decades

the Studies which attempted to prove otherwise have all been discredited - go back and read ALL the links we have posted so far and better still WATCH the video CBR posted - its very good

what you are spouting is typical conspiracy spread by groups who are Anti-Vaccination for what ever reason (be it Religion or Paranoid delusions about Government or "Big Pharma") and who ignore decades of Science and statistical evidence

go look up the World Heath Organisations figures on Measles - it was on the brink of eradication in the 90's but now after 10 years of this stupid Anti-Vac FIRST WORLD countries are seeing an upturn in almost epidemic proportions

you may think "Measles huh so what they can get spotty and itchy for a while and be perfectly fine" but Measles is a KILLER among the very young

now I wouldn't call you a "Murderer" for not vaccinating but you ARE endangering those around you - you are basically gambling with the lives of your entire community

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-18-2012, 19:33

Montmorency

08-18-2012, 20:12

The science is not settled on vaccines

You just profoundly insulted the intelligence of everyone following this thread.

I hope you are happy.

ajaxfetish

08-18-2012, 20:30

Yes, accusing people who choose not to stick needles all througout themselves of being child-murderers is a perfectly rational thing.Yes, accusing people who refuse to help eradicate deadly childhood diseases of endangering others' children is a perfectly rational thing.

I'll put it this way PVC, I know tons of people who get all their shots who get a lot sicker, a lot more often than members of my family who have not. I also know some un-immunized people who get sick a lot, and some immunized people who never get sick. The deciding factor does not seem to be whether or not they get immunized. People who never (or hardly ever) get sick in my experience, whether immunized or not are almost always the people who eat healthily, are active, and get lots of sleep.
I really have not seen any significant difference between the immunized and the unimmunized. The most commonly experienced disease by far is the common cold, for which there is no vaccine. So, of course, both immunized people and non-immunized people are going to get sick in similar numbers. The fortunate thing is that the common cold is relatively harmless. How many immunized people do you know who are getting measles or rubella, or whooping cough? I'm guessing not a lot. As long as people like you are around, though, they'll still be here to infect children who are too young to be immunized, people with allergic reactions to vaccines, people for whom the vaccine doesn't prove effective, and of course folks like you who intentionally avoid immunization. And unfortunately, unlike the cold, these can be pretty deadly, meaning you may be making possible the deaths of people in any of those groups.

I'll live a relatively healthy lifestyle and be clean, and I will probably end up being much less of a threat to anyone's children than a huge amount of those who are immunized who eat shit food, who aren't clean, etc, etc. Yeah, sloppier people may spread colds around more than you, and give people the sniffles. Somehow I'm not as concerned about that as I am the killer diseases you are a potential vector for.

The science is not settled on vaccines, and while some vaccines seem completely harmless to take, others are not. One type is completely different than another. I will put nothing in my body until there are enough years of proven results, without large cases of bad side-effects, and there is a scientific consensus on the issue. That is not yet the case with many vaccines.
The science is settled. You are waiting for a consensus that has already arrived, so you will presumably remain a danger to others for the rest of your life, for no good reason.

Ajax

Vuk

08-18-2012, 20:30

You just profoundly insulted the intelligence of everyone following this thread.

I hope you are happy.

Yes, and on evolution and man-made global warming as well. :rolleyes: I know.

rory_20_uk

08-18-2012, 20:32

Montmorency

08-18-2012, 20:37

Yes, and on evolution and man-made global warming as well. I know.

Are you looking for a low whistle, or something?

jirisys

08-18-2012, 22:43

I also know some un-immunized people who get sick a lot, and some immunized people who never get sick. The deciding factor does not seem to be whether or not they get immunized. People who never (or hardly ever) get sick in my experience, whether immunized or not are almost always the people who eat healthily, are active, and get lots of sleep.

Are you actually being serious? No one is saying that immunization stops you from getting any disease. That's asinine.

People get immunized from a particular disease. You don't see many smallpox-immunized people getting smallpox do you now?

Same thing happens with antibiotics, you stop taking them after you don't feel any more symptoms but you haven't finished the dose (or use one of those goddamn antibacterial soap). Now you got stuff like Beta-Lactamase producing e. Coli, who laugh at your puny attempts to treat them with penicillin.

I really have not seen any significant difference between the immunized and the unimmunized.

That's because there shouldn't be. Except one can easily contract Polio and could potentially start an epidemic, and the other most likely won't.

I'll live a relatively healthy lifestyle and be clean, and I will probably end up being much less of a threat to anyone's children than a huge amount of those who are immunized who eat shit food, who aren't clean, etc, etc.

I'm glad you do.

But no, because the common cold is scarcely mortal to children. Yellow fever is. And if you get bitten by a carrying mosquito, you will likely die a horrible death
(or live horrible days in a hospital bed). If you had vaccinated, you would have had around a 70% chance of not getting the virus at all.

The science is not settled on vaccines, and while some vaccines seem completely harmless to take, others are not. One type is completely different than another. I will put nothing in my body until there are enough years of proven results, without large cases of bad side-effects, and there is a scientific consensus on the issue. That is not yet the case with many vaccines.

Yes it is. Ask any scientist, you will not find one that is not condescending to you for even asking about it.

It's a risk, side-effects can be pretty bad, but compromising herd immunity and risking the life of a kid (or an adult, or many kids, or many adults) is much more important than a few days feeling like crap.

Enough years? Enough years? Go and try to get smallpox, I mean it. The only samples of viruses left are kept in laboratories, why? Vaccination. We eradicated a whole disease with vaccination, is that not proof enough? The disease has been around for millenia, and we eradicated it in only 200 years. There has not been any case of smallpox since the 90's. If that is not proof enough, then I don't know what is.

~Jirisys ()

Ironside

08-18-2012, 23:34

Yes, and on evolution and man-made global warming as well. :rolleyes: I know.

Let me put it this way, the data on vaccinations are comparable to man 200 years ago asking the question: can you breed dogs larger? And then document the breeding until now.

For the greenhouse effect in global warming, it's building a greenhouse and seeing if it's warmer inside the greenhouse.

Are vaccines 100% safe? No, but they are probably the largest life saver in medicine ever (the other possible contestant are antibiotics) and for the "childhood" (doesn't always happen during childhood, although in an unvaccinated population, pretty much everybody will have it before the childhood ends, no matter the degree of personal cleanliness, hence the name. Same are worse to have at older ages) diseases, it's settled and the side effects are nothing compared to the disease.
Vaccine against flu is pretty much the only one where there's a question and it's not if it's better to vaccinate (it is on average), it's if it's worth the bother.

Oh, really? And your kids are not gonna kiss anyone at school? Do you know how many STDs (HIV for instance) are transmitted largely by NON-sexual contact? All it takes is a kiss, someone who rubbed their eye to touch a doorhandle, and then for you to rub your eye after touching that doorhandle, someone sneezing and some of the mist touching the rim of the cup you are drinking out of, etc, etc. STDs don't put kids at risk? Tell that to Africa.
Sorry TA, but I would be much more worried about whores (no, I don't mean that in a gender specific way) than I would people who don't get vaccines.

It's 0. Null. Zero. Nada. Sitch. None.
STV, Sexually transmitted diseases are only named as such when the primary vector of infection (by a large margin) is sexual contact.
What you're saying is comparable to saying that there exist Christians who doesn't believe in Jesus Christ, when it's the defining feature.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-18-2012, 23:48

Yes, and on evolution and man-made global warming as well. :rolleyes: I know.

As a Christian, I find the views on Evolution to be the most absurd.

jirisys

08-18-2012, 23:54

As a Christian, I find the views on Evolution to be the most absurd.

Will this tread become a list of things the Orgahs don't believe about scientific consensus?

Because I won't have anything to say off the top of my head. Cause. Y'know. I'm normal.

Well, except string theory. But hey; it's string theory.

~Jirisys ()

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-19-2012, 00:03

Will this tread become a list of things the Orgahs don't believe about scientific consensus?

Because I won't have anything to say off the top of my head. Cause. Y'know. I'm normal.

Well, except string theory. But hey; it's string theory.

~Jirisys ()

rewind, read the post again.

You're suffering from word blindness, you see "Christian" and "Evolution" in a sentence and you don't read the rest of it.

jirisys

08-19-2012, 01:04

rewind, read the post again.

You're suffering from word blindness, you see "Christian" and "Evolution" in a sentence and you don't read the rest of it.

Would you believe me if I claim dyslexia? I guess not.

I do apologize for the mistake though. I have lapses sometimes.

~Jirisys ()

Vuk

08-19-2012, 01:20

I never said I objected to all vaccines (there are only some I am suspicious of), my objection was to government mandated injections. (as some on this forum were arguing for)
People should have the right to not be vaccinated if they choose. You may argue that it may hurt others in the long run, but so does people voting for Obama. You cannot mandate people stop though, as they must be free to do what they feel right, even if it is stupid. As long as they are not intentionally or directly killing/robbing/etc, mind your own business. I have not gotten any injections, mainly because I am always broke and have never had the time. There are some (such as the flu vaccine) that you would have to kill me if you wanted to inject it in my body.

Beskar

08-19-2012, 01:22

You're suffering from word blindness, you see "Christian" and "Evolution" in a sentence and you don't read the rest of it.

It does lack some context as to which particular views on evolution you find to be to be absurd, though in context, I would assume Vuk's.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-19-2012, 01:34

Would you believe me if I claim dyslexia? I guess not.

I do apologize for the mistake though. I have lapses sometimes.

~Jirisys ()

Given that I suffer from it too - no, but I don't take it personally either.

It does lack some context as to which particular views on evolution you find to be to be absurd, though in context, I would assume Vuk's.

Do I really have to gratify that with an answer after all these years?

jirisys

08-19-2012, 01:48

People should have the right to not be vaccinated if they choose. You may argue that it may hurt others in the long run, but so does people voting for Obama.

Whether Obama is hurting others in the long run is subjective and untestable until after it happens. You can scientifically prove that not undergoing vaccination is actually harmful.

You cannot mandate people stop though, as they must be free to do what they feel right, even if it is stupid. As long as they are not intentionally or directly killing/robbing/etc, mind your own business.

You might think this is the same argument as the "We shouldn't wear helmets on our bikes". But it isn't. It affects other people (herd immunity, for the 10th time someone has told you this).

So according to your logic, manslaughter should not be a crime? Because it's usually not intentional? Even so, these people are intentionally putting the life of other at risk, even more than a simple robbery could do, whether they understand it or not is irrelevant.

Given that I suffer from it too - no, but I don't take it personally either.

I don't have dyslexia (hopefully), I was just scapegoating. Sorry about the misleading statement.

~Jirisys ()

ajaxfetish

08-19-2012, 02:06

Montmorency

08-19-2012, 02:44

Given that I suffer from it too - no, but I don't take it personally either.

Holy hell, all this time I thought you were doing it to seem clever.

I have an idea for a apocalyptic-bio-thriller or whatever:

August 2030

Climate change has been logistically, if not politically, congenial to miners, loggers, and shippers. As prospectors conclude a survey of land in deepest Siberia, they make an unexpected contact: Old Believers. The Russian-speakers on the team can hardly understand them, but eventually decide to follow them. Arriving a hundred-acre clearing in the taiga, they note what appears to be a burial procession. The After a few hours of attempted communication with the locals, and having allowed the recluses to feel their synthetic fabrics all over, they record the location and return to their base camp. "The press is gonna love it", one says. "The last uncontacted groups in the world."

Two weeks later, back in the Dniepropetrovsk offices, one of the party comes down with a sudden fever and unpleasant rash. He takes the rest of the week off.

...

December 2030

Smallpox.

The world is in chaos. Medical facilities were overwhelmed by the first waves. Nations executed the initial stages of the respose plan speedily and competently. However...

Religious fundamentalists of all stripes have proclaimed the end-times. Armed groups of them have occupied state health agencies, hospitals, research laboratories and academic institutions around the world; they have killed all the science guys. Military and security forces are in disarray, as the senior citizens of the world are the best-equipped for this crisis. The CDC facility has been razed to the ground.

On Christmas Eve, former Japanese SFG commando Hiro Takayaki has been called out of retirement to lead a hand-picked multinational team to Koltsovo - accompanied by the last living science guy, Douglas Mason - to retrieve the last remaining smallpox sample. On Christmas Day, all contact is lost with the VDV brigade stationed in Koltsovo...

This New Year's, all sing Auld Lang Syne.
:clown:

Vuk

08-19-2012, 03:47

You might think this is the same argument as the "We shouldn't wear helmets on our bikes". But it isn't. It affects other people (herd immunity, for the 10th time someone has told you this).

When you don't wear your helmet, you are much more likely to be injured and put a strain on the health-care system that will affect others. As more people carelessly injure themselves in a bad economy, health insurance companies will become bankrupt, and the government will take over till it goes bankrupt, then China will attack us to make us pay our debts. You see, that will cost many more lives.
~;)
Seriously though, even hurting yourself in isolation affects others in ways that go way beyond your own health.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-19-2012, 04:20

Holy hell, all this time I thought you were doing it to seem clever.

I have an idea for a apocalyptic-bio-thriller or whatever:

Doing what?

Spelling badly?

Tuuvi

08-19-2012, 04:31

I'll put it this way PVC, I know tons of people who get all their shots who get a lot sicker, a lot more often than members of my family who have not. I also know some un-immunized people who get sick a lot, and some immunized people who never get sick. The deciding factor does not seem to be whether or not they get immunized. People who never (or hardly ever) get sick in my experience, whether immunized or not are almost always the people who eat healthily, are active, and get lots of sleep.
I really have not seen any significant difference between the immunized and the unimmunized.

I'll live a relatively healthy lifestyle and be clean, and I will probably end up being much less of a threat to anyone's children than a huge amount of those who are immunized who eat shit food, who aren't clean, etc, etc.

The science is not settled on vaccines, and while some vaccines seem completely harmless to take, others are not. One type is completely different than another. I will put nothing in my body until there are enough years of proven results, without large cases of bad side-effects, and there is a scientific consensus on the issue. That is not yet the case with many vaccines.

I don't think you understand how vaccines work or what they are. Like people have already said, vaccines target a specific disease; they don't prevent you from getting sick in general.

When your immune system is fighting a disease, it learns the signature of that disease and develops antibodies to defeat it. These antibodies then circulate throughout your body, looking for anything that resembles the disease they were made to defend against. If they find it, they immediately bind themselves to the disease causing pathogen and destroy it, before it can infect your body. This is why people usually don't get diseases like chicken pox more than once.

A vaccine is a non-disease causing form of the pathogen. They work by stimulating your immune system to make antibodies for the disease without making you sick from it.

Tuuvi

08-19-2012, 04:34

oops double post

Vuk

08-19-2012, 04:34

I don't think you understand how vaccines work or what they are. Like people have already said, vaccines target a specific disease; they don't prevent you from getting sick in general.

When your immune system is fighting a disease, it learns the signature of that disease and develops antibodies to defeat it. These antibodies then circulate throughout your body, looking for anything that resembles the disease they were made to defend against. If they find it, they immediately bind themselves to the disease causing pathogen and destroy it, before it can infect your body. This is why people usually don't get diseases like chicken pox more than once.

A vaccine is a non-disease causing form of the pathogen. They work by stimulating your immune system to make antibodies for the disease without making you sick from it.

No, I am talking about real world benefits. How many people walk around with smallpox? Why do you have to talk a smallpox vaccine if you cannot afford it?

Tuuvi

08-19-2012, 04:51

No, I am talking about real world benefits. How many people walk around with smallpox? Why do you have to talk a smallpox vaccine if you cannot afford it?

I thought you were talking about how you know a bunch of people who still get sick even though they were vaccinated.

The real world benefits are easy to see. If I get the chicken pox vaccine, I won't get chickenpox. If I get the polio vaccine, I won't get polio, and I won't become a cripple or die. If everyone that is able gets the polio vaccine, then the disease will die out because there won't be anyone left to infect and the disease won't be able to spread.

Beskar

08-19-2012, 05:13

No, I am talking about real world benefits. How many people walk around with smallpox?

You know... you are answering your own question with that. Real world benefits is that these diseases which were big time killers are now so 'trivial' due to vaccinations in your mind. It is quite mind boggling.

Papewaio

08-19-2012, 05:26

For Australia I would have another trigger for the Medicare surcharge. High income earners who don't have private health insurance pay an extra 1% tax.

I think for the health of the nation
A). All citizens should pay the Surcharge if they aren't immunized. Helps pay for the lack of herd immunity and your future illness.
B). You can't get a passport without immunization. No going out and bringing a little nasty bug home.
C). Likewise you can't get into the country without proof of vaccination. They do it for horses and pets, why not humans.

=][=

For the US since a healthy state is an easier state to defend. I'd make it a requirement that a well organized militia includes vaccinations. This will put the on par with the military.

So in essence to get a gun you'd need a clean criminal record and a clean bill of health. Want a gun? Get vaccinated.

jirisys

08-19-2012, 05:30

When you don't wear your helmet, you are much more likely to be injured and put a strain on the health-care system that will affect others. As more people carelessly injure themselves in a bad economy, health insurance companies will become bankrupt, and the government will take over till it goes bankrupt, then China will attack us to make us pay our debts. You see, that will cost many more lives.
~;)
Seriously though, even hurting yourself in isolation affects others in ways that go way beyond your own health.

Does a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil cause a tornado in Kansas? No.

What you are saying is ridiculous because you think there's a small mortality rate when you get injured without a helmet on a motorcycle accident, it isn't. Bonk you naked head on the ground at 60 Kmph, you're either dead, or BCS: in a coma for 30 minutes before you're dead.

Also, even if you survived, multi-million dollar companies aren't really that hurt when they pay medical bills to a few more people.

No, I am talking about real world benefits. How many people walk around with smallpox? Why do you have to talk a smallpox vaccine if you cannot afford it?

None (Why is it none? Vaccines. Ergo, you lost your argument). So that it stays at none.

I think for the health of the nation
A). All citizens should pay the Surcharge if they aren't immunized. Helps pay for the lack of herd immunity and your future illness.
B). You can't get a passport without immunization. No going out and bringing a little nasty bug home.
C). Likewise you can't get into the country without proof of vaccination. They do it for horses and pets, why not humans.

Oh thanks for thinking about us trypanophobes, can't I opt out and be fondled by a fat man instead?

~Jirisys ()

Vuk

08-19-2012, 06:49

Does a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil cause a tornado in Kansas? No.
I'm not sure if you got that this was a joke making fun of the previous poster's apocalyptic scenarios.
What you are saying is ridiculous because you think there's a small mortality rate when you get injured without a helmet on a motorcycle accident, it isn't. Bonk you naked head on the ground at 60 Kmph, you're either dead, or BCS: in a coma for 30 minutes before you're dead.
Dude, I never wear a helmet when I bike, and I have fallen down and hit my head several times (and did quite a bit as a kid). Sure, there is a big danger, but it is not as big as you are making out to be.
None (Why is it none? Vaccines. Ergo, you lost your argument). So that it stays at none.
My point is that since majority of people get vaccinated, it hurts nothing for the few who don't believe in it to not get vaccinated.

Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my.

jirisys

08-19-2012, 07:40

A joke on the description of the Butterfly Effect (not the bad movie) which is similar to what you said.

There's a difference between riding a motorcycle at 60 Kmph and biking at 15. Accidents are more dangerous.

And yes, a handful people do not actually affect herd immunity that much, in fact the herd immunity from vaccinations actually help them not get deadly diseases that they didn't get immunized for. The problem is when large groups of people don't vaccinate.

I haven't got recently vaccinated for Tetanus, and I avoid oxidized sharp objects like the plague. But hopefully herd immunity might have got ridden of tetanus and protected my sorry trypanophobic ass.

~Jirisys ()

Ironside

08-19-2012, 07:40

My point is that since majority of people get vaccinated, it hurts nothing for the few who don't believe in it to not get vaccinated.

Interesting. Are you keeping the same view on taxes and benefits? Both systems have the same problem with breakdown if too many thinks like you.

Now taxes are a more complicated issue, but pretty much none on the left would defend "Since the majority of people can afford to pay their taxes, it hurts nothing for the few who don't believe in taxes to only live on benefits". And yes, it's taking benefits, not simply not paying taxes. Simply not paying taxes and having no benefits would be the equivalent of living on a totally isolated island.

Kralizec

08-19-2012, 12:58

This thread has got to be the biggest thank-fest ever.

We should thank Vuk for it.

Fragony

08-19-2012, 13:17

The only thing I know is that during the Mexican flue period I was knocked out for a week, I am never sick it was kinda scary. I could hardly stand up and my heart didn't feel quite right, having good friends that will get you your groceries =+1

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-19-2012, 13:31

No, I am talking about real world benefits. How many people walk around with smallpox? Why do you have to talk a smallpox vaccine if you cannot afford it?

There is no Smallpox because we eradicated it through a forced vaccination program - we even closed a temple in India and forced everyone to get the job (the temple was an infection vector and people went in there to get infected).

Now there's no Smallpox, a disease so terrible that even the suggestion of its return would cause mass panic.

Fragony

08-19-2012, 16:14

There is no Smallpox because we eradicated it through a forced vaccination program - we even closed a temple in India and forced everyone to get the job (the temple was an infection vector and people went in there to get infected).

Now there's no Smallpox, a disease so terrible that even the suggestion of its return would cause mass panic.

Oh I wouldnd't bet on that one, it still exists in Africa

jirisys

08-19-2012, 21:42

Oh I wouldnd't bet on that one, it still exists in Africa

No it doesn't.

Henderson and his team mounted ring vaccinations across Bangladesh, and they traced cases and contacts, trying to surround the life form. Finally, in the fall of 1975, they cornered variola on an island off the coast of Bangladesh. It was a marshy, poor place called Bhola Island, and there, on October 16th, a three-year-old girl named Rahima Banu broke with the last case of naturally occurring Variola major anywhere on earth. She survived. Rahima Banu would be twenty-seven years old today; researchers have lost track of her. Doctors from the Smallpox Eradication Unit collected six of the girl's pustules after they had dried into scabs, peeling them off her skin gently, with tweezers. Two years later, on October 26, 1977, the last natural case of the mild type of smallpox, Variola minor, popped up in a cook in Somalia named Ali Maow Maalin. He survived, and the last ring tightened around variola, and its life cycle stopped.
Source: http://cryptome.org/smallpox-wmd.htm

~Jirisys ()

Fragony

08-20-2012, 13:11

I stand corrected

Papewaio

08-20-2012, 13:16

Oh thanks for thinking about us trypanophobes, can't I opt out and be fondled by a fat man instead?

~Jirisys ()

So you'd prefer a meat injection then...

Lots of vaccines are oral. I'm not sure if they all have to be injected. I hated getting needles until I had to take a multi week series of injections that helped my allergies.

Sigurd

08-20-2012, 13:39

My wife is a pharmacist and she would fume over any vaccine denial. As it is, her school medicine has an adversary - those who adhere to nature medicine found in "health stores"... Now, we are acquainted with a family who runs such a store and the mother is very anti-vaccine and has deliberately denied her children any of the state-sanctioned vaccine programs.

Last year, her eldest son got a scholarship, or some sort of education opportunity in England and they were quite exited about it.. until the mandatory health check to get into that program discovered the lack of vital vaccine shots.
This lad of 19 had to take all the shots his mother had denied him in raising him - to get leave to stay in England for an extended period of time. I lol'ed... :sneaky:

Vuk

08-20-2012, 16:34

Lemur

08-20-2012, 16:45

I travelled abroad, and I didn't have to get any shots. :) Claiming religious objections wasn't working for me, till I falsely insinuated I was Jewish (A lot of my family is, I got the stereotypical look, and my name is very Hebrew, so it was not that hard) and then there were no more questions. :P
Then in immunological and epidemiological terms, you are a free-riding, dissembling parasite who is perfectly happy to enjoy the benefits of broad immunization, while skipping the moral and ethical obligation to participate. I see little to no difference between your behavior and a welfare cheat, social security disability scammer, or a farmer on April 15th (http://jonathanturley.org/2011/04/17/wealthy-%E2%80%9Cfaux-farmers%E2%80%9D-get-huge-agricultural-tax-breaks-on-their-properties/). You're taking advantage of the public good without doing anything to maintain it.

You can't even form a coherent argument to support your vaccine denialism, just a lot of "you're loony" and "mandatory immunizations sound like HITLER." I was hoping that someone who opposed vaccines could form a logical argument here, or on the Facebook page where I've been blasting the chiropractor. In both cases I have been disappointed. There's no rationale or logic; just rhetoric, bluster, and epic confirmation bias. Saddening.

Vuk

08-20-2012, 16:52

Lemur

08-20-2012, 16:59

Ain't I nasty? lol Why don't you just put me over your knee and give me the big old spanking I deserve?
Oh no, you don't deserve that kind of fun. "Good girls get spanked, bad girls get ignored," as the saying goes.

It's cool if you want to let this drop with a joke. But I wish you could have formed a coherent argument.

Vuk

08-20-2012, 17:16

Oh no, you don't deserve that kind of fun. "Good girls get spanked, bad girls get ignored," as the saying goes.

It's cool if you want to let this drop with a joke. But I wish you could have formed a coherent argument.

Sorry, but I have been kind of out of it for the last week or two. (total exhaustion and a sickness) Not only that, but I have completely different opinions on different vaccines, and it was a long time ago that I formed those, and I don't really remember the particulars of why, or on which ones it is that I am really open to. I don't get vaccines mostly because I don't have the time to research them all and don't have the money to afford them. Right now it is much more practical for me to just not get any. No offense, but a discussion where I likely would not change any minds is not worth me doing the research it would take reconfirm my old opinions or form new ones, and then argue for them. Everyone here has a completely solid opinion they would not budge from anyway, so why should I bother going through the work of researching and presenting a serious argument? Especially when I have much more important things to do and very limited time on my PC.

jirisys

08-20-2012, 17:34

So you'd prefer a meat injection then...

Lots of vaccines are oral. I'm not sure if they all have to be injected. I hated getting needles until I had to take a multi week series of injections that helped my allergies.

Well, point is not all of them are oral.

Yeah, allergies serve to lose your needle aversion. Served for my cousin. Now she wants to be a doctor. Or maybe it's just sadism to make other people feel what she felt.

I stand corrected

Wow. I never thought you would say that to me in ever.

~Jirisys ()

Fragony

08-20-2012, 17:41

No attempts of bonding please, you don't like me and that's fine with me

jirisys

08-20-2012, 21:34

No attempts of bonding please, you don't like me and that's fine with me

Ahem. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hate%20sex)

:kiss: :wink:

~Jirisys ()

Fragony

08-20-2012, 21:47

Ahem. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hate%20sex)

:kiss: :wink:

~Jirisys ()

Don't bother I can feel these things and you don't like me. It is no requirement.

Strike For The South

08-22-2012, 05:29

I figured it out

Vuk is banging Jenny Mcarthy

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-22-2012, 14:03

I stand corrected

One of Humanity's truly great scientific achievements.

As opposed to, you know, the naff pointless ones.

Still Ebola in Africa though, so don't worry the continent still has lots of nasty ways to kill you.

Fragony

08-22-2012, 16:39

Still Ebola in Africa though, so don't worry the continent still has lots of nasty ways to kill you.

Yeah got confused with that one, I should read better before posting

Idaho

08-22-2012, 17:23

I thought you were talking about how you know a bunch of people who still get sick even though they were vaccinated.

The real world benefits are easy to see. If I get the chicken pox vaccine, I won't get chickenpox. If I get the polio vaccine, I won't get polio, and I won't become a cripple or die. If everyone that is able gets the polio vaccine, then the disease will die out because there won't be anyone left to infect and the disease won't be able to spread.

Vaccination, crowd infections and crowd immunity are very interesting topics, and not quite as cut and dried as many on this thread seem to think.

The decline of infectious diseases largely predates effective medical intervention - this isn't a controversial point in the history of medicine. Vaccination is largely effective in individual cases but the wider ramifications are still unclear.

Take a look at page 10 on this page for some interesting graphs:

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/pubhealth/rosner/g8965/client_edit/readings/week_2/mckinlay.pdf

I don't think there are many medical historians who would attribute the decline of the majority of infectious diseases to vaccination. But that's not to say there are no good reasons for vaccination. As society prospers, we take increasing interest in caring for those weaker members. Crowd infections, while potentially benign or ambivalent to the healthy population, pose a greater threat to those who aren't healthy.

There are definitely successes with vaccination. But the picture is complicated, and the successes, or perceived successes mean that the pharma industry gets the green light for some questionable vaccination programmes. In the US Chicken pox vaccine is widely distributed. It's a reasonably effective vaccine, lasting about 10 years or so. Sounds great - every 10 years you buy a vaccine that stops the relatively minor irritation of chicken pox (potentially more serious for certain vulnerable groups). However getting chicken pox as an adult is far worse than getting it as a child. And by removing chicken pox as a common childhood infection, you are removing the natural process of herd immunity. So the end result is that the US has a large resevoir of immunity-vulnerable adults who are dependent on a (largely unnecessary) vaccine.

This trade-off is common for most of the childhood diseases vaccinated against. With each disease there is a small percentage of mortality in an unvaccinated population. And likewise there is a (much smaller - I hasten to add) percentage adversly affected by the vaccine. But more significantly than any negligible vaccine side-effect, is the long term effect on herd immunity of healthy populations not having common childhood diseases. It's not a question that's easy to answer though. There is some potentially very dodgy, eugenicist ground not far over that particular horizon.

The polio vaccine is an interest case. Is polio a disease of clean water, or dirty water? In places where infants are in contact with drity water from birth, the disease is rare. Most are "naturally" immunised/infected when young and thereby conferred with lifetime immunity. When sanitation improves in these areas, infant infection becomes less common, and therefore the occassional childhood infection causes a full blown case of polio.

Also we are dealing with a comparatively tiny timescale. The truth is that we just don't know the long term impact. My guess, and it is a guess, is that in the long curve - say 500 years - most vaccinations for common crowd infections in developed countries will be of negligible significance either way. Vaccines for less common infections, and the situation in the developing world is much more complicated, and I don't know enough to comment.

Kadagar_AV

08-22-2012, 22:38

Then in immunological and epidemiological terms, you are a free-riding, dissembling parasite who is perfectly happy to enjoy the benefits of broad immunization, while skipping the moral and ethical obligation to participate. I see little to no difference between your behavior and a welfare cheat, social security disability scammer, or a farmer on April 15th (http://jonathanturley.org/2011/04/17/wealthy-%E2%80%9Cfaux-farmers%E2%80%9D-get-huge-agricultural-tax-breaks-on-their-properties/). You're taking advantage of the public good without doing anything to maintain it.

You can't even form a coherent argument to support your vaccine denialism, just a lot of "you're loony" and "mandatory immunizations sound like HITLER." I was hoping that someone who opposed vaccines could form a logical argument here, or on the Facebook page where I've been blasting the chiropractor. In both cases I have been disappointed. There's no rationale or logic; just rhetoric, bluster, and epic confirmation bias. Saddening.

The bird flu.

Media and governments made a hype around it. Vaccine against the disease was so important that key roles in society got access to it first.

This vaccine was pretty damned rushed, and some years after proved to have some side-effects. Insomnia is way-y-y-y more widely spread among the people who took this vaccine.

Until we have the COMPLETE key to not only our own, but the worlds genome, I am utterly hesitant to mess with nature. We have no idea of what we are getting into, and we have no idea how it might come back and bite us.

You know, killing smallpox is great... But wounding smallpox so smallpox goes to the gym and comes back as bigpox and with a vengeance is a bad idea.

Lemur

08-22-2012, 22:43

You know, killing smallpox is great... But wounding smallpox so smallpox goes to the gym and comes back as bigpox and with a vengeance is a bad idea.
I will love you forever just for this sentence.

Yeah, I should be clearer: when I say "vaccines" I really mean childhood vaccines for preventable illnesses that, you know, paralyze and kill people. I am not weighing in on things like the battery of questionable vaccines the US military forces foreign-deployed grunts and marines to take.

Yes, a hastily designed vaccine for a poorly understood threat is prolly a bad idea. But this does not discredit the central role that childhood vaccines play in reducing/eliminating various crippling and mortal early illnesses.

I gots me a kid who just turned three months old, so this stuff is on my mind. Wisconsin is a hotbed of fringe-right and fringe-left loonytunes, so I will breathe a sigh or relief when my little man is fully immunized against, say, whooping cough.

Kadagar_AV

08-22-2012, 22:57

I will love you forever just for this sentence.

Yeah, I should be clearer: when I say "vaccines" I really mean childhood vaccines for preventable illnesses that, you know, paralyze and kill people. I am not weighing in on things like the battery of questionable vaccines the US military forces foreign-deployed grunts and marines to take.

Yes, a hastily designed vaccine for a poorly understood threat is prolly a bad idea. But this does not discredit the central role that childhood vaccines play in reducing/eliminating various crippling and mortal early illnesses.

I gots me a kid who just turned three months old, so this stuff is on my mind. Wisconsin is a hotbed of fringe-right and fringe-left loonytunes, so I will breathe a sigh or relief when my little man is fully immunized against, say, whooping cough.

Ah, if we talk solely about childhood vaccines against the main killer diseases, and these vaccines have gone through some years of studies and test groups... I guess I am on your side.

Yes herd vaccinations is pivotal, and yes of course we need vaccines against a LOT of diseases.

However, I am very VERY frightened of the people who take pro-vaccination to cheerleader levels. Let us remember that we are very young in this world, and that a very small error could have a potentially huge impact on human life at large.

We know so very very little... I absolutely think we should do the most of what we know, however, I will always warn against the dangers of thinking we as the human race are "masters" of this world... I'm part into this "Gaia" thinking, and when it comes to who to mess with and not.. Mother Nature is wayyyyy up there on my "Don't give shit list".

Montmorency

08-22-2012, 23:00

Until we have the COMPLETE key to not only our own, but the worlds genome, I am utterly hesitant to mess with nature.

What?

Ironside

08-22-2012, 23:25

The bird flu.

Media and governments made a hype around it. Vaccine against the disease was so important that key roles in society got access to it first.

This vaccine was pretty damned rushed, and some years after proved to have some side-effects. Insomnia is way-y-y-y more widely spread among the people who took this vaccine.

Isomnia? I'm aware about the narcolepsy increase (it's probably one of the promotors (adjuvant) causing that, it's not the vaccine itself) for some versions of the vaccine for svine flu, (like the one used in Sweden) but this one is new.

That one, I hope it was more an opportunity of doing full scale field tests before something really nasty does hit.

Kadagar_AV

08-22-2012, 23:31

Isomnia? I'm aware about the narcolepsy increase (it's probably one of the promotors (adjuvant) causing that, it's not the vaccine itself) for some versions of the vaccine for svine flu, (like the one used in Sweden) but this one is new.

That one, I hope it was more an opportunity of doing full scale field tests before something really nasty does hit.

Narcolepsy, my bad.

Anyway, the fact that an unforeseen side effect (pretty much any at all) snuck its way in to a vaccine distributed among the main population is for me bad enough as it is.

Kadagar_AV

08-23-2012, 01:18

What?

In modern molecular biology and genetics, the genome is the entirety of an organism's hereditary information. It is encoded either in DNA or, for many types of virus, in RNA. The genome includes both the genes and the non-coding sequences of the DNA/RNA.[1]

Montmorency

08-23-2012, 01:32

Alright, I'll go ahead and assume that bit was gibberish then.

Kadagar_AV

08-23-2012, 14:48

Alright, I'll go ahead and assume that bit was gibberish then.

Or... You could ask me to elaborate on the parts you didn't get?

Fragony

08-23-2012, 14:54

What?

Pretty simple. Can't beat nature. She is a cruel lover you will die if you try.

Montmorency

08-23-2012, 14:59

worlds genome

The bit that I bolded.

Kadagar_AV

08-23-2012, 15:05

The bit that I bolded.

And neither my explanation nor Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome) helped?

Kralizec

08-23-2012, 15:08

Isn't it obvious? The Earth is a living being, and therefore it has a genome...man :hippie:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-23-2012, 15:11

Or... You could ask me to elaborate on the parts you didn't get?

I got it, and I agree with you, we mess around with things we don't quite understand just because we can, or we think we know best.

We are like children using Daddy's power tools.

rvg

08-23-2012, 15:15

And neither my explanation nor Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome) helped?

He didn't ask for an explanation of genome, he asked for an explanation of world genome.

Kadagar_AV

08-23-2012, 15:19

Isn't it obvious? The Earth is a living being, and therefore it has a genome...man :hippie:

Oh, I might have been unclear then..

I meant the worlds combined genome, ie, the genome of all living beings here.

I did not mean that the world (or Earth/Terra) have a genome of its own... Hope that clarified.

Fragony

08-23-2012, 15:19

He didn't ask for an explanation of genome, he asked for an explanation of world genome.

Life

rvg

08-23-2012, 15:21

I meant the worlds combined genome, ie, the genome of all living beings here.

Otherwise known as "nonsense".

Montmorency

08-23-2012, 15:25

I meant the worlds combined genome, ie, the genome of all living beings here.

I got it, and I agree with you, we mess around with things we don't quite understand just because we can, or we think we know best.

I feared that this would be your meaning.

Then we will understand nothing.

The bizareness of this view is mind-boggling.

It's like asking that we colonize Alpha Centauri before we even think of attempting another Moon landing.

Kralizec

08-23-2012, 15:26

I got it, and I agree with you, we mess around with things we don't quite understand just because we can, or we think we know best.

We are like children using Daddy's power tools.

Seriously? Experimentation is an important means of advancing knowledge. Of course there need to be safeguards, that's a no-brainer.

I can think of worse examples of reckless science. None of which have been as beneficial for humanity as vaccination.

Kadagar_AV

08-23-2012, 15:33

Otherwise known as "nonsense".

How so?

I feared that this would be your meaning.

Then we will understand nothing.

The bizareness of this view is mind-boggling.

It's like asking that we colonize Alpha Centauri before we even think of attempting another Moon landing.

Please do elaborate.

Seriously? Experimentation is an important means of advancing knowledge. Of course there need to be safeguards, that's a no-brainer.

I can think of worse examples of reckless science. None of which have been as beneficial for humanity as vaccination.

I never said we shouldn't experiment.

What I have said is that I have some sort of understanding for people who don't automatically jump on a bandwagon because the state tells them to do it.

I have also stated that I think we should be extremely careful when it comes to messing with things that potentially could wipe the human species off the planet.

Controlled experiments? I am all for it.¨
Tried and tested vaccines being spread to prevent killer diseases, sure.
Rushed vaccines that goes out to whole populations - I am adamant against.

rvg

08-23-2012, 15:36

How so?

The concept is so vague that it's totally meaningless. It's akin to having to acquaint oneself with all possible edible ingredients known to world prior to baking a cake.

Montmorency

08-23-2012, 15:38

Please do elaborate.

How are we to accumulate all the knowledge without first accumulating less than all the knowledge?

If this is not your intended meaning, I suggest you look over your line and rethink it.

Montmorency

08-23-2012, 15:42

I have also stated that I think we should be extremely careful when it comes to messing with things that potentially could wipe the human species off the planet.

Let us then lay down all our weapons of war. Let us deactivate our nuclear reactors.

Let us cease to produce and consume power, for even the lowly campfire is a contribution to the doom of our way of life.

It has been spoken.

Rushed vaccines that goes out to whole populations - I am adamant against.

And, should there be a pandemic...?

Kralizec

08-23-2012, 15:49

I seriously question the assertion that any amount of vaccination could be a serious threat. Unforeseen side effects, yes.

On the previous page you said that vaccination against small pox could lead to "big pox" - AFAIK that's not possible, not in the way you describe it. With bacteria, anti-biotics kill the normal strains in a host so that there's extra room for the resistant ones to procreate and evolve. Nothing similar happens with viruses or vaccinations.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-23-2012, 21:47

The concept is so vague that it's totally meaningless. It's akin to having to acquaint oneself with all possible edible ingredients known to world prior to baking a cake.

No - it is the equivilent of understanding all the theory behind the operation of Nuclear Powerplants before building one.

Caution is a virtue - one which the world at large does not greatly value at the moment.

This is the driving narrative behind both Jurrasic Park and Day of the Triffids - which are works about bioethics.

As it is, we are already moving towards selective euogenics in feotuses, selecting against particular congenital conditions, selecting siblings as donars.

Montmorency

08-23-2012, 21:57

Bull.

There is such a thing as intolerable risk. There is no such thing as zero risk.

Anyone who advocates for zero risk enters a paradox that ends at suicide.

Kralizec

08-23-2012, 22:07

selecting siblings as donars.

Heathens!

Or are you talking about kebab?

Kadagar_AV

08-23-2012, 22:16

Bull.

There is such a thing as intolerable risk. There is no such thing as zero risk.

Anyone who advocates for zero risk enters a paradox that ends at suicide.

Who advocates zero risk?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-23-2012, 22:21

Bull.

There is such a thing as intolerable risk. There is no such thing as zero risk.

Anyone who advocates for zero risk enters a paradox that ends at suicide.

I'll quote the murphy's Law at you

"Anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing"

This does not, however, mean you should be cleaning your weapon whilst fully loaded.

The point is, some people (Kdagar and I among them) are getting suspicious that the scientists refusal to explain what they are doing in the lab is, in fact, the result of them not adaquately understanding it themselves.

The fact is, we don't need a lot of the stuff being peddled these days - the furoure over the LHC is a Prime example, people get a bit narky when you tell them you're building a really expensive "Colidor" to find a useless particle via proxy, and by the way it might blow up the planet.

Maybe that's a funny joke for a physicist, but from where I'm sitting even the joke tells me his priorities are upside down.

Noncommunist

08-23-2012, 22:34

Montmorency

08-23-2012, 22:37

murphy's Law

A very versatile little law - one that can be paraphrased as anything at all in fact.

The point is, some people (Kdagar and I among them) are getting suspicious that the scientists refusal to explain what they are doing in the lab is, in fact, the result of them not adaquately understanding it themselves.

That's a bold assertion.

This does not, however, mean you should be cleaning your weapon whilst fully loaded.

From my perspective, you're asking us to clean a weapon that no longer exists as a result of safety concerns. You have not denied that the only risk tolerable to you is zero risk. Surely there is a risk that your chair's construction could prove faulty and leave you with a broken neck within the next 5 seconds?

By the way, the plot of Jurassic Park is entirely due to gross incompetence and a failure to follow safety regulations, not a lack of ___ scientific knowledge.

Kadagar_AV

08-23-2012, 22:37

With viruses, there are some which will reproduce more frequently when other viruses have been eliminated due to anti-virals. That said, I don't think vaccines would be an issue.

Viruses don't evolve?

Kralizec

08-23-2012, 22:56

Viruses don't evolve?

They do; but that's not the point.

Two situations:

1) you've been infected. You're given anti-viral drugs OR antibiotics. The medication eradicates most those viruses or bacteria, but a due to a random mutation a few of the viruses/bacteria have become resistant to the drug. The resistant ones can now replicate freely because they no longer have to compete inside the host with their non-resistant peers.

2) you're not ill, but you get a preemptive immunizations by a vaccine. The risks involved are that the virus hasn't been properly incapacitated and you get ill, or that you have a bad reaction to the other substances in the shot. There's no risk of it mutating into a godzilla virus or anything like that, at least not moreso than in the case of a regular infection.

Sigurd

08-24-2012, 10:22

I have a sneaking suspicion that it is not all that clear for some people what a vaccine is.

So... to understand a vaccine you need to first understand how our body combats disease. I don't know if we could call it 'a priory'.
Our body will come in contact with or be exposed to microbes in the forms of bacteria, virus, parasites and fungus. Some of these can make your body seriously ill, if they are able to inhabit (infect) your body. Your body will make defense cells to combat these microbes and the next time this microbe tries to infect your body, your body or defense cells will "remember" this microbe and will more effectively combat them, and get rid of them before you get sick. This "recollection" is called immunity.

Right so a vaccine is the method of generating this immunity without surviving a microbe induced sickness.
The vaccine will either contain an impaired microbe, a dead microbe, part of a microbe or something similar to the microbe. The purpose being that your body will generate defense cells that will "remember" this microbe when a fully functional one enters your body with the purpose of infecting it. Thus your body is ready and you have achieved immunization against it.

So if this microbe only can reproduce and grow in humans, a full scale vaccination which generates immune hosts, will prevent this microbe getting access to any hosts and will be effectively extinct.

If this microbe is not extinct and lives in certain parts of the world with no vaccine programs, an individual might get infected if he is not immune and visits these parts. Traveling back home being infected, will risk others not immune to this particular microbe being infected also.

Now Lemur is concerned because some of these vaccines can't be given to small children. They need to reach a certain age first. So let's say Vuk travels to Europe and are infected with diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis or poliomyelitis and travels home as a host for these nasty microbes, there are thousands of babies that have not been vaccinated against them because they are too young. Each of these microbial infections will kill or seriously maim these young.

gaelic cowboy

08-24-2012, 12:14

Viruses don't evolve?

Unless I am missing a massive trolling or some other context then I think you will find you are wrong on viral evolution.

I just found these four links from a simple google search I'm guessing we can safely say viruses do evolve.

Viral evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_evolution)

Evolution from a virus's view (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/071201_adenovirus)

Microbial and Viral Evolution (http://www.itp.ucsb.edu/activities/dbdetails?acro=viral11)

Origins of Viruses (http://www.mcb.uct.ac.za/tutorial/virorig.html)

Lemur

08-24-2012, 15:44

Lemur is concerned because some of these vaccines can't be given to small children. They need to reach a certain age first. So let's say Vuk travels to Europe and are infected with diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis or poliomyelitis and travels home as a host for these nasty microbes, there are thousands of babies that have not been vaccinated against them because they are too young. Each of these microbial infections will kill or seriously maim these young.
100% correct. And I have a three-month-old, so this is at the back of my mind. Some of these immunizations take multiple courses to become effective, so until my little guy reaches six months, he's still wide open to whooping cough (http://kidshealth.org/parent/infections/lung/whooping_cough.html), for example, which can and does kill babies. All Vuk would know is that he's coughing, because he is an adult, and in no danger of dying. But if transmitted to babies? You got yourself a dead baby.

Hence my statement of plain fact, which Vuk seems to find amusing, that he is a danger to my child. Can't begin to express how willful and pathetic I find the ignorance in this context.

Major Robert Dump

08-24-2012, 15:53

Well the good news is that he is not allowed around children per his probation criteria.

Vuk

08-24-2012, 17:32

Well the good news is that he is not allowed around children per his probation criteria.

No, but I am still allowed to visit your wife. :)

100% correct. And I have a three-month-old, so this is at the back of my mind. Some of these immunizations take multiple courses to become effective, so until my little guy reaches six months, he's still wide open to whooping cough (http://kidshealth.org/parent/infections/lung/whooping_cough.html), for example, which can and does kill babies. All Vuk would know is that he's coughing, because he is an adult, and in no danger of dying. But if transmitted to babies? You got yourself a dead baby.

Hence my statement of plain fact, which Vuk seems to find amusing, that he is a danger to my child. Can't begin to express how willful and pathetic I find the ignorance in this context.

First of all, you supply me with the money, honey. It's hard enough to get by, never mind getting yearly vaccines. I have never exactly had a lot of money.
Second of all, I don't go to work when I am sick, so I don't exactly have many opportunities to go spreading whooping cough to little kids. And considering that I never have and probably never will meet you or your kids, I fail to see how I could be a risk to them. So the most you could possibly claim is that Vuk may in some unlikely circumstance be at slightly higher risk than the average person to be a health risk to some child that is not yours. I guess that doesn't sound as dramatic though.

Ironside

08-24-2012, 18:43

First of all, you supply me with the money, honey. It's hard enough to get by, never mind getting yearly vaccines. I have never exactly had a lot of money.
Second of all, I don't go to work when I am sick, so I don't exactly have many opportunities to go spreading whooping cough to little kids. And considering that I never have and probably never will meet you or your kids, I fail to see how I could be a risk to them. So the most you could possibly claim is that Vuk may in some unlikely circumstance be at slightly higher risk than the average person to be a health risk to some child that is not yours. I guess that doesn't sound as dramatic though.

Risking one innocent person's life over another innocent person's financial wellbeing? Why is that fair? (It's a rephrased quote from that other topic)

It's interesting how your priorities change when talking about yourself, isn't it?

Anyway, the vaccines Lemur talks about isn't yearly. The vaccines having most shots need 3 iirc and are taken with several years in between (it's usually two shots failry close, while the third one is much later). Some vaccines needs to be taken regulary, but that's more of one every 5 years. The flu vaccine is special in this case and it's not the same vaccine every year either, due to the high mutation ratio of the flu.

Major Robert Dump

08-24-2012, 18:54

I suppose Vuk may not be aware at how many vaccines he can get for free at his county health department.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-24-2012, 23:27

A very versatile little law - one that can be paraphrased as anything at all in fact.

So you have not read Murphy's Laws of War?

OK, that is one.

That's a bold assertion.

That people other than Kadagar and I feel this way?

Not really - look at Climate Change deniers, a key plank of their view is that the Scientists are either lying or lying about knowing.

We have reached the point where Science is about as well understood as magic by most people - which basically makes Scientists equivalent to Wizards in the public imagination - witness the excitement over the Higgs Bosun when Peter Higgs himself has gone on record saying he can see no practical use for the discovery - but we had people on here talking about manipulating gravity.

From my perspective, you're asking us to clean a weapon that no longer exists as a result of safety concerns. You have not denied that the only risk tolerable to you is zero risk. Surely there is a risk that your chair's construction could prove faulty and leave you with a broken neck within the next 5 seconds?

Why do I need to deny it?

There's a risk inherent in everything, but risks need to be balanced against consequences. The consequences of Small Pox being released, with 0% herd immunity and only those fortunate souls with innate genetic immunity safe, is arguably greater than the risk that we might need the microbe one day, but maybe not.

So we still have stores of the microbe in two very secure labs and there is still a debate about whether those samples should be destroyed or not.

By the way, the plot of Jurassic Park is entirely due to gross incompetence and a failure to follow safety regulations, not a lack of ___ scientific knowledge.

A central plank of the plot is that the dinosaurs are breeding in the wild, and therefore they don't know how many of them there really are in the Park, so you get a D in critical analysis.

Montmorency

08-24-2012, 23:57

That people other than Kadagar and I feel this way?

Not really - look at Climate Change deniers, a key plank of their view is that the Scientists are either lying or lying about knowing.

As I said, a bold assertion.

entral plank of the plot is that the dinosaurs are breeding in the wild, and therefore they don't know how many of them there really are in the Park, so you get a D in critical analysis.

Jurassic Park's head computer programmer, Dennis Nedry, is secretly in the employ of one of InGen's corporate rivals, and has been paid to steal some of Jurassic Park's dinosaur embryos. In order to evade detection and facilitate his escape from the island, Nedry sabotages several of the park's critical systems, including security, allowing him access to the embryo storage. The automated tour vehicles come to an unexpected stop, and the electric fences that surround the dinosaur pens go offline, allowing a Tyrannosaurus near the stopped tour group to escape.

I was incorrect; the action was deliberate. Bioethics? More like corporate ethics.

There's a risk inherent in everything, but risks need to be balanced against consequences. The consequences of Small Pox being released, with 0% herd immunity and only those fortunate souls with innate genetic immunity safe, is arguably greater than the risk that we might need the microbe one day, but maybe not.

This is geopolitics, not science. The scientists have long advocated doing away with these samples.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-25-2012, 01:11

I was incorrect; the action was deliberate. Bioethics? More like corporate ethics.

The T-Rex isn't the problem - the Raptors are.

The There are more Raptors than the Park Officials think - because they are breeding.

Montmorency

08-25-2012, 01:17

If the security system had not been interfered with, the issue may in time have been discovered and rectified at little or no cost in life. :shrug:

Tellos Athenaios

08-25-2012, 01:26

The T-Rex isn't the problem - the Raptors are.

The There are more Raptors than the Park Officials think - because they are breeding.

Which is precisely why everyone should have these vital Math skills (http://xkcd.com/135/).

HoreTore

08-25-2012, 15:04

when Peter Higgs himself

I think this may be one of the reasons why religious people find science so hard to grasp properly. Peter Higgs is completely irrelevant, PVC. His words do not have any special weight whatsoever, science is not religion. We have tons of scientists all over the world excited by the discovery, what one random scientist called Peter Higgs thinks and says is of zero importance.

HoreTore

08-25-2012, 15:09

First of all, you supply me with the money, honey.

Your purpose in life is clear, Vuk:

Champion socialized healthcare and make all vaccines free!

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-26-2012, 15:38

I think this may be one of the reasons why religious people find science so hard to grasp properly. Peter Higgs is completely irrelevant, PVC. His words do not have any special weight whatsoever, science is not religion. We have tons of scientists all over the world excited by the discovery, what one random scientist called Peter Higgs thinks and says is of zero importance.

Oh pish.

This is why you don't understand religion, you think religious people are stupid.

His opinion is relevent - the fact that he was not on TV saying how things were now wonderful, but instead how pleased he was that his theory had been vindicated and how he wasn't important etc., etc.

Compare to Prof. Brian Cox' ethusions on the subject, I think Higgs is the better scientist because he has a sense of perspective, and when asked what the discovery could be used for he said he honestly couldn't think of anything it could be useful for.

That doesn't mean there isn't anything, but it does mean we won't be having warp drive in 10 years based on the Higgs Bosun.

The collective orgasm on this forum when the LHC reached, what was it? Five Sigma? Hading nothing to do with science and everything to do with hype and a lack of understanding in the general public, which is not surprising given how complex physics has become - to the extent that I don't think there's even anything like a "general" physicist anymore, they don't necessarily understand every branch of the discipline.

HoreTore

08-26-2012, 20:26

His opinion is relevent

No, it really isn't.

Underetanding that one mans opinion is just one mans opinion, no matter his name, is critical to understanding the nature of scientific work.

This is how science is adanced. One guy comes up with something, and works on it until he doesn't see any improvement. Then someone else spots an improvement, and so on and so on.

There's a ton of scientists in the world who believe the LHC to very important, and that means it is very important, no matter what one random scientist may think.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-26-2012, 21:02

No, it really isn't.

Underetanding that one mans opinion is just one mans opinion, no matter his name, is critical to understanding the nature of scientific work.

This is how science is adanced. One guy comes up with something, and works on it until he doesn't see any improvement. Then someone else spots an improvement, and so on and so on.

You're reading stupid because I'm a man of Faith, so you'll never believe I have a rational reason for saying anything.

Let me explain this simply - he is one of the men who originated the thory, he understands it and it's potential applications. This is my point - "physicist" long ago ceased to be an accurate job title. Peter Higgs is also retired, so he is not buried under the Swiss Alps worrying about keeping the lights on, or obcessing over finding the Higgs.

He is a man with distance and expertise, so his reaction is worth watching and taking note of.

There's a ton of scientists in the world who believe the LHC to very important, and that means it is very important, no matter what one random scientist may think.

no, that's how religion works - 1,000 years ago the majority of scientists believe blood passed from the left to the right hand side of the heart via tiny holes in the walls of the ventricles. 500 years ago the vast majority of astronomers, including Galileo, believed the heavens were ordered in circles, only Johannes Keppler was rigorous enough in his methodology and his mathematics to correctly deduce that the orbits were eliptical, indeed MUST be eliptical. He was laughed at, and completely dismissed when one of his predictions proved to be wrong (due to an error of arithmatic, not method).

Galileo the great "rational" hero rejected his hypothesis out of hand, because the orbits must be perfect circles.

Of course, Keppler was also a Protestant in the Roman Catholic HRE who managed to research and teach without any serious issues throughout his career - so he's not very popular today, unlike the Roman Catholic who went out of his way to make the Pope (his patron) look stupid.

All this tells me you treat science like a religion - you take the aggregate opinion of the most charming or most socially popular group as the "orthodoxy" and them you denigrate anyone who dares challenge it as either irrelevent or mentally unsound.

Back to vaccines - the next big project is to find a reliable HIV Vaccine, even 60% would be good, and start immunising people in Africa and quarenteening people who already have the dissease.

HoreTore

08-26-2012, 21:28

You're reading stupid because I'm a man of Faith, so you'll never believe I have a rational reason for saying anything.

After an opening line like that, did you honestly expect me to read the rest of your post?

Strike For The South

08-26-2012, 21:30

I suppose Vuk may not be aware at how many vaccines he can get for free at his county health department.

That would require gas
Which costs money
Which Vuk needs handouts to obtain

These are the facts as I read them

If Lemur would take Vuk to the clinic, we might have a solution. Granted Lemur apparently only cares about his children becuase they are the only ones he uses in his examples. ROFLCOPPPPTEEEERRRRRRR

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-26-2012, 21:42

After an opening line like that, did you honestly expect me to read the rest of your post?

So you admit to not reading what I write?

How then can you pass judgement on my beliefs, given that you don't know what they are?

What about the general human courtesy to read what I take the time to write for you personally?

a completely inoffensive name

08-27-2012, 05:05

Let me explain this simply - he is one of the men who originated the thory, he understands it and it's potential applications.

This is where you and others misunderstand science. Scientists don't care about applications. They care about the pure knowledge itself. Scientists can easily throw out ideas for applications off the top of their heads, but until a scientist or engineer actually creates a physical application utilizing said knowledge they do not know about its potential applications.

With the way grants are, scientists have to sit and come up with a "goal" that they wish to achieve with the new knowledge they expect to find (possible medical breakthroughs or such and such), but the reason many scientists do the things they do is because they generally find the subject to be interesting. When you get to that level of specialization, you kind of have to unless you want your work to be hell.

Papewaio

08-27-2012, 06:58

Apparently Higgs house hasn't changed since he was divorced many decades ago. He uses pencil and paper.

I would not look for him as a futurist.

It would have been like asking Neil Armstrong to be a games show host.

Intellectual ability and having been at the forefront does not equal the ability to sell the story to the general public.

Sigurd

08-27-2012, 08:49

This is where you and others misunderstand science. Scientists don't care about applications.

Now this is a very narrow definition of "scientists". Ya know... I don't know how some of you guys don't realize that Philip is a scientist in both its broad sense and its resticted sense of definition

Montmorency

08-27-2012, 08:55

He's not an experimental scientist...

Sigurd

08-27-2012, 09:10

He's not an experimental scientist...
ACIN used Scientists and Science. Heck, even I have a Science degree and a field of speciality.
I don't know if ACIN has a degree yet... but to accuse people that actually have a degree and have practicly employed the scientific method to gain such, is just condescending.

That's like a recruit being disrespectful towards an NCO... stating that he doesn't know what soldiering is all about.
Now Philip might not have LHC as speciality, but the man knows critical analysis of source material.

a completely inoffensive name

08-27-2012, 09:19

ACIN used Scientists and Science. Heck, even I have a Science degree and a field of speciality.
I don't know if ACIN has a degree yet... but to accuse people that actually have a degree and have practicly employed the scientific method to gain such, is just condescending.

That's like a recruit being disrespectful towards an NCO... stating that he doesn't know what soldiering is all about.
Now Philip might not have LCM as speciality, but the man knows critical analysis of source material.

I mean, I don't know anyone who decided to tinker with plasmids inside of e-coli batches all day in a lab because they felt it was going to bring about a cure or because they decided it was an easy way to make a paycheck. They usually all do it because they love it for what it is.

The lazy hop into business or english degrees in my experience, the ones with dollar signs in their eyes rush into finance specifically.

It's late for me and I apologize for the sloppiness in my terms. There are many types of scientists that perform different functions.

Montmorency

08-27-2012, 09:26

but to accuse people that actually have a degree and have practicly employed the scientific method to gain such, is just condescending.

That strikes me as a bit disingenuous.

That's like a recruit being disrespectful towards an NCO... stating that he doesn't know what soldiering is all about.

In that analogy, ACIN shouldn't even be a front-line soldier. Or, perhaps, in the military at all.

Now Philip might not have LCM as speciality, but the man knows critical analysis of source material.

Is that what he's exercising here? What is the issue at hand?

I mean, I don't know anyone who decided to tinker with plasmids inside of e-coli batches all day in a lab because they felt it was going to bring about a cure or because they decided it was an easy way to make a paycheck. They usually all do it because they love it for what it is.

The lazy hop into business or english degrees in my experience, the ones with dollar signs in their eyes rush into finance specifically.

It's late for me and I apologize for the sloppiness in my terms. There are many types of scientists that perform different functions.

To be clear, plenty of 'your' scientists care about practical application - particularly those employed by commercial enterprises.

a completely inoffensive name

08-27-2012, 09:32

To be clear, plenty of 'your' scientists care about practical application - particularly those employed by commercial enterprises.

Of course, that's the purpose of the job. No doubt that people in those positions will care about the goal the company is trying to set out to achieve.

But to have this mentality that a scientist inherently probes deeper in order to bring goodies in some form to mankind is opposite to my experiences and from what I have read from past scientists.

https://i.imgur.com/p76DV.png

Sigurd

08-27-2012, 10:13

Is that what he's exercising here? What is the issue at hand?

I don't know... the use of an authority person's material as a source to an argument used in a dicussion about LHC on a fan internet website for a game series called Totalwar? .. I think that encapsulates the extent of it.

Montmorency

08-27-2012, 10:19

When you put it that way, it almost sounds like a cry for help.

Is there something you'd like us to do for PVC?

Sigurd

08-27-2012, 10:28

Your trolling went into a dead end.. right?

Montmorency

08-27-2012, 10:35

Your trolling went into a dead end.. right?

Do you have a point, besides expression of umbrage at ACIN's broad specificity, which you specify broadly?

PVC produced a source, and others have argued that it is of little value. Are you taking a position on that?

Sigurd

08-27-2012, 11:26

Do you have a point, besides expression of umbrage at ACIN's broad specificity, which you specify broadly?
That was my point... he applied a very broad definition to his narrow argument. I merely pointed out that many of us are in fact scientists in its broad and restrictive definition.

PVC produced a source, and others have argued that it is of little value. Are you taking a position on that?

I am merely pointing out that there are no argumentum ad vericundiam fallacy in Philp's argument.
It's not like quoting Einstein on the existence of God.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-27-2012, 14:28

This is where you and others misunderstand science. Scientists don't care about applications. They care about the pure knowledge itself. Scientists can easily throw out ideas for applications off the top of their heads, but until a scientist or engineer actually creates a physical application utilizing said knowledge they do not know about its potential applications.

With the way grants are, scientists have to sit and come up with a "goal" that they wish to achieve with the new knowledge they expect to find (possible medical breakthroughs or such and such), but the reason many scientists do the things they do is because they generally find the subject to be interesting. When you get to that level of specialization, you kind of have to unless you want your work to be hell.

This does not address my point.

My point is that the laymen were getting so excited when in reality it will be 40-100 years before the discovery affects the price of bread, if ever.

When Beskar posted the Higgs thread I was at great pains to draw the distinction between an interesting discovery and it's absolute lack of practical application, only to be told "oh they'll come", my response to which was "not for decades, so excuse me if I want to stop spending money on the LHC for a few years".

Nobody actually paid attention to what I was saying then, either.

I'm all for the quest for knowledge for it's own sake, but the experimental side of Natural Philosophy is arguably a special case because it involves changes things in order to see what will happen. At the cutting edge of Physics and Biology this has the potential to have serious consequences - it already has on several occasions. Then you do need to ask "do we need to know this" because if we really don't then it may not be worth the risk.

The current state of physics, and particularly the insistence that nothing can travel at superluminal speeds suggests that we will never develop FTL, and cryogenics is also a bust, so we may well be stuck on this planet.

This being so, what we should be doing is trying to prove the Standard Model Wrong, looking for every possible hole until we find the one that gives us a potential for FTL travel, because what we really need is to get out of this solar system before the Sun explodes.

Which is why I said I was hoping the Higgs Bosun would not be found, and why I was excited when it was thought that Nutrinoes might be traveling even fractionally Faster Than Light

Apparently Higgs house hasn't changed since he was divorced many decades ago. He uses pencil and paper.

I would not look for him as a futurist.

It would have been like asking Neil Armstrong to be a games show host.

Intellectual ability and having been at the forefront does not equal the ability to sell the story to the general public.

No, it would be like asking Neil Armstrong what kind of rocket to build to send to the moon, or perhaps if he thought astronauts could reasonably get to Mars.

As to his use of pen and paper, it may be that he wants to keep his mind sharp rather than using a computer. I know academics in the Humanities who insist on going down to the Archives and sifting manuscripts or journals by hand too.

Now this is a very narrow definition of "scientists". Ya know... I don't know how some of you guys don't realize that Philip is a scientist in both its broad sense and its resticted sense of definition

I don't like the term "Scientist" as it simply denotes one who uses the Scientific method, which can be applied to me when I tackle a theological or historical problem, or apply a literary analysis.

That was my point... he applied a very broad definition to his narrow argument. I merely pointed out that many of us are in fact scientists in its broad and restrictive definition.

I am merely pointing out that there are no argumentum ad vericundiam fallacy in Philp's argument.
It's not like quoting Einstein on the existence of God.

Thank you.

Beskar

08-27-2012, 15:33

The current state of physics, and particularly the insistence that nothing can travel at superluminal speeds suggests that we will never develop FTL

Technically inaccurate, mostly due to the fact Light travels at different speeds. But there is a threshold limit which hypothetically mass cannot surpass.

There theories such as wormholes which allow people to bypass to travel at "higher speeds" by taking unconventional routes.

Kralizec

08-27-2012, 15:53

HoreTore

08-27-2012, 16:05

If you accelerate time passes slower and slower, at least as far as the traveling object is concerned. There's no particular "threshold" afaik, just that you'll never reach 100% of light speed, and your perception of time will progressively slow down as you approach it.

I thought he meant that light has different speeds when passing through different mediums... But if that was what he meant, the speed of light is still the fastest one can travel in each medium. Ie, the speed of light in vacuum is the fastest anything can travel in vacuum, the speed of light in water is the fastest anything can travel in water, etc etc...

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-27-2012, 18:15

What about Neutrinos?

That was apparently an error of measurment.

The fastest anything can travel is Light Speed though a vacum, but time slows down as you travel.

Even assuming we could accelerate a craft to sub-luminal speed (i.e. below Light Speed but still really fast) without killing the crew, and then slow it down again, the problem of time dilation makes it an unworkable way of getting around - every trip would effectively be one way because by the time you did the return joruney the people who sent you would be long dead.

Basically - you need a way of warping space (but not time) to get around, and it needs to be reliable, and you need a power source, and the resulting ship has to be small enough to at least be able to make planetary orbit without causing tidal waves - and all this needs to be survivable for the crew.

Basically we have no way of even thinking about actually doing this yet, any of it. A "wormhole" is basically a snag or kink in the fabric of space time, but it's really just a theoretical concept with no actual evidence, and we have no way to create them - nor do we see any evidence of them being naturally occuring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-27-2012, 18:45

Actually, the idea of simply accelerating a craft to sub-luminal speeds to achieve reasonable interstellar flight is feasible. The biggest problem is as you say, the fact that time passes differently for the people in the craft, but with a sufficiently advanced infrastructure that could be made manageable simply by having, well, good management. And patience. You see this on a much smaller scale with how we handle the GPS system.

Still totally theoretical though.. ~:mecry:

This really isn't like the GPS, this is a situation where by the time you get back nobody remembers you left, and you end up doing a "Buck Rogers" but without Wilma to guide you through the defense shield.

You also still need to invent the "interial compensator" AND you need an engine that can burn continuously for long enough to accelerate you, and then the same amount again to slow you down.

Vladimir

08-27-2012, 19:25

Has anyone figured out exactly what causes time dilatation and how to exploit it?

Just a question to the group now that we're way OT.

Strike For The South

08-27-2012, 19:43

It seems blatantly obvious that applications would be a ways away.

It seems even more blatantly obvious that they would be further away if we stopped looking

PVC enjoys playing the part of Buzz Killington

Vladimir

08-27-2012, 21:01

Relativity!

Okay, now I realize my question was kinda silly. I was thinking more along the lines of, if we can reverse the spin of electrons, why can't we make the infinite mass problem work toward our advantage?

Ironside

08-27-2012, 21:40

I thought he meant that light has different speeds when passing through different mediums... But if that was what he meant, the speed of light is still the fastest one can travel in each medium. Ie, the speed of light in vacuum is the fastest anything can travel in vacuum, the speed of light in water is the fastest anything can travel in water, etc etc...

That one is incorrect. They have gone faster than light in some medium at least. I don't remember any details from that article though, was some years back. Thinking about it, neutrino would probably do that. Simply have matter that light interacts heavily with (that slows it down), since light interacts easily, while neutrino doesn't. The core of the sun is a nice demonstration of that principle at least.

Doesn't really matter, since it's the vacuum speed that's important.

a completely inoffensive name

08-28-2012, 04:43

Technically inaccurate, mostly due to the fact Light travels at different speeds. But there is a threshold limit which hypothetically mass cannot surpass.

There theories such as wormholes which allow people to bypass to travel at "higher speeds" by taking unconventional routes.

Light doesn't travel at different speeds. Light goes at the speed of light always. The observation that it takes light "longer" through different mediums is because the light is constantly being absorbed and re emitted by the material it is passing through, these absorption's and emissions take time and it builds up. The extent of this effect depends on a variety of material properties such as the density and transparency of the material.

I thought he meant that light has different speeds when passing through different mediums... But if that was what he meant, the speed of light is still the fastest one can travel in each medium. Ie, the speed of light in vacuum is the fastest anything can travel in vacuum, the speed of light in water is the fastest anything can travel in water, etc etc...

The speed of light in vacuum is the fastest possible speed, but in other mediums there are plenty of things that are quite "heavy" which can move through the medium faster than light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

This does not address my point.

My point is that the laymen were getting so excited when in reality it will be 40-100 years before the discovery affects the price of bread, if ever.

When Beskar posted the Higgs thread I was at great pains to draw the distinction between an interesting discovery and it's absolute lack of practical application, only to be told "oh they'll come", my response to which was "not for decades, so excuse me if I want to stop spending money on the LHC for a few years".

Nobody actually paid attention to what I was saying then, either.

I'm all for the quest for knowledge for it's own sake, but the experimental side of Natural Philosophy is arguably a special case because it involves changes things in order to see what will happen. At the cutting edge of Physics and Biology this has the potential to have serious consequences - it already has on several occasions. Then you do need to ask "do we need to know this" because if we really don't then it may not be worth the risk.

The current state of physics, and particularly the insistence that nothing can travel at superluminal speeds suggests that we will never develop FTL, and cryogenics is also a bust, so we may well be stuck on this planet.

This being so, what we should be doing is trying to prove the Standard Model Wrong, looking for every possible hole until we find the one that gives us a potential for FTL travel, because what we really need is to get out of this solar system before the Sun explodes.

Which is why I said I was hoping the Higgs Bosun would not be found, and why I was excited when it was thought that Nutrinoes might be traveling even fractionally Faster Than Light

The sun won't expand into a red giant for a few billion years. It is doubtful humanity will even be around for another million if we do not find a way to leave earth.

Papewaio

08-28-2012, 09:52

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-28-2012, 14:15

A solar cell will collect light but it will transmitt vibrations. In this situation the speed of sound will be faster then light ;).

=][=

Time dilation could be used to our advantage. Imagine an ark ship traveling at relativistic speeds. The crew will perceive the trip as quicker then a planet bound observer. The advantages are less wear and tear, less generations required and less general goods required.

Disadvantage is that any impacts would be at relativistic speeds ie they would be like atomic warheads hitting the hull.

=][=

More interesting then a Higgs particle would be figuring out how to turn off mass... Then you could do some very interesting things. An anti Higgs would be cool.

As for applications leave that to the inventors and engineers. Electricity, lights and microwaves... Who knows where Higgs knowledge may lead us.

In Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda they use anti-mass generators to reduce the mass of the ship to allow them to maneuver and to enter "slipspace", their particular FTL travel network.

The problem, as I pointed out in another thread, is that reducing mass doesn't mean reducing "gross" mass aka anti-gravity, it always means reducing atomic mass - which is a problem because when you reduce the mass of a Proton to that of an electron it will, per definition, cease to be a proton.

So, in addition to real-life wormholes we also have to invent a means of tricking the universe into thinking something is smaller than it really is, which is also bending space-time.

Bottom line - we need to bend space-time from the perspective of the rest of the universe.

rvg

08-28-2012, 14:29

The problem, as I pointed out in another thread, is that reducing mass doesn't mean reducing "gross" mass aka anti-gravity, it always means reducing atomic mass - which is a problem because when you reduce the mass of a Proton to that of an electron it will, per definition, cease to be a proton.

A proton is defined by its charge, not mass.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-28-2012, 15:43

A proton is defined by its charge, not mass.

No, because an anti-electron has the same charge and a Neutron has (aproximately) the same mass. A Proton is a particle of a particular mass and charge. In fact, if you reduced a Proton down to the mass of an electron it might become an ant-electron and then you'd have an anti-matter explosion.

Which briggs us back to weaponising the use of the Higgs.

rvg

08-28-2012, 15:46

In fact, if you reduced a Proton down to the mass of an electron it might become an ant-electron and then you'd have an anti-matter explosion.

How can you reduce the mass of protons without also reducing the mass of electrons?

Vladimir

08-28-2012, 16:24

No, because an anti-electron has the same charge and a Neutron has (aproximately) the same mass. A Proton is a particle of a particular mass and charge. In fact, if you reduced a Proton down to the mass of an electron it might become an ant-electron and then you'd have an anti-matter explosion.

Which briggs us back to weaponising the use of the Higgs.

This could use some refining.

Fragony

08-28-2012, 16:28

Moros

08-28-2012, 17:10

Has anyone figured out exactly what causes time dilatation and how to exploit it?

Just a question to the group now that we're way OT.

Something that may be of interest to you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkgcKmbsqp8&feature=relmfu

Fragony

08-28-2012, 17:40

Something that may be of interest to you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkgcKmbsqp8&feature=relmfu

Will not be buying a rolex ever then, clock is flawed in the greater context

Vladimir

08-28-2012, 18:01

Will not be buying a rolex ever then, clock is flawed in the greater context

Everything is flawed. That's why it works.

Thanks Moros!

Moros

08-28-2012, 18:15

Everything is flawed. That's why it works.

Thanks Moros!

No problem. Check out the others from the same series; especially about space as well that should be quite interesting for someone new to this.

Montmorency

08-28-2012, 19:48

I merely pointed out that many of us are in fact scientists in its broad and restrictive definition.

Yet what he meant was very clear, and you somehow simultaneously acknowledge and ignore his restrictive meaning. There are several restrictive meanings, not one. Certainly not only yours.

I am merely pointing out that there are no argumentum ad vericundiam fallacy in Philp's argument.

There surely is. He's been treating Higgs as the authority on the topic. From there, he hasn't even demonstrated that there's a consensus on the issue of applicability. Einstein is not the final authority on general relativity, by the way.

Nobody actually paid attention to what I was saying then, either.

They did indeed. They provided refutations: Higgs boson is not the be-all, end-all of collider physics; the cost of restarting it after a long hiatus will be significant relative to the current operational cost; it is always better to make small investments in science research than to go a mere step toward paying off financiers.

This being so, what we should be doing is trying to prove the Standard Model Wrong,

We should follow the evidence, no? Anyway, as you yourself pointed out, finding against the Standard Model was what many were hoping for from the LHC.

because what we really need is to get out of this solar system before the Sun explodes.

:dizzy2:

'I bet this stuff won't be too valuable for a few decades. What? THE SUN'S GOING TO BLOW IN FIVE BILLION YEARS? WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.'

@PVC: It's really interesting to see you admonish so many for their 'premature' excitement, yet you've been continually hyping the 'Oh no Doomsday' potential.

I go from that to conclude that potential future benefit leaves you cold, while potential future harm gets you excited. Do you enjoy apocalyptic fiction? An earlier post of mine in this thread may be your cup of tea. :wink:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-28-2012, 21:06

There surely is. He's been treating Higgs as the authority on the topic. From there, he hasn't even demonstrated that there's a consensus on the issue of applicability. Einstein is not the final authority on general relativity, by the way.

No, I'm not. Sigurd knows me better than you do and he doesn't read me that way so I submit that you are misinterpreting me. What I said was that if Peter Higgs is saying he can't forsee any use for the "discovery", more properly the increase in statistical certainty, of the Higgs-Bosun then you need to seriously consider what other people are saying in light of that.

Prof. Brian Cox works at the LHC, and he's a "Science Populariser", he's also famously overenthusiastic, like a small puppy. This is a large part of his appeal to women, but it's not particularly encouraging when looking for sober reflection of the discovery. The other people getting excited were science buffs in the general public and TV commentators, neither of which really know what they are talking about.

Higgs is not the authority but he most certainly is an authority, and his opinion matters because he has had decades to think about this.

They did indeed. They provided refutations: Higgs boson is not the be-all, end-all of collider physics; the cost of restarting it after a long hiatus will be significant relative to the current operational cost; it is always better to make small investments in science research than to go a mere step toward paying off financiers.

The defense was applicability, when you are working in decades shutting it down for 5 years or until the countries funding it are not in primary deficit is at least worth considering - what is really at stake are certain academics' Nobel Prizes.

We should follow the evidence, no? Anyway, as you yourself pointed out, finding against the Standard Model was what many were hoping for from the LHC.

The majority of Physicists work in the direction in favour of the Standard Model, this biases their reactions and the kinds of experiments they perform. This is how human beings function, something most Physicists try to pretend isn't true - hence why they don't like "Philosophy of Science" or Epistemology because they like to pretend to be objective.

:dizzy2:

'I bet this stuff won't be too valuable for a few decades. What? THE SUN'S GOING TO BLOW IN FIVE BILLION YEARS? WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.'

@PVC: It's really interesting to see you admonish so many for their 'premature' excitement, yet you've been continually hyping the 'Oh no Doomsday' potential.

I go from that to conclude that potential future benefit leaves you cold, while potential future harm gets you excited. Do you enjoy apocalyptic fiction? An earlier post of mine in this thread may be your cup of tea. :wink:

I'm not keen on Apocalyptic fiction, it's depressing, I prefer military fiction, Sci-Fi, Fantasy, or Historical - I'm a military fiction butterfly.

Kudos on the snide comment on my religion, well done.

No - Apocalypse is blase. Here's the thing though, the long term survival of humanity requires getting off the planet.

Montmorency

08-28-2012, 21:40

Higgs is not the authority but he most certainly is an authority, and his opinion matters because he has had decades to think about this.

Very well, though you've only given reason for treating Higgs and Cox unequally as authorities on the basis of little more than preferred disposition. Have hundreds of proximate scientists been surveyed on their opinions? If so, we should take the results into account. If not, do you believe that there are no "sober-minded" scientists who find reason for enthusiasm?

The defense was applicability, when you are working in decades shutting it down for 5 years or until the countries funding it are not in primary deficit is at least worth considering - what is really at stake are certain academics' Nobel Prizes.

For someone who claims to look to the long-term, you sure do place a lot of emphasis on paying off debt in the short-term. What is the value of paying off debt - and such a little tranche of debt as would be allowed by reallocating the CERN budget - besides retaining the ability to easily take on more debt? Besides applicability, address the specific points I brought up. Each was in fact asserted by at least one other member on the first or second page, unless I'm mistaken.

The majority of Physicists work in the direction in favour of the Standard Model, this biases their reactions and the kinds of experiments they perform. This is how human beings function, something most Physicists try to pretend isn't true - hence why they don't like "Philosophy of Science" or Epistemology because they like to pretend to be objective.

Of course, it's quite evident in the lines of reasoning you engage in here. :wink:

Let us accept the Kuhnian argument at face value, but we should pay closer attention to the LHC experiments specifically: could you have conceived of a better way of going about "disproving" the Standard Model than the collider?

No - Apocalypse is blase. Here's the thing though, the long term survival of humanity requires getting off the planet.

Bottom line - you're getting ahead of yourself and ourselves.

Kudos on the snide comment on my religion, well done.

You're very good at catching others' subtle meanings; here, on the other hand, you're simply reading too much into it.

Papewaio

08-28-2012, 21:44

If we really want to get off this planet then we need to well invest in technology.

Obviously there are some techs that would make solar system exploration much more easier and they are mainly around energy and propulsion. So yes fusion reactors and fusion powered rockets would be advantageous. Better solar cell collectors and EM transmission from the collectors to the bases would be useful as well.

One of the main hurdles is material. At the moment we launch 100% of a mission from Earth. It is a massive energy cost that ultimately reduces the amount of material we came take up, it also means sitting all the material on large stacks of fuel which can be as much a bomb as a propulsion system.

So I'm actually more excited about the hobby 3D printers. Once we get a critical mass of such inventors we are going to have an increased understanding of these technologies that we can apply from games pieces to space exploration.

Imagine being able to remotely mine an asteroid, take the raw materials and then manufacturing in space the bulk construction materials. So we then use these to create Lagrange staging posts from here to Mars. Then robotically create a Mars base, then land humans on a one way trip to Mars and beyond.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-28-2012, 22:20

Very well, though you've only given reason for treating Higgs and Cox unequally as authorities on the basis of little more than preferred disposition. Have hundreds of proximate scientists been surveyed on their opinions? If so, we should take the results into account. If not, do you believe that there are no "sober-minded" scientists who find reason for enthusiasm?

Find me a varied sample of theoretical and particle physicists who are as excited as Brian Cox appeared to be and I'll take note. Even then, though, I remain skeptical of anyone who is excited - such a state of agitation is not conducive to sober reflection.

Yes, that last bit sounds a bit poncy - but I'm leaving it, sorry.

For someone who claims to look to the long-term, you sure do place a lot of emphasis on paying off debt in the short-term. What is the value of paying off debt - and such a little tranche of debt as would be allowed by reallocating the CERN budget - besides retaining the ability to easily take on more debt? Besides applicability, address the specific points I brought up. Each was in fact asserted by at least one other member on the first or second page, unless I'm mistaken.

Perhaps - short term leads into long term. Short term, we have people without jobs - long term we have the survival of the human race.

Something of a difficult circle to square, but when the British Government is cutting spending to try to keep the lights on CERN looks like a vanity project, and it's not the only one it just got a broadside because it was the topic at hand.

Of course, it's quite evident in the lines of reasoning you engage in here. :wink:

I try to acknowledge my bias and work around it, I don't claim to be perfect but I do claim to at least try to be self aware.

Let us accept the Kuhnian argument at face value, but we should pay closer attention to the LHC experiments specifically: could you have conceived of a better way of going about "disproving" the Standard Model than the collider?

Bottom line - you're getting ahead of yourself and ourselves.

The point I made then, and stand by, is that now there are other things to spend the money on, later is later.

You're very good at catching others' subtle meanings; here, on the other hand, you're simply reading too much into it.

Last week I was asked again if I believe in evolution - under the circumstances I beg forgiveness for being oversensitive.

rory_20_uk

08-28-2012, 22:34

The cost of Cern is a fraction of the waste in one department. Social Services is where the vast sums go, often for no hope of anything positive.

~:smoking:

Beskar

08-29-2012, 01:50

Something that may be of interest to you

Now that poses a metaphysical question. If everything that has already happened is done and everything that hasn't happened is done, are we merely shadows in the slice of existence?

(aka Predeterminism)

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-29-2012, 01:53

Now that poses a metaphysical question. If everything that has already happened is done and everything that hasn't happened is done, are we merely shadows in the slice of existence?

From a three dimensional perspective, yes.

From a four dimensional perspective, no.

Go read Flatland, that explains the problem pretty well.

Moros

08-30-2012, 00:37

Go read Flatland, that explains the problem pretty well.

:yes: Very interesting book, also gets mentioned in one of the other episodes of the documentary I posted, that explains the basic concepts of space.

Montmorency

08-30-2012, 01:44

With so many annotated prints and editions, which one comes recommended?

a completely inoffensive name

08-30-2012, 03:00

With so many annotated prints and editions, which one comes recommended?

To be honest, all you need is just an edition that has the full story (which isn't that long). No point in choosing one that has a specific intro or whatever, it's an English satirical novel written by a schoolmaster. It is good for examining dimensions but is meant as a jab at the social structure at the time (Victorian).

naut

09-10-2012, 07:51

Ugh. Someone I previously had a lot of respect for just post this image:

7117

Autism =/= vaccines.

:wall:

a completely inoffensive name

09-10-2012, 10:15

Ugh. Someone I previously had a lot of respect for just post this image:

7117

Autism =/= vaccines.

:wall:

This is one of the issues that genuinely gets me angry and radicalized. I hate these people so much. It's just so frustrating to have the evidence so clear thrown away because thye need a scapegoat to blame their problems on.

rory_20_uk

09-10-2012, 21:09

People live a lot longer
People don't die of infections that used to kill them.
We now medicalise a lot more things that previously were just not medical illnesses.

~:smoking:

Beskar

09-10-2012, 21:29

This really isn't like the GPS, this is a situation where by the time you get back nobody remembers you left, and you end up doing a "Buck Rogers" but without Wilma to guide you through the defense shield.

Not really. It is more "It will take 40 years for you to get there", but it feels like you was only travelling for 1 year. It isn't "It will take 40 years" then you are at that speed on the ship for 40 years but for earth it was 200.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-10-2012, 23:05

Not really. It is more "It will take 40 years for you to get there", but it feels like you was only travelling for 1 year. It isn't "It will take 40 years" then you are at that speed on the ship for 40 years but for earth it was 200.

The problem is exponential, the further you go the worse it gets.

The best example of the problem depicted in fiction is probably "Forever War", guy spends 1,000 years in the military during a ten year conscription.

We will have to go a LONG way to find habitable planets, so it's perfectly conceivable that by the time you got back to Earth, it might not be there. Commerce and communication would be essentially impossible, all you're able to do with sub-luminal travel is seed planets with human being and hope they make it. You can't even send out flotilla's of ships, because you can't guarantee more than one ship will make it, so each colony ship has to be completely self sufficient. That makes it incredibly difficult to send out "prepackaged" colony forces, because it prevents the hyper-specialisation you need in an advanced society.

Why do you think I find religion more interesting than science?

Kralizec

09-10-2012, 23:19

The problem is exponential, the further you go the worse it gets.

Not technically true, AFAIk. Acceleration and deceleration cause time delation (say that 10x in a row), not movement itself.

Of course, traveling somewhere and returning to the starting point will involve both, so the point is moot.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-11-2012, 00:17

Not technically true, AFAIk. Acceleration and deceleration cause time delation (say that 10x in a row), not movement itself.

Of course, traveling somewhere and returning to the starting point will involve both, so the point is moot.

Apparently not - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

The issue is relative speed.

Greyblades

09-11-2012, 00:26

Don't you just love that nothing, not even time, is a constant in the universe.

Kadagar_AV

09-11-2012, 00:58

The problem is exponential, the further you go the worse it gets.

The best example of the problem depicted in fiction is probably "Forever War", guy spends 1,000 years in the military during a ten year conscription.

We will have to go a LONG way to find habitable planets, so it's perfectly conceivable that by the time you got back to Earth, it might not be there. Commerce and communication would be essentially impossible, all you're able to do with sub-luminal travel is seed planets with human being and hope they make it. You can't even send out flotilla's of ships, because you can't guarantee more than one ship will make it, so each colony ship has to be completely self sufficient. That makes it incredibly difficult to send out "prepackaged" colony forces, because it prevents the hyper-specialisation you need in an advanced society.

Why do you think I find religion more interesting than science?

*doing the whole 14yo cheerleader thingy*

OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG

I have been looking for that book for AGES!! I was actually thinking of it the other week. Awesome book IMHO.

So THANKS!!!!!

With that said, I have absolutely NO idea as to how a functional mind can take the lessons from that book and translate that to a love for God. But then I read it when I was 11, and it more functioned as a gateway to Einstein and science's approach to the phenomenons he described scientifically.

Tuuvi

09-11-2012, 05:34

Personally I've never understood why Science and Religion are always considered mutually exclusive by so many people. Religion is more existential than that, and a lot of self-described Christians are fully capable of understanding the scientific world around them, and considering it all the more reason to marvel at the holiness of it all. :shrug:

Well, they are exclusive in that you can't apply religion to science, and vise versa. But I don't get why you can't believe in both either.

Montmorency

09-11-2012, 07:15

Doesn't natural science abrogate - "eliminate" - concepts such as the phlogiston and the luminiferous aether?

And just so with magic and the soul?

These which are lacking favorable scientific evidence and the existence of which would contradict contemporary leading physical theories? Such as, for instance, laws of thermodynamics?

And the Abrahamic God is an alleged entity that can contravene natural law at will?

How could science not abrogate such a thing?

Science and religion must war.

naut

09-11-2012, 08:01

Personally I've never understood why Science and Religion are always considered mutually exclusive by so many people. Religion is more existential than that, and a lot of self-described Christians are fully capable of understanding the scientific world around them, and considering it all the more reason to marvel at the holiness of it all. :shrug:
They are mutually exclusive because at the core religion is belief without evidence and science is belief based on evidence. The two are not compatible and suggesting otherwise is naive.

Sigurd

09-11-2012, 14:09

There are those who claim that science presupposes a theistic world view.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-11-2012, 15:42

*doing the whole 14yo cheerleader thingy*

OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG

I have been looking for that book for AGES!! I was actually thinking of it the other week. Awesome book IMHO.

So THANKS!!!!!

With that said, I have absolutely NO idea as to how a functional mind can take the lessons from that book and translate that to a love for God. But then I read it when I was 11, and it more functioned as a gateway to Einstein and science's approach to the phenomenons he described scientifically.

Joe Haldeman, I recomend "Forever Peace" too, it's a direct sequal.

To answer your question, Haldeman's Sci-Fi is pretty hard, but he still has jump gates and "Tachyon Drives", and at the end of the day he's still producing a fantasy. Basically, I got bored of looking outward because there's not much there we can see, and I started looking inward.

Personally I've never understood why Science and Religion are always considered mutually exclusive by so many people. Religion is more existential than that, and a lot of self-described Christians are fully capable of understanding the scientific world around them, and considering it all the more reason to marvel at the holiness of it all. :shrug:

Mostly I think it is because people don't understand each other, and therefore are hostile.

The very term "Science" as a shorthand for "Natural Philosophy" further complicates the problem. As Sigurd has previously noted, Theology is a Science.

Doesn't natural science abrogate - "eliminate" - concepts such as the phlogiston and the luminiferous aether?

And just so with magic and the soul?

These which are lacking favorable scientific evidence and the existence of which would contradict contemporary leading physical theories? Such as, for instance, laws of thermodynamics?

And the Abrahamic God is an alleged entity that can contravene natural law at will?

How could science not abrogate such a thing?

Science and religion must war.

Heads up - this is likely to become one of those threads I "dominate" and "piss everyone off" in, for the next page or so. Just so you know ahead of time and can turn on your cognitive filters.

For everybody else:

"Science", the Scientific Method, divides the world into what it can and can't measure - ultimately it seeks to bring all things under it's auspices because it is tool used be humans, and humans are jealous control freaks. As it's really humans making the call and not "Science" what "Science" does is cheat.

They are mutually exclusive because at the core religion is belief without evidence and science is belief based on evidence. The two are not compatible and suggesting otherwise is naive.

Epistomology contradicts this, because ultimately all "evidence" relies on sense-perception, which is entirely subjective and therefore unreliable. The "Scientific" method is about interpreting the data we recieve via our perceptions. It can only work with concrete numbers it can measure, so it assigns numbers to some perceptions and declares anything it can't measure (like subjective experiences that can't be asigned a numerical value) to be invalid, uninteresting or the result of a deranged mind.

As I said, "Science" cheats.

There's no experiment that Natrual Philosophers can construct using the Scientific Method which even speaks to questions like "the soul" or "free will", because they don't have any idea what these concepts really mean in relation to the concrete physical world and therefore have nothing to measure.

The reason modern Natural Philosophers insist on being called "Scientists" is to try to distance themselves from the rest of the Academy and to avoid the epistomological problem in favour of an almost religious belief in the objective value of their experiments.

There are those who claim that science presupposes a theistic world view.

Yes, but it really presupposes a Deistic or Pantehistic view - tempting as it is to upgrade that to theism.

Montmorency

09-11-2012, 19:03

"Science", the Scientific Method, divides the world into what it can and can't measure - ultimately it seeks to bring all things under it's auspices because it is tool used be humans, and humans are jealous control freaks. As it's really humans making the call and not "Science" what "Science" does is cheat.

Yes, but it really presupposes a Deistic or Pantehistic view - tempting as it is to upgrade that to theism.

You're welcome to say more. I assume you and Sigurd mean the second in that 'broad' view of yours?

But I'm quite sure that, having accepted contemporary natural science over other lenses, one may apply the abrogation principle. That's cheating in the same manner theism does. There's no need to revisit the first place in that context.

Heads up - this is likely to become one of those threads I "dominate" and "piss everyone off" in, for the next page or so. Just so you know ahead of time and can turn on your cognitive filters.

Don't be dense.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-11-2012, 19:25

You're welcome to say more. I assume you and Sigurd mean the second in that 'broad' view of yours?

But I'm quite sure that, having accepted contemporary natural science over other lenses, one may apply the abrogation principle. That's cheating in the same manner theism does. There's no need to revisit the first place in that context.

Ah, excellent, higher brain functions out to lunch again, I see.

The irony of you complaining about my use of language is not lost on me.

having accepted contemporary natural science over other lenses

This is your basic problem.

You are confusing the ranking of the various branches of philosophy - this isn't a ranking based on "status" it has to do with what type of knowledge another type of knowledge proceeds from. You have to acknowledge the metaphysical and epistemological problem with the Scientific Method before you can employ it. Ergo, metaphysics and epistemology precede Natural Philosophy, ergo Natural Philosophy cannot be the lens through which you view the universe, unless you wish to be myopic.

Don't be dense.

Don't be a jerk, if you don't like having your words repeated.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-12-2012, 00:07

I like the way PVC's thinking, here.

To really understand why Science (or, indeed, Natural Philosophy) and Religion actually complement eachother one needs to start thinking philosophically. A lot of athiests have it in their heads that a religious person is living in some simple fantasy land, but that's just not true--nobody can deny the evidence of their own eyes. And yet, when natural philosophers first looked at cells under a microscope, or started to work out the nature of the solar system, they did not see this as a contradiction with god.

And yet, people ignore the evidence of their own eyes, and their minds, all the time.

Look at all those cuckold husbands.

The universe has to be put together some how. If it was all willed into existence by a supernatural being, then surely all these little complexities and the grand scale of it all only reflects the complexity and genius of the god that created it. The inconsistencies are our failure to understand the situation, and science is something that brings you closer to understanding the nature of god and yourself.

Or something like that.

This precise argument has been made many times over the last few millennia, but atheists have decried religious people as fools and simpletons for just as long.

So, what you gonna do? You can't kill and idea, but some people just need to keep trying. Currently the atheists are at it in the media across the Western world. Personally, I prefer that to being fed to lions but it's still irritating.

Montmorency

09-12-2012, 00:16

You are confusing the ranking of the various branches of philosophy - this isn't a ranking based on "status" it has to do with what type of knowledge another type of knowledge proceeds from. You have to acknowledge the metaphysical and epistemological problem with the Scientific Method before you can employ it. Ergo, metaphysics and epistemology precede Natural Philosophy, ergo Natural Philosophy cannot be the lens through which you view the universe, unless you wish to be myopic.

As in, science (resist the urge) vs. your religion. Or are they no longer epistemologically equivalent? Who's missing whom here?

The irony of you complaining about my use of language is not lost on me.

Don't be a jerk, if you don't like having your words repeated.

Are you misunderstanding deliberately? I don't see what your beef is, here.

The universe has to be put together some how. If it was all willed into existence by a supernatural being, then surely all these little complexities and the grand scale of it all only reflects the complexity and genius of the god that created it. The inconsistencies are our failure to understand the situation, and science is something that brings you closer to understanding the nature of god and yourself.

Natural science will abrogate certain concepts incompatible with standing physical theories. y/n
Science abrogates phlogiston, aether, magic, the soul, etc. y/n
Would science (resist the urge) then, abrogating all this, not abrogate an entity who can bend and break and change all physical laws on a whim? y/n

Could someone please address that abrogation principle?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-12-2012, 01:09

As in, science (resist the urge) vs. your religion. Or are they no longer epistemologically equivalent? Who's missing whom here?

That depends on what epistemological level we are talking, and more importantly whether you mean my religion or my theology.

The difference between modern theology and modern Natural Philosophy is that the latter refuses to engage with metaphysical questions and actively ignores them, while the former readily admits the problems they present and integrates epistemology and metaphysics..

Theology is also capable of postulating answers to metaphysical questions, albeit untestable ones. Natural Philosophy doesn't care about such questions, it requires other branches of Philosophy to provide the answers.

Are you misunderstanding deliberately? I don't see what your beef is, here.

You are making a deliberate category error by referring to it as "Natural Science", this is incorrect because "Scientia" is a method, not a discipline. Modern Natural Philosophers call themselves "Scientists" as though they were the only ones using the Scientific methods, and so that they do not have to admit to being Philosophers.

Let's consider that a moment, some Natural Philosophers are ashamed of being Philosophers. If you wispered that above Aristotle's grave his corpse would spin so fast that the Greeks could hook it up to their National Grid and power the entire country and the rest of the Mediteranian Sea Board.

Natural science will abrogate certain concepts incompatible with standing physical theories. y/n

This is only a useful observation if the theory is right do you want to go over all the correct concepts that were abrogated by bad theories? Especially in the realm of disease? Or perhaps we should discuss Steady State theory and the abrogation of a beginning to linear time?

So, overall, no - unless you can demonstrate that your theory is correct, back to epistemology.

Science abrogates phlogiston, aether, magic, the soul, etc. y/n

I'm insulted that you think me so stupid, I really am.

Philogiston and aether were postulated physical phenomena. "Magic" is a word used to describe anything people do not understand and "the Soul" is not a physical concept . Neither "magic" nor the soul are accessible to Scientia because there is no numerical data to test.

Science has not, and cannot, abrogate the soul because it has no theory about what it might be.

So, overall, no - because your claim was malformed, I should go and demand your money back from whoever taught you rhetoric and logic. If you completed a university degrees without being provided with these basic tools I should sue the university.

Would science (resist the urge) then, abrogating all this, not abrogate an entity who can bend and break and change all physical laws on a whim? y/n

Given that it can't abrogate the things you said it can, no. Also, no in general.

1. We've been over this, a scientific experiment requires an ordered universe, otherwise you can conduct any experiments. Therefore, you cannot test whether the universe is ordered, you can only infer that it is from the consistency of controlled experiments.

2. An Omnipotent being is just that, all powerful, any all powerful being can do whatsoever it wishes. If it creates physical laws it can just as soon change or suspend them. This does not present a logical problem because the being in question is not defined, merely assigned certain attributes. It is not necessary to clarify what type of being would be Omnipotent, merely to recognise the consequences of such a being's existence.

That doesn't mean you have to believe in an Omnipotent God, but that is the God you are arguing against, so arguments that limit His power can be rejected out of hand.

Could someone please address that abrogation principle?

Presumably someone other than me, and you consider "sane"?

Sigurd, perhaps? He isn't religious.

Montmorency

09-12-2012, 01:42

You are making a deliberate category error by referring to it as "Natural Science", this is incorrect because "Scientia" is a method, not a discipline.

Why take especial fault with me for it, when it's common usage everywhere, including on this board?

Neither "magic" nor the soul are accessible to Scientia because there is no numerical data to test.

Given that it can't abrogate the things you said it can, no. Also, no in general.

I don't see how that can be, insofar as contemporary natural science (resist the urge, Phillip!) is inherently materialistic. Other than not categorizing it with the first two items, I struggle to think of a formulation that you'll find worthy.

"Can't abrogate the soul"...not through experiment, but why not through this other attribute? Scientists are, as you say, philosophers by another name.

This is only a useful observation if the theory is right

This is some kind of fallacy, I'm sure. Consider it in terms of what is accepted today, then. Science today against so and so.

Presumably someone other than me, and you consider "sane"?

I have valued your insight in the past; why do you interpret my side of our communication as a personal attack? Stop that.

I relate one humorous observation and you go all sour.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-12-2012, 02:19

Why take especial fault with me for it, when it's common usage everywhere, including on this board?

I have taken issue with others in the past, as they will no doubt testify.

I don't see how that can be, insofar as contemporary natural science (resist the urge, Phillip!) is inherently materialistic. Other than not categorizing it with the first two items, I struggle to think of a formulation that you'll find worthy.

The soul is not a material thing, and no experiments have gathered any data on it.

"Can't abrogate the soul"...not through experiment, but why not through this other attribute? Scientists are, as you say, philosophers by another name.

Ah, but then they cease to be "scientists" and have to enter the Academy through the same low door as everyone else, stand too tall and you'll knock your head. I suggest you read the Greeks, it's all been done. Don't ever be fooled by the likes of Dawkins, his arguments are the result of a Classical education, not the fruit of his own mind. That doesn't mean they have been proved false, but they are not novel and they have been adequately countered several times over the previous millennia.

This is some kind of fallacy, I'm sure. Consider it in terms of what is accepted today, then. Science today against so and so.

And Science yesterday?

You see the problem?

Yes, it's reasonable to say that Science has abrogated aether, but when you include magic and soul you are moving beyond questions science has actually addressed and making an inference based your worldview.

The "soul" is an idea, it has never been defined, its effect has been observed as "a glint in the eye" etc., but that does not describe what the soul is. Hence, you cannot address it with the Scientific Method, which is why there have been no experiments which successfully addressed the question.

However, even in the case of Aether you have to remember that scientific knowledge is ever advancing, and to not demand that your particular "facts" be enshrined as sacred. It may be that we will one day be able to measure and artificially construct the soul, but we should not assume that we will be able to, or that if we cannot that means it does not exist.

And to be absolutely clear, when I say "not physical" I mean all the way down to the lowest subatomic level.

I have valued your insight in the past; why do you interpret my side of our communication as a personal attack? Stop that.

I relate one humorous observation and you go all sour.

Telling me that I "piss everybody off" is not humorous, it as a very personal insult and, I think, inaccurate. I take personal insults personally, and doubly so when they are made outside the Backroom where I will put most things down the the heat of the moment.

Your failure to apologise and continued attempts to pass it off as a "joke" reflect poorly on your character, in my view.

Montmorency

09-12-2012, 02:55

However, even in the case of Aether you have to remember that scientific knowledge is ever advancing, and to not demand that your particular "facts" be enshrined as sacred.

I never thought I'd hear the first part from you, and the second is a mischaracterization; I'll address it below.

I suggest you read the Greeks, it's all been done. Don't ever be fooled by the likes of Dawkins, his arguments are the result of a Classical education, not the fruit of his own mind. That doesn't mean they have been proved false, but they are not novel and they have been adequately countered several times over the previous millennia.

Is this something Dawkins put forth? Never read him.

For that matter, I'll attempt once more to formulate this as clearly and specifically as I'm able:

The soul is not a material thing, and no experiments have gathered any data on it.

Yes, it's reasonable to say that Science has abrogated aether, but when you include magic and soul you are moving beyond questions science has actually addressed and making an inference based your worldview.

The "soul" is an idea, it has never been defined, its effect has been observed as "a glint in the eye" etc., but that does not describe what the soul is. Hence, you cannot address it with the Scientific Method, which is why there have been no experiments which successfully addressed the question.

Contemporary science is materialistic. It doesn't need to test for concepts like the soul - it dismisses them in the first place. Immaterial things are abrogated by default. Going from contemporary science, and putting aside the core epistemological deficits of any belief system or approach, something like a supernatural God ought to be abrogated.

Dawkins argued this, in as many words? I'm taking ACIN's entreaty here: please lay out in detail where the fault lies in the above claim. Don't tell me to reread your posts, because I really don't see that you've actually countered this line of thought.

Your failure to apologise and continued attempts to pass it off as a "joke" reflect poorly on your character, in my view.

It wasn't a joke. It was an illustration for an anecdote.

Telling me that I "piss everybody off" is not humorous, it as a very personal insult and, I think, inaccurate. I take personal insults personally, and doubly so when they are made outside the Backroom where I will put most things down the the heat of the moment.

That's not what I said. IIRC, you were for whatever reason offended even before that, and became even more so after I tried to explain what I was getting at - the line you quoted being a part of my attempt to illustrate it. If you're going to be stubbornly pissy(I suppose spelling it out again wouldn't help?), well, :shrug: let's just abrogate it from now on. It never happened. :shakehands:

Sigurd

09-12-2012, 09:06

Contemporary science is materialistic. It doesn't need to test for concepts like the soul - it dismisses them in the first place. Immaterial things are abrogated by default. Going from contemporary science, and putting aside the core epistemological deficits of any belief system or approach, something like a supernatural God ought to be abrogated.
How did contemporary science reach this conclusion? That all immaterial "things" are abrogated/repealed/invalidated (english is not my first language) by default? There is nothing immaterial employed in contemporary science?

Idaho

09-12-2012, 09:07

This precise argument has been made many times over the last few millennia, but atheists have decried religious people as fools and simpletons for just as long.

So, what you gonna do? You can't kill and idea, but some people just need to keep trying. Currently the atheists are at it in the media across the Western world. Personally, I prefer that to being fed to lions but it's still irritating.

God = Nature was the thrust of Spinoza's work.

Religion used to claim to answer all questions. It fought bitterly and violently against any suggestion, and proof, of the contrary. Over the years it has been forced to give ground on every front. The only answers left to it are either the ones that science can't/won't address or that science has not found a satisfactory or complete answer.

Religion decried the telescope. The theory of a round earth. The theory of evolution.

I have no problem with the belief in god. With a religious moral code. But if you want to find out what is really happening, then park these at the door and do some science.

Greyblades

09-12-2012, 10:50

Religion decried the telescope. The theory of a round earth. The theory of evolution.

Huh, I was under the impression that christianity didnt decry the world being round, seeing as the ancient greeks knew that much, but that the earth circled the sun.

Montmorency

09-12-2012, 11:07

How did contemporary science reach this conclusion? That all immaterial "things" are abrogated/repealed/invalidated (english is not my first language) by default? There is nothing immaterial employed in contemporary science?

Is there? What aspects do you perceive to be "immaterial"?

Idaho

09-12-2012, 11:19

Concepts like the Aether are still around. Dark Energy is as vague and mystical as any Aether theory ever was. :shrug: That doesn't mean anything by itself, but it goes to show that what you think of as concrete science now may very well be considered outdated and ridiculous hogwash in a few centuries.

This is the strength of science. It states that, as we currently understand based on experiment - this is how the world is. It leaves the door wide open for challenging current views, and for revisiting assumptions.

Religion, on the other hand, says that if you challenge assumptions you are a heretic, and that the truth as we believe is eternal and will never change.

Sigurd

09-12-2012, 12:02

Is there? What aspects do you perceive to be "immaterial"?
I asked you...

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-12-2012, 12:40

I never thought I'd hear the first part from you, and the second is a mischaracterization; I'll address it below.

I told you before, Scientific study bored me... I took it as far as it was interesting and decided to examine language and the history of thought instead.

I really do wish people would give me some credit some times, I would have thought I'd demonstrated I have at least a good conceptual grasp on theories of evolution and space-time.

Is this something Dawkins put forth? Never read him.

For that matter, I'll attempt once more to formulate this as clearly and specifically as I'm able:

What's important to understand is that Dawkins is reflective of the atheist side of the debate in this quarter-century, and he is not original.

Contemporary science is materialistic. It doesn't need to test for concepts like the soul - it dismisses them in the first place. Immaterial things are abrogated by default. Going from contemporary science, and putting aside the core epistemological deficits of any belief system or approach, something like a supernatural God ought to be abrogated.

Dawkins argued this, in as many words? I'm taking ACIN's entreaty here: please lay out in detail where the fault lies in the above claim. Don't tell me to reread your posts, because I really don't see that you've actually countered this line of thought.

As I said, "Science" cheats, anything it can't measure it ignores or decries as irrelevant, usually both.

Unfortunately for "Science" it doesn't control the universe or the debate. You can't abrogate something just because you can't fit it into your discipline - you might as well abrogate language as the soul.

It wasn't a joke. It was an illustration for an anecdote.

That's not what I said. IIRC, you were for whatever reason offended even before that, and became even more so after I tried to explain what I was getting at - the line you quoted being a part of my attempt to illustrate it. If you're going to be stubbornly pissy(I suppose spelling it out again wouldn't help?), well, :shrug: let's just abrogate it from now on. It never happened. :shakehands:

You bean with an unsolicited criticism of my debating style and moved on to a personal attack.

Your comment was intrusive because it was unsolicited, if you can't appreciate that then that also reflects badly upon your character.

What you did was the equivalent of knocking on my door and saying , "hey, you're a dick and nobody likes you". I don't respond well to being bullied, especially by people who do not make the effort to think outside their particular box.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-12-2012, 13:25

God = Nature was the thrust of Spinoza's work.

Spinozan Pantheism, Einstein's preferred theology. Yes, I know. It is not, as Richard Dawkins wishes to charactarise it, "atheism lite."

Religion used to claim to answer all questions. It fought bitterly and violently against any suggestion, and proof, of the contrary. Over the years it has been forced to give ground on every front. The only answers left to it are either the ones that science can't/won't address or that science has not found a satisfactory or complete answer.

Religion decried the telescope. The theory of a round earth. The theory of evolution.

I have no problem with the belief in god. With a religious moral code. But if you want to find out what is really happening, then park these at the door and do some science.

This is wrong because it is anachronistic, you are constructing a religion/science or even religion/reason conflict and reading it back into history.

Not so, until 200 years ago most scientists in Europe and the Islamic world were not only religious, but also usually clergy. Religion and scientific study were intimately connected, so it is not accurate to say that "religion" fought against new ideas, because it was the establishment that fought them.

The fact that the scientific establishment was composed of clergy is irrelevant, what is relevant is that in each case the establishment ultimately accepted the better theory and incorporated it into orthodoxy.

I suggest you review the history of the "Big Bang" and particularly the reactions and attitudes of men like Sir Fred Hoyle to the theory when it was first proposed. I then suggest you review the history of the major figures that have contributed to the furthering of knowledge Scientifically. You will struggle to find an important atheist between Aristotle and Einstein.

This is the strength of science. It states that, as we currently understand based on experiment - this is how the world is. It leaves the door wide open for challenging current views, and for revisiting assumptions.

This is the orthodoxy preached to the public, in reality scientists will bitterly defend their own theories, sometimes against all evidence and unto their deaths. Fred Hoyle refused to countenance the belief in a created universe because it opened up the possibility of a creator; he died bitterly rejecting the theory. Similarly, Galileo refused to accept Kepler's correctly modeled version of heliocentrism because it gave the planets elliptical rather than circular orbits.

Religion, on the other hand, says that if you challenge assumptions you are a heretic, and that the truth as we believe is eternal and will never change.

Again, you are describing the establishment - modern "science" will not accept a new theory unless there is overwhelming evidence in support of it. Your charactarisation of theology is also incorrect, theology is capable of developing new concepts and the claim made by religions is the same as the scientific establishment.

"what we believe now has always been true."

"The truth is eternal and will never change" is in no way a foolish or illogical statement, quite the opposite. In order for truth to be truth it must be constant, otherwise it would be false. Complaining that religions believe their beliefs to be true is to complain that they are not intellectually dishonest.

Montmorency

09-12-2012, 13:58

You bean with an unsolicited criticism of my debating style and moved on to a personal attack.

I will distil the point of the VM one last time: I noticed that you were approaching Sasaki in a manner similar to how others, in the past, had approached you in 'those' threads. Why is that upsetting to you? To elaborate when rebuffed, I described what I felt was going on in those threads, for comparison. Why was that offensive to you? If you felt I mischaracterized something, you needed only to correct me...

Your comment was intrusive because it was unsolicited

Should I have asked permission to VM you? Are you nobility, by any chance?

if you can't appreciate that then that also reflects badly upon your character.

You're welcome to think so.

What you did was the equivalent of knocking on my door and saying , "hey, you're a dick and nobody likes you". I don't respond well to being bullied, especially by people who do not make the effort to think outside their particular box.

Rubbish.

I regret, though, that it had to color this discussion to such an extent. I hope it won't in the future.

I've extracted more or less what I was looking for. The context in which I posted a few days ago was whether or not science is compatible with religion. I argued that it isn't - contemporary science - due to the abrogation principle. You corrected one of my category errors, namely that I implied the soul and the aether are abrogated for similar (i.e. theoretical) reasons, and I reformulated it as, 'contemporary science abrogates such a thing through materialist principles by default, and so a supernatural God would be abrogated as well'. You seem to accept this. Are we cool?

really do wish people would give me some credit some times, I would have thought I'd demonstrated I have at least a good conceptual grasp on theories of evolution and space-time.

I thought you had contradicted an earlier post in this or some other thread. Perhaps it was another member...