Moira_Mayhem
It’s pretty clear to me that you have a strong emotional reason to be replying to everyone who’s talking about science in this thread
Not really, as mentioned I’m a STEM major that uses the scientific method on a near daily basis. Any assumptions say a lot more about you than me.
I’ve already mentioned that, proving that you don’t really want conversation and just enjoy seeing your posts on the internet.
more reflective of the world as you’ve experienced it.
Yes, that is the ENTIRE purpose of my post, personal experience trumps peer reviewed study. Not sure why you seem to think this is a negative.
It’s not exactly good faith
Not a single reply, including yours, has been in good faith and most of you didn’t even bother reading more than one or two sentences before you started replying.
your comments as being a bit aggressive and in general not nice.
Yes they are. I am both aggressive and a not nice person in general (it’s medical: EDS) that has been treated exceedingly not nice in this thread and I am responding as such. Are you going to now have the arrogance to tell me I need to change who I am to communicate on beehaw? I see you’re flying your admin flag in this thread so I’m interpreting this entire reply as an implied threat.
It might be a good idea for you to either disengage with this thread
It might be a good idea for you to get bent six ways from Sunday, then establish a research foundation staffed with the world’s most brilliant bentologists in order to research new and interesting ways to get bent in. Then do them.
All at once.
The question you’re asking doesn’t make sense in my worldview
Then your worldview is flawed as science is not yet a complete understanding of everything. I am not invoking the supernatural at any point in my arguments and the fact that you think I am says more about you than it does me.
I am speaking about experiential truth that contradicts current scientific consensus pointing to the fact that current scientific consensus is incomplete. Not trying at all to invoke the supernatural.
Reality is everything, so it’s all that I consider.
How sophomoric and full of yourself you seem.
Can you show me a molecule of empathy? What is the atomic weight of democracy? What standard scale do we measure the love of a mother for her children?
Human thought has created conceptual realities that affect our lives just as surely as gravity. Money, fairness, hope for the future, the concept of states and nations, all of these things are not ‘reality’, they are not inherent in the structure of the universe and do not obey the laws of physics as we understand them.
Look I get it, you’re all doped up on the heady ferment of casting off religious shackles, and you feel that this bright new world absent of supernatural entities is the ‘clear eyed vision’ of objective truth that Sagan spoke about.
I hate to tell you this but your fanatical adherence to atheism has blinded you to the fact that other things exist that do not adhere to your estimation of reality.
And lastly: ‘gnostic atheist’ is a funny title, considering that we have yet to gain complete understanding of the universe so ‘knowing’ that the supernatural doesn’t exist is kind of impossible.
You are just another worshiper of scientism, blind to everything that doesn’t have spin or mass.
Por que no los dos?
It’s been a while, and he sincerely mourned her near daily for years.
There was never even a hint of impropriety at any point, and I know they were both really concerned about the family perception.
It’s still weird but they seem pretty happy together and frankly there isn’t enough happiness in the world to begin with.
But what in the cases where you are not equipped or educated enough to perform the research properly?
This is especially relevant in the field of medicine and nutrition as we have so much more to learn about biology and chemistry and those are subjects almost no layman has the resources or knowledge to study. .
The example I gave to the original top of this thread was the keto diet.
If you found that by eating very few carbs you lost significantly more weight WITHOUT reducing your caloric intake, would you have the biological and chemical knowledge to research this in a meaningful way?
Yet you would have had the physical experience of losing the weight, you would KNOW it works because it worked for you.
Anyone who paints science in such a negative light, as you have
I think you may have some deep-seated issues, I’m a STEM major. Science is pretty awesome, just not the end-all be-all of human experience.
Please provide some specific examples.
Ok. So in the mid-90s the scientific consensus for weight loss was simple: You must maintain a calorie deficit, this is the only way to lose weight.
If you went to your doctor and asked ‘How do I lose weight without burning more calories than I consume’, you would be told it is impossible, against the laws of thermodynamics, and if such a method could be found it would probably involve drugs with strong side effects.
This is not true.
And we’ve known its not true for a while now, but ‘scientific consensus’ refused to acknowledge results that disproved the earlier stated ‘peer reviewed facts’.
You can (easily) lose weight on a low carb diet (keto) even if you exceed your calorie consumption by 1000kcal or more (I was intaking 4500-5000 kcal of food a day and lost over 80 lbs in a pace of two years.
The thing is, scientific consensus is JUST NOW starting to catch up with this, and NOW there are peer-reviewed studies showing losing weight on keto doesn’t require a caloric deficit.
This illustrates my point: There is an arrogance in academia that precludes so many things based on assumptions.
That isn’t even touching the current Reproducibility Crisis that is calling into question decades of supposed ‘objectively peer reviewed’ results.
Perception is inherently flawed and for all intents and purposes cannot be as correct as objective,
I’m sorry but going from 290 to 210lbs in a years time isn’t a flaw in perception.
. The scientific method exists in large part to remove hand-waving guesswork and pure fictitious nonsense
Up until basically only five years ago, nearly all medical professionals called weight loss without caloric deficit pure fictitious nonsense. I think this proves that just because a bunch of out of touch researchers, self-satisfied in their academic prestige, declare something fictitious nonsense that it does not automatically mean that it actually is.
A great example is a feather falling slower than a bowling ball in atmosphere. Your first perception would not lead you to understand the science of gravity as we now know it thanks to rigorous scientific proof.
I sincerely disagree. Everyone on the planet will tell you that the feather will fall slower in atmosphere.
I think you are trying to reference the same experiment in a vacuum.
But I’m getting the impression you are less a practitioner of science than you are a religious fanatic with science as your god.
Until we drop First Past the Post voting for Ranked Choice, we will never be free of the regressive portions of the democratic party.
TO BE CLEAR: This isn’t a ‘both sides’ argument. Only one party tried to overthrow a legal election by force.
That said, voting blue is only necessary because we realistically have no other choice under our current voting structure.
That’s only because the ruling emperors of moral absolutism are so fuckdamn lound and persistent.
It creates the illusion that there are so many more of them than there actually are.
Do you remember the Westboro Baptist Church from a few years back? Constantly all over the media shouting their bigoted hate?
Yeah, it was a group of less than 100 people doing it mainly as a source of income.
But they managed to get themselves in front of every camera for like 5 years in a row. Turns out they didn’t even really believe their hatespeech and just found that suing people who tried to interfere with their horrid protests was super profitable.
Serious question: What do you do when your perceptions and experience contradicts the results of supposedly objective, scientifically peer-reviewed facts?
Do you assume your perceptions are wrong, or do you assume that the supposed ‘objective truth’ you know to be incorrect?
