Bartholomew Jones

2 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

You misunderstand the nature of this exchange. I'm telling you to follow the rules. This is not a negotiation. You don't get to say "no" if you wish to remain.

 

I don't need you.  In fact, this is a diversion from my work.  I've respected the rules.  You disrespect truth.

34 minutes ago, iNow said:

Whatever. Please answer the question. 

 

As I’m not here to act like an insufferable jerk as you seem to be, I’ll gladly answer any question you pose. However, right now, I’m not at all clear what you’d like answered. 

If you read back, I actual DID answer your question asking about equilibrium. Please, sir. What question have you asked that you feel I’ve ignored?

So, let’s be human toward each other for a moment. Answer my question regarding quarantine supposedly leading to higher incidence of covid... I raised the idea to my toddler who (despite you suggesting was incapable of understanding how to operate a doorknob) said that idea was obviously dumb, and I agree. Why do you assert otherwise?

The question is not general; equilibrium (9th grade?) It's specific: what is equilibrium in an ecology.  

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Whether in ecology or elsewhere, equilibrium is a balanced state toward which nearly all systems tend... the position of least possible energy expenditure.

Now... Without making me feel like I’m trying to interpret a fortune cookie, will you  kindly please elaborate on why you thought this was the best possible response to:

”Suggestions that quarantine leads to increased spread of covid are self-evidently ridiculous to the point of absurdity and insanity?”

Firstly, you didn't answer the question.  Secondly, you're not swansont; whom you're apparently trying to exonerate as far as I can see.

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

You’re nowhere even close, but if breaking it is your goal then it’s obviously time to leave, whether voluntarily or not. 

I'm not here to please people, or to be pleased.

What's the record for downvotes?

9 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Are you really trying to say that they changed the Bill of Rights and nobody noticed?

Are you still expecting to betaken seriously?

Do you read?  The term used was "replica."  The implication is that there are axes of people who would counterfeit/sabotage the bill of rights.

9 hours ago, swansont said:

It's an argument that implies quarantining is bad, and the immediate quarantine in the US is why there are more deaths in the US. It's a crappy argument.

Answer me this then, if you understand science.  What is equilibrium in an ecology?

The original argument:

On 12/26/2020 at 10:48 PM, Bartholomew Jones said:

On the "pandemic," it's ironic that, China, who at first let the virus run its course, has numbers of deaths approaching 5,000, whereas the U.S. who immediately began quarantining, has number of deaths approaching 350,000; which confirms what I was certain of--quarantining promotes viral contagion due to reduction of diversity of organisms in an enclosure.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1093256/novel-coronavirus-2019ncov-deaths-worldwide-by-country/

1 hour ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

"the administration has ordered that, beginning at 5 p.m. Sunday, all passengers on flights to the United States who were in China's Hubei province—which is the epicenter of the new coronavirus outbreak—at any point in the past two weeks will be subject to a 14-day mandatory quarantine."

So China's quarantine and the US quarantine are not even remotely equivalent. To say that the US began quarantining in February is incredibly misleading in this context, since it applied to relatively few people (and the wrong ones, considering that most of the early cases came from Europe).

 

Rule 12 says (emphasis added):

 

We expect arguments to be made in good faith. Honest discussions, backed up by evidence when necessary. Example of tactics that are not in good faith include misrepresentation, arguments based on distraction, attempts to omit or ignore information, advancing an ideology or agenda at the expense of the science being discussed, general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic, conspiracies, and trolling.

 

Tiny enclosures of fewer people and fewer organisms promote contagion, for failure to form proper equilibrium of ecology.

But the point I'm driving at is that very difference-- that China's quarantine was of larger segments of the (over)population inside a larger "room."  The US quarantine consists of tiny enclosures of fewer people, which propagates contagion.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

"whereas the U.S. who immediately began quarantining" (emphasis added)

is not supported by that citation.

 

January 21 — CDC Confirms First US Coronavirus Case--https://www.ajmc.com/view/a-timeline-of-covid19-developments-in-2020

FEBRUARY 3, 2020

US implements mandatory quarantines for first time in 50+ years over new coronavirus

https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/02/03/coronavirus-update

Correction taken: 13 days is not technically immediate

Also, China began a kind of quarantining, at a macro level much earlier than I realized; but not apparently at homes and localized institutions.  They kept two districts quarantined, the first population numbered at above 1 million, but only apparently that they couldn't leave those districts.

The thing is, today, the reader can't verify revision dates of articles, electronic.  For example, a year or more ago I had pulled a replica of the US Bill of Rights to read the First Amendment discretely.  The source was the American Historical Society.  The source utterly corrupted the content of the first amendment.  Months later when I attempted to expose it, I couldn't find it.  Conspiracies do exist and they begin subtle and remain so until they bite you.

4 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Against what, exactly?

And the man said, "You are Jacob.  Your name shall be called Israel; for you have wrestled with men and with God and have overcome."

In that sense.

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Someone should’ve told that to my kids. What the AF are you talking about?

He was saying that Jesus' allegedly turning water into wine contradicts my statement that there were no miracles in Scripture, only natural phenomena.

When a toddler (not as advanced as yours) sees their father open the door it might seem superhuman, because it was impossible.  Jesus, if divinely God, would quite naturally turn water to wine.

You four or five who can't rest suppose you're "everyone here?"

13 hours ago, joigus said:

You're quite right, MigL, but, for some reason, religious types (some of them) are in the habit of approaching communities of scientifically-minded people and pestering them with their non-arguments --they know how annoying they are, let's face it. You or I wouldn't dream of entering a church or a mosque and start forcing everybody there to listen about the wonders of the big bang theory, or evolution.

It's a different thing when you're entertaining them, so to speak.

Somewhere inside of me there's a faint hope that a thinking person lives inside that brain, buried under many layers of millennia-old of spoon-fed myth. And that person is desperately crying out to be shown an exit. Maybe it's just one in a thousand. The rest, sometimes I think they're like special ops infiltrating enemy territory.

This format is societal.  A church is a household.

This isn't entertainment to me.  It's wrestling against.

Or, rather, I guess I opt in as special ops.

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

Sooooo … no turning water into wine ?

A toddler can't open a closed door.  It's impossible.  A Father can.  It's natural to him.  It seems superhuman.  It's not.

15 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Fixed that for you.

So then how do you discriminate every document from heresy?

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

Well, I can repeat ANY scientific experiment and get the same results.
Can you repeat any miracles ?

There are natural phenomena in Scripture, not miracles.

Non sequitur: Another common fallacy is the non sequitur, in which someone takes premises and then forms a conclusion that the premises do not logically support.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

In the equation, a + b + x = c,  if a + b are the premises, and c is the conclusion, a + b  indeed support c; but fundamentally a +b doesn't lead to c.  The logical fallacy isn't correctly defined in our usage of non sequitur.  If we replace one term it would be correct: replace "support" with "establish," but then the Latin term must probably be changed too.

In other words, you can't form a conclusion on premises unless it be complete.  That's misleading.  You can confirm one premise, then another, etc.  It's never conclusive except the final premises equal the conclusion.

If the total premises equal the conclusion, it's established; not if the total premises support it.

13 hours ago, MigL said:

I love and respect all you guys, but I would have thought you'd have learned by now.
You can argue about scientific theory, facts, data, observations, etc., as these are things that are falsifiable.
It is a totally different argument when you need to rely on evidence; Bartholomew Jones doesn't.

Beliefs, like Religious beliefs, don't need evidence, so no-one will ever be convinced their beliefs are wrong.
BartholomewJones will carry on believing as he does, no matter what evidence is presented to him.
And we will go on relying on the scientific method, and evidence based thinking.

this whole discussion is, then, pointless, as neither side will learn anything from the other.

And we wi

And, pray ye, which evidence was offered here, besides links to articles and generally accepted notions of science?

10 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

You forgot to provide evidence of this claim. 

Back this up before you proceed to any conclusions

 

This was cited: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1093256/novel-coronavirus-2019ncov-deaths-worldwide-by-country/

One of the very best in my estimation, Eva Cassidy: https://youtu.be/ADX8GRfRKHg

31 minutes ago, iNow said:

Or China is lying about their numbers. Or just wore masks because they’re not as stupid as the average Trump voter. 

So now I'm accused when using long-lived anecdotes as though they're heresy, but because yours are trendy, but short-lived, you're excused.

13 hours ago, iNow said:

Didn't Jesus say something about the importance of humility and not judging other people?

People love to refer to a "verse" of these accounts completely out of the context, even of what was immediately being spoken.  It's a quite popular thing to do whether you believe the accounts or not.  The account when Jesus BEGINS, "judge not lest you be judged," does actually, proceed.  To saying, "how can you say, 'brother let me remove the speck from your eye,' when there's a plank in your own eye?"  Then in does actually, proceed again.  Then it concludes, "then you shall see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."  So yes, a mature Christian, according to the account, is obligated to judge others, fearfully.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

In the old days when we used "natural discovery", the way we would "vaccinate" people for small pox would be to purposely infect black people with cowpox, then cut open their skin lesions, scrape out the pus, and put the pus on a scrape on the person to be inoculated. Of course if the black person had syphilis or something, the person being inoculated might find they have other new problems.

Now that we use science, we develop a vaccine for a pandemic in less than one year and start giving out the inoculations by the millions, knowing its efficacy ahead of time.

Your ideas leave me speechless.

No, there was no "we," among practitioners.  They were independent; at most, members of guilds.  Not surprising, there were plenty of quacks among them.

On the "pandemic," it's ironic that, China, who at first let the virus run its course, has numbers of deaths approaching 5,000, whereas the U.S. who immediately began quarantining, has number of deaths approaching 350,000; which confirms what I was certain of--quarantining promotes viral contagion due to reduction of diversity of organisms in an enclosure.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1093256/novel-coronavirus-2019ncov-deaths-worldwide-by-country/

If the original order was such that man was one man with his wife, in a garden as mentioned, they would pull away some overgrowth when needed and put it in a place nearby optimized for the garden.  The local ecology would be better for their labor, next crop.  And the surface volume of earth would be increased due to (hypothesized) conversion of radiant energy to plant substance, accommodating increasing populations.

3 hours ago, joigus said:

Back to lemurs, then. As all primates use tools.

Prior post intended as comment here.

Say what you want.  It's uniform with nature.

Deleting accidental duplication.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

You’re speaking of a time when a perfect fictional garden might have existed, one that was so magical it didn’t require tools or tending, and you have the audacity to suggest I’m saying senseless things? 

Fascinating 

You're forcing assumptions again.  And actually the account, which I haven't referred to, appoints man to tend that garden.

9 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

 

10 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

you have the audacity to suggest

Reckless?  Yes.  Audacious?  No.

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, you're just not making a very good case...

Not to you.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

And if dragons were real, I could ride my unicorn beside them until we land in Narnia. 

Its like equating native American herbal medicine with magic potions.  What you say is senseless.

On 12/22/2020 at 7:59 AM, dimreepr said:

Where would we be, without tool's?

Chucking seed in the general direction of good ground... 🤪

Something Trump depends on, despite the fact that he is a tool...

Supposing there was a region on earth at its origin of a form as a perfect garden; you might not need tools; tools might breach the natural order, in that case.

9 hours ago, zapatos said:

Calm down.

Is natural discovery better than or equal to science with respect to quality?

What do you mean by "natural discovery is of a higher order than science"? 

It's better; namely more pleasant.  The result is more like one glass jar of real maple syrup, rather that crafty plastic bottles of corn syrup with caramel color agent, or like a health-wise dietary pattern rather than pharmaceuticals or multivitamin programs.

Your second question will land me in trouble if I answer directly.  It's like comparing a 3rd generation chef at a tiny intimate restaurant in the Mediterranean to the head cook at an Olive Gardens restaurant.  The former is more obviously predominant.

32 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I assume because you feel a rigid scientific restraint makes the data worse than a natural discovery. Is that correct?

Can you give me an example of a rigid scientific restraint that has a negative impact on the observation?

Are you trying to orchestrate that I get banned?

I'm going to answer you with due care.

No.  Rigidity makes it not fascinating, like a university lecture in monotone.  Rigidity has nothing to do with the quality of the data.

An example: always isolating microbes from their media when you study them.  Like in the paper included in the OP.  It's more interesting to me making varieties of kefir in the kitchen than it would be in a lab with strains of kefir culture that came on order.  It's more of an affection, an art, than an impersonal set of data.  Scientists like Newton seemed to have approached nature, before science.

But I had to study discoveries by science to get a sense how to ferment, then stumble upon my own homemade kefir and kombucha.

29 minutes ago, iNow said:

So, anecdotes inherently tainted and diminished by human bias and quite likely to be unreproduceable?

You're forcing assumptions dishonestly.  Anecdotes ought to be considered case by case to see if they are acceptable as supportive evidence, yes; as much as generally accepted principles ought to be reviewed from time to time for obsolescence.  In both cases integrity will sometimes fail.

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Can you tell me what "natural discovery" is? Do you mean observations?

Yes.  Acute observation without rigid scientific restraints.