Jump to content

To abstract or not to abstract


Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I’m sympathetic to the point you’re making, but you are wrong. These exchanges DO lead to changes in thinking. They’re obviously not effective in achieving that 100% of the time, but they are eff

Fools say such things of people of whom which they know nothing.

Yes, if and when science discovers a truth, which in my view requires proof, not "mountains of evidence." What I offer is resistance, not imposition.  If I had an office affording a prerogative

Posted Images

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

This isn't entertainment to me.

I didn't mean it in that sense. "Entertain" as in,

"The Bradfords always entertained lavishly at Christmas."

4 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

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

You forgot your camouflage then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

So then how do you discriminate every document from heresy?

Why would I bother?

"Heresy" is only an issue if you think that your beliefs are more important than reality.

 

9 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

This isn't entertainment to me. 

Nor to us. Why don't you stop?

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

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.

If the answer is 42, what is the question? I wrestle with this everyday... 

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

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.

!

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.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a forum where we engage in discussion for entertainment, and to expand our knowledge ( about science ).
You have faith ? That's fine; no-one is trying to 'convert' you.
But you have to understand that this is science, and this is how it works; it is based on evidence, repeatable experiments and observations, not faith.
We don't tell you how to practice your faith; don't tell us how science is conducted.

Why do you think it is OK to 'wrestle' with us, and to try and 'convert' us ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Edited by Bartholomew Jones
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

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.

That's not the argument you made. 

Quote

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.

"quarantining promotes viral contagion" and "The US quarantine consists of tiny enclosures of fewer people, which propagates contagion." are two very different arguments.

Also, speaking of China's quarantine and also saying "China, who at first let the virus run its course" are at odds with each other.

My advice is to stop digging. It's only accentuating the bad faith nature of the discussion.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

The original argument:

 

Yes, I know. I quoted it.

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. No wonder you had to change it.

STOP DIGGING

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

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.

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

Are you still expecting to betaken seriously?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes 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 fascinating to me that I’ve seen this exact argument being made by others elsewhere on social media... That quarantine makes more people sick from covid. It’s so manifestly absurd that it’s hard to understand why people believe it, yet it’s coming up so consistently that it’s not hard to recognize it’s being intentionally fed from somewhere as disinformation to specific audiences. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, iNow said:

It’s fascinating to me that I’ve seen this exact argument being made by others elsewhere on social media... That quarantine makes more people sick from covid. It’s so manifestly absurd that it’s hard to understand why people believe it, yet it’s coming up so consistently that it’s not hard to recognize it’s being intentionally fed from somewhere as disinformation to specific audiences. 

That the claim is patently absurd is an issue I was content to leave to others. I was addressing a procedural issue - that the original claim wan't sourced, the claim implied in the thread is very different from the one in the link, and now that the later claim is very different from the original. With each response, the bad faith nature looks even worse.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news! I'm a microbiologist and one of the many projects I work on is the genomics of bacteria commonly found in fermented foods. 

One of the things we are finding out about many of the strains that are commonly found in fermented foods, is that they are really good at exchanging transposable genetic elements - namely in the form of conjugative plasmids. When you populate a culture from "wild" bacterial strains, they likely come along with a unique accessory genome. That accessory genome can contain things like antibiotic resistance gene cassettes, toxin-antitoxin systems, efflux pump components, etc and so on. The rate at which these are expressed in the food product, or transferred to the microbiome of the individual consuming the product is probably highly variable and hard to quantify.  

The individual effects of genetic exchange between consumed bacteria and the microbiome are also hard to quantify - but you probably don't want your naturally occurring Clostridium difficile to pick up a beta lactamase gene cassette, especially if you wind up having to take a penicillin derived antibiotic sometime down the line.  As a result, I would suggest that if one intends to commercially sell cultured food products, it would be wise to determine the genomic makeup of the bacteria used, and control for unwanted, potentially hazardous plasmid encoded genes in the strains intended for live consumption.

Or you could stick a jar of sugar water outside and hope for the best, I guess. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

What is equilibrium in an ecology?

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?”

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.