Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Kind of an ironic tale to tell on a quantum mechanical device that uses satellites which rely on relativity theory and which conveys messages to our eyes using electromagnetic theory...but okay.You are cautioning people? For what reason? So you think you shoild have ignored thevtreatment directives for the bypass surgery? Which one? How would you know which one? To perform the procedure or not?It is precisely what i am describing. While acience will account for new information, you havent made any case for not trusting science, which is obviously what you are dancing around. Trust me...the patients still need bypasses. You are still not connecting their hearts to their colons or their big toes. At no point would you have done anyone a service to reject the science and say it cant be trusted, because it may change. Else you would be virtually paralyzed, unable to treat any patients..But at no point was the vast manority of the body of ideas thrown out. You didnt stop doing bypasses. The fundamental idea remains. What you are describing is akin to modifying the position on a family tree of one fossil. "Upending" previous ideas about that particular fossil hasn't put a dent in the theory of evolution. It remains safe and intact.For example:
When I was a new Perfusionist, we had to perform a certain procedure on every bypass patient. That was standard practice backed by science.
a while after that a new surgeon showed us many studies that showed that this procedure was unnecessary. We stopped.
last year that surgeon retired and we are now going back to using that procedure again. When asked about it, the current chief surgeon linked us to studies showing that it is necessary.
So, at what point was the “science” right, and when was it wrong? Who really knows?
I have seen this scenario play out in many other situations, each time each step was what the “science” said.
That is not what I said.
A procedure that we did when a patient was on bypass was stopped. The procedure was not part of the fundamental idea of bypass. The “science” at the time claimed it was necessary, then it said it wasn’t necessary, now it says it is. That’s not at all like what you are describing.
I don’t know where the disconnect is but you seem to be having trouble with it.
If you are trying to say not to throw the baby out with the bath water, that’s not at all what I’m describing.
People are constantly saying “Listen to the science”, and I’m cautioning people. Science historically has been wrong more often than right.
If we use mask wearing as an example, I’m not calling the epidemic a hoax because I can prove masks don’t work.
All I’m saying is putting all your trust in science and experts without being at least a little skeptical is the wrong way to look at things.
Which one? What benefit would "caution" have brought you, in your scenario? I don't see any.
The tale was to show that science is often wrong. In that case, it really didn’t seem to make a significant difference as long as you don’t factor in the cost.
You are right, to this day I personally don’t think the procedure is necessary but it’s again policy and I must do it. The only point of the tale is to show how science and experts can be wrong.
Kind of an ironic tale to tell on a quantum mechanical device that uses satellites which rely on relativity theory and which conveys messages to our eyes using electromagnetic theory...but okay.You are cautioning people? For what reason? So you think you shoild have ignored thevtreatment directives for the bypass surgery? Which one? How would you know which one? To perform the procedure or not?It is precisely what i am describing. While acience will account for new information, you havent made any case for not trusting science, which is obviously what you are dancing around. Trust me...the patients still need bypasses. You are still not connecting their hearts to their colons or their big toes. At no point would you have done anyone a service to reject the science and say it cant be trusted, because it may change. Else you would be virtually paralyzed, unable to treat any patients..But at no point was the vast manority of the body of ideas thrown out. You didnt stop doing bypasses. The fundamental idea remains. What you are describing is akin to modifying the position on a family tree of one fossil. "Upending" previous ideas about that particular fossil hasn't put a dent in the theory of evolution. It remains safe and intact.For example:
When I was a new Perfusionist, we had to perform a certain procedure on every bypass patient. That was standard practice backed by science.
a while after that a new surgeon showed us many studies that showed that this procedure was unnecessary. We stopped.
last year that surgeon retired and we are now going back to using that procedure again. When asked about it, the current chief surgeon linked us to studies showing that it is necessary.
So, at what point was the “science” right, and when was it wrong? Who really knows?
I have seen this scenario play out in many other situations, each time each step was what the “science” said.
That is not what I said.
A procedure that we did when a patient was on bypass was stopped. The procedure was not part of the fundamental idea of bypass. The “science” at the time claimed it was necessary, then it said it wasn’t necessary, now it says it is. That’s not at all like what you are describing.
I don’t know where the disconnect is but you seem to be having trouble with it.
If you are trying to say not to throw the baby out with the bath water, that’s not at all what I’m describing.
People are constantly saying “Listen to the science”, and I’m cautioning people. Science historically has been wrong more often than right.
If we use mask wearing as an example, I’m not calling the epidemic a hoax because I can prove masks don’t work.
All I’m saying is putting all your trust in science and experts without being at least a little skeptical is the wrong way to look at things.
Which one? What benefit would "caution" have brought you, in your scenario? I don't see any.
The tale was to show that science is often wrong. In that case, it really didn’t seem to make a significant difference as long as you don’t factor in the cost.
You are right, to this day I personally don’t think the procedure is necessary but it’s again policy and I must do it. The only point of the tale is to show how science and experts can be wrong.
And science sometimes making changes is not a good reason to doubt any specific bit of science. And guess how we know science needs to be modified? More science. Irrational doubt is not useful.Kind of an ironic tale to tell on a quantum mechanical device that uses satellites which rely on relativity theory and which conveys messages to our eyes using electromagnetic theory...but okay.You are cautioning people? For what reason? So you think you shoild have ignored thevtreatment directives for the bypass surgery? Which one? How would you know which one? To perform the procedure or not?It is precisely what i am describing. While acience will account for new information, you havent made any case for not trusting science, which is obviously what you are dancing around. Trust me...the patients still need bypasses. You are still not connecting their hearts to their colons or their big toes. At no point would you have done anyone a service to reject the science and say it cant be trusted, because it may change. Else you would be virtually paralyzed, unable to treat any patients..But at no point was the vast manority of the body of ideas thrown out. You didnt stop doing bypasses. The fundamental idea remains. What you are describing is akin to modifying the position on a family tree of one fossil. "Upending" previous ideas about that particular fossil hasn't put a dent in the theory of evolution. It remains safe and intact.For example:
When I was a new Perfusionist, we had to perform a certain procedure on every bypass patient. That was standard practice backed by science.
a while after that a new surgeon showed us many studies that showed that this procedure was unnecessary. We stopped.
last year that surgeon retired and we are now going back to using that procedure again. When asked about it, the current chief surgeon linked us to studies showing that it is necessary.
So, at what point was the “science” right, and when was it wrong? Who really knows?
I have seen this scenario play out in many other situations, each time each step was what the “science” said.
That is not what I said.
A procedure that we did when a patient was on bypass was stopped. The procedure was not part of the fundamental idea of bypass. The “science” at the time claimed it was necessary, then it said it wasn’t necessary, now it says it is. That’s not at all like what you are describing.
I don’t know where the disconnect is but you seem to be having trouble with it.
If you are trying to say not to throw the baby out with the bath water, that’s not at all what I’m describing.
People are constantly saying “Listen to the science”, and I’m cautioning people. Science historically has been wrong more often than right.
If we use mask wearing as an example, I’m not calling the epidemic a hoax because I can prove masks don’t work.
All I’m saying is putting all your trust in science and experts without being at least a little skeptical is the wrong way to look at things.
Which one? What benefit would "caution" have brought you, in your scenario? I don't see any.
The tale was to show that science is often wrong. In that case, it really didn’t seem to make a significant difference as long as you don’t factor in the cost.
You are right, to this day I personally don’t think the procedure is necessary but it’s again policy and I must do it. The only point of the tale is to show how science and experts can be wrong.
Nice try but I’m not buying it.
Scientific success doesn’t mean all science is correct.
Irrational doubt is not useful. Healthy skepticism is quite useful.And science sometimes making changes is not a good reason to doubt any specific bit of science. And guess how we know science needs to be modified? More science. Irrational doubt is not useful.Kind of an ironic tale to tell on a quantum mechanical device that uses satellites which rely on relativity theory and which conveys messages to our eyes using electromagnetic theory...but okay.You are cautioning people? For what reason? So you think you shoild have ignored thevtreatment directives for the bypass surgery? Which one? How would you know which one? To perform the procedure or not?It is precisely what i am describing. While acience will account for new information, you havent made any case for not trusting science, which is obviously what you are dancing around. Trust me...the patients still need bypasses. You are still not connecting their hearts to their colons or their big toes. At no point would you have done anyone a service to reject the science and say it cant be trusted, because it may change. Else you would be virtually paralyzed, unable to treat any patients..But at no point was the vast manority of the body of ideas thrown out. You didnt stop doing bypasses. The fundamental idea remains. What you are describing is akin to modifying the position on a family tree of one fossil. "Upending" previous ideas about that particular fossil hasn't put a dent in the theory of evolution. It remains safe and intact.For example:
When I was a new Perfusionist, we had to perform a certain procedure on every bypass patient. That was standard practice backed by science.
a while after that a new surgeon showed us many studies that showed that this procedure was unnecessary. We stopped.
last year that surgeon retired and we are now going back to using that procedure again. When asked about it, the current chief surgeon linked us to studies showing that it is necessary.
So, at what point was the “science” right, and when was it wrong? Who really knows?
I have seen this scenario play out in many other situations, each time each step was what the “science” said.
That is not what I said.
A procedure that we did when a patient was on bypass was stopped. The procedure was not part of the fundamental idea of bypass. The “science” at the time claimed it was necessary, then it said it wasn’t necessary, now it says it is. That’s not at all like what you are describing.
I don’t know where the disconnect is but you seem to be having trouble with it.
If you are trying to say not to throw the baby out with the bath water, that’s not at all what I’m describing.
People are constantly saying “Listen to the science”, and I’m cautioning people. Science historically has been wrong more often than right.
If we use mask wearing as an example, I’m not calling the epidemic a hoax because I can prove masks don’t work.
All I’m saying is putting all your trust in science and experts without being at least a little skeptical is the wrong way to look at things.
Which one? What benefit would "caution" have brought you, in your scenario? I don't see any.
The tale was to show that science is often wrong. In that case, it really didn’t seem to make a significant difference as long as you don’t factor in the cost.
You are right, to this day I personally don’t think the procedure is necessary but it’s again policy and I must do it. The only point of the tale is to show how science and experts can be wrong.
Nice try but I’m not buying it.
Scientific success doesn’t mean all science is correct.
Irrational doubt is not useful. Healthy skepticism is quite useful.
Irrational doubt is not useful. Healthy skepticism is quite useful.
The biological sciences are a particularly poor example, where so much of the science is in flux as we gain new tools for investigating, DNA sequencing for example ... and medical science is the worst, procedures are performed not because of science, but rather for medical malpractice liability ... it's the courts that determine everything that goes into by-pass surgery ... healthy skepticism can quickly drive a hospital into bankruptcy ... no matter the science ...
Scientific papers are required to detail very aspect of their study ... this allows skeptics to perform the work themselves and see if the results are true ... cold fusion is an excellent example, the original authors stated everything they did, and indeed no one else could reproduce the results they got ... proper science includes failures, as what doesn't work is just as important as what does work ...
They certainly aren't taught to question the “science” presented to them or think critically on their own.Young people are no longer taught to think.
A bowl of oatmeal or corn grits for breakfast every morning will de-clot your blood and remove that extra cholesterol from your heart like magic.“by-pass” surgery is different from a bypass machine or heart-lung bypass.
Exactly my point. You are promoting irrational doubt, not skepticism.Irrational doubt is not useful. Healthy skepticism is quite useful.And science sometimes making changes is not a good reason to doubt any specific bit of science. And guess how we know science needs to be modified? More science. Irrational doubt is not useful.Kind of an ironic tale to tell on a quantum mechanical device that uses satellites which rely on relativity theory and which conveys messages to our eyes using electromagnetic theory...but okay.You are cautioning people? For what reason? So you think you shoild have ignored thevtreatment directives for the bypass surgery? Which one? How would you know which one? To perform the procedure or not?It is precisely what i am describing. While acience will account for new information, you havent made any case for not trusting science, which is obviously what you are dancing around. Trust me...the patients still need bypasses. You are still not connecting their hearts to their colons or their big toes. At no point would you have done anyone a service to reject the science and say it cant be trusted, because it may change. Else you would be virtually paralyzed, unable to treat any patients..But at no point was the vast manority of the body of ideas thrown out. You didnt stop doing bypasses. The fundamental idea remains. What you are describing is akin to modifying the position on a family tree of one fossil. "Upending" previous ideas about that particular fossil hasn't put a dent in the theory of evolution. It remains safe and intact.For example:
When I was a new Perfusionist, we had to perform a certain procedure on every bypass patient. That was standard practice backed by science.
a while after that a new surgeon showed us many studies that showed that this procedure was unnecessary. We stopped.
last year that surgeon retired and we are now going back to using that procedure again. When asked about it, the current chief surgeon linked us to studies showing that it is necessary.
So, at what point was the “science” right, and when was it wrong? Who really knows?
I have seen this scenario play out in many other situations, each time each step was what the “science” said.
That is not what I said.
A procedure that we did when a patient was on bypass was stopped. The procedure was not part of the fundamental idea of bypass. The “science” at the time claimed it was necessary, then it said it wasn’t necessary, now it says it is. That’s not at all like what you are describing.
I don’t know where the disconnect is but you seem to be having trouble with it.
If you are trying to say not to throw the baby out with the bath water, that’s not at all what I’m describing.
People are constantly saying “Listen to the science”, and I’m cautioning people. Science historically has been wrong more often than right.
If we use mask wearing as an example, I’m not calling the epidemic a hoax because I can prove masks don’t work.
All I’m saying is putting all your trust in science and experts without being at least a little skeptical is the wrong way to look at things.
Which one? What benefit would "caution" have brought you, in your scenario? I don't see any.
The tale was to show that science is often wrong. In that case, it really didn’t seem to make a significant difference as long as you don’t factor in the cost.
You are right, to this day I personally don’t think the procedure is necessary but it’s again policy and I must do it. The only point of the tale is to show how science and experts can be wrong.
Nice try but I’m not buying it.
Scientific success doesn’t mean all science is correct.
Exactly my point. You are promoting irrational doubt, not skepticism.Irrational doubt is not useful. Healthy skepticism is quite useful.And science sometimes making changes is not a good reason to doubt any specific bit of science. And guess how we know science needs to be modified? More science. Irrational doubt is not useful.Kind of an ironic tale to tell on a quantum mechanical device that uses satellites which rely on relativity theory and which conveys messages to our eyes using electromagnetic theory...but okay.You are cautioning people? For what reason? So you think you shoild have ignored thevtreatment directives for the bypass surgery? Which one? How would you know which one? To perform the procedure or not?It is precisely what i am describing. While acience will account for new information, you havent made any case for not trusting science, which is obviously what you are dancing around. Trust me...the patients still need bypasses. You are still not connecting their hearts to their colons or their big toes. At no point would you have done anyone a service to reject the science and say it cant be trusted, because it may change. Else you would be virtually paralyzed, unable to treat any patients..But at no point was the vast manority of the body of ideas thrown out. You didnt stop doing bypasses. The fundamental idea remains. What you are describing is akin to modifying the position on a family tree of one fossil. "Upending" previous ideas about that particular fossil hasn't put a dent in the theory of evolution. It remains safe and intact.For example:
When I was a new Perfusionist, we had to perform a certain procedure on every bypass patient. That was standard practice backed by science.
a while after that a new surgeon showed us many studies that showed that this procedure was unnecessary. We stopped.
last year that surgeon retired and we are now going back to using that procedure again. When asked about it, the current chief surgeon linked us to studies showing that it is necessary.
So, at what point was the “science” right, and when was it wrong? Who really knows?
I have seen this scenario play out in many other situations, each time each step was what the “science” said.
That is not what I said.
A procedure that we did when a patient was on bypass was stopped. The procedure was not part of the fundamental idea of bypass. The “science” at the time claimed it was necessary, then it said it wasn’t necessary, now it says it is. That’s not at all like what you are describing.
I don’t know where the disconnect is but you seem to be having trouble with it.
If you are trying to say not to throw the baby out with the bath water, that’s not at all what I’m describing.
People are constantly saying “Listen to the science”, and I’m cautioning people. Science historically has been wrong more often than right.
If we use mask wearing as an example, I’m not calling the epidemic a hoax because I can prove masks don’t work.
All I’m saying is putting all your trust in science and experts without being at least a little skeptical is the wrong way to look at things.
Which one? What benefit would "caution" have brought you, in your scenario? I don't see any.
The tale was to show that science is often wrong. In that case, it really didn’t seem to make a significant difference as long as you don’t factor in the cost.
You are right, to this day I personally don’t think the procedure is necessary but it’s again policy and I must do it. The only point of the tale is to show how science and experts can be wrong.
Nice try but I’m not buying it.
Scientific success doesn’t mean all science is correct.
No, you are definitely promoting irrational doubt. Skepticism is a process by which you evaluate claims by the evidence available instead of just believing them for no good reason. yet you have given us no method whatsoever for when this doubt you promote should be applied. All you have done is promote doubt and try to undermine experts and science by putting them in air quotes. It's a setup to irrationally doubt any experts or science that don't align with your politics or personal fetishes.Exactly my point. You are promoting irrational doubt, not skepticism.Irrational doubt is not useful. Healthy skepticism is quite useful.And science sometimes making changes is not a good reason to doubt any specific bit of science. And guess how we know science needs to be modified? More science. Irrational doubt is not useful.Kind of an ironic tale to tell on a quantum mechanical device that uses satellites which rely on relativity theory and which conveys messages to our eyes using electromagnetic theory...but okay.You are cautioning people? For what reason? So you think you shoild have ignored thevtreatment directives for the bypass surgery? Which one? How would you know which one? To perform the procedure or not?It is precisely what i am describing. While acience will account for new information, you havent made any case for not trusting science, which is obviously what you are dancing around. Trust me...the patients still need bypasses. You are still not connecting their hearts to their colons or their big toes. At no point would you have done anyone a service to reject the science and say it cant be trusted, because it may change. Else you would be virtually paralyzed, unable to treat any patients..But at no point was the vast manority of the body of ideas thrown out. You didnt stop doing bypasses. The fundamental idea remains. What you are describing is akin to modifying the position on a family tree of one fossil. "Upending" previous ideas about that particular fossil hasn't put a dent in the theory of evolution. It remains safe and intact.For example:
When I was a new Perfusionist, we had to perform a certain procedure on every bypass patient. That was standard practice backed by science.
a while after that a new surgeon showed us many studies that showed that this procedure was unnecessary. We stopped.
last year that surgeon retired and we are now going back to using that procedure again. When asked about it, the current chief surgeon linked us to studies showing that it is necessary.
So, at what point was the “science” right, and when was it wrong? Who really knows?
I have seen this scenario play out in many other situations, each time each step was what the “science” said.
That is not what I said.
A procedure that we did when a patient was on bypass was stopped. The procedure was not part of the fundamental idea of bypass. The “science” at the time claimed it was necessary, then it said it wasn’t necessary, now it says it is. That’s not at all like what you are describing.
I don’t know where the disconnect is but you seem to be having trouble with it.
If you are trying to say not to throw the baby out with the bath water, that’s not at all what I’m describing.
People are constantly saying “Listen to the science”, and I’m cautioning people. Science historically has been wrong more often than right.
If we use mask wearing as an example, I’m not calling the epidemic a hoax because I can prove masks don’t work.
All I’m saying is putting all your trust in science and experts without being at least a little skeptical is the wrong way to look at things.
Which one? What benefit would "caution" have brought you, in your scenario? I don't see any.
The tale was to show that science is often wrong. In that case, it really didn’t seem to make a significant difference as long as you don’t factor in the cost.
You are right, to this day I personally don’t think the procedure is necessary but it’s again policy and I must do it. The only point of the tale is to show how science and experts can be wrong.
Nice try but I’m not buying it.
Scientific success doesn’t mean all science is correct.
Now you are just making stuff up.
No, you are definitely promoting irrational doubt. Skepticism is a process by which you evaluate claims by the evidence available instead of just believing them for no good reason. yet you have given us no method whatsoever for when this doubt you promote should be applied. All you have done is promote doubt and try to undermine experts and science by putting them in air quotes. It's a setup to irrationally doubt any experts or science that don't align with your politics or personal fetishes.Exactly my point. You are promoting irrational doubt, not skepticism.Irrational doubt is not useful. Healthy skepticism is quite useful.And science sometimes making changes is not a good reason to doubt any specific bit of science. And guess how we know science needs to be modified? More science. Irrational doubt is not useful.Kind of an ironic tale to tell on a quantum mechanical device that uses satellites which rely on relativity theory and which conveys messages to our eyes using electromagnetic theory...but okay.You are cautioning people? For what reason? So you think you shoild have ignored thevtreatment directives for the bypass surgery? Which one? How would you know which one? To perform the procedure or not?It is precisely what i am describing. While acience will account for new information, you havent made any case for not trusting science, which is obviously what you are dancing around. Trust me...the patients still need bypasses. You are still not connecting their hearts to their colons or their big toes. At no point would you have done anyone a service to reject the science and say it cant be trusted, because it may change. Else you would be virtually paralyzed, unable to treat any patients..But at no point was the vast manority of the body of ideas thrown out. You didnt stop doing bypasses. The fundamental idea remains. What you are describing is akin to modifying the position on a family tree of one fossil. "Upending" previous ideas about that particular fossil hasn't put a dent in the theory of evolution. It remains safe and intact.For example:
When I was a new Perfusionist, we had to perform a certain procedure on every bypass patient. That was standard practice backed by science.
a while after that a new surgeon showed us many studies that showed that this procedure was unnecessary. We stopped.
last year that surgeon retired and we are now going back to using that procedure again. When asked about it, the current chief surgeon linked us to studies showing that it is necessary.
So, at what point was the “science” right, and when was it wrong? Who really knows?
I have seen this scenario play out in many other situations, each time each step was what the “science” said.
That is not what I said.
A procedure that we did when a patient was on bypass was stopped. The procedure was not part of the fundamental idea of bypass. The “science” at the time claimed it was necessary, then it said it wasn’t necessary, now it says it is. That’s not at all like what you are describing.
I don’t know where the disconnect is but you seem to be having trouble with it.
If you are trying to say not to throw the baby out with the bath water, that’s not at all what I’m describing.
People are constantly saying “Listen to the science”, and I’m cautioning people. Science historically has been wrong more often than right.
If we use mask wearing as an example, I’m not calling the epidemic a hoax because I can prove masks don’t work.
All I’m saying is putting all your trust in science and experts without being at least a little skeptical is the wrong way to look at things.
Which one? What benefit would "caution" have brought you, in your scenario? I don't see any.
The tale was to show that science is often wrong. In that case, it really didn’t seem to make a significant difference as long as you don’t factor in the cost.
You are right, to this day I personally don’t think the procedure is necessary but it’s again policy and I must do it. The only point of the tale is to show how science and experts can be wrong.
Nice try but I’m not buying it.
Scientific success doesn’t mean all science is correct.
Now you are just making stuff up.
People look to experts because they're not arrogant (Vulgar expletive deleted) that think they have the depth of knowledge, experience and context to contend with the views of people that do it for a living. Are you going to question the views of neurosurgeons on matters involving your brain? Most people are smart enough to listen to their fucking mechanic. The magnitude of arrogance and ignorance it takes to wave off the views of the most qualified people on Earth is staggering.
TheEducationFraud.wordpress.com
Rather that think, many people would rather simply link to “experts” or “follow the science”.
I blame our education system and the teachers and professors for doing a shitty job often intentionally. Young people are no longer taught to think.
If you thought about it at all, you’d realize that there are some significant problems with this.
First of all, science and scientists are fallible, they are human too. If you know history, you will know that sciencehas been wrongmore often than right. Scientists USED to believe that they learned just as much from being wrong as they did from being right.
Another problem is that science is for sale. Give a scientist a job and pay him well and he’ll give you science to say whatever you want. Did you know that the tobacco companies had teams of scientists on their side years ago who would claim that there was no link to health problems from smoking.
Another problem with trusting the science and scientists is that science has been politicized. It’s easy to do. Our institutions of “learning” are run by the left and if you want to keep a job and want to be taken seriously, you toe the line.
The biggest danger in letting someone else think for you is that you can easily be duped. Just trot out a well paid and politically connected “expert” and they can get you to believe anything they want you to.
that’s exactly the goal of education and politics today. Keeping people from thinking for themselves.
TheEducationFraud.wordpress.com
Was it those evilutionist atheist scientists who identified those breakfast habits or did you learn that from a study prepared by the church?A bowl of oatmeal or corn grits for breakfast every morning will de-clot your blood and remove that extra cholesterol from your heart like magic.“by-pass” surgery is different from a bypass machine or heart-lung bypass.
Some people need heavy cream on their cereal or bacon and eggs some mornings to balance that out.
The Catholic Church operated a Child sex abuse syndicate for decades. Aren't you special.People look to experts because they're not arrogant (Vulgar expletive deleted) that think they have the depth of knowledge, experience and context to contend with the views of people that do it for a living. Are you going to question the views of neurosurgeons on matters involving your brain? Most people are smart enough to listen to their fucking mechanic. The magnitude of arrogance and ignorance it takes to wave off the views of the most qualified people on Earth is staggering.
"Heavier than air human flight is impossible." - President of the Royal Society, Lord Kelvin, 1895
Two bicycle mechanics flew seven years later. Their propeller was designed with 93% of optimum efficiency.
Medical "experts" kill 250,000 to 400,000 patients A YEAR through their "expertise."
The arrogance and ignorance of the Left is sickening.
View attachment 432700
People look to experts because they're not arrogant ******** that think they have the depth of knowledge, experience and context to contend with the views of people that do it for a living. Are you going to question the views of neurosurgeons on matters involving your brain? Most people are smart enough to listen to their ******* mechanic. The magnitude of arrogance and ignorance it takes to wave off the views of the most qualified people on Earth is staggering.
People look to experts because they're not arrogant ******** that think they have the depth of knowledge, experience and context to contend with the views of people that do it for a living. Are you going to question the views of neurosurgeons on matters involving your brain? Most people are smart enough to listen to their ******* mechanic. The magnitude of arrogance and ignorance it takes to wave off the views of the most qualified people on Earth is staggering.
YOU demonstrate no small degree of arrogance and ignorance. Staggering, truly.
I edited out your ignorant profanity, a staple among Leftists, as if it makes the nonsense you write more compelling or "scientific."
1. Medical doctors kill 250,000 to 400,000 patients every year, according to recent studies.
2. Mechanics screw customers every day of the week. One told me I needed two tires as mine had "tread separation." I asked to see it. He simply waved me to the car and said "right there." He was lying through his yellow teeth. I reported him to the Department of Automotive Repairs and they inspected my tires, finding them perfect.
He was warned that if they ever got another complaint on him, they would close his shop. I also reported his franchise to his home office and they were REALLY pissed that he besmirched their reputation.
3. "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible," -- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.
4. "Rail travel at high speed is not possible, because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia."- Dr Dionysys Larder (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London.
5. "Radio has no future." - Lord Kelvin, Scottish mathematician and physicist, former president of the Royal Society, 1897
How many more of these would you like to see, Anomalism, 20? 50? 100?
I've got them. Ironic, is it not, that two uneducated bicycle mechanics showed Lord Kelvin what could be done. They fabricated a propeller which was within 4% of being absolutely optimal. What have you done, genius? Tell us your greatest accomplishment. We would all love to hear it. Really.
