The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Current Events
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-21-2009, 04:42 PM   #1
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble View Post
We're basically at an impasse, here. I find her story credible, because I have seen similar symptoms in other people starkly reduced in a similar manner with similar treatments.
Observation alone is classic junk science. Missing is the necessary control subject. Where is an example where an offending material is removed and the defect disappears? Just another example of what one does before knowing anything. To have a fact, supporting and existing knowledge must also exist to explain the relationship. You don't have anything necessary to have a fact. What is necessary to form a hypothesis? You don't have that. Your logic is classic junk science.

Even your hypothesis is only wild speculation. A hypothesis only from observation (without any control subject or underlying concepts) is classic junk science.

What causes autism? One report suggested that people exposed to trace amounts of mercury (ie when a fluorescent bulb breaks) years previously can cause it. Observation also proved that to be true. So you would instead blame medication?

What is traced to some forms of heart disease? Chlamydia. Yes, exposures to a sexual disease ten and twenty years ago may cause diseases today. Need we also mention Mad Cow disease? Another disease due to exposure years previously. But somehow you know autism is traceable to something immediate; only using observation. By ignoring other possiblities. A classic science mistake. "I would not have seen it if I had not known it was there." Clodfobble is doing just that. A conclusion based only in a few observations and wild speculatioin.

Clodfobble will not read this. I have a bad habit of demanding conclusions based in logic - not in junk science reasoning. Some will refuse to read to remain in denial - not learn from their mistakes. Foolishly pretend that observation is sufficient to 'know'. Any hypothesis or conclusion based only in observation is classic junk science. Any facts sufficient to have a hypothesis were condemned even in the Lancet. Avoiding that reality is further evidence of junk science reasoning. A relationship between medication and autism is classic junk science. As Clodfobble admits, the conclusion comes only from observation - which is the symptom of junk science.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:04 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.