ozimoron

That doesn't preclude it from being offensive whether intentional or not which is why black face, golliwogs and wearing of nazi uniforms is either illegal or frowned upon by society, not just the "woke" leftist fringe.

One of my friends was doing the same research many years ago. It wound up being quite expensive but they forgot to look in the freezer. Anyway, let's try to stay on topic...

Nothing in her work supports your contention that all people are inherently racist. All she did was incite tribalism (nationalism) in a group of children. It's obvious that humans have visibly different physical traits but her propaganda did not establish that racism was inherent in the human condition.

Invented by people to describe a scourge afflicting society.

These are petty anecdotal attempts to diminish the value of reading any research other than your own. I suppose you'll be researching your own cure for covid, cancer and every other affliction as well? Advocating proper, educated research is not "straw man examples". It is not "to prove a point" other than that researching other peoples' work is the best thing you can do to improve your own knowledge. The alternative is ignorance, simple as that. Not flaming you but anybody who disparages conventional research. Nobody said you can't have a critical mind but to not do the research at all is inane.

Perhaps they should look at vaccine status when determining who gets the care and who misses out? We always knew it was going to come to this. https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-hospitals-struggle-as-covid-beds-fill-5e98f09c578a231be1411516e9dfff58

Seven people believed to have had the Omicron variant had died as of Thursday, up from one death in the UKHSA's previous data which ran up to Tuesday. https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/london-declares-major-incident-help-covid-hit-hospitals-2021-12-18/

It's my own description. It's a conspiracy when the content is wack job and so implausible as to be unable to disprove and comes without any supporting evidence for the theory. It also alleges criminality by the perpetrators of the conspiracy. What it is NOT is simple disagreement. Of course, you knew that, you are just trolling.

But they do. I'm seeing the usual knee jerk, uninformed Thai bashing going on in this thread without having done a shred of fact checking. No links to contradictory evidence whatsoever. https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/mixing-covid-vaccines-could-result-in-stronger-imm https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/countries-weigh-mix-match-covid-19-vaccines-2021-05-24/

Reagan essentially stole his motto from the Royal Society, one of the pillars of scientific methodology and a fundamental tenet of mainstream science which is to publish verifiable data and repeatable experiments. Conspiracy theory adherents do neither. Ever.

I read that thread and actually liked some of posts if you care to look. The research you are doing there is not actually different to the research everyone else is doing. You are essentially researching other people's work and applying it to your own experience. That is not doing your research, you are learning from others and using that knowledge to extend your own knowledge, exactly the opposite to what those pundits here are suggesting which is to reject all mainstream scientific research while somehow accepting the fringe "enlightened" sources. Had you not done that research, "doing your own research" would have entailed trying out every herb know to man to determine whether or not they had any useful effect.

Here is a scholarly article discussing the relationship between climate sceptics, conspiracy theories and "doing your own research" I don't want to delve into the climate change debate as I see that some posts have been removed from this thread. However, there ids a broader discussion about legitimate climate scepticism and research methodologies discussed in the article including an example of an academic study published in a normally wack job website which has some credibility in terms of the research, leaving aside the climate questions. This excerpt outlines the issue and go to my point that not all the deniers are excluded, only those who peddle conspiracy theories. Please actually read and quote from the article if you wish to reply but leave out the climate change debate and focus on the research methodology aspect. While the article does focus on climate change it is a very good treatise on the nexus between science and conspiracy theories. https://theconversation.com/climate-sceptic-or-climate-denier-its-not-that-simple-and-heres-why-117913

What it actually displays is circular reasoning, as if the proposition itself is self evident and self justifying when it is in fact meaningless without additional context. As I said it's a call to do no research. Don't expect a reasoned argument.

Please define in concise terms what "do your own research" actually means? How should we go about "doing our own research" Most of us believe we actually do and those that advocate "doing your own research" actually don't. All I have seen from those who advocate "doing your own research" is basically an entreaty to ignore all sources of information except fringe conspiracy sites and dubious and discredited pseudo science. Nobody has yet actually define what the term means in a way that is actionable, at least not to my mind.

When this thread started, I was under the impression that conspiracy theory believers were just a small proportion of the population comprising only fringe extremists. I also believed that they were randomly distributed and probably had few commonalities. I categorised them as probably belong to the very small club of flat earthers and moon landing deniers. Fairly soon I realised that I was quite wrong. I was shocked at just how many people are perfectly happy to believe the impossible and literally allow their lives to be guided by such theories. I began to do some more research. Then only yesterday I came across this article which was quite illuminating. I had not realised that the breakdown of society through mass delusion was hypothesised by Jung so long ago. I highly recommend taking the time to read this article. "Indeed, Jung himself warned that modern society was prone to collapse due to a pandemic of "delusional ideas." https://www.salon.com/2021/12/14/is-america-experiencing-mass-psychosis/ To further understand the meaning and ramifications of conspiracy theories one need go no further than the wiki explanation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

That wasn't a conspiracy theory. That's an alleged actual conspiracy. It will be proved one way or the other very soon. Conspiracy theories involve many people over a long period of time. The Trump / Russia conspiracy is neither of those. examples: Climate change is a hoax perpetrated by tens of thousands of scientists on lucrative government grants - conspiracy theory. The moon landing is a hoax - conspiracy theory The Malaysian Airlines MH370 was hijacked by the Pakistani secret service and hidden in a hanger on Diego Garcia - conspiracy theory. The JFK assassination was a CIA plot - alleged actual conspiracy.

Breaking down phrases into single words to remove context is not helpful. "Conspiracy" does not mean a lie, nor does "theory". However "Conspiracy theory" is always a lie, without exception. Important to note. Not all conspiracies are conspiracy theories.

Why give them oxygen when their evidence can and has been widely proved false? What says it all is that links to their work are not allowed. We don't need to debate discredited actors for ever and ever just because their opinions are dissenting. Not every climate change denier or vaccine skeptic gets censored by the MSM and responsible social media, just those acting in bad faith. I've said it before and it's worth repeating, lies don't need to get equal time with the truth.

I spend a lot of time writing computer code. My speed and efficiency are about a thousand times better now than before we had internet and search engines. I'm sure every scientist feels the same way. Even learning about coronavirus and virtually every fact and fiction known to man is easily available on the internet. Rejecting the internet as a valuable learning tool is akin to burning books. It goes without saying that one needs to be critical and evaluate what one reads but likewise there is not shortage of reliable information critiquing everything of consequence that is ever written. That may take the form of peer review or fact checking, two indispensable tools when doing your own research. Not doing your own research does not mean rejecting other peoples research, far from it. Not doing your own research means getting your information from unqualified sources (bad actors) and unreliable sources such as social media.

How are the drug companies instilling fear? I would say they are instilling confidence and optimism, big time. Without those vaccines we would be in a hopeless situation. A year ago, I thought I was likely to die from this virus as I am elderly but now I think I will likely survive and only because of the vaccines.

Rubbish. Get off your high horse. Google and the internet have propelled the rate at which we can learn and research to all time highs. Previously we relied on hard copy books, now every book and every piece of public research carried out is available online. Google (and other search engines) is great resource for learning, education and research.

Searching and researching are not mutually exclusive. Your statement here is self evident, trite and meaningless in any context. Not that you attempted to even provide context. Stop trolling.

Scientists, like all of us, use every resource available to them. MOST scientific work builds on the research of others. I'm saying that all these antagonists here seem to want to exclude what they read on the net as useful or valid. That's far from true.

Scientists use google too. They learn from what others researched, just like the rest of us.

It can't be "fixed" with current technology in the sense that warming will continue even if we reduced CO2 emissions to zero tomorrow. At best we can slow down the progression in the hope that tomorrow's scientists will find a solution. One such possible solution to reverse the trend is large scale CO2 extractors powered by nuclear fission. Doing nothing is not an option. We need to cut all fossil fuel use as fast as possible even though it will cause economic pain. We are in this situation because warnings by scientists dating back to the 70's were not heeded by politicians who are blind to long term issues and don't want to risk voter backlash. Now that voter backlash will come from the increasing number of anti baby boomers who want change so we have some hope. We need to accept that the process will necessarily be expensive and involve sacrifices. Otherwise we doom humans to extinction, literally. We also need to stop deforestation and set about replanting millions of trees. A bad analogy. You are in a speeding car and lose control. You are headed directly for a tree and can see that you will definitely hit it. Do you apply the brakes or not?