9 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Who, of you and gamb00ler, is going to take the plunge and explain The Knowledge?

Go to the source yourself. But instead of using queries with in-built bias, practice using neutral query terms.... you'll see the 'light'.

Gemini says:

To construct unbiased queries for AI, use neutral, specific language, avoid loaded terms, request diverse perspectives (e.g., debate, pros and cons), ask for reasoning (like Chain-of-Thought), and use tools that cite sources (RAG) for factual grounding, ensuring you're steering the AI away from inherent biases from its training data towards balanced, verifiable information. 

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

Did you write this one yourself, or is it once again a 'copy-paste' without reference to the source. Pretty sure it is the latter...

This is a wild theory that also is philosophical debated, so nothing else to be annoyed by, and also as you suspected AI.

10 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

False equivalence fallacy: according to your rationale, as geological movements can be explained by science, rejecting one interpretation of said movements equates to rejecting science as a concept, because other fields such as information technology can also be explained by science.

You are showing your ignorance of the topic. Heliocentrism is essentially a resurrected pagan belief, imposed by the Roman Catholic Church and the Jesuits to counter Luther's Reformation. If you don't know what I am talking about, look it up and educate yourself on it.

Copernicus loved the pagan god-like figure Trismegistus and the pagan Greek philosopher Aristarchus, who are central figures of Hermeticism, the Sun-centered ideology which, according to Wikipedia itself, has "been a crucial factor in the development of modern science".

Copernicus made the below statement. Does that sound more religious or scientific to you?

In the middle of all, however, resides the sun. For in this most beautiful temple, who would place this lamp in any other or better place than this, from where it can illuminate the whole universe all at once? Not unjustly, then, some call the sun the lamp of the cosmos, others its mind and others still its governor. Trismegistus calls it a visible god.

Scientists care not about the roots of a science conjecture.

You seem obsessed about them. A hobby that offers many opportunities for pedantry.

2 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Scientists care not about the roots of a science conjecture.

No claim is too ridiculous for those who must have the last word. 😆

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

No claim is too ridiculous for those who must have the last word. 😆

Last word seems to be much more important to you than most. Not unexpected from a person who argued that "extremely difficult" really means impossible.

On 1/4/2026 at 1:10 AM, save the frogs said:

what are you talking about?

darwin's theory is we developed from apes.

there are remnants of ancient civilizations with advanced technologies.

You are explaining nothing! I suspect, like many conspiracy theorists, you have no concept of time or big numbers.

On 12/23/2025 at 8:11 PM, rattlesnake said:

try to use common sense.

Common sense is not an objective or universally valid set of beliefs. It is a product of our individual experiences, cultural backgrounds, and social biases, making it a subjective and context-dependent construct. Relying solely on common sense can lead to flawed judgements, prejudices, and discriminatory practices. Instead, we should adopt a more critical and open-minded approach to understanding the world around us, recognizing the inherent subjectivity of common sense and seeking to broaden our perspectives through diverse experiences and knowledge

2 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Common sense is not an objective or universally valid set of beliefs. It is a product of our individual experiences, cultural backgrounds, and social biases, making it a subjective and context-dependent construct. Relying solely on common sense can lead to flawed judgements, prejudices, and discriminatory practices. Instead, we should adopt a more critical and open-minded approach to understanding the world around us, recognizing the inherent subjectivity of common sense and seeking to broaden our perspectives through diverse experiences and knowledge

I would tend to agree with the subjectivity angle, but I see common sense as a guardrail more than anything else, in the sense that it can be used to keep our subjectivity and biases in check. In this post of mine which you partially quoted, I mentioned a Forbes article which explains how the biopharmaceutical industry provides 75% of the FDA's drug review budget. Isn't this inherently problematic, regardless of where you stand on the broader issue?

Take Richard Smith, for example. He is clearly on your side of this debate and not a 'conspiracy theorist' by any stretch of the imagination, but when I show him an article such as this one, he doesn't deflect or deny it simply because he is talking to rattlesnake and therefore must adopt a contrarian stance out of principle – no, he agrees it is problematic and that reforms are required. To me, that's common sense: the ability to recognise that a valid point has been made, which doesn't mean we are necessarily shifting our overall view on a given issue, we're just showing that we are able to think critically and if anything, it strengthens and adds credibility to whatever else we have to say.

12 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I mentioned a Forbes article which explains how the biopharmaceutical industry provides 75% of the FDA's drug review budget. Isn't this inherently problematic, regardless of where you stand on the broader issue?

The article you referenced is actually about an article that appeared in ProPublica that was written by Caroline Chen. She appears to be a professional journalist with a Masters in Journalism from Columbia.

I question Forbes choice of the headline for their article. The phrase "Provides 75% of The FDA's Review Budget" is easily misinterpreted. The monies paid are not donations or freely given, they are fees that the FDA charges pharmaceutical companies to cover the expense of reviewing NDA's (new drug applications). IMHO, this arrangement may not be ideal but I don't see it as a much of an opportunity for the FDA to corruptly play favorites or dodge its responsibilities to the taxpayers. NDA's are often rejected or send back for further studies.

PS. the fees are currently somewhat North of 3M US$.

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

The article you referenced is actually about an article that appeared in ProPublica that was written by Caroline Chen. She appears to be a professional journalist with a Masters in Journalism from Columbia.

I question Forbes choice of the headline for their article. The phrase "Provides 75% of The FDA's Review Budget" is easily misinterpreted. The monies paid are not donations or freely given, they are fees that the FDA charges pharmaceutical companies to cover the expense of reviewing NDA's (new drug applications). IMHO, this arrangement may not be ideal but I don't see it as a much of an opportunity for the FDA to corruptly play favorites or dodge its responsibilities to the taxpayers. NDA's are often rejected or send back for further studies.

PS. the fees are currently somewhat North of 3M US$.

An article such as the Forbes one only shows the tip of the iceberg. Changes are coming to solve the ethical problems in public health policies, though:

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

An article such as the Forbes one only shows the tip of the iceberg. Changes are coming to solve the ethical problems in public health policies, though

Of course.... we all know EVERY statement you make is merely an opinion. You're not on the inside track anywhere. Based on your opinions on science.... we all know the correct weight for your opinion.... it's the least dense of all and will eventually just float away.

Not only did Apollo 11 land on the moon, further flights landed another 5 times.

The Earth is not flat.

Who cares who shot JFK or how and why Princess Diana died.

I miss the pre internet days when sanity prevailed and the nutters talked amongst themselves instead of the situation we have now when said nutters see it as their evangelical duty to inform the masses of their version of the truth.

Bugger off. There are more important issues to discuss.

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

An article such as the Forbes one only shows the tip of the iceberg.

Is this more ice for the berg?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2022/09/22/why-is-biopharma-paying-75-of-the-fdas-drug-division-budget/

a more recent Forbes article on the same facts/issue. Hard to call that supportive of the earlier article they published.

23 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Of course.... we all know EVERY statement you make is merely an opinion. You're not on the inside track anywhere. Based on your opinions on science.... we all know the correct weight for your opinion.... it's the least dense of all and will eventually just float away.

It is the opinion of the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services.

19 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

Not only did Apollo 11 land on the moon, further flights landed another 5 times.

The Earth is not flat.

Who cares who shot JFK or how and why Princess Diana died.

I miss the pre internet days when sanity prevailed and the nutters talked amongst themselves instead of the situation we have now when said nutters see it as their evangelical duty to inform the masses of their version of the truth.

Bugger off. There are more important issues to discuss.

You're funnier when you're drunk. See you soon!

On 12/30/2025 at 1:12 PM, emptypockets said:

Isn't the whole thread about conspiracy and the doom of the human race? I've had a few beers so could be mistaken, or really don't  give a <deleted>.

21 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Is this more ice for the berg?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2022/09/22/why-is-biopharma-paying-75-of-the-fdas-drug-division-budget/

a more recent Forbes article on the same facts/issue. Hard to call that supportive of the earlier article they published.

The opinion of Dr. John LaMattina, former president of Pfizer Global Research and Development, is duly noted.

A friend of my wifes husband was a nutter.

Retired and spent too much time online, facebook etc.

Convinced the world was flat. Proved it by flying a model aircraft around a toy globe. You must be upside he declared. Given that we were in Australia and standing up was quite amusing.

Drank his own urine because some apparent expert online had some crazy theory it was good for you.

Convinced that at his age,75, his heart would be affected if he took a COVID shot.

Waved his camera ' scanning ' my wife and myself to try and find the barcode that was in the vax that had been inserted into us. When he couldn't find anything he confidently proclaimed we were given a placebo. This is after the jokers on Facebook said it was a spoof posting.

He died a couple of years later....heart failure.

Kind of ironic.

They walk amongst us, and, sadly can vote.

22 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

You're funnier when you're drunk. See you soon!

Not drunk...yet. 555

30 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

It is the opinion of the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services.

and he is afforded the same respect as you on many issues.

18 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I would tend to agree with the subjectivity angle, but I see common sense as a guardrail more than anything else, in the sense that it can be used to keep our subjectivity and biases in check. In this post of mine which you partially quoted, I mentioned a Forbes article which explains how the biopharmaceutical industry provides 75% of the FDA's drug review budget. Isn't this inherently problematic, regardless of where you stand on the broader issue?

Take Richard Smith, for example. He is clearly on your side of this debate and not a 'conspiracy theorist' by any stretch of the imagination, but when I show him an article such as this one, he doesn't deflect or deny it simply because he is talking to rattlesnake and therefore must adopt a contrarian stance out of principle – no, he agrees it is problematic and that reforms are required. To me, that's common sense: the ability to recognise that a valid point has been made, which doesn't mean we are necessarily shifting our overall view on a given issue, we're just showing that we are able to think critically and if anything, it strengthens and adds credibility to whatever else we have to say.

we've already established you are not a critical thinker - but even a fool should see tht common sense doesn't actually exist ---excdpt in echo-chambers, possibly

5 minutes ago, kwilco said:

we've already established you are not a critical thinker - but even a fool should see tht common sense doesn't actually exist ---excdpt in echo-chambers, possibly

They see a conspiracy in everything.

Even the most mundane and obvious....to normal thinking people.

That's why I call them nutters.

this is an interesting video about conspiracy theorists in the USA and how thw world sees them....

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1DVWjprRx1/

seems it's unavailable – never mind – maybe copy th link into your Facebook a/c?

5 minutes ago, kwilco said:

this is an interesting video about conspiracy theorists in the USA and how thw world sees them....

Video unavailable.

Just now, emptypockets said:

Video unavailable.

nothing I can do about that

5 minutes ago, kwilco said:

nothing I can do about that

Must be the deep state thing.

Or the reptilians.

I won't be losing any sleep, assuming I can sleep in a simulation.

Pretty sure I'll wake up tomorrow, fart, scratch my nuts and head to the toothbrush either way.

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

It is the opinion of the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Since you share opinions with RFK, perhaps your family is as embarrassed of you as his family is of him.

1 hour ago, emptypockets said:

That's why I call them nutters.

Both sides are nutters.

Blockheads who believe all conspiracies are bs and reject every single conspiracy are nutters.

And some conspiracy guys believe some stuff which isn't true and which is nuts, since often govt spooks will come in and confuse things with false information.

A perfect example is UFOs. To suggest that it's all bs and there is nothing to explore there may be nuts. At the very least, the govt may have some advanced aircraft or sth. There's something going on.

However, it's almost impossible to know which UFO info is valid as govt spooks and charlatans are putting out all kinds of fake info on UFOs.

2 hours ago, emptypockets said:

Proved it by flying a model aircraft around a toy globe. You must be upside he declared. Given that we were in Australia and standing up was quite amusing.

Yes, this demonstrates the silliness of the globe model.

If the earth is a globe and spinning, that means we spend around half our time being upside down.

We are never upside down because the earth is flat and stationary.

Can't wait to go and see Brian Cox live later this year.

3 hours ago, kwilco said:

we've already established you are not a critical thinker - but even a fool should see tht common sense doesn't actually exist ---excdpt in echo-chambers, possibly

"We" being you, gamb00ler and transam… 😄

Common sense is an elementary ability and teaching it to one's children is essential. Only someone suffering from extreme delusion would say something as preposterous as "common sense doesn't exist".