micmichd Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Do you understand that your belief in economic stability (eg when you buy a car on instalments) is superstitious belief in a myth, too?What's all this nonsense about buying stuff on 'installments'?I don't buy anything 'on installments'... or mortgage. As for financial stability being myth ... Thank god it is. I've made far mire money out of financial instability than I have from financial stability, or indeed working. The mid 90s economic crash in Thailand - Ker-ching The bankng crisis - Ker-ching Expat fire sales following the post banking crisis recession - Ker-ching The current depreciation in the Euro - Ker-ching Its the proffits I've made from economic instability that finance my freedom from buying stuff on installments. Ah, you're the one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fang37 Posted July 22, 2015 Author Share Posted July 22, 2015 Nice tussle going on here. What are the available odds? Have been going to CNX RAM Hospital for physio on leg post collision. They had me walking on a walker; receiving therapy via a machine in order to reduce swelling; another machine for correction of lower leg-upper leg angle. I am very suspicious that this therapy may be a winner. Superstitious - yes. Is it bad luck that I am footing the bill? Thai - no $$$? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuestHouse Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) Ah, you're the one.Otherwise identifiable by the absense of a tin foil hat. Edited July 22, 2015 by GuestHouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan42 Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 They're not dumb, they simply haven't been educated (if at all) about logic and reason. Buy them some documentaries by Dawkins or send them some Seasons of Penn & Teller : BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docno Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 There is a very good reason to why there is a distinction between "modern/western medicine" and "everything else". People can believe what they want but believing things like "avoiding certain people" will do you any good or bad is just plain ignorant. And i use ignorant lightly as stronger words aren't allowed on this forum. See, that's what I was talking about. Just because you have a pretty good idea that something is likely to be true, and that it's counterintuitive to think otherwise....in FACT there is no proof that avoiding certain people is useful OR useless. Yes, and there's no proof that unicorns don't exist either... We have a pretty good idea at this point about how the body works and how 'everyday physics' works, and there's nothing in that extensive knowledgebase that would explain how avoiding certain people would help with healing (unless, of course they are infectious). That's not how science works, if you can't prove something then it is highly unlikely that "something" exists. We cannot 'prove' the Big Bang Theory, but for many scientists, it provides the most likely explanation for what we are able to observe and measure. And my comment about unicorns was making the point that you generally cannot prove that something does not exist unless you have a full sampling of the population: I would have to survey every square inch of the planet simultaneously to prove the non-existence of unicorns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 The damdest thing I saw in Thailand was the shaman coming to our house to do a blessing. The sky was absolutely black and ready to throw it down. We are all assembled in the garden. Everyone knows it is going to rain. One drop falls, 2, then ten. Shaman wags his finger at the sky, tells it to stop. It stops. 10 min later wants to start again. 10 drops. The shaman commands it to stop. It stops. Finish the ceremony, and he gives it permission to rain. And does it ever. They should get him to do the meteorological forecast.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asheron Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Yes, and there's no proof that unicorns don't exist either... We have a pretty good idea at this point about how the body works and how 'everyday physics' works, and there's nothing in that extensive knowledgebase that would explain how avoiding certain people would help with healing (unless, of course they are infectious). That's not how science works, if you can't prove something then it is highly unlikely that "something" exists. We cannot 'prove' the Big Bang Theory, but for many scientists, it provides the most likely explanation for what we are able to observe and measure. And my comment about unicorns was making the point that you generally cannot prove that something does not exist unless you have a full sampling of the population: I would have to survey every square inch of the planet simultaneously to prove the non-existence of unicorns. You can basicly just with the theory of evolution show that unicorns do not exist nor have existed. Because if they did exist or have existed at some point there would be remains so there would be no need for "every square inch survey". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puukao Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 I am the 131313th poster on this board. and on the 666th page of the 666th topic my name is LIVED, but some people spell it backwards I can speak 902374892347238947234 languages. All except English Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Do you understand that your belief in economic stability (eg when you buy a car on instalments) is superstitious belief in a myth, too? What's all this nonsense about buying stuff on 'installments'? I don't buy anything 'on installments'... or mortgage. As for financial stability being myth ... Thank god it is. I've made far mire money out of financial instability than I have from financial stability, or indeed working. The mid 90s economic crash in Thailand - Ker-ching The bankng crisis - Ker-ching Expat fire sales following the post banking crisis recession - Ker-ching The current depreciation in the Euro - Ker-ching Its the proffits I've made from economic instability that finance my freedom from buying stuff on installments. either that or he lives in a guesthouse and has nothing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Yes, and there's no proof that unicorns don't exist either... We have a pretty good idea at this point about how the body works and how 'everyday physics' works, and there's nothing in that extensive knowledgebase that would explain how avoiding certain people would help with healing (unless, of course they are infectious). That's not how science works, if you can't prove something then it is highly unlikely that "something" exists. We cannot 'prove' the Big Bang Theory, but for many scientists, it provides the most likely explanation for what we are able to observe and measure. And my comment about unicorns was making the point that you generally cannot prove that something does not exist unless you have a full sampling of the population: I would have to survey every square inch of the planet simultaneously to prove the non-existence of unicorns. You can basicly just with the theory of evolution show that unicorns do not exist nor have existed. Because if they did exist or have existed at some point there would be remains so there would be no need for "every square inch survey". "Proof" - sadly those who claim things are "just a theory" are showing that they don't understand the scientific use of the word theory, and primarily they don't understand even the fundamentals of scientific thinking. May I suggest you Google the short movie "Here be Dragons" - it might help some to understand basic skepticism and critical thinking. You don't need to be a scientist to get a grounding in this......without some inkling of that it really is impossible to have an intelligent conversation about "superstition" There is also some good stuff on TED about this and the Guardian Science series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micmichd Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) I am the 131313th poster on this board. and on the 666th page of the 666th topic my name is LIVED, but some people spell it backwards I can speak 902374892347238947234 languages. All except English Ah, here you are. Good morning. Do you believe in science? If you do, would you accept that everything should be possible in the name of science? If yes, what about a small social experiment? Cause panic, cause withchhunt, see what happens. You can try panic in an elevator to get a first impression. For withchhunt you can follow some discussions on Thaivisa, eg the ones about Thai ladies, "terrorism", or immigrants in the West. Good luck, and forget about humanity. We are not superstitious, are we? BTW: If you invite a Thai lady to Europe, you have to sign a guarantee for a possible damage done by her in a "terroristic" attack. Up to 20 million EUR. Just in case... Edited July 23, 2015 by micmichd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I am the 131313th poster on this board. and on the 666th page of the 666th topic my name is LIVED, but some people spell it backwards I can speak 902374892347238947234 languages. All except English Ah, here you are. Good morning.Do you believe in science? If you do, would you accept that everything should be possible in the name of science? If yes, what about a small social experiment? Cause panic, cause withchhunt, see what happens. You can try panic in an elevator to get a first impression. For withchhunt you can follow some discussions on Thaivisa, eg the ones about Thai ladies, "terrorism", or immigrants in the West. Good luck, and forget about humanity. We are not superstitious, are we? BTW: If you invite a Thai lady to Europe, you have to sign a guarantee for a possible damage done by her in a "terroristic" attack. Up to 20 million EUR. Just in case... What on earth are you on about???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micmichd Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) I am the 131313th poster on this board. and on the 666th page of the 666th topic my name is LIVED, but some people spell it backwards I can speak 902374892347238947234 languages. All except English Ah, here you are. Good morning.Do you believe in science? If you do, would you accept that everything should be possible in the name of science? If yes, what about a small social experiment? Cause panic, cause withchhunt, see what happens. You can try panic in an elevator to get a first impression. For withchhunt you can follow some discussions on Thaivisa, eg the ones about Thai ladies, "terrorism", or immigrants in the West. Good luck, and forget about humanity. We are not superstitious, are we? BTW: If you invite a Thai lady to Europe, you have to sign a guarantee for a possible damage done by her in a "terroristic" attack. Up to 20 million EUR. Just in case... What on earth are you on about????I just want to demonstrate what can happen if you sacrifice humanity to money and science. I prefer a little animism to a stampede. Edited July 23, 2015 by micmichd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I am the 131313th poster on this board. and on the 666th page of the 666th topic my name is LIVED, but some people spell it backwards I can speak 902374892347238947234 languages. All except English Ah, here you are. Good morning.Do you believe in science? If you do, would you accept that everything should be possible in the name of science? If yes, what about a small social experiment? Cause panic, cause withchhunt, see what happens. You can try panic in an elevator to get a first impression. For withchhunt you can follow some discussions on Thaivisa, eg the ones about Thai ladies, "terrorism", or immigrants in the West. Good luck, and forget about humanity. We are not superstitious, are we? BTW: If you invite a Thai lady to Europe, you have to sign a guarantee for a possible damage done by her in a "terroristic" attack. Up to 20 million EUR. Just in case... What on earth are you on about????I just want to demonstrate what can happen if you sacrifice humanity to money and science.I prefer a little animism to a stampede. Well, you have patently failed to do that as your premises are fallacious and you are making a false dichotomy by linking Science with money. If you showed any inclination towards critical thought you would know what you postulate in totally baseless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micmichd Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) Of course, scientific research costs money. Science can be done on humans, and it can cause damage which has to be compensated. I can leave the question of money for heuristic reasons, then the dichotomy science vs humanity would remain. In the name of science you can isolate humans, torture them, do all kinds of experiments on them. German Nazis did that, they just followed their rules and obeyed to their authorities. Stanley Milgram demonstrated how far people would go in the name of science, the vast majority would be ready to electrocute their "objects" (s. Milgram, Obedience to authority) The process behind these attitudes is dehumanization of human "cases". The Nazis were perfect in this, and it was all legal at this time. Their "cases" were officially considered subhuman, so they were treated like animals (or even worse) My thesis is: Nothing has changed, today Western mental hospitals decide whether a human being should be granted human rights or not. And society outside obeys to doctors' authorities. Religion should actually be able stop things like this. But. Western religion only protects the humans, and the victims of psychiatry are already dehumanized. An extension to valuing all kinds of life would be helpful here. That's why I think an animistic cognitive frame is not so bad - even if I know it's superstitious. BTW: Much psychiatry isn't even science by scientific standards. They simply produce and apply labels which can never be falsified. That's why I call their rituals religious terror, and the effect in society is withchhunt. Edited July 23, 2015 by micmichd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daoyai Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Of course, scientific research costs money. Science can be done on humans, and it can cause damage which has to be compensated. I can leave the question of money for heuristic reasons, then the dichotomy science vs humanity would remain. In the name of science you can isolate humans, torture them, do all kinds of experiments on them. German Nazis did that, they just followed their rules and obeyed to their authorities. Stanley Milgram demonstrated how far people would go in the name of science, the vast majority would be ready to electrocute their "objects" (s. Milgram, Obedience to authority) The process behind these attitudes is dehumanization of human "cases". The Nazis were perfect in this, and it was all legal at this time. Their "cases" were officially considered subhuman, so they were treated like animals (or even worse) My thesis is: Nothing has changed, today Western mental hospitals decide whether a human being should be granted human rights or not. And society outside obeys to doctors' authorities. Religion should actually be able stop things like this. But. Western religion only protects the humans, and the victims of psychiatry are already dehumanized. An extension to valuing all kinds of life would be helpful here. That's why I think an animistic cognitive frame is not so bad - even if I know it's superstitious. Until the shamen decides you did something to anger the spirits then you will wish for the relative comfort and safety of the psych ward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micmichd Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) Of course, scientific research costs money. Science can be done on humans, and it can cause damage which has to be compensated. I can leave the question of money for heuristic reasons, then the dichotomy science vs humanity would remain. In the name of science you can isolate humans, torture them, do all kinds of experiments on them. German Nazis did that, they just followed their rules and obeyed to their authorities. Stanley Milgram demonstrated how far people would go in the name of science, the vast majority would be ready to electrocute their "objects" (s. Milgram, Obedience to authority) The process behind these attitudes is dehumanization of human "cases". The Nazis were perfect in this, and it was all legal at this time. Their "cases" were officially considered subhuman, so they were treated like animals (or even worse) My thesis is: Nothing has changed, today Western mental hospitals decide whether a human being should be granted human rights or not. And society outside obeys to doctors' authorities. Religion should actually be able stop things like this. But. Western religion only protects the humans, and the victims of psychiatry are already dehumanized. An extension to valuing all kinds of life would be helpful here. That's why I think an animistic cognitive frame is not so bad - even if I know it's superstitious. Until the shamen decides you did something to anger the spirits then you will wish for the relative comfort and safety of the psych ward.I would negotiate. The psych wards would call me hypersensitive or schizoid, and strap me in their machine. Guess I'd get a better deal with the shaman, even if he'd ban me in the jungle. Edited July 23, 2015 by micmichd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarenBravo Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) There is a very good reason to why there is a distinction between "modern/western medicine" and "everything else". People can believe what they want but believing things like "avoiding certain people" will do you any good or bad is just plain ignorant. And i use ignorant lightly as stronger words aren't allowed on this forum. Open your mind dude. People like you used to laugh hen others suggested the world was round. The ancients knew the earth was round. They knew this because the first thing they would see as a ship came over the horizon was the masts. Also, they saw the shadow of the earth on the moon (moon phases). In 240 BC, the Greek astronomer Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth, and it wasn't far off. The ancients were far from stupid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes Edited July 23, 2015 by KarenBravo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daoyai Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 ... and educated, science minded folks know the earth is spherical, not round or flat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarenBravo Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 ... and educated, science minded folks know the earth is spherical, not round or flat. It's spherical? Not round? Who would have thunk it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micmichd Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 ... and educated, science minded folks know the earth is spherical, not round or flat. It's spherical? Not round? Who would have thunk it? Fat ladies jumped on the poles, as far as I remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraday Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 ... and educated, science minded folks know the earth is spherical, not round or flat. It's spherical? Not round? Who would have thunk it? Fat ladies jumped on the poles, as far as I remember. I feel sorry for the Polish people, were any of them hurt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Of course, scientific research costs money. Science can be done on humans, and it can cause damage which has to be compensated. I can leave the question of money for heuristic reasons, then the dichotomy science vs humanity would remain. In the name of science you can isolate humans, torture them, do all kinds of experiments on them. German Nazis did that, they just followed their rules and obeyed to their authorities. Stanley Milgram demonstrated how far people would go in the name of science, the vast majority would be ready to electrocute their "objects" (s. Milgram, Obedience to authority) The process behind these attitudes is dehumanization of human "cases". The Nazis were perfect in this, and it was all legal at this time. Their "cases" were officially considered subhuman, so they were treated like animals (or even worse) My thesis is: Nothing has changed, today Western mental hospitals decide whether a human being should be granted human rights or not. And society outside obeys to doctors' authorities. Religion should actually be able stop things like this. But. Western religion only protects the humans, and the victims of psychiatry are already dehumanized. An extension to valuing all kinds of life would be helpful here. That's why I think an animistic cognitive frame is not so bad - even if I know it's superstitious. BTW: Much psychiatry isn't even science by scientific standards. They simply produce and apply labels which can never be falsified. That's why I call their rituals religious terror, and the effect in society is withchhunt. Sorry but this is a classic example of non-scientific thinking. It’s nothing to so with scientific thinking and it is quite obvious that you have no idea what you are talking bout. Science as a way of thinking costs nothing. The other side of the coin is to ask yourself if you’ve ever seen a poor religion. Your next sentence is meaningless, but you seem unaware of this as you’ve left it in the post............. Then you invoke Godwin’s law......... Classic false syllogisms follow about “science” as opposed to real scientific thought. Then you propose a “thesis” that is so far from scientific thought it’s risible and of course in science would not merit that name at all. I seriously doubt if you have any idea what an animistic cognitive frame entails and it certainly makes no sense in your post. Then it just deteriorates into gibberish..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docno Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Yes, and there's no proof that unicorns don't exist either... We have a pretty good idea at this point about how the body works and how 'everyday physics' works, and there's nothing in that extensive knowledgebase that would explain how avoiding certain people would help with healing (unless, of course they are infectious). That's not how science works, if you can't prove something then it is highly unlikely that "something" exists. We cannot 'prove' the Big Bang Theory, but for many scientists, it provides the most likely explanation for what we are able to observe and measure. And my comment about unicorns was making the point that you generally cannot prove that something does not exist unless you have a full sampling of the population: I would have to survey every square inch of the planet simultaneously to prove the non-existence of unicorns. You can basicly just with the theory of evolution show that unicorns do not exist nor have existed. Because if they did exist or have existed at some point there would be remains so there would be no need for "every square inch survey". That's plainly not true. There are new species of animal discovered every year. In addition, horses existed in the Americas (but went extinct) before Europeans brought them over (again). Tongue-in-cheek: perhaps a population of them survived in a remote part of S America and evolved into unicorns that we have yet to discover. I'm not arguing for the existence of unicorns, just pointing out that your logic doesn't hold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micmichd Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Of course, scientific research costs money. Science can be done on humans, and it can cause damage which has to be compensated. I can leave the question of money for heuristic reasons, then the dichotomy science vs humanity would remain. In the name of science you can isolate humans, torture them, do all kinds of experiments on them. German Nazis did that, they just followed their rules and obeyed to their authorities. Stanley Milgram demonstrated how far people would go in the name of science, the vast majority would be ready to electrocute their "objects" (s. Milgram, Obedience to authority) The process behind these attitudes is dehumanization of human "cases". The Nazis were perfect in this, and it was all legal at this time. Their "cases" were officially considered subhuman, so they were treated like animals (or even worse) My thesis is: Nothing has changed, today Western mental hospitals decide whether a human being should be granted human rights or not. And society outside obeys to doctors' authorities. Religion should actually be able stop things like this. But. Western religion only protects the humans, and the victims of psychiatry are already dehumanized. An extension to valuing all kinds of life would be helpful here. That's why I think an animistic cognitive frame is not so bad - even if I know it's superstitious. BTW: Much psychiatry isn't even science by scientific standards. They simply produce and apply labels which can never be falsified. That's why I call their rituals religious terror, and the effect in society is withchhunt. Sorry but this is a classic example of non-scientific thinking. Its nothing to so with scientific thinking and it is quite obvious that you have no idea what you are talking bout. Science as a way of thinking costs nothing. The other side of the coin is to ask yourself if youve ever seen a poor religion. Your next sentence is meaningless, but you seem unaware of this as youve left it in the post............. Then you invoke Godwins law......... Classic false syllogisms follow about science as opposed to real scientific thought. Then you propose a thesis that is so far from scientific thought its risible and of course in science would not merit that name at all. I seriously doubt if you have any idea what an animistic cognitive frame entails and it certainly makes no sense in your post. Then it just deteriorates into gibberish..... Maybe I need to work out a bit on formal logic. Please forget about money, and substitute "Nazis" with something else. Then, which sentence is meaningless, and where is the false syllogism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docno Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 That's not how science works, if you can't prove something then it is highly unlikely that "something" exists. We cannot 'prove' the Big Bang Theory, but for many scientists, it provides the most likely explanation for what we are able to observe and measure. And my comment about unicorns was making the point that you generally cannot prove that something does not exist unless you have a full sampling of the population: I would have to survey every square inch of the planet simultaneously to prove the non-existence of unicorns. You can basicly just with the theory of evolution show that unicorns do not exist nor have existed. Because if they did exist or have existed at some point there would be remains so there would be no need for "every square inch survey". "Proof" - sadly those who claim things are "just a theory" are showing that they don't understand the scientific use of the word theory, and primarily they don't understand even the fundamentals of scientific thinking. May I suggest you Google the short movie "Here be Dragons" - it might help some to understand basic skepticism and critical thinking. You don't need to be a scientist to get a grounding in this......without some inkling of that it really is impossible to have an intelligent conversation about "superstition" There is also some good stuff on TED about this and the Guardian Science series. I'm not sure you're referring to me with that comment, but please note that I did not hang anything on to the word 'theory' in the phrase 'Big Bang Theory'. My point was never to suggest that 'theory' equates to uncertainty or to suggest that all so-called 'theories' should be given equal credence. Going back to the very start of this sub-thread, my argument is basically that you technically cannot 'prove' the 'null hypothesis' ... I cannot prove that God does not exist, but the onus is on believers to prove that he does exist since they are the one's making the statement of fact (asserting the existence of something). As for the BBT, we have a lot of evidence in support of it; however, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that a somewhat better (or modified) theory might one day emerge and provide a better explanation/description of how it all started (ref. multiverse). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smotherb Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I think it would be unscientific to discard all superstitions, medicines and poultices just out-of-hand. Not only unscientific, but unrealistic to discard all we do not understand. I used to suffer migraines. In the '70's in the PI, I suffered the worst migraine attack I'd ever had. My gf brought in a Kepwing--a witch doctor. He built a fire and burned some foul smelling material, prepared a paste of various plants and roots, and brewed a tea, of sorts. I inhaled the smoke, drank the tea and he chanted while he rubbed my hands and temples with the paste, placed shark's teeth between the webs of my fingers, and wrapped my head and hands in leaf fiber. I passed-out. When I awoke the next morning, my headache was gone. Knock on wood, I have not had a recurrence of migraine since then, almost 40 years. Did he cure me? Was it coincidence? I do not know, but I will certainly not discount what I do not know. I think there is an element of the unknown with all medicines and all doctors; that is why they call it "practicing medicine." Its one thing to disregard something but another to accept it as "blind faith" with zero supporting evidence Aye, there is a difference, and neither is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kannot Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Nope, haven't moved any goal posts, I was just making another point. Is that ok with you? Just a quick search on Pub Med, brings up this. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24595780 It's not a particulary good example, but it highlights that there are opposing facts to your dogmatic approach. We could go at 'it' all day.....but there's no real need, is there? Unless of course, you need to be right all the time. Id hardly call that proof it works, yes we can keep going at it....if thats ok with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Familyonthemove Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) There is a very good reason to why there is a distinction between "modern/western medicine" and "everything else". People can believe what they want but believing things like "avoiding certain people" will do you any good or bad is just plain ignorant. And i use ignorant lightly as stronger words aren't allowed on this forum. Open your mind dude. People like you used to laugh hen others suggested the world was round. ... erm ... not really ..... it was the people who believed in superstitions who laughed when the scientists suggested that the Earth was round .... sorry ...... spherical. Edited July 23, 2015 by Familyonthemove Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraday Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Nope, haven't moved any goal posts, I was just making another point. Is that ok with you? Just a quick search on Pub Med, brings up this. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24595780 It's not a particulary good example, but it highlights that there are opposing facts to your dogmatic approach. We could go at 'it' all day.....but there's no real need, is there? Unless of course, you need to be right all the time. Id hardly call that proof it works, yes we can keep going at it....if thats ok with you? Didn't call it proof. In fact, if you read the bit in bold.... Ok, now I'm going to post something else. And the reason I'm doing this is to see how you react. Ok, my dear chap? What are your thoughts on Placebos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now