Here is a list of articles and publications, most of them pointing issues in vaccines and in what is commonly said about them. For me it is a very good entry point for those interested in criticism against vaccines, no matter if you are against vaccines or if you are just curious to know the arguments. Of course most of the articles and claims are categorized as pseudo-science (IMO it is such a sensitive issue that any criticism to vaccines is labeled as anti-science or pseudo-science even before their arguments are appropriately considered).
Summary of the article: US and other watmongering states want to annihilate Assange. I'm doing my best to spread gossip against him to ease their task.
I wouldn't put it that way. The French support the Yellow Vest movement, which -- unlike the government and most of the corporate media claim -- does not reduce into vandalism and rioting.
Personally I see more hope in the personalized, drugless approaches, such as Dr. Bredesen's MEND protocol. For me large part of medical scientists are too obsessed about finding drugs and don't pay enough attention to alternatives.
Why so many more burnouts declared today than before? Perhaps we just have more awareness. Perhaps our jobs are indeed more stressful.
These may be important factors, but I don't think they explains this phenomenon alone. We see a huge increase in diverse kinds mental problems (ADHD, Alzheimer, depression). I think the "Broken Brain" hypothesis by Dr. Hyman quite plausible.
Because they like to act ethically, based on principles, and so they don't want to simply ban someone on the basis you are talking about ("damaging one's reputation"), a reason which could be used to arbitrary decisions -- and make Canonical look like Facebook or Twitter.
The two most valuable books I have read in my life: Eckhart Tolle's "The Power of Now" and "New Earth".
In my case -- and many people I have met share the same view -- these books have shown the path to escape from every kind of emotional suffering. Even when it is small, such emotional "noise" disturbs our capacity to enjoy life, to work well, to be a good friend or a good relative, finally to be happy.
In the "The power of now" I specially like the chapter about relationships and the last one, about surrender. "New Earth" is perhaps even better, with a clear and strong exposure of the "egoic mind" and the "pain body", his words for two traps we tend to fall into. But I recommend to read the "The Power of Now" first.
Rationalism-leaning people like me often reject anything which is named "spirituality". But these people are often those who need the most to escape from unconscious mental traps. Eckart Tolle was an academic, he is clear and precise. In my opinion he offers the best presentation of this kind of wisdom for a rational person.
I think I would have refused to read these books when I was 20 years old (precisely for being an disdainful rationalist). Eckhart Tolle says there is the right moment in your life to be open to what he tells. This changes from one person to another. But what is certain is that if you endure any kind of suffering, the early you read, the best.
Note that although there are a lot of easily accessible videos from Eckart Tolle, I don't think they are not a good substitute for the books. These videos are mainly useful when you have already read at least the first book. Especially if you are not used to read about spirituality the videos won't suffice to make you understand that this dimension is important for your life (they will not be persuasive enough to break your skeptical barrier).
That is why we must be careful about information claiming that "Russians are blocking investigation".
Remember that similar claims made people believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. There was no good evidence of the existence of such weapons, but well-orchestrated rumors of "Saddam is blocking the work of investigators" sounded very convincing.
I find it even possible that the investigators (if they are anti-Russian as much as the former were anti-Saddam) make unreasonable requests just to get refusals.
There are many people who don't think that this study was bogus. Read this and judge yourself on whether or not there are something suspecious in the rejection of this paper.
Your reasoning depends on concepts such as "unlikely". That is precisely what I was trying to claim: The acceptation of scientific claims made about human beings depend on what we see as "likely to be true" or "reasonable".
Personally I believe in the stated causation. But if one wants to be skeptical, there is always a way:
The causation comes not from going to museums but from the feeling of being lucky.
The causation exists because of the negative effects induced by the alternative activity proposed to those who didn't go to the museums
In the museums the guide talked about tolerance and most of the students never had heard about this concept. So it was what was said not the contact with the art itself.
For me unfortunately a scientific claim made about humans is accepted if and only if it seems reasonable.
If small differences in the floating-point precision make your results vary a lot it is a sign that your computation is useless. For in this case your model is producing more random noise than information. Concerns about reproducibility are obviously frivolous in this case.
I at least only have myself to blame for not having secured or backed them up
Of course you are not free from intrusion or backup failure if you put your files in your hard disk. It is a question of betting in your competence or in Google's. And it is reasonable to imagine that most people would consider Google more competent than themselves. And of course you can back up your gdoc data, see for instance:
Of course it is OK to criticize some decisions of Youtube, but bashing it like this seems childish, unfair to me. No other company has done as much for free speech (by far IMO).
I sincerely hope the EFF can one day have 10% of the impact Youtube has had to defend our rights worldwide.
In particular among the corporate world, no company is close to Google in the defence of freedom and openness. The fact that some times they give in to government pressure does not change that. I believe it is in our interest to recognize that fact, even when urging Google to do better.
There is nothing going on. No scientific study has demonstrated homeopathic preparations to have an effect greater than a placebo. Because they are placebos. So there's nothing which deserves investigation, except the placebo effect itself, which can easily be studied while completely ignoring the particular kind of placebo called homeopathy.
Nice example of two commonly used fallacies formulated by the so-called sceptics in the name of science.
No scientific evidence implies the claim is false or probably false.
If it is placebo, it is specificity can be ignored, placebo being something that can be isolated from the rest of the treatment.
It is amazing how often the self entitled sceptics fail to use the same standard of rationality depending on whether they are supporting or attacking their beliefs.
Is it only me or are there other people persuaded that the violence in this episode is the everyday rule, not an accident, and that the only thing that was exceptional in it was that employees of an important Western company were murdered?
Otherwise of course we would never know about this video. Why would the army have to care about civilians killed in Fallujah or anywhere else if the reporting that they were armed insurgents suffices, with rare exception such as this one?
Slashdot Mirror
Here is a list of articles and publications, most of them pointing issues in vaccines and in what is commonly said about them. For me it is a very good entry point for those interested in criticism against vaccines, no matter if you are against vaccines or if you are just curious to know the arguments. Of course most of the articles and claims are categorized as pseudo-science (IMO it is such a sensitive issue that any criticism to vaccines is labeled as anti-science or pseudo-science even before their arguments are appropriately considered).
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/se...
Summary of the article: US and other watmongering states want to annihilate Assange. I'm doing my best to spread gossip against him to ease their task.
> the French support the vandals and rioters
I wouldn't put it that way. The French support the Yellow Vest movement, which -- unlike the government and most of the corporate media claim -- does not reduce into vandalism and rioting.
Personally I see more hope in the personalized, drugless approaches, such as Dr. Bredesen's MEND protocol. For me large part of medical scientists are too obsessed about finding drugs and don't pay enough attention to alternatives.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
https://chriskresser.com/new-h...
https://www.aging-us.com/artic...
Why so many more burnouts declared today than before? Perhaps we just have more awareness. Perhaps our jobs are indeed more stressful.
These may be important factors, but I don't think they explains this phenomenon alone. We see a huge increase in diverse kinds mental problems (ADHD, Alzheimer, depression). I think the "Broken Brain" hypothesis by Dr. Hyman quite plausible.
http://drhyman.com/blog/2017/1...
He claims that important factors for the decline of our mental health are diet and exposure to toxins, besides stress.
Because they like to act ethically, based on principles, and so they don't want to simply ban someone on the basis you are talking about ("damaging one's reputation"), a reason which could be used to arbitrary decisions -- and make Canonical look like Facebook or Twitter.
The two most valuable books I have read in my life: Eckhart Tolle's "The Power of Now" and "New Earth".
In my case -- and many people I have met share the same view -- these books have shown the path to escape from every kind of emotional suffering. Even when it is small, such emotional "noise" disturbs our capacity to enjoy life, to work well, to be a good friend or a good relative, finally to be happy.
In the "The power of now" I specially like the chapter about relationships and the last one, about surrender. "New Earth" is perhaps even better, with a clear and strong exposure of the "egoic mind" and the "pain body", his words for two traps we tend to fall into. But I recommend to read the "The Power of Now" first.
Rationalism-leaning people like me often reject anything which is named "spirituality". But these people are often those who need the most to escape from unconscious mental traps. Eckart Tolle was an academic, he is clear and precise. In my opinion he offers the best presentation of this kind of wisdom for a rational person.
I think I would have refused to read these books when I was 20 years old (precisely for being an disdainful rationalist). Eckhart Tolle says there is the right moment in your life to be open to what he tells. This changes from one person to another. But what is certain is that if you endure any kind of suffering, the early you read, the best.
Note that although there are a lot of easily accessible videos from Eckart Tolle, I don't think they are not a good substitute for the books. These videos are mainly useful when you have already read at least the first book. Especially if you are not used to read about spirituality the videos won't suffice to make you understand that this dimension is important for your life (they will not be persuasive enough to break your skeptical barrier).
Here is an example of non-Russian experts who question the idea that Assad was guilty in 2013.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.do...
You are talking about French Gaullist tradition (from Charles de Gaulle), and yes, French geopolitics was relatively independent from the US.
Since Sarkozy they have made a 180-degree turn. They are now one of the most pro-US countries in Europe, beating UK in some issues.
http://www.economist.com/blogs...
http://www.economist.com/node/...
http://fablognewsweeker.canalb...
http://www.economist.com/blogs...
Hollande, though from the rival socialist party, follows entirely the path paved by Sarkozy.
That is why we must be careful about information claiming that "Russians are blocking investigation".
Remember that similar claims made people believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. There was no good evidence of the existence of such weapons, but well-orchestrated rumors of "Saddam is blocking the work of investigators" sounded very convincing.
I find it even possible that the investigators (if they are anti-Russian as much as the former were anti-Saddam) make unreasonable requests just to get refusals.
Look great at first sight... but only at first sight.
Our planet is in serious danger. We didn't know this in the 60's. Now we do.
We need our planet, our nature to survive. Not the space. Please turn the space agency into a earth agency. There are too many good engineers there.
Our children will be thankful.
There are many people who don't think that this study was bogus. Read this and judge yourself on whether or not there are something suspecious in the rejection of this paper.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/12/gmo-retractions-denials-and-downright-lies/
apol
Your reasoning depends on concepts such as "unlikely". That is precisely what I was trying to claim: The acceptation of scientific claims made about human beings depend on what we see as "likely to be true" or "reasonable".
For me unfortunately a scientific claim made about humans is accepted if and only if it seems reasonable.
If small differences in the floating-point precision make your results vary a lot it is a sign that your computation is useless. For in this case your model is producing more random noise than information. Concerns about reproducibility are obviously frivolous in this case.
I don't believe Syria gov't has used chemical weapons any more than that Sadam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction...
How long will it take for people to suspect on what the read/watch on mainstream media?
Isn't enough to remember that the last time the U.S. blamed the Syrian government for a chemical weapons attack, that claim was debunked?
The bad argument here is to argue that GMO is just like genetic selection, just pushed a bit further.
Of course it is not. Nobody is against genetic selection, neither in Europe not anywhere else.
You have exposed many theories on the psychology of superstitious people.
But do you have an explanation of what makes a self-described "full-fledged skeptic, atheist, and rationalist" come to the conclusion that you "come[s] across as a bullying figure, eager to attack and ridicule, willing to distort and even invent evidence - in short, the sort of person who will do anything to prevail in a debate, whether by fair means."
Thanks,
apol
I at least only have myself to blame for not having secured or backed them up
Of course you are not free from intrusion or backup failure if you put your files in your hard disk. It is a question of betting in your competence or in Google's. And it is reasonable to imagine that most people would consider Google more competent than themselves. And of course you can back up your gdoc data, see for instance:
http://www.dataliberation.org/
http://gs.fhtino.it/gdocbackup
I can't count on the availability of a constant internet connection
You can work offline, see:
http://support.google.com/drive/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1628467
Of course it is OK to criticize some decisions of Youtube, but bashing it like this seems childish, unfair to me. No other company has done as much for free speech (by far IMO).
I sincerely hope the EFF can one day have 10% of the impact Youtube has had to defend our rights worldwide.
In particular among the corporate world, no company is close to Google in the defence of freedom and openness. The fact that some times they give in to government pressure does not change that. I believe it is in our interest to recognize that fact, even when urging Google to do better.
Leave Israel alone, and they'll leave you alone.
Unless of course you are a Palestinian, having the bad luck to live in the land God gave to the chosen people.
Clearly people at CERN have no compassion for the lawyers.
There is nothing going on. No scientific study has demonstrated homeopathic preparations to have an effect greater than a placebo. Because they are placebos. So there's nothing which deserves investigation, except the placebo effect itself, which can easily be studied while completely ignoring the particular kind of placebo called homeopathy.
Nice example of two commonly used fallacies formulated by the so-called sceptics in the name of science.
It is amazing how often the self entitled sceptics fail to use the same standard of rationality depending on whether they are supporting or attacking their beliefs.
apol
Is it only me or are there other people persuaded that the violence in this episode is the everyday rule, not an accident, and that the only thing that was exceptional in it was that employees of an important Western company were murdered?
Otherwise of course we would never know about this video. Why would the army have to care about civilians killed in Fallujah or anywhere else if the reporting that they were armed insurgents suffices, with rare exception such as this one?