|
Post by rmarks1 on Jul 1, 2013 22:19:03 GMT -5
Bob Marks
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jul 2, 2013 6:53:22 GMT -5
Several years ago Consumer Reports did a survey of "food supplements" and found that 1/3 of them didn't contain the chemicals that the labels said. In some cases there was none of the chemical at all, but in most of these cases there was much less of the chemical than the label said. So not only are people buying things that have no proven value, they are often not even getting the bogus product.
Aside from wasted money, the worst problem with these chemicals is that people tend to think that "natural" means "safe" and often take mega-doses. Water-based vitamins wash out in urine, but oil-based vitamins stick around and can do damage. Many of the chemicals in food supplements have never been tested for safety and so there is no know safe or danger dosage. Many people over the years have permanently damaged their livers with mega-doses of various chemicals from the health-food store.
The moral of the story is that if you're going to buy food supplements and mega-dose on them, the safest thing to do is to buy the ones with no active ingredients. Of course, paying $10 for a small bottle of a homeopathic drug that is nothing but water may seem silly, but at least you won't overdose on it. 8-D
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jul 2, 2013 8:56:53 GMT -5
... paying $10 for a small bottle of a homeopathic drug ... I always get mine with "a hint of lemon" so at least it tastes good. But seriously, the skeptical community has been cautioning the public about all of this for years without having any perceptible effect. The very people who most need to read something like this are probably the least likely to read it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2013 19:35:23 GMT -5
I have a suggestion. When quoting, it would be helpful to put it into italics. Reading Bob's post, I thought it was he writing. The quote feature on this forum is not very good. I almost had a response to Bob personally until I realized he was quoting and not just adding his own comments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2013 19:37:41 GMT -5
And my comment was to be to this:
Humans wise and foolish clearly have a remarkable talent for deceiving themselves and others — sometimes with dollar signs glinting in their eyes, but sometimes with only the conviction that a smart, self-confident person armed with the right potion should be able to reconfigure nature.
Which would have been (and is) I thought skeptical critical thinkers do not generalize.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jul 4, 2013 22:04:52 GMT -5
I have a suggestion. When quoting, it would be helpful to put it into italics. Or, how about a few words of introduction prior to the quote, such as "this is from the New York Times." Italics would be fine, but I wonder whether readers would necessarily know that quotation was indicated. Also, unless it really stands on its own, I usually prefer a brief comment about the quoted passage. Why are you posting it? Does it relate to ongoing discussions? Etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2013 22:10:22 GMT -5
I have a suggestion. When quoting, it would be helpful to put it into italics. Or, how about a few words of introduction prior to the quote, such as "this is from the New York Times." Italics would be fine, but I wonder whether readers would necessarily know that quotation was indicated. Also, unless it really stands on its own, I usually prefer a brief comment about the quoted passage. Why are you posting it? Does it relate to ongoing discussions? Etc. Well, any of that would be hepful, but I still think that italics as well with what you suggested is best. And for sure an introduction to a quote should be the standard. If Bob did that, I wouldn't have been confused. I don't know why, but he just doesn't like to take the time.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jul 4, 2013 22:30:27 GMT -5
I thought skeptical critical thinkers do not generalize. I think that everyone generalizes, at least some of the time. How can you not? If you try to list every exception to everything you say, you won't be able to say much of anything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2013 22:48:30 GMT -5
I thought skeptical critical thinkers do not generalize. I think that everyone generalizes, at least some of the time. How can you not? If you try to list every exception to everything you say, you won't be able to say much of anything. God Almighty!!! This is my second attempt. This forum stole my first reply! Now I can't remember what I said. And I knew it was happening and I copied but it didn't take. My train of thought has been de-railed. Self-described critical thinkers, atheists. skeptics, do not leave room for exceptions. They are 100% right. And if that's not the truth, then explain to me how they don't think that way.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jul 5, 2013 1:07:01 GMT -5
Self-described critical thinkers, atheists. skeptics, do not leave room for exceptions. They are 100% right. And if that's not the truth, then explain to me how they don't think that way. I am speaking for myself in the following, but I think that most skeptics and critical thinkers would agree. I am not 100% right. Far from it. I have said many many times on this forum that I could be mistaken, and that I will change my views (and have done) in light of new evidence. It is all about evidence. I make the best judgment I can based on available evidence. If I have limited evidence and have limited confidence in my judgments, I will say so. If there is not enough evidence to justify any conclusions at all, I will say "I don't know." Doubt is fundamental and essential. The possibility of error is always present. All judgments, all conclusions, all views are provisional and subject to change or modification or abandonment if shown to be wrong or incomplete.
|
|
|
Post by MeLily on Jul 5, 2013 1:45:55 GMT -5
Okay, login not working again.
I believe that 100% about you in regards about what you said about it. But in no way do I believe that about anybody else, and that includes Fred (sorry, Fred) Bob, or anybody else here that describes themselves as I have stated. And definiitely not for professional skeptics, and you all know who they are. If they think they're helping humankind to move forward, they are badly mistaken. They are the biggest turnoff and are only helping themselves and making them feel self-important. They are the biggest hypocrites around. That is my true opinion and not out of any kind of resentment. Because frankly, I don't give a damn what they think. Doesn't make any kind of difference to me. Maybe to some people of low self-esteem and not too bright and susceptible. But not to me.
Lily
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jul 5, 2013 13:26:10 GMT -5
You may be painting with an overly broad brush here. It is rare for all members of a large group of people to be homogeneous.
Certainly there are some individuals who (if this is what you mean) choose a confrontational in-your-face approach. This is, I think, true of any large group of people, regardless of what the group is about - atheism, global warming, health care, politics, religion, whatever.
“It takes all kinds,” as the saying goes. But I find that this approach leads to argument and anger rather than to discussion and understanding. This helps no one.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jul 5, 2013 13:27:12 GMT -5
Lily - It is unfortunate and mysterious that you are having recurring problems with log-in and messages vanishing. It seems unlikely that the source of the problems is this board, since others haven’t been reporting problems, and it seems unlikely that it is your computer, since you have not mentioned having trouble at other sites. I wonder if it might be something at your service provider, or some intermittent glitch in a server somewhere, but those are “clutching at straws” sort of guesses.
|
|
|
Post by MeLily on Jul 5, 2013 20:30:56 GMT -5
You may be painting with an overly broad brush here. It is rare for all members of a large group of people to be homogeneous. Certainly there are some individuals who (if this is what you mean) choose a confrontational in-your-face approach. This is, I think, true of any large group of people, regardless of what the group is about - atheism, global warming, health care, politics, religion, whatever. “It takes all kinds,” as the saying goes. But I find that this approach leads to argument and anger rather than to discussion and understanding. This helps no one. I don't think about the folks I described (self-described critical thinkers, atheists. skeptics) as large groups. They are individuals who label themslves as such. Which is more than I can say for those folks about how they think about what they consider the unwashed others as faceless groups. They don't look at individuals. For instance, don't ask me as a "believer" to hold your money for you. I'm more than likely to abscond with it.
|
|
|
Post by MeLily on Jul 5, 2013 20:38:16 GMT -5
Lily - It is unfortunate and mysterious that you are having recurring problems with log-in and messages vanishing. It seems unlikely that the source of the problems is this board, since others haven’t been reporting problems, and it seems unlikely that it is your computer, since you have not mentioned having trouble at other sites. I wonder if it might be something at your service provider, or some intermittent glitch in a server somewhere, but those are “clutching at straws” sort of guesses. I just logged in a second time (after the post I just wrote to you) and again I'm not logged in. It could be my laptop. I will NEVER buy a Dell again. It will install Service Pack 1 but when it comes time to configure it, it fails and then I have to wait until it reverses the installation, and it keeps reminding me to install it. And my webcam stopped working. I tried an external webcam, but that has the same problem. And I've read on the web that this problem is very common with Dell webcams. I tried contacting Dell but it says my warranty is out of date so I would have to pay. I would have to pay for them to fix their lousy system? Oh, but I can extend my warranty for a few hundred bucks. They do have a heart after all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2013 0:09:08 GMT -5
Raybar, I have something of an answer to my Login problem, if not actually a solution. When I click on Login and it takes me to the small User Name and Password fill-in areas, that's when I'm likely not to get logged in. On that page there is also a lot of other stuff. But when it take me to the large fill-in user name and password blanks, I'm fine. Don't know why.
But the way, I don't think I'll post on threads that have anything to do with religion anymore. It just makes me feel bad especially having to have criticisms, as I did about Fred. I don't like it. And those folks I am sure don't like me being critical either. My apologies to Fred if he is reading this. I'm just not going to participate in those kind of topics anymore.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jul 6, 2013 11:37:13 GMT -5
Lily wrote: >Self-described critical thinkers, atheists. skeptics, do not leave room for exceptions. They are 100% right. And if that's not the truth, then explain to me how they don't think that way.
Sorry to generalize, but you're description of skeptics and such is wrong. 8->
Good skeptics study a question, look at the evidence, and come to a conclusion. Sometime they are wrong, but wrong for the right reasons - there was evidence indicating something. New evidence can change old conclusions.
Most conclusions are stated as a probability. That is, there is a higher chance of a certain thing being true than another thing. Example: some people claim that Queen Elizabeth is a human-fleshing eating reptile from outer space who is disguised as a human. The only evidence for this claim is that the people who sell books making the claim say that they were there and saw her change and eat someone. There is no real evidence for the claim and a great deal that disputes it - therefore we can say that the odds of this claim being bogus are about 100%. So, yeah, maybe a skeptic can seem arrogant when this subject comes up and they are not willing to give it even a 25% chance of being true. But that's life. Some things are almost certainly true and some things are almost certainly not true. If you spend time studying a claim (including all evidence for and against it)your conclusion will be more accurate than someone who merely believes it to be true without studying the contrary evidence.
But good skeptics always embrace uncertainty. Things are only likely to be true if they have good supporting evidence. New evidence can change our understanding.
The problem with paranormal claims and such is that their supporters keep presenting the same (and same type) of crap evidence that has been debunked or deemed insufficient long ago. Crappy evidence has no value. Yeah, a guy says that he personally saw the queen change into a reptile and eat a human. Buy his book for the details. But that "evidence" is total crap. Next subject, please. 8->
|
|