Talk to your doctor
Talk to your doctor
Talk to your doctor
Talk to your doctor
Originally Posted by ICU 812
already explained how this is not an unbiased authority. There is NO personal physician in the country affiliated with a medical network that won't push the vax. They have financial incentives to get you jabbed, whether you need it or not.
Have there been physicians that argued against the jab? yes....see what happened to them (censored, fired, shunned by big tech)
can show no symptoms at all or j"ust have a cold."
Originally Posted by ICU 812
OMG! the horror
QUICK! shut down the world, alienate everyone you know, obey the government, and inject this experimental jizz into your body or lose your means to earn a living THIS SOUNDS SERIOUS!!
I would hate to contract such deadly virus that I don't know if I have it unless I take a test and its symptoms are "the common cold"
and ALL I'm advocating is weigh the information for yourself instead of mindlessly swallowing every wave of shit from the "news". In fact, do yourself a favor and just TURN OFF THE GODDAMNED TELEVISION
https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/
- Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
- Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
- Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
- Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
- Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
- Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
- If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
- Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
- Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.
If you're playing along at home, here's a cheat sheet to help you keep up with the discussion
