Hey, you all. If you are vaxxers, Anti Vaxxers, whatever, whosoever you are. If you are replying to this post, then you are the Resistance.

Right little Prince Harry aren’t you! 😂😂😂@Emosaur

@Mathers Little Prince Harry 😂

@TheOrionbeltseeker And I'm sure you can string together a coherent sentence.

@LordShadowfire You got nothing.

@TheOrionbeltseeker I've got your tinfoil hat. You dropped it.

@ElwoodBlues So you don't believe in data manipulation?

@TheOrionbeltseeker Many things are conceivable. Where's your [i]evidence[/i] of this alleged data manipulation? What correlations and anti-correlations do you have? What kinds of outliers do you have??

BTW, notice we have already diverted from your initial claim? Notice how you're no longer arguing that "Now the same science is being used not to question the Authority"??

I'm happy to debate evidence for data manipulation, but let's also acknowledge that you've already ceded that you won't support your initial assertion.

@Persephonee [quote] there were plenty of very well respected scientists in the middle ages[/quote] Actually, in general, they weren't using scientific methods. In general, weren't publishing their data or methods. Instead they were keeping them secret. They weren't forming hypotheses prior to experiment and testing hypotheses either.

Isaac Newton is an example. He behaved like an alchemist, publishing a few results and keeping methods secret. That's why Leibniz was originally credited with the invention of calculus - Newton's prior work wasn't seen until Newton had died and his notebooks were read. On the other hand, Newton DID publish his laws of motion and gravity opened them to question, and used them to explain observed motions of moons and planets. That part of his work IS science.

@ElwoodBlues That might be true but I'd tend to suspect that if we catapulted the inventor of eyeglasses into the 21st century he'd be an optical physicist, and all the monks around Europe that built prototype mechanical clocks be engineers. or whatever. They were scientists in our terms insofar as the contemporary scientific method existed.

Goodness knows what Newton or da Vinci would do though (though they're more Early Modern/Renaissance ofc) - nobody seems to like a knowitall these days.

@Persephonee I fully agree with you about the results of catapulting middle-ages inventors into this century. I have no doubt that they would rapidly accept the methods of hypothesize and test, publish and critique publications, repeat experiments or observations for confirmation, etc.

But, until around about Galileo, that isn't quite what they were doing. They were too dependent on received wisdom. Years ago I went to Florence with my wife & kids, and we saw Galileo's telescopes and also the site where he was under house arrest by the Catholic Church for the heresy of suggesting heliocentrism.

I asked several friends who are Biblical scholars (a few Jesuits and a few protestant ministers) where in the Bible geocentrism is mentioned. And they told me it really wasn't discussed in the Bible. They said the fact was that Church teachings at the time were tightly wrapped up with Aristotelian teachings about the nature of things.

And that's a problem. Aristotle taught that the heavier an object is, the faster it falls, and used feathers as an example. And it really took about 2000 years for Galileo to drop different weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa to ascertain that objects from, say, 1 to 10 lbs, all reached the ground at the exact same time. Aristotelian theory was fundamentally wrong, but it took nearly 2000 years for it to be put to the test.

In fact the mere idea of physical world testing was counter to Aristotle. He said the best way to reach the truth was to debate. It was not easy or straightforward to break out of that mindset; and you could be accused of heresy if you tried.

Science is fundamentally a communal effort, and no scientific community existed until the enlightenment. So all praise to the pre-enlightenment individual inventors, refiners, etc; it's a shame they lacked a scientific community.

@ArishMell I'd like to add to this, since some people have called me a medicofascist and a sheep, that I did my own research when the first vaccines came out, because I [i]was[/i] skeptical of how quickly they were released. I still wouldn't touch the Johnson & Johnson vaccine if you paid me. But unlike 90% of people who [i]tell[/i] you to do your own research, my research hasn't led me to believe there's a global conspiracy of space lizards trying to force us to take gene altering injections that will make us inhuman, or whatever bullshit is going around these days. There's no profit in a vaccine that doesn't do its job.

@LordShadowfire A good point. I think there you've shown the difference between "constructive" and "destructive" questioning.

In your example, it is constructive to ask properly if one make of vaccine is better than another, or what side-effects it may have. Destructive to ask in such a way it gives a wanted answer however wrong; or refuse truth that does not match preconceptions.

I have long thought the latter taints the reception of investigation of disasters that may result from chains of human failings, or involve disproportionately some narrowly-defined "community". Sometimes such incidents arouse strident calls for "full Judge-led Public Inquiries" and the like, but whatever the nature of the inquiry I can't help thinking that too many people will reject and condemn any findings that do not give a wanted answer, irrespective of truth.

If it exonerates those the callers want branded as scapegoats, the Inquiry would be branded a "whitewash" even though it has done fully, properly and exactly what it was expected to do: ask constructive questions to establish what went wrong and why. (If it reveals possible criminality including wilful negligence, that would be matter for other authorities to investigate.)

++==

"full Judge-led Public Inquiries"

In the UK at least, major Public Inquiries are now often chaired by senior judges, some of them retired from active Court service so able to devote much more time to a process that may take a year or more. In the past they were sometimes chaired by senior military officers.

This seems especially so if into major engineering disasters like the Tay Bridge collapse in 1879, and the Harrow Station collision between three trains in the 1920s. I have read the Report into the latter, and it was very thorough, even asking some very unexpected questions. The bridge collapse was traced to major but simple failures by different organisations; the collision to the single, inexplicable failing of one driver, who was killed in the crash.

I don't know if the officers were military engineers, but I imagine their Army training and experience would have given them the ability to sift and collate information from different sources very readily and clearly, and to focus on the important without neglecting what others might think insignificant details.

@Tres13 I see

@AlchemyFox Well, I maybe wrong. But what I said is Always ask questions. Fight for your rights. The moment you give your rights to the people in the office without questioning, you will be deprived.

Pretty Lady, that's same like you earn income and deposit it into the bank account of your bf. Initially, you won't complain, he won't complain. But over a time period, you are giving away your rights to him and then someday, he won't like your question where does he use all the money.

My point? Keep questioning else they won't let you ask any question in the future.

If you are affirmative to what I said, congratulations, you are the resistance.

@TheOrionbeltseeker oh hunny you don’t know me 😆 We should talk sometime. I’m pretty free.

@AlchemyFox Will give you a missed call soon.

@jshm2 Is it someone*s alt ego?