if you seriously want to interpret my post as not owning up to my mistake, you have a more severe reading disability than the simple switch of two letters. Regardless, I agree that the error is compounded when one is wrongly interpreting the content of the post.
if you seriously want to interpret my post as not owning up to my mistake, you have a more severe reading disability than the simple switch of two letters.
Your apparent point* was invalidated by not reading carefully, not left still standing. Your assertion I was throwing around bullshit, was, frankly, bullshit. An adult would apologize, or at the least, say "Whoops. My mistake." Instead, you tried to continue asinine posturing. So no, from my perspective, you did not own up to jack, you tried to dodge the issue. Frankly, I don't give a damn how this turns out, but at least make an attempt to be civil, if you can't be mature. You waded into this thread swinging like an ass, and haven't stopped. So... stop. I'd suggest reading what is posted, carefully, before responding to it, or, alternately, just not responding. What you called MarcUK to task for was not at all what he was saying, from post 1. I thought he went out of his way to clarify his position, but you just kept sliding back into your expectations, and refused to listen.
Quote:
Regardless, I agree that the error is compounded when one is wrongly interpreting the content of the post.
Well I guess that might qualify, if that's the best we're going to get even after you've been called on it.
Quote:
so are we done?
Dunno, you done throwing insults around in this thread without provocation, and stating that issues are bullshit without offering anything to back them up? Your call. I'm happy to be done with this sideshow, and get back to the thread's topic.
Speaking of, continued from above...
* Now, as I see it, your point was that the Israeli study wasn't 'real science', because you initially misunderstood what they were stating in the study, where it was published, etc. and instead jumped to conclusions again. Fine, let's get past that. If you're going to state that the process they went through doesn't qualify as science, then you must have a serious problem with a large segment of scientific advancement today. Perhaps this is a difference in your world-view, as to what constitutes science, and what does not, but I'd point out that most science is *not* about establishing strict causal (caus-al) relationships. While that is the goal, the first step is finding those casual (cas-u-al) relationships to further investigate. Looking for positive supporting data is perfectly fine as long as it isn't the *only* data that is reported. If the positive and negative data are both mined for, and a correlation is still found, then the correlation, albeit casual, is valid. It says nothing about the cause and effect, but anyone who is conversant in science *KNOWS* that. Only those who don't understand science or the scientific process, and there are too many, will jump from casual to causal without further proof (astrologists), or, *just as bad*, insist that without a confirmed causal relationship, the casual relationship is completely meaningless (fundie creationists). A casual relationship is an open question, not a closed road. It's a "Huh, that's funny" that may be coincidence, or it may be something important. Denouncing any study that points out a casual relationship *solely* because the relationship is casual, is silly... and quite unscientific. It's still data, it's still information to be considered, and yes, possibly rejected later, but until further data comes in, it's an open question. Be skeptical of causality, absolutely. If the methodology sucks, then yeah, be even more skeptical. But to call it bullshit without any other supporting data? Might as well read horoscopes.
Do you think I care that much about you and your accuracy?
You have always had an ego, but seriously, other than your wife (and possibly carol and maybe your cat ) who is that obsessed with you?
The point of my post was two fold -- 1) mistakenly (there i wrote the exact word you were looking for, because like everyone else on this board you can't read beyond a limited set of vocab and language construction) calling you on the causal association of the stats and 2) much more importantly, pointing out that database trolling don't produce causal associations and because of that you can't remark on the mechanistic significance of the discoveries on database trolling alone -- which is essentially what is being asked of us in this thread...
so...
i am sorry, jason, for attempting to bruise your sizable ego, but my point still stands...
Casual relationships are great starting points for hypotheses, not end points, and that's all the MarcUK has been doing here... saying "what if", and coming up with possibilities. Slapping those down without corroborating evidence, solely because they are hypotheses, is a bit short-sighted, IMO.
Now, if you have actual evidence, by all means, share it. I think we'd all, quite seriously, love to see it. More solid data = better hypotheses.
Is it even proven that magnetic fields cause mutations?
(It isn't. Static fields have actually been shown NOT to cause mutations).
It is even funnier because they are suggesting that this is a common way for personalities to differentiate -- that there are soooo many mutations that affect exactly the same genes during certain times of the year...
Hehehehhehehh.. Hahahah... oh dear...
you're only proving that you're not reading a single word of the evidence - because were not talking about Static fields - were specifically talking about cyclical Moving fields.
Biological systems are ruled by the same laws of physics as everything else in the universe, your logic in this is that somehow if you take a biological system and it happens to be a human, then it is somehow immune from all the physics.
Humans are electronically powered systems, magnetism is explicity related to electricity - therefore you do not need voodoo to hypothesize that an electrical based system operating inside a couple of huge magnets is going to be affected by it.
Sun-Spots, X-Flares etc severely disrupt the Earth's Magnetic field. They kill satellites and fuse power grids on Earth, therefore they do have an effect on electrical systems. We are an electrical system...
Your position on this must (to call it all bullshit) be one or a combination of 2 things.
1) Lack of data
2) Someone mentioned astrology
1) I agree, it is difficult to find data to support this, that in itself is not reason to call it all bullshit. Every scientific principle started with a lack of data. Im not claiming this IS a new scientific principle (as I've said all along)...Im saying there is this hypothesis that fully fits within the framework of everything we know and accept about the universe. There is nothing in this hypothesis that relies on supernatural intervention or voodoo. There are no acts of God here. It is simple physics and biology that when expressed in a certain way could/might/possibly explain certain 'features' of existance that we do not fully appreciate - but that humans have for thousands of years been 'aware' of.
2) If someone mentions astrology and you immediately go on the offensive before you contemplate what was said about it, or without reading the evidence, then that is *your* problem not mine. If there is anything in this - it probably proves Astrology is *wrong*. This isn't the position of the author of the book - this is my logic and reasoning having read the evidence and thought about what was given.
Again marc, even cyclical changing fields and action (mutation) on specific genes has been falsified already. There is just no mechanistic correlation connecting the blunt instrument of radiation with the highly specific instrument of genetic mutation. Radiation CANNOT affect specific genes, period (and that, btw, is what you are looking at with changing fields). Regardless, everyone experiences these fluxtional fields throughout their lives, why on earth in a fluid filled sack which significantly diminishes the magnetic field strength would anyone think that the fields will cause specific changes in specific genes at specific times in specific ways? It just cannot happen with radiation, I am sorry... You had a better working hypothesis with the mother's nutrition (or with my suggest of cyclical viruses) than you do with anything associated directly with the sun...
(btw, humans ARE NOT electrically powered systems, we are CHEMICALLY powered -- there are no free electrons hoping about (hopefully) in your body)
My argument is not that we are excluded from physics... Its that we are ruled by physics in very simple ways, and there is just no blunt radiative specific DNA level changes (or protein level or...) possible. Radiation DOESN'T work that way. DNA does...
Again marc, even cyclical changing fields and action (mutation) on specific genes has been falsified already. There is just no mechanistic correlation connecting the blunt instrument of radiation with the highly specific instrument of genetic mutation. Radiation CANNOT affect specific genes, period (and that, btw, is what you are looking at with changing fields). Regardless, everyone experiences these fluxtional fields throughout their lives, why on earth in a fluid filled sack which significantly diminishes the magnetic field strength would anyone think that the fields will cause specific changes in specific genes at specific times in specific ways? It just cannot happen with radiation, I am sorry... You had a better working hypothesis with the mother's nutrition (or with my suggest of cyclical viruses) than you do with anything associated directly with the sun...
(btw, humans ARE NOT electrically powered systems, we are CHEMICALLY powered -- there are no free electrons hoping about (hopefully) in your body)
My argument is not that we are excluded from physics... Its that we are ruled by physics in very simple ways, and there is just no blunt radiative specific DNA level changes (or protein level or...) possible. Radiation DOESN'T work that way. DNA does...
I found a couple of papers that pretty much back up YOUR argument and to some degree back up my argument as well - I've fully accepted that data is hard to come by for this hypothesis - especially when im looking for something that causes nothing more than a tendancy - rather than something that kills you stone dead. However to repeatedly say that this entire thread is Bullshit and there is no evidence 'whatsoever' is wrong
Comments
if you seriously want to interpret my post as not owning up to my mistake, you have a more severe reading disability than the simple switch of two letters. Regardless, I agree that the error is compounded when one is wrongly interpreting the content of the post.
so are we done?
Jason,
if you seriously want to interpret my post as not owning up to my mistake, you have a more severe reading disability than the simple switch of two letters.
Your apparent point* was invalidated by not reading carefully, not left still standing. Your assertion I was throwing around bullshit, was, frankly, bullshit. An adult would apologize, or at the least, say "Whoops. My mistake." Instead, you tried to continue asinine posturing. So no, from my perspective, you did not own up to jack, you tried to dodge the issue. Frankly, I don't give a damn how this turns out, but at least make an attempt to be civil, if you can't be mature. You waded into this thread swinging like an ass, and haven't stopped. So... stop. I'd suggest reading what is posted, carefully, before responding to it, or, alternately, just not responding. What you called MarcUK to task for was not at all what he was saying, from post 1. I thought he went out of his way to clarify his position, but you just kept sliding back into your expectations, and refused to listen.
Regardless, I agree that the error is compounded when one is wrongly interpreting the content of the post.
Well I guess that might qualify, if that's the best we're going to get even after you've been called on it.
so are we done?
Dunno, you done throwing insults around in this thread without provocation, and stating that issues are bullshit without offering anything to back them up? Your call. I'm happy to be done with this sideshow, and get back to the thread's topic.
Speaking of, continued from above...
* Now, as I see it, your point was that the Israeli study wasn't 'real science', because you initially misunderstood what they were stating in the study, where it was published, etc. and instead jumped to conclusions again. Fine, let's get past that. If you're going to state that the process they went through doesn't qualify as science, then you must have a serious problem with a large segment of scientific advancement today. Perhaps this is a difference in your world-view, as to what constitutes science, and what does not, but I'd point out that most science is *not* about establishing strict causal (caus-al) relationships. While that is the goal, the first step is finding those casual (cas-u-al) relationships to further investigate. Looking for positive supporting data is perfectly fine as long as it isn't the *only* data that is reported. If the positive and negative data are both mined for, and a correlation is still found, then the correlation, albeit casual, is valid. It says nothing about the cause and effect, but anyone who is conversant in science *KNOWS* that. Only those who don't understand science or the scientific process, and there are too many, will jump from casual to causal without further proof (astrologists), or, *just as bad*, insist that without a confirmed causal relationship, the casual relationship is completely meaningless (fundie creationists). A casual relationship is an open question, not a closed road. It's a "Huh, that's funny" that may be coincidence, or it may be something important. Denouncing any study that points out a casual relationship *solely* because the relationship is casual, is silly... and quite unscientific. It's still data, it's still information to be considered, and yes, possibly rejected later, but until further data comes in, it's an open question. Be skeptical of causality, absolutely. If the methodology sucks, then yeah, be even more skeptical. But to call it bullshit without any other supporting data? Might as well read horoscopes.
Was the point of my post that you were wrong?
Do you think I care that much about you and your accuracy?
You have always had an ego, but seriously, other than your wife (and possibly carol and maybe your cat
The point of my post was two fold -- 1) mistakenly (there i wrote the exact word you were looking for, because like everyone else on this board you can't read beyond a limited set of vocab and language construction) calling you on the causal association of the stats and 2) much more importantly, pointing out that database trolling don't produce causal associations and because of that you can't remark on the mechanistic significance of the discoveries on database trolling alone -- which is essentially what is being asked of us in this thread...
so...
i am sorry, jason, for attempting to bruise your sizable ego, but my point still stands...
Casual relationships are great starting points for hypotheses, not end points, and that's all the MarcUK has been doing here... saying "what if", and coming up with possibilities. Slapping those down without corroborating evidence, solely because they are hypotheses, is a bit short-sighted, IMO.
Now, if you have actual evidence, by all means, share it. I think we'd all, quite seriously, love to see it. More solid data = better hypotheses.
Heh.
Is it even proven that magnetic fields cause mutations?
(It isn't. Static fields have actually been shown NOT to cause mutations).
It is even funnier because they are suggesting that this is a common way for personalities to differentiate -- that there are soooo many mutations that affect exactly the same genes during certain times of the year...
Hehehehhehehh.. Hahahah... oh dear...
you're only proving that you're not reading a single word of the evidence - because were not talking about Static fields - were specifically talking about cyclical Moving fields.
Biological systems are ruled by the same laws of physics as everything else in the universe, your logic in this is that somehow if you take a biological system and it happens to be a human, then it is somehow immune from all the physics.
Humans are electronically powered systems, magnetism is explicity related to electricity - therefore you do not need voodoo to hypothesize that an electrical based system operating inside a couple of huge magnets is going to be affected by it.
Sun-Spots, X-Flares etc severely disrupt the Earth's Magnetic field. They kill satellites and fuse power grids on Earth, therefore they do have an effect on electrical systems. We are an electrical system...
Your position on this must (to call it all bullshit) be one or a combination of 2 things.
1) Lack of data
2) Someone mentioned astrology
1) I agree, it is difficult to find data to support this, that in itself is not reason to call it all bullshit. Every scientific principle started with a lack of data. Im not claiming this IS a new scientific principle (as I've said all along)...Im saying there is this hypothesis that fully fits within the framework of everything we know and accept about the universe. There is nothing in this hypothesis that relies on supernatural intervention or voodoo. There are no acts of God here. It is simple physics and biology that when expressed in a certain way could/might/possibly explain certain 'features' of existance that we do not fully appreciate - but that humans have for thousands of years been 'aware' of.
2) If someone mentions astrology and you immediately go on the offensive before you contemplate what was said about it, or without reading the evidence, then that is *your* problem not mine. If there is anything in this - it probably proves Astrology is *wrong*. This isn't the position of the author of the book - this is my logic and reasoning having read the evidence and thought about what was given.
(btw, humans ARE NOT electrically powered systems, we are CHEMICALLY powered -- there are no free electrons hoping about (hopefully) in your body)
My argument is not that we are excluded from physics... Its that we are ruled by physics in very simple ways, and there is just no blunt radiative specific DNA level changes (or protein level or...) possible. Radiation DOESN'T work that way. DNA does...
Again marc, even cyclical changing fields and action (mutation) on specific genes has been falsified already. There is just no mechanistic correlation connecting the blunt instrument of radiation with the highly specific instrument of genetic mutation. Radiation CANNOT affect specific genes, period (and that, btw, is what you are looking at with changing fields). Regardless, everyone experiences these fluxtional fields throughout their lives, why on earth in a fluid filled sack which significantly diminishes the magnetic field strength would anyone think that the fields will cause specific changes in specific genes at specific times in specific ways? It just cannot happen with radiation, I am sorry... You had a better working hypothesis with the mother's nutrition (or with my suggest of cyclical viruses) than you do with anything associated directly with the sun...
(btw, humans ARE NOT electrically powered systems, we are CHEMICALLY powered -- there are no free electrons hoping about (hopefully) in your body)
My argument is not that we are excluded from physics... Its that we are ruled by physics in very simple ways, and there is just no blunt radiative specific DNA level changes (or protein level or...) possible. Radiation DOESN'T work that way. DNA does...
I found a couple of papers that pretty much back up YOUR argument and to some degree back up my argument as well - I've fully accepted that data is hard to come by for this hypothesis - especially when im looking for something that causes nothing more than a tendancy - rather than something that kills you stone dead. However to repeatedly say that this entire thread is Bullshit and there is no evidence 'whatsoever' is wrong
http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/powerlin...r-faq/toc.html
http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/static-f...AQ/toc.html#Q1
sorry, just wanted to do it to someone