My problem is that people such as yourself say 'Do your own research', but I don't get what that means. For example, you said somewhere that the Vatican is controlling all these powers or something. How does one research that, exactly?
How does one do their own research on chemtrails? And, why do you think any old joe blogs can come up with a more reliable result than those who dedicate their lives to a given specific field of research, thousands of hours and research grants to get the results they get, only to be thwarted by a random citizen who doesn't like the sound of it?
How can you demonstrate that one's research on chemtrails is more reliable than those researchers without a prolific peer-review system built over centuries to perfect and confirm results to the most honest and consistent way possible?
What gives you the confidence that this is all wrong? It's fine if you make that claim - there are still lots of human faults and corruption in science as everything else, but how can you back that claim up?
For example, your video you claim 'Every ice age the planet has had is due to volcanoes' etc. Evidence? Where's your own research on that? Research is not simply googling or browsing a website that fits your biases. Research is the actual scientific method to discover answers for yourself. In this case, you would need to go and look into the ice cores stored in the arctic and take samples on a molecular level, analysing the geological history of the earth. You'd have to go up a volcano and dig into the rock surface and extrapolate the data of eruptions vs ice ages, find a global correlation across the board that is then checked, double-checked and triple checked by other professionals to be sure you're not messing up your results.
Sure, you CAN do this, it's all possible to do by yourself, for free - the internet can teach you the how. But you won't. You will just browse the internet, right?
Even then, a quick google shows me this statement is false. I found that it says volcanoes can and may have potentially started a little ice age, but:
The onset of an ice age is related to the Milankovitch cycles - where regular changes in the Earth's tilt and orbit combine to affect which areas on Earth get more or less solar radiation. When all these factors align so the northern hemisphere gets less solar radiation in summer, an ice age can be started.
So right off the bat, this video appears to be false by doing my own research, in the style that you presumably suggest me to do. Now what?
Ok but, assuming everything you say is true, it's not researched, it's anecdotal. A fighter pilot also claims to have seen UFO, and that may be absolutely true, but its useless knowledge if there's no way to prove it.
Do you think we can just go to court and say 'this military guy I spoke to said they make clouds with dildos. Do your own research, judge'.
What use is that?
The problem with anecdotes is not simply that it can be a lie by either party, but that a lot of deep meaning and context can and always is missing. Even something simple as somebody was just messing around, winding you up, to other things like misinterpreted words, simple lies, mentally twisted, or just plain wrong.
This is just a few. There are so many variable ways an anecdote can be flawed, it doesn't stand up to the test of science and reality. There's no systematic review, no skeptical analysis or scrutiny.
All I have to go on is your word. And if I go and ask around in my vast amounts of free time, then everyone else only has my word too. It's meaningless.
Nobody wants to admit, and nobody will admit, the possibility that they are wrong, this grinds against our brains functionaility - cognitive dissonance. We will always search and force ourselves to be surrounded by the things that match what we feel like is right, not what is actually true.
This is why science is so vital, it's the best tool we have to get around human biases. Anecdotes are the opposite to that system and shouldn't be trusted, whether its what you claim to me, or what I go and find out and claim to others.
I think you'll find if you apply the scientific method to all of your findings, you'll come a cross a plethora of issues in your reasoning. I will check this Phelps out and come back with some examples
This post has been promoted with @minnowbooster.
5% of the purchase will be burned and 5% sent to the @steem.dao fund as part of our ethical promotion initiative.
For further information please check this post.
I'm pretty sure everything you've said and thought on this matter is wrong =)
7
My problem is that people such as yourself say 'Do your own research', but I don't get what that means. For example, you said somewhere that the Vatican is controlling all these powers or something. How does one research that, exactly?
How does one do their own research on chemtrails? And, why do you think any old joe blogs can come up with a more reliable result than those who dedicate their lives to a given specific field of research, thousands of hours and research grants to get the results they get, only to be thwarted by a random citizen who doesn't like the sound of it?
How can you demonstrate that one's research on chemtrails is more reliable than those researchers without a prolific peer-review system built over centuries to perfect and confirm results to the most honest and consistent way possible?
What gives you the confidence that this is all wrong? It's fine if you make that claim - there are still lots of human faults and corruption in science as everything else, but how can you back that claim up?
For example, your video you claim 'Every ice age the planet has had is due to volcanoes' etc. Evidence? Where's your own research on that? Research is not simply googling or browsing a website that fits your biases. Research is the actual scientific method to discover answers for yourself. In this case, you would need to go and look into the ice cores stored in the arctic and take samples on a molecular level, analysing the geological history of the earth. You'd have to go up a volcano and dig into the rock surface and extrapolate the data of eruptions vs ice ages, find a global correlation across the board that is then checked, double-checked and triple checked by other professionals to be sure you're not messing up your results.
Sure, you CAN do this, it's all possible to do by yourself, for free - the internet can teach you the how. But you won't. You will just browse the internet, right?
Even then, a quick google shows me this statement is false. I found that it says volcanoes can and may have potentially started a little ice age, but:
So right off the bat, this video appears to be false by doing my own research, in the style that you presumably suggest me to do. Now what?
T
Ok but, assuming everything you say is true, it's not researched, it's anecdotal. A fighter pilot also claims to have seen UFO, and that may be absolutely true, but its useless knowledge if there's no way to prove it.
Do you think we can just go to court and say 'this military guy I spoke to said they make clouds with dildos. Do your own research, judge'.
What use is that?
The problem with anecdotes is not simply that it can be a lie by either party, but that a lot of deep meaning and context can and always is missing. Even something simple as somebody was just messing around, winding you up, to other things like misinterpreted words, simple lies, mentally twisted, or just plain wrong.
This is just a few. There are so many variable ways an anecdote can be flawed, it doesn't stand up to the test of science and reality. There's no systematic review, no skeptical analysis or scrutiny.
All I have to go on is your word. And if I go and ask around in my vast amounts of free time, then everyone else only has my word too. It's meaningless.
Nobody wants to admit, and nobody will admit, the possibility that they are wrong, this grinds against our brains functionaility - cognitive dissonance. We will always search and force ourselves to be surrounded by the things that match what we feel like is right, not what is actually true.
This is why science is so vital, it's the best tool we have to get around human biases. Anecdotes are the opposite to that system and shouldn't be trusted, whether its what you claim to me, or what I go and find out and claim to others.
I think you'll find if you apply the scientific method to all of your findings, you'll come a cross a plethora of issues in your reasoning. I will check this Phelps out and come back with some examples
Ugh. I hate it when it rains dildos.
I 9
Or you can just type !stop and I'll go away
EDIT
Nevermind. Turns out he's a white-supremacist, Bible bashing nut-job... I don't think I need to read anymore. It was a good chat anyway!
J
J
And again
!BEER
View or trade
BEER.Hey @mobbs, here is a little bit of
BEERfor you. Enjoy it!!BEER
View or trade
BEER.Hey @mobbs, here is a little bit of
BEERfor you. Enjoy it!Bro your content is amazing and educational...Thanks!
Thanks im just trying to get people to think and research outside the box.
actually there's nothing i can say but volcanoes are a beautiful thing but are scary.
Yes they are and to avoid this important data is a crime against humanity
This post has been promoted with @minnowbooster.
5% of the purchase will be burned and 5% sent to the @steem.dao fund as part of our ethical promotion initiative.
For further information please check this post.