Reasonable Faith Forum
Welcome to the Reasonable Faith forum! This is a general discussion board on apologetics, theology,... View more
The "Scholars"
-
The "Scholars"
Who are the “Scholars” and what are the qualifications to be a scholar? Didn’t scholars tell us that masks worked and the Covid 19 vaccine was safe and effective?
-
This discussion was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by
John.
-
This discussion was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by
-
81 Replies
-
According to the research findings from my Google feed, the things that you questioned were indeed efficient against Covid 19, based on a number of recent studies.
So the “scholars” were right all along.
I assume whatever you read, watch and listen to, don’t agree. I am not at all surprised by that.
-
Yep, for once we agree. Scholars provide opinions based on selective data. Make an opinion then find a scholar to back it up. I know what ‘scholars’ you followed regarding Covid 19. You probably walked around wearing a mask believing the hype that it would make you safe too.
-
Obviously, and vaccinations. And relieved how much it contributed towards saving lives around the globe.
-
I brought up this point because there are so many people on here who love to claim “scholars” back up their beliefs about Jesus, but they are merely following other opinions.
I think we’ve had this discussion before, but feel free to provide me even a bit of evidence proving that masks work? I’d get into the vaccine debate but that’s a bit harder to prove because of all the skewed data floating around.
-
To know masks work requires only slight knowledge about microbiology. Clearly if the disease causing organism is presented with a barrier, it will be unable to infect a person.
I had a friend who died because her loving husband grew careless and didn’t wear a mask. My mother died in a nursing home before they had begun distributing masks.
But a Google search shows plenty of evidence, such as this large study:
https://egc.yale.edu/largest-study-masks-and-covid-19-demonstrates-their-effectiveness-real-world
Nonetheless a mistake was made that these were disposable masks, polluting the environment. Mankind’s priorities are in a wrong place, and God may not prefer this.
egc.yale.edu
Largest study on masks and Covid-19 demonstrates their effectiveness in the real world
Testing the NORM program for reducing Covid-19 infections Photo courtesy Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA). While guidance and official policy on masking has evolved over the course of the pandemic
-
Do your homework. I did my three minute check and see that there are problems with this so-called study. The mask use increased by 28% and the symptoms dropped by about 12%! Hardly proof that masks worked. The science is that masks can’t filter out viruses because a virus particle is too small (less than 0.02 microns from memory). Numerous studies validate the mechanics of them. Masks will work for bacteria and that’s why they are used in hospitals. They are ineffective against viruses.
-
Like yourself, the mass of humanity is unable to conceptualize the micro realm, hence compliance is low. More important perhaps than those not wanting to get sick wearing masks, is those who are sick wearing them and preventing the spread. The N95 mask is effective against viruses. One needs more than one viral particle to be infected, so it became a time factor, that surgical masks gave a few minutes of safety, the N95 an hour.
Yet I’d reiterate the loss to the planet from non-renewable masks is a most serious thing.
-
Are you the “scholar” Jaycee? Specifying personal protective equipment must be absolute because lives depend on it. It’s an OSHA regulation to get it right and common sense says we must be positive. Covid was a hazard some false “scholars” told the world a mask would help prevent. You are believing the false “scholars” as though they are right? Why? Do your homework and find a study that proves you are right rather than claiming others are correct without having the background and knowledge to stand behind your claim.
Engineering analysis using filtration and absorption indicates that masks won’t work. Every study I’ve seen (probably dozens by now) has confirmed this. I don’t have preconceived opinions–I follow the data, so if you provide me some data that can change my mind I will admit it and change my stance–just as I would do for the Gospel authors and analysis I’ve been doing on the Bible.
Everyone talks a good story following scholars, but nobody has any evidence or data that has changed my mind. I’m looking for data that proves me wrong, but I haven’t seen any yet, so I need to stand by my conclusions.
-
Maybe you can provide some links? I searched on “Engineering analysis using filtration and absorption indicates that masks won’t work” and only found pages confirming what I thought, as a microbiologist.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9915213/
The function of a mask is to stop the spread of the virus, which attaches to aerosol airborne particles or respiratory fluid droplets. The evidence shows that it is useful for healthy people to wear masks in the community during a pandemic.
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/14/7/1296
"Public mask-wearing can be regarded as the most effective means of preventing the transmission of the COVID-19 when the compliance is high and proper guidelines are followed."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7426537/
"In this situation to protect the population, an effective solution is individual containment, it is the use of a high-performance mask."
This article emphasizes what I said: there was a better solution available than disposable masks:
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/22/12574
Here’s a high school student who found a solution, when big corporations wouldn’t look:
I already know this data won’t change your mind. Who did you think you are fooling? I could put up a hundred links here and you wouldn’t even bother to read any of them.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
A Review of Filtration Performance of Protective Masks
Masks are essential and effective small protective devices used to protect the general public against infections such as COVID-19. However, available systematic reviews and summaries on the filtration performance of masks are lacking. Therefore, in order ...
-
You’re a microbiologist so follow the trail. From your first reference:
“The evidence shows that it is useful for healthy people to wear masks in the community during a pandemic [6,7,8]. Wearing respirators at work is an effective way to avoid infection and death in healthcare workers [6,7,8,9], and hospital staff have been instructed to change their masks every two hours when conditions permit [9]”
Follow the links and it’s a dead end–no evidence.
Ask yourself why those who make the masks tell people they won’t protect against a virus. I’m not going to waste my time reviewing each link, because I’ve already done it for a number of studies–including your first link. You can do it and follow the trail.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
A Review of Filtration Performance of Protective Masks
Masks are essential and effective small protective devices used to protect the general public against infections such as COVID-19. However, available systematic reviews and summaries on the filtration performance of masks are lacking. Therefore, in order ...
-
I followed the links and they are not dead ends. Instead these are appropriate citations. You confirmed what I expected, if you say you are ready for the evidence, you are not. That’s more fascinating to me than the question of COVID. A human has a superstition his mind is open and he can examine evidence; when this is not supported by citations.
-
Quotes from citations please…
-
Oh, I thought you could read them on your own.
Anyway, this began by you suggesting an internet search on the engineering properties of masks. I complied and could not find any negative citations, as you said were abounding.
Can you provide these links now?
The citations to which you are objecting are 6-9 on this page:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9915213/#B9-ijerph-20-02346
Can you explain how these are dead ends? They all seem to support what I have said. For instance, from 9:
The correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE), including masks, is necessary to limit nosocomial spreading and combat COVID-19 transmission.
From 8:
Using the filtration quality factor, fabric microstructure, and charging ability, we are able to provide an assessment of suggested fabric materials for homemade facial coverings.
From 7:
Our results indicate that it seems recommendable to wear face masks for providing base protection and risk reduction against inhaling airborne particles, in low-risk situations.
From 6:
In the community, masks appeared to be effective with and without hand hygiene, and both together are more protective.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
A Review of Filtration Performance of Protective Masks
Masks are essential and effective small protective devices used to protect the general public against infections such as COVID-19. However, available systematic reviews and summaries on the filtration performance of masks are lacking. Therefore, in order ...
-
Just as I thought, you were not able to find any evidence to support your position. You throw out a bunch of citations as proof but never dig through the details. You have found nothing so you resort to name calling and want me to do the work for you. I do my own work and I stand behind it. You stand behind “scholars” you don’t know but trust because they tell you what you want to hear.
-
Just as I thought, you read to confirm your prejudices, not with an open mind to face facts. I responded with quotations from each citation you requested. You cannot provide any quotations to show these were dead-end citations. You claim there were nothing but negative papers on the engineering properties of masks but can provide no links at all.
I’m beginning to see the schemata of your particular mind, which is a pride to say “it is accomplished, I have researched,” but where you are unable to coordinate this with other researchers, all of whom you dismiss as having closed minds though yours is more closed than is the human norm. How can you tell yourself you have seen, when you have not?
-
-
-
-
-
-
My daughter worked for UCLA Med Center and sent me a brochure they passed out “proving that masks worked.” I spent an hour or so reviewing the studies they cited, then copied and pasted wording in the studies that stated ‘they don’t work for viruses.’ She didn’t believe me even though she had the data right in front of her and could validate it for herself. She chose to believe the “scholars.”
People form their opinions and it’s hard to convince them that they’ve been duped. The same goes for faith. Find your “scholar” to back up your claims, then when asked to present evidence validating the “scholar” you are left with opinions, but no evidence.
-
@John:“Who are the “Scholars” and what are the qualifications to be a scholar?”
A scholar is a researcher with expertise in an academic discipline. Typically an advanced degree (usually PhD) is a starting point, but they continue working in the field – generally in an academic setting. They interact with others in their field, such as by publishing in peer-reviewed journals, and in conference settings. The discipline which they research is the focus of their life’s work (as opposed to their being dilettantes).
I see it mostly applied to those working in the humanities. I don’t think the term is typically applied to those doing scientific
research (they are called scientists or scientific researchers).-
Bravo, Fred. I asked Perplexity AI the same question, but I like your response better. At least there is someone behind it and not a scattering of words from electronic causes. Now if you can just convince John to respect scholars, instead of claiming to rule them.
-
And now the atheists congratulate each other on another exchange full of evasiveness, unproven statements, name calling, forwarding a bunch of links without knowing the details that are in them.
-
It’s weird you can list fallacies while committing them, for there’s an implication your mind can comprehend a fallacy, but if it could it would cease committing them. I guess words are cheap, but meaning behind the words is expensive. There is nothing evasive in what I have posted, only in your responses where you fail to deal with any specific point. (This is what evasiveness is, ignoring specific issues.) It is your statements which are unproven, in fact you cannot come up with even one link where engineers faulted masks although you had an idea the internet was flooded with evidence. The name calling dodge appears to have no specific instance; for example if I say you commit the fallacies you list, you will say this is name calling, misapplying the fallacy and further proving you don’t understand it. It is you who won’t explain what you mean that these links are dead end. They may be dead end for you, but is your mind shutting down when it reads them?
Fred and I agree on one thing, you don’t present the intellectual merit to throw down all biblical scholars. You’ve brought a purely private interpretation few believe worthwhile.
-
-
BTW, I provided a quote from your first resource that you providing a link that is bogus and what did you do–avoid it.
-
This appears to be an admission that all your other points were empty, that I refuted them well enough by providing a quote on my side from each of the citations you questioned. So why aren’t you integrating this failure, to understand you may be failing other places? Shown wrong one place and admitting it de facto, your mind turns aggressively to another place without understanding that it failed to uphold the standard of logic before. I take it here you refer to the low percentage of mask effectiveness, but I’d retort that low compliance is the biggest problem, and it is because, like you, the virus realm, which is invisible to the eye, does not seem “real.” And any mask effectiveness would save lives.
-
Me:
“You’re a microbiologist so follow the trail. From your first reference:‘The evidence shows that it is useful for healthy people to wear masks in the community during a pandemic [6,7,8]. Wearing respirators at work is an effective way to avoid infection and death in healthcare workers [6,7,8,9], and hospital staff have been instructed to change their masks every two hours when conditions permit [9]’
Follow the links and it’s a dead end–no evidence.”
You:
Donuts….
-
Your vision of yourself at the top is entirely locked within your own mind, so severely you can’t even begin to communicate anything real that another person could examine.
I was thinking your calling me a name caller, is a form of name calling, since you don’t list the name I call you. Further, you seem to interpret statements about quality as names.
I wouldn’t keep going like this, except you exhibit some normal human foibles in what might be called extreme forms that other humans see too. Your request that others listen to you amounts to a demand they accept your prejudices, not that they would accept logic. Your total inability to list sources about your mask prejudices, means you are in a visceral response like, “I don’t wanna.” You look around for others who “don’t wanna.”
-
Again….donuts
-
-
-
-
-
-
For anyone perplexed by the strong, if not irrational, anti-intellectualism exhibited by many evangelical Christians, an article written by Michael Luo (a Christian) might help put things in perspective. I’ve only added some excerpts here. Go to the link to read the article in its entirety :
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-wasting-of-the-evangelical-mind
The Wasting of the Evangelical Mind
The peculiarities of how American Christianity took shape help explain believers’ vulnerability to conspiratorial thinking and misinformation.
By Michael Luo
March 4, 2021
How did the church in America––particularly, its white Protestant evangelical manifestation––end up here? For many skeptics, the explanation seems obvious: faith and reason are antipodes––the former necessarily cancels out the latter, and vice versa. Cultivating the life of the mind, however, has been an important current throughout much of Christianity’s history, a recognition that intellectual pursuits can glorify God…
Evangelicalism in America, however, has come to be defined by its anti-intellectualism. The style of the most popular and influential pastors tend to correlate with shallowness: charisma trumps expertise; scientific authority is often viewed with suspicion. So it is of little surprise that American evangelicals have become vulnerable to demagoguery and misinformation…
American Christianity took a decisive shift, however, toward religious “enthusiasm,” as Hofstadter puts it, during revivals that swept the colonies in the mid-eighteenth century, a period that came to be known as the First Great Awakening. Believers’ direct connection to God became the primary focus. Ministers who believed in the importance of learning and rationality in religion found themselves increasingly under threat…
“The Puritan ideal of the minister as an intellectual and educational leader was steadily weakened in the face of the evangelical ideal of the minister as a popular crusader and exhorter,” Hofstadter writes…
The social and intellectual upheaval of the late nineteenth century eventually led to a rupture in Protestantism. Some drifted toward theological liberalism, rejecting historically orthodox beliefs about Jesus’s birth, humanity’s need for salvation, and other supernatural parts of the Bible; others retrenched and formed the fundamentalist movement...Biblical inerrancy, which Noll points out had never before occupied such a central place in any Christian movement, became foundational…
The modern evangelical movement emerged as a response to fundamentalism, particularly its lack of engagement with the social problems of the day. The evangelist Billy Graham and other conservative Protestant leaders aspired to a more culturally engaged brand of Christianity that disavowed fundamentalism’s separatism but maintained a commitment to historic Christian creeds. They called their effort New Evangelicalism. The movement, which began to take shape in the late nineteen-forties, came to displace mainline Protestantism as the dominant religious force in the United States. But fundamentalism’s habits of mind lingered, like an undertow.
-
I quit reading at “its white Protestant evangelical manifestation––” because it tells me that it’s just another racist opinion provided by a like-minded individual.
-
@Algernon , I didn’t quite appreciate this when you first posted it, but it looks like you hit the nail quite on the head. According to what has transpired, if you believe in masks, you aren’t allowed to believe in God. If you don’t deny science you’re denying God. If you explain your points carefully you must be faithless. But, I thought God was most rational.
-
Following is a key statement from the article that sheds light on the underlying connection between the “evangelical mind” and the subsequent “vulnerability to conspiratorial thinking and misinformation [/ disinformation]” as well as demagoguery:
“Crucially, fundamentalists came to embrace a number of theological innovations that were previously not at all central to Christian orthodoxy, including…a simplistic, literal approach to the Bible.”
This simplistic, literal approach to the Bible entails taking an extremely limited of verses out of context, drawing conclusions from them as if they were said in a vacuum (no matter how dubious or even specious), and setting those conclusions in stone. With the interpretation of the rest of the Bible being an exercise in forcing the rest of the verses/passages to conform to those conclusions (once again no matter how dubious or even specious).
This same methodology seems to be increasingly employed by evangelicals in forming secular beliefs that results in the aforementioned vulnerability to demagoguery, misinformation. disinformation, conspiracy theories, etc. An example of this can be seen in the response of john @Jaz to my post: “I quit reading at ‘its white Protestant evangelical manifestation–– because it tells me that it’s just another racist opinion provided by a like-minded individual.” The conclusion is that the article mentions a race, therefore the article must be racist. Which is absurd given the context in which the race was mentioned.
As to your observation of John’s behavior on this thread as well as others, brings the following quote to mind:
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.”
— Jonathan Swift.
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Algernon.
-
Christianity seems to open doors to human darkness. Adherents feel empowered, but at the same time almost any interpretation of the commands is allowed. I heard in all this too, “If you are not with me, you are not with God,” with demands to submit to prejudice. Like God has become a private possession, adhering to whatever the adherent believes. There may be some path above the human din that would please God, but as Jesus indicated this is likely to be one of meekness, that I’d guess must submit to rational ideas.
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by
-
-
-
A scholar is simply someone who has devoted their time to examining a topic and in a way that can be monitored. The qualification they possess is simply a recognition of this. They are going to be far more well informed on their chosen specialism, than someone who has never studied it. Can scholars be mistaken? Of course, and differences of opinion exist amongst scholars and even on single topics. This is why it can be important to look at more than one source, before reaching a conclusion.
When it comes to masks, they are obviously not 100% effective and this was well known at the time. This is why social distancing and hand washing were advised in addition to mask wearing. Why socially distance and wash hands if masks, on their own, can halt the spread? People were advised to follow a range of practices that are known to slow (not stop) the spread of microorganisms.
-
Finally, a rational point of view. Thanks James.
-
Per your definition James, I am a safety, security, and operations/maintenance scholar. My expertise is in analyzing systems for breakdowns to find root cause, then recommend, install, and monitor fixes. As a safety scholar it was my job to analyze processes and review the industrial hygiene data of the chemicals used to determine safety equipment to prevent overexposure. I had to interact with workers, OSHA, lawyers, and industrial hygienists on a daily basis. I’m considered an expert for determining if masks and other personal protective equipment (PPE) are appropriate and was hired by Los Alamos National Laboratory to ensure ALL personnel were kept safe and secure.
I’ve seen no data indicating that masks helped stop or even slow down the spread of Covid. In fact, I have seen some data that indicate the use of masks was detrimental to health.
-
It is absolutely understandable that you have seen no such data, as it is impossible to gather any meaningful dataset at the level of your operations. The data you have gathered still qualifies as anectodal evidence.
-
Thanks for helping me out Jabberwock. I’m not sure what I would do without your wisdom, experience, and knowledge.
-
Don’t mention it, always happy to help!
-
-
@Jabberwock, it appears the Los Alamos National Laboratory mandated masks during COVID like all other scientific facilities the world over. I guess John didn’t sway them.
https://www.defensedaily.com/masks-back-on-at-los-alamos-national-laboratory/nuclear-modernization/
Masks are mandatory at DoE facilities in locations with a high rate of community transmission, as defined by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention.
Here’s a web page by a different employee of the laboratory who evidently wouldn’t listen to John.
https://discover.lanl.gov/publications/1663/2021-february/new-tools-for-toolbox/
“There’s an argument I’ve heard that a cloth mask keeps SARS-CoV-2 out as well as a chain-link fence would keep a mosquito out,” Ham explains. “But that’s a false analogy in most instances. You’re looking to catch droplets, not single viruses, so it would be more like using a chain-link fence to keep out a trash bag full of mosquitos.”
The scientists found that if two people are wearing homemade masks and standing in pre-pandemic proximity, about 50 percent of respiratory droplets produced by Person 1 will be caught by Person 1’s mask, while 50 percent of the droplets that passed through will be caught by Person 2’s mask. So only 25 percent of the droplets leaving Person 1’s airway might enter Person 2’s airway, and both masks participate in reducing the risk for both people. This factor-of-four reduction can be further reduced if the two people keep a larger distance between themselves than they would have done during pre-pandemic times, so that most of the droplets leaving Person 1 will fall to the ground before reaching Person 2.
The lab forced its employees to be vaccinated, so I guess John would have been suing too here. He has presented himself as a force to be reckoned with there, but where’s the evidence?
defensedaily.com
Masks Back on at Los Alamos National Laboratory - Defense Daily
The Los Alamos National Laboratory again ordered employees and visitors to wear masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19 after transmission rates in the
-
Again…donuts. Let me repeat–
You’re a microbiologist so follow the trail. From your first reference:
“The evidence shows that it is useful for healthy people to wear masks in the community during a pandemic [6,7,8]. Wearing respirators at work is an effective way to avoid infection and death in healthcare workers [6,7,8,9], and hospital staff have been instructed to change their masks every two hours when conditions permit [9]”
Follow the links and it’s a dead end–no evidence.
_________________________
You have the link to the site, the references to review, and all you have to do is dig into the information to find the data that supports your stance that they work.
-
-
-
Masks were recommended during the COVID pandemic because it was known to be transmittible via aerosol – moisture droplets in the air. It’s well established that masks reduce the quantity of droplets exhaled and inhaled by a mask wearer. That basic fact seems to me to have been a sufficient justification to push masking- even before studies examined their efficacy. <div>
Experts are not omniscient. They make recommendations based on information available at the time. It would have been derelict to ignore aerosol transmission, although I realize there could be other factors to consider.
</div>
-
It would be nice to see you be less combative on a discussion forum and exercise some people skills too.
-
Hahaha–you’re confusing combative with being logical.
-
-
-
-
Who are the biblical scholars that we should trust? Is it people like Craig who will defend every word of the hebrew bible or atheists like Francesca Stavrakopoulou and Bart Ehrman?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xVBldyy_Oo&t=378s
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Poul.
-
In my humble opinion neither. Grab yourself a study Bible and read it cover to cover including introductions and explanations of scripture. Focus on teachers like Skip Heizig of Calvary Chapel in Albuquerque, who break down the verses to help put them into context. You can watch services on-line now.
-
I quit watching the video at “it was written by men with daddy issues.” Shure it was intended as a joke, but I didn’t find the humor in it by a person who did research that I would be interested in. My research finds that Daniel existed and wrote a book about his life of dreams that predicted the future of the kingdom of God on earth. He was clearly not a man with daddy issues.
-
That’s a shame. You could have learnt something. Even though it’s a talk show. And my point is that you should listen to the scholars who approach the text without presuppositions, i.e. the atheists. Before deciding whether to trust a text, it would be interesting to know who who wrote it IMHO.
-
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by
-
I think I’ve proven my point. The atheists are quick to find links that support their opinions and they think it makes them look smart. But they cannot even find one piece of documented science data to prove their stance that masks work, just like they are not able to come up with one piece of data to prove their claim that there is no God.
-
I’ve defeated everyone, too. You can all go home and rest now. Just wait for the book(s).
-
@John:”Every manufacturer of a face mask will inform you that they will not stop a virus. This is a fact that is easily verified.”
I tried to find statements from manufacturers that say this, but couldn’t find any. Can you please point me to such (easily verified) statements?
-
How much time did you spend? Clearly not enough….
-
John, can you support your claims with evidence or not?
-
This is someone who admits to trolling behaviour. Just saying.
-
I don’t see them or you objecting to me calling them out for their trolling. Are you taking sides James? Are you one of the atheists too?
-
For some reason, you have extremely negative thoughts, opinions and feelings about certain people who disagree with you over certain issues (eg, mask wearing and the existence of God) to the extent that (for some reason) you feel the need to vent these feelings in a discussion forum. As stated in the other thread, I hope that you reach a point where you find peace and can manage disagreement in a more irenic and substantive way.
-
I’m completely at peace. I know God exists and is with me and I know that masks don’t work.
-
Let me clarify, masks don’t stop viruses but they are great for dust and particulate removal–of course depending on concentration, size, and hazards of the particulates.
-
-
Yes I can–and it’s easy. All I have to do is show you how every piece of data you provide to claim that masks work, does not validate your claim. So far I’m 100%. Do your own work, I’ve done mine.
-
Yes I can–and it’s easy. All I have to do is show you how every piece of data you provide to claim that masks work, does not validate your claim. So far I’m 100%. Do your own work, I’ve done mine.
No, that is not ‘all you have to do’. You have made a VERY specific claim:
Every manufacturer of a face mask will inform you that they will not stop a virus
That is all I ask: show me that every or – I will be lenient – the majority of manufacturers inform the public that the masks do not stop viruses. Can you do that?
-
Not going to do your work for you Jabberwock. Call up a few and ask them. I’ve seen several manufacturer boxes that state this on the cover. Most are not that up-front. Think about it, they are legally liable if they claim they work and you wear one 24/7 and you get Covid.
-
So you admit you are unable to provide evidence for your claim. Thank you!
-
No, you are unable to provide evidence for your claim. Three skewed data points is not evidence of worldwide mandates for masks.
-
Again, it is very simple: you have made a very specific claim that you are unable to back up.
When atheists make claims, you claim that it is their job to provide evidence. When YOU make claims, somehow it is ALSO our job to provide evidence. When specific evidence is cited, you deliberately do not read it, because it is ‘not your job’ either, yet you know it is wrong and deliberately skewed. So yes, your methodology is quite clear and nicely exposed.
-
When atheists make claims, you claim that it is their job to provide evidence. When YOU make claims, somehow it is ALSO our job to provide evidence.
I like this, @Jabberwock. A demand for evidence from others when none is presented from oneself. You have to ask, what is the value of convincing someone who is cantankerous? Won’t he remain cantankerous about other things, agreeing about one?
-
@Jabberwock. What is going on here, is that there is a demand for evidence from a mind set to deny evidence, which is to say prejudiced. It presents a theory it could be convinced, when inwardly there is denial. It’s like a tiger saying, “Try to cage me!” The moment it sees what it confuses for a trap, which is to say rational principles, it roars.
-
I’m still waiting for the evidence. A catchy headline with a taste of data is not evidence–it is a teaser and you bought into it.
-
When I gave you the evidence, you made a point of NOT READING IT.
-
The evidence proving masks work should be very easy to find. There should be numerous studies that back up your claim, not one supposed study with three samples that contradict their findings for another virus. You provided no evidence and you won’t find any.
-
What makes the link you provided valid evidence? I read all I needed to read to find it bogus. Maybe you care to expand on it rather than again pointing to a headline and an internet link. Enlighten me as to how it proves that masks work.
-
You have decided it is ‘bogus’ based on your belief that they have examined three positive coronavirus cases. The actual number of coronavirus cases in the study was 17. What does that tell you about your research skills?
-
You have decided it is ‘bogus’ based on your belief that they have examined three positive coronavirus cases. The actual number of coronavirus cases in the study was 17.
Yes, I was wondering about this too. It seemed like he couldn’t bear to read even small parts of the paper, as this conflicted with his narrative.
-
When I gave you the evidence, you made a point of NOT READING IT.
When the response comes in thirty seconds, you know it was not read and the presence of the interrogator is not respected. When a well-rounded comprehension and consideration of the data is not seen, the research may not be at fault, but the one pretending to review it.
-
Keep trolling–you didn’t like my valid evaluation, but you have no response to it.
-
-
-
-
-
Why do you think the people who push back on your views on masks and vaccines would invariably be atheists? It’s clearly not the case.
-
If this is a mask issue, show me the data…
-
It’s not. As far as I can tell, @jayceeii is not an atheist.
-
Poul, your post makes me wonder if you are also Jayceeii…
-
Why are you so confused as to think that? If think is the right word.
-
Why are you speaking for Jayceeii?
-
Poul and I disagree about most things, but I respect the operation of reason in him. Quite often he will say things of which I approve, against a religion that is unready to pass tests.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Non specialists are warranted in trusting the conclusions of a scholarly consensus, absent any verifiable and obvious defeaters. This bears in mind that data can be interpreted by different scholars in different ways (even on a single topic). Of course specialists can get it wrong and particularly where there is a conflict of interest (look how long it took to link smoking with cancer) or in situations where advice must be given quickly and in the absence of adequate background research. However, this usually comes to light and where I live, there are currently no mandates for people to wear masks. Neither is there any current attempt to silence dissenters on the issue of the effectiveness of mask wearing and the associated risks:
The Harm Caused by Masks | City Journal (city-journal.org) – May 2023
For balance, also see: https://youtu.be/npXP5wqNzaI?si=ZKIPG4BMINMrnI2-
In the context of a pandemic, decisions need often need to be made quickly and in the absence of thorough research. With Ukraine, Russia and so on (an increase in vaping in the general population, when the long term consequences of the habit are unknown), there seem to be much more pressing worries than mask wearing, which is a minor inconvenience for those who choose to do it (there is currently no mandate here in the UK) and people should continue to look at both sides of the argument. If wearing a mask makes no difference, then what harm has been done? Studies suggest that mask wearing can result in increased carbon dioxide inhalation but then people simply need to be better educated on how to wear the masks (eg, take them off immediately when outside and in an open area).
In general, people don’t need to be taught what to think (unless they are learning the details of a new job related task for example) but how to think and that means fostering in people a more critical approach to online content when investigating a topic. They can only do that by having access to every side of an argument and in a context where calm, well informed people can present both sides of an issue without degenerating into childish squabbles.
city-journal.org
A new study suggests that the excess carbon dioxide breathed in by mask-wearers can have major health consequences.
-
I haven’t even scratched the surface, everyone should dig into the evidence for the accuracy of the testing of the coronavirus. Those swabs you put up your nose that nearly hit the brain have an interesting background and accuracy problem–says the guy who invented the test.
-
Citation needed.
-
-
Log in to reply.