CPAPtalk.com

When I hear insults in debates I tend to get curious about the insulter's anger and miss the point they are trying to make. I think arguments have more punch when personalities are left behind and the topic is the focus.

VVV wrote:

soul_power wrote: What you linked to is a highly edited video from a party that has interests that aren't scientific. It holds no value whatsoever. If you want to have an informed non-biased opinion, the only sources you should use are peer-reviewed published scientific literature.

Sorry, I have not watched the video in So Well's link, but please tell me you are being entirely sarcastic.

If not you are creating quite a contradiction by using a van Gogh for an avatar and a name like soul_power.

van Gogh never published a single word of peer-reviewed scientific literature and I am fairly certain he never read a single word of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Therefore based on your logic Starry, Starry Night has no value. If you truly believe this my advice is to stay away from art galleries and art collecting.

Also soul_power is a reference to something that is not established in peer-reviewed scientific literature.

My apologies if your brief statement was meant to be sarcastic. As sarcasm it is brilliant!

I said that with regards to global climate change. Obviously it doesn't apply to everything. If a topic involves hard science, then going to peer-reviewed scientific literature will give you the facts without any additional garbage that may not be true.

soul_power wrote:

If a topic involves hard science, then going to peer-reviewed scientific literature will give you the facts without any additional garbage that may not be true.

Is that really the case? What studies reach sure conclusions without some doubt or criticism? What studies represent complete knowledge on even the narrowest of subjects? What studies do not rely on some assumptions? Like assuming weather stations provide accurate temperature data.

VVV wrote:

van Gogh never published a single word of peer-reviewed scientific literature and I am fairly certain he never read a single word of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Therefore based on your logic Starry, Starry Night has no value. If you truly believe this my advice is to stay away from art galleries and art collecting.

Also soul_power is a reference to something that is not established in peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Ah, the philosopher speaks. Thanks for adding some philosophic value to the discussion.

On another philosophic point, are we not here relying on cpaptalk for good but unscientific advice because the scientific literature on how to effectively treat sleep apnea is far from complete and not entirely accurate? Does cpaptalk not have value? It has provided value for me.

soul_power wrote:

So Well wrote:

Green Activists Fall For the Old “Dihydrogen Monoxide” Petition Prank at Cancun Global Warming Summit sign up to ban “dihydrogen monoxide” (DHMO), which is an “evil” chemical found in our lakes, rivers, oceans, and even our food!

Now watch the video from the Cancun climate conference, you’d think some of these folks would be have enough science background (from their work in complex climate issues) to realize what they are signing, but sadly, no.

The attendees were also more than eager to sign a petition to cripple the US economy.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a91_1291951906

What a bunch of global warming losers. Sad. This is what you are associated with.

Wonder who paid for their trip to Cancun? Sure the taxpayers did. Do any of you pay taxes?

I would like to laugh but these scientific misfits are costing us money and are dangerous.

What you linked to is a highly edited video from a party that has interests that aren't scientific. It holds no value whatsoever. If you want to have an informed non-biased opinion, the only sources you should use are peer-reviewed published scientific literature.

Not only that but CFACT is a total non-entity. They get a one star out of four rating on Charity Navigator because, big surprise, they don't disclose their funding sources, they don't do independent audits of their financials, and gee golly, they don't keep records.

That bad, bad Cancun climate conference. Terrible thing, really. Let's pull out the brochure from the US Center there at the Cancun Conference and see what those awful bureaucrats were up to. (No, I wasn't there - the US government delegation was very small. But the brochure is on State's website.)

OK... Ach! Here we go. They started off the whole shebang with a presentation on the state of the climate based on the findings in just several tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers. That obviously can't mean anything, if they only used tens of thousands of papers, basically the entire output of climate scientists worldwide for the past decade. Hmmph.

How about this presentation on Tuesday, Nov 30, 2010: Sustainable management for US forests. Well, we can't have that. Sustainable management suggests that, like, we actually want wood products for the future, or something.

Or this one on Wednesday, Dec. 1: Famine Early Warning System. Horrible concept, that - let people worldwide know ahead of time when conditions will cause a famine? The very idea. It might save lives, or something.

Moving on... what did those miscreants do on Thursday, Dec 2, huh? Oh, for pete's sake - Low emission development strategies. Sheesh. We can't be having US companies export their technology for accelerating economic development and growth, can we? Where would we be if we accelerated economic growth!?!

Maybe things got better on Friday Dec 3... no, OMG, it's worse. A panel of US industry types touting the technology they have available for clean energy and renewable energy, right there for the buying, by other countries. Good heavens... somebody might invest! Some US company might get some lucrative international contracts out of that. Terrible!

I'm afraid it goes on and on: "Technology Innovation." "Driving Green Investments." Presentations by (I am appalled to say it) US Industries! Program after program showcasing US science and US industry, technology, and engineering in the global marketplace, with actual US industries present and demo-ing their products and services in the Green Pavilion down the hall. (The nerve! The gall! Can I give you a business card, hmmm? Good talking with you, I'd love to show you our latest product line when you're in the market.)

Yeah, that Cancun conference sure was bad for the US's economic growth. I'm sure there was absolutely no return on investment for the tax dollars that supported that US Center. Why, the number of industry representatives who paid their own way totally dwarfed the number of US government people - that's OUTRAGEOUS!

It is amazing what actual facts you can find, if you bother to look.

.

NachtWürger wrote:the scientific literature on how to effectively treat sleep apnea

Curing sdb means it's destruction as a profit center.

Same with cardiology, oncology, etc. etc.

Don't hold your breath.

.
_______________________________________________________________________
.


Just back from yet another mad dash to the ed.

Discovered that the hottest piece of equipment in the hospital is a halo.

.

Rocketgirl, thanks for taking the time to reply to all this anti science silliness. I hope you still checked out the solution to the banana problem. I think anything that promotes science, even making fun of it, that gets it before the public, is good. I like the banana problem because its the sort of thing a scientifically ignorant capitalist might think up. I just love the way Beaker has learned to be afraid of being the test subject.

Beaker and the Muppet Labs Experiment 2Q975: Carve-O-Matic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81duSmkPJ5k

P.S. apologies ahead of time. I'm sorry, I know its ad hominum to make fun of scientifically ignorant capitalists. But if Rush Limbaugh can do it to scientists, then occasionally I should be able to slip one in also.

Mr Bill wrote:Rocketgirl, thanks for taking the time to reply to all this anti science silliness.

Indeed, thanks, Rocketgirl. And thank you, too, Bill.

Gerald? wrote:What happens if you invite Mars to a dinner party:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCu ... r_embedded#!



I too find I can only keep my mouth shut for so long.

Provided what they are doing does not affect me, I don't mind if people want to reject science. I just don't see how they cannot be labelled as hypocrites if they are prepared to trust the scientific method for some issues but not others. Of course their position is completely genuine if they stop: taking medication; using electricity; flying in an aircraft; participating in on-line forums ....

I just watched it. That was pretty entertaining. Especially when he held forth on homeopathy.

rocklin wrote:.

NachtWürger wrote:the scientific literature on how to effectively treat sleep apnea

Curing sdb means it's destruction as a profit center.

Same with cardiology, oncology, etc. etc.

But that is OK as long as you live in a country with a market based economy where the government is not interfering. I certainly do not expect ResMed or Philips to develop an inexpensive, easy, and effective treatment for SDB. But in market based economies, particularly your USA, there are dozens if not hundreds of people working on novel treatments for SDB. Someday there will be major breakthroughs that put the CPAP industry in the latrine.

Be patient. The market is working. Somewhere there is a breadmaker trying to develop a delicious bread, easy to make, inexpensive, low glycemic index, and high nutrient value.

Mr Bill wrote: I like the banana problem because its the sort of thing a scientifically ignorant capitalist might think up.

Again this is OK for the ignorant capitalist to do. It is OK as long as the ignorant capitalist is working in a market based economy and is not receiving funding from a government. It is OK as long as he is spending his own money or the money of his investors. It is OK because the market and the forces of economics will destroy his useless activity.

He will have spent his own money by his own choice and he will have spent the money of his investors by their own choice. All are acting freely and voluntarily spending their money.

This is very much unlike a government lab or a government university or a private university funded by government. The citizens are forced (by taxation) to pay for the banana experiment. This is immoral, inefficient, and ineffective.

Since this is an opportunity for "last shots"...

NightMonkey wrote: I would however say that "scientists who sell their integrity" never had any integrity to start with.

Waiting for a high enough price is not integrity.

I reject this premise. Show me the science to prove your conjecture.

Everyone has their price and that does not negate previous good behavior.

Bet I could buy your integrity for $5,000,000...and would that negate all of your previous pronouncements?
J

NachtWürger wrote:

Mr Bill wrote: I like the banana problem because its the sort of thing a scientifically ignorant capitalist might think up.

Again this is OK for the ignorant capitalist to do. It is OK as long as the ignorant capitalist is working in a market based economy and is not receiving funding from a government. It is OK as long as he is spending his own money or the money of his investors. It is OK because the market and the forces of economics will destroy his useless activity.

He will have spent his own money by his own choice and he will have spent the money of his investors by their own choice. All are acting freely and voluntarily spending their money.

This is very much unlike a government lab or a government university or a private university funded by government. The citizens are forced (by taxation) to pay for the banana experiment. This is immoral, inefficient, and ineffective.

But governments over the history of mankind have used their citizens (paid or unpaid) for purposes the government deemed important. Our democracy right now uses scientists and engineers to develop and maintain not only our nuclear arsenal but also various non-nuclear, weapons, transports, foods, equipment, etc. Governments do this because they are not willing to wait for the market to develop what they want. Also, governments will actively prevent groups from working freely on technologies or sciences that might threaten the governments power. Our government tried very hard to keep private citizens from making better encryption algorithms available to the public. Release of that tech on the internet, made that a moot point; or did it? I think one must recognize that governments and universities are important capitalistic market forces. Universities take a large percentage of every grant to maintain the university and in turn maintain facilities so that they can keep members of their faculty, and allow them to do research to further their fields of study. It is a sort of capitalism because the ability of a university to pull down big grants, induce students to attend, induce alumni, philanthropists, governments, and corporations to contribute money, all depends on maintaining reputation and prestige to attract the best faculty, students, and graduate students that they can afford. Student athletics, obviously, follows a similar model.

One further point. These economies within countries, between companies, odd corporate entities, and the intertwining of governments, institutions of learning, and all other entities intertwined with government; it happens the same way wool wants to entangle and allow itself to be spun into yarn. Ideally, everybody wants their favorite subject to be somehow purified or fast fourier transformed into orthogonal eigenvectors (a mathematical thing, that lets you, for some kinds of data, unravel mixed data into a set of unique vectors and amplitudes) so they can keep influence from causing the mixing they detest. But guess what, it keeps happening. Everybody in civilization is stirring the pot.

I'll further add, one might want to give money to a university because Big U does research on project X which you wildly support. But you don't want even a tiny amount to go to the fellow in another department working on project Z. But Big U keeps those people because they have people working on the cutting edge in many directions. Nobody will come to Big U to work if there is a perception or reputation that a field perceptually close to theirs will be hindered. Faculty members in universities are very sensitive about freedoms. That is one big reason why they choose to work in a university rather than directly for the government or for a corporate entity.

Mr Bill wrote: But governments over the history of mankind have used their citizens (paid or unpaid) for purposes the government deemed important. Our democracy right now uses scientists and engineers to develop and maintain not only our nuclear arsenal but also various non-nuclear, weapons, transports, foods, equipment, etc. Governments do this because they are not willing to wait for the market to develop what they want. Also, governments will actively prevent groups from working freely on technologies or sciences that might threaten the governments power. Our government tried very hard to keep private citizens from making better encryption algorithms available to the public.

If you are talking about a government's military defense of its citizens, I am fully with you. Defense of the citizens is the most important reason for forming a country and its government. In the U.S. you have an excellent Constitution - the best ever written. It specifies the natural rights that man has received from the Creator. It establishes a government that has limits on it and demands that the government not infringe on the rights of any individual.

So, yes, the government has the responsibility of being sure it is capable of defending the citizens from foreign attack. Taxing the citizens to support this is legitimate.

Another legitimate responsibility of the government is establishing a rule of law - any citizen who is coerced or frauded has recourse by the police and courts; property rights of all citizens are respected - the right to own, sell, and purchase property, the right to do as one chooses as long as it does not infringe on another's rights.

I am for individual liberty, not anarchy. Liberty requires protection of individual rights because man is evil and will infringe upon the rights of others if given the opportunity.

Mr Bill wrote: Faculty members in universities are very sensitive about freedoms.

I take it you are such a faculty member?

In any case, are you sensitive to the freedom of individuals to hold and spend their money as they choose without a government who thinks they know better how those individuals' money should be spent?

jamiswolf wrote:Since this is an opportunity for "last shots"...

NightMonkey wrote: I would however say that "scientists who sell their integrity" never had any integrity to start with.

Waiting for a high enough price is not integrity.

I reject this premise. Show me the science to prove your conjecture.

Everyone has their price and that does not negate previous good behavior.

Bet I could buy your integrity for $5,000,000...and would that negate all of your previous pronouncements?
J

I will do it for $4.5 million. Please send the contract.

I will disavow all my previous pronouncements and wear on my back an 8 x 10" placard with the word "Charlatan" in four-inch block letters for ninety days for $3.5 million.