https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/06/the_death_of_rational_science.html

"This behavior makes sense when you realize that the human mind was
built for survival, not truth."

I see this all the time; people believe what the group believes and
quit thinking for themselves. That has wild group dynamics, when
everyone is doing that simultaneously.

I suspect that original thinkers must be mostly immune to social
pressures, are a bit autistic in the social sense.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On 17/06/21 15:59, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
> https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/06/the_death_of_rational_science.html
>
> "This behavior makes sense when you realize that the human mind was
> built for survival, not truth."
>
> I see this all the time; people believe what the group believes and
> quit thinking for themselves. That has wild group dynamics, when
> everyone is doing that simultaneously.

Agreed, as evidenced by the group that thinks AGW is false,
or the (other?) group that thinks covid-19 is a conspiracy.

> I suspect that original thinkers must be mostly immune to social
> pressures, are a bit autistic in the social sense.

My uncle was an original thinker: he thought that he was
King Edward IX, but that They wanted him kept off the throne.

He was a delightful chap, everybody liked him, but his
occasional unauthorised excursions to Windsor Castle
were frowned upon.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 16:17:06 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 17/06/21 15:59, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>
>> https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/06/the_death_of_rational_science.html
>>
>> "This behavior makes sense when you realize that the human mind was
>> built for survival, not truth."
>>
>> I see this all the time; people believe what the group believes and
>> quit thinking for themselves. That has wild group dynamics, when
>> everyone is doing that simultaneously.
>
>Agreed, as evidenced by the group that thinks AGW is false,
>or the (other?) group that thinks covid-19 is a conspiracy.

There is a much smaller group composed of people who think for
themselves. That's kind of a paradox, as in "Anarchists, Unite!"

>
>
>> I suspect that original thinkers must be mostly immune to social
>> pressures, are a bit autistic in the social sense.
>
>My uncle was an original thinker: he thought that he was
>King Edward IX, but that They wanted him kept off the throne.
>
>He was a delightful chap, everybody liked him, but his
>occasional unauthorised excursions to Windsor Castle
>were frowned upon.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 07:59:10 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

>https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/06/the_death_of_rational_science.html
>
>"This behavior makes sense when you realize that the human mind was
>built for survival, not truth."
>
>I see this all the time; people believe what the group believes and
>quit thinking for themselves. That has wild group dynamics, when
>everyone is doing that simultaneously.
>
>I suspect that original thinkers must be mostly immune to social
>pressures, are a bit autistic in the social sense.

I'm not sure what you see in the article that makes it "pretty good".
What I see are a complete lack of references, supporting information,
specifics, and sources for the various claims. For example, I would
really like to read the details on this amazing factoid:

"It now appears that there are currently more deaths from the vaccine
than from COVID. Even more disturbing are stories of women who never
took the vaccine experiencing horrific reproductive side effects,
including heavy vaginal bleeding and miscarriages, simply from being
in close contact with people who have been vaccinated."

No numbers, no details, no facts, no sources, etc. If this is
"rational science" I'm going back to science by proclamation and press
release.

The rant mentions that it's rather difficult for scientists to reach a
consensus. In my limited experience, that's only partly true. It's
difficult for SOME scientists to agree on the science, much less agree
on just about anything else. However, if the goal of this article is
to establish a consensus, that's easily and commonly accomplished by
those lacking a scientific background. In the past, it was called a
mob. Today, it's a virtual mob operating on social media. There have
even been mobs of scientists supporting an established theory instead
of listening to novel heresy. Does the author really want a mob
deciding the validity of a scientific question?

Of course, no article or rant is considered worthwhile without a
payload. The rant is just the delivery system. The payload is
usually at the end of the article and often has little to do with the
content of the article or rant. In this case, it's the "independent"
study to conclusively determine and itemize the side effects of
Covid-19 vaccines using an online survey of self-selected
participants:
<https://covidstudy1.com>

"This survey attempts to gather statistically valid information, from
everyone, to begin to answer questions such as..."

A rational scientist might consider a survey with a self-selected
population to be the worst possible way to make a determination.
However, lacking the resources to conduct a proper study, that might a
minimal attempt to determine if there really is a problem. All the
author needs to do is get literally EVERYONE to participate. Did you
participate? I didn't.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 6/17/2021 10:59 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
> https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/06/the_death_of_rational_science.html
>
> "This behavior makes sense when you realize that the human mind was
> built for survival, not truth."
>
> I see this all the time; people believe what the group believes and
> quit thinking for themselves. That has wild group dynamics, when
> everyone is doing that simultaneously.
>
> I suspect that original thinkers must be mostly immune to social
> pressures, are a bit autistic in the social sense.
>
>
>

"American Thinker" = hard-right white supremacist/ultra-nationalist
website, full of wannabe terrorists plotting to shoot up a Planned
Parenthood or university

On 6/17/2021 11:17 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 17/06/21 15:59, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>
>> https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/06/the_death_of_rational_science.html
>>
>>
>> "This behavior makes sense when you realize that the human mind was
>> built for survival, not truth."

Just another lame-ass wingnut propaganda site preaching to gunned-up
wannabe terrorists, telling them they're something special for cash, or
would know what the "truth" was if it bit them on the ass.

Works every time, the hustle is so easy who can blame 'em really.

"Are the vaccines the modern-day equivalent of Jim Jones’ Kool-Aid that
everyone is being forced to drink?"

Ya, that must be the secret commie Jew plan, dickhead, it's just like
Jonestown. Lol

On 6/17/2021 12:25 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 07:59:10 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
> wrote:
>
>> https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/06/the_death_of_rational_science.html
>>
>> "This behavior makes sense when you realize that the human mind was
>> built for survival, not truth."
>>
>> I see this all the time; people believe what the group believes and
>> quit thinking for themselves. That has wild group dynamics, when
>> everyone is doing that simultaneously.
>>
>> I suspect that original thinkers must be mostly immune to social
>> pressures, are a bit autistic in the social sense.
>
> I'm not sure what you see in the article that makes it "pretty good".
> What I see are a complete lack of references, supporting information,
> specifics, and sources for the various claims. For example, I would
> really like to read the details on this amazing factoid:
>
> "It now appears that there are currently more deaths from the vaccine
> than from COVID. Even more disturbing are stories of women who never
> took the vaccine experiencing horrific reproductive side effects,
> including heavy vaginal bleeding and miscarriages, simply from being
> in close contact with people who have been vaccinated."
>
> No numbers, no details, no facts, no sources, etc. If this is
> "rational science" I'm going back to science by proclamation and press
> release.
>
> The rant mentions that it's rather difficult for scientists to reach a
> consensus. In my limited experience, that's only partly true. It's
> difficult for SOME scientists to agree on the science, much less agree
> on just about anything else. However, if the goal of this article is
> to establish a consensus, that's easily and commonly accomplished by
> those lacking a scientific background. In the past, it was called a
> mob. Today, it's a virtual mob operating on social media. There have
> even been mobs of scientists supporting an established theory instead
> of listening to novel heresy. Does the author really want a mob
> deciding the validity of a scientific question?
>
> Of course, no article or rant is considered worthwhile without a
> payload. The rant is just the delivery system. The payload is
> usually at the end of the article and often has little to do with the
> content of the article or rant. In this case, it's the "independent"
> study to conclusively determine and itemize the side effects of
> Covid-19 vaccines using an online survey of self-selected
> participants:
> <https://covidstudy1.com>
>
> "This survey attempts to gather statistically valid information, from
> everyone, to begin to answer questions such as..."
>
> A rational scientist might consider a survey with a self-selected
> population to be the worst possible way to make a determination.
> However, lacking the resources to conduct a proper study, that might a
> minimal attempt to determine if there really is a problem. All the
> author needs to do is get literally EVERYONE to participate. Did you
> participate? I didn't.
>
>

"It’s interesting to note that the same people who revere the earth and
despise genetically modified animals are willing to become _genetically
modified humans_ through an unproven vaccine."

Author should avoid writing while this high on crack cocaine

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 09:25:54 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 07:59:10 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
>wrote:
>
>>https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/06/the_death_of_rational_science.html
>>
>>"This behavior makes sense when you realize that the human mind was
>>built for survival, not truth."
>>
>>I see this all the time; people believe what the group believes and
>>quit thinking for themselves. That has wild group dynamics, when
>>everyone is doing that simultaneously.
>>
>>I suspect that original thinkers must be mostly immune to social
>>pressures, are a bit autistic in the social sense.
>
>I'm not sure what you see in the article that makes it "pretty good".

The note that groupthink overpowers science.

There was a great interview this morning on Fresh Air. The guest noted
that the possibility that the Wuhan institute was the virus source was
universally panned as wingnut conspiracy theory merely because Trump
suggested it. So no "reputable" scientist dared consider it.

Now that he's gone, people are allowed to think about it.

>What I see are a complete lack of references, supporting information,
>specifics, and sources for the various claims. For example, I would
>really like to read the details on this amazing factoid:
>
>"It now appears that there are currently more deaths from the vaccine
>than from COVID. Even more disturbing are stories of women who never
>took the vaccine experiencing horrific reproductive side effects,
>including heavy vaginal bleeding and miscarriages, simply from being
>in close contact with people who have been vaccinated."
>
>No numbers, no details, no facts, no sources, etc. If this is
>"rational science" I'm going back to science by proclamation and press
>release.
>
>The rant mentions that it's rather difficult for scientists to reach a
>consensus.

Science should constantly fight against concensus. Usually it doesn't.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 13:20:42 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

>On 6/17/2021 10:59 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>
>> https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/06/the_death_of_rational_science.html
>>
>> "This behavior makes sense when you realize that the human mind was
>> built for survival, not truth."
>>
>> I see this all the time; people believe what the group believes and
>> quit thinking for themselves. That has wild group dynamics, when
>> everyone is doing that simultaneously.
>>
>> I suspect that original thinkers must be mostly immune to social
>> pressures, are a bit autistic in the social sense.
>>
>>
>>
>
>"American Thinker" = hard-right white supremacist/ultra-nationalist
>website, full of wannabe terrorists plotting to shoot up a Planned
>Parenthood or university

Which, by your standards, makes everything that they say wrong.

Saves a lot of thinking.

On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:59:20 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/06/the_death_of_rational_science.html

> "This behavior makes sense when you realize that the human mind was
> built for survival, not truth."

On the other hand, literate persons with a few millenia of philosophy
and science under their belt have LEARNED things, independent of
their innate (instinctive) resources. Truth is better than falsehoods, for survival.

The article IS a bit of a rant; it rambles, waffles, and generally wastes the reader's time.

> I see this all the time; people believe what the group believes and
> quit thinking for themselves.

It's easy to see things like that, whether they're evident or not.

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time,
but you can't fool all the people all the time."

On 6/17/2021 2:56 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 13:20:42 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/17/2021 10:59 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>
>>> https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/06/the_death_of_rational_science.html
>>>
>>> "This behavior makes sense when you realize that the human mind was
>>> built for survival, not truth."
>>>
>>> I see this all the time; people believe what the group believes and
>>> quit thinking for themselves. That has wild group dynamics, when
>>> everyone is doing that simultaneously.
>>>
>>> I suspect that original thinkers must be mostly immune to social
>>> pressures, are a bit autistic in the social sense.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> "American Thinker" = hard-right white supremacist/ultra-nationalist
>> website, full of wannabe terrorists plotting to shoot up a Planned
>> Parenthood or university
>
> Which, by your standards, makes everything that they say wrong.

If you say enough things you'll be right about something eventually, and
they seem to publish a lot of stuff by unknown authors, and don't seem
to have the common courtesy to regularly introduce them, or what their
credentials are or aren't. Who's "Jack Gleason"? From the Honeymooners?

> Saves a lot of thinking.

"It now appears that there are currently more deaths from the vaccine
than from COVID. Even more disturbing are stories of women who never
took the vaccine experiencing horrific reproductive side effects,
including heavy vaginal bleeding and miscarriages, simply from being in
close contact with people who have been vaccinated."

It's just cuckoo, but regrettable that there are some women who will
probably believe it.

Honestly, if the "culture war" and cuckoo conspiracy-theories are all
the right has left it kinda makes me sad. I liked it better when our
cordial debates posed something of a challenge. Are you guys okay?

In article <c8767d85-0085-4a4a-a264-5f594729d7ffn@googlegroups.com>,
whit3rd@gmail.com says...
>
> > I see this all the time; people believe what the group believes and
> > quit thinking for themselves.
>
> It's easy to see things like that, whether they're evident or not.
>
> "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time,
> but you can't fool all the people all the time."
>
>

You do not need to fool all the people any time, just fool enough to
accomplish what you want.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 16:14:09 -0400, Ralph Mowery
<rmowery42@charter.net> wrote:

>In article <c8767d85-0085-4a4a-a264-5f594729d7ffn@googlegroups.com>,
>whit3rd@gmail.com says...
>>
>> > I see this all the time; people believe what the group believes and
>> > quit thinking for themselves.
>>
>> It's easy to see things like that, whether they're evident or not.
>>
>> "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time,
>> but you can't fool all the people all the time."
>>
>>
>
>You do not need to fool all the people any time, just fool enough to
>accomplish what you want.
>

It's easier to fool yourself.

On 17/06/21 20:36, bitrex wrote:
> On 6/17/2021 2:56 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 13:20:42 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/17/2021 10:59 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/06/the_death_of_rational_science.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "This behavior makes sense when you realize that the human mind was
>>>> built for survival, not truth."
>>>>
>>>> I see this all the time; people believe what the group believes and
>>>> quit thinking for themselves. That has wild group dynamics, when
>>>> everyone is doing that simultaneously.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect that original thinkers must be mostly immune to social
>>>> pressures, are a bit autistic in the social sense.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> "American Thinker" = hard-right white supremacist/ultra-nationalist
>>> website, full of wannabe terrorists plotting to shoot up a Planned
>>> Parenthood or university
>>
>> Which, by your standards, makes everything that they say wrong.
>
> If you say enough things you'll be right about something eventually, and they
> seem to publish a lot of stuff by unknown authors, and don't seem to have the
> common courtesy to regularly introduce them, or what their credentials are or
> aren't. Who's "Jack Gleason"? From the Honeymooners?
>
>> Saves a lot of thinking.
>
> "It now appears that there are currently more deaths from the vaccine than from
> COVID.

If that is true, then it indicates the vaccines are
astonishingly beneficial.

> Even more disturbing are stories of women who never took the vaccine
> experiencing horrific reproductive side effects, including heavy vaginal
> bleeding and miscarriages, simply from being in close contact with people who
> have been vaccinated."

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

> It's just cuckoo, but regrettable that there are some women who will probably
> believe it.
>
> Honestly, if the "culture war" and cuckoo conspiracy-theories are all the right
> has left it kinda makes me sad. I liked it better when our cordial debates posed
> something of a challenge. Are you guys okay?

Such things are remarkably damaging to our culture and civilisation.
Putin (and his useful fools) promulgate such nonsense.

On 17/06/21 22:41, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 16:14:09 -0400, Ralph Mowery
> <rmowery42@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <c8767d85-0085-4a4a-a264-5f594729d7ffn@googlegroups.com>,
>> whit3rd@gmail.com says...
>>>
>>>> I see this all the time; people believe what the group believes and
>>>> quit thinking for themselves.
>>>
>>> It's easy to see things like that, whether they're evident or not.
>>>
>>> "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time,
>>> but you can't fool all the people all the time."
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You do not need to fool all the people any time, just fool enough to
>> accomplish what you want.
>>
>
> It's easier to fool yourself.

Yes, as you demonstrate too often.

On 18/6/21 5:35 am, whit3rd wrote:
> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 7:59:20 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/06/the_death_of_rational_science.html
>
>> "This behavior makes sense when you realize that the human mind was
>> built for survival, not truth."
>
> On the other hand, literate persons with a few millenia of philosophy
> and science under their belt have LEARNED things, independent of
> their innate (instinctive) resources. Truth is better than falsehoods, for survival.

It makes sense when you realise that we have been social animals for
roughly 2M years, but intellectual animals for perhaps 20K years.

We need science precisely *because* of our predilection to align
ourselves with the group and with power, rather than with truth. In the
long run, truth wins out, but power is much more prevalent - it has the
survival power of weeds because it proliferates everywhere and permeates
everything.

CH

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 23:35:42 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 17/06/21 22:41, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 16:14:09 -0400, Ralph Mowery
>> <rmowery42@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <c8767d85-0085-4a4a-a264-5f594729d7ffn@googlegroups.com>,
>>> whit3rd@gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>>> I see this all the time; people believe what the group believes and
>>>>> quit thinking for themselves.
>>>>
>>>> It's easy to see things like that, whether they're evident or not.
>>>>
>>>> "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time,
>>>> but you can't fool all the people all the time."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You do not need to fool all the people any time, just fool enough to
>>> accomplish what you want.
>>>
>>
>> It's easier to fool yourself.
>
>Yes, as you demonstrate too often.

Do you enjoy being a jerk?

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 23:34:53 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 17/06/21 20:36, bitrex wrote:
>> On 6/17/2021 2:56 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 13:20:42 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/17/2021 10:59 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/06/the_death_of_rational_science.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "This behavior makes sense when you realize that the human mind was
>>>>> built for survival, not truth."
>>>>>
>>>>> I see this all the time; people believe what the group believes and
>>>>> quit thinking for themselves. That has wild group dynamics, when
>>>>> everyone is doing that simultaneously.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect that original thinkers must be mostly immune to social
>>>>> pressures, are a bit autistic in the social sense.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "American Thinker" = hard-right white supremacist/ultra-nationalist
>>>> website, full of wannabe terrorists plotting to shoot up a Planned
>>>> Parenthood or university
>>>
>>> Which, by your standards, makes everything that they say wrong.
>>
>> If you say enough things you'll be right about something eventually, and they
>> seem to publish a lot of stuff by unknown authors, and don't seem to have the
>> common courtesy to regularly introduce them, or what their credentials are or
>> aren't. Who's "Jack Gleason"? From the Honeymooners?
>>
>>> Saves a lot of thinking.
>>
>> "It now appears that there are currently more deaths from the vaccine than from
>> COVID.
>
>If that is true, then it indicates the vaccines are
>astonishingly beneficial.
>

Yes, and as time goes on the risk from the shots will become worse
than the risk from the virus.

In the long term, I wonder if we will have to vaccinate kids forever,
or if it will be eliminated like smallpox. I guess that mostly depends
on whether there are serious animal reservoirs.

On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 5:39:31 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

> ...as time goes on the risk from the shots will become worse
> than the risk from the virus.

Huh? Risk from a little pinprick? Time doesn't change that.
What does 'time' correlate to, and when is the transition expected?

If we were to stamp out the disease, the time spent on a vaccination
appointment, combined with lifespan, gives one estimate of the
'risk', but not a relevant one this year.

On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 4:55:13 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 09:25:54 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> wrote:
> >On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 07:59:10 -0700, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >>https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/06/the_death_of_rational_science.html
> >>
> >>"This behavior makes sense when you realize that the human mind was
> >>built for survival, not truth."
> >>
> >>I see this all the time; people believe what the group believes and
> >>quit thinking for themselves. That has wild group dynamics, when
> >>everyone is doing that simultaneously.
> >>
> >>I suspect that original thinkers must be mostly immune to social
> >>pressures, are a bit autistic in the social sense.
> >
> >I'm not sure what you see in the article that makes it "pretty good".
> The note that groupthink overpowers science.
>
> There was a great interview this morning on Fresh Air. The guest noted
> that the possibility that the Wuhan institute was the virus source was
> universally panned as wingnut conspiracy theory merely because Trump
> suggested it. So no "reputable" scientist dared consider it.
>
> Now that he's gone, people are allowed to think about it.

They could always consider it. It's never been a particulary likely hypothesis, and still isn't.

>What I see are a complete lack of references, supporting information,
> >specifics, and sources for the various claims. For example, I would
> >really like to read the details on this amazing factoid:
> >
> >"It now appears that there are currently more deaths from the vaccine
> >than from COVID. Even more disturbing are stories of women who never
> >took the vaccine experiencing horrific reproductive side effects,
> >including heavy vaginal bleeding and miscarriages, simply from being
> >in close contact with people who have been vaccinated."
> >
> >No numbers, no details, no facts, no sources, etc. If this is
> >"rational science" I'm going back to science by proclamation and press
> >release.
> >
> >The rant mentions that it's rather difficult for scientists to reach a consensus.
>
> Science should constantly fight against concensus. Usually it doesn't.

Completely wrong. Science always aims to achieve informed consensus, but has to live with the fact that some scientists are slower to digest the relevant evidence than others.

Continental drift is the poster child - it was an entertaining idea when it was first floated, but it took half a century for the evidence to build up. Corona viruses are more ephemeral than geology, so there's never going to be any conclusive evidence.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 7:41:42 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 16:14:09 -0400, Ralph Mowery
> <rmow...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <c8767d85-0085-4a4a...@googlegroups.com>,
> >whi...@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> > I see this all the time; people believe what the group believes and
> >> > quit thinking for themselves.
> >>
> >> It's easy to see things like that, whether they're evident or not.
> >>
> >> "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time,
> >> but you can't fool all the people all the time."
> >
> >You do not need to fool all the people any time, just fool enough to accomplish what you want.
> >
> It's easier to fool yourself.

John Larkin does seem to be on of the group who can be fooled all the time.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 10:30:32 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 23:35:42 +0100, Tom Gardner
> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On 17/06/21 22:41, John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 16:14:09 -0400, Ralph Mowery
> >> <rmow...@charter.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <c8767d85-0085-4a4a...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>> whi...@gmail.com says...
> >>>>
> >>>>> I see this all the time; people believe what the group believes and
> >>>>> quit thinking for themselves.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's easy to see things like that, whether they're evident or not.
> >>>>
> >>>> "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time,
> >>>> but you can't fool all the people all the time."
> >>>
> >>> You do not need to fool all the people any time, just fool enough to
> >>> accomplish what you want.
> >>>
> >> It's easier to fool yourself.
> >
> >Yes, as you demonstrate too often.
>
> Do you enjoy being a jerk?

John Larkin certainly seems to do so.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 18/06/21 01:39, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 23:34:53 +0100, Tom Gardner
> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 17/06/21 20:36, bitrex wrote:
>>> On 6/17/2021 2:56 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 13:20:42 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/17/2021 10:59 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/06/the_death_of_rational_science.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "This behavior makes sense when you realize that the human mind was
>>>>>> built for survival, not truth."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see this all the time; people believe what the group believes and
>>>>>> quit thinking for themselves. That has wild group dynamics, when
>>>>>> everyone is doing that simultaneously.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect that original thinkers must be mostly immune to social
>>>>>> pressures, are a bit autistic in the social sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "American Thinker" = hard-right white supremacist/ultra-nationalist
>>>>> website, full of wannabe terrorists plotting to shoot up a Planned
>>>>> Parenthood or university
>>>>
>>>> Which, by your standards, makes everything that they say wrong.
>>>
>>> If you say enough things you'll be right about something eventually, and they
>>> seem to publish a lot of stuff by unknown authors, and don't seem to have the
>>> common courtesy to regularly introduce them, or what their credentials are or
>>> aren't. Who's "Jack Gleason"? From the Honeymooners?
>>>
>>>> Saves a lot of thinking.
>>>
>>> "It now appears that there are currently more deaths from the vaccine than from
>>> COVID.
>>
>> If that is true, then it indicates the vaccines are
>> astonishingly beneficial.
>>
>
> Yes, and as time goes on the risk from the shots will become worse
> than the risk from the virus.

Wrong question/observation, of course.

But of course the idiot "all vaccines pollute our
precious bodily fluids" anti-vaxxers keep asking it.

> In the long term, I wonder if we will have to vaccinate kids forever,
> or if it will be eliminated like smallpox. I guess that mostly depends
> on whether there are serious animal reservoirs.

It will probably continue to mutate, as viruses usually do.

Immunity will probably decline with time, as it usually does.

Hence it is highly likely that it will become endemic, we will
learn to live with it, and will have repeated booster shots
for the new variants.

On 18/06/21 01:30, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 23:35:42 +0100, Tom Gardner
> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 17/06/21 22:41, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 16:14:09 -0400, Ralph Mowery
>>> <rmowery42@charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <c8767d85-0085-4a4a-a264-5f594729d7ffn@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> whit3rd@gmail.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>>> I see this all the time; people believe what the group believes and
>>>>>> quit thinking for themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's easy to see things like that, whether they're evident or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time,
>>>>> but you can't fool all the people all the time."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You do not need to fool all the people any time, just fool enough to
>>>> accomplish what you want.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's easier to fool yourself.
>>
>> Yes, as you demonstrate too often.
>
> Do you enjoy being a jerk?
>

Physician, heal thyself.

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 09:08:17 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 18/06/21 01:30, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 23:35:42 +0100, Tom Gardner
>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/06/21 22:41, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 16:14:09 -0400, Ralph Mowery
>>>> <rmowery42@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <c8767d85-0085-4a4a-a264-5f594729d7ffn@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> whit3rd@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see this all the time; people believe what the group believes and
>>>>>>> quit thinking for themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's easy to see things like that, whether they're evident or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time,
>>>>>> but you can't fool all the people all the time."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You do not need to fool all the people any time, just fool enough to
>>>>> accomplish what you want.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's easier to fool yourself.
>>>
>>> Yes, as you demonstrate too often.
>>
>> Do you enjoy being a jerk?
>>
>
>Physician, heal thyself.

You switched from objective discussion to insult. People hostile to
ideas do that.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.