Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dragdeler]

-snip-

[Kagus]

Potassium permanganate has a striking purple color though, so if they're adding that to the water supply then we finally know how the rainbows got in there.

[Reelya]

ps. that list grants some unvolontary insight reelya 

btw, not sure which list you're talking about, you're not mixing up my post with Il Palazo's are you?

[dragdeler]

-snip-

[Hanslanda]

I suspected there were genuine concerns about fluoride buried beneath all the bullshit. This is quite enlightening though. Every so often these things have a kernel of fact behind them. That's part of why I made the thread, to help ferret out such things.

As an aside, y'all can discuss anything you like. Feel free to bring up CTs you find fascinating and what have you. I'm just trying to keep the flow of information moving. I am the plumber for this sewer of human waste thought, breaking up the fatbergs of argument.

[Kagus]

Norway actually has chewable flouride tablets, for ages 3 and up. Flavored.

Also you can't find toothpaste that doesn't have flouride in it, so I'm not sure what they're trying to balance out.

[Doomblade187]

Norway actually has chewable flouride tablets, for ages 3 and up. Flavored.

Also you can't find toothpaste that doesn't have flouride in it, so I'm not sure what they're trying to balance out.

Huh, so like do you eat the tablet or is it mouthwash type thing?

And I hear herbal toothpaste (non-flouridated) can be pretty nice, never tried it myself.

[Kagus]

Norway actually has chewable flouride tablets, for ages 3 and up. Flavored.

Also you can't find toothpaste that doesn't have flouride in it, so I'm not sure what they're trying to balance out.

Huh, so like do you eat the tablet or is it mouthwash type thing?

And I hear herbal toothpaste (non-flouridated) can be pretty nice, never tried it myself.

They're eaten; the tablet dissolves when chewed. I think there are also straight up swallowed supplements as well, but I'm not sure... The lozenges and chewables are definitely things, though. Standard dosage seems to be 0.5mg per tablet, although you can also get them in 0.25mg. And I was wrong, apparently... The lowest recommended age appears to be 6 months.

Unfortunately, all the fun flavoring has resulted in more than a few kids sneaking a few extra tablets on the sly.

[Trekkin]

Such data sources can at most give you a general overview, not a specific "we need to keep concentrations at point of consumption at #BAR levels." which is what you are requesting.

If you want that data, feel free to request a grant.

That's not quite what I am requesting. What I'm requesting is the data you keep claiming you're seeing, per

The only sources of data I have actually seen are very large, rough data sources.

A link to the data you claim exists, perhaps,  or the error bars you claim disqualify it, or the other data you now claim is available in its stead. An uncharitable observer, or one predisposed to disbelieve in the scientific consensus, might conclude from the lack of any such substantiation that you have something to hide, or are speaking from ignorance of what data is actually available, particularly when the EPA goes to such efforts to make the basis for its decisions freely accessible.

Please don't feel singled out or attacked here; I'm using this as an example only because I know you're being careful rather than lazy. The point I've been (obliquely) trying to make is that it's really easy for a good faith effort to fairly represent actual uncertainty to sound like deliberate obfuscation of manufactured or unnecessary uncertainty, and it's really easy for people to misread that, carelessly or willingly, as evidence that nobody knows anything about anything. From there, like I've said before (and as Il Palazzo's dictionary would seem to corroborate), it's much easier for people to come to believe in conspiracy theories and other untrue things.  It's absolutely important to limit our interpretation of the data and any opinions we might base upon it to the scope of the original data, but if we only ever share our opinions and our judgments and our interpretations and never actually show the data underlying any of it, we can hardly be surprised when people equivocate the consensus with the conspiracy on the grounds that neither has any "real" evidence. 

All of which is to say that perhaps formal education is more broadly protective of belief in CTs than redwallzyl has credited it with being, if only because it involves a great deal of exposure to poor arguments founded on vagaries and hope in close proximity to actual data-driven argumentation and they're both replete with thesaurus abuse and gratuitous Latin (e.g. i.e., viz., cf., QED, etc.) so we get used to telling them apart structurally. This might in turn explain why intellectual isolation could predispose people to CT belief; they can see everyone else around them buying into any available con, but not what a credible argument looks like, and so disbelieve everything.

[x2yzh9]

Okay, so let's talk about one theory, considering this is the thread for it: Telepathy.
Crazy, right? Okay, I want to explain my theory:   Think back in your life, to key visual moments, memories that imbue powerful emotions with them. Now, pause for a second here. If we, as humans, could
recognize and associate that emotion-the pure methodology of remembering itself-we start to have memories, and we go back and we find that things either become clearer in our memory or more
distorted. For the sake of my argument, listen to 'It's a vibe-2 Chainz' if you so would. When was the first time you felt a 'radiating' emotion, or similar? Not just something from the simple animal nature of us(though that is not to be excluded); but a part of our evolutionary human ability to process emotions and develop memories and so on and so far that is unique to us, but other mammals such as dolphins or rumored to operate by sonar/telepathy.

For the sake of this experiment, gather a willing friend. Before you meet, have you and the friend start attempting to 'think out loud'. But there is a process to this:You want to not only see it, you want to see it, hear it, speak it, and radiate it. Imagine the first time you felt a 'radiating' emotion. Now, take a small leap of faith/moment of disbelief or what have you, and simply try to radiate emotion yourself.
Thus, when you meet with this friend, you will be both 'in the zone' or whatever.
   The 1 through 10 test
1. have you and your friend explain to each other how you work in math, and when you speak about how you learn in math-make sure you at least attempt to radiate your instinctual understanding of it, but that comes naturally later. While you are talking, 'think out loud'. Imagine it as serious multi-tasking. Your friend is to do the same. Then, look each other directly in the eyes, and do not blink for as long as you can. Stare, and have your friend pick a number between 1 and 10. Have your friend think this number 'out loud' in every psychological aspect and method they can, and to radiate it, as explained above, with a form of emotion.

2. Now, you, while they are thinking the number out loud and radiating they're 'psyche' will attempt to receive such 'vibe'. Literally, it's a slang term the younger generation uses. Look it up on urban dictionary. you must stare them in the eyes and hear, see, and in a way 'speak the language' of their unique psyche. This is a learned skill, I personally came to it from...a period of time I'd rather not talk about. Now, your brain will gradually start aligning to a number. You aren't guessing, really, your understanding a biological algorithm. And your doing the math subconsciously. Once you have the number-say it.

3. Have you and your friend reverse positions and repeat step 2.
4. repeat as needed
and people want to call people who hear voices that are not telling them what to do, and that are merely benign(however stressful they may be) and that has no effect on them-as schizophrenic, or psychotic, or delusional. It's just the vast percentage of the population with these (imho)god given or natural abilties do not even know they have them. The actual percentage of the population that posses
these abilities and are naturally talented in them are rare, but it will surprise you how true 'practice makes perfect'. then again, I've been forcibly medicated since the age of 12, and was able to read and memorize a 3-page in depth story and recite it from memory after only 1-3 tries maximum, testing out at something like 200 in that aspect of verbal memorization/understanding IQ values when I was uh...8. Yeah, 8 years old guys. If this test doesn't work then don't blame me for it, I'll take the loss of concept. But in a couple years, pretty much everyone will be able to do this.

[Il Palazzo]

Aarghlebargle.
Alright, I'll say it. If anything, that's a recipe for working yourself up into wanting something to be true so much, that you stop noticing your confirmation bias. There's all those bits about how it's a skill (so there can never be a disproof), and even an almost literal 'disregard failures' clause towards the end.
It's tough what you went through, but remember - having mental issues is no reason for being crazy.

[Trekkin]

Apart from everything else, this is improper experimental design; you have no controls, it's not blind, the sample size is too small and you're deliberately biasing them to expect it to work, if not to stop after the first random success and conclude it works. If you wanted to do it more properly, you'd presumably divide your cohort into two, expose half of them to this, and see if pairs of the exposed guessed the right number more often than would be expected by random chance -- without telling either the transmitter or the reciever how well they were doing until the end of the test. Just have the transmitter indicate prior to entering the test chamber what number they'll be projecting and have the reciever indicate what number they think of, if any, during the test. You might go further and double-blind test a cohort you've told to deliberately try to be telepathic against an unaware cohort, in the expectation that if we're all doing this subconsciously you could reasonably expect to see an uptick in accuracy of naive recievers paired with deliberate transmitters. Regardless, deliberate transmitter-reciever pairs would still be expected to be more accurate than naive pairs if there's anything to this at all. Of course, I'd have another cohort and tell the deliberate and naive transmitters to think of a letter, or an animal, or something completely random while the deliberate recievers try to guess the number. There's certainly other ways to improve this experimental design, but offhand that's the route I'd go.

Also, emotions are not memories, your self-reported intellectual superiority has nothing to do with the validity of your theory and telepathy that requires observation of the subject arguably isn't telepathy, just nonverbal communication -- which, yes, you could train to work like this if you kept at it long enough. I'll go further and say I can do it immediately by holding up the requisite number of fingers for the reciever to "telepathically" detect with their eyes and get close to 100% accuracy. Replace with twitches or facial expressions as your suspension of disbelief warrants.

[Egan_BW]

Nonverbal communication isn't a kind of magic, but it can be surprisingly potent.

[x2yzh9]

I will say trekkin is completely right. But if we were to come up with something like he described...
And yeah, it's just odd that I've developed that skill when my autism diagnoses would indicate I'm supposed to suck at that. Oh well, guess humans are meant to adapt

[dragdeler]

-snip-