The homeopathy explained metaphorically for Dummies

[ABC2019]

janic wrote: It's much simpler and more complex than that!

in fact you are just a big pervert, you have fun saying anything, without a tail or head, and watching others get angry on it ...

eh yes ! I am a great green father! Except that the pervert is you: you have fun saying anything, without a tail or head, and watching others get angry at it ... »Except that I'm not getting angry! Guys like you have been trying to trick their opponents for decades with bogus arguments, even though you don't know anything about it yourself, as you demonstrate here. So start by getting out of your shackles of conditioning and open yourself to less conformist things. Unless you're afraid of it ....! Now fear, worse superstition, and reason do not mix! Even and above all for an alleged scientist!

there is nothing to trap at all, you come out of yourself from the arguments without logic which always revolve around your obsession against science. You can't trap someone who doesn't care about logic by repeating the same nonsense!

the proof of your inconsistency is that you can suddenly tell me that I am a bad scientist, and another blow that science is useless! which is perfectly contradictory, but as you don't care about being contradictory, you're still going to answer me on one of the tricks while forgetting the other, or even on both at the same time ...

[GuyGadebois]

[
the proof of your inconsistency is that you can suddenly tell me that I am a bad scientist, and another blow that science is useless! which is perfectly contradictory, but as you don't care about being contradictory, you're still going to answer me on one of the tricks while forgetting the other, or even on both at the same time ...

No. You are bad even in what is useless. It is admirable.

[ABC2019]

[
the proof of your inconsistency is that you can suddenly tell me that I am a bad scientist, and another blow that science is useless! which is perfectly contradictory, but as you don't care about being contradictory, you're still going to answer me on one of the tricks while forgetting the other, or even on both at the same time ...

No. You are bad even in what is useless. It is admirable.

Indeed, I know nothing in astrology, to read tarot cards, or in homeopathy, but I do not consider that as a reproach !!

[Janic]

by ABC2019 "22/02/20, 22:56

there's nothing to trap at all,

it is obvious to pick something, you must at least seek to know, what you persist in not wanting to do, so you do not get anything!

you get out of yourself arguments without logic that always revolve around your obsession against science,

These arguments come from people far more competent than you and me, since EUX , and they alone, know their subject thoroughly, since it is their profession and they practice it every day for generations. Unlike the critics who come out of their hats, anything preferably, and their anti-H obsession even when they know nothing about it.
Now the sciences, not all sciences are your private property as if some knowledge in un domain, offered you the grail of a universal and absolute knowledge and therefore TA logic, limited to certain sectors, clearly does not work in others
so don't project your fantasies onto others

You can't trap someone who doesn't care about logic by repeating the same nonsense!

So what you do constantly recognizing tes incompetence, while wanting to make believe that on the contrary you know. Be at least consistent with yourself!

the proof of your inconsistency is that you can suddenly tell me that I am a bad scientist,

Yes i can say you are a bad scientist DANCE fields that you do not know as any scientist can be in fields that are foreign to him.
Before the current sciences became more complex, there were some rare individuals with almost universal knowledge - (like Leonardo da Vinci for example) but them had studied each area thoroughly, according to the knowledge of the moment, which does not seem to be your case and yet you make judgments, precisely, on what you ignore! So yes, in that sense: you are a bad, very bad scientist.

and another blow that science is useless!

Always in your fantasies and we can repeat it to you it does not fit into your little conditioned noggin. LA science intervenes APRES that the practice has been established for generations and TA science only finds that experience has done most of the work and that TA science only intervened to confirm what already existed, without her !

which is perfectly contradictory,

and you are the undisputed and undisputed master.

[ABC2019]

by ABC2019 "22/02/20, 22:56

there's nothing to trap at all,

it is obvious to pick something, you must at least seek to know, what you persist in not wanting to do, so you do not get anything!

I did not say "dig", I said "trap": you cannot trap someone who refuses logic and responds to everything with pirouettes.

Almost everything you say is false, but the main problem is that since we discussed together, you have not indicated a single fact or a single study dated historically, located geographically, and personally identified with the support of your say (the kind of thing that says: it was in 19 xx that Mr. YYY had such an experiment in such and such a city and obtained such and such a result "- the thing that is said in ALL scientific theories, to explain where they come from.

Instead, you just post litanies that belong to only two categories
a) affirm that the H. are very learned, depositaries of a knowledge centenary (or millennium) and therefore they are right
b) accuse those who do not believe them of being bad scientists, citizens, of having a limited mind, etc ...

I did not find a counterexample in your speech which does not belong to one of these two categories.

In short, the religious discourse par excellence, the aim of which is only to separate the good believers from the bad unbelievers (historically, it was above all to give good reasons to seek to invade them, I grant you the grace to think that are not there, although at certain times we wonder what you would have become ...)

[Janic]

I didn't say "dig", I said "trap": you can't trap someone who refuses logic and responds to everything with pirouettes. *

A thousand apologies, it's a simple typo.

Pretty much everything you say is wrong,

To say that something is false, you have to be able to prove it; however when I say will inform you with the good sources, that cannot in any way be false!
But breaking sugar on the H (since this is the subject here) without knowing anything about it and simply in order to bring back fakenews gleaned from the internet, what do you call that true?

but the main problem is that since we discussed together, you have not indicated a single fact or a single study dated historically, located geographically, and personally identified in support of your saying (the kind of thing which says: it was in 19 xx that Mr. YYY had such an experiment in such and such a city and obtained such and such a result "- the thing that is said in ALL scientific theories, to explain where they come from.

For the simple reason that soft, I am not the character with these indisputable skills, which are not possessed which by the relevant professionals concerned… That you stubbornly refuse to consult. But I'm not going to take you (virtually) by the hand to do this. You don't want, you don't want! it is your right and mine to refer you to them.

Instead, you just post litanies that belong to only two categories
a) affirm that the H. are very learned, depositaries of a knowledge centenary (or millennium) and therefore they are right

And one more imbecility

accuse those who don't believe it [*] to be bad scientists, citizens, to have a limited mind, etc ...

one is limited when one persists in not wanting to get information from good sources.

I did not find a counterexample in your speech which does not belong to one of these two categories.

If all of yours!

In short, the religious discourse par excellence, the aim of which is only to separate good believers from bad unbelievers (historically, it was above all to give good reasons to seek to zigouiller them, I grant you the grace to think that you n are not there, although at certain times we wonder what you would have become ...)

Ah, the religious as arguments (which is not precisely) final. Except that you are as bad in this area as in H, I do not even want to make you thank that your nonsense are not voluntary.
For the rest, historically always, it was always the protesting minorities of the powerful who ended badly, not the supports for the powerful and the religious in place as you do !.

[*] there it is clear!

[ABC2019]

I didn't say "dig", I said "trap": you can't trap someone who refuses logic and responds to everything with pirouettes. *

A thousand apologies, it's a simple typo.

no it's a misreading, you answered right by thinking of "digging", not "trapping".

Pretty much everything you say is wrong,

To say that something is false, you have to be able to prove it; however when I say will inform you with the good sources, that cannot in any way be false!

this is wrong, you did not say in this email "go and find out from the right sources", you claimed that I did not want to do it, whereas I asked you to indicate to us these good sources, what you refused to do. It is therefore wrong to say that it is I who do not want to. I even looked for a few but none gave a precise reference to a study on H.

But breaking sugar on the H (since this is the subject here) without knowing anything about it and simply in order to bring back fakenews gleaned from the internet, what do you call that true?

that's wrong, i haven't reported any fakenews from the internet.

For the simple reason that soft, I am not the character with these indisputable skills, which are not possessed which by the relevant professionals concerned… That you stubbornly refuse to consult. But I'm not going to take you (virtually) by the hand to do this. You don't want, you don't want! it is your right and mine to refer you to them.

as I told you, it's wrong to say that I don't want to, since I asked you for sources that you could very well have given me if you wanted to. Bad will comes from you, not from me.

moreover, you acknowledge believing in people without knowing the experiences by which they acquired their knowledge, which means that your gullibility puts you at the mercy of any charlatan who claims to have obtained cures when you have not no idea if that's true.

Well, not everyone is like you.

Instead, you just post litanies that belong to only two categories
a) affirm that the H. are very learned, depositaries of a knowledge centenary (or millennium) and therefore they are right

And one more imbecility

accuse those who don't believe it [*] to be bad scientists, citizens, to have a limited mind, etc ...

one is limited when one persists in not wanting to get information from good sources.

you therefore confirm that you can only say these two things: The H.s are right, and those who criticize them are narrow-minded. But no reference to any fact that would confirm it. It's just a profession of faith that goes on and on.

For the rest, historically always, it was always the protesting minorities of the powerful who ended badly, not the supports for the powerful and the religious in place as you do !.

still false, I do not systematically defend official science, precisely I also ask him to produce evidence of what it says, exactly as for H., astrologers, or anyone who claims to know the truth. This is why I am critical of the climate discourse - because I believe that it has not provided the rigorous proof that it would be a big problem for humanity. While you do not criticize it, since your criterion is not the seriousness of the scientific work, but just to know if it goes in the direction of your prejudices. As climatologists allow a critique of industrial society, you are happy, and you adopt their discourse without looking further. That's why your attitude is religious and not scientific.

[Janic]

ABC2019 »25/02/20, 12:55

no it's a misreading, you answered right by thinking of "digging", not "trapping".

There you are, in addition, become a soothsayer! stronger and stronger. In addition to not understanding anything, you don't understand anything about semantics.

Pretty much everything you say is wrong,

To say that something is false, you have to be able to prove it; however when I say will inform you with the good sources, that cannot in any way be false!

this is wrong, you did not say in this email "go and find out about the right sources", you claimed that I did not want to do it

after i told you, reiterated and repeated that you had to first find out from the right competent sources, but you are also Alzheimer

when I asked you to tell us about these good sources, which you refused to do.

I simply refused to serve as the head of a Turk, only to be accused of inevitable ignorance, so for any information: only professionals can answer you. And you don't want that

It is therefore false to say that it is I who do not want to.

This is false because otherwise since time you would have done it and there still appears nothing on the horizon: " Anne my sister Anne can't you see anything coming ? "

I even looked for some, but none gives a precise reference to a study on H.

Obviously, by stopping at UN only site, not referenced for that by the organizations of the H who alone ... etc, etc, etc ... ..

But breaking sugar on H (since this is the subject here) without knowing anything about it and simply in order to report fakenews gleaned from the internet, what do you call that true?

that's wrong, i haven't reported any fakenews from the internet.

You wanna laugh and i made a special page of your quotes (which you probably did not read either) which you then found under the hoofs of a horse
For the simple reason that I am not the character with these indisputable skills, which are only possessed by the competent professionals concerned ... whom you stubbornly refuse to consult. But I'm not going to take you (virtually) by the hand to do this. You don't want, you don't want! it is your right and mine to refer you to them.

as I told you, it's wrong to say that I don't want to, since I asked you for sources that you could very well have given me if you wanted to. Bad will comes from you, not from me.

If in your professional life, you were satisfied with only one opinion, I doubt that you could have obtained a doctorate. I participated in the correction of two doctorates (grammatically only, not in substance) and there was a large spread of various, even contradictory, references. But you’re happy to have seen, UN site (internet is precisely not a sufficient reference otherwise wikipedia would be enough) and then that's it without looking any further. Who are you kidding? And since what have you done to find out? Nothing! you said yourself that you weren't interested, which is your right! But to repeat fakenews, there you know!

moreover, you recognize believing in people without knowing the experiences by which they acquired their knowledge, which means that your gullibility puts you at the mercy of any charlatan who claims to have gotten healed when you have no idea if it's true.

These healings are the work of doctors, no jokes whatsoever, nor charlatans, all doctors graduates of medical schools of all countries, who have been and are by hundreds of thousands of doctors around the world and therefore millions of sick patients . But you prefer internet fakenews which say these imbecilities that you report without verifications.

Well, not everyone is like you.
Instead, you just post litanies that belong to only two categories
a) affirm that the H. are very learned, depositaries of a knowledge centenary (or millennium) and therefore they are right

And one more imbecility

accuse those who do not believe [*] of being bad scientists, citizens, of having a limited mind, etc ...

one is limited when one persists in not wanting to get information from good sources.

you therefore confirm that you can only say these two things: The H.s are right, and those who criticize them are narrow-minded.

Stop there again with your litanies. Doctors are doctors, that's all! It's the law! That their practices differ according to their specialty does not make specialists in one sector, specialists in a neighboring sector.

But no reference to any fact that would confirm it

No reference from a proctologist confirms the assertions of a neurologist, indeed!

. It's just a profession of faith that goes on and on.

As in all areas because if a cancer specialist did not believe in his procedures, do so with the same faith, it would be better for him to go fishing.

For the rest, historically always, it was always the protesting minorities of the powerful who ended badly, not the supports for the powerful and the religious in place as you do !.

still false, I do not systematically defend official science, precisely I also ask it to produce evidence of what it says, exactly as for H., astrologers, or anyone who claims to know the truth.

Beautiful profession of faith, there too? Except that you said it yourself, in case of need of care, you will only seek an answer from this official science, like the Catholics from the Pope, so you defend it above all. except that his evidence is often only assertions as shown by health scandals.

For the climate: I do not criticize precisely, nor the contrary, it is neither my priority center of interest, nor my past job. Again it is up to the professionals to express themselves with all their possible contradictions. Whether it is the fault of man or of an independent climate change, the current situation is problematic and therefore if these humans stop taking this earth for a trash, all can only get better, or less badly according to!

That's why your attitude is religious and not scientific.

Like you in fields that you do not know but in which you believe in principle, without evidence precisely, therefore unscientific.

For example again; official statistics scientifically demonstrate that vaccines have nothing to do with the disappearance of hot diseases, but nobody wants to take this into account because "scientists" paid by the laboratories affirm the contrary, without proof precisely. So your "proofs" which are not, but simple acts of faith, beliefs without verification, you are unwelcome to make your "moral".

[ABC2019]

ABC2019 »25/02/20, 12:55

no it's a misreading, you answered right by thinking of "digging", not "trapping".

There you are, in addition, become a soothsayer! stronger and stronger. In addition to not understanding anything, you don't understand anything about semantics.

you really have no inhibitions to tell anything, it's amazing! I would like to know how you were raised you ...

you said :

it is obvious to pick something, you must at least seek to know, what you persist in not wanting to do, so you do not get anything!

So you were thinking of "digging" when I wrote "sneaking": it's not a typo, it's a misreading.

after i told you, reiterated and repeated that you had to first find out from the right competent sources, but you are also Alzheimer

when I asked you to tell us about these good sources, which you refused to do.

I simply refused to serve as the head of a Turk, only to be accused of inevitable ignorance, so for any information: only professionals can answer you.

so since you "refused to serve as a Turkish head", as you say, it is because you recognize that I did ask you, which proves that I did not refuse to inquire. By asking you I couldn't have known you would refuse, so I am in good faith - unlike you.

So it's wrong to pretend that I refused to inform myself, it was YOU who refused to inform ME.

You wanna laugh and i made a special page of your quotes (which you probably did not read either) which you then found under the hoofs of a horse

and none of these quotes is fake news from the internet.

But you’re happy to have seen, UN site (internet is precisely not a sufficient reference otherwise wikipedia would be enough) and then that's it without looking any further. Who are you kidding? And since what have you done to find out? Nothing! you said yourself that you weren't interested, which is your right!

category b): repeat over and over that those who do not believe in H are zero. But always without giving any reference yourself. A new confirmation of what I said.

These healings are the work of doctors, no jokes whatsoever, nor charlatans, all doctors graduates of medical schools of all countries, who have been and are by hundreds of thousands of doctors around the world and therefore millions of sick patients . But you prefer internet fakenews which say these imbecilities that you report without verifications.

and doctors who report that H. is a joke are ALSO doctors, which logically proves that the mere fact of being a doctor in no way ensures that you are right - whatever your opinion and mine on H. , there are necessarily who lie, either out of incompetence or to knowingly deceive people.

And therefore your strategy cannot give any information on who is right or who is wrong, since you have no criteria of what is a good scientific approach.

] No reference from a proctologist confirms the assertions of a neurologist, indeed!

of course, if you still don't understand that it is easy enough to ensure that knowledge is obtained by scientific methods, even if you are not a specialist and know nothing about it. Precisely by the existence of what you refuse to give: the existence of precise references on studies, who did them, when, and what were the results.

There is absolutely no need to know a field to realize that these studies and their references exist.

still false, I do not systematically defend official science, precisely I also ask it to produce evidence of what it says, exactly as for H., astrologers, or anyone who claims to know the truth.

Beautiful profession of faith, there too? Except that you said it yourself, in case of need of care, you will only seek an answer from this official science, like the Catholics from the Pope, so you defend it above all. except that his evidence is often only assertions as shown by health scandals.

health scandals are exactly due, without any exception to my knowledge , to the concealment of scientific results - which proves that it is scientific results that must be taken into account, not statements of something or stuff, as you do yourself.

Like you in fields that you do not know but in which you believe in principle, without evidence precisely, therefore unscientific.

For example again; official statistics scientifically demonstrate that vaccines have nothing to do with the disappearance of hot diseases, but nobody wants to take this into account because "scientists" paid by the laboratories affirm the contrary, without proof precisely. So your "proofs" which are not, but simple acts of faith, beliefs without verification, you are unwelcome to make your "moral".

then we should know, are the statistics necessary to affirm things or not? when it suits you, you say yes, and you lean on it, but when it suits you, you say no! beautiful example of flagrant contradiction that you take us with a shovel !!!

[Janic]

still false, I do not systematically defend official science, precisely I also ask it to produce evidence of what it says, exactly as for H., astrologers, or anyone who claims to know the truth.

Beautiful profession of faith, there too? Except that you said it yourself, in case of need of care, you will only seek an answer from this official science, like the Catholics from the Pope, so you defend it above all. except that his evidence is frequently only assertions as shown by health scandals.

health scandals are precisely due, without any exception to my knowledge, to the concealment of scientific results - which proves that it is scientific results that must be taken into account, not statements about something or something, as you say do you.

Fault ! If some are linked to cover-ups, others are linked to industrial, social, political (like the Levothyrox which made the news) (always the vaccines in question)

Janic wrote:Like you in fields that you do not know but in which you believe in principle, without evidence precisely, therefore unscientific.
For example again; official statistics scientifically demonstrate that vaccines have nothing to do with the disappearance of hot diseases, but nobody wants to take this into account because "scientists" paid by the laboratories affirm the contrary, without proof precisely. So your "proofs" which are not, but simple acts of faith, beliefs without verification, you are unwelcome to make your "moral".

then we should know, are the statistics necessary to affirm things or not?

Very late, after !
Vaccine statistics go back over a century and can, then, show a particular evolution according to the subjects and in this case they become useful

when it suits you, you say yes, and you lean on it, but when it suits you, you say no! beautiful example of flagrant contradiction that you take us with a shovel !!!

All do! As proof, where these statistics show the ineffectiveness of vaccination, pieces stat 'are used to try to demonstrate otherwise. It's not contradiction, it's just manipulation that everyone uses to support their point of view and you know something about it since you do it too.