Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/29/2018 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    That is correct. Smoking by itself does not cause lung cancer. Smoking, perhaps, enables other conditions to prevail, but these other conditions are not universal in the population. That is a possibility. But the anti-immunization crackpots do not say this. They say flatly, baldly, and wrongly, immunization causes autism
  2. 1 point
    Smoking does not cause lung cancer. If it did, everybody who smokes would get lung cancer. Clear proof that smoking does not cause lung cancer.
  3. 1 point
    Max, Here is the problem. You have parents who take their kids to be vaccinated. When they arrive the kids are vibrant. After the vaccination, the kids are zombies. This is not ONE story or a fabrication of some conspiracy theorists. This is the story or TENS OF THOUSANDS of people. They exist. Then people like you come along and dismiss it all citing some scientific paper or other. And even affect some kind or posture of superiority. Thus insinuating they all lived a coincidence and were too stupid to know it. Don't you see where there would be a credibility issue with the scientific side, and especially when the scientific side keeps talking about "settled science" with vehemence even though they don't use that term? Tens of thousands of cases is a lot to blank out. That is religion, not science. A peer reviewed magic wand will not make all those people go away. Michael
  4. 1 point
    We now know that this is the mechanism behind the further rolling, but Aristotle didn't understand it, as I've shown in one of my previous posts. Therefore it is no longer a real puzzle for us, while it was an enigma for those guys in the past. But I'm glad to know that you now have also been converted to the Slipping School.
  5. 1 point
    Yes, it is. Saying "it slips" is merely another way of saying the smaller circle rolls further than its own circumference.
  6. 1 point
    As I've shown before, cycloids are a completely unnecessary element added by you, allegedly "proving" that both wheels travel the same distance. Well, that they do, Aristotle already knew, you can read that in his text. So in that regard you don't prove anything that isn't already in Aristotle's text. The cycloids are just an irrelevant extra.
  7. 1 point
    No, it isn't. Artistotle wrote: "nowhere does the greater stop and wait for the less in such a way as to remain stationary for a time at the same point" and "the smaller does not skip any point", so he considers only stopping of the large circle and skipping of the small circle as possible explanations for the problem. As he rejects these possibilities, he cannot solve the paradox, because he is not aware of the possibility of slipping (forwards for the small circle, forced by the large one, and backwards for the large circle, forced by the small one), which enables a continuous movement that explains the problem.
  8. 1 point
    Causes are not necessarily that simple. What if cause c1 and cause c2 must both exist to produce effect e? Then the statistics might show that only 2% of the cases of c1 have e and you would conclude that their is no causal relationship between c1 and e. Here is a question to look into. What is the autism rate in populations that reject vaccines? ALS is an example of multiple causes, or maybe we should say cause factors. ALS means simply motor neurons die. The question is why do the motor neurons die? ALS (death of motor neurons) can be produced in lab animals at will. One way is a combination of low motor neuron energy and excess concentration of glutamic acid near the motor neuron. Either one alone will not do it but both together will. It gets more complicated than that because we can ask what causes low motor neuron energy and what causes excess concentration of glutamic acid, and in both we have multiple cause factors Another example is breaking a bone. Let us imagine most of the population slips and falls on ice but only 1 in 90 breaks a bone. If you are consistent in your reasoning you would conclude that the hypothesis that slipping and falling on ice causes broken bones is poppycock. Falling on ice is only 1 cause factor. Another cause factor might be weak bones. Maybe autism has multiple cause factors, like most things have.
  9. 1 point
    LOL. Slippage is not a solution; it is a mere restatement of the paradox.
  10. 1 point
    Brant, Not to mention the total lack of considering that some humans may react differently to vaccines than others depending on differences in metabolism and other variables. As a parallel example that is widely known and not disputed (to my knowledge), some people are allergic to peanuts. There are so many cases of people who have died from eating peanuts or peanut butter that this has become a trope for stories in popular culture. Using Bob's reasoning, since the vast majority of Americans eat peanuts without any problem at all, this practically invalidates the possibility that peanuts could cause an allergic reaction in some people serious enough to kill them. He refuses to believe that until he has double-blind studies proving it. Meanwhile those poor allergic peanut-eating people are dropping like flies... Science is supposed to be about observation at root, not just theory and procedure. But when we get to autism and big-money operations like vaccines, cognitive bias seem to rule just as much as falsification among the strictly-science oriented. They get quite religious about it. Michael
  11. 1 point
    Hypotheses are only accepted as hypotheses. This you have here done. Proof creates theory. This is evidence that your applied idea of the scientific method is dogmatic. --Brant
  12. 1 point
    Your actual standards of evidence and proof are quite weak So is your reasoning. You have a dogma about vaccinations equivalent to standing on a street corner shouting out about Jesus. --Brant
  13. 1 point
    Have a look here https://www.vox.com/2018/8/21/17588032/vaccination-rates-united-states The article indicates 92 percent of the population is vaccinated. If vaccination caused autism (it doesn't) then over 80 percent of the population would be autistic. However only one in ninety is diagnosed with autism. Clear proof that the hypothesis immunization causes autism is poppycock.
  14. 1 point
    The majority of Americans are sane and have working brains. They may not be as wise as they should be but they are connected to the real world. No clinical study done to date supports the hypothesis that immunizations cause autism. If that were true the 90 percent of Americans would be autistic because 90 percent of American have been immunized against measles, whooping cough, dyptheria and polio. I will not accept this hypothesis until a clinical double blind study supports it.
  15. 0 points
    Wikipedia is like a piece of soft clay. --Brant
  16. 0 points
    Now I'm confused. I didn't know slippage was in the paradox. I thought it was a consequence of real life use of the paradox. --Brant
  17. 0 points
    These are not solutions. "Solution" 1 is nothing else than a short recapitulation of the paradox: Aristotle: If I move the smaller circle I am moving the same centre, namely Α; now let the larger circle be attached to it [...] it will have invariably travelled the same distance [i.e. case 1: the smaller circle forces the larger circle to travel only the distance of the circumference of the small circle] [...]Similarly, if I move the large circle and fit the small one to it [case 2: the large circle forces the smaller circle to travel the distance of the circumference of the large circle] [...] nowhere does the greater stop and wait for the less in such a way as to remain stationary for a time at the same point [Aristotle doesn't understand how in case 1 the large circle is forced to travel the smaller distance] the smaller does not skip any point [neither does he understand how in case 2 the smaller circle is forced to travel the larger distance] [...]When, then, the large circle moves the small one attached to it, [in other words, when the large circle forces the small one] the smaller one moves exactly as the larger one; when the small one is the mover, [that is, the small circle forces the large one] the larger one moves according to the other's movement. Compare that with your "solution" 1: If the smaller circle depends on the larger one (Case I), then the larger circle forces the smaller one to traverse the larger circle’s circumference. If the larger circle depends on the smaller one (Case II), then the smaller circle forces the larger one to traverse the smaller circle’s circumference. This is the simplest solution. It is clear that this doesn't tell us anything new that Aristotle hadn't written already. That "solution" 2 and "solution" 3 are not solutions, I've already shown in earlier posts. In fact they are also just recapitulations of the paradox.
  18. 0 points
    So you agree that with his "crutch" Jonathan is correct? --Brant if this were a chess game your answer would be unnecessary
  19. 0 points
    I'm stubborn in that I keep referring to the original formulation by Aristotle (or whoever it was). That seems to me to be appropriate if we're talking about Aristotle's wheel paradox. And in that original formulation the second track, ΗΘ, is an essential element. To fresh up your memory, from the original text (in translation): So that whenever the one shall have traversed a distance equal to ΗΘ, and the other to ΖΙ, and ΖΑ has again become perpendicular to ΖΛ, and ΑΗ has again to ΗΚ, the points Η and Ζ will again be in their original positions at Θ and Ι. As, then, nowhere does the greater stop and wait for the less in such a way as to remain stationary for a time at the same point (for in both cases both are moving continuously), and as the smaller does not skip any point, it is remarkable that in the one case the greater should travel over a path equal to the smaller, and in the other case the smaller equal to the larger. It's obvious that Aristotle's essential problem was that he couldn't understand how the smaller circle could traverse the greater distance without skipping somewhere. The solution is that the smaller circle is not skipping but slipping, i.e. that the point of that circle in the 6 o'clock position has a translation speed > 0. We now know that a 1-1 mapping from a smaller circle or line segment onto a larger line segment is possible, so that is no longer an objection and with calculus we can give an exact description. The interaction between the circle and its track is the crux of the paradox, removing that track is not giving a solution, but explaining the paradox away. Your argument is like that of someone who "solves" Einstein's twin paradox by saying that there are no twins from whom one travels with extremely large speeds through space, they are just a crutch!