[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wI-9RJi0Qo[/youtube]

Doesn't happen according to Apollonius.

Spearthrower wrote:

Apollonius wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:..blah blah blah.

I think you are trying too hard.

Just discuss the topic, OK?

I already know how this works and explained it. I don't need 10 articles and a bunch of bullshit to respond to.

Fantasy is more important than facts

Even when I directly reply to Apollonius' assertions, and show them to be false by citing peer reviewed sources on the topic he proclaims expertise on, he dismisses them and simply asserts that he knows how it works.

Well, if you look at the title of this website Apollonius, you will note it's not called 'UncriticallySwallowedAssertions", and if you expect people to simply flop over and listen unquestioningly when you assert bullshit as fact, you're in the wrong place.

Alternatively, instead of proclaiming to know, when you've just shown precisely the opposite, you could try to learn... just like I did when you put up sources, and when others have done so.

I think you are trying too hard.

Just discuss the topic, OK?

Apollonius wrote:

I think you are trying too hard.

Then you must not be trying hard enough.

Apollonius wrote:Just discuss the topic, OK?

I replied directly to your post. If I am off topic, then you must have been too.

Why don't you just swallow your pride and learn something?

I'm not playing your immature game, sorry.

I can use google too. I can find 100 peer-reviewed articles that disagree with what I wrote too, but I still know they are bullshit.

I don't see this as a google or "appeal to authority" contest, and you do. I'm not going to respond to your childish nagging.

Apollonius wrote:I'm not playing your immature game, sorry.

This is an entirely misdirected barb. If you regard evidence and critical thinking as irrelevant, perhaps faith book has a weird diet believers subgroup where the level of discussion you would feel comfortable with is available.

Apollonius wrote:I can use google too. I can find 100 peer-reviewed articles that disagree with what I wrote too, but I still know they are bullshit

No. The word is claim. You claim they are bullshit.
If it is the case that you can find "100 peer-reviewed articles" that disagree with what you wrote, then the next step is looking into the statistical power, the research model, the set-up of tests, not to mention in what journal the articles were published, and, also, the credentials of the writer(s). "How to read a scientific article 101".

Apollonius wrote:I'm not playing your immature game, sorry.

I can use google too. I can find 100 peer-reviewed articles that disagree with what I wrote too, but I still know they are bullshit.

I don't see this as a google or "appeal to authority" contest, and you do. I'm not going to respond to your childish nagging.

Er, what?

First of all, it's not a fucking game. I am responding to the erroneous claims you made.
Secondly, it's my area of expertise, and you should try learning instead of sticking to false claims.
Third, if you can find 100 peer-reviewed articles that disagree with what you wrote, then you should retract your false claims, or better yet not write them in the first place.
Fourth, you STILL KNOW THEY'RE BULLSHIT even when you are wrong, have been shown to be wrong, yet cling to your faith in your holy book?
Fifth, citing evidence is not 'appealing to authority' - you've obviously learned the jargon but don't understand what it means.
Finally, stop calling substantive rebuttal of your bullshit assertions 'childish'... it does nothing but reflect on your character.

This thread was certainly placed in the right subforum: pseudoscience, when you think that cherrypicking the parts that agree with you constitutes a solid position.

NilsGLindgren wrote:

Apollonius wrote:I can use google too. I can find 100 peer-reviewed articles that disagree with what I wrote too, but I still know they are bullshit

No. The word is claim. You claim they are bullshit.
If it is the case that you can find "100 peer-reviewed articles" that disagree with what you wrote, then the next step is looking into the statistical power, the research model, the set-up of tests, not to mention in what journal the articles were published, and, also, the credentials of the writer(s). "How to read a scientific article 101".

Now that would be a valid and substantive rebuttal and we could continue from there... but this faith stance Apollonius has taken is rather bizarre.

It seems to go something like this:

Apollonius can say anything he likes around the subject matter.
If you reply to him in a disagreeing fashion then he tells you to get back on topic.
If your replies disagree with him, you are wrong, because he is right, because he knows he is right. How? Because he is, alright.


Unfortunately for him, we're not actually obliged to follow the rules he makes up as he goes along.

The foundation of his beliefs are fantasy. I've frequently pointed out that this doesn't infer that the conclusions are false. I do not have the knowledge to seriously engage there and haven't tried to. I am perfectly entitled to engage on other claims he makes where I know he's wrong, because the facts say otherwise, and him calling me childish and telling me to stop is not really going to produce the desired effect.

I see there to be 3 options worth considering:

1) Rebuttal - point to evidence that contradicts what I said
2) Ignore - if he doesn't want to address the substance of the post, best to simply ignore it.
3) Learn - realise he was wrong, research into it independently, and come away more knowledgeable.

I'm sure most of us would point to 3. I certainly learned from the articles Sovereign posted, as I did from the articles Apollonius posted... and Pebble's... and...

Isn't that why we're here? Rational skepticism and all? Not just assertions based on faith?

Pebble wrote:

Apollonius wrote:I'm not playing your immature game, sorry.

This is an entirely misdirected barb. If you regard evidence and critical thinking as irrelevant, perhaps faith book has a weird diet believers subgroup where the level of discussion you would feel comfortable with is available.

I research this shit every day as a hobby, so relax. If you think I'm making this shit up or being uncritical, you are not giving me enough credit!

It takes a critical eye to spot bullshit in what is sold as "conventional wisdom." Some of what I am seeing here is uncritical acceptance of poor science. I'm perfectly willing to keep discussing it rationally, but I'm not going to play some childish game of "I can find 10 things on google for everything you say." I have better things to do.

Can we get back on topic and stop arguing about arguing?

NilsGLindgren wrote:

Apollonius wrote:I can use google too. I can find 100 peer-reviewed articles that disagree with what I wrote too, but I still know they are bullshit

No. The word is claim. You claim they are bullshit.
If it is the case that you can find "100 peer-reviewed articles" that disagree with what you wrote, then the next step is looking into the statistical power, the research model, the set-up of tests, not to mention in what journal the articles were published, and, also, the credentials of the writer(s). "How to read a scientific article 101".

Funny that you bring this up... I ran across this the other day-

http://www.gnolls.org/2267/you-cant-deb ... y-baloney/

Anyone who makes a serious effort to understand the science behind nutrition will understand immediately that news items—most of which simply reprint the press release—are usually pure baloney. In order to learn anything interesting, we require access to the papers themselves.

Unfortunately, that’s not the end of the shenanigans. Abstracts and conclusions often misrepresent the data. Data is selectively reported to omit negatives (for example, statin trials trumpet a decrease in heart disease while intentionally failing to report all-cause mortality). And experiments are often designed in such a way as to guarantee the desired result.

This is a criticism of how bullshit spreads. I suppose now you are going to tell me you want that criticism peer-reviewed?

Apollonius wrote:

Pebble wrote:

Apollonius wrote:I'm not playing your immature game, sorry.

This is an entirely misdirected barb. If you regard evidence and critical thinking as irrelevant, perhaps faith book has a weird diet believers subgroup where the level of discussion you would feel comfortable with is available.

I research this shit every day as a hobby, so relax. If you think I'm making this shit up or being uncritical, you are not giving me enough credit!

It takes a critical eye to spot bullshit in what is sold as "conventional wisdom." Some of what I am seeing here is uncritical acceptance of poor science. I'm perfectly willing to keep discussing it rationally, but I'm not going to play some childish game of "I can find 10 things on google for everything you say." I have better things to do.

Can we get back on topic and stop arguing about arguing?

Sure we can - how about actually replying to my post rather than this transparent attempt at dodging it?

You asserted a lot of things about ancient Homo sapiens populations.... whether you regard my sources as acceptable or not could be up for discussion. Simply asserting that you study this shit every day as a hobby doesn't mean you assertions are more valid.

Have you really studied palaeoanthropology? Honestly? Now's the time to step back and evaluate whether you want to make claims that you can't really support. We can get along just fine, I am happy to discuss with you... but if I see you write something I know is wrong in my area of expertise, what do you expect me to do? Just not mention it? Just pretend you're right for your convenience? Let's get real here: the claims you made are false, are you going to address that?

I'm not responding to your questions.

Go back and read your angry posts in this thread and ask yourself, would you even have a conversation with a person that pissed off?

I don't know what your problem is, but it's not my problem. Go argue with someone else.

How bullshit spreads:

Hunter gatherers were sprinters and did shorter duration lifting. One of the Paleo diet books, Primal Blueprint, identifies this and argues that people need to stop killing themselves at the gym and do sprints and just short duration lifting.

This is bullshit. Source: a book called Primal Blueprint, a Palaeo diet book.

Website:

http://primalblueprint.com/

Reprogram your genes for effortless weight-loss, vibrant health and boundless energy.

Apollonius wrote:I'm not responding to your questions.

Because you can't - it's obvious, what's not so obvious is why you're responding like this. But then, looking back through the thread I notice that when people put up information you can't respond to, you appear to take it personally.

Apollonius wrote:Go back and read your angry posts in this thread and ask yourself, would you even have a conversation with a person that pissed off?

How do you detect anger? I just put up facts - facts that did not tally with your claims...

But if we're going to impute emotions, then have a mirror:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... ml#p926822

Apollonius wrote:Don't give yourself too much credit!

I'm not bullshitting and your links suck. They don't disprove the OP, which is about the deception. If the bullshit drs are passing off as fact is not science-based, it just isn't. You don't prove a negative as a rebuttal. This reminds me of the problem with theists who say "If you can't prove God doesn't exist, then God exists."

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... ml#p926404

You are all over the place and just trying to be argumentative.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... ml#p927741

Fuck.

I never saw people try so hard to not know something.

http://drhyman.com/gluten-what-you-dont ... ll-you-11/

Read it the fuck yourself. The author cites 12 references.

As we say in Alabama, "If it were a rattlesnake, it would have bit you on the nose already."

As for your sudden rejection of Google, you expressly told numerous people in this thread to 'go google it'.

Apollonius wrote:I don't know what your problem is, but it's not my problem. Go argue with someone else.

You're welcome to not respond, but you'll note that this is a public forum, and I am as equal a member as you. Don't tell me where I can post, or what I can post. If you have a problem with my posts, feel free to hit the alert.


All of this looks like a way to not address my rebuttal. Do you think that assertions should not be inquired into? That skepticism and rationality has no place in this discussion?

Do you think you can simply shift the topic whenever you feel like?

How about we try this instead: you respond to my points, I respond to yours... we both learn something.

Deal?

Would anybody else like to see if this post is so indicative of anger that you'd not want to respond to it?

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... ml#p931101

Spearthrower wrote:Would anybody else like to see if this post is so indicative of anger that you'd not want to respond to it?

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... ml#p931101

Sorry to disappoint you, but no.

On the other hand, I do think you are entitled to feeling some frustration at this pathetic piece of dodging the discussion.

If that's any consolation, other people have been learning stuff from your posts, so writing them hasn't been a waste of time.

katja z wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Would anybody else like to see if this post is so indicative of anger that you'd not want to respond to it?

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... ml#p931101

Sorry to disappoint you, but no.

While it won't be easy as I rarely get angry in life, I'll have to try posting while angry one day; normally it's the theists that proclaim your anger and pretend it's sufficient to disregard your evidentially supported posts, but clearly it's not restricted to them.

katja z wrote:On the other hand, I do think you are entitled to feeling some frustration at this pathetic piece of dodging the discussion.

Aye, tis strange, so it is. I would have thought that supplying information to help educate Apollonius on this topic he allegedly spends so much time researching would have been met with the same kind of responses we saw earlier in this thread - gratitude and/or acknowledgement. *shrug* sometimes the Morton's Demon's just got too strong a grip.

katja z wrote:If that's any consolation, other people have been learning stuff from your posts, so writing them hasn't been a waste of time.

I shall endeavour to remember that! Gracias!

That's the cool part about debating. You don't need to convert your opponent. It's those listening in who will decide which party more effectively presented their case.

Apollonius wrote:
Funny that you bring this up... I ran across this the other day-

http://www.gnolls.org/2267/you-cant-deb ... y-baloney/

Anyone who makes a serious effort to understand the science behind nutrition will understand immediately that news items—most of which simply reprint the press release—are usually pure baloney. In order to learn anything interesting, we require access to the papers themselves.

Unfortunately, that’s not the end of the shenanigans. Abstracts and conclusions often misrepresent the data. Data is selectively reported to omit negatives (for example, statin trials trumpet a decrease in heart disease while intentionally failing to report all-cause mortality). And experiments are often designed in such a way as to guarantee the desired result.

This is a criticism of how bullshit spreads. I suppose now you are going to tell me you want that criticism peer-reviewed?

NilsGLindgren has already explained how a critical thinker would approach the problem of evaluating the actual data - something you have shown no inclination to do is any of the hard graft.

If you are convinced that despite conflicting data your take is correct, then you perform in effect a meta-analysis of all the available data - prespecifying the exclusion criteria for studies not thought robust enough to include. This step is vital, since one must be equally prepared to exlcude studies that support your position if not sufficiently robust. Then one analyses the weight of evidence to see if it supports or emphatically refutes your position.

In this process one must be prepared that your dearly held belief may be shown to be false - otherwise faith book becons. Fortunately the evidence is often not conclusive either way - so your hypothesis may survive but not have strong support. If it is important to you to show that you are right, then at that point get off your butt and do the requisite large scale trials that will change the evidence base - otherwise accept that the evidence is inadequate and stop moaning.

http://drhyman.com/gluten-what-you-dont-know-might-kill-you-11/
Now, I am going to use my "How to read a scientific article 101" on this link.

... the next step is looking into the statistical power

... and, there does not appear to be one. The author cites an article in JAMA which discusses the risk of death in persons with positive findings concerning histopathological findings in intestinal mucosae. These persons are obviously all willing to udnertake an intestinal mucosa biopsy, indicating being less than in perfect health. The author has done no research of his own.

... the research model

There isn't one.

... the set-up of tests

Aren't any.

... not to mention in what journal the articles were published

Well, they were published in JAMA which of course is not your milk and butter medical journal, however, while the author (dr Mark Hyman) publish this as "Gluten: What you don't know might kill you", the conclusion in the JAMA article is, "Risk of death among patients with celiac disease, inflammation, or latent celiac disease is modestly increased."
Spot the difference? Also, as I have pointed out before, the patients in the article were all willing to take an intestinal biopsy, that being the reason for their being included in this study! Do you feel that you would have such a biopsy performed on you? No? Well, in that case, you are different from those included in it.
Finally.

... the credentials of the writer(s).

Mark Hyman has some 40 articles to his credit, much more than I have (I have for the mo a count of zero). However, they are all in "Alternative therapies in health and medicine". Now, this is a peer-reviewed journal, but, still, it does not have the same weight as JAMA, NEJM, or Lancet.
Come this far, I would ask, what are the credentials of this link you have provided us? It is to me obvious that Mark Hyman, MD though he may be, is misrepresenting the original and, as far as I can tell, quite credible article. The original article states that, in persons [of such a perceived degree of illness that they might undergo an intestinal mucosa biopsy] with signs indicating presence of gluten enteropathy or un-perceived symptoms thereof, there is an increased mortality. Does this tell us that everybody must cease eating cereals? No. Is this what Mark Hyman tells us? No, he tells us to make a gluten-exclusion test, which, as he describes it, is very arduous (in this, I think he is right), "Then eat it again and see what happens. If you feel bad at all, you need to stay off gluten permanently. This will teach you better than any test about the impact gluten has on your body."
At this stage, my bull-shit meter is in the red. Subjectively perceived effects of diets, procedures, eliminations, reintroductions (particularly made with great endeavour) has an enormous "placebo" or "soteria" effect.
---
This is applying "How to read a scientific article 101" on your proposed link.