Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What's your opinion on Foucault's conception of power?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • aussieinbg
    replied
    Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
    Science is not merely a progressive and incremental discipline that studies and records facts.
    And woo woo verbal masturbaters can take any sentence by a scientist or technologist pull it completely out of context and create any meaning that they want.

    Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
    So-called facts can be understood and interpreted in a variety of ways depending on the worldview assumptions of the scientist.
    Bullshit. If the evidence does not stack up against the "worldview assumptions of the scientist", then the scientist's "worldview assumptions" are bullshit and have to change. Science is ultimately very brutal towards internalised lying and deception. Internal pretence doesn't last long under the weight of evidence because reality is the ultimate arbitrator.

    Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
    Scientific theories, or paradigms, do not often fall out of favour because they are proven wrong.
    When the evidence is checked and demonstrated to be repeatable and correct, the old theory gets consigned to the "History of Science".

    The sentence you should have written is this:

    Religious and spiritual theories, or paradigms, do not often fall out of favour because they are proven wrong.

    Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
    Rather, older theories tend to die out along with their proponents, while new and creative theories attract the attention of younger scientists who,, in turn, promote their theories over the older ones. A current scientific theory is just that: a current theory, which will be replaced by another current theory in the future. For that reason, science cannot tell us what is real, only what scientists believe to be the case at that particular time in history. Thus everyone, including the scientist, is locked into his or her particular culture and language, and thus cannot claim to have an objective picture of the world.
    Complete bullshit. When evidence becomes available that contradicts an existing theory, then the old theory becomes unsustainable.

    Your statement needed a little correction. I've done it for you to make it much more factually correct:
    ?
    Rather, older religions and spiritual beliefs tend to die out along with their proponents, while new and creative theories attract the attention of younger people who fall for spiritual bullshit who, in turn, promote their faiths/cults/religions over the older ones. A current spiritual belief or religion or cult is just that: a current pile of woo woo bullshit, which will be replaced by another current pile of crap in the future. For that reason, the believer cannot tell us what is real, only what religious believers and other cult followers believe to be the case at that particular time in history. Thus everyone excluding scientists, but including the blind believer, is locked into his or her particular culture and language because they are not allowed to question what is in their system of belief, and thus cannot claim to have an objective picture of the world.

    Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
    In the history of science many theories have arisen, been accepted as established, promoted as the truth,
    "Promoted as truth" based on the available evidence. This "truth" is very much conditional to the evidence that it is based on.

    Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
    and then eventually discarded.
    No, old theories are not "merely discarded". They tend to be absorbed into new theories because the correct evidence that the older theory must be based upon has to also be explained by the new theory.

    Take for example Newtonian mechanics and gravitation theory verses special and general relativity. When speeds of objects are compatible to the speed of light, Newtonian mechanics becomes inaccurate.. as does Newtonian gravitation for very big masses. Special and general relativity correctly predict what is observed in these extreme physical conditions.

    Now, if special and general relativity are theories which supersede the respective Newtonian ones, then they must also explain the data and other evidence that sustained Newtonian ones. When you take the equations of special and general relativity and respectively apply them to low velocity and low mass cases, they reduce to the same equations we see for the Newtonian ones.

    Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
    When a scientist promotes scientific data in support of a theory, that bit of data is anything but neutral because the scientist has an agenda.
    Even if you have an agenda, then to lie means that you will be caught out at some point because in science when science is done properly, things are checked - even those which you think are correct.

    Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
    In all fields of science questions remain open as scientific theories are regularly tweaked.
    That's the nature of science. When new and verifiable evidence becomes available which contradicts old theories, then the theory must change.

    This is in contrast with woo woo / spiritual and other religious and religious-like bullshit which usually present themselves as unquestionable truth.

    Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
    And to top it off, the scientific establishment is very much politicized.
    Irrelevant. In any case, if someone is using a scientific theory in order to advance in some manner politically, then the thing had better be evidence-based and work. If the scientific theory that a scientist is playing politics with is total bullshit, then it is an easy matter to ruin this scientist - simply by showing that the theory is bullshit.

    Therefore, even a politicised scientist has to get the science right.

    Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
    Thus, scientists regularly work with unproven assumptions and filter all data through their preconceived ideas.
    ummmm no... "preconceived" and "unproven" ideas get filtered through evidence. It is ultimately the data that determines whether a theory is good and workable or just bullshit.

    This is in strict contrast to the shit that goes on with religions, cults, "faiths", "spiritual movements" and other pseudo-intellectual bullshit such as postmodernism. These systems are ultimately built upon internalised lying and deception which followers are not allowed to question and thereby reveal to be such.

    BACK TO TOPIC:

    Your response to my previous post is exactly the same bullshit I spoke about regarding postmodernists in my previous post,

    You:
    • didn't actually respond to what I had written in my previous post, only babbled on about some unconnected stuff
    • in any case what you had responded with was complete and utter bullshit lacking even a minor understanding about how science works.
    You were applying exactly the tactics I'd spoken about in my previous post and most likely for the same reasons.

    Just as I had said, postmodernists lie and deceive ultimately for power - because they don't understand science and are unable to harness it in terms of influencing people. They bluff and bullshit in order for people to think that they are "intellectual" and hence are worthy of being listened to and followed.

    The typical tactic of postmodernists is to use language in a manner that it is completely incomprehensible. That is how they hide the fact that they are lying, deceiving and ultimately full of shit. Their crap becomes inaccessible and people fall for it by default because they are not able to easily question it.

    All of this sounds a lot like you based on the evidence of your previous posts...
    Last edited by aussieinbg; 10-15-2017, 08:06 AM. Reason: formatting

    Leave a comment:


  • Suna123
    replied
    Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
    Science is not merely a progressive and incremental discipline that studies and records facts. So-called facts can be understood and interpreted in a variety of ways depending on the worldview assumptions of the scientist.

    Scientific theories, or paradigms, do not often fall out of favour because they are proven wrong. Rather, older theories tend to die out along with their proponents, while new and creative theories attract the attention of younger scientists who,, in turn, promote their theories over the older ones. A current scientific theory is just that: a current theory, which will be replaced by another current theory in the future. For that reason, science cannot tell us what is real, only what scientists believe to be the case at that particular time in history. Thus everyone, including the scientist, is locked into his or her particular culture and language, and thus cannot claim to have an objective picture of the world.
    ?
    In the history of science many theories have arisen, been accepted as established, promoted as the truth, and then eventually discarded. When a scientist promotes scientific data in support of a theory, that bit of data is anything but neutral because the scientist has an agenda. In all fields of science questions remain open as scientific theories are regularly tweaked. And to top it off, the scientific establishment is very much politicized. Thus, scientists regularly work with unproven assumptions and filter all data through their preconceived ideas.
    Newtons gravitational law is such a theory which got "refuted" later. Newton got it wrong because of his "worldview" - to use your wording.
    However, Newtons gravitational law is still valid and jumping from buildings inevitably let you feel Newtons power with exactly GxM1M2/r2. Scientific laws which describe nature don't run out of validity ever.

    An example for your claim with relevance in reality would be very helpful. I don't think there is any.

    Leave a comment:


  • Etsia
    replied
    Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post


    Science is not merely a progressive and incremental discipline that studies and records facts. So-called facts can be understood and interpreted in a variety of ways depending on the worldview assumptions of the scientist.

    Scientific theories, or paradigms, do not often fall out of favour because they are proven wrong. Rather, older theories tend to die out along with their proponents, while new and creative theories attract the attention of younger scientists who,, in turn, promote their theories over the older ones. A current scientific theory is just that: a current theory, which will be replaced by another current theory in the future. For that reason, science cannot tell us what is real, only what scientists believe to be the case at that particular time in history. Thus everyone, including the scientist, is locked into his or her particular culture and language, and thus cannot claim to have an objective picture of the world.
    ?
    In the history of science many theories have arisen, been accepted as established, promoted as the truth, and then eventually discarded. When a scientist promotes scientific data in support of a theory, that bit of data is anything but neutral because the scientist has an agenda. In all fields of science questions remain open as scientific theories are regularly tweaked. And to top it off, the scientific establishment is very much politicized. Thus, scientists regularly work with unproven assumptions and filter all data through their preconceived ideas.
    So, do jump from a multi storey building and prove that science is wrong while postmodernist bullshit is right Also, you asked others to try to stay outside when it freezes - logic and common sense tells us it would be impossible and I have no idea why you suggested those who believe in logic and science to do so, you'd rather also try it yourself as you deny the absolute truth of science and logic. What kind of bullshit is that? Someone has written 'postmodernist bullshit' and it was like a red cloth to you to start defending all post modernist BS parroting all possible postmodernist websites where you possibly look for all the answers in a vague, postmodern language patterns...What you believe in is actually anti-science. We cannot say science is unpredictable and that its truths easily change. True knowledge about reality is possible and it exists. Rejecing objectivity is ridiculous. Science is reliable, if one claims otherwise, one is free to prove it wrong by their own examples. By jumping down the building, by refusing oxygen, by refusing medication when necessary, prove that 2 and 2 is five and that humans can fly and that evolution is but a fairy tale and others will start believing in postmodernist BS rather than science.

    Leave a comment:


  • RoyofSupratik
    replied
    Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post

    Yes, standard definition. And yes, it's power that Foucault and other postmodernists are all about.

    An understanding of natural physical law ultimately leads to better technology and the means of exerting power over others who do not have that understanding. Knowledge is power. The reality is that natural law trumps any bullshit that people may come up with - whether it is mysticism or other forms of self-deception. Prayers uttered thousands of km away urging someone to die don't kill. Bullets and other products of technology can and do - brought to the vicinity by other technology such as ships and aircraft. Now, this conflicts with the postmodernist notion that "all knowledge is equally valid". No, some knowledge is more equal than others - modern medicine stops AIDS from killing people whereas shamans muttering bullshit does nothing at all. It's literally about the power of life and death.

    Postmodernism is very anti modernist and science and technology are an integral part of "the modern". As to why - it all comes down to that "power" you were referring to.

    Ultimately, postmodernists are after their own slice of power which they wish to project.. they don't have the intellect to understand the basics of science and technology beyond a certain superficial level and can't participate "where the power really is" - in science and technology. Therefore, they try to influence or outright control people by one of the oldest weapons known to humanity - lying and deception. So, postmodernism comes into direct conflict with science and tries to subvert it with bullshit woo woo talk in order for its practitioners to get some sort of power and influence over people.

    Conclusion: you are wrong. Modern science is inextricably linked to postmodernism in that modern science is completely counter to postmodernism because there are absolute truths which stem from natural physical law which in turn can be used to develop technology which ultimately can be applied for obtaining power - good and evil. This is the core reason why postmodernism wants to destroy science.

    Therefore, it is completely valid to talk about science with regards to postmodernism in order to demonstrate what a load of deceptive shit postmodernism is.

    Science is not merely a progressive and incremental discipline that studies and records facts. So-called facts can be understood and interpreted in a variety of ways depending on the worldview assumptions of the scientist.

    Scientific theories, or paradigms, do not often fall out of favour because they are proven wrong. Rather, older theories tend to die out along with their proponents, while new and creative theories attract the attention of younger scientists who,, in turn, promote their theories over the older ones. A current scientific theory is just that: a current theory, which will be replaced by another current theory in the future. For that reason, science cannot tell us what is real, only what scientists believe to be the case at that particular time in history. Thus everyone, including the scientist, is locked into his or her particular culture and language, and thus cannot claim to have an objective picture of the world.
    ?
    In the history of science many theories have arisen, been accepted as established, promoted as the truth, and then eventually discarded. When a scientist promotes scientific data in support of a theory, that bit of data is anything but neutral because the scientist has an agenda. In all fields of science questions remain open as scientific theories are regularly tweaked. And to top it off, the scientific establishment is very much politicized. Thus, scientists regularly work with unproven assumptions and filter all data through their preconceived ideas.

    Leave a comment:


  • aussieinbg
    replied
    Originally posted by Talise12 View Post

    "In social science and politics, power is the ability to influence or outright control the behaviour of people." Dont need to be postmodern, for understand the thread about conception of power, not the natural physical law and not the gravitation. (Aristoteles, Platon, Machiawelli, Max Weber.. thinking about power started much earlier.. )

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/power
    Yes, standard definition. And yes, it's power that Foucault and other postmodernists are all about.

    An understanding of natural physical law ultimately leads to better technology and the means of exerting power over others who do not have that understanding. Knowledge is power. The reality is that natural law trumps any bullshit that people may come up with - whether it is mysticism or other forms of self-deception. Prayers uttered thousands of km away urging someone to die don't kill. Bullets and other products of technology can and do - brought to the vicinity by other technology such as ships and aircraft. Now, this conflicts with the postmodernist notion that "all knowledge is equally valid". No, some knowledge is more equal than others - modern medicine stops AIDS from killing people whereas shamans muttering bullshit does nothing at all. It's literally about the power of life and death.

    Postmodernism is very anti modernist and science and technology are an integral part of "the modern". As to why - it all comes down to that "power" you were referring to.

    Ultimately, postmodernists are after their own slice of power which they wish to project.. they don't have the intellect to understand the basics of science and technology beyond a certain superficial level and can't participate "where the power really is" - in science and technology. Therefore, they try to influence or outright control people by one of the oldest weapons known to humanity - lying and deception. So, postmodernism comes into direct conflict with science and tries to subvert it with bullshit woo woo talk in order for its practitioners to get some sort of power and influence over people.

    Conclusion: you are wrong. Modern science is inextricably linked to postmodernism in that modern science is completely counter to postmodernism because there are absolute truths which stem from natural physical law which in turn can be used to develop technology which ultimately can be applied for obtaining power - good and evil. This is the core reason why postmodernism wants to destroy science.

    Therefore, it is completely valid to talk about science with regards to postmodernism in order to demonstrate what a load of deceptive shit postmodernism is.

    Leave a comment:


  • aussieinbg
    replied
    Originally posted by Suna123 View Post

    it ends like this when peole turn off logical thinking and give believe alone the power over their decisions. I hope she did not left behind young children.

    The thing is starving probably can have a positive influence on cancer....as a supportive measure additional to already established treatments. There are some studies who give significant hints to that. It is still not fully investigated though. Starving alone leads to death in a much higher likelihood - that is fully investigated .

    What is like a crazy epidemia here is homeophathy. I like to call it the science of placebo. It is insane how many peole trust in that nonsense and how much money is invested, how many children filled up with globules for each tiny sign of malaise. Fortunately when it becomes serious most people restart using their brain and go to real physician on time....mostly .

    Now what power is it that started giving something like homeopathy the power in our societies? And how can we get rid of it?
    Postmodernism justifies harmful bullshit such as homeopathy and gives it "intellectual respect" by vilifying evidence-based medical practice in the usual manner that postmodernism critques things:

    https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/pos...ased-medicine/

    To say it short and sweet - postmodernist bullshit kills real people in the real world because it supports views that lead to people dying when much better evidence-based treatments are available.

    The stunning irony is that it might well have ultimately killed Michael Foucault as a result of his hedonist exploration of gay sex in the early 1980s.

    It's one thing for pseudo-intellectual bullshit artists to die as a result of following through their belief system. It's another when literally millions of people in Africa, Asia and other places die as the result of a disease like AIDS due to evidence-based medicine being displaced by the psotmodernist mantra of "all types of medicine are equally valid". So you end up with all sorts of quack healers, "shamen", "holy men" "prayer" and so on "treating" this disease and doing nothing or even worse and ultimately killing people.

    That's not even going into the conspiracy theories about "AIDS is a western conspiracy to kill Africans" and other shit that finds a sympathetic ear among postmodernist fans...



    Leave a comment:


  • Etsia
    replied
    Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post

    what kind of trash is this? Why are you creating your own questions and answering on your own? You need one psychiatrist?

    What i understand that you don't know anything about Foucault's conception of power. Someone wrote "post modernist bullshit" and without understanding this topic itself, you kept on parroting and blabbering what not!! Trust me, what you did over here, religious fanatics does the same after listening to a Mullah.

    If this topic is too heavy for you, try for some other topics.
    Well, I suspect my post was too heavy to handle for someone who really fit the definition of someone who is a complete post modernist bullshitter Foucaulst conception of power is a similar BS to that some self proclaimed pseudo intellectual gurus babble. What I understand is I hit your nerve because you got angry This is what religious fanatics do after being told the truth about their cults. If this post was too heavy for you, try the posts of submissive mimosas not women who actually feel free to express what they think without caring what self proclaimed intellectuals think about their posts...

    Leave a comment:


  • aussieinbg
    replied
    Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post

    Try one more experiment.

    Right now its Autumn in northern hemisphere, and the weather gives a hint of the harsh winter that will be arriving soon. Keep saying that you believe in a beautiful comfy weather and winter is a post modernist bullshit and you don't believe in it. Spend your nights under open sky thinking you are the king of the world and nothing can beat you.
    We wouldn't be idiots to do such a thing, unless we were suicidal. We know empirically that such stupidity can kill you easily.

    On the other hand, postmodernists who get eroticised by reading the crap written by people such as Foucault would argue that freezing to death after such an event is the result of micropowers conglomerating or such other bullshit.

    Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
    If you are not frosted to death, you are free to propagate that systems of the world never changes. A crest is never followed by a trough. Post colonial/Post modernism will never replace Colonialism/Modernism.
    You're either trolling or in need of serious intervention. Hard to tell because Poe's Law is at work here.

    Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
    Hints: There is no need to bring 'Physical' Science in this topic. Rather social science is a relevant topic over here. Science should not be politicized, as it helps everyone, starting from a scientist to a post modernist.
    Bullshit.

    "Foulcault's Conception of power" flows into his bullshit "Philosophy of Science".

    Leave a comment:


  • RoyofSupratik
    replied
    Originally posted by Etsia View Post
    I'd rather say it's like calling a spade a spade, I mean calling bullshit a bullshit. We see a spade and call it a spade and there comes a postmodernist bullshitter and starts his illogical observations about a simple spade. Or we all know 2+2 is 4 but for those who deny reality and that absolute truth exists is hard to admit it. Same can be said about gravitation - in short, science is the first proof that absolute truth exists and logics and seeing the things they are like is the second proof that absolute truth exists. Action - consequence - someone who steals is a thief, someone who kills is a murderer and the religion/cult that spreads violence is defined as violent due to existing evidence of violence. Islamic gentleman has a reason to condone his cult (so does Islamic lady)and deceive people but the truth is most terror attacks are committed in the name of Islam. Things are named as they are for a reason. Stereotypes also appear for a reason, so do generalizations. Just it's up to people to accept or to deny the truth.

    The only fallacy in this world is postmodernism and its nonsense. The only value they have is their twisted 'tolerance' and they take believing that absolute truth exists (science has proved it, no problem) as if intolerant in their ridiculous understanding thus means postmodernists deny science as evidence (so, really, why not prove that absolute truth does not exist by jumping off a multi-storey building....) Besides, there are standards in each society of what is wrong and what is right - we know that torturing and killing others or cannibalism are wrong which can be taken as absolute truth. (I can see a postmodernus 'eruditus' lol telling me how some tribes in Africa consider it to be right....) but I really believe that it's exactly postmodernists that talk crap and live in absolute denial of existing reality and facts.

    By the way, for a severely mental patient your raunchy denial of psychiatry as science and labeling psychiatrists and psychologists as cultists may cause extreme health damage because the truth, the absolute truth is only qualified doctors cure certain diseases? Proof? Yes, those who try to deny traditional medicine usually end up dead/mad earlier than those who don't. One colleague of mine got breast cancer and she denied traditional medicine, well, she kept starving and even if doctors were optimistic about her (if she accepted proper treatment), she denied the treatment and died being just 43. There are millions of such examples. Postmodernists deny reality and live in their self made truths accusing others of being illogical, for not understanding their 'intelligent' and vague wording as a lack of brain lol but in fact everything indicates them to be illogical and irrational self proclaimed pseudo intellectuals who most probably can be classified as complete losers in life. Know-it-all about others usually make wrong conclusions but enable those others make the conclusions about those who perfectly fit into a description of a postmodernist self proclaimed intellectual.
    what kind of trash is this? Why are you creating your own questions and answering on your own? You need one psychiatrist?

    What i understand that you don't know anything about Foucault's conception of power. Someone wrote "post modernist bullshit" and without understanding this topic itself, you kept on parroting and blabbering what not!! Trust me, what you did over here, religious fanatics does the same after listening to a Mullah.

    If this topic is too heavy for you, try for some other topics.
    Last edited by RoyofSupratik; 10-14-2017, 08:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sancta_Lux
    replied
    Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post

    Well there is no need of physical science or gravitation over here to be precise. Its very irrelevant in this topic. Its application is only relevant if you wish to politicize science. For example, a gas mask is also science?
    It's relevant, when you use it to explain that rationality and proofs are the only things that matter when it comes to any form of sciences... Social sciences and human sciences must follow the same basic rules to be trustable and to get some credibility, if they don't, authors like Foucault just fall into the same case with spiritism and astrololololology and other pseudosciences.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sancta_Lux
    replied
    Originally posted by Etsia View Post
    Yes, those who try to deny traditional medicine usually end up dead/mad earlier than those who don't. One colleague of mine got breast cancer and she denied traditional medicine, well, she kept starving and even if doctors were optimistic about her (if she accepted proper treatment), she denied the treatment and died being just 43.
    Lemon is stronger than chemotherapy, radiotherapy or other treatments, it's well known...

    It's very sad for this woman because breast cancer is a quite "easy" cancer to heal and, at least in France, you have 85% chances to survive after 5 years when you get this kind of cancer (which is the most common cancer with prostate cancer), while you have only 15% chances to survive of a lung cancer, which isn't rare either...

    Leave a comment:


  • RoyofSupratik
    replied
    Originally posted by Suna123 View Post

    quite cool story of solstices, let me know when gravity grows a gravistice as well . When we catch the right moment during the turnaround we can jump from the building together (you first ).
    Well there is no need of physical science or gravitation over here to be precise. Its very irrelevant in this topic. Its application is only relevant if you wish to politicize science. For example, a gas mask is also science?

    Leave a comment:


  • Etsia
    replied
    Originally posted by Suna123 View Post

    it ends like this when peole turn off logical thinking and give believe alone the power over their decisions. I hope she did not left behind young children.

    The thing is starving probably can have a positive influence on cancer....as a supportive measure additional to already established treatments. There are some studies who give significant hints to that. It is still not fully investigated though. Starving alone leads to death in a much higher likelihood - that is fully investigated .

    What is like a crazy epidemia here is homeophathy. I like to call it the science of placebo. It is insane how many peole trust in that nonsense and how much money is invested, how many children filled up with globules for each tiny sign of malaise. Fortunately when it becomes serious most people restart using their brain and go to real physician on time....mostly .

    Now what power is it that started giving something like homeopathy the power in our societies? And how can we get rid of it?
    I agree. Logical thinking and ability to see the consequences is required not to make such mistakes. That woman came to work when another colleague left for the UK - she came and looked so young, so beautiful. We never even suspected she was in her forties. She was single, she did not leave kids to suffer, just she left her mum being heartbroken.

    I understand what you wanted to say about homeopathy too. Placebo has a good influence on people sometimes once they strongly believe in homeopathic medicine I think many people get disappointed with traditional medicine too and believe they'll find a healthier way to solve health problems so homeopathy started being powerful. Also, different liars who say they are clairvoyants and can see the past and predict the future thrive here because people stopped relying on themselves, their common sense when experiencing problems or tragedies and such people use other people's disasters to earn money. Some people say they are cursed when one disaster or another happens and they go to see a liar who call themselves clairvoyant. People can get very gullible - I used to attend the courses of healthy eating and I saw that they simply advertised one line of very expensive products which as if could even exchange food - I never bought anything from them and many others didn't either but some people spent much money on things that cannot even be considered as food. I finished those courses but realized I don't need anything like that any more, I know what's healthy and what's not myself.

    People can be very gullible sometimes and as for me I've learnt to refuse things that I do not need even if they're pushed by a very good advertisers who at the same time are good at human psychology.

    Leave a comment:


  • Suna123
    replied
    Originally posted by Etsia View Post
    Yes, those who try to deny traditional medicine usually end up dead/mad earlier than those who don't. One colleague of mine got breast cancer and she denied traditional medicine, well, she kept starving and even if doctors were optimistic about her (if she accepted proper treatment), she denied the treatment and died being just 43.
    it ends like this when peole turn off logical thinking and give believe alone the power over their decisions. I hope she did not left behind young children.

    The thing is starving probably can have a positive influence on cancer....as a supportive measure additional to already established treatments. There are some studies who give significant hints to that. It is still not fully investigated though. Starving alone leads to death in a much higher likelihood - that is fully investigated .

    What is like a crazy epidemia here is homeophathy. I like to call it the science of placebo. It is insane how many peole trust in that nonsense and how much money is invested, how many children filled up with globules for each tiny sign of malaise. Fortunately when it becomes serious most people restart using their brain and go to real physician on time....mostly .

    Now what power is it that started giving something like homeopathy the power in our societies? And how can we get rid of it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Etsia
    replied
    Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post

    For an Islamic Gentleman, your raunchy definition of Islam must be a post modernist bullshit.

    (Note that i didn't even defined what is absolute truth over here. It just that anything can be labelled with any name if you are good in logic. Its the fallacy of modern understanding of logic itself)
    I'd rather say it's like calling a spade a spade, I mean calling bullshit a bullshit. We see a spade and call it a spade and there comes a postmodernist bullshitter and starts his illogical observations about a simple spade. Or we all know 2+2 is 4 but for those who deny reality and that absolute truth exists is hard to admit it. Same can be said about gravitation - in short, science is the first proof that absolute truth exists and logics and seeing the things they are like is the second proof that absolute truth exists. Action - consequence - someone who steals is a thief, someone who kills is a murderer and the religion/cult that spreads violence is defined as violent due to existing evidence of violence. Islamic gentleman has a reason to condone his cult (so does Islamic lady)and deceive people but the truth is most terror attacks are committed in the name of Islam. Things are named as they are for a reason. Stereotypes also appear for a reason, so do generalizations. Just it's up to people to accept or to deny the truth.

    The only fallacy in this world is postmodernism and its nonsense. The only value they have is their twisted 'tolerance' and they take believing that absolute truth exists (science has proved it, no problem) as if intolerant in their ridiculous understanding thus means postmodernists deny science as evidence (so, really, why not prove that absolute truth does not exist by jumping off a multi-storey building....) Besides, there are standards in each society of what is wrong and what is right - we know that torturing and killing others or cannibalism are wrong which can be taken as absolute truth. (I can see a postmodernus 'eruditus' lol telling me how some tribes in Africa consider it to be right....) but I really believe that it's exactly postmodernists that talk crap and live in absolute denial of existing reality and facts.

    By the way, for a severely mental patient your raunchy denial of psychiatry as science and labeling psychiatrists and psychologists as cultists may cause extreme health damage because the truth, the absolute truth is only qualified doctors cure certain diseases? Proof? Yes, those who try to deny traditional medicine usually end up dead/mad earlier than those who don't. One colleague of mine got breast cancer and she denied traditional medicine, well, she kept starving and even if doctors were optimistic about her (if she accepted proper treatment), she denied the treatment and died being just 43. There are millions of such examples. Postmodernists deny reality and live in their self made truths accusing others of being illogical, for not understanding their 'intelligent' and vague wording as a lack of brain lol but in fact everything indicates them to be illogical and irrational self proclaimed pseudo intellectuals who most probably can be classified as complete losers in life. Know-it-all about others usually make wrong conclusions but enable those others make the conclusions about those who perfectly fit into a description of a postmodernist self proclaimed intellectual.
    Last edited by Etsia; 10-14-2017, 09:58 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X