Booster shots

Treatments and their effectiveness, herd immunity, masks, testing, etc.
thinksaboutit
Posts: 675
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: Booster shots

Post by thinksaboutit »

Nobody wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:31 am Yet you have an opinion, based on absolutely no understanding...and feel Ok in rejecting the advice of the vast majority of those who are actually qualified.. and call it all lies!

Well I understand how institutional processes relating to the production of representations operate, so I have other criteria that I can use to discern the relative truth-value of different representations and, as I did post on here, I put more store by independence and by people like Sucharit Bhakdi and Dolores Cahill and Mike Yeadon who could probably make more money getting on board with the covid industry.
Also, most of the world's population are completely ignorant of the science and, like me, can only delegate opinions, much like the dispossession they suffer via the monopolisation of the institutional grounds of political competence, but the policies that are being pursued, the social efficacy of the representations, are a different matter. As I have always said, even if the virus were lethal, there are other criteria that should have governed government policy.
It is people's lack of understanding of science that allows the likes of Sucharit Bhakdi and Dolores Cahill and Mike Yeadon and many others to suck in the unwary to believing their garbage. I can only assume their motive is to make a name for themselves.

Have a look what UCD students think about Dolores Cahill...... !

https://www.newstalk.com/news/ucd-stude ... st-1167315

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/u ... 28005.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/educati ... -1.4514141

So tell me, with the absence of suitable expertise, on what basis do you decide to believe these outlier's views over the majority?

thinksaboutit
Posts: 675
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: Booster shots

Post by thinksaboutit »

jmc wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:47 am
thinksaboutit wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:30 pm

Yet you have an opinion, based on absolutely no understanding...and feel Ok in rejecting the advice of the vast majority of those who are actually qualified.. and call it all lies!

Please explain??
But strangely enough the poster has shown in his postings here a far greater grasp of the relevant subjects than you have. A person who seems unfamiliar with the concept of low quality secondary sources, which is all you post, and some very basic concepts mathematics and science. Which the other poster shows a working competence in.
Be specific please.....

In way has the prior poster shown a far greater grasp of the relevant subjects? Give examples....

Which branches of mathematics and science do you believe I don't understand and on what basis?

Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean you are right and they are wrong.

I know you are fond of denouncing others' knowledge (and not just me) and attacking the person, but rarely the actual fact of their argument.

Nobody
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:05 pm

Re: Booster shots

Post by Nobody »

It is people's lack of understanding of science that allows the likes of Sucharit Bhakdi and Dolores Cahill and Mike Yeadon and many others to suck in the unwary to believing their garbage. I can only assume their motive is to make a name for themselves.

Have a look what UCD students think about Dolores Cahill.

Well, I have said from the start that I have no knowledge of science and I have also said that this pandemic exploits this. This is a very important fact and given that the virus is being rendered socially and personally corrosive, or socially effective, via representations of its nature, I feel those of us who lack any scientific knowledge still, nevertheless, have a right to base our opinions on other factors. This is not merely about the science. It is also about the rights of institutions to intrude and obstruct people's lives and liberties. Now, we all have an inalienable practical grasp of the conditions required for our fruition and, we have every right to judge government policy on the extent to which it fosters our well-being or that of others. Now, these are moral questions. Even if the science did support the government measures, which it clearly does not, then, we are still at liberty to contest it and I have indicated alternative criteria that might have been used and should have been accommodated. I won't repeat this.
I have learned, from years dealing with universities and academic publishers, that there is a relation between the moral and the true: only if one is morally disposed can one be vulnerable to the truth in the human realm. My deference to Bhakdi, Cahill and Yeadon is also aesthetic and moral, I think they exhibit sincerity and courage. Bhahkdi, like Yeadon particularly, exhibit a concern that leads me to believe they have the integrity required to be concerned over the reality of this situation.
I do not care for the views of students unions, they are narcissistic organisations, like much social media, they are platforms for the elevation of the protagonists creating issues out of nothing. Actually, I think Dolores Cahills concern over the effects of masks on development are of little significance. She might make a more powerful case for the effects of good old fashioned poverty as the chief determinant of human development or health but we all have our blindspots and at least she is concerned to remove the masks.
At the end of the day, I don't have scientific expertise and, since I have to defer and delegate my expertise, of course, if you push me, then I will simply say these are my prejudices. Of course they are but prejudice is the foundation of knowledge. We have to take many things for granted in order to function cognitively. I don't know the science and cannot carry out the symbolic operations that constitute cognitive forms in these areas so, I choose my experts carefully. I look at SAGE, and one of their members was at the same university as me whilst I was there. He was an arrogant, narcissistic, well-connected scumbag, and then I look at the leaked document where they recommended the use of fear to ensure compliance. On what planet is this a form of expertise? It is really merely a testament of incompetence. How did they sustain jobs after such a suggestion? The Prime Minister should have sacked the lot and found some human beings to advise on appropriate strategies.
If you had junked the science. If we went back to the early twentieth-century, and used moral principles and communal strategies, could we have done much worse? The problem is the use of science to produce representations that use the authority of science to deleterious effects in the name of public health and other totemic abstractions. Sadly, this conversation can only be participated in if you have a PhD in science, so it achieves one of the main goals of the political field: the dispossession of the population of competence. So, anyway, I prefer the ethics and morality manifest by the expressivity of Bhakdi, Yeadon and Cahill, they at least seem to exhibit the effects of being affected by this calumny and that manifests an integrity of spirit born of compassion and intuitive connection, the exact opposite of the scum in SAGE and probably the other places advising a government equally alienated by precisely the distances that characterise their response to this. Their strategies lack compassion and insight and they hypocritical because no solution can be impractical and all of their response has been counter-productive for that reason and many people cleverer than me, Epidemiologists like Sunetra Gupta and Jay Bhattacharya have said this.

thinksaboutit
Posts: 675
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: Booster shots

Post by thinksaboutit »

Nobody wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 7:04 pm
"At the end of the day, I don't have scientific expertise and, since I have to defer and delegate my expertise, of course, if you push me, then I will simply say these are my prejudices. "
After wading through this waffle, I have extracted the salient statement.

These are your words, exactly!

Nobody
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:05 pm

Re: Booster shots

Post by Nobody »

After wading through this waffle, I have extracted the salient statement.

These are your words, exactly!

But I don't feel any shame over them, since I have explained the basis of my beliefs: I cannot provide scientific justification for my beliefs, how could I without access to institutional conditions that are unavailable? If someone explains the basis of the invalidity of their beliefs, that is, if they recognise the epistemic status of their beliefs, then they are not trying to cloak them in authority, that is, they are not trying to manipulate anyone (a very different strategy to the scum behind this pandemic who can create the institutional conditions for the legitimacy and authority of their beliefs, dignified by the signifying power of the institutions they finance) and so, it is a moral position. Yours is not. You are attempting to demean and humiliate someone. You make an accusation that was already contained in my construction of my understanding. I explain that I have no understanding of science and therefore have to defer to authority. That means that, at the end of the day, I cannot defend my position, it has to have the status of prejudice. But most knowledge, in the end, is of this order,. As Wittgenstein put it, "If the true is what is grounded, then the ground is not true, nor yet false". (OC 205)

Your problem is you don't read. If you read, you would see, I was immunised from your attack, I never claimed an authority you needed to undermine. I accepted that what I wrote is "waffle", I never claimed an epistemic status to my claims. It is a forum, people can see "oh he is nobody, I will pass to the next". It was simply a view. But then, viewpoints are essentially human and are what engage us, if we care, about others. You obviously feel incited, I would see your doctor. Make sure you wear your mask, it might disguise your malignancy.

thinksaboutit
Posts: 675
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: Booster shots

Post by thinksaboutit »

Nobody wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 8:41 pm After wading through this waffle, I have extracted the salient statement.

These are your words, exactly!

But I don't feel any shame over them, since I have explained the basis of my beliefs: I cannot provide scientific justification for my beliefs, how could I without access to institutional conditions that are unavailable? If someone explains the basis of the invalidity of their beliefs, that is, if they recognise the epistemic status of their beliefs, then they are not trying to cloak them in authority, that is, they are not trying to manipulate anyone (a very different strategy to the scum behind this pandemic who can create the institutional conditions for the legitimacy and authority of their beliefs, dignified by the signifying power of the institutions they finance) and so, it is a moral position. Yours is not. You are attempting to demean and humiliate someone. You make an accusation that was already contained in my construction of my understanding. I explain that I have no understanding of science and therefore have to defer to authority. That means that, at the end of the day, I cannot defend my position, it has to have the status of prejudice. But most knowledge, in the end, is of this order,. As Wittgenstein put it, "If the true is what is grounded, then the ground is not true, nor yet false". (OC 205)

Your problem is you don't read. If you read, you would see, I was immunised from your attack, I never claimed an authority you needed to undermine. I accepted that what I wrote is "waffle", I never claimed an epistemic status to my claims. It is a forum, people can see "oh he is nobody, I will pass to the next". It was simply a view. But then, viewpoints are essentially human and are what engage us, if we care, about others. You obviously feel incited, I would see your doctor. Make sure you wear your mask, it might disguise your malignancy.
How do you know I don't read?

Reading is useful and so is thinking. It is a path to understanding.

If you don't understand, then you can only go with the balance of professional qualified opinions. So that means ignoring all those on this forum and the on-line idiots they worship.

Nobody
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:05 pm

Re: Booster shots

Post by Nobody »

I meant you did not read my post carefully. I think that you underestimate the extent to which there are other factors that influence the credibility of representations. I know enough about the institutional processes that determine the distribution of authority to be suspicious of legitimated opinions which, in this pandemic, have really been the heart of the use of institutions to produce the appearance of a public health crisis using complex scientific processes that function as vehicles to generate representational forms that are then used to engender fear.
The interests behind this pandemic are going to insulate professional groups that are significant to their management of the economic changes they need and, clearly, science is going to be a key resource to them. As these divides entrench, there will be a need for people to be very suspicious of expert opinion. Expert opinion, validated and scientifically dignified and legitimated, is being used to pursue economic interests, it is class politics via other means (as education and other cultural institutions generally are anyway) so I think many of us have to be suspicious, we are being manipulated.
The public sphere has become even more contested and this is an attempt to secure that space even more than it has been historically, so I think we have to be suspicious of what appears in that space.

thinksaboutit
Posts: 675
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: Booster shots

Post by thinksaboutit »

Nobody wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:26 am I meant you did not read my post carefully. I think that you underestimate the extent to which there are other factors that influence the credibility of representations. I know enough about the institutional processes that determine the distribution of authority to be suspicious of legitimated opinions which, in this pandemic, have really been the heart of the use of institutions to produce the appearance of a public health crisis using complex scientific processes that function as vehicles to generate representational forms that are then used to engender fear.
The interests behind this pandemic are going to insulate professional groups that are significant to their management of the economic changes they need and, clearly, science is going to be a key resource to them. As these divides entrench, there will be a need for people to be very suspicious of expert opinion. Expert opinion, validated and scientifically dignified and legitimated, is being used to pursue economic interests, it is class politics via other means (as education and other cultural institutions generally are anyway) so I think many of us have to be suspicious, we are being manipulated.
The public sphere has become even more contested and this is an attempt to secure that space even more than it has been historically, so I think we have to be suspicious of what appears in that space.
This is incomprehensible, rambling waffle! And this is one of the short ones!

What are you trying to say?

Brevity and clarity please!

RichardTechnik
Posts: 283
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2020 11:01 am

Re: Booster shots

Post by RichardTechnik »

thinksaboutit wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:37 pm
Nobody wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:26 am I meant you did not read my post carefully. I think that you underestimate the extent to which there are other factors that influence the credibility of representations. I know enough about the institutional processes that determine the distribution of authority to be suspicious of legitimated opinions which, in this pandemic, have really been the heart of the use of institutions to produce the appearance of a public health crisis using complex scientific processes that function as vehicles to generate representational forms that are then used to engender fear.
The interests behind this pandemic are going to insulate professional groups that are significant to their management of the economic changes they need and, clearly, science is going to be a key resource to them. As these divides entrench, there will be a need for people to be very suspicious of expert opinion. Expert opinion, validated and scientifically dignified and legitimated, is being used to pursue economic interests, it is class politics via other means (as education and other cultural institutions generally are anyway) so I think many of us have to be suspicious, we are being manipulated.
The public sphere has become even more contested and this is an attempt to secure that space even more than it has been historically, so I think we have to be suspicious of what appears in that space.
This is incomprehensible, rambling waffle! And this is one of the short ones!

What are you trying to say?

Brevity and clarity please!
I for one understand most of nobody's posts, yet you do not seem to. Rather than dismiss them as incomprehensible ...waffle perhaps you might take a few weeks or months out to read wider; you asked how nobody knows you don't read - it seems pretty obvious to me.

Speedstick
Posts: 562
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:27 pm

Re: Booster shots

Post by Speedstick »

Yes l totally agree with your comments here Richard T, Nobody has been totally honest and up front about his lack of scientific knowledge and yet is clearly very knowledge and shows a deep understanding of the wider aspects of NPI's and lockdowns and their detrimental effects on society, and writes eloquently and intelligently about them.
I feel Thinksaboutit rather than be rude and dismissive of Nobody you should take time to read these posts in full, here is a person who very clearly sees through the scam of this whole saga, but sadly you decide to back pseudo science and evil just because the government churns out propaganda and fake statistics to back it, which you then claim to be gospel, it is not gospel it is propaganda and will always be propaganda.
I think Nobody should be applauded for his deep understanding and intelligent posts and should not have to suffer the intolerable rudeness of your dismissive arrogance quite frankly.

Post Reply