User Tag List

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: The Value of Knowing Mathematics in Understanding Science [split] //mod897 days old

  1. #1
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist ThePendragon's Avatar
    Last Online
    2017-07-26 @ 22:31
    Join Date
    2016-10-05
    Posts
    1,131
    Location
    New York
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1b-Z253 >Z6749.1
    mtDNA
    H
    Phenotype
    Atlantid
    Metaethnos
    Celto-Germanic
    Ethnicity
    mainstream American
    Politics
    conservative
    Religion
    pantheist
    United States Northern Ireland Germany Scotland Ireland England

    Default The Value of Knowing Mathematics in Understanding Science [split] //mod

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    Actually, it's not the alt right that should be blamed for that, but very specifically, the neo-conservatives (a largely Jewish led movement, whose core intellectuals were originally communists). The alt right (Richard Spencer in particular) is totally right in distancing themselves from Dubya, and the rest of the retarded Bush clan, which basically became synonymous with the neo-cons. Dubya/43 was a major disaster. Nothing, I repeat, nothing he did or accomplished was good. Obongo too was a disaster (even worse than Dubya), but at least Obama didn't invade Iran, which both McCain and Romney would have. So in that sense, Trump distanced himself from the neo-cons and their war invasion rhetoric, and by doing so, Trump made the Republican party somewhat respectable again.
    Agreed

    Quote Originally Posted by ELIAS
    The Republicans are pretty much iGnorant iDiots, and the reason that is so, is because the Republicans are actually the good guys (ironically). The Democrats are highly intelligent (or more intelligent anyway), but evil. As such, the Democrats hold far superior views on a lot of critical issues, such as climate change and related environmental problems (for example, Democrats want to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy; that's the right way to go, but of course they never talk about hemp, which is how it's supposed to be done).
    I don't think Democrats are smarter than Libertarians they just have different personality styles. Democrats try to distance themselves from Libertarians and the latter have more in common with paleo-conservatives. I am not talking about nebulous proxies for intelligence like stances on hemp and global warming I am talking about psychometrics. The few studies , on the issue, show Libertarians as the smartest group but atheist libertarians are way smarter, probably.

    Actually, alt-righters are brighter than 90s style retarded white nationalists. That is how the movement finally gained traction, or part of the reason, also, why the left takes it more seriously.


    To the extent that the alt right has upped their game, in comparison to the standard Dubya-style Republican patriotardism, is that the alt right has much like the left, embraced identity politics, but represent a different point of view to it, which is more along the lines of pro-white/European interests (when done right and in moderation, Eurocentrism is not a bad thing). This in contrast to Dubya, who was basically a ZOG puppet (lol).
    Agreed


    From what I've noticed by studying the alt right / white nationalists the past year or so, is that they're still anti-intellectual on a lot of stuff (they sort of understand race fairly well, not perfect by any means as they're not all that focused on genetics, but they're more informed on the basics of race than the average Joe; anything non-racial, they're often clueless and at times just outright wrong, scientifically wrong). For example, it seems to be very trendy among alt righters to champion the reactionary, anti-environmental paleodiet, which they apparently believe is a superior diet not because it actually is, but because "our ancestors ate like that" (and however people lived back in the stone age, must be superior, as long as they're your ancestors). Never mind the overwhelming science which makes it very clear that raw food veganism is the most superior nutrition ever. This is the same sort of thinking btw, that makes many white nationalists anti-Christian because "it's a Jewish religion, not an Indo-European religion", and so on (they don't care about whether God is real or not, as most of them are atheists anyway, they're simply pro-Pagan not because paganism is necessarily true or even better on a social level, but because they're positive to an ancient cultural ancestral connection). This is because they place an ideological emphasis on identity, and they want a unique identity regardless of whether it's right or wrong, good or bad. The latest trend in alt right circles apparently, is to be anti-wheat (I kid you not!), because wheat was first cultivated in the Levant, and as such, wheat must be bad (I'm not making this up, that's actually what some of them believe). Of course they never follow through with their logic, seeing as how they're not denouncing the alphabet, which was also invented in the Levant, by Semites. I realize the anti-gluten trend is popular nowadays, but if you're health conscious, meat in general and animal based diets are far less healthy for ya.
    You don't know science since mathematics is the Queen of the sciences and you are not good at math. I am not defending the paleo-diet but pescetarianism, including cooking but not overcooking , and avoiding fish with pcbs and dioxins is probably a healthy diet.

    It is hard to get enough omega 3s from flaxseed etc.. alone , it can be done,but it is a pain in the ass.

    As far as raw vegan diet ,is concerned, do you have, null hypothesis based statistical research articles proving this ? If you don't know things like linear regression and null hypothesis statistics you don't know science and since you suck at math you don't know these things.


    Intuition tells me that fire has been around for so long that the human diet has evolved with it and that cooking, not overcooking, at least certain foods aids in nutrient absorbtion. I don't have to research this, right now, because the onus is on you, making the original claim.

    Also, as far the natural sciences ? You will never have a clue until you hit the math books.

    BTW, if epigenetic theory is correct wheat can be bad for mental illness. It may contribute to it by attacking the brain through the blood brain barrier.

    Quote Originally Posted by ELIAS
    Aside from that, there's the standard pseudo-scientific belief in Solutreans, Kennewick man and so on. But hey, who cares about facts when you have ideology based on ethnic pride to follow, eh? While Jews are busy explaining the universe (1, 2) to the dumb Goyim, you still have white nationalists getting bogged down with ridiculous pseudo-science.
    Innumerate people, like yourself, are susceptible to credulous believe in pseudo-science. BTW, no Goyim like Johannes Kepler and Stephen Hawking exist and no Europeans work at the CERN accelerator , in Europe etc...no Goyim are working on the BRAIN project. Neuroscience and AI are where its at, right now, the universe will unfold like a knife through butter, to us, after that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elias

    As such, AIPAC is a prominent lobbyist organization for various American presidential candidates and incumbent presidents, whereas related alt right conferences are more or less organized by and for a handful of enthusiast/hobbyist followers who, in unison, make "hail Trump" salutes. Make no mistake about it: Jews take knowledge seriously, alt righters don't.
    I take it seriously but maybe I am an outlier.

    Seriously, though, you can't talk like you understand science until you get math skills.
    Last edited by ThePendragon; 2017-03-10 at 22:04.
    American of Scots-Irish or Ulster Ancestry :

    'I am a Scotsman', Sir Walter Scott once famously wrote, ' therefore I had to fight my way into the world'.

    "Of all the small nations of this earth, perhaps only the ancient Greeks surpass the Scots in their contribution to mankind.” --Winston Churchill(England)

    "We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation.” --Voltaire(France)

  2. # ADS
    Advertisement bot
    Join Date
    2013-03-24
    Location
    ForumBiodiversity.com
    Posts
    All threads
       
     

  3. #2
    Senior Moderator
    Plant of Life = Biological Magic 麻 EliasAlucard's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-22
    Posts
    14,711
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Y-DNA
    J1a2a1a2-P58+
    mtDNA
    H5a
    Race
    Caucasian
    Phenotype
    Alpinid
    Metaethnos
    proto-Semitic
    Ethnicity
    Assyrian/Armenian
    Politics
    Environment, Cannabis
    Religion
    Secular Agnostic
    Assyria Assyria 1913-1923 Armenia Lebanon Sweden Greece

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePendragon View Post
    I don't think Democrats are smarter than Libertarians they just have different personality styles.
    I wasn't talking about libertarians, but Republicans (as in the GOP).

    Also, personally, I think the "libertarians" or "liberals" labels are retarded, and if anything, dishonest propaganda. These ideologies are not about liberty and freedom at all, but simply about different economic systems. Libertarians for example are almost anarchists in that they want to pay as few taxes as possible and have a virtually absent government. Liberals are the complete opposite in that regard.

    Republicans and Democrats on the other hand, are simply corporate puppets with die hard loyalty to Israel (and in the case of Democrats, a penchant for Muslims as an added bonus).

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePendragon View Post
    Democrats try to distance themselves from Libertarians and the latter have more in common with paleo-conservatives. I am not talking about nebulous proxies for intelligence like stances on hemp and global warming I am talking about psychometrics. The few studies , on the issue, show Libertarians as the smartest group but atheist libertarians are way smarter, probably.
    Being intelligent means you're more likely to be open-minded, and as such, you're also more likely to be a proponent of industrial hemp, and doing something about our environmental problems.

    Stupid people on the other hand, worship money, and they actually feel some sort of psychological pain when money is spent. It's one thing to be pissed off about money being spent irresponsibly, but Republicans are all about spending money irresponsibly and being upset when money is spent responsibly. Democrats are more in the non-profit or even anti-profit camp (which is actually very Christian of them, even though most Democrats are atheists anyway), and because of this, leftists are more likely to hold an intelligent stance on cannabis legalization, industrial hemp and environmental problems in general, because they don't have that monetary bias which is totally mainstream among Republicans.

    Look, stupid people don't understand how the world works. That's why stupid people keep championing stupid ideas, like fossil fuels and fracking.

    Here's an example of an intelligent Democrat:

    Bill McKibben: Fighting Back on Climate Change | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO):


    ^^ You don't see reasonable people like this among the Republicans (or the alt right), because science is often in conflict with money. The alt right isn't really interested in science, they're more like ethnic activists, and to the extent that they do care about science, it's only about something that relates to their ethnic interests (such as race and IQ). Republicans on the other hand, the only language they understand, is "tax cuts".

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePendragon View Post
    Actually, alt-righters are brighter than 90s style retarded white nationalists. That is how the movement finally gained traction, or part of the reason, also, why the left takes it more seriously.
    Sure, but most people are smarter than 90s-style white nationalist skinheads (who were basically knuckleheads anyway). In contrast, the alt right is more into internet activism and such. This, unlike running around on the streets and beating up people you don't know, requires some brain activity. Which is why people like Richard Spencer are more eloquent than Hollywood Nazis.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePendragon View Post
    You don't know science since mathematics is the Queen of the sciences and you are not good at math. I am not defending the paleo-diet but pescetarianism, including cooking but not overcooking , and avoiding fish with pcbs and dioxins is probably a healthy diet.
    Sure, but health-wise, pescetarianism is still inferior to raw food veganism. And pescetarianism isn't anywhere as friendly for the environment either.

    Personally I've never liked eating fish anyway. It's disgusting.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePendragon View Post
    It is hard to get enough omega 3s from flaxseed etc.. alone , it can be done,but it is a pain in the ass.
    Flax and chia are overloaded with the only essential omega-3 fatty acid, which is ALA (the fish oil varieties, aka long-chained fatty acids, DHA, EPA, DPA, are not essential fatty acids, but sure, they're very healthy nutrition). Moreover, our bodies can convert omega-3 ALA into the fish oil varieties (hence, omega-3 ALA being an essential fatty acid). The same is also true for omega-6 LA (which can be converted into GLA). ALA and LA are the two only essential fatty acids, and similar to essential amino acids, our bodies can convert them into non-essential fatty/amino acids if there's a need for it. And there's also vegan omega-3 which is made from algae (which is actually where fish get their non-ALA varieties of omega-3 from, in the first place). Also, hemp seeds are rich in omega-3 ALA and omega-6 LA (like 80% of the fat in hemp seeds are those two EFAs).

    If you didn't know this, then you're not in the position to lecture me on nutrition Just sayin'.

    The point is, it's not difficult to be a raw food vegan today. It's one thing if you couldn't pull that off in the stone age, but it's a totally different story today with modern technology and science.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePendragon View Post
    As far as raw vegan diet ,is concerned, do you have, null hypothesis based statistical research articles proving this ?
    Yeah, you can start by watching this documentary:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forks_Over_Knives

    I know you're gonna say something along the lines that "The China Study isn't valid!", but it is, and it has been empirically verified by more recent studies anyhow.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePendragon View Post
    If you don't know things like linear regression and null hypothesis statistics you don't know science and since you suck at math you don't know these things.
    Okay, but I'm right anyway, when I say raw food veganism is superior nutrition for both your health and the biosphere in general.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePendragon View Post
    Intuition tells me that fire has been around for so long that the human diet has evolved with it and that cooking, not overcooking, at least certain foods aids in nutrient absorbtion. I don't have to research this, right now, because the onus is on you, making the original claim.
    How do you think hominids ate in the past, before fire was around? That's right, throughout most of our evolutionary history as primates, we've been eating uncooked food, as in raw food veganism.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePendragon View Post
    Also, as far the natural sciences ? You will never have a clue until you hit the math books.
    This is not a valid argument. I can understand valid evidence and scientific theories in general, without being a math savant.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePendragon View Post
    BTW, if epigenetic theory is correct wheat can be bad for mental illness. It may contribute to it by attacking the brain through the blood brain barrier.
    Sounds very far-fetched imho. I'm not a wheat proponent in any case, although I do love eating ramen noodles I'm just saying, the notion that wheat is bad because it was originally cultivated in the Levant, that's a retarded POV.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePendragon View Post
    Innumerate people, like yourself, are susceptible to credulous believe in pseudo-science. BTW, no Goyim like Johannes Kepler and Stephen Hawking exist and no Europeans work at the CERN accelerator , in Europe etc...no Goyim are working on the BRAIN project. Neuroscience and AI are where its at, right now, the universe will unfold like a knife through butter, to us, after that.
    I think you're missing the point I was making. Of course there are intelligent non-Jewish scientists working on various scientific projects, many of which are very serious stuff.

    However, when was the last time you saw an alt right scientist, who was engaged in serious science? It's not exactly impressive that there are high quality European scientists, given that European demographics consists of like a billion people or something. Jews are only 20 million max. Yet they produce impressive scientists who explain the world, whereas you know, alt right folks are busy working on internet memes. That's why Jews have their own ethnostate armed with nukes and other WMDs, whereas alt right folks are still talking about their ethnostate as a concept.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePendragon View Post
    I take it seriously but maybe I am an outlier.
    Perhaps you should up your nutrition skills then? People just don't understand how important nutrition is. The survival of life in general on this planet, depends on most of humanity switching to a vegan diet. The alt right with their pro-paleodiet nonsense, are therefore anti-intellectual, because animal based diets are very damaging to the biosphere, and if you don't understand that, then you clearly have some gaps and holes in your scientific thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePendragon View Post
    Seriously, though, you can't talk like you understand science until you get math skills.
    I think you're putting too much emphasis on math, as if we can't understand the latest scientific data without being math geniuses.
    Last edited by EliasAlucard; 2017-03-11 at 18:40.
    ReactOS <--- support this project so that we can get rid of Windows!
    Ubuntu MATE 16.04.1 LTS | PRISM-Break! | Windows7sins

    “A wise man makes his own decisions; an ignorant man follows public opinion.” ― Chinese proverb

    “Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.” ― H. L. Mencken

    “The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.” ― Socrates

    “Damnant quod non intelligunt.” ― Latin proverb

    Quoted for truth:
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaron View Post
    Anatolian Urhemait supporters are mostly butthurt Meds.
    For the lulz:
    Quote Originally Posted by drgs View Post
    Poland is a misunderstanding. It is a country which lies on the frontier between western and slavic world, and which combines elements of both.
    In fact, they are not even the Europeans in strict sense, meaning European as in bearing the responsibility and understanding of European interests. Poland has always been an subordinate country, on one side sucking German dick, on the other side -- Russian one, some kind of "novice" europeans, who are full of inferiority complexes, hysteria and obsessity neuroses. This is also true for all Baltic countries

  4. #3
    Established Member
    Member / DNA Hobbyist thetick's Avatar
    Last Online
    2018-12-04 @ 07:13
    Join Date
    2011-12-27
    Posts
    2,532
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1b-SRY 2627 - A7080
    mtDNA
    H5a1f
    Phenotype
    Archaic Nomenclature
    Politics
    Not a Fan
    GEDmatch
    M202348
    United States Germany Poland Poland Volhynia Switzerland Scotland

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    I think you're putting too much emphasis on math, as if we can't understand the latest scientific data without being math geniuses.
    The Pendragon always brings up that all of the world's problems are back to not knowing math. Why ? because he's a math bsd snob. I knew a few of these "math/science elitists" in college. They were "only BSD" snobs. Math is the only thing this people do not suck at. Though the Pendragon well is also apparently good at fucking ugly black chicks with great bodies.

    Anyway I have an Electrical Engineering degree so I have more "real" math than any math major. Math majors take lots of useless theory proving crap that has already been proven. Math exists to solve engineering problems. Math is only a tool of the engineer and the scientist. Science is much broader as it strives to explain our known world.

    Much like having a good mechanic I can get my car fixed. I don't need to know all the details how my car works. Math is the tool of the engineer to actually make or test something. No one needs to understand Vector Calculus or Chemistry to cook food on the stove.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to thetick For This Useful Post:

    EliasAlucard (2017-03-11)

  6. #4
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist ThePendragon's Avatar
    Last Online
    2017-07-26 @ 22:31
    Join Date
    2016-10-05
    Posts
    1,131
    Location
    New York
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1b-Z253 >Z6749.1
    mtDNA
    H
    Phenotype
    Atlantid
    Metaethnos
    Celto-Germanic
    Ethnicity
    mainstream American
    Politics
    conservative
    Religion
    pantheist
    United States Northern Ireland Germany Scotland Ireland England

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
    I think you're putting too much emphasis on math, as if we can't understand the latest scientific data without being math geniuses.
    You don't have to be a math genius to be numerate. Scientists are not Fields medal winning mathematicians and being numerate is an indensiple part of scientific thinking. I could give you examples of where people ,who sucked at mathematical thinking ,misinterpreted scientific findings or research in hyperbolic fashion etc...but that is a topic for another thread.

    I am not going to respond to most of your post or to thetick's post for various reasons :

    1.) The potential to go off topic

    2.) I have spent too much time arguing with people , on forums, over the years. Innumerate people seem not to understand that small amounts can eventually add up to large sums. Archimedes once said that if you gave him a lever, long enough, to stand on, he could lift the world. Point is if I tally up all the time I spent on forums, over my life, it could add up to years. Plus this forum does not have alot of members and visitors , also, most people here are not elite which could make up for the lack of sheer numbers of people.Therefore, I don't want to argue with you guys.


    Anyway, to bring this thread back on topic the alt-right and Bannon etc..are a breath of fresh air from the flamingly liberal Clinton Administration. Just compare Bannon's "Camp of Saints" etc.. statements and the assertively pro-white statements of Spencer to this :



    Bill Clinton stated there that Whites would become a minority, in the USA, in the 21st century etc...


    Jews comprised more than 50% of all appointed positions in the flamingly-liberal Clinton administration.

    Juxtapose that with Spencer's interview , with that Jew, and Bannon's view -- it is night and day.
    Last edited by ThePendragon; 2017-03-11 at 21:36.
    American of Scots-Irish or Ulster Ancestry :

    'I am a Scotsman', Sir Walter Scott once famously wrote, ' therefore I had to fight my way into the world'.

    "Of all the small nations of this earth, perhaps only the ancient Greeks surpass the Scots in their contribution to mankind.” --Winston Churchill(England)

    "We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation.” --Voltaire(France)

  7. #5
    Senior Moderator
    Plant of Life = Biological Magic 麻 EliasAlucard's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-22
    Posts
    14,711
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Y-DNA
    J1a2a1a2-P58+
    mtDNA
    H5a
    Race
    Caucasian
    Phenotype
    Alpinid
    Metaethnos
    proto-Semitic
    Ethnicity
    Assyrian/Armenian
    Politics
    Environment, Cannabis
    Religion
    Secular Agnostic
    Assyria Assyria 1913-1923 Armenia Lebanon Sweden Greece

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePendragon View Post
    You don't have to be a math genius to be numerate. Scientists are not Fields medal winning mathematicians and being numerate is an indensiple part of scientific thinking. I could give you examples of where people ,who sucked at mathematical thinking ,misinterpreted scientific findings or research in hyperbolic fashion etc...but that is a topic for another thread.

    I am not going to respond to most of your post or to thetick's post for various reasons :

    1.) The potential to go off topic

    2.) I have spent too much time arguing with people , on forums, over the years. Innumerate people seem not to understand that small amounts can eventually add up to large sums. Archimedes once said that if you gave him a lever, long enough, to stand on, he could lift the world. Point is if I tally up all the time I spent on forums, over my life, it could add up to years. Plus this forum does not have alot of members and visitors , also, most people here are not elite which could make up for the lack of sheer numbers of people.Therefore, I don't want to argue with you guys.
    1) You can self-aggrandize your math skills all you like, and I'm sure you're much better at math than I am (it's not like I calculate/practice math on my spare time anyway). However, being good at math is not the same as being knowledgeable. You can still be an idiot -- knowledge-wise -- and be awesome at math. Trust me, I know such people; they're like awesome at math and also chess, which means they're intelligent somehow, yet their brains are completely empty on knowledge; they do not understand the world.

    2) What I just wrote about nutrition is scientifically valid. As far as nutrition is concerned, unlike you and the alt right, I really know what I'm talking about. That's because I take knowledge seriously, as opposed to some ridiculous ideological "my ancestors ate like this, therefore the paleodiet must be superior" nonsense. That's like ethnic fanboyism ya know.

    3) My point being, the alt right is fine for the most part on topics they understand and are interested in, such as race and demographics, and similar ethnicity oriented topics. Outside of this area though, they're largely as clueless as all other mainstream people. I just used the paleodiet as a case in point of alt right retardation, because the paleodiet is very popular among alt righters, but it's not the only thing they're wrong about.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePendragon View Post
    Anyway, to bring this thread back on topic the alt-right and Bannon etc..are a breath of Fresh air from the flamingly liberal Clinton Administration. Just compare Bannon's "Camp of Saints" etc.. statements and the assertively pro-white statements of Spencer to this :



    Jews comprised more than 50% of all appointed positions in the flamingly-liberal Clinton administration.

    Juxtapose that with Spencers interview , with that Jew, and Bannon's view -- it is night and day.
    Yeah, the right in general is better for European/white ethnic interests, but the right is very detrimental to the environment (especially if it's the capitalist/libertarian/minarchist right we're talking about). You can champion your race and your ethnic interests all you like, it's kind of pointless if your economic policies are designed to destroy the environment.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: "small government" means irresponsible government. That and precisely that is the reason why I'm not a libertarian. I'm a strong believer in the Jewish proverb with great power comes great responsibility.
    Last edited by EliasAlucard; 2017-03-11 at 22:15.
    ReactOS <--- support this project so that we can get rid of Windows!
    Ubuntu MATE 16.04.1 LTS | PRISM-Break! | Windows7sins

    “A wise man makes his own decisions; an ignorant man follows public opinion.” ― Chinese proverb

    “Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.” ― H. L. Mencken

    “The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.” ― Socrates

    “Damnant quod non intelligunt.” ― Latin proverb

    Quoted for truth:
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaron View Post
    Anatolian Urhemait supporters are mostly butthurt Meds.
    For the lulz:
    Quote Originally Posted by drgs View Post
    Poland is a misunderstanding. It is a country which lies on the frontier between western and slavic world, and which combines elements of both.
    In fact, they are not even the Europeans in strict sense, meaning European as in bearing the responsibility and understanding of European interests. Poland has always been an subordinate country, on one side sucking German dick, on the other side -- Russian one, some kind of "novice" europeans, who are full of inferiority complexes, hysteria and obsessity neuroses. This is also true for all Baltic countries

  8. #6
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist ThePendragon's Avatar
    Last Online
    2017-07-26 @ 22:31
    Join Date
    2016-10-05
    Posts
    1,131
    Location
    New York
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1b-Z253 >Z6749.1
    mtDNA
    H
    Phenotype
    Atlantid
    Metaethnos
    Celto-Germanic
    Ethnicity
    mainstream American
    Politics
    conservative
    Religion
    pantheist
    United States Northern Ireland Germany Scotland Ireland England

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    1) You can self-aggrandize your math skills all you like, and I'm sure you're much better at math than I am (it's not like I calculate/practice math on my spare time anyway). However, being good at math is not the same as being knowledgeable. You can still be an idiot -- knowledge-wise -- and be awesome at math. Trust me, I know such people; they're like awesome at math and also chess, which means they're intelligent somehow, yet their brains are completely empty on knowledge; they do not understand the world.
    I don't think you understand because you have never been to college. In academia there are two camps : the literary intellectuals and the science/engineering/math department. There is an active dislike or even hostility between the two camps. I will call literary intellectuals type N and scientists type M . Type N people will be represented poets and type M by physicists. So what is the main dividing line between them ? Simply that the physicist knows a certain amount of math and the poet does not. Mathematicians see this dividing line as inevitable: physicists are physicists and poets are poets and there shall be no commerce between them. I took computer science, in college, so I was with the scientists and mathematicians.

    So what is my point ? My point is science is inherently mathematical so if you have no interest in math you should be a literary intellectual and give up on scientific understanding. That you think you can really truly understand science without math is highly delusional.

    'Knowledge' is a prerequisite to understanding but not as much as people commonly suppose. You can understand something without knowing everything about it and math is good at stripping away inessential information, with models, and calculating the essential stuff. Math allows us to see the hidden structures underneath the messy and chaotic surface of our world. It’s a science of not being wrong, hammered out by centuries of hard work and argument. Armed with the tools of mathematics, we can see through to the true meaning of information we take for granted: mathematical thinking is scientific thinking.

    So you either give up on science and become a type N person or you hit the math books and become type M. I am not saying you cannot become a type M person but that you are highly delusional if you think you currently are and you can't understand science without math.

    Also, in Thomas Jefferson's day it was possible to be widely knowlegdable in all human fields of endeavor. In the modern world that is not possible --you have to specialize to a large degree so that makes you a dilletante or a jack of all trades and master of none.

    Quote Originally Posted by ELIAS
    2) What I just wrote about nutrition is scientifically valid. As far as nutrition is concerned, unlike you and the alt right, I really know what I'm talking about. That's because I take knowledge seriously, as opposed to some ridiculous ideological "my ancestors ate like this, therefore the paleodiet must be superior" nonsense. That's like ethnic fanboyism ya know.
    I don't care what you think is scientifically valid because you are a type M person. You are also not a nutritionist.

    Let me explain in mathematics terms how someone can be wrong about diet or at least one way. Someone publishes a scientific sounding book, web page, periodical on the plaeo-diet or raw veganism. Lets say theoretically the book claims it clears up skin and makes you lose weight. Thousands of people read this literature so the odds are good, by chance alone, one among them will experience clear skin and weight loss and that is the guy who logs into the internet and posts his exciting testimonial, the people for who the diet failed stay silent.

    I am not saying that is exactly how you might be wrong, honestly, I have more important shit to do then read the specific details of why you think the raw vegan diet is the healthiest.

    My point is no one should give a shit what you think about nutrition or science because you suck at math. Math is the art of not being wrong about things hammered out through centuries of improvement, hard work, and argument. So even if you are not wrong in the way I just explained it is highly likely you could be wrong in another mathematical sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elias
    3) My point being, the alt right is fine for the most part on topics they understand and are interested in, such as race and demographics, and similar ethnicity oriented topics. Outside of this area though, they're largely as clueless as all other mainstream people. I just used the paleodiet as a case in point of alt right retardation, because the paleodiet is very popular among alt righters, but it's not the only thing they're wrong about.
    See my first reply in specialization and being a dilletante :

    "Also, in Thomas Jefferson's day it was possible to be widely knowlegdable in all human fields of endeavor. In the modern world that is not possible --you have to specialize to a large degree so that makes you a dilletante or a jack of all trades and master of none."

    Quote Originally Posted by Elias
    Yeah, the right in general is better for European/white ethnic interests, but the right is very detrimental to the environment (especially if it's the capitalist/libertarian/minarchist right we're talking about). You can champion your race and your ethnic interests all you like, it's kind of pointless if your economic policies are designed to destroy the environment.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: "small government" means irresponsible government. That and precisely that is the reason why I'm not a libertarian. I'm a strong believer in the Jewish proverb with great power comes great responsibility.
    Ok, well those are your political opinions. I agree with them in the most essential ways but not all. I am no longer a libertarian I am alt-right.
    Last edited by ThePendragon; 2017-03-11 at 23:54.
    American of Scots-Irish or Ulster Ancestry :

    'I am a Scotsman', Sir Walter Scott once famously wrote, ' therefore I had to fight my way into the world'.

    "Of all the small nations of this earth, perhaps only the ancient Greeks surpass the Scots in their contribution to mankind.” --Winston Churchill(England)

    "We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation.” --Voltaire(France)

  9. #7
    Senior Moderator
    Plant of Life = Biological Magic 麻 EliasAlucard's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-22
    Posts
    14,711
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Y-DNA
    J1a2a1a2-P58+
    mtDNA
    H5a
    Race
    Caucasian
    Phenotype
    Alpinid
    Metaethnos
    proto-Semitic
    Ethnicity
    Assyrian/Armenian
    Politics
    Environment, Cannabis
    Religion
    Secular Agnostic
    Assyria Assyria 1913-1923 Armenia Lebanon Sweden Greece

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePendragon View Post
    I don't care what you think is scientifically valid because you are a type N person.
    Okay, here's a scientific peer-review study that says, animal protein is more carcinogenic than vegan protein:

    Low protein intake is associated with a major reduction in IGF-1, cancer, and overall mortality in the 65 and younger but not older population:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24606898

    I'm sure the authors behind this study are also innumerate...

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePendragon View Post
    You are also not a nutritionist.
    I am actually, in the autodidactic sense of course. When I tell you raw food veganism is superior nutrition for both the biosphere and your individual health, that's a hardcore fact, because unlike you, I know what I'm talking about:



    You're of course free to disagree all you like, but if you want to prove me wrong, your argument(s) are gonna have to be a bit stronger than "Elias sucks at math". Clearly your knowledge in the field of nutrition is lacking, so you're trying to invalidate what I'm saying by pointing at my math skills (which I btw admit, are crap). Why don't you just agree with me that the alt right isn't right about everything? I mean do you really believe the alt right is 100% right on everything? Nutrition, I'm telling you, is a field they're totally clueless on, yet alt righters make absurd statements on nutrition that are conclusions they pulled out of their ass.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePendragon View Post
    Let me explain in mathematics terms how someone can be wrong about diet or at least one way. Someone publishes a scientific sounding book, web page, periodical on the plaeo-diet or raw veganism. Lets say theoretically the book claims it clears up skin and makes you lose weight. Thousands of people read thus literature so the odds are good, by chance alone, one among them will experience clear skin and weight loss and that is the guy who logs into the internet and posts his exciting testimonial, the people who the diet failed stay silent.

    I am not saying that is exactly how you might be wrong, honestly, I have more important shit to do then read the specific details of why you think the raw vegan diet is the healtiest.

    My point is no one should give a shit what you think about nutrition or science because you suck at math. Math is the art of not being wrong about things hammered out through centuries of improvement, hard work, and argument. So even if you are not wrong in the way I just explained it us highly likely you could be wrong in another mathematical sense.
    Math is just about the only scientific field that's truly objective. But that doesn't mean there's no knowledge without math, and math is beside the point here, since we're discussing other scientific topics related to the alt right. My statements on nutrition isn't just something I pulled out of my ass just to sound smart. I've been interested in nutrition, literally, since I was 12 years old. In the past two years, I've been researching nutrition like a motherfucker. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about as far as nutrition goes; paleodiet proponents don't (they're all morons to be honest).

    You can say what you want about me sucking at math; once you've done your homework on nutrition, you'll understand eventually, that I knew what I was talking about in my post above on omega-3 etc.

    I'll give you another case in point on alt right ignorance:

    The Origins of the White Man:


    ^^ In this discussion between Kevin MacDonald and Richard Spencer, MacDonald talks about European origins. Kevin MacDonald, who's not only college educated, but also an actual college professor (now retired) in both evolutionary psychology and evolutionary biology, said in this clip (starting from around 15 minutes), that the European hunter-gatherers (aka WHG), had white skin, 45,000 years ago... White skin, blue eyes etc., are like 10,000 years old according to all serious population geneticists. It's of course possible this is wrong, but I've never heard any serious scientist postulate that white skin existed among proto-Caucasoids 45kya.

    Now I'm not saying Kevin MacDonald is a fraud or even intellectually dishonest, I mean he denounces the ridiculous Khazar theory for example, so he's at least that intelligent and serious enough that he can discern between reality and complete stupid bullshit. However, Kevin MacDonald is like the alt right's top notch evolutionary biologist, so he should know simple basics like this, yet his primary source of knowledge on the proto-Indo-Europeans is not J.P. Mallory or David W. Anthony, but someone like Ricardo Duchesne (who's a fine academic in his own right, but he's not an Indo-Europeanist). And the fact that he seems to think West-European Hunter-Gatherers had white skin 45 thousand years ago, this is flawed stuff.

    And MacDonald's theories on the proto-Indo-Europeans, that they were individualistic, hierarchical, egalitarian etc. (these are views he got from Duchesne), is merely speculation, because PIE culture was illiterate and we don't really know much about their social stratification. Much of Kevin MacDonald's theories on proto-Indo-Europeans, is based on post-PIE cultures such as Sweden's Jante law, American anti-slavery sentiments and so on (clearly, these are post-PIE innovations). It's very obvious to me, as someone who's fairly well-versed in Indo-European studies, that Kevin MacDonald clearly hasn't read JP Mallory.

    At 37 minutes, Richard Spencer goes on to ask Kevin MacDonald, on the Out of Africa theory and Carleton S. Coon's polycentric hypothesis on human origins... MacDonald replies something along the lines that the Out of Africa theory isn't totally written in stone Anyone who knows anything about anthropology, knows that not only homo sapiens, but also hominids in general, originated in Africa, and if you say otherwise, you cannot be taken seriously. But I've read lots of similar stupid ideological bullshit from white nationalists over the years, that modern Europeans are genetically closer to Neanderthals than to sub-Saharan Africans, and so on. This is stupid bullshit, and anti-scientific ideological wishful thinking.

    With that said, Kevin MacDonald is very highbrow compared to the average alt righter on the street. So if he has some flaws and misunderstandings here and there in his own field, imagine how little the average Joe alt rightist understands on a topic he has no serious interest or expertise in, such as nutrition. Point is, if the alt right wants to be taken seriously, they have to take knowledge seriously, which they clearly have problems with because they're trying to politicize anthropology.

    Look, I like Trump and I hope he'll be a great president, but I have no illusions about his fanbase being this intellectual group of omniscient thinkers. Like I told you before: Republican voters (and politicians) are iGnorant iDiots, and Republicans are also the good guys, whereas Democrat voters/politicians are intelligent, open-minded and evil. This means both Republicans and Democrats are more or less equally bad, in different ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePendragon View Post
    Ok, well those are your political opinions. I agree with them in the most essential ways but not all. I am no longer a libertarian I am alt-right.
    Well, where you disagree with me, you're wrong

    Once you've become enlightened, you will understand one thing: there's only one knowledge, and science is not open for disagreement or "opinions", because knowledge is knowledge, and facts are facts. As such, that's why great minds think alike, not necessarily because all geniuses have the same mentality, but because knowledge is the same regardless of the individual, and geniuses are intelligent enough to interpret knowledge accurately. There's only one theory on evolution, big bang, gravity, etc.
    Last edited by EliasAlucard; 2017-03-12 at 11:42. Reason: polycentric, not polygenic, sorry
    ReactOS <--- support this project so that we can get rid of Windows!
    Ubuntu MATE 16.04.1 LTS | PRISM-Break! | Windows7sins

    “A wise man makes his own decisions; an ignorant man follows public opinion.” ― Chinese proverb

    “Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.” ― H. L. Mencken

    “The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.” ― Socrates

    “Damnant quod non intelligunt.” ― Latin proverb

    Quoted for truth:
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaron View Post
    Anatolian Urhemait supporters are mostly butthurt Meds.
    For the lulz:
    Quote Originally Posted by drgs View Post
    Poland is a misunderstanding. It is a country which lies on the frontier between western and slavic world, and which combines elements of both.
    In fact, they are not even the Europeans in strict sense, meaning European as in bearing the responsibility and understanding of European interests. Poland has always been an subordinate country, on one side sucking German dick, on the other side -- Russian one, some kind of "novice" europeans, who are full of inferiority complexes, hysteria and obsessity neuroses. This is also true for all Baltic countries

  10. #8
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist ThePendragon's Avatar
    Last Online
    2017-07-26 @ 22:31
    Join Date
    2016-10-05
    Posts
    1,131
    Location
    New York
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1b-Z253 >Z6749.1
    mtDNA
    H
    Phenotype
    Atlantid
    Metaethnos
    Celto-Germanic
    Ethnicity
    mainstream American
    Politics
    conservative
    Religion
    pantheist
    United States Northern Ireland Germany Scotland Ireland England

    Default

    Well, I edited my post a bunch of times before you replied. I even posted a second post, before you replied, yet you still quoted an outdated version.

    I suggest you re-read my post before I reply to your post above you are going to need it.

    I will read the study that you posted, before I reply, I never claimed you were definitely wrong but you could save yourself alot of typing and beating around the bush by posting the mathematical statistics.

    If the study has mathematics, in it, and there are flaws in the math I will probably find them.

    It might take me a long time to reply but I will.
    Last edited by ThePendragon; 2017-03-12 at 04:04.
    American of Scots-Irish or Ulster Ancestry :

    'I am a Scotsman', Sir Walter Scott once famously wrote, ' therefore I had to fight my way into the world'.

    "Of all the small nations of this earth, perhaps only the ancient Greeks surpass the Scots in their contribution to mankind.” --Winston Churchill(England)

    "We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation.” --Voltaire(France)

  11. #9
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist ThePendragon's Avatar
    Last Online
    2017-07-26 @ 22:31
    Join Date
    2016-10-05
    Posts
    1,131
    Location
    New York
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1b-Z253 >Z6749.1
    mtDNA
    H
    Phenotype
    Atlantid
    Metaethnos
    Celto-Germanic
    Ethnicity
    mainstream American
    Politics
    conservative
    Religion
    pantheist
    United States Northern Ireland Germany Scotland Ireland England

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    Okay, here's a scientific peer-review study that says, animal protein is more carcinogenic than vegan protein:

    Low protein intake is associated with a major reduction in IGF-1, cancer, and overall mortality in the 65 and younger but not older population:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24606898

    I'm sure the authors behind this study are also innumerate...
    Thanks , for posting that it demonstrates your innumeracy. I will now tear you a new asshole with mathematical propositional razor blades.

    The study says their is a higher mortality rate for people 50-65. That is less than 25% of the population. How much under 25% ? Probably, about 20.25%. So what is the total population, of say , the USA ? 318.8 million so your study only strictly applies to 64.57725 million people, overall in the USA, for example.

    You were obviously talking about raw veganism being good for 100% percent of the people ! But wait ! I am not done , yet ! Lol.

    The study also says animal protein, in general, not seafood protein that contains no PCBs or Dioxins. The study also makes no mention of of eating raw food.

    Not, only that ! The study claims that increased protein intake was associated with higher life expectancy after 65 and if I recall correctly did not say that increased intake of sardines and Herring etc... increased the risk just the nebulous 'animal protein' because they did not have a control group of pescetarians.But wait ! I am not done, yet !

    The paper claims there is a 75% increased mortality rate for the 50-65 population. It then claims there is a four fold increase in cancer. What is the risk for developing cancer before 65 ( the age where increased protein intake was associated with a decreased mortality rate) ? 0.2 so there is an increase to 0.8 of developing cancer from eating high amounts of animal protein between the ages of 50-65 compared to a general increased risk , of people over 65, developing cancer, of 2.15 regardless of diet.

    I can't find statistics for people over 50 developing diabetes but they said there was a 5 fold increase and if that 5 fold increase combined with the four fold increase does not add up to 75% the authors of the study could be innumerate or lying through omission( I don't have time to look at all their stastistical charts to see if I can make total sense of the 75% figure).

    I can't find statistics for people developing diabetes after age 50 but if the study did not control for other factors, like exercise and weight,and it did not, then the study is flawed. The study probably used over 6,000 Americans who are already overweight. It did not use over 6,000 normal weight or thin Chinese men who may eat alot of cats and dogs (LULZ).

    So things thet did not control for like pre-existing weight of the population and exercise habits of the population could potentially be a major flaw in the study.

    Also, I can't find diabetes statistics but I don't know that cancer and diabetes , alone, accounted for the total 75% increase. The authors may have omitted other causes that can, as well as factors they did control for, caused increases mortality.

    So the paper uses cox proportional hazard model, of statistics, and states there is a p <0.5 significance. Significance, in normal language, means something like 'important' or 'meaningful' but the significance test scientists use does not measure importance. In the same sense. I don't how you think you can properly evaluate such studies when you don't know jackshit about statistics e.g. cox hazard model, linear regression, null hypothesis etc...

    In short you would need to cite more than one peer reviewed study to prove your point and that study does not prove anything at all about 'raw' veganism let alone prove that regular veganism is superior to certain forms of pesceterianism.


    Quote Originally Posted by Elias
    I am actually, in the autodidactic sense of course. When I tell you raw food veganism is superior nutrition for both the biosphere and your individual health, that's a hardcore fact, because unlike you, I know what I'm talking about:



    You're of course free to disagree all you like, but if you want to prove me wrong, your argument(s) are gonna have to be a bit stronger than "Elias sucks at math". Clearly your knowledge in the field of nutrition is lacking, so you're trying to invalidate what I'm saying by pointing at my math skills (which I btw admit, are crap). Why don't you just agree with me that the alt right isn't right about everything? I mean do you really believe the alt right is 100% right on everything? Nutrition, I'm telling you, is a field they're totally clueless on, yet alt righters make absurd statements on nutrition that are conclusions they pulled out of their ass.
    You have no idea what you are talking about because you suck at math. See my first reply, in this post. You are not a well rounded autodidact because you don't study math.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elias
    Math is just about the only scientific field that's truly objective. But that doesn't mean there's no knowledge without math, and math is beside the point here, since we're discussing other scientific topics related to the alt right. My statements on nutrition isn't just something I pulled out of my ass just to sound smart. I've been interested in nutrition, literally, since I was 12 years old. In the past two years, I've been researching nutrition like a motherfucker. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about as far as nutrition goes; paleodiet proponents don't (they're all morons to be honest).

    You can say what you want about me sucking at math; once you've done your homework on nutrition, you'll understand eventually, that I knew what I was talking about in my post above on omega-3 etc.

    I'll give you another case in point on alt right ignorance:

    The Origins of the White Man:


    ^^ In this discussion between Kevin MacDonald and Richard Spencer, MacDonald talks about European origins. Kevin MacDonald, who's not only college educated, but also an actual college professor (now retired) in both evolutionary psychology and evolutionary biology, said in this clip (starting from around 15 minutes), that the European hunter-gatherers (aka WHG), had white skin, 45,000 years ago... White skin, blue eyes etc., are like 10,000 years old according to all serious population geneticists. It's of course possible this is wrong, but I've never heard any serious scientist postulate that white skin existed among proto-Caucasoids 45kya.

    Now I'm not saying Kevin MacDonald is a fraud or even intellectually dishonest, I mean he denounces the ridiculous Khazar theory for example, so he's at least that intelligent and serious enough that he can discern between reality and complete stupid bullshit. However, Kevin MacDonald is like the alt right's top notch evolutionary biologist, so he should know simple basics like this, yet his primary source of knowledge on the proto-Indo-Europeans is not J.P. Mallory or David W. Anthony, but someone like Ricardo Duchesne (who's a fine academic in his own right, but he's not an Indo-Europeanist). And the fact that he seems to think West-European Hunter-Gatherers had white skin 45 thousand years ago, this is flawed stuff.

    And MacDonald's theories on the proto-Indo-Europeans, that they were individualistic, hierarchical, egalitarian etc. (these are views he got from Duchesne), is merely speculation, because PIE culture was illiterate and we don't really know much about their social stratification. Much of Kevin MacDonald's theories on proto-Indo-Europeans, is based on post-PIE cultures such as Sweden's Jante law, American anti-slavery sentiments and so on (clearly, these are post-PIE innovations). It's very obvious to me, as someone who's fairly well-versed in Indo-European studies, that Kevin MacDonald clearly hasn't read JP Mallory.

    At 37 minutes, Richard Spencer goes on to ask Kevin MacDonald, on the Out of Africa theory and Carleton S. Coon's polygenic hypothesis on human origins... MacDonald replies something along the lines that the Out of Africa theory isn't totally written in stone Anyone who knows anything about anthropology, knows that not only homo sapiens, but also hominids in general, originated in Africa, and if you say otherwise, you cannot be taken seriously. But I've read lots of similar stupid ideological bullshit from white nationalists over the years, that modern Europeans are genetically closer to Neanderthals than to sub-Saharan Africans, and so on. This is stupid bullshit, and anti-scientific ideological wishful thinking.

    With that said, Kevin MacDonald is very highbrow compared to the average alt righter on the street. So if he has some flaws and misunderstandings here and there in his own field, imagine how little the average Joe alt rightist understands on a topic he has no serious interest or expertise in, such as nutrition. Point is, if the alt right wants to be taken seriously, they have to take knowledge seriously, which they clearly have problems with because they're trying to politicize anthropology.

    Look, I like Trump and I hope he'll be a great president, but I have no illusions about his fanbase being this intellectual group of omniscient thinkers. Like I told you before: Republican voters (and politicians) are iGnorant iDiots, and Republicans are also the good guys, whereas Democrat voters/politicians are intelligent, open-minded and evil. This means both Republicans and Democrats are more or less equally bad, in different ways.

    Well, where you disagree with me, you're wrong

    Once you've become enlightened, you will understand one thing: there's only one knowledge, and science is not open for disagreement or "opinions", because knowledge is knowledge, and facts are facts. As such, that's why great minds think alike, not necessarily because all geniuses have the same mentality, but because knowledge is the same regardless of the individual, and geniuses are intelligent enough to interpret knowledge accurately. There's only one theory on evolution, big bang, gravity, etc.
    Dude, the world is shot through with mathematics and science is especially mathematical. I can't take anything you say about science seriously until you get better at math. Until then I have to disregard whar you say. I can help you get better at math if you want help.
    Last edited by ThePendragon; 2017-03-12 at 07:52.
    American of Scots-Irish or Ulster Ancestry :

    'I am a Scotsman', Sir Walter Scott once famously wrote, ' therefore I had to fight my way into the world'.

    "Of all the small nations of this earth, perhaps only the ancient Greeks surpass the Scots in their contribution to mankind.” --Winston Churchill(England)

    "We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation.” --Voltaire(France)

  12. #10
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist ThePendragon's Avatar
    Last Online
    2017-07-26 @ 22:31
    Join Date
    2016-10-05
    Posts
    1,131
    Location
    New York
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1b-Z253 >Z6749.1
    mtDNA
    H
    Phenotype
    Atlantid
    Metaethnos
    Celto-Germanic
    Ethnicity
    mainstream American
    Politics
    conservative
    Religion
    pantheist
    United States Northern Ireland Germany Scotland Ireland England

    Default

    Alright, I am going to do mathematical judo on your ass Elias.

    Lets suppose that study Elias posted was correct that a high animal protein diet is unhealthy and causes increased death by cancer and diabetes.

    So, we assume :

    H is true H being that a high animal protein diet causes cancer and diabetes.

    If H is true then F cannot be true

    What is F ? F is that the traditional diet, of the Inuit people, was healthy enough not to increase their mortality rate via elevated risk of cancer and diabetes.

    Since, F is true H cannot be true so :

    *suppose the hypothesis H is true

    *It follows from that a certain fact F cannot be the case.

    *But F is the case

    *Therefore, H is false (the peer reviewed study on veganism Elias posted).

    Therefore, Elias is wrong since he tried to prove his point with that study.

    The traditional diet of the Inuit was high in seal meat and whale meat etc...

    "Cancer rates have been skyrocketing among the Inuit people—a dramatic rise that researchers say can be traced to changes in smoking, diet, and other lifestyle factors, according to a review published in the September issue of The Lancet Oncology.

    The Inuit (formerly known as Eskimos) live mainly in Alaska, northwest Canada, and Greenland. At the turn of the 20th century, cancer among the Inuit was very rare. Today the picture looks much different, with rates of several types of cancer rivaling—or even exceeding—those of white populations.

    Although genetics and environmental factors play at least some role in the changing health picture among the Inuit, researchers say a big part of the rising cancer rates stems from the Inuit’s changing lifestyle. In the latter half of the 20th century, their society underwent major changes, transforming from a traditional hunting and fishing-based culture into modern, urban communities. Their eating habits also underwent a major shift, moving from a high-protein, fish-based diet to a high-carbohydrate, more traditional Western diet. Their intake of unsaturated fatty acids (which are thought to reduce cancer risk) dropped, while their consumption of saturated fats rose. At the same time, they became less active, and more Inuit began smoking..."

    http://www.cancermonthly.com/inp/view.asp?ID=228

    You can research the samething about the inuit and diabetes.

    That is the power of logic and mathematical thinking. I proved Elias wrong with just 4 propositions :



    Elias, it should be sinking into your head now that being bad at math is a major weakness of yours that has significant consequences for your 'knowledge'. Since you cannot analyze your so called 'knowledge' in a mathematical way you have no idea how much you know is actually true or false. Since, you suck at math--most of your so called 'knowledge' is highly likely to be false.

    Hopefully, you see the need to fix this major weakness, of yours, by improving your math skills. You cannot prove anything you know is correct or at least most things without math.

    Your study does not even come close to proving that raw veganism is superior to certain forms of pesceterianism. Sucking at math causes you to be delusional.
    Last edited by ThePendragon; 2017-03-12 at 10:00.
    American of Scots-Irish or Ulster Ancestry :

    'I am a Scotsman', Sir Walter Scott once famously wrote, ' therefore I had to fight my way into the world'.

    "Of all the small nations of this earth, perhaps only the ancient Greeks surpass the Scots in their contribution to mankind.” --Winston Churchill(England)

    "We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation.” --Voltaire(France)

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. should a biracial kid be raised knowing it's african heritage? Why?
    By justthenewguy12 in forum Race & Ethnicity in Society
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 2012-08-21, 12:48
  2. Can you be an Anthropologist without knowing anything about genetics?
    By Multilingual in forum Physical Anthropology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 2011-04-06, 09:14
  3. SS African Fractals and Mathematics
    By pinguin in forum History
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 2010-05-30, 17:25
  4. The mathematics of classification
    By Machine in forum Typology & Classifications
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2010-05-05, 03:47

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
<