Arko ?

[thombrogan]

Nonetheless, there is a difference between science (purely based on facts) and scientific consensus (often times lobbied by parties with interests (companies, etc) to favor a certain outcome).

Whenever you see "scientific consensus" you know right away it's crap, because there is no consensus in science.

I’ve read two definitions of “scientific consensus” and one of them matches the one youse guys are sharing. The politicized/monetized version of an appeal to authority. It’s an “it’s right because the right people agree with me” situation and an acrimonious divorce from reason.

I’ve also read of a definition of “scientific consensus” wherein a study would be performed by multiple research groups and yield roughly identical results. It’s an “it might not be right, but we have yet to find out how it’s wrong and we’ve been trying” situation. If the answer isn’t uncertain, unnerving, and generally disappointing, it’s probably good scientific practices.

At least that’s my understanding and my sky-high Dunning Krueger strongly suggests I’m mistaken and my list being only two definitions seems to miss lots of nuance.

 

[luvmysuper]

I’ve read two definitions of “scientific consensus” and one of them matches the one youse guys are sharing. The politicized/monetized version of an appeal to authority. It’s an “it’s right because the right people agree with me” situation and an acrimonious divorce from reason.

I’ve also read of a definition of “scientific consensus” wherein a study would be performed by multiple research groups and yield roughly identical results. It’s an “it might not be right, but we have yet to find out how it’s wrong and we’ve been trying” situation. If the answer isn’t uncertain, unnerving, and generally disappointing, it’s probably good scientific practices.

At least that’s my understanding and my sky-high Dunning Krueger strongly suggests I’m mistaken and my list being only two definitions seems to miss lots of nuance.

I think the Crighton article I linked to explains it best. He says:
"Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."
So, in effect - saying the "scientific consensus" is so and so is an attempt to lend an air of science and authority to some proposition that can't hold its own water.

 

[Golden_Edge]

I’ve read two definitions of “scientific consensus” and one of them matches the one youse guys are sharing. The politicized/monetized version of an appeal to authority. It’s an “it’s right because the right people agree with me” situation and an acrimonious divorce from reason.

I’ve also read of a definition of “scientific consensus” wherein a study would be performed by multiple research groups and yield roughly identical results. It’s an “it might not be right, but we have yet to find out how it’s wrong and we’ve been trying” situation. If the answer isn’t uncertain, unnerving, and generally disappointing, it’s probably good scientific practices.

At least that’s my understanding and my sky-high Dunning Krueger strongly suggests I’m mistaken and my list being only two definitions seems to miss lots of nuance.

You are absolutely correct. Consensus can be understood in those two distinct ways.

My reference to it was the politicized/monetized (and thus preferred) version in spite of the existence of conflicting science.

 

[Golden_Edge]

Good article here

Michael Crichton Explains Why There Is 'no Such Thing as Consensus Science'

Do a Google search for the term “global warming consensus” and you’ll find more than 24,000 links (and more than 19,000,000 results without the quotations marks). The first link for “global warming consensus” is to this NASA webpage with the title “Scientific Consensus” and the following...

www.aei.org

I think the Crighton article I linked to explains it best. He says:
"Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."
So, in effect - saying the "scientific consensus" is so and so is an attempt to lend an air of science and authority to some proposition that can't hold its own water.

For the sake of clarity, I wasn't only talking about climate change when I brought up ' consensus'. It applies to different areas. One example was/is sugar. There are many others.

Climate change is real and is happening but it's natural. We would have to dwell into the long-range solar astronomical cycles driven by regular periodicities in the eccentricity to understand how it works. Yet, climate change is solely blamed on us, humans (our cars, our cows, etc). Would anyone care if we were told it's natural and there is nothing to be afraid of? Of course not. Fear is crucial to incite people to comply with socio-economic and geo-political agendas. That's how it's been done for ages, I am not judging. We are told polar bears are dying due to climate change then the National Geographic admitted it was not true. The WWF (and Netflix) spread the argument that climate change drives walruses off cliffs when again it is not true.

Back to (nuclear) Arko .

 

[luvmysuper]

For the sake of clarity, I wasn't only talking about climate change when I brought up ' consensus'. It applies to different areas. One example was/is sugar. There are many others.

Climate change is real and is happening but it's natural. We would have to dwell into the long-range solar astronomical cycles driven by regular periodicities in the eccentricity to understand how it works. Yet, climate change is solely blamed on us, humans (our cars, our cows, etc). Would anyone care if we were told it's natural and there is nothing to be afraid of? Of course not. Fear is crucial to incite people to comply with socio-economic and geo-political agendas. That's how it's been done for ages, I am not judging. We are told polar bears are dying due to climate change then the National Geographic admitted it was not true. The WWF (and Netflix) spread the argument that climate change drives walruses off cliffs when again it is not true.

Back to (nuclear) Arko .

I had no specific topic intended when I shared the article, I think the concept applies regardless of the subject mentioned.
I just thought that Crighton made a cogent summary.

 

[luvmysuper]

Many thanks. You probably recognize the username, too, then. One of my all-time favorite shows, it's a classic that never gets old.

But he's not wearing his hat!

 

[JimmyJoeMeeker]

But he's not wearing his hat!

Fixed!

 

[Tony1961]

View attachment 1688562

View attachment 1688563
View attachment 1688565
View attachment 1688566
View attachment 1688567
View attachment 1688569

too funny...I love it!

 

[Tony1961]

View attachment 1688571
View attachment 1688572
View attachment 1688573
View attachment 1688574
View attachment 1688575
View attachment 1688576

Gosh...I'm in tears from laughter...in a good way of course, perfectly replied

 

[sexy beast]

Arko will always be a top choice for me as long as its value, formula, and performance stay the same.

 

[Tillerman]

I like Arko!!!

 

[gsurko]

Check the cancer and neurodegenerative disease rates of the last 50 years .Then we can come back to the topic.

As I've already stated: It's not about living a longer life.
It's about living a better life.

The reason the numbers are up because there are more people.

 

[musicman1951]

Forgive me if this has already been covered. I'm currently using Canada Shave Soap and it's wonderful stuff.

There are only six simple ingredients in “CANADA SHAVING SOAP”:

– Triple-Pressed “Vegetable-Based” Stearic Acid (sustainably sourced from Palm Trees)
– Imported Coconut Oil
– Canadian-sourced Distilled Water
– Potassium Hydroxide
– Sodium Hydroxide
– “Vegetable-Based” Glycerin

That’s it! No added fragrances, perfumes, or unpronounceable chemical names.

 

[ZeelandsRoem]

Also, let’s not forget it is possible to get skin irritation from natural substances as well, not only from synthetic ones.

 

[luvmysuper]

Also, let’s not forget it is possible to get skin irritation from natural substances as well, not only from synthetic ones.

That may explain why my line of all natural Poison Oak, Poison Ivy, Poison Sumac, and Belladonna teas didn't take off.

 

[Gaspare]

Arko threads are kinda remedy. After a crappy day at work, you can easily enjoy the rest of the day, while reading them.

 

[Slock]

That may explain why my line of all natural Poison Oak, Poison Ivy, Poison Sumac, and Belladonna teas didn't take off.

Socrates last words after drinking a Belladonna tea was. "I drank what?".

 

[Slock]

I remember the Food babe (i Guess being pretty makes you an expert) was distressed that airlines were not pumping pure oxygen into airplane cabins and there was nitrogen mixed in with the air. Pure oxygen atmosphers are a fire hazard as we all learned from the Apollo 1 disaster.

 

[luvmysuper]

I remember the Food babe (i Guess being pretty makes you an expert) was distressed that airlines were not pumping pure oxygen into airplane cabins and there was nitrogen mixed in with the air. Pure oxygen atmosphers are a fire hazard as we all learned from the Apollo 1 disaster.

I think it was George Carlin who said "Think of how dumb the average person is, then realize that half the population is dumber than that."

 

[JimmyJoeMeeker]

Socrates last words after drinking a Belladonna tea was. "I drank what?".