3 ms·

Turns out that recent studies say you’re wrong. Counter-intuitively, making rational, fact-based arguments actually makes “them” reject scientific fact even mor

Turns out that recent studies say you’re wrong. Counter-intuitively, making rational, fact-based arguments actually makes “them” reject scientific fact even more strongly. Look it up.

ItsMe000001 8y ago
Which is why you decided to leave out any details? Given the quality of the average study I'm not going to drop my arguments for the yelling. "There is a study" means little or even nothing at all. Also, I think I read about what you mean and I think you are misinterpreting it. Of course in the end human life is all about emotions and what controls inside your brain what evidence is accepted naturally is quite complex or we would not have that "old scientists need to die" meme, but it does not mean at all that arguments don't ever work. The problem with the average argument - don't know if adding "especially on the Internet" is justified or if it's actually not much different than the rest of life - is atrociously bad. I would not be persuaded by most arguments made to me and I think that this is very rational. There is more than one side to this. The problem is good arguments take a lot of effort and time - and it's an iterative process. It needs someone to take somebody else seriously, mostly to be able to "read" the other person, what their issue actually is. Very often it isn't what somebody says. The brain puts thoughts into words not like a computer, where what you get on the outside is a correct representation of internal state. Instead, human speech is itself an iterative process and develops dynamically. For example, it may very well be that what somebody really needs is somebody they feel they can trust, rather than that they need the actual details. Even worse, while you say things, if you really put effort into it, _what_ you think may very well change too! That lack of trust is an issue for very good reasons in large parts of our society is a fact, unfortunately. I think the discussion is full of "barking at the wrong tree". Yes, I think technical arguments won't help because underneath there is a severe lack of trust in authorities, medical, technical, administrative. Which quite frankly I don't find irrational. I think arguing about frequencies and what they do is like trying to treat the skin problems of a severe disease instead of the underlying cause. Of course, it is much - MUCH - harder to get at that underlying cause, which is way to obig and hard to get at, far easier to go after the symptoms. Because to really treat such issues deeply would mean big changes to our society. By the way, it is not true that radio frequencies can't cause cancer at all (and that we are certain of this knowledge), as I read in some comments here. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10926722 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10926722 Yes that's very specific and extreme, they were right under the radar for much of their life. I read it first in the context of German Bundeswehr radar technicians (example: https://www.dw.com/en/german-army-cancer-victims-sue-us-radar-firms/a-1098125 https://www.dw.com/en/german-army-cancer-victims-sue-us-rada...). Also: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/radio-frequency-radiation-may-cause-cancer-israeli-study-suggests-1.5918197 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/radio-frequency-radiatio...

Turns out that recent studies say you’re wrong. Counter-intuitively, making rational, fact-based arguments actually makes “them” reject scientific fact even more strongly. Look it up.

ItsMe000001 8y ago

Which is why you decided to leave out any details? Given the quality of the average study I'm not going to drop my arguments for the yelling. "There is a study" means little or even nothing at all. Also, I think I read about what you mean and I think you are misinterpreting it. Of course in the end human life is all about emotions and what controls inside your brain what evidence is accepted naturally is quite complex or we would not have that "old scientists need to die" meme, but it does not mean at all that arguments don't ever work. The problem with the average argument - don't know if adding "especially on the Internet" is justified or if it's actually not much different than the rest of life - is atrociously bad. I would not be persuaded by most arguments made to me and I think that this is very rational. There is more than one side to this. The problem is good arguments take a lot of effort and time - and it's an iterative process. It needs someone to take somebody else seriously, mostly to be able to "read" the other person, what their issue actually is. Very often it isn't what somebody says. The brain puts thoughts into words not like a computer, where what you get on the outside is a correct representation of internal state. Instead, human speech is itself an iterative process and develops dynamically. For example, it may very well be that what somebody really needs is somebody they feel they can trust, rather than that they need the actual details. Even worse, while you say things, if you really put effort into it, _what_ you think may very well change too! That lack of trust is an issue for very good reasons in large parts of our society is a fact, unfortunately. I think the discussion is full of "barking at the wrong tree". Yes, I think technical arguments won't help because underneath there is a severe lack of trust in authorities, medical, technical, administrative. Which quite frankly I don't find irrational. I think arguing about frequencies and what they do is like trying to treat the skin problems of a severe disease instead of the underlying cause. Of course, it is much - MUCH - harder to get at that underlying cause, which is way to obig and hard to get at, far easier to go after the symptoms. Because to really treat such issues deeply would mean big changes to our society. By the way, it is not true that radio frequencies can't cause cancer at all (and that we are certain of this knowledge), as I read in some comments here. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10926722 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10926722 Yes that's very specific and extreme, they were right under the radar for much of their life. I read it first in the context of German Bundeswehr radar technicians (example: https://www.dw.com/en/german-army-cancer-victims-sue-us-radar-firms/a-1098125 https://www.dw.com/en/german-army-cancer-victims-sue-us-rada...). Also: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/radio-frequency-radiation-may-cause-cancer-israeli-study-suggests-1.5918197 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/radio-frequency-radiatio...