3 ms·

I'm sorry, but no matter what you say, your experience on forums is not going to move my priors very much. Plenty of people hear plenty of things on forums. It'

I'm sorry, but no matter what you say, your experience on forums is not going to move my priors very much. Plenty of people hear plenty of things on forums. It's not an efficient way of obtaining reliable scientific knowledge. Every other person has their pet cause where they know better than doctors because they did X or Y and it helped, and they found other people on the internet who agreed with them. It's a common story, and 99.9% of the time it's incorrect. People don't engage with you on this because it's pointless. You're not going to convince anyone who isn't predisposed to accepting your story, the same way a religious person who claims a divine experience isn't going to convince anyone who doesn't already want such a story to be true. In the same way, me telling Paul that he was probably hallucinating on the road to Damascus because he was dehydrated is not going to make him stop preaching the word of god. You don't have good evidence to present, besides hearsay about other internet people's anecdotal experiences. Read that last sentence. That type of thing is about three or four degrees removed from solid evidence. Surely you can understand how unconvincing this is going to be to a disinterested third party?

DoreenMichele 8y ago
Emphasizing how very much you are convinced I'm hallucinating is not an explanation for how too much mucus makes more logical sense as an immune system failure than too little. It also cites zero sources. Also, if you are so disinterested, why waste any time replying to me? If I'm a nutter, downvote, flag and move on. Let someone else talk to me who doesn't think I'm a total waste of their time.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
  You asked in another part of the thread why people are downvoting and not engaging. I explained why I downvoted, and why, if I hadn't engaged, that would have been. If you don't want the answer, don't ask the question. Also, I find myself congenitally unable to let anti-scientific behavior go without comment when it comes before me. I don't know enough about CF to know why it works how it works. But I do know enough about science and have enough experience with people with "unique" theories of disease to know that almost always, the prevailing scientific wisdom is less wrong.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    I don't think I asked that. I think someone else commented on the downvotes. I'm just making the observation that you are being incredibly dismissive of me while not actually engaging any of my points. Probably, I shouldn't have replied to such a dismissive position to begin with. The problem being I mostly get dismissive replies that don't take me seriously, so such a policy would have me not talking on HN at all, basically. And I've got no place else to go. HN is the least worst option for trying to find someone to talk with about such subjects, which happen to be a thing my very life basically depends upon. So I'm a tad stuck. I don't know enough about CF to know why it works how it works. But I do know enough about science and have enough experience with people with "unique" theories of disease to know that almost always, the prevailing scientific wisdom is less wrong. This was added after I hit the reply button. The word for this paragraph is "prejudice." You aren't actually qualified to rebut anything I've said, you just assume I'm a nutter because there are a lot of nutters in the world. I refer you to Semmelweis: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
      > I don't think I asked that. I think someone else commented on the downvotes. My apologies. You thanked someone who had complained about the downvotes, and said, "I wish people would actually engage me . . ." You did not yourself ask why you were getting downvoted. > The word for this paragraph is "prejudice." No, at least in common parlance (and in the dictionary) prejudice requires that the opinion be based on neither reason or actual experience. But my point of view is based on reason. Something like P(wrong | (heterodox scientific claims based on personal anecdotes and internet forums)) = >0.999999, applied to your particular instance of the above. I'm sorry, but there isn't any more efficient approach to people with unsupported heterodox views. The alternative is to treat every remotely plausible theory as equally valid to the scientific consensus, which I surely will not do. And, like you, I refuse to remain silent. > I refer you to Semmelweis: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis If you, like Semmelweis, have a study that shows your methods work in some sort of experimental way, I'd be much more predisposed to accept your positions.

DoreenMichele 8y ago

Emphasizing how very much you are convinced I'm hallucinating is not an explanation for how too much mucus makes more logical sense as an immune system failure than too little. It also cites zero sources. Also, if you are so disinterested, why waste any time replying to me? If I'm a nutter, downvote, flag and move on. Let someone else talk to me who doesn't think I'm a total waste of their time.

asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
You asked in another part of the thread why people are downvoting and not engaging. I explained why I downvoted, and why, if I hadn't engaged, that would have been. If you don't want the answer, don't ask the question. Also, I find myself congenitally unable to let anti-scientific behavior go without comment when it comes before me. I don't know enough about CF to know why it works how it works. But I do know enough about science and have enough experience with people with "unique" theories of disease to know that almost always, the prevailing scientific wisdom is less wrong.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  I don't think I asked that. I think someone else commented on the downvotes. I'm just making the observation that you are being incredibly dismissive of me while not actually engaging any of my points. Probably, I shouldn't have replied to such a dismissive position to begin with. The problem being I mostly get dismissive replies that don't take me seriously, so such a policy would have me not talking on HN at all, basically. And I've got no place else to go. HN is the least worst option for trying to find someone to talk with about such subjects, which happen to be a thing my very life basically depends upon. So I'm a tad stuck. I don't know enough about CF to know why it works how it works. But I do know enough about science and have enough experience with people with "unique" theories of disease to know that almost always, the prevailing scientific wisdom is less wrong. This was added after I hit the reply button. The word for this paragraph is "prejudice." You aren't actually qualified to rebut anything I've said, you just assume I'm a nutter because there are a lot of nutters in the world. I refer you to Semmelweis: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
    > I don't think I asked that. I think someone else commented on the downvotes. My apologies. You thanked someone who had complained about the downvotes, and said, "I wish people would actually engage me . . ." You did not yourself ask why you were getting downvoted. > The word for this paragraph is "prejudice." No, at least in common parlance (and in the dictionary) prejudice requires that the opinion be based on neither reason or actual experience. But my point of view is based on reason. Something like P(wrong | (heterodox scientific claims based on personal anecdotes and internet forums)) = >0.999999, applied to your particular instance of the above. I'm sorry, but there isn't any more efficient approach to people with unsupported heterodox views. The alternative is to treat every remotely plausible theory as equally valid to the scientific consensus, which I surely will not do. And, like you, I refuse to remain silent. > I refer you to Semmelweis: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis If you, like Semmelweis, have a study that shows your methods work in some sort of experimental way, I'd be much more predisposed to accept your positions.