4 ms·

Regarding Sabine, it seems if one cannot win an argument then discredit those that do not agree, is that it, is that the way? > Individual ignorance doesn't co

Regarding Sabine, it seems if one cannot win an argument then discredit those that do not agree, is that it, is that the way? > Individual ignorance doesn't counter a century of established science. I bet that in 18th century, physicians were saying beside on a century of established science, we conclude that bloodletting is best cure for all illnesses. Why is so hard to accept that "we do not know"? Amazingly, at this point, there will be response, "but that is different", we know much more now? Do, we? Do, we really know? During this Covid-19 pandemic I just witnessed how much we really know, science was was changing opinions by the hour. If I could take a dollar for each of my developer in the team who said, don't worry that will work, I would have been a millionaire. Despite unite tests, test team, there is always something. So, I love when people tell me about physical world, which has few orders of magnitude of things that may go wrong, don't worry according established science... :) Should I just mention uranium glass? > penetration depth is less than 0.5 mm into the skin[3], which means that at most the new 5G frequency bands could cause skin cancer. That is not enough? Or risk is acceptable proceed to implement, we will have 7 billion test subjects, cost of progress? What if interferes vitamin D production, and then impacts all other issues connected with lack of vitamin D, like a depression, osteoporosis, weakened immune system? I am not saying it does any of those things but I am for asking questions, and I would like if science would address those with data, not dogmatic beliefs.

bawolff 6y ago
> Regarding Sabine, it seems if one cannot win an argument then discredit those that do not agree, is that it, is that the way? You were the one who brought up that she was a physicist, and appealed to her authority. Whether or not she is the right type of physicist for this subject matter seems quite relevant. Ultimately though, appeals to authority are always weak arguments. They are better than nothing, but fundamentally, experts are people - you can probably find at least one expert who holds whatever view you want. A single expert (even if it was in the right field) in the entire world agreeing with you doesn't exactly mean much. Its much better to concentrate on the arguments that the experts give. > During this Covid-19 pandemic I just witnessed how much we really know, science was was changing opinions by the hour It was a brand new virus. The media was often overstating the certainty of what scientists were saying. Most of the time scientists were saying - this is our best guess at the moment, but this is new so its just a guess, and the media reported that as - Scientists 100% sure that X is what you should do. > Should I just mention uranium glass? What about it. Its generally considered safe if made correctly. (That's honestly a weird example, because there is so many radiation based products in the early 1900's that were ridiculously bad ideas. Uranium glass is probably not one of them, even if I would definitely prefer not to have uranium in my kitchenware) > What if interferes vitamin D production, and then impacts all other issues connected with lack of vitamin D What if it causes dinosaurs to resurrect back to life, and velociraptors eat us? Without a theory as to how or why it might possibly effect that, you're basically shooting blind and you could say the same thing about anything. > Why is so hard to accept that "we do not know"? "We do not know" is not a single category. By some standards we do not know anything (perhaps excepting "cognito, ergo sum"). We don't know if the sun will rise tomorrow, if cause preceedes effect, whether or not we live in the matrix, etc. But just because we don't know anything for sure, doesn't mean we don't know some things more than others. I think fundamentally, we are talking past each other because you are arguing "we don't know", where I don't think that's the relevant question since that is always true. We obviously don't know for sure. The question is, do we know enough that use of the technology is reasonable. I think your argument would be more convincing if you set goalposts for what would be enough knowledge, in your mind, for you to consider 5g "safe" (And those goalposts be consistent, so that the other things you consider safe, already meet those standards).
- NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
  You want to be right so much that you constantly contradicting yourself. :) Anyhow, I would suggest learn about human anatomy a bit, and most of all scientific method.
  - bawolff 6y ago
    I would be interested in knowing how so specificly. After all, i can't learn from my mistakes if people don't tell me where i made them :).
    - NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
      Let me ask a question first, what would it take, or is there anything that could change your mind and consider 5G microwaves harmful to humans?
      - bawolff 6y ago
        Any evidence of harm or a plausible theory of the mechanism for the harm. By evidence of harm, I mean some sort of peer review study that hasn't been refuted by subsequent studies. There are plenty of people on the internet claiming 5g causes covid, etc who are extremely uncompelling. I don't count that as evidince of harm or a plausible theory of how such a harm could come to be.
        NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
        > There are plenty of people on the internet claiming 5g causes covid, etc who are extremely uncompelling. 100% agree with that one. > Any evidence of harm or a plausible theory of the mechanism for the harm How would you create those? What is an usual way to find possibilities of harm?
        bawolff 6y ago
        > How would you create those? What is an usual way to find possibilities of harm? Typically i would consider that the responsibility of the people advocating that 5g should not be deployed. In many ways the "how" doesn't really matter, what matters is how compelling the end product, the argument, is. That said, generally speaking you would go about it by taking what we know about how cells work, and what we know about how non-ionizing radiation works, and putting together a hypothesis about how damage could occur. Fundamentally, i think my issue with most of the anti-5g stuff is that the arguments tend not to apply to just 5g - they tend to be vauge enough that they would apply to almost anything. To be convinced, i would want an argument that applies to 5g but also objectively does not apply to say older cell phones or a space heater (unless the person was explicitly arguing that those other things are also unsafe).

bawolff 6y ago

> Regarding Sabine, it seems if one cannot win an argument then discredit those that do not agree, is that it, is that the way? You were the one who brought up that she was a physicist, and appealed to her authority. Whether or not she is the right type of physicist for this subject matter seems quite relevant. Ultimately though, appeals to authority are always weak arguments. They are better than nothing, but fundamentally, experts are people - you can probably find at least one expert who holds whatever view you want. A single expert (even if it was in the right field) in the entire world agreeing with you doesn't exactly mean much. Its much better to concentrate on the arguments that the experts give. > During this Covid-19 pandemic I just witnessed how much we really know, science was was changing opinions by the hour It was a brand new virus. The media was often overstating the certainty of what scientists were saying. Most of the time scientists were saying - this is our best guess at the moment, but this is new so its just a guess, and the media reported that as - Scientists 100% sure that X is what you should do. > Should I just mention uranium glass? What about it. Its generally considered safe if made correctly. (That's honestly a weird example, because there is so many radiation based products in the early 1900's that were ridiculously bad ideas. Uranium glass is probably not one of them, even if I would definitely prefer not to have uranium in my kitchenware) > What if interferes vitamin D production, and then impacts all other issues connected with lack of vitamin D What if it causes dinosaurs to resurrect back to life, and velociraptors eat us? Without a theory as to how or why it might possibly effect that, you're basically shooting blind and you could say the same thing about anything. > Why is so hard to accept that "we do not know"? "We do not know" is not a single category. By some standards we do not know anything (perhaps excepting "cognito, ergo sum"). We don't know if the sun will rise tomorrow, if cause preceedes effect, whether or not we live in the matrix, etc. But just because we don't know anything for sure, doesn't mean we don't know some things more than others. I think fundamentally, we are talking past each other because you are arguing "we don't know", where I don't think that's the relevant question since that is always true. We obviously don't know for sure. The question is, do we know enough that use of the technology is reasonable. I think your argument would be more convincing if you set goalposts for what would be enough knowledge, in your mind, for you to consider 5g "safe" (And those goalposts be consistent, so that the other things you consider safe, already meet those standards).

NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
You want to be right so much that you constantly contradicting yourself. :) Anyhow, I would suggest learn about human anatomy a bit, and most of all scientific method.
- bawolff 6y ago
  I would be interested in knowing how so specificly. After all, i can't learn from my mistakes if people don't tell me where i made them :).
  - NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
    Let me ask a question first, what would it take, or is there anything that could change your mind and consider 5G microwaves harmful to humans?
    - bawolff 6y ago
      Any evidence of harm or a plausible theory of the mechanism for the harm. By evidence of harm, I mean some sort of peer review study that hasn't been refuted by subsequent studies. There are plenty of people on the internet claiming 5g causes covid, etc who are extremely uncompelling. I don't count that as evidince of harm or a plausible theory of how such a harm could come to be.
      - NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
        > There are plenty of people on the internet claiming 5g causes covid, etc who are extremely uncompelling. 100% agree with that one. > Any evidence of harm or a plausible theory of the mechanism for the harm How would you create those? What is an usual way to find possibilities of harm?
        bawolff 6y ago
        > How would you create those? What is an usual way to find possibilities of harm? Typically i would consider that the responsibility of the people advocating that 5g should not be deployed. In many ways the "how" doesn't really matter, what matters is how compelling the end product, the argument, is. That said, generally speaking you would go about it by taking what we know about how cells work, and what we know about how non-ionizing radiation works, and putting together a hypothesis about how damage could occur. Fundamentally, i think my issue with most of the anti-5g stuff is that the arguments tend not to apply to just 5g - they tend to be vauge enough that they would apply to almost anything. To be convinced, i would want an argument that applies to 5g but also objectively does not apply to say older cell phones or a space heater (unless the person was explicitly arguing that those other things are also unsafe).