4 ms·

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

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).
        NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
        That was not my question. My question was "if there is possibility of harm (that 5G can be harmful), how would you find it, identify what it is?"
        bawolff 6y ago
        That's a weird question. My position is that there is no such harm, and thus it is impossible to find it, since it doesn't exist. If someone asked you the question: "if there is a possibility of harm from oak trees, how would you find it?" How would you answer that question? Is there any reasonable answer to such a question? Or for the sake of argument, how would you answer the question "If 1+1 = 3 how would you prove that"? I just don't see any reasonable answer to the question "assume a position you don't believe has any evidence for it, now provide the evidence for the position you dont believe in". If i was able to provide the evidence or even concieve of some way to obtain it, i wouldn't hold the view that the position is indefensible. That's not to say its impossible in general. If you asked, "if arsenic has any harm, how would you find out" i could easily answer with, eat a bunch and see what happens. But i can't generally create evidence for something just because i assume the proposition is true in a thought experiment, and i firmly believe that the onus is on the proponent of a position to provide the supporting evidence and theories.

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).
      - NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
        That was not my question. My question was "if there is possibility of harm (that 5G can be harmful), how would you find it, identify what it is?"
        bawolff 6y ago
        That's a weird question. My position is that there is no such harm, and thus it is impossible to find it, since it doesn't exist. If someone asked you the question: "if there is a possibility of harm from oak trees, how would you find it?" How would you answer that question? Is there any reasonable answer to such a question? Or for the sake of argument, how would you answer the question "If 1+1 = 3 how would you prove that"? I just don't see any reasonable answer to the question "assume a position you don't believe has any evidence for it, now provide the evidence for the position you dont believe in". If i was able to provide the evidence or even concieve of some way to obtain it, i wouldn't hold the view that the position is indefensible. That's not to say its impossible in general. If you asked, "if arsenic has any harm, how would you find out" i could easily answer with, eat a bunch and see what happens. But i can't generally create evidence for something just because i assume the proposition is true in a thought experiment, and i firmly believe that the onus is on the proponent of a position to provide the supporting evidence and theories.