Back

@chemoelectric “…letting the virus sweep through poultry flocks unchecked would be inhumane & dangerous… Dr. Gail Hansen… called the idea a “recipe for disaster. Every infection is an opportunity for the virus, called H5N1, to evolve….so far, the virus hasn’t developed the ability to spread among people…if H5N1 were to be allowed to run through a flock of five million birds, “that’s literally five million chances for that virus to replicate or to mutate,” It mutates just like #COVID #BirdFlu

@Pineywoozle I drive some people nuts, though, because I ALWAYS look for a way to blame the scientific community. Why? Because I know they will ALWAYS have done something wrong but will REFUSE to do correctly.

If THEY can't do things right, what's the point? The situation is hopeless.

Do you notice what is missing from the article? Try predicting from natural selection theory whether letting the bird flu go through flocks would actually produce disease-resistant birds...

@Pineywoozle From what they teach us in school, you might think so. Surviving birds would be the "fittest".

But actually all we know is these are birds that survived this epidemic. There is nothing in natural selection theory to reassure us these birds are prepared for the next epidemic!

Furthermore, diseases may damage the immune system. It was probably in "Science" I read about measles destroying immunity. Few doctors probably even know "Science" exists, despite it being the top journal.

@Pineywoozle So these things are not even mentioned by the quoted scientists, from what I can tell. Only that it is dangerous. Not that it is actually pointless.

@chemoelectric It’s a short article it just has a few quotes. I wouldn’t expect them to include everything. I think the Scientist probably know and understand that and might even have said it, it just wasn’t included.

@Pineywoozle No, I'm sure that's not there, and do you know why? Because I never see scientists applying theory and logic to such problems. They merely quote statistics and "expertise".

@Pineywoozle That's not good enough. It does not provide insight. It is intellectual authoritarianism rather than scientific orientation. It is why our society is progressively declining into darkness.

It's not religion, as many claim. Religion has never been weaker.

@Pineywoozle People have to be shown how to figure it out for themselves. Not told to stop thinking and do only what they are told. But it is the latter that they are instructed to do. "Being intelligent" is equated with repeating what "scientists" tell you. Not with figuring it out yourself somehow.

You are told it is literally impossible for YOU, A MERE LAYPERSON, to figure it out!

Yet I figure out all sorts of things.

@Pineywoozle Find someone who says "I believe in Science!" and quiz them well on scientific methods. They won't do well. At the least they will most likely completely leave out the role of logic.

It simply is not even taught anymore.

@Pineywoozle Neil de Grasse Tyson tweeted specifically that reality is what the vast majority of scientists say it is. Not what it it actually is, but what scientists say it is.

The man is an ignorant lunatic, and is the most popular science educator.

@Pineywoozle Let me go over my reasoning in detail. It has nothing to do with statistics, and I assure you I am not a biologist or medical doctor. I am simply not frightened into not using my own brain.

What people like RFK imagine is that birds who survive the bird flu will be those with "stronger immune systems" and so more disease resistant.

Nothing any teacher or doctor or "expert" has ever told me has contradicted this. Maybe it seems reasonable. But to me it is obviously untrue. Why?

@Pineywoozle BECAUSE IF IT WERE TRUE THERE WOULD BE NO DISEASE ANYMORE!

What "survival of the fittest" means is actually a tautology: that those who are still alive are those who were fit enough to survive that bird flu.

But being fit to survive that bird flu doesn't mean you are any fitter to survive the next disease that comes along.

So scientists are at fault for not teaching that "survival of the fittest" is a tautology.

They do not counter the teleological interpretation of evolution.