The coronavirus scam

[JudgeRightly]

I watched the entire video, as, no doubt did the experts who discredited it.

You seem to think that you have the knowledge to accurately assess whether this demonstration proves anything of import.

I am quite sure you are, in fact, unqualified to make such a judgement. Just as I am unqualified to refute it on my own.

That is why I leave it to qualified experts to comment on it. And there are quite a few experts who claim this clip is misleading.

Your entire post is nothing but an appeal to authority.

It's a logical fallacy for a reason.

In what way was what he was demonstrating "misleading"?

 

[expos4ever]

Did you see the excellent video of an expert demonstrating the very clear fact that cloth masks don't stop the spread of covid particles? Can you believe facts or do you, like committed leftists, refuse to believe your own lying eyes?

I believe qualified experts over a quite likely misleading parlor trick. To wit:

The clip demonstrates that "to work properly, even the best masks or respirators need to fit properly, without gaps, and not everything that looks like a really good mask necessarily has good filtration," said Stephen Morse, professor of epidemiology at the Columbia University Medical Center.

But "it is a leap to go from there to generalizing that ‘masks don’t work,’" he said. Many peer-reviewed studies show "that masks do have a significant effect. They do work, when used properly."

 

[expos4ever]

Your entire post is nothing but an appeal to authority.

It's a logical fallacy for a reason.

In what way was what he was demonstrating "misleading"?

Of course it is an appeal to authority! You are making my case for me.

Do you really think that either you or I are qualified to judge the validity of that video in demonstrating that masks don't work?

Of course not. Hence we appeal to qualified experts. The "appeal to authority" rejoinder does not apply in this setting. If you dispute this, I can explain why.

I have cited 2 or 3 experts who all assert the clip is misleading.

 

[expos4ever]

Your entire post is nothing but an appeal to authority.

It's a logical fallacy for a reason.

The "appeal to authority" fallacy certainly would apply in a scenario where a person has the subject matter knowledge to make an argument, but instead defers to an authority.

But, of course, I do not have the necessary subject matter expertise. And neither do you.

Accusing me of committing this fallacy is like accusing me of the same fallacy if I were to claim that E = mc squared. Of course, I cannot demonstrate that this is correct. But if thousands of trained experts believe it, it is entirely reasonable of me to "appeal" to their authority.

 

[expos4ever]

Let me ask you budding scientists a question: If someone pulled a rabbit out of a hat on a video, would you accuse me of being foolish to believe he really accomplished such a feat? Granted, the situations are not exactly analogous, but the point is that what your eyes show you can be deceptive for a wide range of reasons.

 

[marke]

The problem with rebels against God is that they don't understand truth, cannot properly analyze scientific data, and do not know they are wrong when they clearly are. Several decades ago a small group of researchers searching for truth came up with data they took as proof Mitochondrial Eve was around 200,000 years old. Few questioned that assumption because how could they? The assumption could neither be proven nor disproven, giving the deluded great boldness in adopting the idea that the assumption must therefore be an irrefutable fact.

All of that changed dramatically when new discoveries came to light, forcing those proponents of the 200,000 years old theory to admit, using their own methods and calculations, that Mitochondrial Eve must have been only about 6,000 years old.

Mother of All Humans Lived 6,000 Years Ago

Inside a human cell's mitochondria--the tiny organelles that provide energy--there is a small and unique chromosome. This loop of DNA is passed from mother to child in every generation and provides an intriguing source of information about mankind's past. Geneticists are using that information...

www.icr.org

Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"--the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old. No one thinks that's the case, but at what point should models switch from one mtDNA time zone to the other?1

I watched the entire video, as, no doubt did the experts who discredited it.

You seem to think that you have the knowledge to accurately assess whether this demonstration proves anything of import.

I am quite sure you are, in fact, unqualified to make such a judgement. Just as I am unqualified to refute it on my own.

That is why I leave it to qualified experts to comment on it. And there are quite a few experts who claim this clip is misleading.

What we are missing here are the so-called experts who have the knowledge and ability to prove the guy wrong who demonstrated the weaknesses in masks.

 

[marke]

All righty-then. I will not take the time, at least at the moment, to discover the track record of your website - I am sure it will prove to most enlightening and amusing.

If you do not like Politifact, how about this:

Dr John O’Horo, associate professor of medicine and an infectious disease specialist at Mayo Clinic, said the conclusions the man in the video draws are “very, very questionable,” and “what’s being shown there isn’t really representative of the way that masks offer protection for the wearer or for those around the wearer.”

Mayo clinic good enough?

Does working at the Mayo Clinic automatically give the propagandist supreme authority and irrefutability in all things science or must the Mayo Clinic guy convincingly explain why it is his opinion the guy is wrong?

 

[marke]

Let me ask you budding scientists a question: If someone pulled a rabbit out of a hat on a video, would you accuse me of being foolish to believe he really accomplished such a feat? Granted, the situations are not exactly analogous, but the point is that what your eyes show you can be deceptive for a wide range of reasons.

Human eyes are subject to deception. For example, look at the millions of dupes who thought the fake Piltdown Man was real and proved evolution.

 

[marke]

I believe qualified experts over a quite likely misleading parlor trick. To wit:

The clip demonstrates that "to work properly, even the best masks or respirators need to fit properly, without gaps, and not everything that looks like a really good mask necessarily has good filtration," said Stephen Morse, professor of epidemiology at the Columbia University Medical Center.

But "it is a leap to go from there to generalizing that ‘masks don’t work,’" he said. Many peer-reviewed studies show "that masks do have a significant effect. They do work, when used properly."

N-95 masks and respirators must be expertly fitted to faces to be effective. Cloth masks leak covid particles everywhere, through the mask, through the gaps between the mask and the face, and everywhere. Is that too hard for "experts" to admit?

 

[marke]

Of course it is an appeal to authority! You are making my case for me.

Do you really think that either you or I are qualified to judge the validity of that video in demonstrating that masks don't work?

Of course not. Hence we appeal to qualified experts. The "appeal to authority" rejoinder does not apply in this setting. If you dispute this, I can explain why.

I have cited 2 or 3 experts who all assert the clip is misleading.

Take my advice. Get your experts to convince you the guy in the video is wrong and then try to convince us. Otherwise, you are just parroting what your favorite guy thinks but does not prove.

 

[marke]

The "appeal to authority" fallacy certainly would apply in a scenario where a person has the subject matter knowledge to make an argument, but instead defers to an authority.

But, of course, I do not have the necessary subject matter expertise. And neither do you.

Accusing me of committing this fallacy is like accusing me of the same fallacy if I were to claim that E = mc squared. Of course, I cannot demonstrate that this is correct. But if thousands of trained experts believe it, it is entirely reasonable of me to "appeal" to their authority.

Thousands of experts thought the Channeled Scablands were formed over millions of years by slow erosion. One guy did not, but he was mocked to scorn. Thankfully, 50 years later Harlen Bretz, still living, was exonerated and the massive number of those opposing his views were proven wrong.

 

[marke]

I believe qualified experts over a quite likely misleading parlor trick. To wit:

The clip demonstrates that "to work properly, even the best masks or respirators need to fit properly, without gaps, and not everything that looks like a really good mask necessarily has good filtration," said Stephen Morse, professor of epidemiology at the Columbia University Medical Center.

But "it is a leap to go from there to generalizing that ‘masks don’t work,’" he said. Many peer-reviewed studies show "that masks do have a significant effect. They do work, when used properly."

Not true. Peer-reviewed studies do not prove cloth masks are effective against covid. Peer-reviewed articles may claim, but do not prove, cloth masks are effective at stopping the passage of covid particles. The science does not contradict itself. Biased humans dishonestly or unwisely use science platforms to promote ideas they want to be true but which are not true.

 

[expos4ever]

Does working at the Mayo Clinic automatically give the propagandist supreme authority and irrefutability in all things science or must the Mayo Clinic guy convincingly explain why it is his opinion the guy is wrong?

Strawman - who said anything about irrefutability? But, yes, the Mayo clinic has a very strong reputation as I suspect you know. As to why your guy is wrong, the Mayo doctor claimed:

what’s being shown there isn’t really representative of the way that masks offer protection for the wearer or for those around the wearer

You use words like "propaganda", accuse others of having "lying eyes" and make unsubstantiated claims that mainline science is systematically biased. And, of course you have to - the weight of the actual evidence is very strongly against your position: the only arrow left in your quiver is that of rhetoric.

 

[marke]

Strawman - who said anything about irrefutability? But, yes, the Mayo clinic has a very strong reputation as I suspect you know. As to why your guy is wrong, the Mayo doctor claimed:

what’s being shown there isn’t really representative of the way that masks offer protection for the wearer or for those around the wearer

You use words like "propaganda", accuse others of having "lying eyes" and make unsubstantiated claims that mainline science is systematically biased. And, of course you have to - the weight of the actual evidence is very strongly against your position: the only arrow left in your quiver is that of rhetoric.

I feel no burden to prove anything to others who demonstrate an unwillingness to accept facts, reason, and evidence.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Strawman - who said anything about irrefutability? But, yes, the Mayo clinic has a very strong reputation as I suspect you know. As to why your guy is wrong, the Mayo doctor claimed:

what’s being shown there isn’t really representative of the way that masks offer protection for the wearer or for those around the wearer

You use words like "propaganda", accuse others of having "lying eyes" and make unsubstantiated claims that mainline science is systematically biased. And, of course you have to - the weight of the actual evidence is very strongly against your position: the only arrow left in your quiver is that of rhetoric.

You still have yet to even attempt to answer my question.

In what way was what he was demonstrating "misleading"?

And no, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, period, and shame on you for trying to defend your use of it to defend your argument.

You're claiming that the experts who say the doctor in the video is wrong are right because they are "the experts."

I don't deal in logical fallacies, and neither should you. Explain, in layman's terms, if you must, why Dr. Noel's demonstration was misleading, or present "the experts's" reasoning for why his demonstration was misleading and/or wrong. Don't just assume that because "they're experts" that they must be right.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I feel no burden to prove anything to others who demonstrate an unwillingness to accept facts, reason, and evidence.

You're not providing facts or evidence. Why should anyone accept a site that prevails against reputable and accredited sources that run contrary to it? If I want to get a qualified mechanic to fix my car then I'm going to check their credentials before availing myself of their services. I'm sure not going to run to one who says he has an unconventional method for fixing a carburettor that's so much better than what a highly regarded expert has proven to be the case. You talk about people dishonestly and unwisely using science platforms to prove what they want to be true. You are absolutely no different and are using sources that you declare - sans evidence - to be so.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You still have yet to even attempt to answer my question.



And no, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, period, and shame on you for trying to defend your use of it to defend your argument.

You're claiming that the experts who say the doctor in the video is wrong are right because they are "the experts."

I don't deal in logical fallacies, and neither should you. Explain, in layman's terms, if you must, why Dr. Noel's demonstration was misleading, or present "the experts's" reasoning for why his demonstration was misleading and/or wrong. Don't just assume that because "they're experts" that they must be right.

How is what you're doing not an appeal to authority either? You've posted a video from youtube which presumably you agree with, correct? On what basis? Why? What expertise do you have on the subject at hand to comment? Why should it trump what accredited experts in the field have to say on the matter?

 

[marke]

You're not providing facts or evidence. Why should anyone accept a site that prevails against reputable and accredited sources that run contrary to it? If I want to get a qualified mechanic to fix my car then I'm going to check their credentials before availing myself of their services. I'm sure not going to run to one who says he has an unconventional method for fixing a carburettor that's so much better than what a highly regarded expert has proven to be the case. You talk about people dishonestly and unwisely using science platforms to prove what they want to be true. You are absolutely no different and are using sources that you declare - sans evidence - to be so.

I understand blind devotion to government and political spokespeople who have certain credentials the general public tends to blindly accept. But I have learned not to trust the degreed experts if I detect in them a bias that causes them to ignore or misrepresent facts, evidence, or science.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I understand blind devotion to government and political spokespeople who have certain credentials the general public tends to blindly accept. But I have learned not to trust the degreed experts if I detect in them a bias that causes them to ignore or misrepresent facts, evidence, or science.

I don't have any blind devotion to government or political spokespeople, far from it. I'm cynical as all get out where it comes to such. That's why it's bewildering to me how some people can so resolutely align to certain platforms such as the MAGA crowd. It's baffling. That's rather different to railing against expert medical opinion and what kind of expertise do you have to accuse those of misrepresenting facts, evidence and science? That's just a trite soundbite and merely shows your own bias unless you have verified credentials in the field you'd care to share?

 

[marke]

I don't have any blind devotion to government or political spokespeople, far from it. I'm cynical as all get out where it comes to such. That's why it's bewildering to me how some people can so resolutely align to certain platforms such as the MAGA crowd. It's baffling. That's rather different to railing against expert medical opinion and what kind of expertise do you have to accuse those of misrepresenting facts, evidence and science? That's just a trite soundbite and merely shows your own bias unless you have verified credentials in the field you'd care to share?

Dr. Fauci is no expert. He is an egotistical, fortune-seeking, narcissistic quack. Don't try to give me the baloney that he knows what is best for this country and for individuals. If he had known and done what was best for us he would never have funded gain of function research on developing bat viruses dangerous to humans.