critical thinking = = is an agent of true 'scientific method' [which supports and embraces the factor of integrity within any process of inquiry]

Critical thinking [and true science aka open and unbiased inquiry], respects and honours truth telling.

It abhors deceit, and abhors the hiding of a malefaction [wrongdoing] process.


agent = = a person or thing that takes an active role or produces a specified effect.




Quote:

What is critical thinking? Critical thinking is a kind of thinking in which you question, analyse, interpret, evaluate and make a judgement about what you read, hear, say, or write. The term critical comes from the Greek word kritikos meaning “able to judge or discern”. ......

https://www.monash.edu/learnhq/enhance-your-thinking/critical-thinking/what-is-critical-thinking



.



"The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name."
- Confucius


"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law."
- E.A. Bucchianeri, Brushstrokes of a Gadfly,


"If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."
- J.S. Mill - English philosopher - on people who try to silence opinions with which they disagree


Application of error, has caused so much of human suffering.
Errors hidden in darkness, perpetuate themselves.
Only full and open examination [i.e. light!], is able to expose error and thereby allow its mindful rejection.
- Yadda

I thought you left?

there is a difference between critical thinking and succumbing to conspiracy theories. ::)

John Smith wrote on Aug 24^th, 2022 at 10:08am:

there is a difference between critical thinking and succumbing to conspiracy theories. ::)

When the the COVID-19 vaccination(s) became available in Australia, governments, and medical authorities [in Australia] stated publicly, that receiving the COVID-19 vaccination would 'protect you'.

And prevent you from getting the COVID-19 infection.
[later, they claimed that getting the COVID-19 vaccination would prevent you from getting very sick, with COVID]

And yet, many, many, many, many people who received the COVID-19 vaccination, THEN, got the COVID-19 infection [according to PCR test results],
AND, some of those persons [even after receiving the COVID-19 vaccination(s)] died of COVID [according to PCR test results].


But persons like yourself now choose to present those facts, as a concocted 'conspiracy theory'.

Why are you doing that ?

Jim Lahey wrote on Aug 24^th, 2022 at 10:06am:

I thought you left?

Jim Lahey,

Did you miss me ?



I came back, because i couldn't bare to stay away from you.

[its a lie.   i may go to hell for that lie !     :P     the risks i take, for you John, in expressing myself on a public forum !!! ]

Yadda wrote on Aug 24^th, 2022 at 10:28am:

When the the COVID-19 vaccination(s) became available in Australia, governments, and medical authorities [in Australia] stated publicly, that receiving the COVID-19 vaccination would 'protect you'.

thats doesn't mean you should turn off your brain.

No vaccine offers 100% protection. They never have and they never will. Pretending that it's some sort of conspiracy because some politician used the wrong terminology shows a distinct LACK OFF critical thinking

John Smith wrote on Aug 24^th, 2022 at 10:34am:

Yadda wrote on Aug 24th, 2022 at 10:28am: When the the COVID-19 vaccination(s) became available in Australia, governments, and medical authorities [in Australia] stated publicly, that receiving the COVID-19 vaccination would 'protect you'. thats doesn't mean you should turn off your brain. No vaccine offers 100% protection. They never have and they never will. Pretending that it's some sort of conspiracy because some politician used the wrong terminology shows a distinct LACK OFF critical thinking

It was more than one politician, on both sides, and what they were saying became gospel

But yes, critical thinkers would have determined they were spruiking bullsh!t

Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2022 at 12:43pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 24th, 2022 at 10:34am: Yadda wrote on Aug 24th, 2022 at 10:28am: When the the COVID-19 vaccination(s) became available in Australia, governments, and medical authorities [in Australia] stated publicly, that receiving the COVID-19 vaccination would 'protect you'. thats doesn't mean you should turn off your brain. No vaccine offers 100% protection. They never have and they never will. Pretending that it's some sort of conspiracy because some politician used the wrong terminology shows a distinct LACK OFF critical thinking It was more than one politician, on both sides, and what they were saying became gospel But yes, critical thinkers would have determined they were spruiking bullsh!t

so? they're merely repeating what they've heard others say. It doesn't matter how often it is repeated, vaccines have never been 100% effective.

John Smith wrote on Aug 24^th, 2022 at 2:24pm:

so? they're merely repeating what they've heard others say. It doesn't matter how often it is repeated, vaccines have never been 100% effective.

Critical thinking....

"The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name."
- Confucius

They were not vaccines.



Those injections are putting 'something' into the bodies of those who are willingly rolling up their sleeves.

But those injections do not fit the dictionary definition of a 'vaccine'.

I know what a 'vaccine' is.


I know that a 'vaccine'    always did,    and does,   produce immunity against a disease.

"The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name."
- Confucius


And i know that a REAL 'vaccine' is a very safe product, and a REAL 'vaccine' rarely causes any harmful reaction or death.

But these injections [provided under the guise of being a 'vaccine'] have caused many thousands of deaths in people who were injected with their contents.


.


From the Oxford Dictionary.....

WORDS.....

vaccinate

immunise

immune

------ >

n.b.
EXAMINE THE TRADITIONAL, AND REAL DEFINITION,
OF THE WORD VACCINATE !!!!!

Dictionary;
vaccinate = = treat with a vaccine     to produce immunity     against a disease.


Dictionary;
immunise = = make immune to infection, typically by inoculation.


Dictionary;
immune = =
1 resistant to a particular infection owing to the presence of specific antibodies or sensitized white blood cells.
2 not susceptible.


[/quote]


Pfiser, and Moderna, et al, imo, are not supplying the world, with any kind of product which could be characterised as being a 'VACCINE'.

i.e.
Because everyone knows that these products [these 'injections'] do not 'work' [as vaccines, they do not protect, against 'COVID', whatever 'COVID' is] !!


AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT !!!!

YET, THE VAST MAJORITY, REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT.

AND, THE VAST MAJORITY, ARE GOING ALONG [to get along] WITH THE EMPEROR WEARING NO CLOTHES.

EMPEROR,    ....NO CLOTHES.



"The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name."
- Confucius

They are NOT vaccines.

John Smith wrote on Aug 24^th, 2022 at 2:24pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Aug 24th, 2022 at 12:43pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 24th, 2022 at 10:34am: Yadda wrote on Aug 24th, 2022 at 10:28am: When the the COVID-19 vaccination(s) became available in Australia, governments, and medical authorities [in Australia] stated publicly, that receiving the COVID-19 vaccination would 'protect you'. thats doesn't mean you should turn off your brain. No vaccine offers 100% protection. They never have and they never will. Pretending that it's some sort of conspiracy because some politician used the wrong terminology shows a distinct LACK OFF critical thinking It was more than one politician, on both sides, and what they were saying became gospel But yes, critical thinkers would have determined they were spruiking bullsh!t so? they're merely repeating what they've heard others say. It doesn't matter how often it is repeated, vaccines have never been 100% effective.

There is no cure for polio, but it can be prevented with safe and effective vaccination. Inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) is the only polio vaccine that has been given in the United States since 2000. It is given by shot in the arm or leg, depending on the person’s age. Oral polio vaccine (OPV) is used in other countries.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/index.html

Two vaccines in the United States help prevent whooping cough: DTaP and Tdap. These vaccines also provide protection against tetanus and diphtheria. Children younger than 7 years old get DTaP, while older children, teens, and adults get Tdap.
https://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/vaccines.html#:~:text=Two%20vaccines%20in%20the%20United,teens%2C%20and%20adults%20get%20Tdap.


The Bacille Calmette–Guérin (BCG) vaccine is primarily used to prevent tuberculosis (TB) infection and disease in settings with high TB incidence.
https://www1.racgp.org.au/ajgp/2020/october/bcg-vaccination-an-update-on-current-australian-pr

and? No vaccine is 100% effective I don't care what the terminology used is.

Finding more people using the wrong terminology won't change that

John Smith wrote on Aug 24^th, 2022 at 5:40pm:

and? No vaccine is 100% effective I don't care what the terminology used is. Finding more people using the wrong terminology won't change that

How do you tell the difference between a good vaccine and no good one?

Did somebody put something in the water? Every thread has been hijacked by loony conspiracy theorists.

John_Taverner wrote on Aug 25^th, 2022 at 4:29am:

Did somebody put something in the water? Every thread has been hijacked by loony conspiracy theorists.

You're up early. I wonder why? Hmm.....   tsk, tsk  ::) ::)    :P

Frank wrote on Aug 24^th, 2022 at 9:46pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 24th, 2022 at 5:40pm: and? No vaccine is 100% effective I don't care what the terminology used is. Finding more people using the wrong terminology won't change that How do you tell the difference between a good vaccine and no good one?

you could try eenie meenie mineey mo

John Smith wrote on Aug 25^th, 2022 at 9:27am:

Frank wrote on Aug 24th, 2022 at 9:46pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 24th, 2022 at 5:40pm: and? No vaccine is 100% effective I don't care what the terminology used is. Finding more people using the wrong terminology won't change that How do you tell the difference between a good vaccine and no good one? you could try eenie meenie mineey mo

That's your method, thick as several planks.

(Shouda known not to ask a thick concreter. Sorry to exert ya.)

Frank wrote on Aug 25^th, 2022 at 8:41pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 25th, 2022 at 9:27am: Frank wrote on Aug 24th, 2022 at 9:46pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 24th, 2022 at 5:40pm: and? No vaccine is 100% effective I don't care what the terminology used is. Finding more people using the wrong terminology won't change that How do you tell the difference between a good vaccine and no good one? you could try eenie meenie mineey mo That's your method, thick as several planks. (Shouda known not to ask a thick concreter. Sorry to exert ya.)

no, I was just trying to find a method that you could relate to. Me I prefer to listen to what the experts have to say on it.

Yadda wrote on Aug 24^th, 2022 at 10:03am:

critical thinking = = is an agent of true 'scientific method' [which supports and embraces the factor of integrity within any process of inquiry] Critical thinking [and true science aka open and unbiased inquiry], respects and honours truth telling. It abhors deceit, and abhors the hiding of a malefaction [wrongdoing] process. agent = = a person or thing that takes an active role or produces a specified effect. Quote: What is critical thinking? Critical thinking is a kind of thinking in which you question, analyse, interpret, evaluate and make a judgement about what you read, hear, say, or write. The term critical comes from the Greek word kritikos meaning “able to judge or discern”. ...... https://www.monash.edu/learnhq/enhance-your-thinking/critical-thinking/what-is-critical-thinking "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name." - Confucius "Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law." - E.A. Bucchianeri, Brushstrokes of a Gadfly, "If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." - J.S. Mill - English philosopher - on people who try to silence opinions with which they disagree Application of error, has caused so much of human suffering. Errors hidden in darkness, perpetuate themselves. Only full and open examination [i.e. light!], is able to expose error and thereby allow its mindful rejection. - Yadda

A handy ready-reckoner:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgPC8KyVIAABO-_?.png

11. Thou shall not quote the Bible to support an argument. Very little in the Bible is true.

Quoting from a bottle of grog is not reliable either Monk. ::)

Then don’t do it, idiot.

Yadda wrote on Aug 24^th, 2022 at 10:28am:

When the the COVID-19 vaccination(s) became available in Australia, governments, and medical authorities [in Australia] stated publicly, that receiving the COVID-19 vaccination would 'protect you'.

A perfectly reasonable statement, supported by empirical scientific evidence.


Yadda wrote on Aug 24^th, 2022 at 10:03am:

And prevent you from getting the COVID-19 infection. later, they claimed that getting the COVID-19 vaccination would prevent you from getting very sick, with COVID

Again perfectly reasonable, and as it turned out, accurate.


Yadda wrote on Aug 24^th, 2022 at 10:03am:

And yet, many, many, many, many people who received the COVID-19 vaccination, THEN, got the COVID-19 infection, AND, some of those persons even after receiving the COVID-19 vaccination(s) died of COVID according to PCR test results.

Misrepresentation of fact.  Far more people who were unvaccinated ended
up in ICUs all over Australia.

The chances of being in an ICU bed in any given week if you’re unvaccinated is
60 per 1 million people, compared with 8 per 1 million people who have two
or more doses of the vaccine. [Data based on NSW Health COVID-19 Critical
Intelligence Unit: COVID-19 Monitor, 28 April 2022]

Other countries are seeing similar results. In the United Kingdom, a study looking
at cases of the Omicron variant found that unvaccinated adults are up to eight times
more likely to be hospitalised for COVID-19 than those who have been vaccinated.
[The Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre (ICNARC) 4 January 2022]

And for the death rates of vaccinated v. unvaccinated—as of 3 September 2022:

Vaccinated =  0.49 per 100,000 people (with 2 boosters).
Unvaccinated =  5.46 per 100,000 people.
[Our World in Data - CDC Response, Epidemiology Task Force]

These are the sort of data I often refer to when I agree with the science. You
may like to refute the above hospitalisation and death rates?  Do you think
they're legitimate?  And if not, what evidence do you have that supports this?
I'm more than happy to view your evidence, and give it due consideration.

AusGeoff wrote on Nov 1^st, 2022 at 7:40am:

.....Far more people who were unvaccinated ended up in ICUs all over Australia. The chances of being in an ICU bed in any given week if you’re unvaccinated is 60 per 1 million people, compared with 8 per 1 million people who have two or more doses of the vaccine. [Data based on NSW Health COVID-19 Critical Intelligence Unit: COVID-19 Monitor, 28 April 2022] Other countries are seeing similar results. In the United Kingdom, a study looking at cases of the Omicron variant found that unvaccinated adults are up to eight times more likely to be hospitalised for COVID-19 than those who have been vaccinated. [The Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre (ICNARC) 4 January 2022] And for the death rates of vaccinated v. unvaccinated—as of 3 September 2022: Vaccinated =  0.49 per 100,000 people (with 2 boosters). Unvaccinated =  5.46 per 100,000 people. [Our World in Data - CDC Response, Epidemiology Task Force] These are the sort of data I often refer to when I agree with the science. You may like to refute the above hospitalisation and death rates?  Do you think they're legitimate?  And if not, what evidence do you have that supports this? I'm more than happy to view your evidence, and give it due consideration.

And i believe all of the official government statistics which have been presented to the public, about "the death rates of vaccinated v. unvaccinated", from COVID-19.

Oh yes i do !

Honest !

/sarc off


AusGeoff,

You are talking BS about "the death rates of vaccinated v. unvaccinated".

The 'death rate' data has   been collected,   been compiled   and been collated   by the medical orthodoxy.

[The very same  medical orthodoxy who run our TAXPAYER $$$ fixated medical bureaucracies,
i.e. those who support the mandatory vaccination of the whole population],
...and then after all of this raw data has been passed through this 'sausage machine', then, the already collated ['un-challenge-able'] data is then presented to us [in the MSM].



The fix it in.

Many of us are convinced, that there is an appalling conspiracy in play, which has been organised, by a group of [super wealthy] medical elites/Big Pharma individuals.



.



AusGeoff,

Here is a 'medical expert' inspired meme, which you may want to explain to me.....

WWW search....
covid-19, unvaccinated pose a risk to the vaccinated
covid-19, unvaccinated pose a risk to the vaccinated, "2021"


The MAINSTREAM search engine algorithms are kicking up, dozens of MAINSTREAM MEDIA, medical expert endorsed articles which are promoting that line of thought.

"You know it makes sense!"

Really !!
Really !!
Really !!


Yes.

All i can do is urge all of you who read this, to get ensure that you vaccinated against ALL of the COVID-19 variants,
and to ensure that you are up-to-date with all of your COVID vaccine boosters !!!

Because this, is      the only LOGICAL WAY, in which you will be protected      from all of the different COVID-19 variants.

This is just commonsense.

"You know it makes sense!"



And yet voices like yours continue to insist, that we [the individuals] should not trust what many of us see happening [in front of our noses].
[vaccinated people, who were previously healthy, becoming ill and dying, AFTER BEING 'VACCINATED'.]

Instead we are told that,     .....We must just trust the medical experts, who have made these concoctions [.....and stand to make BILLIONS of $$$'s from their roll-out].


.



This woman [a 'front-line' medical worker] makes an insurmountable LOGICAL argument, to me.....

WWW search....

Quote:

"Why do the protected need to be protected from the unprotected, by forcing the unprotected, to use the protection that didn't protect the protected in the first place?"

- Retired RN [at a public hearing, in Calif. ?]

Scientific experts and their mindset:

This open letter has been sent to aps@psychologicalscience.org
It was open for signatures from Dec 2, 2022 - Dec 6, 2022 (it received 1375 signatures)
December 2, 2022


Dear APS Leadership:


The racism, general editorial incompetence, and abuse of power enacted against one of our colleagues (detailed here) is atrocious and completely at odds with APS’s stated commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion and ostensible commitment to “building an inclusive, connected, and meaningful global science.” We demand immediate, meaningful, systemic change from APS leadership that at minimum includes:

The resignation of the current Editor of Perspectives on Psychological Science.
Conduct an audit of Dr. Fiedler's editorial decisions and correspondence (given that other marginalized scholars may have met with similar racism, incompetence, and/or abuse of power at his hands). Make a report of this audit public.
Empower and fund your Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee to recommend and enact meaningful policy changes to address racism and intersecting dimensions of exclusion throughout the entire society, including in decisions about future APS journal editors.
Draw on the many available recommendations for disrupting racism in publication practices (e.g., Buchanan et al., 2021; considerable work already conducted by task forces at SPSP and APA) to improve representation, create accountability metrics, provide editor and reviewer guidelines to avoid common racist practices, develop feedback systems for when those guidelines fail, and practice and communicate inclusive journal values.
Conduct remedial training for all editors on editorial ethics and anti-racism.
Give Dr. Roberts the option to have his outstanding and important commentary published in PoPS, with the 4 other articles in question available only as supplementary online material for context, and grant him any additional reparative action he might deem necessary.

Signatories:
1375 names
https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1O212esQJDYVuiuvN3OQLg7YOD58PbhlmFjfYV3nREU4/mobilebasic?urp=gmail_link

The twiggew?


The furore erupted when University of Heidelberg psychology professor Klaus Fiedler, the then-newly installed editor of Perspectives on Psychological Science, set out to publish an article by cognitive neurophysiologist Bernhard Hommel, critiquing a 2020 article by Stanford University psychology professor Steven Othello Roberts. Following on his oft-stated belief that the discipline of psychology is systemically racist, Roberts had argued that journal editors should track the race of their contributing authors with a view toward enforcing diversity targets, while authors should similarly track (and be made to justify) the racial composition of their research samples. Hommel, by contrast, shares our own belief that focusing closely on skin color in this way represents an intrusion of political activism that compromises scientific freedom and independence. 

If Fiedler had left it at that, he might still be the editor of Perspectives. But he was so impressed by the critical commentary supplied by the three peer-reviewers to whom he’d sent Hommel’s article—Rutgers University psychologist Lee Jussim, Utrecht University emeritus psychology professor Wolfgang Stroebe, and University of Toronto emeritus psychology professor Keith Stanovich—that he decided to commission these responses, in adapted form, as stand-alone articles themselves. This was an unusual editorial decision. But Fiedler also invited Roberts to respond to all four critics as part of a larger “discussion forum.”

Fiedler and Roberts then engaged in a lengthy and complicated exchange of emails that lasted for months. We know this because Roberts, having lost trust in the process, decided to upload a manuscript describing the affair earlier this month, complete with a lengthy appendix that contains abundant excerpts from his correspondence with Fiedler. In the accompanying text, Roberts accuses not only Fiedler, but also Hommel, Jussim, Stanovich, and Stroebe, of militating against his work in a manner that is “unsound, unscientific, ad hominem, and racist.”
https://quillette.com/2022/12/12/a-rush-to-judgement-in-psychological-science/?ref=quillette-newsletter

With links.

This is the state of academic, scientific 'debate'. The Mothras, the Tut-tutsie Bbwians, the Tujds, the Mustaphakens - in short, the Performatively Aggrieved are everywhere, in massed numbers.

The science is settled. Listen to the experts, innit. Well, nuts to that when these are he scientists and experts.

Frank wrote on Dec 13^th, 2022 at 6:01pm:

Scientific experts and their mindset: This open letter has been sent to aps@psychologicalscience.org It was open for signatures from Dec 2, 2022 - Dec 6, 2022 (it received 1375 signatures) December 2, 2022 Dear APS Leadership: The racism, general editorial incompetence, and abuse of power enacted against one of our colleagues (detailed here) is atrocious and completely at odds with APS’s stated commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion and ostensible commitment to “building an inclusive, connected, and meaningful global science.” We demand immediate, meaningful, systemic change from APS leadership that at minimum includes: The resignation of the current Editor of Perspectives on Psychological Science. Conduct an audit of Dr. Fiedler's editorial decisions and correspondence (given that other marginalized scholars may have met with similar racism, incompetence, and/or abuse of power at his hands). Make a report of this audit public. Empower and fund your Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee to recommend and enact meaningful policy changes to address racism and intersecting dimensions of exclusion throughout the entire society, including in decisions about future APS journal editors. Draw on the many available recommendations for disrupting racism in publication practices (e.g., Buchanan et al., 2021; considerable work already conducted by task forces at SPSP and APA) to improve representation, create accountability metrics, provide editor and reviewer guidelines to avoid common racist practices, develop feedback systems for when those guidelines fail, and practice and communicate inclusive journal values. Conduct remedial training for all editors on editorial ethics and anti-racism. Give Dr. Roberts the option to have his outstanding and important commentary published in PoPS, with the 4 other articles in question available only as supplementary online material for context, and grant him any additional reparative action he might deem necessary. Signatories: 1375 names https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1O212esQJDYVuiuvN3OQLg7YOD58PbhlmFjfYV3nREU4/mobilebasic?urp=gmail_link

ABSTRACT
The   increasing   use   of   political   activist   arguments   and   reasoning   in   scientific communication  about  diversity  is  criticized. Based  on  an  article  of  Roberts,  Bareket-Shavit, Dollins, Goldie, and Mortenson (2020) on “Racial inequality in psychological research”, three hallmarks of the intrusion of activist thinking into science are described:
(1) blindness to the multidimensional nature of diversity;

(2) the failure to distinguish psychological mechanisms from the  impact  of  moderators;  and 
(3)  a blindness  to  agency  as  an  explanation  for psychological  observations.

It  is  argued  that uncritically  accepting  and  introducing  political activist arguments into science is likely to damages scientific freedom and independence.
https://psyarxiv.com/hvgrm/