To Comment or not to Comment

It is always a question, to comment of not to comment on other blogs. It can draw traffic, or just bullshit rhetoric. Noise. I got into a discussion with a (((punk))) on an atheistic lite blog. I did not realize that three brackets around the name (((name))) was a )))far right radical((( symbol or (((Jewish))) symbol; or I would not have responded. The young fellow was missing any logic, but Oh well, what do we expect from a ((( punk)))... rhetoric only.

Now let me say that I do not have anything against jews, but they seem to want special treatment because they are Jew. They invaded Palestine after WW2, for the second time and expect peace. Our ancestors invaded North America, and we expect the native to be peaceful... well where is the logic there... and what do we get. Open season on natives... 

Back when I was young, and at University, when the slide rule was common for calculation, when we need to track mantissa and exponent, there were rules of calculation. Significant, potential error, were considered at most calculations.  Buckingham's Pi theory ruled, and occasionally the question was questioned as to the value of the question. There was one more; is the data real or noise? Is the data significant? Slide rule fourth digit, the smugged number, the beer induced laboratory experiment with totally fudged data, where the data had no value, the write up and calculations were all that was marker. Lots of those at Uni. Is the data real or imaginary?

Where the data does not pass Buckham's Pi theory, and the data has no checksum like component, then, should be considered as suspect. That pitches our much of the studies and potentially bogus. Oh well. I think that we need to evaluate the things we have lost with the computers, and no error calculations. Check sums. Also tests for data validity. Too much is just bullshit.

In taking on a study that goes against our interests, companies often tear down the author. The study may be correct, but the author has exposure, so it easy to discredit the author, rather than the work. We see this frequently in diet studies, like Tim Noakes, and NHS vaccinate Andrew Wakefield for example.  Noakes was correct, while Wakefield paper had minor errors in the calculations. Wakefield was destroyed, even though his data shows that 18 autistic children had MMR vaccination at less than 12 months age. It found a common element with a cluster of autistic children. It also showed some form of IBS was also common to all. It cannot say anything about cause either way.

All this does not matter, there is much bullshit on the net, and it all should be exposed for what it is, bullshit. But so is religion. We now understand that all religions are just group coping mechanisms. There are better ways to cope, reality, understanding, truth, and those systems that intend on exposing the truth, mainly science.