A interesting tweet from a indigenous friend

You don't you think science and knowledge have advanced a bit since the good ol days of yore.

You don't think that scientists throughout the ages have said the exact same thing about their predecessors?

You don't think that future generations won't say the same thing about our meager knowledge?

Of course, someone who believes that science can ever be settled obviously cannot comprehend that what we currently consider cutting Edge science could ever be outdated and proven wrong.

So I will ask again, how many peer-reviewed papers were produced by doctors belonging to credible scientific organizations in support of lobotomies?

So will you believe any science? My opinion is we work with the best availble info currently known. The alternative is to follow the advice of every sceptic out there.

You are sounding like chuck, it's not a good look, you are much smarter than that.
Science is not something that requires belief. Religions and superstitions require belief. Science requires proof and evidence. We have been through this over and over and over and over again with Chuck, who continues to claim that science is something you just have to believe hard enough in.
And yes, following the advice of skeptics is exactly what Science is based on. Scientists are the ultimate skeptics. The entire scientific method is based upon trying to disprove the prevailing wisdom. If none of the skeptics can disprove it, then it continues to be the accepted theory until proven otherwise.

Careful , you are starting to sound like BL.

Accepting scientific opinion is one thing but you must always be open as the science changes and offers up new information. You cannot just become entrenched in one result, one study, one opinion. There is never just one result, one study, or one opinion.

If there were, people would be entrenched in lobotomies and wouldn’t that sound credible.

Well unless you’re speaking directly to a scientist who conducted a study you’re pretty much getting second/third/fourth/etc hand info from Dr Internet on some level. Even Drs use the internet to do their research and form their opinions.

Depends on where you get your second opinion. If it is Dr. Internet be careful.

That is hilarious coming from the guy who spent the last 3+ years endlessly pushing medical advice about vaccines and covid on an online chat forum, and been wondering why no one takes his medical expertise seriously.

There are multiple sources to support any belief. That’s why you can still run into people who are actual flat earthers.

You certainly give the impression you think it’s 100% accurate all of the time. Or at least, what you believe is 100% accurate all of the time and there’s no room for it to be in error or to become erroneous, because your sources are just fantastic.

Have you ever been wrong about something in life Chuck, and actually acknowledged it, even if it was just to yourself. Or what you have believed throughout your life has always been correct and it’s never changed, so knowledge you used 30 years ago isn't outdated now. Absolutely no information you researched and applied to life 30 years ago turned out to be negative or ineffective in any way, because all your sources were great.

You seem to want to turn everything into a “Well my sources mean I’m right and yours aren’t credible so you’re wrongl” which would lend itself to historically being “My sources were right so everything I’ve ever believed has been accurate and correct while yours weren’t credible so nothing you’ve ever known has been right.”

The only real way to prove or disprove a credible source is time and hindsight. So if, in the future, the scientific community moves away from one of the opinions you get such hard ons for on here, will you still staunchly defend them, or would you humbly say “Well my sources seemed credible at the time but I guess they weren’t that much better than the others I mocked”

Hypothetically of course since I’ve never picked up any vibes that you are capable of admitting someone else may have a better understanding of a topic than you. You’re one of those wonderful personalities that, instead of considering someone may be making sense, just throws up the “Prove it with credible sources” card to redeem your own feelings. Which makes you just a ball at all the Yu Gi Oh parties I’m sure.

I think it is time to pass the torch.
Blaithin, are you interested in a full-time job putting Chuck in his place? The pay is poor, the patient is exceedingly ungrateful and unwielding, but at at least he provides unlimited material to work with, and comes back for a new session day after day after day after day.

No thanks. Some days I’m in the mood for it and he conveniently pops into one of the two threads I pay attention too, but most of the time I scroll right past his posts and don’t even read past ChuckChuck 😂 To keep hobbies enjoyable they must never become jobs!

Plus, his only other reaction besides “state your sources” is to completely ignore something that is making sense, in which case he does his favourite trait of yours, and deflects. Mainly on to you. I’m not sure I could compete with his crush on you, even if I had the flashy torch.

Fair points.
But I seem to have some formidable competition now with his crush on Danielle Smith. He even calls her by the cute name of Danny. Somehow I've never earned a cute nickname in spite of all of the attention I have lavished upon Chuck.
Your efforts are much appreciated, you have a real way with words and psychology. Unfortunately, this patient is beyond redemption, and our efforts are futile. But highly entertaining nonetheless.

Fair points.
But I seem to have some formidable competition now with his crush on Danielle Smith. He even calls her by the cute name of Danny. Somehow I've never earned a cute nickname in spite of all of the attention I have lavished upon Chuck.
Your efforts are much appreciated, you have a real way with words and psychology. Unfortunately, this patient is beyond redemption, and our efforts are futile. But highly entertaining nonetheless.

Chuck is an all or nothing kind of person.

In his mind you cannot be skeptical about something, you’re either 100% for it or 100% against it.

He needs to ignore a lot in life or he’d have a life crisis almost daily trying to wrap his head around how peoples minds actually work. I guess he’s read too many papers on the evolution of brain surgery yet no papers on the evolution of understanding human psychology.