i can't go into this correctly or in depth for
health reasons, but as a clumsy statement of the obvious i'd
like to point out a few observations.
i believe in stating the obvious. i think it keeps
everybody (including myself) on the same page.
to me, most of this type of research, including major
trials, shares three distinctive characteristics. there are
a lot more, but the three that really stand out are as follows.
1) category error
2) attack
3) obscuring
the key observation is (2). if you forget everything else,
please remember (2).
let's do them one at a time.
1) category error
if i were to eliminate one of my three observations, it
would be this one. the other two to me are not
seriously challengeable.
this one is worth pointing out because it is
so, almost literally unbelievably, imbecilic.
when you follow the logic as if it were intended to
seek or convey truth, and get past the fact that it is
not, in fact, logic, to what seem to be the claims, the
claims consistently boil down to one or both of the
following:
- there is no disease. for example, nobody dies from
the disease whose population is being attacked.
at most it is ordinary bodily sensations like
passing wind, which are then magnified in your mind.
for example, you think you have hiv/aids, and that is
the problem. it is not that you HAVE an
hiv/aids-like disease. that is not the problem.
- the belief THAT you have the disease, or any serious
disease, IS, or CAUSES, the disease.
the first claim says that you are mistaken about
PRIMARY FACTS AND EXPERIENCES. they choose
experiences, which they deny using burden of proof
reversal. usually.
if that fails, they need to defend fact claims. but
they still have burden of proof reversal, so it isn't
so much defense as unchallenged ipsedixitism. it is
still at the level of child's play for them.
(in a truth-seeking environment, none of these claims
would exist in the first place. we have to conclude
that academia and medicine are significantly NOT
truth-seeking environments.)
FACT claims are demolished by existence proof (she
died), which drags you into a distracting back and
forth about who has the disease and so on, with you
having it if it suits their claims and you not having
it if not.
but after the long back and forth, which is almost
never followable to completion because there is no good mechanism
in academic discourse in practice in this
case to hold them in place for questioning, whenever the fact claims are demolished, the remaining
option is the second.
(courts of law, perhaps surprisingly?, probably do
significantly better than academia at this.)
so the second claim is really the claim being made in
this subset of this type of research....
... and the second claim -- that the COGNITIONS account
for the disease -- is the category error. so i have
finally got round to my point. apologies for it taking
so long.
this too is subject to diversion rhetoric, but if it
ever poked its head out too directly, even the
self-absorbed academic rabble might start to object.
it makes ALL of academia look bad. THEN they start to
care.
academics really don't care whether populations get
attacked as long as careers are preserved. 1900s
history demonstrates this.
so i think the second claim needs to, for those who
make it, not be revealed too blatantly in the wrong
forums.
so to get down to brass tacks: the category error can
be slipperified, but even if it is turned into a
non-category error, it turns into something like this:
- you can, directly by having beliefs, change multiple
body systems (this is like my hysterical edema post)
if challenged, the response turns to authority
(and spammed) "evidence based" assertions, photographs
of changed brains, excited and wide-eyed magazine
articles, and so on.
but the claim is not challenged on fundamental
scientific grounds. it is NOT a category error, but it
is not like 2 + 2 = 7 either. it is more like 2 + 2 =
avogadro's number. darwinian natural selection cannot
possibly make it make sense as a serious claim. and
that's enough to demolish the claim.
so what remains? a claim that is more like 2 + 2 =
milk. that is the category error.
to me, the thing that is most extraordinary about it is
the degree of imbecility. a young child knows that milk is not a number. yet such researchers defended a dissertation and were granted a doctoral degree.
it is an "i don't even".
2) attack
i can dispose of this one quickly. almost everything
in or connected with this type of research implicitly
or explicitly says one or more of the following:
- that you are illegitimate.
- that you are a burden to society.
- that you are not fully human or normal.
this, combined with the extensive supporting infrastructure, constitutes an attack on the population.
3) always the "right" amount of layering of obscuring
stuff to make (1) and (2) poke their heads out only
briefly.
they are logically entailed, or stated explicitly, or
implied, in every case, but they only make themselves
obvious to the casual reader infrequently, despite
always being there when you grasp the nettle.
by "obscuring stuff" i mean slipperiness, equivocation, ambiguity, vagueness, innuendo,
conflation, confusion, and in general a large
assortment of logical fallacies and eristic and
rhetorical tricks.
the forums in which the claims are made are NEVER
suited for sufficiently, if you were to take the claims
seriously, asking "what precisely do you mean by
that?"
the rest of the attack is implemented by an extensive
infrastructure that includes whoever makes boots on the
ground policy, propaganda including well-timed columnist
columns, press releases, and so on.
the moral inversion is just taken as normal. it seems actually
jarring and outside the ken of the typical observer, to have
any of this pointed out. the degree of effectiveness is
extraordinary.
it is resilient to changes in
politics, science, and academia in general. i am not alleging intent for any of the three observations. i am only saying they hold consistently.
the first only holds for a subset but it is curiously imbecilic.
