XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.supp   
   rt.schizophrenia   
   From: fedora@fea.st   
      
   On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 18:58:46 +0200, Venus as a Boy   
    wrote:   
      
   >Am 21.07.2021 um 18:46 schrieb Noah Sombrero:   
   >>>   
   >>> Or why do you say that more studies are neccessary?   
   >>   
   >> Because, if nobody else can replicate what you see, then you know you   
   >> made an error.  Look again.  Nobody is so smart that they don't make   
   >> mistakes.   
   >   
   >There been massive studies about the dopamine in sz theorie seemed   
   >beeing right though the psychiatrists new the dopamin theorie being a   
   >lie (there are no blood tests identifying dopamin in the blood and the   
   >brain vivisections of dead "sz'ers" finding massive dopamin could just   
   >be like other transmitters like the supposed release of dmt-like   
   >transmitters upon death to make death more pleasent), but actually i   
   >found only one study that says that neurons fire less in sz, though i   
   >even doubt that study!   
      
   It is also true that you need the background and the evaluative tools   
   and the math skills you get at university to decide what to believe.   
   You can't simply step up to scientific research without that and   
   expect to know what's what.   
      
   If you do well, get the degrees, become the prof and do your own   
   research, other prof's will read what you say and maybe even try to   
   duplicate it if they think your idea has potential.  It is true that   
   an awful lot of published research did not get duplicated, did not   
   attract interest of a prof who might have done that.  If you don't see   
   people trying to duplicate an particular idea, you know what that   
   means.   
      
   One aptitude a phd has that you and I do not, is associative power.   
   That is where you can spend some years studying the literature of your   
   discipline and end up remembering all of it, who wrote it, what it   
   says, and what page to find it on in what resource.  That means the   
   ability to put a whole lot of information together and know what it   
   all means.  You would demonstrate this ability to other phd's when you   
   defend your dissertation standing in front of them.  No notes, every   
   thing comes straight out of your brain and then out of your mouth.   
      
   That does not mean that phd's are superheros, don't have human faults,   
   and don't make mistakes.   
      
   >>   
   >>> Or ist it now that which studies got more followers or as you might say   
   >>> "replicas" is the trustworthiest, as there seems to be to every studie a   
   >>> counterstudy,   
   >>   
   >> The snake oil guys are endlessly shifty.  Yes, you can find studies   
   >> that say nicotine does not cause cancer.  In the end the profs say,   
   >   
   >The dose makes the medicine or the poison!   
   >   
   >> that each investigator needs to examine all the evidence and decide   
   >> for himself.  All, every single bit.  Not only one you found in a   
   >> popular news source.   
   >>   
   >>> is it now the newest thing to decide science by vote or   
   >>> popularity?   
   >>   
   >> A very old thing.  But it isn't popularity.   
   >> --   
   >> Noah Sombrero   
   >>   
   --   
   Noah Sombrero   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)