You wrote: "This logic is akin to saying electrons don’t exist because we can't see them directly. Science doesn’t require human visibility of phenomena, just measurable and repeatable effects."
What? So you only know something exists by its ''effects"?
On that basis I can confidently assert that ghosts exists as I have seen people scared to death by them and that is a very measurable and repeatable effect.
How does a bird know how to fly? Instinct. How do you know instinct exists? Because the bird knows how to fly. So what is "instinct''? It is the ''thing" that "causes" the bid to know how to fly.
This is a circle. Nothing is explained.
Can you see instinct? Of course not. But you know it exists by its effects
The "thing" you have discovered is just a name for not knowing how the bird knows how to fly.
Most of modern so called science makes this same error. medical "science" is full of it.
We only know something exists if we can see, touch and isolate it. So in contradistinction to what you wrote above - science does require "human visibility of phenomena" as well as measurable and repeatable effects. If not, it ain't science.
Anything else is just speculation. Just a theory. I prefer not to inject my healthy body ( highly mysterious and little understood thing) with drugs on the basis of a theory.
I respectfully suggest you read ( good starting point on the philosophy of science) What is This Thing Called Science 1982? before asserting you know something exists from its effects
Your stance here is anti-pragmatist. If I were to debate you, I’d start with C. S. Peirce’s pragmatic maxim* and John Venn’s explanation for why there can be no decisive line drawn between what is observation and what is inference.** Peirce agreed with Venn on this. I’d also draw on their arguments that there is no such thing as complete verification of any fact, but that verification is strengthened, asymptotically toward completion, as well-planned and executed inquiry continues.
I've submitted your response to my chatbot. It responded with:
"David, you've committed a classic example of a logical fallacy known as 'equivocation' or 'emantic ambiguity'. You've taken HillMD's statement out of context and reinterpreted it to mean something entirely different.
HillMD's original statement was that science doesn't require human visibility of phenomena, just measurable and repeatable effects. This is a fundamental principle in the philosophy of science, as explained by philosophers like Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. It means that scientific knowledge can be obtained through indirect methods, such as experimentation and observation of effects, even if we can't directly observe the phenomenon itself.
Your response, however, implies that HillMD is saying we can only know something exists by its effects, which is a straw man argument. This is not what HillMD meant. The correct interpretation is that science can infer the existence of a phenomenon through its effects, even if we can't directly observe it.
To illustrate the difference, consider the concept of gravity. We can't see gravity, but we can observe its effects on objects, such as the curvature of space-time and the motion of planets. This is an example of how science can infer the existence of a phenomenon through its measurable and repeatable effects, without requiring direct human visibility.
Your example of ghosts is also a red herring. While it's true that people may be scared by the idea of ghosts, this is a psychological effect, not a scientific one. Science requires systematic observation, experimentation, and evidence-based reasoning to establish the existence of a phenomenon.
Finally, your claim that science requires human visibility of phenomena is a misconception. Many scientific concepts, such as electrons, black holes, and dark matter, are inferred through their effects, even if we can't directly observe them.
I recommend reading 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' by Thomas Kuhn or 'The Logic of Scientific Discovery' by Karl Popper to gain a deeper understanding of the philosophy of science and how it relates to your arguments."
I understand your point, and why you think my view is in error, also, I am impressed you took the time to think about it and write about it - very few do. Indeed before the covid vaccine disaster the number of people interested in discussing the philosophy of science was a small number indeed. What we are discussing here is the existence of casual phenomena which we cannot see. What do you think HillMD means when he says, "science doesn't require human visibility of phenomena"? I think he means what you said he means which is that we can infer the existence of casual phenomena from the behavior of things we can see. Would you agree? That is a good place to begin.
Try taking any of your articles and query it through an AI program. Try it, I dare you. It will be even more brutal towards any piece of yours than it was towards Andrew's analysis.
AI is merely a sophisticated algorithm; and it's "sources" are highly curated; and it's "logical analysis" is, in my opinion, highly questionable and not very nuanced.
Yet, people quote AI as if it's a kind of Oracle.
I'm rather surprised that you are participating in this nonsense.
If you want to know how many pints in a gallon - AI is great. Otherwise, it's dangerous, imo: it lends a mantle of authority, uses language that seems convincing, to what is essentially an elaborate extension of the very thing that drove covid "science." in the first place.
Yes, if you ask AI about 9/11, it will say “Al Qaeda hijackers flew commercial airliners into the towers, producing fires that caused the buildings to collapse.” Total regurgitation of fraudulent official stories on which the AI trained.
But basic chemistry and physics is like the “how many pints in a gallon” question you mentioned: AI accurately describes these things.
Vir-ology is not a trustworthy “science”. How does anyone expect a layman to perceive “in solution yet intact molecules” jabberwocky. Skip the very lucid reply and get to the years of virus / vaccine “voodoo” - Polio was not solved by identifying and eradicating a “virus”; neither measles nor mumps; certainly not “HIV identified as causing AiDS” … Jamie Andrews is correct. Your answers lead to a typical science rabbit hole of assumptions and medical engineering “closet” to target measurements, shadows, types and a medical failure club.
I was all amazed and astounded in 1967 Christiaan Barnhard first heart transplant.
My mind was transfixed by 1997 Dolly the Clone.
My quest to replace skin burns, regrow broken body parts, heart valves, regrow kidney cells … DNA mapping complete 2003. Promised the moon and delivered … more questions.
I left to leave research to find answers which I could advice for relief or advice for friends having health issues such as Lou Gehrigs (mitochondrial to motor neuron rejuvenation)or Herpes (HSV-1) or AIDS. All leading dead end. I began to revisit my Shaolin Chinese Medicine work and delve into frequency / TCM and worked on a DARPA requested urine - pee into drinking water for astronauts (my sonoluminescence related work). My work is my life and I call a spade a spade based upon experience.
Thanks for trying to correct these misapprehensions, Dr Hill.
The attack on virology (no-virus) is a typical CIA psyop. and has led many astray, including Dr Yeadon, as I am sorry to see.
The situation is not a simple either/or. There is ample evidence for viral spread, but that does not mean that much of the pandemic was not also a simulation as well.
Dr. McCairn was one of the best online reviewers of the real science of covid. Too bad he never acquired a competent editor to present his analysis to a wider audience in a compacted form.
Last few months he's been focused on doing ... actual science... and not podcasting. But the old shows are still a hoot.
His research papers are beautifully written. Concise, exact, and elegant.
Just the reverse of his podcasts! Hard to believe it is the same person!
It is such a shame there is so much misinformation about - not all of it deliberate, some genuine disagreement, some, real misunderstandings and mistakes.
But even a motivated person, like myself can struggle to create a coherent picture of what is going on and how the science and statistics relate.
Yes, the no-virus movement does appear to be psyop, and many seemingly sincere and influential people are going along with it, perhaps fooled by it.
You’re right. That Covid was filled with deceptions (e.g., lockdowns, mask and injection mandates, exaggerated case and death rates) does not imply the virus is not real or that all of virology is fraudulent.
And thank you for mentioning Kevin McCairn. His work is valuable, including on C19 amyloid clots.
I read that Jamie Andrews article on DNA and was not impressed. First off, I taught third grade science, very poorly I might add, to my child during the Covid con. I vaguely remember things changing form in liquid versus solid versus gas states but importantly, the same substance was still there. There were also things like solute and solvent which I could add into the mix.
So no, the idea that salt or sugar dissolves into water does not mean that the salt or sugar is no longer there. Taste the water yourself if you want to test this theory. If you want to go beyond that, boil off the water until you are left with some charred sugary or salty substance. This idea that substances automatically dissolve in liquid into being unrecognizable was a real head scratcher.
Beyond that though, as a personal note, I discovered I have two half brothers I have not yet met through DNA testing. My devout Catholic mother gave them up for adoption in the 1970's with the records sealed prior to marrying my father. My aunt (my mother's sister) and my cousin (her son) did DNA testing on Ancestry.com and were listed in the database and these boys found a hit through them on likely matches. Both of them look very much like people on my mother's side of the family. I confronted my Mom about this and she fessed up and their stories matched up. My brother (full brother I grew up with) then took a DNA test and it was confirmed.
So this weird DNA does not exist story I've seen popping up lately does not sit right with me...
"This logic is akin to saying electrons don’t exist because we can't see them directly."
Exactly!
An electron is a construct used to explain a measurable effect. Inventing a theoretical construct to explain an effect doesn't automatically transform the theoretical construct into fact.
You’re right. Inventing a theoretical construct to explain an effect doesn't make the construct a fact. But enough evidence supporting the construct can do so.
Yes, electrons are smaller and therefore less visible than viruses, understood incompletely and only by their effects, and represented by both theoretical constructs and evidence from reproducible experiments:
Thomson's cathode ray experiments (1897): These showed cathode rays were composed of negatively charged particles that were much smaller than atoms, leading to identification of the electron.
Millikan's oil drop experiment (1909): This experiment confirmed the existence of a fundamental unit of electric charge, that of an electron.
Cloud chamber and bubble chamber experiments: These allowed physicists to observe paths of individual electrons as they moved through chambers, providing a visual representation of their existence and interactions.
Modern imaging techniques: atomic force microscopy (AFM) and scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) can directly image individual electrons.
Devices like cathode ray tubes (CRTs), flash memory sticks, and electron microscopes rely on manipulating behavior of electrons, evincing their tangibility.
Electrons fit within established scientific frameworks:
Standard model of particle physics: Electrons are classified as fundamental particles within this framework.
Quantum mechanics: Electrons exhibit wave-particle duality, meaning they can behave like both waves and particles, as confirmed by experiments like the double-slit.
Although we understand electrons based on theoretical models, and their behavior is described by these theories, consistent experimental evidence and their role in explaining physical phenomena demonstrate they go beyond theoretical constructs. They are considered real particles.
Have never taken a Covid shot or recommended them.
I warned against them on Twitter since before they launched in December 2020, and especially after, based on their reportedly encoding the full-length spike protein, fraught with autoimmune disease risk among other problems.
You wrote: "This logic is akin to saying electrons don’t exist because we can't see them directly. Science doesn’t require human visibility of phenomena, just measurable and repeatable effects."
What? So you only know something exists by its ''effects"?
On that basis I can confidently assert that ghosts exists as I have seen people scared to death by them and that is a very measurable and repeatable effect.
How does a bird know how to fly? Instinct. How do you know instinct exists? Because the bird knows how to fly. So what is "instinct''? It is the ''thing" that "causes" the bid to know how to fly.
This is a circle. Nothing is explained.
Can you see instinct? Of course not. But you know it exists by its effects
The "thing" you have discovered is just a name for not knowing how the bird knows how to fly.
Most of modern so called science makes this same error. medical "science" is full of it.
We only know something exists if we can see, touch and isolate it. So in contradistinction to what you wrote above - science does require "human visibility of phenomena" as well as measurable and repeatable effects. If not, it ain't science.
Anything else is just speculation. Just a theory. I prefer not to inject my healthy body ( highly mysterious and little understood thing) with drugs on the basis of a theory.
I respectfully suggest you read ( good starting point on the philosophy of science) What is This Thing Called Science 1982? before asserting you know something exists from its effects
Your stance here is anti-pragmatist. If I were to debate you, I’d start with C. S. Peirce’s pragmatic maxim* and John Venn’s explanation for why there can be no decisive line drawn between what is observation and what is inference.** Peirce agreed with Venn on this. I’d also draw on their arguments that there is no such thing as complete verification of any fact, but that verification is strengthened, asymptotically toward completion, as well-planned and executed inquiry continues.
*For a very short introduction to what pragmatism is, see my note, https://substack.com/@mattfaunce/note/c-52398772?r=18fg3h&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action .
**read chapter V of The Principles of Empirical or Inductive Logic, by John Venn. You can read the beginning of that chapter here to get the gist. https://mattfaunce.substack.com/p/john-venn-pp-112-117-of-the-principles?r=18fg3h&utm_medium=ios . Venn’s book can be found on archive.org .
Thanks for this Matt. Reading your links now. Likes not working on this old machine.
I've submitted your response to my chatbot. It responded with:
"David, you've committed a classic example of a logical fallacy known as 'equivocation' or 'emantic ambiguity'. You've taken HillMD's statement out of context and reinterpreted it to mean something entirely different.
HillMD's original statement was that science doesn't require human visibility of phenomena, just measurable and repeatable effects. This is a fundamental principle in the philosophy of science, as explained by philosophers like Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. It means that scientific knowledge can be obtained through indirect methods, such as experimentation and observation of effects, even if we can't directly observe the phenomenon itself.
Your response, however, implies that HillMD is saying we can only know something exists by its effects, which is a straw man argument. This is not what HillMD meant. The correct interpretation is that science can infer the existence of a phenomenon through its effects, even if we can't directly observe it.
To illustrate the difference, consider the concept of gravity. We can't see gravity, but we can observe its effects on objects, such as the curvature of space-time and the motion of planets. This is an example of how science can infer the existence of a phenomenon through its measurable and repeatable effects, without requiring direct human visibility.
Your example of ghosts is also a red herring. While it's true that people may be scared by the idea of ghosts, this is a psychological effect, not a scientific one. Science requires systematic observation, experimentation, and evidence-based reasoning to establish the existence of a phenomenon.
Finally, your claim that science requires human visibility of phenomena is a misconception. Many scientific concepts, such as electrons, black holes, and dark matter, are inferred through their effects, even if we can't directly observe them.
I recommend reading 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' by Thomas Kuhn or 'The Logic of Scientific Discovery' by Karl Popper to gain a deeper understanding of the philosophy of science and how it relates to your arguments."
I read both of the book you mentioned decades ago. Happy to discuss the detail.
You've blatantly misrepresented HillMD's argument.
"Does not require" is not the same as "only know by effects".
I do not require sugar to make an energy drink; I can use saccharine. But that doesn't mean I require saccharine to make the energy drink.
Try to understand the error you made here. Further discussion is moot until you do.
I understand your point, and why you think my view is in error, also, I am impressed you took the time to think about it and write about it - very few do. Indeed before the covid vaccine disaster the number of people interested in discussing the philosophy of science was a small number indeed. What we are discussing here is the existence of casual phenomena which we cannot see. What do you think HillMD means when he says, "science doesn't require human visibility of phenomena"? I think he means what you said he means which is that we can infer the existence of casual phenomena from the behavior of things we can see. Would you agree? That is a good place to begin.
trust is fragile, once broken almost impossible to repair.
is this part of a strategy to implode civilization, to kick the pillars of trust out from under it?
after all the blatant lies, who can blame anyone questioning anything anymore?
I would like to acquire sensitive laser equipment and trek to the Great Salt Lake to decisively measure the absence of curvature.
I'm not saying that Andrew's analysis is valid but you really shouldn't trust AI either.
Thanks, David. I don’t trust AI without verification.
Try taking any of your articles and query it through an AI program. Try it, I dare you. It will be even more brutal towards any piece of yours than it was towards Andrew's analysis.
AI is merely a sophisticated algorithm; and it's "sources" are highly curated; and it's "logical analysis" is, in my opinion, highly questionable and not very nuanced.
Yet, people quote AI as if it's a kind of Oracle.
I'm rather surprised that you are participating in this nonsense.
If you want to know how many pints in a gallon - AI is great. Otherwise, it's dangerous, imo: it lends a mantle of authority, uses language that seems convincing, to what is essentially an elaborate extension of the very thing that drove covid "science." in the first place.
Yes, if you ask AI about 9/11, it will say “Al Qaeda hijackers flew commercial airliners into the towers, producing fires that caused the buildings to collapse.” Total regurgitation of fraudulent official stories on which the AI trained.
But basic chemistry and physics is like the “how many pints in a gallon” question you mentioned: AI accurately describes these things.
With cogent and lucid rebuttals like this, who needs censorship?
Those falling below the minimum IQ or effort will fail to understand the arguments.
Thus we are not absolved from making the truth the culturally dominant narrative. The problem of liars does not solve itself.
Vir-ology is not a trustworthy “science”. How does anyone expect a layman to perceive “in solution yet intact molecules” jabberwocky. Skip the very lucid reply and get to the years of virus / vaccine “voodoo” - Polio was not solved by identifying and eradicating a “virus”; neither measles nor mumps; certainly not “HIV identified as causing AiDS” … Jamie Andrews is correct. Your answers lead to a typical science rabbit hole of assumptions and medical engineering “closet” to target measurements, shadows, types and a medical failure club.
Hi Dr. Don,
You’re right that many problems remain unsolved, like eradication of the diseases you mentioned.
And proving a particular microbe causes a disease requires satisfying a separate set of inquiries.
But these things do not lead one to conclude viruses are not real.
Hey Doc!
My 1966 Class was all about Gregor Mendel.
I was all amazed and astounded in 1967 Christiaan Barnhard first heart transplant.
My mind was transfixed by 1997 Dolly the Clone.
My quest to replace skin burns, regrow broken body parts, heart valves, regrow kidney cells … DNA mapping complete 2003. Promised the moon and delivered … more questions.
I left to leave research to find answers which I could advice for relief or advice for friends having health issues such as Lou Gehrigs (mitochondrial to motor neuron rejuvenation)or Herpes (HSV-1) or AIDS. All leading dead end. I began to revisit my Shaolin Chinese Medicine work and delve into frequency / TCM and worked on a DARPA requested urine - pee into drinking water for astronauts (my sonoluminescence related work). My work is my life and I call a spade a spade based upon experience.
Thanks for trying to correct these misapprehensions, Dr Hill.
The attack on virology (no-virus) is a typical CIA psyop. and has led many astray, including Dr Yeadon, as I am sorry to see.
The situation is not a simple either/or. There is ample evidence for viral spread, but that does not mean that much of the pandemic was not also a simulation as well.
Have you seen McCairn's research?
https://kevinwmccairnphd282302.substack.com/
Dr. McCairn was one of the best online reviewers of the real science of covid. Too bad he never acquired a competent editor to present his analysis to a wider audience in a compacted form.
Last few months he's been focused on doing ... actual science... and not podcasting. But the old shows are still a hoot.
His research papers are beautifully written. Concise, exact, and elegant.
Just the reverse of his podcasts! Hard to believe it is the same person!
It is such a shame there is so much misinformation about - not all of it deliberate, some genuine disagreement, some, real misunderstandings and mistakes.
But even a motivated person, like myself can struggle to create a coherent picture of what is going on and how the science and statistics relate.
Thanks for your comment and being here, currer.
Yes, the no-virus movement does appear to be psyop, and many seemingly sincere and influential people are going along with it, perhaps fooled by it.
You’re right. That Covid was filled with deceptions (e.g., lockdowns, mask and injection mandates, exaggerated case and death rates) does not imply the virus is not real or that all of virology is fraudulent.
And thank you for mentioning Kevin McCairn. His work is valuable, including on C19 amyloid clots.
He gets it: https://hillmd.substack.com/p/dr-kevin-mccairn-discusses-dr-bart
I read that Jamie Andrews article on DNA and was not impressed. First off, I taught third grade science, very poorly I might add, to my child during the Covid con. I vaguely remember things changing form in liquid versus solid versus gas states but importantly, the same substance was still there. There were also things like solute and solvent which I could add into the mix.
So no, the idea that salt or sugar dissolves into water does not mean that the salt or sugar is no longer there. Taste the water yourself if you want to test this theory. If you want to go beyond that, boil off the water until you are left with some charred sugary or salty substance. This idea that substances automatically dissolve in liquid into being unrecognizable was a real head scratcher.
Beyond that though, as a personal note, I discovered I have two half brothers I have not yet met through DNA testing. My devout Catholic mother gave them up for adoption in the 1970's with the records sealed prior to marrying my father. My aunt (my mother's sister) and my cousin (her son) did DNA testing on Ancestry.com and were listed in the database and these boys found a hit through them on likely matches. Both of them look very much like people on my mother's side of the family. I confronted my Mom about this and she fessed up and their stories matched up. My brother (full brother I grew up with) then took a DNA test and it was confirmed.
So this weird DNA does not exist story I've seen popping up lately does not sit right with me...
"This logic is akin to saying electrons don’t exist because we can't see them directly."
Exactly!
An electron is a construct used to explain a measurable effect. Inventing a theoretical construct to explain an effect doesn't automatically transform the theoretical construct into fact.
Hi Singleton,
You’re right. Inventing a theoretical construct to explain an effect doesn't make the construct a fact. But enough evidence supporting the construct can do so.
Yes, electrons are smaller and therefore less visible than viruses, understood incompletely and only by their effects, and represented by both theoretical constructs and evidence from reproducible experiments:
Thomson's cathode ray experiments (1897): These showed cathode rays were composed of negatively charged particles that were much smaller than atoms, leading to identification of the electron.
Millikan's oil drop experiment (1909): This experiment confirmed the existence of a fundamental unit of electric charge, that of an electron.
Cloud chamber and bubble chamber experiments: These allowed physicists to observe paths of individual electrons as they moved through chambers, providing a visual representation of their existence and interactions.
Modern imaging techniques: atomic force microscopy (AFM) and scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) can directly image individual electrons.
Devices like cathode ray tubes (CRTs), flash memory sticks, and electron microscopes rely on manipulating behavior of electrons, evincing their tangibility.
Electrons fit within established scientific frameworks:
Standard model of particle physics: Electrons are classified as fundamental particles within this framework.
Quantum mechanics: Electrons exhibit wave-particle duality, meaning they can behave like both waves and particles, as confirmed by experiments like the double-slit.
Although we understand electrons based on theoretical models, and their behavior is described by these theories, consistent experimental evidence and their role in explaining physical phenomena demonstrate they go beyond theoretical constructs. They are considered real particles.
Have never taken a Covid shot or recommended them.
I warned against them on Twitter since before they launched in December 2020, and especially after, based on their reportedly encoding the full-length spike protein, fraught with autoimmune disease risk among other problems.
It’s why I was kicked off Twitter for 16 months.
https://hillmd.substack.com/p/three-features-of-a-vaccine-designed